Asia-Pacific Journal of
Accounting
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raae19
To cite this article: David Owen , Rob Gray & Jan Bebbington (1997) Green
Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change?, Asia-Pacific Journal
of Accounting, 4:2, 175-198, DOI: 10.1080/10293574.1997.10510519
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
Green Accounting: Cosmetic
Irrelevance or Radical
Agenda for Change?
David Owen*
Rob Gray and Jan Bebbington**
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
ABSTRACT
Environmental accounting is enjoying an unprecedented resurgence to the point
where, for the first time in its relatively short history, it looks like becoming an
accepted part of the accounting firmament. However, there is a price for this
recognition. That is, for many commentators - especially those associated with
the accounting profession - environmental accounting is in the process of being
reduced to something which will code easily into existing financial accounting and/
or management accounting principles. If this were to happen then there is little of
value which, in our view, could be said about the subject. We view environmental
accounting as being a great deal larger in scope than this and, more especially, a
great deal more important than a minor adjustment to the costs or the risk profile of
a few companies. This distinction - between "conventional" and more "radical"
approaches to environmental (and social) accounting is central to this paper in which
we attempt to address the critics- most especially those from the, so called, critical
school- of the environmental (and social) accounting project. We find the charges
lodged by the critical school have crucial issues at their core which we, as
accountants, ignore at our peril. However, we also maintain that the critical theorists
have, themselves, failed either to recognise this distinction which we draw, or offer
any realistic alternative for the practice of "new" accounting. Criticism is very well
received if it is accurate and offers some useful way forward. We believe that
environmental (and social) accounting does this but we are not sure that the critical
theorists can legitimately make the same claim.
* (University of Sheffield)
** (CSEAR. University of Dundee)
Owen D., Gray R. and Bebbington, J. "Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical
Agenda for Change?", Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting, Vol 4, No. 2, December 1997,
pp. 175-198.
176 Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting December 1997
Introduction
The 1990's have witnessed a remarkable surge in interest on the part of both the
academic and professional accounting communities in the problems, and
potentialities, of accounting for the environment. The appearance of this special
issue of the Asia-Pacific Journal indeed serves to underline the fact that
environmental accounting now enjoys a firmly established position within the
accounting research agenda.
Of course, environmental accounting is not a "new" topic. A cursory glance at
the social accounting literature of the 1970's all too clearly demonstrates that many
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
and environmentally benign forms of accounting, which have the potential to create
a fairer, more just society, these questions must be addressed. This is a task we seek
to accomplish in the remainder of this paper.
This paper is structured as follows. First, the background to social and
environmental accounting is outlined and the main tensions within this field are
established. Analysis then shifts to the critical school's case against the social and
environmental accounting movement and the issue of capture, which is central to
the critical school's attacks, is discussed. The potential avoidance of capture is then
explored utilising the themes of administrative reform and institutional reform.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
Background
In order to set the scene for what follows, it seems apposite to talk briefly about
how we see environmental accounting. As has already been mentioned,
environmental accounting was, until the late 1980s, generally seen as a subset of
social accounting. Environmental accounting has now, however, (rightly or wrongly)
taken on a life of its own. Whilst environmental accounting may, on occasions,
draw from the earlier social and environmental accounting experience it is more
usually seen as a predominantly "new" area of accounting consideration. Only when
we consider sustainability do the strands of environmental accounting and (the
continuing strands of) social accounting look to re-merge.
That said, what are the current strands in environmental accounting? Figure 1
outlines the current state of play.
Figure 1
Elements of Environmental Accounting
By far the bulk of academic attention - and virtually all professional and
business attention - is focused on the first two elements. These two elements we
might see as "the environment through the lens of business as usual" and "the
environment through the lens of GAAP". Neither have much to do with the
appalling and heart-breaking state of the global environment and its denizens -
human or otherwise. Rather, both are concerned with such aspects of the natural
environment as can be perceived through the lens of current practice.
