Nội dung

ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE ACCOUNTING FOR CHANGES IN BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE Preliminary guidelines towards a Biodiversity Accountability Framework Joël HOUDET Charlotte PAVAGEAU Michel TROMMETTER Jacques WEBER November 2009 Cahier n° 2009-44 DEPARTEMENT D'ECONOMIE Route de Saclay 91128 PALAISEAU CEDEX (33) 1 69333033 http://www.enseignement.polytechnique.fr/economie/ mailto:chantal.poujouly@polytechnique.edu ACCOUNTING FOR CHANGES IN BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE Preliminary guidelines towards a Biodiversity Accountability Framework Joël HOUDET1 Charlotte PAVAGEAU2 Michel TROMMETTER3 Jacques WEBER4 hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 Cahier n° 2009-44 Abstract: Biodiversity refers to the dynamics of interactions between organisms in changing environments. Within the context of accelerating biodiversity loss worldwide, firms are under increasing pressures from stakeholders to develop appropriate tools to account for the nature and consequences of their actions, inclusive of their influences on ecosystem services used by other agents. This paper presents a two-pronged approach towards accounting for changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services from a business perspective. First, we seek to analyze how Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) may be used by firms to identify and account for the interactions between their activities and biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES). To that end, we use dairy farming as a case study and propose general recommendations regarding accounting for changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services from a management accounting perspective. Secondly, after discussing the corporate reporting implications of the main environmental accounting approaches, we propose the underlying principles and structural components of a Biodiversity Accountability Framework (BAF) which would combine both financial and BES data sets; hence, suggesting the need for changes in business accounting and reporting standards. Because this would imply significant changes in business information systems and corporate rating practices, we also underline the importance of making the associated technological, organizational and institutional innovations financially viable. The BAF should be designed as an information base, coconstructed with stakeholders, for setting up and managing new modes of regulation combining tools for mitigating BES loss and remunerating BES supply. Keywords : Accounting, business, biodiversity, ecosystem services, indicators, management accounting, financial accounting, reporting, corporate social responsibility, standards, biodiversity accountability framework. JEL classification 1 M20, M40, Q20 CREED – AgroParisTech, Ecole doctorale ABIES – UMR 8079 ESE – Orée du Fg Poissonnière, 75010 Paris Corresponding author. Tel .:+33 (0) 1 48 24 31 39 e-mail address: houdet@oree.org 2 AgroParisTech – Engref, 19 rue du Maine, 75732 Paris cedex 15 3 INRA, UMR GAEL INRA – UPMF, BP 47 Grenoble cedex 9 – Department of Economics Ecole Polytechnique, Route de Saclay, 91128 Palaiseau cedex 4 CIRAD, Unité de recherche Ressources Forestières et politiques publiques, rue Scheffer, 75116 Paris hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 List of abbreviations: BAF: Biodiversity Accountability Framework BBII: Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator BES: biodiversity and ecosystem services CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility EMA: Environmental Management Accounting ES: ecosystem services EDS: ecosystem dis-services 2 1 - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 4 2 - ACCOUNTING FOR BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM A MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVE ....................................................................................................... 6 hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 2.1 Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) ......................................................................... 6 2.1.1 General principles.................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Typology of environmental costs and revenues...................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Standard typology of ‘Input – Output’ flows.......................................................................... 7 2.1.3 A limited understanding of ‘environmental’ performance or an underdeveloped tool? ........ 8 2.2 Using EMA to account for the interactions between firms and biodiversity: dairy farming as a case study ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.1 Defining biodiversity and ecosystem services: what interactions with businesses? .............. 8 2.2.2 Methodology and aims ......................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Accounting for material flows of biodiversity ...................................................................... 11 2.2.4 Accounting for ecosystem services and their benefits to business........................................ 17 2.2.5 Accounting for BES gain(s) and loss(es).............................................................................. 23 2.2.6 Accounting for interactions between firms and other agents with respect to changes in BES ....................................................................................................................................................... 