Search results

The environment is currently at or near the top of many agendas. It has certainly become integrated into the formulation of business strategy. If businesses do not wish to move towards being environmentally friendly of their own accord, there is now a plethora of legislation to act as a stimulus, and this forms the first section. Included here are voluntary schemes such as the European eco‐audit and eco‐labelling, as well as the stipulations of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, such as the requirements of the Litter Code. Problems relating to contamination and the Land Register, and to negotiating loans are also suggested. Considers the response of business, as in the so‐called Valdez Principles, and in codes such as those of environmental investors, and the Institute of Management, and the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment. A final section reviews the contribution that accountancy can make to the debate.

This article explores the different approaches taken to environmental regulation of the small firm in the UK and The Netherlands and the relationship of such regulation with the attitudes of small business owner‐managers. Using evidence from 40 interviews with businesses in both countries, we contrast the engagement and orientation of these enterprises with the business‐environment agenda. In both countries, government rhetoric stresses the harmony between business and environmental objectives: on the ground, attitudes of owner‐managers stress that these goals are far from complementary. In the UK, owner‐managers feel that environmental issues are a legitimate area of concern, but government should take the lead in addressing business‐environmental issues. Here, businesses are reacting to a policy context where environmental issues are seen as either a cost on the business, or presented as having simplistic win‐win outcomes. Businesses themselves, however, perceive it very much as an additional burden. In The Netherlands, SMEs have been targeted by the State by joint regulation through legislation, licensing and voluntary initiatives. This results in generally higher levels of environmental care. Small firms in The Netherlands appear to have accepted the importance of this and their shared responsibility for environmental care. In view of the shifting business‐environment policy debate in the UK, it is unlikely that the current reliance on voluntary initiatives and economic incentives will bear fruit. Different approaches may need, therefore, to be explored.

Codes of conduct have been adopted very broadly on both sides of the Atlantic in the last two decades. They have been introduced for both elected representatives and appointed officials. Though the accountability mechanisms vary, elected politicians prefer self-policing and enforcement. For appointed officials who carry out specialized functions with exposure to particular, clearly identifiable, ethical risks, where the need for public trust and confidence is great, it is important but also relatively straightforward to develop codes of practice. For generalist public servants, the situation is different. The range of ethical risk to which civil servants are exposed is broader. It is less easy to be specific about the risks involved.

The pressures to include specific environmental considerations within corporate strategy are increasing. While clear evidence exists of “green” issues entering the financial agenda, the full consequences have yet to filter through into an impact on strategy. Examines both the legislative pressure and pressure from financial markets for companies to adopt an environmental risk strategy. Categorizes the pressures from financial markets into two groups: lenders and equity investors, and uses case evidence to illustrate current management issues. A guide to establishing an environmental management system is defined as a tool to complement the development of an environmental risk strategy.

The post industrial revolution era, driven by an expansion of the global energy system (Jaccard, 2006), has witnessed an exponential increase in the consumption of finite and non-renewable resources, coupled with substantial destruction of the natural environment. Weizsacker and Jesinghaus (1992) observed that the consequence of further growth in a conventional sense would not be worldwide prosperity, but rather lead to destruction, putting in jeopardy prosperity and indeed the very basis of life. It follows that the continuance of such economic growth, measured by traditional means is unsustainable and illogical in the long run.

The environmental consultancy market is, by any measure, expanding. Yet, what does the future hold for those entering the market? In essence the market will be split between three types of organizations: large environmental consultancies; niche players; and low‐cost providers of environmental services. Initial advantage will go to those firms offering services relating to energy efficiency and waste minimization. In the long term, however, advantage will go to those consultancies which are willing to use an active and involved approach with their customers, and at a lower margin than they may take now.

This paper focuses on the terms of reference of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was drafted to support environmental sustainability through the mitigation of global warming. The paper provides information on the main features of the protocol, especially the commercial incentives for companies in industrialised countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Particular attention is paid to the role of the operations manager and strategist in the selection of processes, plant and equipment to meet these commercial incentives, and the location of industrial facilities under conditions of political and economic uncertainty. The paper demonstrates the importance of the political and economic factors influencing environmental investment decisions, particularly those factors which often lie outside the usual terms of reference of operations managers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the contradiction between sustainability and accounting practices, underpinned by reporting standards and question whether financial statements prepared in this way represent a true and fair view? The paper highlights the disregard for externalities as a fundamental obstacle to sustainable reporting and proposes taxation designs to recognise the costs associated with externalities as the basis for equitable reporting, pricing and sustainable business practices.

The approach taken uses Smith’s (1776) tenets of a good tax, to consider characteristics of taxation that may be harnessed for financial reporting, valuation, economic substance and legal form.

The findings reveal a case for further examination of the efficacy of taxation, alongside a full-cost accounting approach, to benefit sustainable reporting.

The implications of the research are a possible whole reappraisal of costs and prices to recognise the sustainability dimension and place it at the heart of the corporate agenda. The limitations arise from contestable valuation of sustainable matters, arising from a lack of an agreed theoretical framework.

The paper proposes a realignment of costs and prices to correct market imperfection through the innovative application of taxation, but without a fundamental reappraisal of the economic status quo upon which Western-style capitalism is underpinned.