Article impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem-based information systems

Addison, Prue FE

Barker, Richard

Birkin, Frank

Burns, John

Cooper, Stuart

Couvet, Denis

Cuckston, Thomas

Daily, Gretchen C

Dey, Colin

Feger, Clément

Gallagher, Louise

Hails, Rosemary

Jollands, Stephen

Mace, Georgina

Mckenzie, Emily

Mermet, Laurent

Milne, Markus

Quattrone, Paolo

Rambaud, Alexandre

Russell, Shona

Santamaria, Marta

Sutherland, William J

Vira, Bhaskar

Conservation Biology

Article impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem‐based information systems

Addison, Prue F E

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

DiversityFour priorities for new links between conservationscience and accounting researchClément Feger ,1,2 ∗ Laurent Mermet,2,3 Bhaskar Vira,4 Prue F.E. Addison ,5 Richard Barker,6Frank Birkin,7 John Burns,8 Stuart Cooper,9 Denis Couvet ,3 Thomas Cuckston,10Gretchen C. Daily,11 Colin Dey ,12 Louise Gallagher,13 Rosemary Hails ,14 Stephen Jollands ,8Georgina Mace ,15 Emily Mckenzie,11,16 Markus Milne ,17 Paolo Quattrone,18Alexandre Rambaud ,2,19,20 Shona Russell ,21 Marta Santamaria,22 and William J. Sutherland231Montpellier Research in Management (MRM), Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Univ Perpignan Via Domitia,Montpellier, France2AgroParisTech, 75005, Paris, France3Centre for Ecology and Sciences of Conservation (CESCO), Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 43 rue Buffon CP 135, 75005,Paris, France4Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ,U.K.5Department of Zoology, Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, U.K.6Säıd Business School, University of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1 HP, U.K.7Management School, University of Sheffield, Conduit Road, Sheffield, S10 1FL, U.K.8Business School, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX4 4PU, U.K.9Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Bristol, Senate House, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TH, U.K.10Aston Business School, Birmingham, B4 7ET, U.K.11Natural Capital Project, Center for Conservation Biology (Department of Biology), and Woods Institute for the Environment,Stanford University, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, U.S.A.12Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland, U.K.13Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, 66 Boulevard Carl-Vogt, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland14National Trust, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2NA, U.K.15Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, U.K.16WWF-UK, The Living Planet Centre, Brewery Road, Woking, GU21 4LL, U.K.17School of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand18The University of Edinburgh Business School, 29 Buccleuch Pl, Edinburgh, EH8 9JS, U.K.19CIRED, AgroParisTech, Cirad, CNRS, EHESS, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 94130, Nogent-sur-Marne, France20CNRS, UMR, DRM, M-Lab, Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, 75016, Paris, France21School of Management, University of St Andrews, The Gateway, North Haugh, St Andrews, KY16 9RJ, U.K.22Natural Capital Coalition, 1 Moorgate Place, London, EC2R 6EA, U.K.23Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, U.K.IntroductionEngagement with diverse social science disciplines isessential to revealing political, social, and institutionalchallenges that must be addressed to advance effectivebiodiversity conservation (Bennett et al. 2017; Teelet al. 2018). One challenge that remains insufficiently∗Address correspondence to C. Feger, email clement.feger@agroparistech.frArticle impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem-based informationsystems.Paper submitted February 24, 2018; revised manuscript accepted November 5, 2018.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproductionin any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.investigated is frustration with the lack of impact ofinnovative information tools and systems of accountsaimed at motivating and guiding ecosystem management.The conservation community invests considerableefforts in their creation and experimentation. Speciesand ecosystem accounts (e.g., ABoS 2015; UNEP-WCMC2016), general ecological indicators (e.g., Jørgensen et al.972Conservation Biology, Volume 33, No. 4, 972–975C© 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13254Feger et al. 9732013), and tools for ecosystem-services quantificationand mapping (e.g., Kareiva et al. 2011) and ecosystemmonitoring are fundamental to conservation research andpractice. However, ecosystem-based tools do not alwayslead to the changes in decision, action, or policy conser-vation scientists expect (e.g., Ruckelshaus et al. 2015).Often, the inability of such information systems to gen-erate expected changes is not due to technical limitationsrather than the too fragile articulation between their de-sign and the complex realities of developing strategiesand organizing management of ecosystems in a diversityof contexts. Investigating such articulation between aninformation system and the organizational details of itssystematic use is precisely what characterizes an aca-demic field: accounting, which belongs to managementas a discipline and often intersects with social sciencesor economics. Accounting has enormous but untappedpotential to contribute to conservation science, practice,and goals. Accounting is often misconceived as beingonly the craft of producing quantitative and financially fo-cused reports for companies. However, accounting in itsbroadest sense is the preparation and the framing of infor-mation (qualitative and quantitative) to assist specific or-ganizing and decision-making processes (Jollands 2017).We especially refer here to critical and interpretive ac-counting research, a field that emerged in the 1970s anddeveloped through now well-established journals (i.e.,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Accounting Au-diting and Accountability Journal, Critical Perspectiveson Accounting) (Miller & Power 2013; Roslender 2017).Since 1990s, researchers have revealed and criticized thelack of consideration of sustainability issues in existingaccounting systems (e.g., Milne 1996) and advocated thedevelopment of new accounting approaches inspired byecological thinking at and beyond the corporate level(e.g., Birkin 1996; Bebbington & Larrinaga 2014; Russellet al. 2017).Following a recent publication that proposes a newline of inquiry focusing on developing accounting re-search at the ecosystem management level (Feger &Mermet 2017), a workshop furthered in-depth inter-disciplinary dialogue between accounting scholars andconservation researchers and practitioners. Its resultsunderline that collaboration between conservation andaccounting research is essential to improve the designand the actual use of ecosystem-based information sys-tems for accountable conservation decisions and actions.Four key areas for future joint research were identified.What Accounting Brings to ConservationOur call to establish new links between the accountingdiscipline and biodiversity conservation is not meant tobe a substitute for economics, game theory, organiza-tional psychology, or any other discipline focusing ondecision making. It is an invitation to focus on ques-tions instrumental and common to both conservationand accounting research, such as the following: How arerecords kept in practice and with what consequences?What languages and representations can one provide tocomplex organizations? Who gives and demands whatkind of accounts? How are responsibilities negotiated,organized, managed, and controlled? How are explicitprinciples and conventions on which accounts can bedeveloped and values defined and on which past andfuture actions can be assessed and compared debatedand institutionalized?The pervasive confusion in the environmental fieldbetween the disciplines of accounting and economicsdeserves a special comment. Although economics andaccounting are somewhat related, they are essentiallydifferent disciplines (Shiozawa 1999). Accounting is con-cerned with developing and using calculative practicesto support decision making as is economics. The useof economics in conservation science has brought ma-jor results, considering, for instance, the developmentof economic valuation of ecosystem services, analysis ofenvironmental trade-offs, and study of incentive struc-tures (Helm & Hepburn 2012). One of the distinctivecharacteristics of accounting, however, is that it focuseson the detailed analysis of the roles of information sys-tems in the context of the concrete complexities of or-ganizational management based on the fundamental con-cepts of accounts and accountability (Burchell et al. 1980;Roberts & Scapens 1985; Gray et al. 2014). In terms ofmethods, accounting research combines theoretical de-velopments that extensively draw on other social sciencedisciplines (organizational theory, sociology, philosophy,economics, psychology, etc.) with in-depth qualitativefield studies of organizations (Ahrens & Chapman 2006).In doing so, it enriches understanding of the role of infor-mation systems and accounts in the operationalization ofaction and generation of intended or unintended organi-zational changes and wider governance transformations(Miller 2001; Macintosh & Quattrone 2010).The new dialogue we advocate between conservationscientists and accounting researchers can build on a smallbut growing body of work in accounting research, cen-tered on ecosystems, that aims to study the effects ofvarying forms of accounting on relations between humanorganizations and biodiversity (e.g., Tregidga 2013; Dey& Russell 2014; Cuckston 2017) and develop account-ing