27 3 – ACCOUNTING FOR BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR REPORTING PURPOSES .................................................................................................................................................. 30 3.1.1 Corporate Social Responsibility: emerging responsibilities with respect to BES................ 30 3.1.2 Methodology and aims ......................................................................................................... 32 3.1.3 Environmental reporting: from financial data differentiation to the inclusion of ecological externalities? ................................................................................................................................. 33 3.1.4 Towards a Biodiversity Accountability Framework: changing accounting and reporting standards to integrate both financial and BES data ..................................................................... 38 3.1.5 Making changes financially viable by reforming modes of regulation ................................ 46 4- CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 49 5- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 52 6- LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. 52 7- LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... 52 8- LIST OF BOXES ..................................................................................................................... 52 9- REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 52 3 hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 1 - INTRODUCTION During the past few decades, firms have been under increasing pressures from stakeholders to reduce their impacts on the environment. Ecological issues have become key strategic variables for them, notably in terms of disclosures (Cho and Patten, 2007; Cormier et al., 1993) now mandatory in many countries. Since decision VIII/17 was taken in Curitiba in March 2006 at COP 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the business community has been asked, through the launch of the ‘Business and Biodiversity’ initiative, to contribute actively to the objectives of the CBD. Supported by the European Commission, this initiative calls for the adoption of best practices to reduce the impacts of businesses on biodiversity and promote its conservation. Within the context of the associated environment – competitiveness debate, biodiversity is usually understood as a new, additional form of external environmental constraint on business activity (Houdet et al., 2009). It is linked essentially to regulatory frameworks overseeing where and how businesses can operate, chiefly through the appraisal of new industrial projects. Businesses make use of cost-benefit analyses so as to capture the marginal economic value of biodiversity (inclusive of ecosystem services) for trade-offs purposes: this allows them and their stakeholders to account for biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) loss or gain from an economic perspective. Yet, despite numerous efforts, BES may not easily be translated into a monetary proxy for market internalization2, hence some stakeholders arguing that the total economic value of biodiversity, though useful, is not sufficient for arbitrage (i.e. the value of ‘remarquable biodiversity’ cannot rigorously be approximated in monetary terms; Chevassus-au-Louis et al., 2009). Accordingly, conventional business strategy amounts essentially at identifying, assessing, monitoring and mitigating the impacts of business activities on (noticed) biodiversity, especially on its components protected by law or those important to legitimate stakeholders. For preexisting business activities on the one hand, this would involve at best a cost-effectiveness approach with respect to negotiated or mandatory ecological goals linked to changes in business practices. For new business projects on the other hand, mitigation mechanisms - hybrid tools involving both markets and state regulation, based on a ‘no net loss’ five-stage approach3, are actively being promoted worldwide, whilst various studies highlight the importance of ecological equivalencies between areas degraded and areas restored given the difficulties associated with the economic valuation of damages for trade-off purposes (e.g. Llewellyn 2008; Strange et al., 2002). Though impact mitigation mechanisms are necessary for the internalization of certain biodiversity externalities, they fall short of the goal of fully integrating biodiversity into business strategies and practices. Impact mitigation mechanisms restrict business perceptions of its interactions with living systems to the management of their negative impacts on BES (Houdet et al., 2009). Nonetheless, business attitudes, behaviors and strategies regarding biodiversity are progressively changing. Previous work on the Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator (BBII) has shown that firms’ perceptions of their interdependences with biodiversity are highly diverse, regarding to technologies, sales and the management of 2 Concerns are associated with the use of non-market valuation (e.g. contingent valuation) and benefit-transfer techniques, including their underlying assumptions, the reproduction of protocols and the comparative analysis of results across time and space (Bonnieux 1998; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Nelson et al., 2009; Weber 2002). 3 It involves (a) avoiding irreversible losses of biodiversity (prevention), (b) seeking alternative solutions to minimize losses, (c) using mitigation to restore biodiversity, (d) compensating for residual, unavoidable loss by providing substitutes of at least similar biodiversity value, and (e) seeking opportunities for enhancement (BBOP 2009; IAIA 2005). 