IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/aaajpp/v27y2014i3p527-562.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a reporting and evaluation framework for biodiversity

Author

Listed:
  • Grant Samkin
  • Annika Schneider
  • Dannielle Tappin

Abstract

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the development of a biodiversity reporting and evaluation framework. The application of the framework to an exemplar organisation identifies biodiversity-related annual report disclosures and analyses changes in the nature and levels of these over time. Finally, the paper aims to establish whether the disclosures made by the exemplar are consistent with a deep ecological perspective, as exemplified by New Zealand conservation legislation. Design/methodology/approach - – Viewing the framework developed by the paper through a deep ecological lens, the study involves a detailed content analysis of the biodiversity disclosures contained within the annual reports of a conservation organisation over a 23-year period. Using the framework developed in this paper, the biodiversity-related text units were identified and allocated to one of three major categories, 13 subcategories, and then into deep, intermediate and shallow ecology. Findings - – Biodiversity disclosures enable stakeholders to determine the goals, assess their implementation, and evaluate the performance of an organisation. Applying the framework to the exemplar revealed the majority of annual report disclosures focused on presenting performance/implementation information. The study also found that the majority of disclosures reflect a deep ecological approach. A deep/shallow ecological tension was apparent in a number of disclosures, especially those relating to the exploitation of the conservation estate. Originality/value - – This paper is the first to develop a framework that can be used as both a biodiversity reporting assessment tool and a reporting guide. The framework will be particularly useful for those studying reporting by conservation departments and stakeholders of organisations whose operations impact biodiversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant Samkin & Annika Schneider & Dannielle Tappin, 2014. "Developing a reporting and evaluation framework for biodiversity," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 27(3), pages 527-562, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:v:27:y:2014:i:3:p:527-562
    DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-10-2013-1496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2013-1496/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-10-2013-1496/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-10-2013-1496?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. Lähtinen, Katja & Guan, Yucong & Li, Ning & Toppinen, Anne, 2016. "Biodiversity and ecosystem services in supply chain management in the global forest industry," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 130-140.
    3. 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).

    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:v:27:y:2014:i:3:p:527-562. 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.