innovations adapted to the collective management ofecosystems (Feger & Mermet 2017).Priorities for Development of Accounting forEcosystem ManagementStudying Ecosystem-Centered AccountabilitiesA first priority is to study in depth how, in diverseecosystem management situations, stakeholders actuallyConservation BiologyVolume 33, No. 4, 2019974 Accounting Researchuse or could use ecological and related social, health,economic, and financial information to assign respon-sibilities to one another and to discuss, negotiate, andmanage reciprocal commitments (i.e., accountabilities)for improving environmental outcomes. This means ex-ploring questions such as what commitments have been,are being, or should be negotiated among stakeholders;who is accountable to whom and who is not regardingmanagement of ecosystem quality; and how should in-formation be framed and exchanged to organize theseaccountabilities effectively? An accounting lens can illu-minate how different ways of structuring, representing,giving, and demanding environmental information canlead to creation of viable forms of ecosystem-centeredmanagement to achieve conservation goals (Roberts &Scapens 1985; Dey & Russell 2014; Cuckston 2017; Feger& Mermet 2017).Working Collaboratively on Real-World CasesConservation scientists and accounting researchers needto jointly conduct in-depth studies and comparisonsof real-world field cases through an accounting lens.Thus, a portfolio of case studies reflecting on pastcases and observing and documenting active on-goingcases (e.g., through action research interventions) needdevelopment.Adopting a Constructive, Practical, Critical, and ReflectiveApproachIn working collaboratively on concrete cases, conserva-tion scientists, accounting researchers, and decision mak-ers will engage in constructive discussion to improve thedesign and use of ecosystem-based information tools. Thiscalls for pragmatic trial-and-error approaches that relyon action-oriented agendas and reflexive cultures thatare common to conservation science (e.g., adaptive man-agement [Gunderson & Holling 2002] or evidence-basedconservation [Sutherland et al. 2004]) and accountingresearch (Gray 2002).Developing a Common LanguageThese 4 priority goals require intensive interdisciplinarydialogue and the development of a common language.Accounting concepts need to be adapted and enriched toanalyze and discuss the organizing of ecosystem manage-ment and conservation action (e.g., ecological account,accounting entities, accounting perimeters, andaccountabilities) (Russell et al. 2017). The specificitiesof accounting concepts, as distinct from concepts usedin the field of economics or ecology, need theoreticalclarification, especially when terms overlap (e.g., valu-ation and capital) (Rambaud & Richard 2015). Finally,the formulation of new concepts and vocabularies(e.g., reciprocal commitments) has to be central to jointefforts of accountants and conservation scientists todevelop an accounting approach for the management ofecosystems.ConclusionThe 4 priorities for the development of accountingapproaches centered on management of ecosystems setup an agenda that can reshape conservation practice andthe way ecosystem-based information tools are designedand used in conservation and accounting research andthe way accounting entities and accountabilities areunderstood. By collaboration and engagement acrossthese disciplines, there is scope for contributing toconstructive critical reasoning and to introduce inno-vative designs that combine insights from accountingand conservation. Ultimately, this new interdisciplinarybridge will provide a critical, theoretical, and practicaladdition to the already well-established collaborations ofconservation research with other social science fields,such as economics, anthropology, and political ecology.AcknowledgmentsThis article is the result of an interdisciplinary dialoguebetween conservation and accounting researchers thattook place during the New Accounting for the Manage-ment of Ecosystems workshop. This event was organizedat the University of Cambridge and was coconvened byC.F., B.V., and L.M. to explore opportunities and chal-lenges of developing new accounting approaches cen-tered on the collective management of ecosystems. Weare grateful to the Center for Research in the Arts, SocialSciences and Humanities, and the Luc Hoffmann Insti-tute, which cofunded the event and made this dialoguepossible. P.F.E.A. is supported by the Natural Environ-ment Research Council number NE/N005457/1. We alsothank 2 anonymous reviewers for their insightful andconstructive comments that helped improve the papersubstantially.Literature CitedAhrens T, Chapman CS. 2006. Doing qualitative field research in man-agement accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory. Ac-counting, Organizations and Society 31:819–841.ABoS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2015. Experimental ecosystemaccounts for the Great Barrier Reef. ABoS, Canberra. Available fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/papersbyTopic/FB46321B5BA1A8EACA257E2800174158?OpenDocument (accessed Sep-tember 2018).Bebbington J, Larrinaga C. 2014. Accounting and sustainable devel-opment: an exploration. Accounting, Organizations and Society39:395–413.Conservation BiologyVolume 33, No. 4, 2019Feger et al. 975Bennett NJ, et al. 2017. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conserva-tion. Conservation Biology 31:56–66.Birkin F. 1996. The ecological accountant: from the cogito to thinkinglike a mountain. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 7:231–257.Burchell S, Clubb C, Hopwood A, Hughes J, Nahapiet J. 1980. The rolesof accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organiza-tions and Society 5:5–27.Cuckston T. 2017. Ecology-centred accounting for biodiversity in theproduction of a blanket bog. Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal 30:1537–1567.Dey C, Russell S. 2014. Who speaks for the river? Exploring biodiver-sity accounting using an arena approach. Pages 245–266 in JonesMJ, editor. Accounting for biodiversity. Routledge, Oxon, UnitedKingdom.Feger C, Mermet L. 2017. A blueprint towards accounting for themanagement of ecosystems. Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal 30:1511–1536.Gray R. 2002. The social accounting project and accounting organiza-tions and society. Privileging engagement, imaginings, new account-ings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations andSociety 27:687–708.Gray R, Brennan A, Malpas J. 2014. New accounts: towards a reframingof social accounting. Accounting Forum 38:258–273.Gunderson LH, Holling CS. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transforma-tions in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Helm D, Hepburn C. 2012. The economic analysis of biodiversity: anassessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28:1-21.Jollands S. 2017. Accounting. Pages 319–346 in Jeanrenaud S, Jean-renaud J-P, Goslin J, editors. Sustainable business: a one planetapproach. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.Jørgensen SE, Burkhard B, Müller F. 2013. Twenty volumes of ecologicalindicators – an accounting short review. Ecological Indicators 28:4–9.Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S. 2011. Naturalcapital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.Macintosh N, Quattrone P. 2010. Management accounting and controlsystems. an organizational and sociological approach. 2nd edition.John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, United Kingdom.Miller P. 2001. Governing by numbers: why calculative practices matter.Social Research 68:379–396.Miller P, Power M. 2013. Accounting, organizing, and economizing: con-necting accounting research and organization theory. The Academyof Management Annals 7:557–605.Milne MJ. 1996. On sustainability, the environment and man-agement accounting. Management Accounting Research 7:135–161.Rambaud A, Richard J. 2015. The ‘triple depreciation line’ in-stead of the ‘triple bottom line’: towards a genuine in-tegrated reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 33:92–116.Roberts J, Scapens RW. 1985. Accounting systems and systems ofaccountability - understanding accounting practices in their or-ganisational contexts. Accounting Organizations and Society 10:443–456.Roslender R. 2017. The Routledge companion to critical accounting.Routledge, London, United Kingdom.Ruckelshaus M, et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned fromusing ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions.Ecological Economics 115:11–21.Russell S, Milne M, Dey C. 2017. Accounts of nature andthe nature of accounts: critical reflections on environmen-tal accounting and propositions for ecologically informed ac-counting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30:1426–1458.Shiozawa Y. 1999. Economics and accounting: a comparison be-tween philosophical backgrounds of the two disciplines in view ofcomplexity theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal12:19–38.Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The needfor evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution19:305–308.Teel TL, et al. 2018. Publishing social science research in Conser-vation Biology to move beyond biology. Conservation Biology32:6–8.Tregidga H. 2013. Biodiversity offsetting: problematisation of an emerg-ing governance regime. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Jour-nal 26:806–832.UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme – World Con-servation Monitoring Centre). 2016. Exploring approaches for con-structing species accounts in the context of the SEEA-EEA. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Conservation BiologyVolume 33, No. 4, 2019