4 hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 supply chains among many other issues (Houdet 2008). This suggests the emergence of business strategies and practices which could go beyond impact mitigation and the search of a compromise between development and conservation. Combining strategies for mitigating BES loss (Polluter Pays Principle) and remunerating BES supply (Beneficiary Pays Principle) opens the door to new forms of arbitrage with respect to land use and development (Aretino et al., 200; Iftikhar et al., 2007; Trommetter et al., 2008), as well as business management and production processes (Houdet et al., 2009). This approach may see BES maintenance or provision becoming an integral part of the business plan of the firm, as a core variable among others for decision-making and management and as a source of new assets, liabilities, skills, technological and organizational innovations (Houdet et al., 2009). Yet, a real awareness of the links between business and biodiversity is still of concern mainly to large corporations and multinationals, the firms most visible to the general public and those directly involved with living systems such as agribusiness (Houdet 2008; MA 2005). These are the corporations most likely to be subject to pressure from stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations, local communities and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) rating agencies. Currently available methodologies and tools which aim to go beyond impact mitigation either follow an approach based on the analysis of risks and opportunities with respect to ecosystem services (e.g. Ecosystem Services Review - Hanson et al., 2008, which is appropriate from an investor perspective), or one which seeks to assess firms’ perceptions of their interdependence with biodiversity (Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator; Houdet 2008). We posit that these are not sufficient to ensure rigorous understanding and assessment of the nature and dynamics of interactions between firm(s) and biodiversity. How may strategies combining mitigating BES loss and remunerating BES ‘supply’ be fully appropriated by all firms then? This paper hopes to contribute to the challenge of reconciling business with biodiversity. To that end, we posit that (a) tools are needed so as to account for business interactions with BES and that these need to be integrated into (b) (internal) management information systems so as to guide decision-making and (c) (external) reporting tools for institutional purposes (e.g. in reference to norms or statutory targets), notably stakeholders’ needs of a corporate responsibility framework inclusive of biodiversity and of ecosystem services used by others. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to propose guidelines so as to account for business interactions with living systems, towards an operational Biodiversity Accountability Framework (BAF). We first analyze how a management or cost accounting approach (section 2) may help firms account for biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES), from the perspective of the business manager who seeks to achieve organizational targets. Then, we discuss how accounting for BES from a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) perspective may influence business accounting and reporting standards (section 3). 5 2 - ACCOUNTING FOR BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM A MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVE In section 2, we seek to analyze how Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) may be used by firms to identify and account for the interactions between their activities and biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES). After synthesizing the conceptual foundations of EMA (2.1) and providing a general framework of interactions between business and biodiversity (2.2.1), we use dairy farming as a case study (2.2.2) and propose general recommendations regarding accounting for material flows of biodiversity (2.2.3), ecosystem services and benefits to business (2.2.4), biodiversity gains and losses caused by business activities (2.2.5) and interactions between firms and other agents with respect to changes in BES (2.2.6). hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 2.1 Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) 2.1.1 General principles Cost or management accounting constitutes the central tool for internal management decisions, such as product pricing, and is not regulated by law. This internal information system deals with questions typically pertaining to the production costs for different products and their selling prices. The main stakeholders in cost accounting are members of different management positions within a company (Jasch 2003). There is a growing consensus that conventional accounting practices do not provide adequate information for properly supporting decision-making in terms of environmental stakes. To fill in this gap, Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) has been receiving increasing attention (Jasch 2008; Gale 2006). EMA is broadly defined to be the identification, collection, analysis and use of two types of information for internal decision making (UNDSD 2001; Savage and Jasch, 2005), namely (a) monetary information on environment-related costs, earnings and savings and (b) physical information on the use, flows and destinies of energy, water and materials (including waste). EMA may be particularly valuable for internal management initiatives with a specific environmental focus, such as environmental management systems, product or service eco-design, cleaner production and supply chain management. 