IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v29y2005i1p49-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organic salmon farming: risk perceptions, decision heuristics and the absence of environmental accounting

Author

Listed:
  • Georgios Georgakopoulos
  • Ian Thomson

Abstract

This paper reports on interviews with salmon farmers exploring their decision as to whether to adopt organic production methods. Organic salmon farming has the potential to considerably reduce the social, environmental and economic risks associated with salmon farming. Salmon farming is an industry subjected to intense scrutiny and is highly controversial. The combination of these two factors was expected to reveal the use of environmental accounting in evaluating this potentially difficult, expensive strategic decision, responding to the barrage of public criticism, driven by changing environmental regulations and a potential value shift by key actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgios Georgakopoulos & Ian Thomson, 2005. "Organic salmon farming: risk perceptions, decision heuristics and the absence of environmental accounting," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 49-75, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:29:y:2005:i:1:p:49-75
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2004.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.12.002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.12.002?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. Bishu, Kinfe & O'Reilly, Seamus & Lahiff, Edward & Steiner, Bodo, 2016. "Cattle farmers’ perceptions of risk and risk management strategies," MPRA Paper 74954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Saravanamuthu, Kala & Lehman, Cheryl, 2013. "Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 410-437.
    3. Thomson, Ian & Grubnic, Suzana & Georgakopoulos, Georgios, 2014. "Exploring accounting-sustainability hybridisation in the UK public sector," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 453-476.
    4. Ole Jakob Bergfjord, 2009. "Risk perception and risk management in Norwegian aquaculture," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 91-104, January.
    5. Carmela Gulluscio & Pina Puntillo & Valerio Luciani & Donald Huisingh, 2020. "Climate Change Accounting and Reporting: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-31, July.
    6. Favotto, Alvise & McKernan, John Francis & Zou, Yanru, 2022. "Speculative accountability for animal kinship," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    7. Bui Bich Xuan & Erlend Dancke Sandorf, 2020. "Potential for Sustainable Aquaculture: Insights from Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(2), pages 401-421, October.
    8. Jill F. Solomon & Aris Solomon & Simon D. Norton & Nathan L. Joseph, 2011. "Private climate change reporting: an emerging discourse of risk and opportunity?," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(8), pages 1119-1148, October.
    9. Jeffrey Unerman & Brendan O'Dwyer, 2006. "Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 19(3), pages 349-376, April.
    10. Tae Hee Kim & Sun Hye Lee & Petros Vourvachis, 2023. "Accounting Standard-Setting for an Emission Trading Scheme: The Korean Case," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(4), pages 1003-1024, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:accfor:v:29:y:2005:i:1:p:49-75. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    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.