Description
As the social and environmental impacts of human activity have become more evident, the
role of sustainable development as an organising principle in a variety of policy contexts and
over multiple scales has become central. There are, at least, two implications that emerge
from this observation. First, morally infused problems that need to be addressed have
become more intractable, requiring innovation in our modes of thinking. Second, new spaces
have emerged where the academy might explore how knowledge is created, validated and
translated (or not) alongside policy and practice settings. One outcome of these trends has
been the emergence of a stream of work (sustainability science) which investigates how disciplines
might develop knowledge that progresses sustainable development. The aim of this
paper, in line with the focus of the special issue, is to explore what possibilities emerge for
accounting in light of a sustainability science approach. To achieve this end the paper starts
with an exploration of the frustrations expressed in the literature over the perceived lack of
progress made by social and environmental accounting towards addressing sustainable
development. The paper then introduces sustainability science with the aim of imagining
how an accounting for sustainable development might emerge
Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration
Jan Bebbington
a,?
, Carlos Larrinaga
b
a
School of Management, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, The Gateway, North Haugh, Scotland KY15 9SS, United Kingdom
b
Departamento de Economía y Administración de Empresas, Universidad de Burgos, Plaza Infanta Elena, s/n, 09001 Burgos, Spain
a b s t r a c t
As the social and environmental impacts of human activity have become more evident, the
role of sustainable development as an organising principle in a variety of policy contexts and
over multiple scales has become central. There are, at least, two implications that emerge
from this observation. First, morally infused problems that need to be addressed have
become more intractable, requiring innovation inour modes of thinking. Second, newspaces
have emerged where the academy might explore how knowledge is created, validated and
translated (or not) alongside policy and practice settings. One outcome of these trends has
been the emergence of a streamof work (sustainability science) which investigates howdis-
ciplines might develop knowledge that progresses sustainable development. The aimof this
paper, in line with the focus of the special issue, is to explore what possibilities emerge for
accounting in light of a sustainability science approach. To achieve this end the paper starts
with an exploration of the frustrations expressed in the literature over the perceived lack of
progress made by social and environmental accounting towards addressing sustainable
development. The paper then introduces sustainability science with the aim of imagining
how an accounting for sustainable development might emerge. The paper closes with two
illustrations of how a sustainability science approach to accounting could develop.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Since the 1970s, and most in?uentially within the pages
of Accounting, Organizations and Society, our understanding
of accounting has been enriched by drawing on new intel-
lectual agendas and approaches. This paper seeks to
contribute in a small way to this history by exploring pos-
sible links between the sustainable development literature
and accounting. The accounting literature
1
has not been
silent on the issue of sustainable development and during
the last decade (Gray, 2002) started to describe itself as
‘accounting for sustainable development’ to cope with an
interest, both in theory and praxis, in organizational
accounts that encompass global social and environmental
issues, beyond the previous concern with local stakeholders
and the immediate organisational context (Gray, 2010;
Hopwood, Unerman, & Fries, 2010; Schaltegger, Bennett, &
Burritt, 2006; Unerman, Bebbington, & O’Dwyer, 2007). At-
tempts to develop accounting practice in this area, however,
has turned out not to be straightforward.
In particular, scholars note that it is dif?cult to de?ne
what sustainable development might mean in an organiza-
tional context (Gray&Milne, 2004) alongwitha lackof cred-
ible sustainable development accounts in practice. Two
speci?c concerns focus our attention here. First, reviews of
external reporting (sometimes described as sustainable
development reporting) have found that this form of
reporting has little to do with sustainable developmenthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.01.003
0361-3682/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
?
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01334 46 23 48.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Bebbington).
1
The terminology used in the paper warrants a mention. When we use
the phrase accounting we will be referring to the entire discipline of
accounting. Social and environmental accounting refers to a sub-set of this
discipline that focused more closely on the social and environmental
impacts of organisational activities. In line with others (notably Thomson,
2007 and Buhr, 2007) we will argue that accounting for sustainable
development is likely to be distinctive compared to social and environ-
mental accounting and accounting itself, while having a connection to both
those arenas of scholarship.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accounting, Organizations and Society
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ aos
(Gray, 2010). This has led some to suggest that these ac-
counts should be conceived of as narratives decoupled from
underlying organizational realities, intended (at best) to
construct a plurality of discourses about sustainable devel-
opment andamongwhichit is impossible toadjudicate. This
perspective is re?ected in studies that examine the con-
struction of corporate discourses about sustainable devel-
opment (see, for example, Bebbington, Larrinaga, &
Moneva, 2008; Buhr & Reiter, 2006; Ferguson, 2007; Laine,
2009; Llewellyn & Milne, 2007; Spence, 2007). The merit
of the narrative turn in this stream of research is that it
has provided a healthy scepticism about claims found in
these accounts that organizations operate in accordance
with the demands of sustainable development.
Our second focus is on how accounting has sought to
engage with sustainable development principles through
full cost accounting (Antheaume, 2004; Atkinson, 2000;
Bebbington, 2007; Bebbington, Brown, & Frame, 2007;
Bebbington & Gray, 2001; Bebbington, Gray, Hibbit, & Kirk,
2001; Bent, 2006; Frame & Cavanagh, 2009; Fraser, 2012;
Herbohn, 2005; Xing, Horner, El-Haram, & Bebbington,
2009). Of the various accounting techniques that have
attempted to better expose social, environmental and
economic externalities (at the root of unsustainable devel-
opment), full cost accounting was seen as the most prom-
ising as it moves beyond the entity to identify externalities.
However, despite some experimentation in this area, how
one might create a defendable account of (un)sustainabil-
ity
2
remains elusive.
These two sets of observations have created something
of a conundrum. We seem unable to observe in practice, or
realise in academic experimentation, robust accounts of
organisational (un)sustainability. At the same time, the
challenges that face human society in social, environmen-
tal and economic terms (and issues emerging from the
interplay of these factors) remain non-trivial. In addition,
sustainable development remains the overarching concept
under which an array of research and praxis takes place
and as such remains central to an articulation of these var-
ious challenges. Drawing these points together, this paper
is motivated by a desire to keep open the possibility that
the discipline of accounting might, under certain condi-
tions, allow organisations to address sustainable develop-
ment challenges. In order to achieve this, however, we
suggest that the intellectual roots of any accounting for
sustainable development might have to be (re)envisaged.
In particular, it is our contention that attempts to ac-
count for sustainable development have drawn too closely
on accounting and too little on sustainable development
thinking. Indeed, Gray (2010, p. 47) suggests the same,
stating that the ‘‘baggage associated with conventional
accounting is no longer apposite when seeking to account
for sustainability’’. We agree with this and would suggest
that accounting for sustainable development, as a distinc-
tive research area, is yet to fully emerge and that its reali-
sation requires a re-connection with wider discussions
about sustainable development (in a variety of disciplines)
to identify research questions that are of broader relevance
and research approaches that might be valuable. To
achieve this aim, this paper draws on the area of sustain-
ability science to develop propositions for accounting.
The paper is structured as follows. Section two re?ects
on the disappointment expressed in social and environ-
mental accounting concerning its attempt to address sus-
tainable development. We argue that environmental
accounting in the nineties connected with broader envi-
ronmental debates and generated a new approach in the
accounting literature which has subsequently been lost
with the literature now focusing on accounting and man-
agement research questions. Recovering this connection
to social and ecological concerns might, therefore, be valu-
able for accounting for sustainable development.
Section three refocuses attention on the links between
sustainable development and accounting for two reasons.
First, much of the accounting literature reproduces the
Brundtland Report de?nition but does not explore more
contemporary sustainable development work. There are
some underlying elements of sustainable development
that, if not recognized, might lead to accounting scholar-
ship being decoupled from sustainable development con-
cerns. Second, we argue that social and/or environmental
accounting must be distinguished from accounting for sus-
tainable development and this is attempted at the close of
this section.
In section four the focus moves to an extended intro-
duction to sustainability science (drawing on material that
has been published over the last ?fteen). We have framed
our discussion in two ways: ?rst, by describing the motifs
of this area and, second, by addressing the issue of how to
judge the merits of work in this area.
Section ?ve brings the analysis undertaken to date to-
gether and seeks a consilience between accounting and
sustainability science by way of two case studies. The ?rst
takes an existing area of accounting (that of full cost
accounting) and explores how a sustainability science ap-
proach might in?uence the practice and evaluation of this
work. The second case examines what we might learn if we
start from a sustainable development perspective and
identify a problem area where accounting might play an
important role, but on which it has remained mostly silent,
despite its importance. This example relates to sustainable
consumption and production (an overarching theme of the
United Nations’ sustainable development agenda) where
institutions have developed around the creation of certi?-
cation processes (often re?ected in certi?cation labels).
Certi?cation seeks to identify more socially, environmen-
tally and economically sound production processes and
through this to shape consumption choices. We will argue
that there is a role for the accounting academy to contrib-
ute to an evaluation of the possibilities for and outcomes
from certi?cation. Both cases are used to demonstrate
2
As re?ected in the call for papers, discussions of the pursuit of
sustainable development sometimes note that what we are in fact doing is
seeking to move away from being unsustainable due to the problems with
de?ning a singular point of sustainable development. Likewise, sustainable
development, sustainability and organisational sustainability are terms
that are often used without clear articulation of the differences between
them. For the purposes of this paper we use the phrase sustainable
development for the overarching concept; sustainability as the end point of
achieving sustainable development; and organisational sustainability to
indicate actions that organisations might undertake in accordance with the
principles of sustainable development.
396 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
how a sustainable science inspired accounting investiga-
tion might develop.
To close, section six provides some concluding com-
ments. Taken together, we hope that this paper might cause
scholars to think differently about accounting investiga-
tions that are linked to sustainable development ideals as
well as have more practical hope (Orr, 2002) of addressing
sustainable development via the discipline of accounting
(in concert with other disciplines). Before we reach that
point, however, anexaminationof social andenvironmental
accounting (as the place where sustainable development is-
sues have most frequently been considered) is undertaken.z
Social and environmental accounting
3
Many putative accounts for sustainable development
(however incompletely they have been realized) emerged
from environmental accounting, which itself was an exten-
sion of work in social accounting (see Gray & Laughlin,
2012). Before the eighties environmental accounting was
not articulated as a distinct research subject. During this
decade, however, there was pressure for companies to dis-
close environmental liabilities (often emerging from litiga-
tion) and this led to studies that tried to explain
environmental disclosures in terms of corporate character-
istics (see, for example, Trotman & Bradley, 1981). The fo-
cus of these studies was the disclosure of environmental
issues that were essentially local in nature and which
could have a material impact on corporate accounts. By
the end of the 1980s, however, various developments, per-
haps most in?uentially the publication of the Brundtland
Report (UNWCED, 1987), created the impetus for an identi-
?able area of research in this area: environmental account-
ing. The Brundtland Report re?ected a concern about the
scale of human impact on the global environment as well
as the possibilities for equality in human ?ourishing and
used the concept of sustainable development to describe
the outcome sought (socially just and ecologically sound
development). The Brundtland Report motivated the UK
Department of the Environment to commission economist
David Pearce to write a report on environmental econom-
ics ultimately giving rise to the in?uential Blueprint for a
Green Economy (Pearce, Markandya, & Barbier, 1989). In
turn, the Chartered Association of Certi?ed Accountants
commissioned Rob Gray to describe how accounting might
contribute in the wake of Pearce et al. (1989). This resulted
in the publication of The Greening of Accountancy. The Pro-
fession After Pearce (Gray, 1990). This report, alongside spe-
cial issues of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
and Accounting, Organizations and Society in 1991 and in
1992 (volume 4, issue 3 and volume 17, issue 5, respec-
tively) created arguably the base from which environmen-
tal accounting emerged as a distinctive sphere of inquiry.
Environmental accounting in the early nineties was
strongly inspired by ideas imported from both the science
and the economics of sustainable development, creating a
fertile ground for experimentation and for the emergence
of a new literature (Gray & Laughlin, 2012). This new liter-
ature was concerned, for example, with the interplay be-
tween accounting and environmental valuation (Hines,
1991; Milne, 1991; Power, 1992; Rubenstein, 1992). As
environmental accounting became institutionalized within
accounting departments its focus reoriented to core
accounting concerns including management accounting,
?nancial auditing, ?nancial accounting, and annual report
analysis as well as emerging practices of environmental
audit and stand-alone reporting (see Thomson, 2007 for
an overview). Once this occurred, this earlier interdisci-
plinary focus was largely lost. Some social and methodo-
logical reasons could explain this focus.