Environmental management and the associated management accounting cannot
recognise (e.g.) starvation or species extinction because neither system has any
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
means to "code" these issues into a business language. These systems can, however,
observe - and react to - consents, prices, wastes, legal problems and reactions
from powerful stakeholders because these are business concepts. Similarly,
financial accounting cannot recognise aesthetic desecration, morally bankrupt
financial practices or ozone depletion because there are no accounting standards on
these things. It can, however, recognise liabilities, provisions and potential costs
because these are part of the language which currently constructs its world.
The interesting issue here for environmental (and social) accountants is how
on earth a sophisticated and well-developed system, like accounting, which is
administered by highly educated and undoubtedly intelligent people such as
accountants, can be so complicit in encouraging - even requiring - global
devastation in the name of the economic success we know as profit and growth. 4
More especially still, what sort of mind is it that can reduce such a notion as
complex and crucial as "environment" or "global" or "life" down to provisions,
costs and efficiency without noticing that this is the worst kind of reductio ad
absurdam? 5 But this is where so much environmental accounting attention is
directed and, as such, the criticisms of the critical theorists - see below - seem
highly apposite when applied to this area of environmental accounting.
However, trying to look on the bright side, it seems to us that we might be able
to see environmental accounting within GAAP and EMS as a first tentative step
towards a recognition of the real issues of accounting for the environment and, if
nothing else, raising the very idea of environmental (and social) concerns within
the traditionally, hermetically sealed, world of the accountant. More honestly,
however, we are not sure if we have reason to really feel that optimistic (we return
to this below). The three other areas of environmental (and social) accounting
provide tentative cause for optimism, however.
Environmental reporting is, to us, a new category of account. It refers to the
collation and disclosure of information about an organisation's interactions with
the environment - its resource usage, its pollution, its plans for less intrusive
180 Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting December 1997
rare to find that such researchers believe this to be the most important issue in their
life or on the planet. For most environmental (and social) accountants their choice
of research represents a central and fundamental part of who they are and how they
wish to serve their community. Such beliefs are often amongst the most important
elements of the researcher's existence7•
So, this brings us finally, to a key point. Research in environmental (and social)
accounting is typically predicated on the assumption that there is a fundamental
flaw in accounting and financial practice. If that is so, tinkering with that practice
(through GAAP or EMS) is a waste of time - at best. We are looking for
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
something much more fundamental in how we imagine accounting systems for the
future. If on the other hand, one believes that accounting systems are really superb
things as they currently operate, why bother with environmental (and social)
accounting at all? It will, as Benston (1982, 1984) argues, simply get in the way of
making the rich and insulated shareholders of the west richer and more insulated.
With this brief background, we can now tum to examine the critiques of- and
critical theory debates about - environmental accounting in some detail. As will,
we hope, become apparent, central to the debate is how benign or otherwise one
currently sees conventional accounting practice, frameworks and research.
openness in listening to criticism, it paves the way for ... the extension of power"
(p. 37).
Whilst, as we have already indicated, a similar critique can be levelled at later
environmental accounting initiatives, the elevation of the environmental aspect of
the social accounting agenda in recent times has given rise to new manifestations of
radical critique emanating from the perspectives of deep ecology (Maunders and
Burrit, 1991; Maunders 1996) and radical feminism (Cooper, 1992). Significantly,
whereas these latter perspectives offer quite disparate analyses of the failings within
liberal economic democracy they concur with the earlier Marxist inspired critique
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
in rejecting the possibility for a more emancipatory role for accounting within
present societal structures. In particular, "capture" of the agenda by powerful vested
interests is posited as the inevitable consequence of any attempt at accounting
reform. Thus Maunders (1996) fears that producers and users of environmental
accounts will inevitably focus on detailed computational methods and numerical
outcomes whilst ignoring the rich reality from which the numbers have been
abstracted. Furthermore;
"By thus either obscuring or permitting the obscuration of the fundamental
issues, the danger is that environmental accounting, whether consciously
or unconsciously can serve those whose vested interests lie in not
searching too vigorously for a sustainable ecological solution" (p. 14).
For her part Cooper (1992) asserts that;
"Accounting cannot change society, it is not on the 'outside', it is an
intricate part of the existing masculine political economy. Without a
change to society, there is no way out of this. In the present symbolic order
accountants should not attempt to account for the environment" (p. 37).