2.1.1 Typology of environmental costs and revenues Identifying and categorizing environmental costs and revenues can be done in various ways in order to guide action plans and decision-making. These may be associated with environmental media groups (e.g. air / climate, waste, noise and vibration; SEEA 2003), and can be ‘sourced’ from different cost and revenue (or earning) categories (de Beer and Friend, 2006; Jasch 2003; Jasch and Lavicka, 2006; UNSD 2001). While revenues comprise sales of by-products, subsidies, R&D investment grants, and sales of goods and services with an ‘environmental’ purpose (e.g. waste disposal and recycling), the US Environmental Protection Agency (1995; 1996) distinguishes internal costs from external ones: • On the one hand, internal environmental costs comprise (a) conventional costs such as raw materials and capital equipments; (b) potentially hidden costs which result from assigning environmental costs to overhead pools or overlooking future and contingent costs; (c) 6 contingent costs, which depend on uncertain future events; and (d) intangible costs, such as image and ‘relationship’ / public relations costs (e.g. annual environmental reports)4. • On the other hand, external environmental costs may include (a) environmental impacts or damages for which firms are not legally liable and (b) adverse impacts on human beings, their property and / or their welfare which cannot always be compensated through legal means (de Beer and Friend, 2006). These costs relate to environmental externalities because there is a legal vacuum (Huglo 2007) or no clearly established property rights, as the Coase Theorem (1960) states. Accounting for such costs is difficult (towards full-cost accounting; Bebbington et al., 2001; Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants 1997) and results are often contested (too arbitrary or partial, not rigorous); though some firms have attempted to do so (e.g. the environmental report of BSO/Origin includes essentially externalities linked to GHG; Huizing and Dekker, 1992). 2.1.2 Standard typology of ‘Input – Output’ flows hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 Table 1: general input-output chart of accounts (UNSD 2001)5 To assess costs fittingly, an organization must collect both monetary and nonmonetary data regarding materials use, labor hours and other cost drivers. Physical accounting information is hence critical to the understanding of many environment-related costs. EMA places a particular emphasis on materials and materials-driven costs because (1) use of energy, water and materials, as well as the generation of waste and emissions, are directly related to many of the impacts organizations have on their environment and (2) materials purchase costs are a major cost driver in many organizations (UNSD 2001). The ‘input side’ of material flow accounts (Table 1) typically includes raw materials, auxiliary materials, packaging, operating materials, merchandise, energy (gas, coal, biomass, etc.) and water. For the ‘output side’ of material flow accounts (Table 1), one usually finds products (core products and by-products) and non-product outputs (waste, waste water and air emissions), 4 Image and relationship costs are not intangible in themselves, but the direct benefits that result from such expenses often are: e.g. difficulty of assessing the satisfaction of clients or employees. 5 One could argue that recent European directives (e.g. REACH) could significantly enlarge the scope of inputoutput flows of an environmental nature that firms could monitor. 7 which may or may not be sold. On both cases, information is recorded in kilograms, litters or kilowatt hours, as appropriate. hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 2.1.3 A limited understanding of ‘environmental’ performance or an underdeveloped tool? Based on cost-efficient compliance with environmental regulation and self-imposed environmental policies, EMA is argued to support environmental protection by purposely targeting the simultaneous reduction of costs and environmental impacts (Savage and Jasch, 2005). To that end, EMA allows firms to develop and use environmental performance indicators (EPIs) which may be based solely on physical data sets or may combine monetary and physical data sets to create hybrid EPIs called eco-efficiency indicators6. In practice, the most tangible and important implications for firms implementing this tool are two-pronged: 1. Quantifying the monetary impact that external environmental pressures (taxes, norms, quotas, stakeholders’ demands) have on the business, by differentiating transactions of an ‘environmental’ nature from others (e.g. end-of-pipe / waste and emissions control costs, including handling, treatment and disposal, and control-related regulatory compliance costs). 