Four priorities for new links between conservation science and accounting research

Article impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem-based information systems.</p

Addison, Prue F.E.

Daily, Gretchen C.

Sutherland, William J.

University of Dundee Online Publications

English

Feger, C.

Mermet, L.

Vira, B.

Addison, P.F.E.

Barker, R.

Birkin, F.

Burns, J.

Cooper, S.

Couvet, D.

Cuckston, T.

Daily, G.C.

Dey, C.

Gallagher, L.

Hails, R.

Jollands, S.

Mace, G.

Mckenzie, E.

Milne, M.

Quattrone, P.

Rambaud, A.

Russell, S.

Santamaria, M.

Sutherland, W.J.

White Rose Research Online

P.F.E.A. is supported by the Natural Environment Research Council number NE/N005457/1.Article impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem-based information systems.Peer reviewe

St Andrews Research Repository

DiversityFour priorities for new links between conservationscience and accounting researchCle´ment Feger ,1,2 ∗ Laurent Mermet,2,3 Bhaskar Vira,4 Prue F.E. Addison ,5 Richard Barker,6Frank Birkin,7 John Burns,8 Stuart Cooper,9 Denis Couvet ,3 Thomas Cuckston,10Gretchen C. Daily,11 Colin Dey ,12 Louise Gallagher,13 Rosemary Hails ,14 Stephen Jollands ,8Georgina Mace ,15 Emily Mckenzie,11,16 Markus Milne ,17 Paolo Quattrone,18Alexandre Rambaud ,2,19,20 Shona Russell ,21 Marta Santamaria,22 and William J. Sutherland231Montpellier Research in Management (MRM), Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Vale´ry Montpellier 3, Univ Perpignan Via Domitia,Montpellier, France2AgroParisTech, 75005, Paris, France3Centre for Ecology and Sciences of Conservation (CESCO), Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 43 rue Buffon CP 135, 75005,Paris, France4Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ,U.K.5Department of Zoology, Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, U.K.6Sa¨ıd Business School, University of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1 HP, U.K.7Management School, University of Sheffield, Conduit Road, Sheffield, S10 1FL, U.K.8Business School, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX4 4PU, U.K.9Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Bristol, Senate House, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TH, U.K.10Aston Business School, Birmingham, B4 7ET, U.K.11Natural Capital Project, Center for Conservation Biology (Department of Biology), and Woods Institute for the Environment,Stanford University, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, U.S.A.12Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland, U.K.13Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, 66 Boulevard Carl-Vogt, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland14National Trust, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2NA, U.K.15Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, U.K.16WWF-UK, The Living Planet Centre, Brewery Road, Woking, GU21 4LL, U.K.17School of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand18The University of Edinburgh Business School, 29 Buccleuch Pl, Edinburgh, EH8 9JS, U.K.19CIRED, AgroParisTech, Cirad, CNRS, EHESS, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, Universite´ Paris-Saclay, 94130, Nogent-sur-Marne, France20CNRS, UMR, DRM, M-Lab, Universite´ Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, 75016, Paris, France21School of Management, University of St Andrews, The Gateway, North Haugh, St Andrews, KY16 9RJ, U.K.22Natural Capital Coalition, 1 Moorgate Place, London, EC2R 6EA, U.K.23Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, U.K.IntroductionEngagement with diverse social science disciplines isessential to revealing political, social, and institutionalchallenges that must be addressed to advance effectivebiodiversity conservation (Bennett et al. 2017; Teelet al. 2018). One challenge that remains insufficiently∗Address correspondence to C. Feger, email clement.feger@agroparistech.frArticle impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem-based informationsystems.Paper submitted February 24, 2018; revised manuscript accepted November 5, 2018.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproductionin any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.investigated is frustration with the lack of impact ofinnovative information tools and systems of accountsaimed at motivating and guiding ecosystemmanagement.The conservation community invests considerableefforts in their creation and experimentation. Speciesand ecosystem accounts (e.g., ABoS 2015; UNEP-WCMC2016), general ecological indicators (e.g., Jørgensen et al.972Conservation Biology, Volume 33, No. 4, 972–975C© 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13254Feger et al. 9732013), and tools for ecosystem-services quantificationand mapping (e.g., Kareiva et al. 2011) and ecosystemmonitoring are fundamental to conservation research andpractice. However, ecosystem-based tools do not alwayslead to the changes in decision, action, or policy conser-vation scientists expect (e.g., Ruckelshaus et al. 2015).Often, the inability of such information systems to gen-erate expected changes is not due to technical limitationsrather than the too fragile articulation between their de-sign and the complex realities of developing strategiesand organizing management of ecosystems in a diversityof contexts. Investigating such articulation between aninformation system and the organizational details of itssystematic use is precisely what characterizes an aca-demic field: accounting, which belongs to managementas a discipline and often intersects with social sciencesor economics. Accounting has enormous but untappedpotential to contribute to conservation science, practice,and goals. Accounting is often misconceived as beingonly the craft of producing quantitative and financially fo-cused reports for companies. However, accounting in itsbroadest sense is the preparation and the framing of infor-mation (qualitative and quantitative) to assist specific or-ganizing and decision-making processes (Jollands 2017).We especially refer here to critical and interpretive ac-counting research, a field that emerged in the 1970s anddeveloped through now well-established journals (i.e.,Accounting, Organizations and Society,Accounting Au-diting and Accountability Journal, Critical Perspectiveson Accounting) (Miller & Power 2013; Roslender 2017).Since 1990s, researchers have revealed and criticized thelack of consideration of sustainability issues in existingaccounting systems (e.g., Milne 1996) and advocated thedevelopment of new accounting approaches inspired byecological thinking