Somewhat bizarrely, the conclusions reached by critical scholars whether they
be of Marxist, deep ecologist or radical feminist persuasion echo chillingly closely
that offered by a particularly trenchant right wing critic of the social accounting
movement, Benston (1982), who simply noted that "the social responsibility of
accountants can be expressed best by their forbearing from social responsibility
accounting" (p.1 02).
Of course, one crucial difference between the position of the critical theorists
and apologists for the conventional accounting status quo is that whereas the latter
are quite happy 8 with current societal structures (and accounting's role in
perpetuating them) the former group are clearly not. Indeed, as the work of
Willmott, Puxty and Sikka (1993) and Sikka, Willmott and Puxty (1995) amongst
others indicates there is a profound desire on the part of the critical school to act as
Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change? 183
questioning the former's blunt dismissal of the potential for getting involved in
developing "alternative" environmental accountings, asks "does this not ignore the
various forces at work in the environment's destruction? Does it not even risk
complicity?" (p. 48).
More generally, Bronner (1994) in taking critical theorists severely to task for
their unwillingness to actively engage with the practicalities of the position they
espouse concludes that:
"refusing to make a practical judgement, in the name of resisting the
'domination' supposedly implicit in such a choice, is merely an abdication
of responsibility; judgement is then always exercised by others" (p. 325).
Significantly, Bronner's work appears to have caused something of a split
within the critical accounting camp, with writers such as Gallhofer and Haslam
(1995; 1997) now subscribing to the view that prescriptive intervention in
(environmental) accounting practice should be very much the concern of critical
theorists. Encouragement for a more general response from the critical school is
suggested by Wildavsky' s (1994) expressed fear that such intervention will
inevitably damage capitalism.
As Bebbington (1997) points out, the critical school has undoubtedly already
had some beneficial effect on the work of "mainstream" social and environmental
accounting research in at least providing an intellectual base against which its
proponents (amongst whom we number ourselves) may evaluate the extent to
which capture and legitimation may be taking place. However, the work of
Gallhofer and Haslam (1995; 1997) holds out the promise of more synergistic
interaction between the two groups in seeking to actively reform accounting
practice in the direction of radical change rather than mere cosmetic tinkering.
We would not seek to deny that academic involvement in issues of practical
change within the social and environmental accounting sphere does carry with it
the risk of capture by dominant interests. This risk is heightened by the fact that
184 Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting December 1997
Avoiding Capture
Our fundamental contention is that it is possible to work towards the development
of "green" accounting systems that are emancipatory rather than restrictive in
orientation. This is despite such efforts taking place within the confines of our current
neo-pluralistic societal structures, where power whilst not being located in a single
individual or group is far from evenly distributed. The basic tenets of our position
can be simply expressed as follows 10 • The flows of information that we know as
accounting (including social and environmental accounting) reflect and construct
the society of which they are part. Different forms of accounting reflect different
distributions of influence. That is, uneven distribution of (accounting) information
can, to a considerable degree, be taken as reflecting and re-inforcing an uneven
distribution of power. Similarly, a change in such information flows can be taken as
reflecting a change in society and can further be used to re-inforce or change the
Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change? 187
to the very heart of the key conceptual foundation of the environmental challenge
- that of sustainability.
The term sustainability has come to dominate the political, economic and
indeed business agendas since it was first coined in the report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland Report, in 1987.
The definition of sustainability advanced in this influential document is couched in
very general terms as, development which "meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (p. 8).
Nevertheless, despite this level of generality, the explicit reference to the needs of
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
Administrative Reform
A major cause of organisational social and environmental activities being less
transparent to external constituencies than they might be lies in the fact that legal
responsibilities for action in these spheres are generally not matched by a
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
responsibility to report (or account for) such actions. In other words, the increase in
legislation imposing wider social and environmental obligations on companies in
recent years has not been accompanied by requirements on companies to disclose
to interested parties the extent to which they have complied with the legislation.