2. Putting a ‘price’ on non-product output (waste) by highlighting the purchase costs of materials converted into waste and emissions. However, while a cost-control approach to environmental issues is legitimate from a business perspective, current EMA does neither fully quantify (a) business influence on BES, nor (b) BES influence on its activities and production processes. Given the difficulties of assessing most external costs (see aforementioned typology in sub-section 2.1.1), focus is on more efficient use of energy, water and materials in business processes. Costs and earnings pertaining to biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) are either recorded as impact mitigation expenses (e.g. remediation / compensation costs related to offsetting damages with no or limited information in terms of ecological efficiency) or merely ignored (no identified transactions); though some important drivers of ecosystem change are increasingly recorded by environmental management systems (e.g. GHG and toxic gas emissions recorded as physical outputs). How far may EMA - and its cost-control rationale - be expanded so as to account for the nature and consequences of interactions between business and BES? 2.2 Using EMA to account for the interactions between firms and biodiversity: dairy farming as a case study 2.2.1 Defining biodiversity and ecosystem services: what interactions with businesses? Biodiversity refers to the dynamics of interactions between organisms in environments subject to change. We speak of the fabric of the living world whose component parts are interdependent and co-evolving. Biodiversity constitutes the engine which drives the ecosystems of the biosphere and from which humans and firms derive ‘free’ ecosystem 6 The concept of eco-efficiency links monetary and physical EMA for decision making in a systematic manner. An eco-efficiency indicator relates ‘product or service value’ in terms of turnover or profit to ‘environmental influence’ in terms of energy, materials and water consumption, as well as waste and emission in terms of volumes (Verfaillie and Bidwell, 2000). 8 hal-00434450, version 1 - 23 Nov 2009 service benefits7. It refers specifically to (a) the genetic diversity and variability within each species8, (b) the diversity and variability of species and their forms of life and (c) the diversity, heterogeneity and variability of interactions between species and of the ecosystem structures, functions and processes directly or indirectly generated by living organisms. As explained by Alain Pavé (2007), “one of the fundamental characteristics of living systems is their capacity to organize themselves into increasingly complex nested structures: genomes, cells, organs, organisms, populations, communities and ecosystems”. Their connections and interactions can be presented as a hierarchy of living systems, with a qualitative shift as we move from biological systems to ecological ones, since components of ecological systems do not exhibit genetic coherence. While living systems are diversified, self-regulating and adaptive, randomness-generating mechanisms (e.g. genetic mixing, genomic sequence modifications, random gene expression during cell differentiation, finding a sexual partner and sexual reproduction for many species) are necessary for their survival and evolution. The scientific issues around biodiversity are also economic, social and political issues, each stakeholder having its own perceptions and agenda with respect to (some) BES aspects. For an environmental NGO, biodiversity may relate to priceless life-forms that need to be protected, especially those which are rare, endangered or ‘useful’ (e.g. charismatic species for hunting, fishing or eco-tourism). From a business perspective, BES may be (Houdet 2008): • A going concern issue (e.g. operational or image risks), • A source of raw materials, assets, technologies and products, • A source of revenues (e.g. sales of food products), • Linked to private production costs (e.g. farming production costs), and • Linked to social costs and business liabilities, both in terms of (possible) damages to BES and additional costs incurred by impacted human communities. In other words, the interactions between business and BES are complex and evolving, as are business perceptions of them (Houdet et al., 2009). Figure 1 shows a simplified, general framework of interactions between BES and businesses, from the perspective of the business community. It comprises three interacting interfaces: (Interface 1) The firm seeks to avoid biodiversity and ecosystem dis-services (e.g. weeds in farms – Zhang et al., 2007; pathogens for the meat-processing industry) and secure specific / tailored BES benefits (e.g. raw materials, water quantity and quality) by managing their source(s), delivery channel(s), and / or timing of delivery. To do so, there are various options available, including (a) securing property rights over uses of and / or access to BES (e.g. buying parts of a watershed to secure water supply and quality; Déprés et al., 2008), (b) entering into contractual agreements with other economic agents influencing BES benefiting it (e.g. payments for doing or not doing something such as paying farmers for specific agricultural practices; Déprés et al., 2008) and / or (c) purchasing imported ‘artificial’ alternatives (e.g. replacing ES linked to soil ‘quality’ by fertilizers bought from agribusiness). These strategic and investment choices may generate BES externalities. For instance, option (c) often leads to biodiversity loss (link with interface 3). (Interface 2) What is the business responsibility towards BES? Changing business perceptions, strategies, policies, routines, production processes, skills, extra- and intraorganizational norms, development and investment choices, as well as associated institutional 7 Various definitions and typologies of ecosystem services have been proposed and no compromise has yet been reached (Fisher et al., 2009; MA 2005; Ruhl et al., 2007). 8 Though humans, in all our cultural, linguistic and organizational diversity, belong to biodiversity (UNESCO 2008), we decide to exclude them from the scope of this article. 9