The dominance of corporate reporting orientated re-
search has resulted from a tendency of scholars to take
on board the pre-occupations of accounting itself (that is
explaining managerial behavior as well as examining
?nancial and non-?nancial indicators) and to use the theo-
ries and methods that are readily available and encouraged
by academic departments and journals in this area. As Gray
and Laughlin put it, ‘‘[m]uch of this research has been rou-
tine descriptions of disclosure practices and/or attempts to
link disclosure to theoretical explanations’’ (2012, p. 238).
This research has been dominated by explanations draw-
ing from voluntary disclosure (Healy & Palepu, 2001), re-
source dependence (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975) and
legitimacy theory (Deegan, 2002; Patten, 1992). A focus
on narratives has been pivotal in constructing what could
be labeled as a ‘‘sociology of preparers’’ (see Christenson,
1983).
4
This focus also creates methodological preferences.
In particular, with a sociology of preparers perspective
the object of research is de?ned as being a narrative
(Czarniawska, 2004) about environmental (and to a lesser
extent social) sustainable development found in corporate
reports. The reports themselves are decoupled ‘‘from the fac-
tual organizational actions’’ (Laine, 2009, p. 1047) which
from a sustainable development perspective are unsustain-
able. Further, the dif?culty of translating sustainable devel-
opment to an organizational level (Gray, 2010; Gray & Milne,
2004) is left unaddressed along with an assessment of the
unsustainability of organisations in and of themselves.
Understanding organisations in a sustainable development
context is hence not developed within this literature/framing.
These preoccupations are comprehendible if one takes
accounting and its modes and rationales as given. We
would argue, therefore, that a similar process to that which
initiated environmental accounting has to happen so that
accounting of sustainable development can emerge. Specif-
ically, we argue in section three (and seek to demonstrate
by example in section four) that accounting for sustainable
development implies a research approach that is distinc-
tively different from that of accounting, environmental
3
Debates around the ef?cacy of social and environmental accounting are
lively and ongoing – see, for example, most recently the thematic issue of
Critical Perspectives on Accounting journal in 2013 (Vol. 24, No. 6).
4
Taken together this literature has uncovered a lack of correspondence
between reporting and any conception of social and environmental ‘reality’
(Hopwood, 2009) and an overarching bias toward the disclosure of good
news. Further, research suggests that accounting and reporting discourses
are intended to align public perception with institutional demands (Buhr,
1998; Buhr & Reiter, 2006; Laine, 2009) derived from the interests of the
most powerful stakeholders (Neu, Warsame, & Pedwell, 1998), notably the
providers of ?nancial resources (Bebbington et al., 2008).
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 397
accounting and social accounting and which might address
the problems noted above.
Indeed, there are hints of similar suggestions in the envi-
ronmental accounting literature itself (Owen, 2008; Parker,
2005, 2011) with scholars suggesting that colleagues in
mainstream accounting and other ?elds could be making
contributions to environmental accounting by avoiding a
purely narrative focus. One example is provided by critical
sociologists who focus on detailed accounting issues in the
area of carbon accounting and who argue accounts are both
contestable and provisional (which is different than saying
that it is impossible to adjudicate between them). Indeed,
sociologists have focused on the more modest (from an
accounting perspective) role of carbon accounting in the
everyday operation and institutionalization of carbon mar-
kets. In this arena accounting technologies have been
‘black-boxed’, thereby allowing the carbon market to oper-
ate (Callon, 2009; Lohmann, 2009; MacKenzie, 2009). In
contrast with, for example, Gray (2010), critical sociologists
thus foresee a potential in environmental accounting when
they argue that we need to understand in detail accounting
and other technologies if we wish to in?uence the basis for
praxis and policy making. As MacKenzie (2009, p. 453) puts
it ‘‘making carbon markets more effective is crucial, and the
esoteric nature of their subpolitics means that researchers
have a particularly salient role to play in bringing to light
matters of apparent detail [by which he means the account-
ing] that in fact play critical roles in this respect.’’
In summary, we have argued in this section that a sim-
ilar process to that which initiated environmental account-
ing might be needed for an accounting for sustainable
development to emerge. In order to create this possibility
we believe that we need to renew our understanding of
sustainable development so that the focus on accounting
problems might be replaced with a more contextual appre-
ciation of the issues at stake. Likewise, we will argue that
accounting for sustainable development requires a particu-
lar research approach that allows this broader context to
emerge. Taken together we hope that this material might
point towards research investigations that will respond
to the frustrations expressed in environmental accounting
about the achievements of that ?eld in the context of sus-
tainable development.
Accounting and sustainable development
This section seeks to point towards what accounting for
sustainable development might entail by way of a two
stage investigation. First, a description of the issues that fall
under the ambit of sustainable development is attempted.
Second, a translation of these concerns into an accounting
context is undertaken drawing from and building on sec-
tion two. The aim of this approach is to distinguish social
and/or environmental accounting more clearly from any
putative accounting for sustainable development.
De?ning sustainable development
Sustainable development is most frequently character-
ised as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs’’ (UNWCED, 1987, p. 8). While this
de?nition is familiar to many, its radical nature can only be
appreciated in the context of the time it was ?rst promul-
gated. For example, Cohen, Demeritt, Robinson, and
Rothman (1998, p. 351, emphasis added) note that in
‘‘adopting the term ‘sustainable development’, the
[Brundtland] Commission argued that problems of
human development (poverty, inequity, basic human
needs) could not be separated from, indeed were caus-
ally connected with environmental problems of resource
depletion, biodiversity, pollution and life support sys-
tems . . . [and that] the explicit linkage of the population
and development ‘problem’ in developing countries
with the ‘consumption’ problem in industrialized coun-
tries meant that SD was inherently a global concept.’’
As a consequence, they argue that sustainable develop-
ment ‘‘is not a scienti?c concept but a contested term in an
essentially political discourse about human activities and
behaviour’’ (Cohen et al., 1998, p. 52). At the same time,
however, elements of environmental evaluation, for exam-
ple, can be scienti?cally based (see, for example,
Rockstrom et al., 2009). This reasoning raises both ontolog-
ical and epistemological questions.
From an ontological perspective, it is argued that a dis-
tinction in conceptualization exists between natural and
social systems. Although there is uncertainty about the
natural system aspects of sustainable development, this
uncertainty is of a different kind than that which exists
when it comes to examining social systems aspect of sus-
tainable development (see also Frame & O’Connor, 2011).
For example, the politics involved in the de?nition of
notions of opportunity costs or hypothetical baselines
(Lohmann, 2009) make carbon accounting the subject of
deep controversy. Carbon emissions and the science of cli-
mate change, however, resist a purely narrative approach
that would reduce them solely to social constructions that
can be deconstructed (Dunlap, 2010; Herbohn, 2005; Redc-
lift, 1999) with the purpose of underplaying climate
change and the processes by which physical measurement
is sought. At its most extreme, the physical phenomena
could be dismissed as being ‘unreal’ by virtue of a focus
on the narratives that surround it. As Latour (2004, p.
231) put it, referring to the science of climate change:
‘‘[m]y argument is that a certain form of critical spirit
has sent us down the wrong path, encouraging us to
?ght the wrong enemies and, worst of all, to be consid-
ered as friends by the wrong sort of allies. . . The ques-
tion was never to get away from facts but closer to
them, not ?ghting empiricism but, on the contrary,
renewing empiricism.’’
5
5
Relatedly, Gray (2010, pp. 52–55) suggests that one might place
accounting for sustainable development beyond modernity (and in so
doing, draws on post-modernity references). This is in contrast to the
premise of sustainability science which emerged (at least in part) as a
reaction to postmodernity (see also Dunlap, 2010 and Redclift, 1999). As
will become apparent later in the paper, sustainability science retains its
attachment to modern ways of thinking (albeit that these are reconcep-
tualised). For example, Fadeeva and Mochizuki (2010) allude to the idea of
re?exive modernity (drawing from Beck) and liquid modernity (drawing
from Baumann) in their exploration of sustainability science.
398 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
In conclusion, although it has to be recognized that
environmental problems have an (uncertain) physical sub-
stance, accounting for sustainable development needs to
be based on a distinction between the incomplete knowl-
edge of phenomena in the natural system (Brugnach, De-
wulf, Pahl-Wostl, & Taillieu, 2008; Walker et al., 2003)
and the inherent contestability and multiple framings of
the ‘social’, as an object of knowledge.
This ontological position gives rise to epistemological
implications. For example, it is noted that the introduction
of the concept of sustainable development pointed to-
wards a desire for ‘‘a more integrated approach in tackling
deeply intertwined global environmental problems and
development issues’’ (Goeminne, 2011, p. 627). Implicit
within such an integrated approach is a re-examination
of how knowledge is produced, including the relative level
of interaction between disciplines and the movement
through multi, inter and trans-disciplinarily approaches.
6
The point that may have been lost with the passage of time
(and with the frequent repetition of the bare bones of the
Brundtland Report de?nition with little or no subsequent dis-
cussion) is that sustainable development requires not only a
new approach on the ground, but new ways of re?ecting
upon and shaping practices. In particular, investigations that
focus on an issue of concern (rather than a discipline framed
starting point for problem identi?cation) might more readily
allow subjective and objective dimensions of issues to be
appreciated together rather than either perspective being
assumed to provide unique access to truth. In addition, a
plurality of perspectives (including those who are affected
by the problem) can be brought together in such an inquiry.
Indeed, the issues of concern that are widely accepted to fall
within the ambit of sustainable development (Clark &
Dickson, 2003, p. 8059) are sometimes called the
‘‘WEHAB. . . targets of water, energy, health, agriculture and
biodiversity’’. What is relevant to note is that these areas
do not neatly map onto disciplinary ?elds. Rather, they are
arenas which can only be understood through multiple
lenses: in short they require, at least, inter-disciplinary
approaches for their investigation.
While the WEHAB targets emerged from a policy con-
text, collectives of in?uential scientists (see Rockstrom
et al., 2009) also focus on the threat to human wellbeing
presented by climate change (see Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, 2007, 2013; Stern, 2006) along with
concerns about the integrity of ecosystems through
modi?cation of the nitrogen cycle or through declining
biodiversity
7
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment., 2005;
United Nations Environment Programme, 2007, 2012). These
concerns about human modi?cation of the planet’s life sup-
port systems focus, in the main, on the threats to human
wellbeing that arise from these trends through the loss of
ecosystem services,
8
albeit that all species will be affected
by global environmental climate change (for a signi?cant
publication on the implications of these trends see The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2010). Indeed,
it is widely believed that we are now living in the anthropo-
cene, which is described as an era in which ‘‘human actions
have become the main driver of global environmental
change’’ (Rockstrom et al., 2009, p. 472)
While ecological concerns focus on future threats to hu-
man ?ourishing, there are also contemporary challenges to
wellbeing. Development, however conceptualised (see Sen,
1999, for an in?uential conceptualisation of development
as freedom) around the globe is highly unequal with some
experiencing grinding poverty while others are starting to
experience the ‘diseases of af?uence’ (for example, obesity,
heart disease and psychological ill health). Concern about
unequal development manifests itself in global equity de-
bates (as expressed in the Millennium Development Goals,
seehttp://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ along with an-
nual updates published by the United Nation’s Department
of Economic and Social Affairs) but equity within countries
remains a major policy concern and drives, to greater
or lesser extent, all national government policy agendas
(Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Indeed, the nature and drivers
of wellbeing of human populations has re-emerged as an
area of active debate and experimentation in many coun-
tries (see Jackson, 2009; Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009;
Victor, 2008), drawing on earlier work in this area (Ayres,
1998; Daly, 1996).
It is, therefore, possible to point to an array of issues
that sustainable development concerns itself with, without
coming to a formal de?nition that would encompass all
possible activities that might arise within its ambit (see
also Quental, Lourenço, & da Silva, 2011 for a synthesis of
characteristics and scienti?c roots of sustainable develop-
ment). Of course, this characterisation (as opposed to a def-
inition of sustainable development) poses problems if the
usual mode of inquiry in a discipline is to draw from con-
cepts and spheres of inquiry are relatively settled. Müller
(2003, p. 24) explored just this point and notes that that
‘‘pronounced transdisciplinarity of mode-2 science does
not support the development of any formalism
9
. . . [and fur-
ther notes that a] lack of formalism and generally accepted
de?nitions and ideas’’ makes such inquiries appear unusual
from the point of view of more formalised ?elds. By way of
clari?cation, Gibbons et al. (1994) distinguish mode-1 and 6
Max-Neef (2005, pp. 6–7), characterizes these distinctions as being on a
continuum from single discipline work (which he calls ‘‘specialization in
isolation’’) to trans-disciplinary. In brief, he sees multi discipline work as
arising where disciplines examine a common area without creating co-
operative practices or understandings. In contrast, inter discipline work
involves some level of co-learning or co-ordination of efforts between
disciplines. For him trans-disciplinary activity emerges where disciplines
fully integrate their concerns with each other and share and/or develop
values and concepts in common. Others characterise trans-disciplinary
work as necessarily involving practice and practitioners in its knowledge
production processes.