Therefore, an initial key role for social and environmental accounting is to develop
reporting mechanisms to fill this gap. Additionally, what are viewed as natural or
moral rights in society are continually changing and developing over time whilst
legislation tends to lag, often considerably, changes in societal expectations
concerning corporate social and environmental accountability. This gives rise to a
further role for social and environmental accounting in utilising an accountability
framework in order to develop the democratic functioning of information flows. In
this way it can act as a constant challenge to the extant positive state of responsibility
and accountability- working, principally, upon society's acceptance of moral and
natural responsibilities and rights.
As Power (1994) points out, even quite "crude" forms of social and
environmental accounting can be effective in challenging dominant rationalities
and changing the factual universe of the organisation. One example here is Gray's
(1992) suggestion of using what he terms "sustainable cost analysis" is order to
capture at least some of the effect corporate activity has on the natural environment.
Essentially this approach seeks to attach a financial (replacement) cost figure to the
natural capital expended in productive activity which is taken to represent the sum
of money the organisation would have to spend at the end of the accounting period
so as to leave the planet no worse off as a result of its activities 12 • Crucially, for
many organisations this figure would wipe out any reported profit, and hence
indicate the unsustainable nature of its operations (see, for example, Gray, 1992;
Gray et al., 1993). In similar vein, Power (1994) advocates a form of "risk pool"
accounting. Here risk pool accounts are prepared for particular natural assets
(possibly utilising an eco-balance approach) whereby flows of natural stocks are
recorded, quantified in money terms and allocated to enterprises using the asset in
Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change? 191
question. Again, a charge would then appear in the profit and loss account with,
additionally, the enterprise's share of the stock of a polluted resource appearing in
the balance sheet as a "negative" asset.
Other suggestions for new forms of accounting that address more directly the
social dimension are those ofBirkin (1996), who begins to develop a balance sheet
approach towards accounting for ecological holism focusing on both the
stakeholder and ecosystem dimensions, and Gray et al., (1996). The latter
particularly demonstrates the conceptual complexity and practical difficulty of
grappling with accounting for sustainability in outlining a comprehensive reporting
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
Institutional Reform
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the fact that technical development in the absence
of institutional reform is unlikely to be particularly effective in developing stronger
forms of social accountability than the experience of the social audit movement.
From its beginnings in the 1970s with the work of Social Audit Ltd., who sought in
the course of several highly publicised reports, to provide an external, independent
perspective on the social and environmental performance of specific organisations,
to later manifestations, such as local authority social cost analyses which attempted
to measure the costs to the community of corporate plan closure exercises, the
highly innovative analyses produced failed to draw forth any meaningful responses
from the organisations concerned. In Puxty's (1991) analysis, which draws upon
the work of Habermas, the major problem such exercises face is that they do not
represent attempts to develop a discursive dialogue. That is they are not designed to
reach an understanding through working with the organisation concerned.
Of course, it should equally be pointed out that the voluntary environmental
reporting initiatives increasingly being undertaken by companies today,
particularly those in sensitive industrial sectors, similarly appear to have little
intention of promoting discursive dialogue. Whilst it is common practice for such
reports to solicit feedback from their readers little, or no, information is
subsequently provided on what sort of feedback has been forthcoming or how it has
influenced corporate policies and reporting practice.
Fortunately, there are some signs that a more openly consultative approach
towards the development of environmental reporting practice is beginning to
emerge. For example, at a macro level, the support of both government and
employers confederations in Holland for developing green reporting initiatives has
given rise to widespread political dialogue. (See Huizing and Decker, 1992.)
Similarly, at a micro level, active dialogue with key stakeholders, which aimed to
prioritise environmental performance and reporting issues, was a key feature of
Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change? 193
Conclusions
Our concern in this paper has been to counter the critical school's rejection of the
efficacy of the social accounting movement as a vehicle of social change. Whilst
Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change? 195
participative democracy. In order for this to come about we see a pressing need to
re-introduce a social justice element in current environmental reporting initiatives.
In other words, to develop meaningful ways of truly accounting for sustainability.
Such a process, we suggest, begins to create some common ground between
radical critique and "mainstream" social and environmental accounting research.
In particular we see fruitful research avenues opening up in investigating the
potential for new accountings of social and environmental impact (administrative
reform) and examining the efficacy of newly developing institutional arrangements
designed to empower stakeholders by instituting more participatory forms of
corporate governance (institutional reform).