at and beyond the corporate level(e.g., Birkin 1996; Bebbington & Larrinaga 2014; Russellet al. 2017).Following a recent publication that proposes a newline of inquiry focusing on developing accounting re-search at the ecosystem management level (Feger &Mermet 2017), a workshop furthered in-depth inter-disciplinary dialogue between accounting scholars andconservation researchers and practitioners. Its resultsunderline that collaboration between conservation andaccounting research is essential to improve the designand the actual use of ecosystem-based information sys-tems for accountable conservation decisions and actions.Four key areas for future joint research were identified.What Accounting Brings to ConservationOur call to establish new links between the accountingdiscipline and biodiversity conservation is not meant tobe a substitute for economics, game theory, organiza-tional psychology, or any other discipline focusing ondecision making. It is an invitation to focus on ques-tions instrumental and common to both conservationand accounting research, such as the following: How arerecords kept in practice and with what consequences?What languages and representations can one provide tocomplex organizations? Who gives and demands whatkind of accounts? How are responsibilities negotiated,organized, managed, and controlled? How are explicitprinciples and conventions on which accounts can bedeveloped and values defined and on which past andfuture actions can be assessed and compared debatedand institutionalized?The pervasive confusion in the environmental fieldbetween the disciplines of accounting and economicsdeserves a special comment. Although economics andaccounting are somewhat related, they are essentiallydifferent disciplines (Shiozawa 1999). Accounting is con-cerned with developing and using calculative practicesto support decision making as is economics. The useof economics in conservation science has brought ma-jor results, considering, for instance, the developmentof economic valuation of ecosystem services, analysis ofenvironmental trade-offs, and study of incentive struc-tures (Helm & Hepburn 2012). One of the distinctivecharacteristics of accounting, however, is that it focuseson the detailed analysis of the roles of information sys-tems in the context of the concrete complexities of or-ganizational management based on the fundamental con-cepts of accounts and accountability (Burchell et al. 1980;Roberts & Scapens 1985; Gray et al. 2014). In terms ofmethods, accounting research combines theoretical de-velopments that extensively draw on other social sciencedisciplines (organizational theory, sociology, philosophy,economics, psychology, etc.) with in-depth qualitativefield studies of organizations (Ahrens & Chapman 2006).In doing so, it enriches understanding of the role of infor-mation systems and accounts in the operationalization ofaction and generation of intended or unintended organi-zational changes and wider governance transformations(Miller 2001; Macintosh & Quattrone 2010).The new dialogue we advocate between conservationscientists and accounting researchers can build on a smallbut growing body of work in accounting research, cen-tered on ecosystems, that aims to study the effects ofvarying forms of accounting on relations between humanorganizations and biodiversity (e.g., Tregidga 2013; Dey& Russell 2014; Cuckston 2017) and develop account-ing innovations adapted to the collective management ofecosystems (Feger & Mermet 2017).Priorities for Development of Accounting forEcosystem ManagementStudying Ecosystem-Centered AccountabilitiesA first priority is to study in depth how, in diverseecosystem management situations, stakeholders actuallyConservation BiologyVolume 33, No. 4, 2019974 Accounting Researchuse or could use ecological and related social, health,economic, and financial information to assign respon-sibilities to one another and to discuss, negotiate, andmanage reciprocal commitments (i.e., accountabilities)for improving environmental outcomes. This means ex-ploring questions such as what commitments have been,are being, or should be negotiated among stakeholders;who is accountable to whom and who is not regardingmanagement of ecosystem quality; and how should in-formation be framed and exchanged to organize theseaccountabilities effectively? An accounting lens can illu-minate how different ways of structuring, representing,giving, and demanding environmental information canlead to creation of viable forms of ecosystem-centeredmanagement to achieve conservation goals (Roberts &Scapens 1985; Dey & Russell 2014; Cuckston 2017; Feger& Mermet 2017).Working Collaboratively on Real-World CasesConservation scientists and accounting researchers needto jointly conduct in-depth studies and comparisonsof real-world field cases through an accounting lens.Thus, a portfolio of case studies reflecting on pastcases and observing and documenting active on-goingcases (e.g., through action research interventions) needdevelopment.Adopting a Constructive, Practical, Critical, and ReflectiveApproachIn working collaboratively on concrete cases, conserva-tion scientists, accounting researchers, and decisionmak-ers will engage in constructive discussion to improve thedesign and use of ecosystem-based information tools. Thiscalls for pragmatic trial-and-error approaches that relyon action-oriented agendas and reflexive cultures thatare common to conservation science (e.g., adaptive man-agement [Gunderson & Holling 2002] or evidence-basedconservation [Sutherland et al. 2004]) and accountingresearch (Gray 2002).Developing a Common LanguageThese 4 priority goals require intensive interdisciplinarydialogue and the development of a common language.Accounting concepts need to be adapted and enriched toanalyze and discuss the organizing of ecosystem manage-ment and conservation action (e.g., ecological account,accounting entities, accounting perimeters, andaccountabilities) (Russell et al. 2017). The specificitiesof accounting concepts, as distinct from concepts usedin the field of economics or ecology, need theoreticalclarification, especially when terms overlap (e.g., valu-ation and capital) (Rambaud & Richard 2015). Finally,the formulation of new concepts and vocabularies(e.g., reciprocal commitments) has to be central to jointefforts of accountants and conservation scientists todevelop an accounting approach for the management ofecosystems.ConclusionThe 4 priorities for the development of accountingapproaches centered on management of ecosystems setup an agenda that can reshape conservation practice andthe