7
Indeed, there are suggestions that humankind is witnessing (and
indeed driving) the seventh mass extinction that the planet has experi-
enced (Carpenter & Bishop, 2009).
8
The previously mentioned Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
describes how human wellbeing relies on services drawn from the natural
environment. These services are frequently classi?ed in terms of supporting
services (such as photosynthesis, and nutrient and water cycling that allow
ecosystems to function); provisioning services (that is, materials such as
food, ?bre, fresh water and genetic resources); regulating services (most
notably the climate system); and cultural services (encompassing the non-
material bene?ts from ecosystems including enjoyment, psychic and
aesthetic bene?ts from being in nature).
9
Müller (2003, p. 24) notes that by ‘formalism’ he does ‘‘not mean a
mathematical formulation of a theory but merely some rather robust and
widely accepted framework to rely on in discussions.’’
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 399
mode-2 science in the following way. Mode-1 is used to de-
scribe a pattern of work that is motivated by academic con-
cerns as presented by the academy (this it characterised as
the usual mode of academic operation). In contrast, Mode-
2 science takes a problem centred focus, shaped by concerns
of practice and is likely to involve teams of researchers from
different disciplines.
The lack of formalised de?nition of sustainable develop-
ment also leads to accusations that the concept lacks
meaning (from a mode-1 point of view). Cohen et al.
(1998, p. 354) reject the suggestion that ‘‘the concept
of. . . [sustainable development] is empty.
10
Indeed, it can
be argued that it represents a potential breakthrough in
thinking about the linkage between environmental and so-
cial issues. It allows, even requires, a recognition of the glob-
ally interconnected nature of environment and development
questions.’’ As a result, the broad nature of the Brundtland
Report de?nition of sustainable development has allowed a
wide coalition to unite under its rhetoric while the implica-
tions that arise from its application in particular situations
remain contested. Further, given the complex and interlock-
ing nature of the issues identi?ed above, discipline speci?c
framing of research is unlikely to be suf?cient to fully
describe or remedy particular sustainable development
problems. For example, a characterisation of rural poverty
as arising from a lack of income would point towards an eco-
nomic based solution (that of increasing income). This fram-
ing and remedy, however, would not necessarily bring to
light issues of land tenure (a legal issue); agricultural prac-
tices (from technological studies) or gender inequity that
might reinforce poverty. While many disciplines have much
to bring the study (in this case of rural poverty) they each
only shed light on some aspects of the issue.
Two modes of inquiry have emerged in light of this:
discipline speci?c insights to sustainable development
problems as well as studies that seek to use a problem area
as the focus around which disciplines are assembled (the
sustainability science approach). Before moving to con-
sider this second approach, however, it is instructive to
consider in more detail how the discipline of accounting
has sought to engage with issues emerging from the
sustainable development agenda.
Accounting and sustainable development
There are no clear demarcations consistently drawn in
the literature between social and environmental account-
ing and accounting for sustainable development.
11
It is,
however, crucial for the line of argument proposed in this
paper to distinguish these two (undoubtedly linked) areas.
There is, however, no existing literature that seeks to devel-
op this distinction. As a result, we have used the faming
found in a book that seeks to explore accounting and
accountability issues that emerge in the context of sustain-
able development as a way to start our line of thinking.
12
Speci?cally, Unerman et al. (2007) gathered together in-
sights from colleagues who were likely to have a conception
of possibilities for accounting for sustainable development.
While many authors (due to their chapter scopes) did not di-
rectly address the difference between social and environ-
mental accounting and accounting for sustainable
development (and indeed often used these terms inter-
changeably), those that did fell into two categories. First,
some noted that they considered activities that constitute
social and environmental accounting could be seen to point
towards a possible accounting for sustainable development
while being unsure if the latter actually existed at the time
they wrote their contribution. For example, Buhr (2007)
noted that she was ‘‘not convinced that such a thing as sus-
tainability reporting exists [and that she was therefore pro-
viding]. . . a chapter on the histories and rationales for
something that is yet to be and, quite possibly may never
be’’ (p. 57). The second set of responses (notably those draw-
ing from Gray & Milne, 2004) asserted that there are step
changes at the level of scale of analysis and the standard
of attainment that is sought as one moves from social and
environmental accounting to accounting for sustainable
development. Indeed, the idea of a ‘step change’ lead to
Thomson (2007) asking if ‘‘it is now time to enter into a
meaningful discourse on whether sustainability accounting
is a coherent cognate ?eld of study in its own right’’ (p.
34). He also suggests that as presently constructed there is
a danger that accounting for sustainable development could
become ‘‘simply an interesting empirical site for accounting
and ?nance researchers to focus their empirical and theoret-
ical microscopes on’’ (Thomson, 2007, p. 34).
Taking these observations on board, two dimensions are
explored below in an attempt to more clearly delineate
social and environmental accounting from accounting for
sustainable development, namely: who ‘counts’ in any
investigation (that is, from whose point of view are ques-
tions framed), andhowissues of concernemergeintothedo-
main of accounting for sustainable development. In
exploring these two aspects, we are not suggesting that we
have the answers to what accounting for sustainable devel-
opment should become. Rather, this analysis is by way of
posing problems (a dialogic framing, see Thomson &
Bebbington, 2004; Thomson &Bebbington, 2005) for existing
accounting in order to point towards (as Thomson, 2007,
hopes) what accounting for sustainable development might
entail if it were to emerge as a coherent ?eld of its own. Each
aspect will betakeninturn, recognizingthat eachelement co-
evolves with each other. In addition, they in turn shape the
sort of theorizing that might emerge in this context.
In seeking to identify ‘who counts’, social and environ-
mental accounting has made a ?rm commitment to
10
See also Frame and O’Connor (2011) who consider these issues in terms
of sustainability assessment and suggest that a non-bounded de?nition of
sustainable development could become an open signi?er.
11
Gray (2010), for example, moves to talking about accounting for
sustainable development on the basis that some for pro?t corporations use
the term ‘sustainability’ in their corporate reporting practices. While this
might be descriptively correct, it is not a particularly useful basis from
which to de?ne an academic ?eld.
12
Other potential synthesises of accounting and sustainable development
was also examined. Schaltegger et al. (2006) focus on the sustainability of
corporations in the face of challenges rather than on conceptualising
sustainable development itself. Hopwood et al. (2010) was also reviewed
and was starting to develop a conception of sustainable development that
points towards the discussion in this paper. The nature of the book (the
presentation of organisational centred cases), however, was not conducive
to a theoretically informed discussion.
400 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
pluralism and it is, therefore, not surprising that informa-
tion rights for stakeholders are a central issue to develop-
ing a more pluralistic setting. De?ning stakeholders,
however, requires a de?nition of an area of concern (or
an entity) around which stakeholder’s rights might be
determined. In accounting, this is primarily determined
by reference to an entity which is itself de?ned in some le-
gal form (and which is the ‘usual’ entity of analysis for
accountants).
13
Likewise, how stakeholders make their im-
pact felt and/or those stakeholders that require an organiza-
tional response is usually determined by relative power to
affect the entity in question (see Mitchell, Agle, & Wood,
1997). This has, naturally, lead to the development of stake-
holder theory as a way to determine ‘who matters’ as well as
a focus on the extent to which the legitimacy of the entity in
question is created and maintained.
14
In contrast, the sustainable development literature
points towards an interest in those who are adversely af-
fected by current arrangements (such as the environment
itself, future generations and the least well off of present
generations).
15
These could be seen as the stakeholders of
the sustainable development project and as a result the
question arises as to what entity (or combination of entities)
creates the conditions that result in any harm. The answer to
this is more complex because no one single entity creates
and sustains these problems. Rather, a combination of insti-
tutions (including modes of organising) frames these out-
comes. This would suggest that the entity in question in
any account of sustainable development might be based in
these socio-economic arrangements (embedded in a variety
of historical, legal and cultural contexts). This includes large,
listed for pro?t companies (the typical focus of accounting
research) but also how they are affected by institutions that
might cause them to behave in an unsustainable manner
(such as providers of capital and capital markets). Moreover,
a focus on the actions and accounts from those entities that
are not bound to the rationales of pro?t making and listing
markets (such as family owned business, social enterprises
and the public sector) are likely to yield more insight about
possibilities for change than focusing on the heavily con-
strained listed corporations.
Taken together this would also create an argument for a
sustained examination of the setting within which organi-
sations operate. For example, if we wished for ‘better’ sus-
tainable development reporting we need to understand
how performance and/or reporting guidelines are devel-
oped (see, for example, O’Sullivan & O’Dwyer, 2009). In
addition, looking at particular points of change (for exam-
ple, the passage of key pieces of legislation/regulation or
physical shocks) that might be necessary (but insuf?cient)
for less unsustainable operations is possible. Likewise, con-
sidering possibilities for change at country or sector levels
(Figge & Hahn, 2004; Frame & Bebbington, 2012; Russell &
Thomson, 2009) and how this might cascade to individual
organisations would be relevant insights to have. Finally,
examining the work of the public sector (as a shaping
and guiding process in society and in and of itself) is likely
to be fruitful (see Ball & Bebbington, 2008, for a summary).
Such approaches would reduce a focus on those entities
(listed for pro?t entities) for which pursuing sustainable
development is more problematic, at least until institu-
tions around them are reformed.
The second point of distinction relates to how issues of
concern present themselves to researchers. As noted before,
in social and environmental accounting issues considered
are those that are most closely related to operational con-
cerns of large for pro?t entities. This has dictated the focus
on reporting activities previously noted as well as some
organisational operational activities such as environmental
costing routines, performance management, translation of
strategy and supply chain analysis. Likewise, the impact
of operation of newmarkets (for example social responsible
investment) has created a substantive focus on the impacts
of these markets and their intersection with existing
investment/governance issues. Of the various concerns
from the sustainable development agenda (framed as WE-
HAB) recently water and carbon accounting (notably spe-
cial issues on carbon have been published in Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal and the Journal of Cleaner
Production in 2011 and 2012 respectively) have most con-
sistently captured researchers’ attention, not least because
markets have been developed to translate these concerns to
the entity level. There are, however, some aspects missing
as a result of this framing (Bebbington & Larrinaga, 2008).
If we return to the literature on sustainable develop-
ment then the two planetary processes that are most be-
yond boundary limits are biodiversity loss and the
nitrogen cycle (see Rockstrom et al., 2009). While there is
an emerging literature on biodiversity (Jones, 1996; Jones,
2003; Lamberton, 2000 and a special issue of Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal in 2013), the implica-
tions of the nitrogen cycle has yet to be translated into
organisational research. The area where one would make
the connection (in operational terms) is in the farming
industry (or via food as the focus of research). We would
suggest that these research gaps arise because accounting
researchers have insuf?cient exposure to the ecological
concerns that emerge from the sustainable development
?eld. A similar picture emerges in the social arena where,
except some work in fair trade and human rights (see
McPhail & McKernan, 2011 and the rest of articles pub-
lished in the 2011 special issue of Critical Perspectives on
Accounting), accounting has not been systematically and
actively considering social equity concerns. Our argument
here is that if one took sustainable development as the
point of departure then a wider array of relevant topics
13
This might be compared with other possible entities (some of which
make more ecological and social sense) such as: cities, communities,
regions, ecosystems or sectors. While these entities are likely to be more
familiar as ?elds of analysis for geographers or economists they remain
legitimate possible units of account for accounting scholars as well.
14
Stakeholder analysis and a focus on organisational legitimacy have
been dominant conceptual foci of the corporate social responsibility (and
social and environmental accounting) literature and have also been subject
to lively ongoing debate. Historical entry points to this substantive body of
work include (for stakeholder theorising) Freeman (1984); (its application
to accounting) Roberts (1992) while Deegan (2002) provides an important
summary of legitimacy theory informed work.
15
Driscoll and Starik (2004) consider the environment as an organisa-
tional stakeholder while in 1972 Stone seminally considered the potential
legal standing of trees (see Stone, 2010). In the area of philosophy Mulgan
(2006) has produced a relatively accessible introduction to the philosoph-
ical issues of treating future people seriously.
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 401
might be researched, drawing on pockets of work in
accounting that already address these various issues of
concern.