In sum, we throw down a challenge to the critical theorists to engage with
practice. To fail to rise to this challenge we suggest, amounts to an abdication of
responsibility and, indeed, risks complicity with the socially and environmentally
destructive forces holding sway in our world today.
Endnotes
Whilst, as we discuss below, social and environmental accounting has radical potential, the irony
that many accountants and accounting.academics consider fulfillment accountability and the
pursuit of democracy as "radical" should not escape us.
2 Neimark ( 1982) uses the term critical to describe a diverse "group of accounting scholars who
view the public accounting profession's claim to neutrality and independence with skepticism"
(p4). Writings in this area includes work informed by Marxist, Foucauldian, Habermasian,
Feminist and Deep Green analysis to name but a few.
3 For a descriptive analysis and critique of empirical work in this area see Mathews (1993) ch. 5
and Gray et al., (1996) Ch. 8.
4 In the words of Lowe and Mcinnes (1971) accounting seems intent on "doing efficiently that
which should not be done at all".
5 This can be explained by the concept of autopoesis which is so well expanded upon in Michael
Power's work. Simply, the accounting system- and accountants- can only take on board those
ideas which "code" into their existing categories of meaning. Environmental and social issues
simply will not code other than in categories of cost etc. (We are grateful to Claire Kirman of
CSEAR, Dundee, for bringing this to our attention).
6 The Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR) has a membership of
over 300 individuals and organisations in over 30 countries. The comparative figures at the
196 Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting December 1997
inception of CSEAR were 50 and 5. This is illustrative of the massive increase in active interest in
the field.
7 Behind, of course, Barnsley Football Club and their appalling record in the Premier Division.
8 Or rather, to be more precise, such extreme liberals want more of what we have -less laws, less
government, more freedom to let markets work. It seems fair to say, however, that such
commentators are broadly content with the key structural elements of western society in that they
have no desire to challenge the existence and functioning of companies, shareholdings, markets
and accounting.
9 "Capture" (related, as it is, to other notions such as colonisation) is a complex idea but in essence
refers to the appropriation of a potentially liberating or empowering mechanism by those who
currently hold power such that the liberating potential of the mechanism is removed or severely
reduced. The process is subtle. Thus the State, which ought to speak for, and protect, the demos is
frequently captured by capital to act and speak on behalf of the vested economic interest in a
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
society. The crux of the process is that it is not performed in obvious ways. The more subtle
manifestations of this relate to disciplines and language. Conventional accounting speaks about
accountability and the environment but does so in very narrow terms. It therefore seeks to capture
these debates and (given that accounting is principally a mechanism for supported vested
economic interest) does so on behalf of companies and capitalism. More widely, social reporting,
environmental reporting and sustainability are all under attack in various ways to ensure that any
radical movement in these concepts is removed - but done so in a way which looks benign and
by which the vested interests (say multi-national corporations) can claim (through their control of
media) to be acting in the public interest.
10 For a fuller elaboration of this argument see Gray et al ( 1996) chs. 2 and 3.
11 This variant of stakeholder theory must be distinguished from the more traditional organisation
centred form whereby the organisation (rather than society) both identifies the stakeholder group
and manages relationships with them by reference to the influence each individual group may
exert on the organisation.
12 Critical natural capital (such as the ozone layer or the rainforests) being by definition
irreplaceable and non-substitutable would have to be "included" at infinite cost.
13 Such companies are often taken to include The Body Shop, Traidcraft, Shared Earth, New
Consumer, Shared Interest and the Centre for Alternative Technology (UK), Ben and Jerry's
(US) and Earth Sanctuaries (Australia).
References
Bebbington, J. (1997). "Engagement, education and sustainability: A review essay on environmental
accounting". Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10, 3, 365-81.
Bebbington, Jan and Gray, Rob (1997). "An Account of Sustainability: Failure, Success and a
Reconceptualisation". In the proceedings of the 5th Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting
Conference, 1-9 July, Vol 1.