way ecosystem-based information tools are designedand used in conservation and accounting research andthe way accounting entities and accountabilities areunderstood. By collaboration and engagement acrossthese disciplines, there is scope for contributing toconstructive critical reasoning and to introduce inno-vative designs that combine insights from accountingand conservation. Ultimately, this new interdisciplinarybridge will provide a critical, theoretical, and practicaladdition to the already well-established collaborations ofconservation research with other social science fields,such as economics, anthropology, and political ecology.AcknowledgmentsThis article is the result of an interdisciplinary dialoguebetween conservation and accounting researchers thattook place during the New Accounting for the Manage-ment of Ecosystems workshop. This event was organizedat the University of Cambridge and was coconvened byC.F., B.V., and L.M. to explore opportunities and chal-lenges of developing new accounting approaches cen-tered on the collective management of ecosystems. Weare grateful to the Center for Research in the Arts, SocialSciences and Humanities, and the Luc Hoffmann Insti-tute, which cofunded the event and made this dialoguepossible. P.F.E.A. is supported by the Natural Environ-ment Research Council number NE/N005457/1. We alsothank 2 anonymous reviewers for their insightful andconstructive comments that helped improve the papersubstantially.Literature CitedAhrens T, Chapman CS. 2006. Doing qualitative field research in man-agement accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory. Ac-counting, Organizations and Society 31:819–841.ABoS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2015. Experimental ecosystemaccounts for the Great Barrier Reef. ABoS, Canberra. Available fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/papersbyTopic/FB46321B5BA1A8EACA257E2800174158?OpenDocument (accessed Sep-tember 2018).Bebbington J, Larrinaga C. 2014. Accounting and sustainable devel-opment: an exploration. Accounting, Organizations and Society39:395–413.Conservation BiologyVolume 33, No. 4, 2019Feger et al. 975Bennett NJ, et al. 2017. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conserva-tion. Conservation Biology 31:56–66.Birkin F. 1996. The ecological accountant: from the cogito to thinkinglike a mountain. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 7:231–257.Burchell S, Clubb C, Hopwood A, Hughes J, Nahapiet J. 1980. The rolesof accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organiza-tions and Society 5:5–27.Cuckston T. 2017. Ecology-centred accounting for biodiversity in theproduction of a blanket bog. Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal 30:1537–1567.Dey C, Russell S. 2014. Who speaks for the river? Exploring biodiver-sity accounting using an arena approach. Pages 245–266 in JonesMJ, editor. Accounting for biodiversity. Routledge, Oxon, UnitedKingdom.Feger C, Mermet L. 2017. A blueprint towards accounting for themanagement of ecosystems. Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal 30:1511–1536.Gray R. 2002. The social accounting project and accounting organiza-tions and society. Privileging engagement, imaginings, new account-ings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations andSociety 27:687–708.Gray R, Brennan A, Malpas J. 2014. New accounts: towards a reframingof social accounting. Accounting Forum 38:258–273.Gunderson LH, Holling CS. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transforma-tions in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Helm D, Hepburn C. 2012. The economic analysis of biodiversity: anassessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28:1-21.Jollands S. 2017. Accounting. Pages 319–346 in Jeanrenaud S, Jean-renaud J-P, Goslin J, editors. Sustainable business: a one planetapproach. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.Jørgensen SE, Burkhard B, Mu¨ller F. 2013. Twenty volumes of ecologicalindicators – an accounting short review. Ecological Indicators 28:4–9.Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S. 2011. Naturalcapital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.Macintosh N, Quattrone P. 2010. Management accounting and controlsystems. an organizational and sociological approach. 2nd edition.John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, United Kingdom.Miller P. 2001. Governing by numbers: why calculative practicesmatter.Social Research 68:379–396.Miller P, PowerM. 2013. Accounting, organizing, and economizing: con-necting accounting research and organization theory. The Academyof Management Annals 7:557–605.Milne MJ. 1996. On sustainability, the environment and man-agement accounting. Management Accounting Research 7:135–161.Rambaud A, Richard J. 2015. The ‘triple depreciation line’ in-stead of the ‘triple bottom line’: towards a genuine in-tegrated reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 33:92–116.Roberts J, Scapens RW. 1985. Accounting systems and systems ofaccountability - understanding accounting practices in their or-ganisational contexts. Accounting Organizations and Society 10:443–456.Roslender R. 2017. The Routledge companion to critical accounting.Routledge, London, United Kingdom.Ruckelshaus M, et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned fromusing ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions.Ecological Economics 115:11–21.Russell S, Milne M, Dey C. 2017. Accounts of nature andthe nature of accounts: critical reflections on environmen-tal accounting and propositions for ecologically informed ac-counting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30:1426–1458.Shiozawa Y. 1999. Economics and accounting: a comparison be-tween philosophical backgrounds of the two disciplines in view ofcomplexity theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal12:19–38.Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The needfor evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution19:305–308.Teel TL, et al. 2018. Publishing social science research in Conser-vation Biology to move beyond biology. Conservation Biology32:6–8.Tregidga H. 2013. Biodiversity offsetting: problematisation of an emerg-ing governance regime. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Jour-nal 26:806–832.UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme – World Con-servation Monitoring Centre). 2016. Exploring approaches for con-structing species accounts in the context of the SEEA-EEA. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Conservation BiologyVolume 33, No. 4, 2019