Likewise, if a different research agenda was pursued, it
might be that a different set of theories would provide a
touchstone for researchers. In particular, the usefulness
of theories that provide a sense of how longer cycles of
change behaviour (and associated rationalities) are likely
to emerge. One area that has been used to inform many
areas of work (including some in accounting) is that of gov-
ernmentality (Bebbington & Thomson, 2007; Frame &
Bebbington, 2012; Gouldson & Bebbington, 2007; Spence
& Rinaldi, 2014). This theoretical framing widens the scope
of what might be examined beyond particular techniques
and practices (such as accounting) to their place in constel-
lations of governing activities (and the impacts of these
shaping contexts). Theories that explain how organisa-
tional practices become more similar to each other as well
as how moments of change arise are also likely to be valu-
able (and are applicable to institutions themselves). More-
over, if one puts sectors and countries at the heart of
problem posing, one might identify contexts where coun-
tries have substantial natural resources (such as, but not
limited to, those in the Paci?c) but relatively weak capacity
to effectively govern activities of private corporations. In
these settings, a possibility for oversight and disciplining
of corporate activities might be those opportunities pro-
vided by private regulatory means (for example, sector
based self-regulation, problematic though that is also
likely to be – see, for example, Bebbington, Kirk, & Larrina-
ga, 2012). Lessons from private regulatory processes (such
as the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment
and/or the Global Compact) might provide a basis from
which Governments could control (at least to some extent)
the likely impacts of these corporations. To the best of our
knowledge there has not been a systematic attempt to use
these existing regulatory contexts to enforce some
accountability on corporations whose impacts are viewed
as problematic from a sustainable development perspec-
tive. This is not to say that these are the only possible ave-
nues forward, but these sorts of framing device do tend to
shift the focus onto the context which shape entities
behaviours rather than a focus on entity accounts.
16
In addition to considering speci?c theories that might
contribute to understanding and answering research ques-
tions, a literature has been developing that addresses
methodological questions about how we might address
sustainable development issues. This approach is termed
sustainability science. This approach does not mean that
there is any less need for excellence within discipline
knowledge.
17
Indeed, this is viewed as a pre-requisite for
bringing knowledge to a more sustainability science orien-
tated exploration. Rather, proponents of sustainability sci-
ence argue that unless we develop additional modes of
intellectual investigation it will be impossible to engage
effectively with the complex, interlocking and ethically
imbued problem set that we are facing. Hallmarks of this ap-
proach are introduced in more depth in the next section and
will infuse the rest of the paper.
Sustainability science
18
The purpose of this sectionis toprovide a bridge between
earlier concerns about how one might research sustainable
development issues and an appreciation of the complexity
of the real world contexts in which these issues emerge
andevolve. We havearguedthat additional modes of knowl-
edge production (in conjunction to discipline based investi-
gation) are required for this task and that this has been
attempted by an emerging ?eld of inquiry termed sustain-
ability science. In particular, sustainability science is a
description applied to a particular approach to knowledge
production that seeks to point ‘‘the way towards a sustain-
able society’’ (Komiyama & Takeuchi, 2006, p. 2; see also
Kajikawa, 2008; Kastenhofer, Bechtold, & Wil?ng, 2011).
The term is most frequently credited to Kates et al. (2001),
although it draws extensively on previous discussions of
wicked problems (Beilin & Bender, 2011; Rittel & Webber,
1973) and post normal science
19
(Funtowicz & Ravetz,
1993) with clear links to notions of ‘mode 2’ knowledge pro-
duction (Gibbons et al., 1994; Müller, 2003), addressing
‘divergent problems’ (Orr, 2002), and/or seeking consilience
(the ‘jumping together’ of knowledge, see Wilson, 1998).
20
Motifs of sustainability science
Various motifs that characterise a sustainability science
approach have been outlined in the literature, namely its:
domain of concern (inter-disciplinary understandings of
nature–society interactions); how it de?nes its research
focus (on sustainable development problem sets); how it
decides what knowledge ‘counts’ (re?ecting participatory
and democratic desires); and its recognition that normativ-
ity is inherent in the problem set. Each characteristic is
outlined in more depth in the following paragraphs.
21
Sustainability science is concerned with the ‘‘funda-
mental character of interactions between nature and soci-
16
We don’t believe that it is helpful to the ?ow of the paper to fully
develop these propositions. Rather, they are offered in order to ground our
suggestions in more particular terms as a way to encourage a move beyond
focusing on corporate produced narratives as a way to regulate organisa-
tional behaviour.
17
We will return to this point later in the paper. Being open to other
disciplinary focuses in the context of a sustainability science orientated
investigation is not about ‘anything goes’. Likewise, a desire to be inter-
disciplinary does not imply a rejection of disciplines as useful ways to
understand and act in the world.
18
In this context, science is used to describe the generic process of
systematically developing knowledge.
19
Wicked problems are described as problems that defy resolution.
Brown, Harris, and Russell (2010, p. 4) paraphrase these as resisting
‘‘complete de?nition, for which there can be no ?nal solution, since any
resolution generates further issues, and where the solutions are not true or
false or good or bad, but the best that can be done at the time’’. Post-normal
science is the approach one has to take with wicked problems, with
sustainability science being an example of a post-normal approach.
20
Material in this area is found in journals such as Futures and Ecological
Economics which are journals in which accounting scholars sometimes
publish and which sometimes inform accounting work. There are also
sustainable development journals, such as Sustainability Science and
International Journal of Sustainable Development.
21
These motifs have been developed on the basis of an extensive review
and synthesis of the sustainable science literature.
402 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
ety’’ (Kates et al., 2001, p. 641; Clark & Dickson, 2003;
Quental et al., 2011). Understanding such interactions re-
quires both an understanding of the particular systems in
question as well as the interactions that emerge at their
intersection and at different scales (Holling, 2001). For
example, Jerneck et al. (2011, p. 72) describe natural sys-
tems as being ‘‘driven by a set of fundamental natural prin-
ciples, such as gravity, thermodynamics and natural
selection, while social systems are driven by. . . dynamics,
such as demography, ideology, inequality and power strug-
gles, as well as rationalisation, specialisation, institution-
alisation, competition, capital accumulation, ef?ciency
and technological change’’.
22
Table 1 outlines the questions
that Kates et al. (2001) identi?ed as needing to be
addressed.
23
Crucially, sustainability science emerged at a time when
science was being asked to engage in policy domains
which were characterised by high levels of complexity
and uncertainty.
24
At this time it also became apparent that
‘‘laypersons (e.g. judges, journalists, scientists from another
?eld, or just citizens) could master enough of the methodol-
ogy to become effective participants in the dialogue’’
(Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1994, p. 204). Moreover, Funtowicz
and Ravetz (1994, p. 204) note that since ‘‘no particular
expertise can deliver certainty for policy decisions, no exper-
tise can claim a monopoly of wisdom and competence.’’
Con?dence in the ability of a single discipline (and/or ‘scien-
ti?cally’ derived knowledge) was challenged at this time
after a period where ‘science’ had enjoyed (and then lost)
the con?dence of many.
As a result, sustainability science adopts an inter-
disciplinary approach to problem de?nition and analysis
(Clark & Dickson, 2003; Jerneck et al., 2011). This arises
because it is believed that we are facing problems that
are different in both scale (they are global in expression,
see Allen, Fontaine, Pope, & Garmestani, 2011), as well as
complexity (in that there are possibilities for irreversible
outcomes as well as the potential for discontinuities/tip-
ping points in these systems – see Jerneck et al., 2011;
Quental et al., 2011; and especially Scheffer, Carpenter, Fo-
ley, Folke, & Walker, 2001). Indeed, Jerneck et al. (2011, p.
70) suggest that taken together ‘‘anthropogenic in?uences
on global life support systems have reached a magnitude
unprecedented in human history, levels that now jeopar-
dise the well-being of humanity’’ with emergent properties
arising from systems interactions (Clark & Dickson, 2003).
To further complicate matters, many of the problems that
are faced are in need of urgent resolution (Cohen et al.,
1998). Taken together, these characteristics are often de-
scribed as being ‘wicked’ (Rittel & Webber, 1973), and sus-
tainability science suggests that wicked problems can only
be addressed through a post-normal approach (Funtowicz
& Ravetz, 1993).
The second motif of sustainability science is that it is
problem focused along with being applied in nature. This
focus is required if one believes that problems emerge
from complex interactions between systems. Further, if it
is assumed that problems are driven by a particular con?u-
ence of aspects in particular settings then this is a robust
approach to knowledge production. A particular focus sits
in contrast to a trend in knowledge production towards
generalizability (Cohen et al., 1998 discuss this in the
context of global climate change). In this vein, Clark and
Dickson (2003, p.8060) caution against a focus on the spe-
ci?c leading to a presumption that sustainability science
does not address fundamental questions – indeed the
questions posed by Kates et al. (2001), among others, are
fundamental in nature, albeit that their investigation may
be particular in execution.
The focus on the particular also creates the opportunity
for a more nuanced appreciation of individuals’ experience
of the particular problem set. Speci?cally, there is a greater
potential for individual narratives about subjective experi-
ence of sustainable development problems to be heard
(and voiced) if one focuses on speci?c times and places. Gi-
ven this ‘closer’ view, there is a belief that sustainability
science is more likely to expose the position of the most
vulnerable and hence might engage researchers more di-
rectly with moral judgements (which is itself linked to
the fourth characteristic of sustainability science described
below).
One critical question arising from a focus on the partic-
ular is how, if at all, knowledge from one study may be
connected to knowledge from another study. This question
is usually addressed in two ways. First, the nature of learn-
ing within a sustainability science approach is character-
ised as social learning. Social learning has two aspects to
it. The ?rst is that learning is best achieved through ‘‘learn-
ing together to manage together . . . by doing’’ (Cummins &
McKenna, 2010, p. 799). This characteristic is implied by a
post-normal approach where the knowledge to action
nexus emerges through ‘‘re?ned interplay between itera-
tive practice and planning’’ (Cummins & McKenna, 2010,
p. 799). A second aspect of social learning is that through
working closely with others (both other disciplines
and with practitioners), ‘‘new relational capacities’’
(Pahl-Wostl, Mostert, & Fabara, 2008, p. 24) are created.
Learning how to collaborate, how to listen and when
(and how) to challenge is, therefore, core to a sustainability
science based interaction.
The third motif of sustainability science (linked to the
previous point) is that it tends to be more participatory
in nature than traditional science: that is, knowledge is
coproduced, (see Clark & Dickson, 2003; and Cortner,
2000, who describe this as ‘civic science’). The reasoning
for this is as follows: if one seeks to understand complex
problems and their expression in a particular context then
those who are directly affected by those problems are
22
This observation speaks to earlier suggestions that sustainable devel-
opment has both objective and subjective bases for understanding.
23
In this characterisation of sustainability science, the humanities (which
can be seen as re?ecting on the ‘‘values implied in human aspirations and
projects’’, Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 7) is relatively under explored. One could
argue that a focus on social systems also encompasses issues that the
humanities can and do shed light on. Equally, the natural science
background of the main proponents of sustainable development is likely
to lead to an undervaluing of humanities research.
24
Brown et al. (2010) and Pielke (2007) provide examples of various
issues that fall into this category including: persistent organic pollutants;
genetically modi?ed organism; trans boundary diffuse pollution and the
bioethics of cloning. Likewise, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmen-
talist (and the controversy that followed this publication) is an example of
this situation.
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 403
likely to have insight into how they have been created,
how they are sustained and what might be done to address
them (Cohen et al., 1998; Jasanoff, 2007). Further, the dis-
tinction between experts and laypersons is becoming
blurred in contemporary controversies and hence there is
a wider group who might have insights to offer in any
problem area. At the same time, a realisation that individ-
uals and communities not usually thought to be ‘knowl-
edgeable’ (such as indigenous peoples or, in general,
those affected by problems) might have relevant knowl-
edge has reinforced this more open attitude to who might
‘know’. As a result, a more participative approach to
knowledge generation is at the core of the post normal ap-
proach, especially in its use of extended peer communities
(Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993) to assess the robustness of
knowledge generated.
What is more, many actions that are sought in the name
of addressing sustainable development will require indi-
viduals, communities and institutions to change and may
involve dif?cult trade-offs to be negotiated (see de Vries
& Petersen, 2009, for a description of how the Netherlands
has attempted this). If the resolution of a problem cannot
be achieved by resorting to ‘facts’, a collectively agreed
course of action has to be sought. Likewise, the wicked nat-
ure of sustainable development problems means that solu-
tions are never permanent. Rather, ‘solutions’ require
continual reworking as actions taken often create other
manifestations of problems. The active and on-going par-
ticipation of those who are affected by (and who affect) a
sustainable development problem situation is therefore
necessary. Indeed, this point speaks to another characteris-
tic of wicked problems. That is, ‘‘scienti?c exploration and
practical application must occur simultaneously . . . [and
hence] in?uence and become entangled with each other’’
(Kates et al., 2001, p. 642).