Bebbington, Jan and Gray, Rob (1996). "Sustainable Development and Accounting: Incentives and
Disincentives for the Adoption of Sustainability by Transnational Corporations". In International
Accounting and Reponing Issues, 1995 Review. Geneva: UNCTAD/DTCI/25.
Bebbington, Jan and Tan, John ( 1996). "Accounting for Sustainability". Chartered Accountants Journal
of New Zealand, 75, 75-76.
Bebbington, Jan and Tan, John (1997). "Accounting for Sustainability". Chartered Accountants Journal
of New Zealand, 76, 37-40.
Bebbington, Jan and Thomson, Ian ( 1996). Business Conceptions ofSustainability and the Implications
for Accountancy. London: ACCA.
Benston, G.J. ( 1982). "Accounting and corporate accountability". Accounting, Organizations and Society,
7, 87-105.
Benston, G.J. (1984). Rejoinder to "Accounting and corporate accountability: An extended comment".
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9, 417-19.
Birkin, F. (1996). "The ecological accountant: From the cogito to thinking like a mountain". Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 1, 231-257.
Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change? 197
Bronner, S.E. (1994). Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists. Oxford: Blackwell.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) ( 1993a). Environmental Stewardship: Management
Accountability and the Role of Chartered Accountants. Toronto: CICA.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) (l993b). Reporting on Environmental Performance.
Toronto: CICA.
Cooper, C. (1992). "The non and nom of accounting for (M)other nature." Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 5, 3, 16-39.
Cooper, D.J. (1988). "A social analysis of corporate pollution disclosures: A comment." Advances in
Public Interest Accounting, 2, 179-186.
Dierkes, M. (1979). "Corporate social reporting in Germany: Conceptual developments and practical
experience." Accounting, Organizations and Society, 4, 87-107.
Dierkes, M. and Preston, L.E. (1977). "Corporate social accounting and reporting for the physical
environment: A critical review and implementation proposal." Accounting, Organizations and
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
Society, 2, 3-22.
Federation des Experts Comptab1es Europeens (1994)./nvestigation of Emerging Accounting Areas.
London: Routledge.
Gallhofer, S. (1992). "M(othering) view on 'The non and nom of accounting for (M)other nature.'"
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 5, 3, 40-51.
Gallhofer, S. and Haslam, J. (1995). Worrying about environmental auditing. Accounting Forum, 19,
205-218.
Gallhofer, S. and Haslam, J. (1997). "The direction of green accounting policy: Critical reflections."
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10, 158-174.
Gibson, K. (1996). "The problem with reporting pollution allowances: Reporting is not the problem."
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1, 655-665.
Gray, R.H. (1992). "Accounting and environmentalism: An exploration of the challenge of gently
accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability." Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 17,399-426.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, K.J. and Walters, D. ( 1993). Accounting for the Environment. London: Paul
Chapman.
Gray, R.H., Dey, C., Owen, D.L., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. ( 1977). "Struggling with the praxis of social
accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures." Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 10, 325-364.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Adams, C.A. (1996). Accounting and Accountability: Changes and
Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1987). Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting and
Accountability. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1988). "Corporate social reporting: Emerging trends in
accountability and the social contract". Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1, 1,
6-20.
Huizing, A. and Dekker, H.C. (1992). "The environmental issue on the Dutch political market."
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 427-448.
Hutton, W. (1995). The State We're ln. London: Jonathan Cape.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) (1995). Financial Reporting of
Environmental Liabilities: A Discussion Paper. London: ICAEW.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) (1997). Environmental issues in
Financial Reporting. London: ICAEW.
Johnson, L. (1993). "Research on environmental reporting". Accounting Horizons, 1, 3, 118-123.
Lehman, G. (1995). "A legitimate concern for environmental accounting". Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 6, 393-412.
Lehman, G. (1996). "Environment accounting: Pollution permits or selling the environment". Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 1, 667-676.
Lessem, R. (1977). "Corporate social reporting in action: An evaluation of British, European and
American experience". Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2, 279-294.
Lowe, A.E. and Mcinnes, J.M (1971). "Control of social-economic organisations". Journal of
Management Studies, 8, 213-27.
Mathews, M.R. (1993). Socially Responsible Accounting. London: Chapman Hall.
198 Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting December 1997