University of St. Andrews - Pure

Article impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem‐based information system

Feger, C

Mermet, L

Vira, B

Addison, Prudence

Birkin, F

Burns, J

Cooper, S

Couvet, D

Cuckston, T

Daily, GC

Dey, C

Gallagher, L

Hails, R

Jollands, S

Mace, G

McKenzie, E

Milne, M

Quattrone, P

Rambaud, A

Russell, S

Santamaria, M

Sutherland, WJ

ORA - Oxford University Research Archive

Addison, PFE

Barker, R

Mckenzie, E

UCL Discovery

DiversityFour priorities for new links between conservationscience and accounting researchCle´ment Feger ,1,2 ∗ Laurent Mermet,2,3 Bhaskar Vira,4 Prue F.E. Addison ,5 Richard Barker,6Frank Birkin,7 John Burns,8 Stuart Cooper,9 Denis Couvet ,3 Thomas Cuckston,10Gretchen C. Daily,11 Colin Dey ,12 Louise Gallagher,13 Rosemary Hails ,14 Stephen Jollands ,8Georgina Mace ,15 Emily Mckenzie,11,16 Markus Milne ,17 Paolo Quattrone,18Alexandre Rambaud ,2,19,20 Shona Russell ,21 Marta Santamaria,22 and William J. Sutherland231Montpellier Research in Management (MRM), Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Vale´ry Montpellier 3, Univ Perpignan Via Domitia,Montpellier, France2AgroParisTech, 75005, Paris, France3Centre for Ecology and Sciences of Conservation (CESCO), Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 43 rue Buffon CP 135, 75005,Paris, France4Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ,U.K.5Department of Zoology, Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, U.K.6Sa¨ıd Business School, University of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1 HP, U.K.7Management School, University of Sheffield, Conduit Road, Sheffield, S10 1FL, U.K.8Business School, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX4 4PU, U.K.9Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Bristol, Senate House, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TH, U.K.10Aston Business School, Birmingham, B4 7ET, U.K.11Natural Capital Project, Center for Conservation Biology (Department of Biology), and Woods Institute for the Environment,Stanford University, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, U.S.A.12Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland, U.K.13Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, 66 Boulevard Carl-Vogt, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland14National Trust, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2NA, U.K.15Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, U.K.16WWF-UK, The Living Planet Centre, Brewery Road, Woking, GU21 4LL, U.K.17School of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand18The University of Edinburgh Business School, 29 Buccleuch Pl, Edinburgh, EH8 9JS, U.K.19CIRED, AgroParisTech, Cirad, CNRS, EHESS, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, Universite´ Paris-Saclay, 94130, Nogent-sur-Marne, France20CNRS, UMR, DRM, M-Lab, Universite´ Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, 75016, Paris, France21School of Management, University of St Andrews, The Gateway, North Haugh, St Andrews, KY16 9RJ, U.K.22Natural Capital Coalition, 1 Moorgate Place, London, EC2R 6EA, U.K.23Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, U.K.IntroductionEngagement with diverse social science disciplines isessential to revealing political, social, and institutionalchallenges that must be addressed to advance effectivebiodiversity conservation (Bennett et al. 2017; Teelet al. 2018). One challenge that remains insufficiently∗email clement.feger@agroparistech.frArticle impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem-based informationsystems.Paper submitted February 24, 2018; revised manuscript accepted November 5, 2018.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproductionin any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.investigated is frustration with the lack of impact ofinnovative information tools and systems of accountsaimed at motivating and guiding ecosystemmanagement.The conservation community invests considerableefforts in their creation and experimentation. Speciesand ecosystem accounts (e.g., ABoS 2015; UNEP-WCMC2016), general ecological indicators (e.g., Jørgensen et al.1Conservation Biology, Volume 0, No. 0, 1–4C© 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.DOI: 10.1111/cobi.132542 Accounting Research2013), and tools for ecosystem-services quantificationand mapping (e.g., Kareiva et al. 2011) and ecosystemmonitoring are fundamental to conservation research andpractice. However, ecosystem-based tools do not alwayslead to the changes in decision, action, or policy conser-vation scientists expect (e.g., Ruckelshaus et al. 2015).Often, the inability of such information systems to gen-erate expected changes is not due to technical limitationsrather than the too fragile articulation between their de-sign and the complex realities of developing strategiesand organizing management of ecosystems in a diversityof contexts. Investigating such articulation between aninformation system and the organizational details of itssystematic use is precisely what characterizes an aca-demic field: accounting, which belongs to managementas a discipline and often intersects with social sciencesor economics. Accounting has enormous but untappedpotential to contribute to conservation science, practice,and goals. Accounting is often misconceived as beingonly the craft of producing quantitative and financially fo-cused reports for companies. However, accounting in itsbroadest sense is the preparation and the framing of infor-mation (qualitative and quantitative) to assist specific or-ganizing and decision-making processes (Jollands 2017).We especially refer here to critical and interpretive ac-counting research, a field that emerged in the 1970s anddeveloped through now well-established journals (i.e.,Accounting, Organizations and Society,Accounting Au-diting and Accountability Journal, Critical Perspectiveson Accounting) (Miller & Power 2013; Roslender 2017).Since 1990s, researchers have revealed and criticized thelack of consideration of sustainability issues in existingaccounting systems (e.g., Milne 1996) and advocated thedevelopment of new accounting approaches inspired byecological thinking at and beyond the corporate level(e.g., Birkin 1996; Bebbington & Larrinaga 2014; Russellet al. 2017).Following a recent publication that proposes a newline of inquiry focusing on developing accounting re-search at the ecosystem management level (Feger &Mermet 2017), a workshop furthered in-depth inter-disciplinary dialogue between accounting scholars andconservation researchers and practitioners. Its resultsunderline that