The fourth motif of sustainability science concerns its
explicit recognition of normative and politically infused
nature of sustainable development arenas (Cohen et al.,
1998; Spangenberg, 2011). There is some debate if this is
a clearly distinguishing feature of sustainability science
with, for example, Cohen et al. (1998, p.366) arguing that
science ‘‘is political in non-trivial ways’’ and has always
been normative (Cortner, 2000; Goeminne, 2011). It would
appear, however, that even while many have accepted the
value driven nature of science, not all have and hence the
usefulness of explicit recognition of this aspect of sustain-
ability science.
Sustainability science, therefore, points towards a dif-
ferent sort of investigation for the academy. Differences in-
clude: (i) a focus on a broader class of problems than that
usually present within a discipline based investigation; (ii)
an assumption that it is necessary to adopt inter-disciplin-
ary framings of problems in order to understand them; (iii)
an assumption that there needs to be a deep and reciprocal
engagement between practice and the academy; and (iv) a
recognition that action is likely to precede full understand-
ing, with all the attendant risks that this brings. Arenas
that are starting to demonstrate these characteristics in-
clude: industrial ecology, ecological economics, human
ecology, social ecology transition theory, resilience theory,
cultural theory, world systems analysis and earth system
governance (see Pretty, 2011 for other examples).
Moreover, sustainability science emphasises that learn-
ing from feedback obtained from experiments in action are
necessary to address sustainable development issues. In-
deed, Allen et al. (2011, p. 1339) characterise sustainability
science as being ‘‘based on the philosophy that knowledge
is incomplete and much of what we think we know is actu-
ally wrong, but despite uncertainty managers and policy
makers must act’’. As a result, we need continually to imag-
ine and shape a sustainable trajectory (Kates et al., 2001).
Sustainability science, therefore, implies a break from
models of knowledge production that assumes that a
‘right’ answer can be found with the application of disci-
pline speci?c methods and foci. While this has and likely
will continue to be ideal for some topics, these approaches
are not viewed as being suf?ciently robust for the sustain-
able development problem set.
Evaluation and sustainability science
An area of substantive debate within sustainability sci-
ence is how one might judge the outcomes of an investiga-
tion and/or policy intervention. In particular, the
traditional role of science in delivering valid and reliable
knowledge to society becomes problematic in sustainabil-
ity science (Farrell, 2011) for several reasons. Speci?cally
(and as is apparent from the previous characterisation of
sustainability science) it is impossible to say that a
problem is ‘solved’ or to say what an ‘ideal’ outcome might
Table 1
Core questions of sustainability science (from Kates et al., 2001, p. 642).
d How can the dynamic interactions between nature and society—including lags and inertia—be better incorporated into emerging models and
conceptualizations that integrate the Earth system, human development, and sustainability?
d How are long-term trends in environment and development, including consumption and population, reshaping nature—society interactions in
ways relevant to sustainability?
dWhat determines the vulnerability or resilience of the nature-society system in particular kinds of places and for particular types of ecosystems and
human livelihoods?
d Can scienti?cally meaningful ‘‘limits’’ or ‘‘boundaries’’ be de?ned that would provide effective warning of conditions beyond which the nature-
society systems incur a signi?cantly increased risk of serious degradation?
d What systems of incentive structures—including markets, rules, norms, and scienti?c information—can most effectively improve social capacity to
guide interactions between nature and society toward more sustainable trajectories?
d How can today’s operational systems for monitoring and reporting on environmental and social conditions be integrated or extended to provide
more useful guidance for efforts to navigate a transition toward sustainability?
d How can today’s relatively independent activities of research planning, monitoring, assessment, and decision support be better integrated into
systems for adaptive management and societal learning?
404 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
be, or even to de?ne in a unique manner the problem to be
subject to investigation. Whereas more mainstream
knowledge systems use the standards of scienti?c peer re-
view structures with a method-oriented quality control
(Farrell, 2011), we would argue that this approach is not
suf?ciently robust for addressing sustainable development.
Instead, the principle of ‘quality’ is suggested in post nor-
mal and sustainability science as an alternative criteria
against which an evaluation might be undertaken for the
production of usable information for decision makers and
the public. Interrogating what quality means in this con-
text is necessary.
Aslaksen and Ingeborg Myhr (2007, p. 489) state that
when ‘‘science no longer is imagined as delivering ‘‘truth’’
irrespective of context, science receives a new organizing
principle, that of quality’’ (see also Farrell, 2011; Funtowicz
& Ravetz, 1994; Spangenberg, 2011). Quality is character-
ised as being information of a quality solid enough to guide
decision makers and the public at large (Spangenberg,
2011) and which will reduce unsustainability (Baumgartner,
2011). This characterisation of the standard against which
to judge a sustainability science investigation is likely to
cause discomfort for discipline based scholars as ‘quality’
is de?ned by reference to an outcome (that of guiding a
decision) without providing any evidence as to whether
the decision is the ‘right’ one. This is, however, the heart
of the issue with wicked problems – there is no straightfor-
ward way in which to know if a decision is or will be ‘right’.
Sustainability science, therefore, seeks to honour the nat-
ure of the problem set and to try (as far as possible) to
‘proof’ a decision by involving as many people as it is
appropriate in the construction of and review of courses
of action.
Indeed, Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) coined the notion
of ‘‘extended peer communities’’ to refer to the idea that
‘‘an ever-growing set of legitimate participants [are in-
cluded] in the process of quality assurance of scienti?c in-
puts’’ (p. 752), re?ecting a ‘‘wider set of criteria’’ (Gibbons
et al., 1994, p.8) for the evaluation of science. This ap-
proach is consistent with the third motif of sustainability
science (investigations are participatory) with extended
peer communities being indispensable in situations where
judgements are no longer about validity or reliability
alone. Rather, in these settings judgements are also politi-
cal (Cohen et al., 1998; Goeminne, 2011; Spangenberg,
2011), involving negotiations or judgements about
whether enough knowledge exists to guide action. Facts
or conclusions about the solution are unavailable in such
context. Rather, the pursuit of requisite quality is likely
to be an on-going task. Careful and deliberate use of ex-
tended peer communities to examine research ?ndings
are, therefore, the key mechanism used to make judge-
ments on the quality of the work.
This depiction of ‘quality’ as the way to evaluate sus-
tainability science will seem insuf?cient from a normal sci-
ence perspective. As Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) put it,
however, extended peer review is not new to science but
is an emergent phenomenon and an existing empirical
reality. For example, they describe how AIDS research
has operated ‘‘in the full glare of publicity involving
sufferers, carers, journalists, ethicists, activists and
self-help groups, as well as traditional institutions for
funding, regulation and commercial application. . . [in such
a way that t]he researchers’ choice of problems and evalu-
ations of solutions are equally subjected to critical scru-
tiny’’ (see also Farrell, 2011).
In summary, Funtowicz and Ravetz (1994, p. 205) pro-
pose that ‘‘unity in post-normal science derives not pri-
marily from a shared knowledge base, but from a
common commitment to certain sorts of approaches for
resolving complex policy issues’’. The heuristic of extended
peer communities is offered as a way to ensure that the
quality of problem description and proposed actions are
the best they can be given the inherent complexity of the
problem sets. Farrell (2011, p. 339) notes, extended peer
communities do not resolve a ‘‘host of contentious is-
sues. . . [Rather, they offer] a conceptual frame within
which the character and dynamics of these situations can
be placed and through which the complexity of their
dynamics can be better understood and constructively
managed’’.
In summary, Clark and Dickson (2003, p. 8060) note
that sustainability science ‘‘is not yet an autonomous ?eld
or discipline, but rather a vibrant arena that is bringing to-
gether scholarship and practice, global and local perspec-
tives from north and south, and disciplines across the
natural and social sciences, engineering, and medicine’’ in
a structured manner. The approach has some support and
it is believed that it may provide a methodological basis
for addressing sustainable development problems (but
not resolving them as they are, by nature, irresolvable). In-
deed, Baumgartner (2011, p. 785, emphasis added) noted
that given ‘‘sustainability problems are concerned with
many different disciplines, the interactions of which are
of high complexity. . . sustainability science must be both
integrated into traditional disciplines as well as be inte-
grated within multi, inter and transdisciplinary research
programs.’’ This brings us to consider how a link may be
made between sustainability science and the discipline of
accounting.
Accounting and sustainability science investigations
The thesis explored in this paper is that if a sustainabil-
ity science approach is taken accounting’s interaction with
sustainable development would develop in new ways. This
penultimate section seeks to further build this case by ref-
erence to two areas of study, both of which are non-
exhaustive examples of how work might develop within
accounting. First, we take an area of accounting investiga-
tion (that of full cost accounting) which is connected to
sustainable development concerns (namely the description
of externalities) and suggest how this area might develop if
it were more formally infused with sustainability science
thinking. The second investigation takes a theme of impor-
tance to sustainable development (that of sustainable con-
sumption and production) and demonstrates the relevance
of accounting expertise to this arena of investigation, and
speci?cally in the context of certi?cation schemes. This
second topic was selected because a substantive research
literature exists in this area to which accounting has not
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 405
contributed and is an area that has not been addressed by
accounting (but see Elad, 2001; and Francis, 2011 who
hints at the possibilities for research in this area). Taken
together, this section seeks to ground the preceding
conceptual discussions into more concrete propositions
concerning accounting research agendas. Both areas of
study embrace the characteristics of sustainability science
outlined earlier, namely: exploring areas of signi?cant eco-
logical–societal interaction by focusing on a particular
problem set that requires the participation of multiple par-
ties (as well as disciplines) in seeking a more socially just
and ecologically sound outcomes.
Sustainability science and full cost accounting
Interest in full cost accounting was inspired by practice
and research on cost bene?t analysis/externalities valua-
tion
25
and encouraged by the impetus provided by the intro-
duction of the ‘polluter pays principle’ in policymaking
(European Union, 1992; United Nations, 1992). Drawing
from the tenets of the polluter pays principle, proponents
of full cost accounting (see below) suggest that identifying
more sustainable ways for obtaining goods and services re-
quires shedding light on the (un)sustainability of current
activities by assigning a value to the use of otherwise free
environmental (and social) services. The rationale underly-
ing full cost accounting is that implicit valuations are al-
ready present in decision making and a zero value is likely
to be attached to impacts that are not internalized (Bebbing-
ton et al., 2001; Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants,
1997; Costanza et al., 1997). Academic focus on full cost
accounting has spread in the last decade (Antheaume,
2004; Atkinson, 2000; Bebbington & Gray, 2001; Bebbington
et al., 2001; Bent, 2006; Herbohn, 2005; Lamberton, 2000),
with variants such as the Sustainability Assessment Model
also emerging (Bebbington, 2007; Bebbington et al., 2007;
Frame & Cavanagh, 2009; Fraser, 2012; Xing et al., 2009).
In accounting terms, ?nancial accounting is enabled by,
and constitutes, the boundary between an organization
and its environment. This framing of the organization,
based in the ‘entity concept’, dictates that accounting
should be only interested in some costs (that is, those
borne by the entity) even though this obscures social and
ecological impacts that arise at a wider scale. By ignoring
these wider impacts, ?nancial accounting contributes to
the construction and maintenance of a bounded organiza-
tion that ignores its full character (Lohmann, 2009).
In contrast, external costs are central to full cost
accounting and hence it is an approach that addresses
the interlinkages between sustainable development prob-
lems and an entity. Although full cost accounting shows
potential, it also inherited the limitations of cost bene?t
analysis (discussions of which prompted discussions on
foundational aspects of post normal science and ecological
economics). These limitations revolve around the extent to
which externalities can be de?ned in multiple ways and
are often not easily amenable to ecological, social or eco-
nomic modeling. For example, planetary ecological pro-
cesses which require protection ‘‘react in a nonlinear,
often abrupt, way, and are particularly sensitive around
thresholds levels of certain key variables’’ (Rockstrom
et al., 2009, p. 472). The consideration of the socioeco-
nomic subsystems whereby these ecological processes
are affected creates further complexity, as do the values
that might be used to translate physical aspects to the eco-
nomic measures that can then be used in a full cost ac-
count (Niemeyer & Spash, 2001; Spash, 2007; Söderholm
& Sundqvist, 2003). Taken together, these issues make
any full cost accounting exercise inherently contestable.
Drawing on the previous discussion about sustainability
science, we contend that the contestability of an account
is not a limitation. Rather, it is a reality with which any ac-
count must work.
Full cost accounting has a direct link to the sustainability
science literature in that ecological valuation was the focus
of the seminal work of Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993), Fun-
towicz and Ravetz (1994). Further, full cost accounting
sheds light onto the ‘‘complex dynamic that arises from
the interaction between human and environmental sys-
tems’’ (Spangenberg, 2011, p. 278) and, more speci?cally,
the systems for monitoring the sustainability performance
of institutions (Spangenberg, 2011). Asustainability science
infused conceptionof full cost accounting is also re?ectedin
Bebbington (2007), Bebbington (2009), Bebbington et al.
