IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/aaajpp/aaaj-12-2015-2367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

UK local councils reporting of biodiversity values: a stakeholder perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Silvia Gaia
  • Michael John Jones

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of narratives in biodiversity reports as a mechanism to raise the awareness of biodiversity’s importance. By classifying biodiversity narratives into 14 categories of biodiversity values this paper investigates whether the explanations for biodiversity conservation used by UK local councils are line with shallow, intermediate or deep philosophies. Design/methodology/approach - This study used content analysis to examine the disclosures on biodiversity’s importance in the biodiversity action plans published by UK local councils. The narratives were first identified and then allocated into 14 categories of biodiversity value. Then, they were ascribed to either shallow (resource conservation, human welfare ecology and preservationism), intermediate (environmental stewardship and moral extensionism) or deep philosophies. Findings - UK local councils explained biodiversity’s importance mainly in terms of its instrumental value, in line with shallow philosophies such as human welfare ecology and resource conservation. UK local councils sought to raise awareness of biodiversity’ importance by highlighting values that are important for the stakeholders that are able to contribute towards biodiversity conservation such as landowners, residents, visitors, business and industries. The authors also found that local councils’ biodiversity strategies were strongly influenced by 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity. Originality/value - This paper is one of the few accounting studies that engages with the literature on environmental ethics to investigate biodiversity. In line with stakeholder theory, it indicates that explanations on biodiversity’s importance based on anthropocentric philosophies are considered more effective in informing those stakeholders whose behaviour needs to be changed to improve biodiversity conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Silvia Gaia & Michael John Jones, 2017. "UK local councils reporting of biodiversity values: a stakeholder perspective," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 30(7), pages 1614-1638, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:aaaj-12-2015-2367
    DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2367/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2367/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2367?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Talbot & Olivier Boiral, 2021. "Public organizations and biodiversity disclosure: Saving face to meet a legal obligation?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2571-2586, July.
    2. Lee Roberts & Monomita Nandy & Abeer Hassan & Suman Lodh & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2022. "Corporate Accountability Towards Species Extinction Protection: Insights from Ecologically Forward-Thinking Companies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 571-595, July.
    3. Madlen Sobkowiak, 2023. "The making of imperfect indicators for biodiversity: A case study of UK biodiversity performance measurement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 336-352, January.
    4. Torelli, Riccardo & Balluchi, Federica, 2020. "Business Legitimacy, Agricultural Biodiversity and Environmental Ethics: Insights from Sustainable Bakeries," OSF Preprints sxzjf, Center for Open Science.
    5. Lee Roberts & Abeer Hassan & Ahmed Elamer & Monomita Nandy, 2021. "Biodiversity and extinction accounting for sustainable development: A systematic literature review and future research directions," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 705-720, January.
    6. Samuel Jack Anthony & Angus Morrison‐Saunders, 2023. "Analysing corporate forest disclosure: How does business value biodiversity?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 624-638, January.
    7. Lee Roberts & Nikoletta Georgiou & Abeer Mohamed Hassan, 2023. "Investigating biodiversity and circular economy disclosure practices: Insights from global firms," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1053-1069, May.
    8. Abeer Hassan & Ahmed A. Elamer & Suman Lodh & Lee Roberts & Monomita Nandy, 2021. "The future of non‐financial businesses reporting: Learning from the Covid‐19 pandemic," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1231-1240, July.
    9. Haque, Faizul & Jones, Michael John, 2020. "European firms’ corporate biodiversity disclosures and board gender diversity from 2002 to 2016," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    10. Jan Bebbington & Tom Cuckston & C. Feger, 2021. "Biodiversity," Post-Print hal-03746729, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:aaaj-12-2015-2367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.