collaboration between conservation andaccounting research is essential to improve the designand the actual use of ecosystem-based information sys-tems for accountable conservation decisions and actions.Four key areas for future joint research were identified.What Accounting Brings to ConservationOur call to establish new links between the accountingdiscipline and biodiversity conservation is not meant tobe a substitute for economics, game theory, organiza-tional psychology, or any other discipline focusing ondecision making. It is an invitation to focus on ques-tions instrumental and common to both conservationand accounting research, such as the following: How arerecords kept in practice and with what consequences?What languages and representations can one provide tocomplex organizations? Who gives and demands whatkind of accounts? How are responsibilities negotiated,organized, managed, and controlled? How are explicitprinciples and conventions on which accounts can bedeveloped and values defined and on which past andfuture actions can be assessed and compared debatedand institutionalized?The pervasive confusion in the environmental fieldbetween the disciplines of accounting and economicsdeserves a special comment. Although economics andaccounting are somewhat related, they are essentiallydifferent disciplines (Shiozawa 1999). Accounting is con-cerned with developing and using calculative practicesto support decision making as is economics. The useof economics in conservation science has brought ma-jor results, considering, for instance, the developmentof economic valuation of ecosystem services, analysis ofenvironmental trade-offs, and study of incentive struc-tures (Helm & Hepburn 2012). One of the distinctivecharacteristics of accounting, however, is that it focuseson the detailed analysis of the roles of information sys-tems in the context of the concrete complexities of or-ganizational management based on the fundamental con-cepts of accounts and accountability (Burchell et al. 1980;Roberts & Scapens 1985; Gray et al. 2014). In terms ofmethods, accounting research combines theoretical de-velopments that extensively draw on other social sciencedisciplines (organizational theory, sociology, philosophy,economics, psychology, etc.) with in-depth qualitativefield studies of organizations (Ahrens & Chapman 2006).In doing so, it enriches understanding of the role of infor-mation systems and accounts in the operationalization ofaction and generation of intended or unintended organi-zational changes and wider governance transformations(Miller 2001; Macintosh & Quattrone 2010).The new dialogue we advocate between conservationscientists and accounting researchers can build on a smallbut growing body of work in accounting research, cen-tered on ecosystems, that aims to study the effects ofvarying forms of accounting on relations between humanorganizations and biodiversity (e.g., Tregidga 2013; Dey& Russell 2014; Cuckston 2017) and develop account-ing innovations adapted to the collective management ofecosystems (Feger & Mermet 2017).Priorities for Development of Accounting forEcosystem ManagementStudying Ecosystem-Centered AccountabilitiesA first priority is to study in depth how, in diverseecosystem management situations, stakeholders actuallyConservation BiologyVolume 0, No. 0, 2018Feger et al. 3use or could use ecological and related social, health,economic, and financial information to assign respon-sibilities to one another and to discuss, negotiate, andmanage reciprocal commitments (i.e., accountabilities)for improving environmental outcomes. This means ex-ploring questions such as what commitments have been,are being, or should be negotiated among stakeholders;who is accountable to whom and who is not regardingmanagement of ecosystem quality; and how should in-formation be framed and exchanged to organize theseaccountabilities effectively? An accounting lens can illu-minate how different ways of structuring, representing,giving, and demanding environmental information canlead to creation of viable forms of ecosystem-centeredmanagement to achieve conservation goals (Roberts &Scapens 1985; Dey & Russell 2014; Cuckston 2017; Feger& Mermet 2017).Working Collaboratively on Real-World CasesConservation scientists and accounting researchers needto jointly conduct in-depth studies and comparisonsof real-world field cases through an accounting lens.Thus, a portfolio of case studies reflecting on pastcases and observing and documenting active on-goingcases (e.g., through action research interventions) needdevelopment.Adopting a Constructive, Practical, Critical, and ReflectiveApproachIn working collaboratively on concrete cases, conserva-tion scientists, accounting researchers, and decisionmak-ers will engage in constructive discussion to improve thedesign and use of ecosystem-based information tools. Thiscalls for pragmatic trial-and-error approaches that relyon action-oriented agendas and reflexive cultures thatare common to conservation science (e.g., adaptive man-agement [Gunderson & Holling 2002] or evidence-basedconservation [Sutherland et al. 2004]) and accountingresearch (Gray 2002).Developing a Common LanguageThese 4 priority goals require intensive interdisciplinarydialogue and the development of a common language.Accounting concepts need to be adapted and enriched toanalyze and discuss the organizing of ecosystem manage-ment and conservation action (e.g., ecological account,accounting entities, accounting perimeters, andaccountabilities) (Russell et al. 2017). The specificitiesof accounting concepts, as distinct from concepts usedin the field of economics or ecology, need theoreticalclarification, especially when terms overlap (e.g., valu-ation and capital) (Rambaud & Richard 2015). Finally,the formulation of new concepts and vocabularies(e.g., reciprocal commitments) has to be central to jointefforts of accountants and conservation scientists todevelop an accounting approach for the management ofecosystems.ConclusionThe 4 priorities for the development of accountingapproaches centered on management of ecosystems setup an agenda that can reshape conservation practice andthe way ecosystem-based information tools are designedand used in conservation and accounting research andthe way accounting entities and accountabilities areunderstood. By collaboration and engagement acrossthese disciplines, there is scope for contributing toconstructive critical reasoning and to introduce inno-vative designs that combine insights from accountingand conservation. Ultimately, this new interdisciplinarybridge will provide a critical, theoretical, and practicaladdition to the already