(2007), Frame and Brown (2008), Frame and Cavanagh
(2009), and Frame and O’Connor (2011). In contrast to this
literature, we would argue that a lack of appreciation of a
post-normal approach held Herbohn (2005) and her re-
search collaborators back frommoving to a fully monetized
full cost account (noting that a reluctance to monetize is not
necessarily a good/bad thing).
Accordingly, if full cost accounting research and prac-
tice is to make a contribution to debates about sustainable
development it needs to work with uncertain and contest-
able information deriving from the scale and complexity of
the key ecological processes and diverse values imperfectly
translated into economic/?nancial terms. Indeed, Funtowicz
and Ravetz (1994) contended that uncertainty in input
information must lead to uncertainty in conclusions, and
to exhibit more certainty in the results than in the argu-
ments on which they are based is a methodological ?aw.
The notion of quality as an alternative to validity (as dis-
cussed previously) becomes important in these circum-
stances and is explained here by way of contrasting full
cost accounting examples.
The Spanish Railways (RENFE) disclosed in its 2010 an-
nual report that during that calendar year its services
‘saved’ 2297 million euros in external costs that would
have otherwise have arisen (due to the reductions in air
pollution, carbon emission and noise that resulted from
the use of this mode of transportation) if all rail traf?c
had moved by road. This single ?gure account of the value
of externalities that could have been avoided can usefully
be contrasted with Antheaume (2004) who reported that,
depending on the different assumptions and bases used
for the valuation of externalities, the external cost of an
industrial process could range from 1.52 to 18838.28 thou-
sands of euro per unit of product. This latter account could
25
Full cost accounts at the organisational level (USEPA, 1996) could be
argued to be equivalent to cost bene?t analyses undertaken at the macro
level (Epstein et al., 2011).
406 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
be characterised of being of a higher quality (in the sense
used previously) than the Spanish railways exercise.
Quality in full cost accounting, therefore, means that
uncertain and local data should not ‘‘be buried in a mass
of hyper-precise arithmetical data, assisted by models
involving advanced calculus’’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1994,
p. 203). Indeed, and drawing from Carl Friedrich Gauss, a
‘‘[l]ack of mathematical culture is revealed nowhere so
conspicuously as in meaningless precision in numerical
calculation’’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1994, p. 201). Rather, a
‘good’ (see later) ‘quality’ process in full cost accounting
terms would create context in which stakeholders have
an opportunity to debate and discuss the construction of
an account. This process (as illustrated by Frame & Cava-
nagh, 2009 and Fraser, 2012) is likely to bring to the fore
the issues of whose interests are served by choices made.
Choices over the boundary of investigation; externalities
to be included (or not); valuations that might be used
and who might be a part of these decisions will all impact
on the full cost account itself. Details of this process and
who such details are shared with would provide a base
from which project and data quality could be evaluated.
Likewise, the nature of a ‘good’ full cost account could
be suggested by drawing on sustainability science. For
example, Bebbington (2007) sought to communicate all
the steps that were taken from the raw data to an impacts
pro?le within the Sustainability Assessment Model. In
addition, the Sustainability Assessment Model self-con-
sciously separated modeling of impacts (which involve a
particular set of uncertainties and choices) from the evalu-
ation of what the pro?le produced means. Separating these
elements from each other created the chance for the values
that are used in the evaluation process to be acknowledged
and made visible. Finally, the decision within that re-
search–practice collaborative team not to monetize as-
pects of impacts that could be seen as ‘game changers’
(such as species extinction) re?ects greater awareness that
monetization is not always appropriate (see also, Frame &
O’Connor, 2011).
Indeed, a sustainability science framing suggests that
the complexity of system processes, the instability of the
boundaries between external and internal costs as well as
the need to carry out full cost accounting experiments in
particular contexts means that it would be likely for a range
of externalities data to be produced that may well vary be-
tween groups and over time. Taken together, these observa-
tions imply that rather than focusing on the generalization
of results, the validity of full cost accounting derives from
the quality of information derived from experiments and
the type of relations that are established between those in-
volved in the problem context. More fundamentally, full
cost accounting research needs to recognize that there is
a diversity of perspectives about the suitability and feasibil-
ity of monetary evaluation, the procedures to be followed
for monetary evaluation (if it is considered) and who has
the authority for any decision making subsequent to calcu-
lations. Considering this diversity in perspectives, cost ben-
e?t analysis (Samiolo, 2012) and full cost accounting
unavoidably stand in contested terrain.
However, notwithstanding the contestability of cost
bene?t analysis (and the in?uence it gives rise to), a sus-
tainability science conception of the technique would
stress the need to co-produce knowledge. In this respect,
previous research has concluded that the implementation
failures of full cost accounting exercises were due to the
attachment of actors to different sets of values (Bebbington
& Gray, 2001; Fraser, 2012; Herbohn, 2005). A sustainable
science approach, however, would frame those results not
as failures, but as the illustration of the importance and
legitimacy of different value commitments and would ex-
plore the spectrum of rationalities and values represented.
Such an approach would thus contend that since no partic-
ular expertise can deliver certainty in full cost accounts,
praxis and research needs to be negotiated and mediated
with different stakeholders with boundaries, baselines
and values being constructed during the accounting pro-
cess (Niemeyer & Spash, 2001). Full cost accounting, there-
fore, is an emergent ?eld of investigation requiring
deliberative approaches (Chilvers, 2008; Frame &
O’Connor, 2011; Niemeyer & Spash, 2001; Spash, 2007)
that would itself require the co-production of knowledge
about detailed issues with stakeholders (who have a un-
ique appreciation of the complexities of the situation and
the decision stakes). A deliberative approach to full cost
accounting is also at odds with any attempt to ‘‘squeeze
all value dimensions into a single axiological scale’’ (Nie-
meyer & Spash, 2001, p. 573) and, therefore, is a funda-
mental rede?nition of the conventional understanding of
accounting.
This suggests four avenues for further research in terms
of constructing an account. First, providing room for the
participation of stakeholders in deliberative full cost
accounting raises challenges such as, the representative-
ness of participants, inclusiveness, how to attain a
fair deliberation or the access to resources to participate
(Chilvers, 2008). Second, methods need to be devised to
communicate the uncertainty (or even the ignorance)
about different processes in the ecological and social sub-
systems (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, p. 743). Third, meth-
ods need to be developed to allow the possibility of
different forms of valuation, beyond monetary evaluation,
including the possibility of refusing to put a value to a gi-
ven process. Finally, full cost accounting research should
explore whether it is reasonable to use the bene?t transfer
method (Brouwer & Spaninks, 1999) even in those cases in
which stakeholders decide that a monetary measure is
acceptable, because this method assumes a generalizability
of values that is at odds with the foundations of delibera-
tive full cost accounting.
The examination of full cost accounting from a sustain-
ability science viewpoint could also help to provide insight
into whether and how full cost accounting can ‘‘make the
normative concept of sustainability operational’’ (Spangen-
berg, 2011, p. 276). This implies a focus on the politics of
full cost accounting as these accounts could be seen as po-
tential technologies of government that, through the pro-
blematization of particular challenges to sustainable
development, suggest particular frames for their remedia-
tion (Miller & Rose, 2008). Full cost accounting, therefore,
will construct narratives about sustainable development
and the desirability of some economic activities, thereby
mobilizing actors and resources in speci?c contexts. To link
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 407
back to the earlier example from the Spanish railways, it is
relevant to note that the viability of this organization re-
quires the mobilization of resources in the form of govern-
mental subsidies and investments and an externalities
account would certainly play into that negotiation. From
this perspective, further research on full cost accounting
could explore how issues of apparent detail such as the
de?nition of baselines, boundaries or monetization meth-
ods could in reality be driven by different political stands,
with important distributional and sustainable develop-
ment consequences (see Samiolo, 2012).
It might also be useful to link full cost accounting exper-
imentation in accounting to cost bene?t analysis (Frame &
Brown, 2008; Lohmann, 2009; Samiolo, 2012). Despite the
controversies generated by valuation, cost bene?t analysis
is used to make and legitimate decisions even while it ex-
cludes from the analysis those issues that are not mea-
sured/measurable thereby illuminating some aspects and
obscuring others (Espeland & Stevens, 2008; Funtowicz &
Ravetz, 1994; Lohmann, 2009; Niemeyer & Spash, 2001;
Porter, 1995). In contrast, the full cost accounting literature
still focuses on experiments rather than drawing on a deep
and wide set of practices that one might assume is taking
place behind closed doors.
26
This suggests that there might
be activity that is not being examined and also that full cost
accounting could inform other areas of accounting. For
example, carbon markets are essentially an attempt to inter-
nalize costs and identify externalities to inform decision
making. To date, however, the carbon accounting literature
seems not to have identi?ed a connection with the earlier
full cost accounting work. Regardless, we would argue that
an appreciation of sustainability science motifs would be
useful to any externalities account.
Accounting and sustainable consumption and production
While a sustainability science perspective has been
used to re?ect on existing accounting research and prac-
tices, it might also be used to explore areas where social
and environmental accountants are absent but where they
might make a contribution (noting that the mainstream of
accounting researchers have dealt with issue of certi?ca-
tion, but not in this particular policy context). Sustainable
consumption and production is a cross cutting sustainable
development theme (Spangenberg, 2011) that was ?rst
identi?ed in the Rio Declaration and Rio Principles (United
Nations, 1992) and which was then reinforced at the
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation in 2002. In addition,
it has been a key focus of the United Nation’s Department
for Economic and Social Affairs (see,http://www.un.org/
esa/desa/) for at least a decade (see alsohttp://www.
un.org/en/development/desa/climate-change/consumption.
shtml). This theme seeks to ?nd a way to transform pro-
ductive activities so that they might be less unsustainable
than they currently are (as a result consumption patterns
might also become less unsustainable). The context of sus-
tainable consumption and production often focuses on sit-
uations where producer and consumer communities are
distant from each other in terms of geographic location
as well as in terms of social and economic conditions. Most
usually, producer communities are located in the global
south while consumers are in the global north. Moreover,
markets in which products are traded are viewed as having
imperfections that will lead to either exploitation of the
natural environment and/or impoverishment of producer
communities. The idea behind sustainable consumption
is that if demand can be stimulated for products that better
support producers then sustainable development might be
more possible. Certi?cation schemes that focus on fair
trade would be an example of sustainable consumption
and production as well as ones that look at environmental
credentials of production (such as dolphin ‘friendly’ or
organic).
Sustainable consumption and production is a classic
sustainable development issue in that it considers prob-
lems/solutions that emerge at society–environment inter-
faces where concerns about ecological integrity, social
fairness and economic ?ourishing (for example, via fair ex-
change) are at the heart of the issue. Further, the nature of
consumption and production means that many institu-
tional players are involved, some with considerable eco-
nomic incentives to perpetuate current consumption and
production paradigms and others with incentives (but
not necessarily power) to create new forms of activity. In
the terms used previously in this paper this is a wicked
problem that require urgent resolution and which involve
complex moral and systems dynamics to be understood.
A subset of activity within the sustainable consumption
and production arena relates to how certi?cation schemes
might provide a set of incentives to producers and signals
to consumers concerning the sustainable development
characteristics of products and processes. Certi?cation
schemes address aspects of activities including the way
production impacts on natural resources in areas such as
?sheries (see, for example, Constance & Bonanno, 2000),
forests (comprising schemes such as Forestry Stewardship
Council and Rainforest Alliance certi?cation) and land re-
sources, including ‘organic’ food production methods
(Shreck, Getz, & Feenstra, 2006) and coffee production
(Raynolds, Murray, & Heller, 2007). At the same time, a
number of certi?cation schemes focus on social or eco-
nomic characteristics such as ‘fair trade’ (Gandenberger,
Garrelts, & Wehlau, 2011). Still others cover processes or
characteristics of services provided in areas such as tour-
ism (Font, 2002) and buildings via ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’
building codes (Ding, 2008; Haapio & Viitaniemi, 2008).
27
The construction of standards for certi?cation also need to
be underpinned by ecological data on what constitutes sus-
tainable production and/or by moral agreement as to what
constitutes (for example) fair labour practices. These are
substantive questions that require extensive discussion with
26
As Atkinson (2000) points out, as soon as you have environmental
impact data from corporate reporting (or from regulatory compliance
reporting) you can construct an externalities account from readily available
economic valuation data. This means that it is possible to create league
tables of the impacts of corporations, independent of them taking part in
such exercises. What we can note, however, is such accounts are not being
routinely constructed (but see Figge & Hahn, 2004).