well-established collaborations ofconservation research with other social science fields,such as economics, anthropology, and political ecology.AcknowledgmentsThis article is the result of an interdisciplinary dialoguebetween conservation and accounting researchers thattook place during the New Accounting for the Manage-ment of Ecosystems workshop. This event was organizedat the University of Cambridge and was coconvened byC.F., B.V., and L.M. to explore opportunities and chal-lenges of developing new accounting approaches cen-tered on the collective management of ecosystems. Weare grateful to the Center for Research in the Arts, SocialSciences and Humanities, and the Luc Hoffmann Insti-tute, which cofunded the event and made this dialoguepossible. P.F.E.A. is supported by the Natural Environ-ment Research Council number NE/N005457/1. We alsothank 2 anonymous reviewers for their insightful andconstructive comments that helped improve the papersubstantially.Literature CitedAhrens T, Chapman CS. 2006. Doing qualitative field research in man-agement accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory. Ac-counting, Organizations and Society 31:819–841.ABoS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2015. Experimental ecosystemaccounts for the Great Barrier Reef. ABoS, Canberra. Available fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/papersbyTopic/FB46321B5BA1A8EACA257E2800174158?OpenDocument (accessed Sep-tember 2018).Bebbington J, Larrinaga C. 2014. Accounting and sustainable devel-opment: an exploration. Accounting, Organizations and Society39:395–413.Conservation BiologyVolume 0, No. 0, 20184 Accounting ResearchBennett NJ, et al. 2017. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conserva-tion. Conservation Biology 31:56–66.Birkin F. 1996. The ecological accountant: from the cogito to thinkinglike a mountain. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 7:231–257.Burchell S, Clubb C, Hopwood A, Hughes J, Nahapiet J. 1980. The rolesof accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organiza-tions and Society 5:5–27.Cuckston T. 2017. Ecology-centred accounting for biodiversity in theproduction of a blanket bog. Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal 30:1537–1567.Dey C, Russell S. 2014. Who speaks for the river? Exploring biodiver-sity accounting using an arena approach. Pages 245–266 in JonesMJ, editor. Accounting for biodiversity. Routledge, Oxon, UnitedKingdom.Feger C, Mermet L. 2017. A blueprint towards accounting for themanagement of ecosystems. Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal 30:1511–1536.Gray R. 2002. The social accounting project and accounting organiza-tions and society. Privileging engagement, imaginings, new account-ings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations andSociety 27:687–708.Gray R, Brennan A, Malpas J. 2014. New accounts: towards a reframingof social accounting. Accounting Forum 38:258–273.Gunderson LH, Holling CS. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transforma-tions in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Helm D, Hepburn C. 2012. The economic analysis of biodiversity: anassessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28:1-21.Jollands S. 2017. Accounting. Pages 319–346 in Jeanrenaud S, Jean-renaud J-P, Goslin J, editors. Sustainable business: a one planetapproach. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.Jørgensen SE, Burkhard B, Mu¨ller F. 2013. Twenty volumes of ecologicalindicators – an accounting short review. Ecological Indicators 28:4–9.Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S. 2011. Naturalcapital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.Macintosh N, Quattrone P. 2010. Management accounting and controlsystems. an organizational and sociological approach. 2nd edition.John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, United Kingdom.Miller P. 2001. Governing by numbers: why calculative practicesmatter.Social Research 68:379–396.Miller P, PowerM. 2013. Accounting, organizing, and economizing: con-necting accounting research and organization theory. The Academyof Management Annals 7:557–605.Milne MJ. 1996. On sustainability, the environment and man-agement accounting. Management Accounting Research 7:135–161.Rambaud A, Richard J. 2015. The ‘triple depreciation line’ in-stead of the ‘triple bottom line’: towards a genuine in-tegrated reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 33:92–116.Roberts J, Scapens RW. 1985. Accounting systems and systems ofaccountability - understanding accounting practices in their or-ganisational contexts. Accounting Organizations and Society 10:443–456.Roslender R. 2017. The Routledge companion to critical accounting.Routledge, London, United Kingdom.Ruckelshaus M, et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned fromusing ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions.Ecological Economics 115:11–21.Russell S, Milne M, Dey C. 2017. Accounts of nature andthe nature of accounts: critical reflections on environmen-tal accounting and propositions for ecologically informed ac-counting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30:1426–1458.Shiozawa Y. 1999. Economics and accounting: a comparison be-tween philosophical backgrounds of the two disciplines in view ofcomplexity theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal12:19–38.Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The needfor evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution19:305–308.Teel TL, et al. 2018. Publishing social science research in Conser-vation Biology to move beyond biology. Conservation Biology32:6–8.Tregidga H. 2013. Biodiversity offsetting: problematisation of an emerg-ing governance regime. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Jour-nal 26:806–832.UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme – World Con-servation Monitoring Centre). 2016. Exploring approaches for con-structing species accounts in the context of the SEEA-EEA. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Conservation BiologyVolume 0, No. 0, 2018

http://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/90962597/cobi.13254.pdf

Four priorities for new links between conservation science and accounting research.

Four priorities for new links between conservation science and accounting research.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

University of Dundee Online Publications

White Rose Research Online

St Andrews Research Repository

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

University of St. Andrews - Pure

ORA - Oxford University Research Archive

UCL Discovery