27
Each of these areas have a substantial literature of its own, the review
of which would unreasonably lengthen this paper while not contributing to
the main line of argument being pursued.
408 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
extended peer communities as well as the input from a
variety of disciplines (such as agriculture, philosophy and
ethics).
Deeper questions also emerge from the examination of
certi?cation schemes, perhaps most interestingly in the
area of regulation. Some argue that in a globalized econ-
omy the nation state has less ability to regulate (mainly)
corporate activities (Constance & Bonanno, 2000) and
hence certi?cation schemes provide alternative gover-
nance mechanisms that can operate over national borders,
often with the active involvement of non-governmental
bodies with social and/or ecological concerns and creden-
tials. Of course, this is a contested terrain and the rami?ca-
tions of taking a certi?cation approach rather than a
regulatory one are the focus of literature in this area (see,
for example, Constance & Bonanno, 2000; Lawson, 2011;
Raynolds et al., 2007). Moreover, this approach has rami?-
cations for how we might understand consumers and their
role in shaping the behaviour of businesses (Eden, Bear, &
Walker, 2008).
28
Within the context of certi?cation schemes, the possi-
bilities for developing, scrutinising and evolving auditing,
assurance and/or certi?cation techniques
29
come to the
fore. It is therefore surprising that with a few exceptions
(for example, Elad, 2001) social and environmental account-
ing has had little to say about this sort of certi?cation.
30
There may be many reasons for this lack of literature includ-
ing a lack of comfort with providing accounts and certi?ca-
tion for research objects other than for pro?t entities (a
point alluded to by Gray, 2010). Alternatively, a lack of
knowledge among accounting researchers about the as-
sumed importance of and nature of these schemes, their
existence and/or their scale, scope and potential rami?ca-
tions (from a governance perspective) may have inhibited
an interest developing. Whatever the explanation, these
schemes (if they are to be understood holistically) need
the detailed input of the accounting discipline in terms of
expertise around how to certify and the meanings associated
with these actions.
In particular, an analysis of literature that addresses
sustainable consumption and production demonstrates
an absence of questions that would be expected if you
had an auditing/assurance/accounting background (but
see Francis, 2011). This is surprising as accounting,
auditing and reporting activities are exactly those that
allow for a ‘‘politics on reconnection’’ (Eden et al., 2008,
p. 1044) and are essential to ensuring that knowledge
intermediation happens. As such, examining sustainable
consumption and production from the viewpoint of
accounting is likely to be valuable for broader understand-
ings of sustainable consumption and production. The
opposite also holds. Certi?cation practices have the poten-
tial to illuminate accounting’s understanding of itself and
constitute a key cross over point where accounting might
support sustainable development.
As a result, accountants might be involved in sustain-
ability science investigations, working in partnership with
disciplines as diverse as anthropology, philosophy, geogra-
phy, agriculture, economics, health studies, consumption
studies, politics and sociology. Extended peer communities
that would have an interest in such a transdisciplinary in-
quiry would include individual producers, consolidators,
exporters, certi?er bodies, as well as consumers. Collec-
tively, we might then be able to address the question that
Raynolds et al. (2007, p. 148) pose as to ‘‘whether certi?ca-
tion works to hold the bar, avoiding the erosion of social
and environmental conditions, or to raise the bar, improv-
ing social and environmental standards’’ (emphasis in the
original). If accountants are to contribute to the Kates
et al. (2001) core question of ‘‘What systems of incentive
structures—including markets, rules, norms, and scienti?c
information—can most effectively improve social capacity
to guide interactions between nature and society toward
more sustainable trajectories?’’, a consideration of social,
environmental and sustainable development certi?cation
is an obvious site for engagement.
In summary, this section explored the contention that
the tendency in the accounting literature to take on board
the pre-occupations of its discipline has inhibited the
emergence of accounting for sustainable development. It
is likely that a focus on documenting (using content anal-
ysis) social and environmental related disclosures in An-
nual Reports or other media of a sub-set of economic
entities (primarily for pro?t listed companies) is not fully
in line with the demands that sustainability development
places on the academy. This suggests that while pessimism
about the actual and potential achievements of environ-
mental accounting is warranted, there are possible solu-
tions that do not require abandoning a commitment by
accounting academics to being involved in sustainable
development research. Rather, we would argue there is a
case for getting closer to contemporary sustainable
development debates in order to establish the utility of
accounting to the study of sustainable development (and
vice versa). We sought to illustrate this point using two
examples, but many others will also exist.
Concluding comments
O’Riordan (2004) notes that sustainable development
work is ‘‘energized by the failure to overcome complex
and policy-linked problem arenas such as climate change,
biodiversity management, social justice and entitlement
to all people to steward essential planetary resources for
permanent and workable livelihoods.’’ These outcomes
are not presently realised in practice and hence continue
to motivate researchers and practitioners. Indeed, the
failure to achieve sustainable development has prompted
the emergence of social and environmental accounting (a
sub-discipline of accounting) which focuses on the impact
28
In anything, reliance on certi?cation suggests a belief in the power of
consumers that might be unwarranted. At the same time, concerns arise if
one assumes that human agency might be reduced to expressing oneself as
a consumer in the absence of other forms of expression.
29
These terms are rarely fully de?ned or distinguished in the existing
non-accounting literature on certi?cation.
30
In contrast, the Journal of Business Ethics publishes many papers on this
topic. The paper most closely associated with this topic, that we could ?nd
in the social accounting literature, was on the use of social accounting
systems for fair trade organisations (Dey, 2007).
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 409
organisations have on society and the ecology. A wide ar-
ray of disciplines also seek to address these concerns,
drawing (as do accountants) from their own commitments,
theories and modes of generating knowledge, doing what
Spangenberg (2011) calls ‘science for sustainability’.
Spangenberg (2011) also calls for a ‘science of sustainabil-
ity’, whereby the particular demands for knowledge that
can be used in policy and other decision making domains
in order to move human society towards sustainable forms
of development are recognized and acted upon.
We have argued in this paper that this latter way of
thinking (known as sustainability science, after Kates
et al., 2001) has affected how disciplines come together
to develop knowledge and de?ne the subjects around
which knowledge is to be generated as well as informing
the development of disciplines themselves. Sustainability
science has several characteristics including considering
a problem area as being the object of research (rather
than an organisation) as well as encouraging a trans-
disciplinary approach to the research processes (that in-
cludes those that affect and are affected by the outcomes
of the application of knowledge in practice settings and in
policymaking). Taken together, this approach seeks to re-
spond to the particular characteristics of sustainable
development problems (that is, their wicked nature). We
also sought to describe how such an approach might
shape how accounting scholars approach research in this
area.
The particular reason for seeking to reinvigorate
accounting and sustainable development investigations is
that there appears to be widespread pessimism (expressed
most eloquently by Gray, 2010) that accounting can con-
tribute to a more sustainable/less unsustainable society.
It is our hope that by introducing a different approach to
research (in methodological terms) we might work to-
wards overcoming the limitations of our current account-
ing approaches to knowledge and its application. Of
course, seeking to pursue sustainable development is prob-
lematic. First, its empirical base is a unique global experi-
ment guided by partial scienti?c certainties and
uncertainty about the dynamics of the whole system. Sec-
ond, the translation of ecological limits and standards of
social justice into policy and decision making is non-trivial.
Third, the urgency to address sustainable development
problems and lack of belief regarding the possibility of ‘res-
olution’ requires us to blur the conventional frontiers be-
tween the creation of knowledge and its application to
actual policy and decision making. In adopting a sustain-
ability science approach, however, we hope to make ‘‘our
ignorance useful’’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, p. 743).
Sustainability science is a distinctive approach that has
developed as a result of a belief that there are problems
that are suf?ciently different in nature that we need to
experiment with new ways of knowing, including new
forms of research engagement.
With that in mind, we believe that the time has come
for accounting to self-consciously engage with the lessons
of sustainability science to see how it might refocus its
research activities as well as how it might engage more
closely with other disciplines around problems of common
interest. Jasanoff (2007, p. 33) frames the stakes thus:
‘‘[we] need disciplined methods to accommodate the
partiality of scienti?c knowledge and to act under irre-
deemable uncertainty. Let us call these the technologies
of humility. These technologies compel us to re?ect on
the sources of ambiguity, indeterminacy and complex-
ity. Humility instructs us to think harder about how to
reframe problems so that their ethical dimensions are
brought to light, which new facts to seek and when to
resist asking science for clari?cation. Humility directs
us to alleviate known causes of people’s vulnerability
to harm, to pay attention to the distribution of risks
and bene?ts, and to re?ect on the social factors that
promote or discourage learning’’.
We believe (and have argued in this paper) that the dis-
cipline of accounting has a contribution to make in this
area. In seeking to explore these themes in the context of
accounting we have attempted to provide some pointers
to how sustainability science framing might invigorate
accounting scholarship. We offer these ideas in a problem
posing mode. There are not recipes for how one gets
accounting for sustainable development ‘right’. Rather,
we can only offer these suggestions (many of which can
be empirically explored) as a starting point of a conversa-
tion. As with sustainability science, the standard of ‘qual-
ity’ as co-developed with you (our peer community) will
ultimately be the judge of these propositions.
Acknowledgements
Financial support provided by the Spanish Government
(PR2011-0031 and ECO2009-09937) is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The comments made by participants at the Critical
Perspectives on Accounting conference in 2011, the Span-
ish and South American CSEAR conferences of 2011, the
St Andrews CSEAR conferences of 2011 and 2012, faculty
of Queens University Belfast, colleagues at the University
of St Andrews and two anonymous reviewers for Account-
ing, Organizations and Society are gratefully recognized
along with the support of Jeffrey Unerman and Christopher
Chapman. Carlos Larrinaga is also indebted with the
Department of Sociology, Northwestern University. We
also thank Jesse Dillard, Bob Frame, Rhona McLaren, Louise
Reid, Shona Russell, Lorna Stevenson, Ian Thomson and col-
leagues in the sustainability science reading group at the
University of St Andrews for their input in developing
these ideas.
References
Allen, C. R., Fontaine, J. J., Pope, K. L., & Garmestani, A. S. (2011). Adaptive
management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92(5), 1339–1345.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2010.11.019.
Antheaume, N. (2004). Valuing external costs. From theory to practice:
implications for full cost environmental accounting. European
Accounting Review, 13(3), 443–464.
Aslaksen, I., & Ingeborg Myhr, A. (2007). ‘‘The worth of a wild?ower’’:
Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs.
Ecological Economics, 60(3), 489–497.
Atkinson, G. (2000). Measuring corporate sustainability. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2), 235–252.
Ayres, R. (1998). Turning point: The end of the growth paradigm. London:
Earthscan.
410 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
Ball, A., & Bebbington, J. (2008). Accounting and reporting for sustainable
development in public service organisations: Issues and emerging
directions. Public Money and Management, 28(6), 323–325.
Baumgartner, R. J. (2011). Critical perspectives of sustainable
development research and practice. Journal of Cleaner Production,
19(8), 783–786.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.01.005.
Bebbington, J. (2007). Accounting for SD performance. London: Elsevier.
Bebbington, J. (2009). Measuring sustainable development performance:
Possibilities and issues. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 189–193.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., & Frame, B. (2007). Accounting technologies and
sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3),
224–236.
Bebbington, J., Gray, R., Hibbit, C., & Kirk, E. (2001). Full cost accounting: An
agenda for action. London: ACCA Research, Report 73.
Bebbington, J., & Gray, R. (2001). An account of sustainability: Failure,
success and a reconceptualization. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
12(5), 557–588.
Bebbington, J., Kirk, E. A., & Larrinaga, C. (2012). The production of
normativity: A comparison of reporting regimes in Spain and the UK.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(2), 78–94.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.aos.2012.01.001.
Bebbington, J., & Larrinaga, C. (2008). Carbon trading: Accounting and
reporting issues. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 697–717.
Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social
reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337–361.
Bebbington, J., & Thomson, I. H. (2007). Social and environmental
accounting, auditing, and reporting: A potential source of
organisational risk governance? Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 25(1), 38–55.
Beilin, R., & Bender, H. (2011). Interruption, interrogation, integration and
interaction as process: How PNS informs interdisciplinary curriculum
design. Futures, 43(2), 158–165.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.futures.2010.10.004.
Bent, D. (2006). Towards a monetised triple bottom line for an alcohol
producer: Using stakeholder dialogue to negotiation a ‘licence to
operate/ by constructing an account of social performance. In S.
Schaltegger, M. Bennett, & R. Burritt (Eds.), Sustainability accounting
and reporting (pp. 61–82). Delft: Springer.
Brouwer, R., & Spaninks, F. A. (1999). The validity of environmental
bene?ts transfer: Further empirical testing. Environmental and
Resource Economics, 14, 95–117.
Brown, V., Harris, J., & Russell, J. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through
transdisciplinary imagination. London: Earthscan.
Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Taillieu, T. (2008). Toward a
relational concept of uncertainty: About knowing too little, knowing
too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecology and Society, 13(2),
30.
Buhr, N. (1998). Environmental performance, legislation and annual
report disclosure: The case of acid rain and Falconbridge. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(2), 163–190.
Buhr, N., & Reiter, S. (2006). Ideology, the environment and one world view:
A discourse analysis of Noranda’s environmental and sustainable
development reports advances in environmental accounting and
management (Vol. 3, pp. 1–48). JAI.
Buhr, N. (2007). Histories of and rationales for sustainability reporting. In
J. Unerman, B. O’Dwyer, & J. Bebbington (Eds.), Sustainability
accounting and accountability. Oxon: Routledge.
Callon, M. (2009). Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and
in vivo experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4),
535–548.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.04.003.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (1997). Full cost accounting
from an environmental perspective. Toronto: Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants.
Carpenter, P. A., & Bishop, P. C. (2009). The seventh mass extinction:
Human-caused events contribute to a fatal consequence. Futures,
41(10), 715–722.
Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence. Science, Technology & Human
Values, 33(2), 155–185.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0162243907307594.
Christenson, C. (1983). The methodology of positive accounting. The
Accounting Review, 58(1), 1–22.
Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging
research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
100(14), 8059–8061.http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231333100.
Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J., & Rothman, D. (1998). Climate change
and sustainable development: Towards dialogue. Global
Environmental Change, 8(4), 341–371.
Constance, D. H., & Bonanno, A. (2000). Regulating the global ?sheries:
The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever, and the Marine Stewardship
Council. Agriculture and Human Values, 17(2), 125–139. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1007625606243.
Cortner, H. J. (2000). Making science relevant to environmental policy.
Environmental Science & Policy, 3(1), 21–30.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
s1462-9011(99)00042-8.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al.
(1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural
capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
387253a0.
Cummins, V., & McKenna, J. (2010). The potential role of sustainability
science in coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management,
53(12), 796–804.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.019.
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. London: Sage.
Daly, H. (1996). Beyond growth. Boston: Beacon.
de Vries, B. J. M., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainable
development: An assessment methodology connecting values,
knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. Ecological Economics, 68(4),
1006–1019.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.015.
Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental
disclosures – A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.
Dey, C. (2007). Social accounting at Traidcraft Plc: A strugle for the
meaning of fair trade. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
20(3), 423–445.
Ding, G. K. C. (2008). Sustainable construction—The role of environmental
assessment tools. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3),
451–464.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025.
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values
and organizational behavior. The Paci?c Sociological Review, 18(1),
122–136.
Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing
the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural
environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 55–73. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000013852.62017.0e.
Dunlap, R. E. (2010). The maturation and diversi?cation of environmental
sociology: From constructivism and realism to agnosticism and
pragmatism. In M. R. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The
international handbook of environmental sociology (2nd ed.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Eden, S., Bear, C., & Walker, G. (2008). Mucky carrots and other proxies:
Problematising the knowledge-?x for sustainable and ethical
consumption. Geoforum, 39(2), 1044–1057.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.11.001.
Elad, C. (2001). Auditing and governance in the forestry industry:
Between protest and professionalism. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 12(5), 647–671.http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
cpac.2001.0478.
Epstein, P. R., Buonocore, J. J., Eckerle, K., Hendryx, M., Stout Iii, B. M.,
Heinberg, R., et al. (2011). Full cost accounting for the life cycle of
coal. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219(1), 73–98.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x.
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (2008). A sociology of quanti?cation.
Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 49(3), 401–436.
European Union (1992). Fifth action programme, Com (1992) 23 ?nal, Vol.
I–III, Brussels, 27 March 1992. CB-CO-92-151-EN-C.
Fadeeva, Z., & Mochizuki, Y. (2010). Higher education for today and
tomorrow: University appraisal for diversity, innovation and change
towards sustainable development. Sustainability Science, 5(2),
249–256.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0106-0.
Farrell, K. N. (2011). Snow white and the wicked problems of the west: A
look at the lines between empirical description and normative
prescription. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(3), 334–361.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243910385796.
Ferguson, J. (2007). Analysing accounting discourse: Avoiding the ‘‘fallacy
of internalism’’. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(6),
912–934.
Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2004). Sustainable value added—Measuring
corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-ef?ciency.
Ecological Economics, 48(2), 173–187.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2003.08.005.
Font, X. (2002). Environmental certi?cation in tourism and hospitality:
Progress, process and prospects. Tourism Management, 23(3),
197–205.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(01)00084-x.
Frame, B., & Bebbington, J. (2012). A comparison of the national
sustainable development strategies for New Zealand and Scotland.
International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(3), 249–276.
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 411
Frame, B., & Brown, J. (2008). Developing post-normal technologies for
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 65(2), 225–241.
Frame, B., & Cavanagh, J. (2009). Experiences of sustainability assessment:
An awkward adolescence. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 195–208. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.007.
Frame, B., & O’Connor, M. (2011). Integrating valuation and deliberation:
The purposes of sustainability assessment. Environmental Science &
Policy, 14(1), 1–10.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.009.
Francis, J. R. (2011). Auditing without borders. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 36(4–5), 318–323.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.aos.2011.07.003.
Fraser, M. (2012). Fleshing out an engagement with a social accounting
technology. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(3),
508–534.
Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston:
Pitman Publishing.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age.
Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). The worth of a songbird: Ecological
economics as a post-normal science. Ecological economics, 10(3),
197–207.
Gandenberger, C., Garrelts, H., & Wehlau, D. (2011). Assessing the effects
of certi?cation networks on sustainable production and
consumption: The cases of FLO and FSC. Journal of Consumer Policy,
34(1), 107–126.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9155-8.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotony, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow,
M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dinamics of science
and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.
Goeminne, G. (2011). Has science ever been normal? On the need and
impossibility of a sustainability science. Futures, 43(6), 627–636.
Gouldson, A., & Bebbington, J. (2007). Corporations and the governance of
environmental risk. Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, 25(1), 4–20.
Gray, R. (1990). The greening of accountancy: The profession after Pearce.
London: ACCA.
Gray, R. (2002). The social accounting project and accounting
organizations and society privileging engagement, imaginings, new
accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 27(7), 687–708.
Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for
sustainability. . . and how would we know? An exploration of
narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 35(1), 47–62.
Gray, R., & Milne, M. (2004). Towards reporting on the triple bottom line:
Mirages, methods and myths. In A. Henriques (Ed.), Triple bottom line:
Does it all add up?: Assessing the sustainability of business and CSR.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Gray, R., & Laughlin, R. (2012). It was 20 years ago today: Sgt Pepper,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, green accounting and
the Blue Meanies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
25(2), 228–255.
Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building
environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 28(7), 469–482.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002.
Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate
disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical
disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3),
405–440.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0165-4101(01)00018-0.
Herbohn, K. (2005). A full cost environmental accounting experiment.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(6), 519–536.
Hines, R. (1991). On valuing nature. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 4(3), 27–29.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic,
ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.
Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34, 433–439.
Hopwood, A. G., Unerman, J., & Fries, J. (2010). Accounting for
sustainability: Practical insights. London: Earthscan.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate change 2007:
A synthesis report (WMO/UNEP).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). Climate change 2013:
The physical science basis. Summary for policymakers. .
Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a ?nite planet.
London: Earthscan.
Jasanoff, S. (2007). Technologies of humility. Nature, 450(7166), 33. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/450033a.
Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., Ness, B., Anderberg, S., Baier, M., Clark, E., et al.
(2011). Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability science, 6(1),
69–82.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x.
Jones, M. (1996). Accounting for biodiversity: A pilot study. British
Accounting Review, 28, 281–303.
Jones, M. (2003). Accounting for biodiversity: Operationalising
environmental accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 16(5), 762–789.
Kajikawa, Y. (2008). Research core and framework of sustainability
science. Sustainability Science, 3(2), 215–239.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11625-008-0053-1.
Kastenhofer, K., Bechtold, U., & Wil?ng, H. (2011). Sustaining
sustainability science: The role of established inter-disciplines.
Ecological Economics, 70(4), 835–843.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2010.12.008.
Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., et al.
(2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386.
Komiyama, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a
new discipline. Sustainability science, 1(1), 1–6.
Laine, M. (2009). Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes?: A
longitudinal interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a
leading Finnish chemical company. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 22(7), 1029–1054.
Lamberton, G. (2000). Accounting for sustainable development—A case
study of city farm. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11(5),
583–605.
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact
to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.
Lawson, J. (2011). Tendential autonomy and con?ict containment in
nonstate governance mechanisms. Law & Policy, 33(3), 391–426.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2011.00343.x.
Llewellyn, S., & Milne, M. J. (2007). Accounting as codi?ed discourse.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(6), 805–824.
Lohmann, L. (2009). Toward a different debate in environmental
accounting: The cases of carbon and cost–bene?t. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 499–534.
MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and
the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
34(3–4), 440–455.
Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological
Economics, 53(1), 5–16.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2005.01.014.
McPhail, K., & McKernan, J. (2011). Accounting for human rights: An
overview and introduction. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(8),
733–737.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2011.07.007.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-
being: Synthesis. World Resources Institute.
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present. Cambridge: Polity.
Milne, M. J. (1991). Accounting, environmental resource values, and non-
market valuation techniques for environmental resources: A review.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 4(3), 81–109.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of
stakeholder identi?cation and salience: De?ning the principle of who
and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4),
853–886.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259247.
Mulgan, T. (2006). Future people: A moderate consequentialist account of
our obligations to future generations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Müller, A. (2003). A ?ower in full blossom?: Ecological economics at the
crossroads between normal and post-normal science. Ecological
Economics, 45(1), 19–27.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0921-
8009(02)00256-2.
Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions:
Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282.
Niemeyer, S., & Spash, C. L. (2001). Environmental valuation analysis,
public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: A critical
appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4),
567–585.
O’Riordan, T. (2004). Environmental science, sustainability and politics.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(2), 234–247.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2004.00127.x.
Orr, D. (2002). Four challenges of sustainability. Conservation Biology,
16(6), 1457–1460.http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-
1739.2002.01668.x.
O’Sullivan, N., & O’Dwyer, B. (2009). Stakeholder perspectives on a
?nancial sector legitimation process: The case of NGOs and the
equator principles. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
22(4), 553–587.
412 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time?: A personal re?ection on the
current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental
accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
21(2), 240–267.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Mostert, E., & Fabara, D. (2008). The growing importance of
social learning in water resources management and sustainability
science. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 24–27.
Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: A
view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 18(6), 842–860.
Parker, L. D. (2011). Building bridges to the future: Mapping the territory
for developing social and environmental accountability. Social and
Environmental Accountability Journal, 31(1), 7–24.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/0969160x.2011.556389.
Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in
response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 471–475.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A., & Barbier, E. B. (1989). Blueprint for a green
economy. London: Earthscan.
Pielke, R. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making sense of the science in policy
and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science
and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Power, M. (1992). After calculation? Re?ection on critique of economic
reason by André Gorz. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5),
477–499.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90043-R.
Pretty, J. (2011). Interdisciplinary progress in approaches to address
social–ecological and ecocultural systems. Environmental
Conservation, 38(02), 127–139.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892910000937.
Quental, N., Lourenço, J., & da Silva, F. (2011). Sustainability:
Characteristics and scienti?c roots. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 13(2), 257–276.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-010-
9260-x.
Raynolds, L., Murray, D., & Heller, A. (2007). Regulating sustainability in
the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-party
environmental and social certi?cation initiatives. Agriculture and
Human Values, 24(2), 147–163.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-
006-9047-8.
Redclift, M. (1999). Sustainability and sociology: Northern
preoccupations. In E. Becker & T. Jahn (Eds.), Sustainability and the
social sciences. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of
planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Roberts, R. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility
disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F.,
et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263),
472–475.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a.
Rubenstein, D. B. (1992). Bridging the gap between green accounting and
black ink. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 501–508.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90044-S.
Russell, S. L., & Thomson, I. (2009). Analysing the role of sustainable
development indicators in accounting for and constructing a
Sustainable Scotland. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 225–244.
Samiolo, R. (2012). Commensuration and styles of reasoning: Venice,
cost–bene?t, and the defence of place. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 37(6), 382–402.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.04.001.
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., & Burritt, R. (2006). Sustainability accounting
and reporting. Delft: Springer.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C., & Walker, B. (2001).
Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413(6856), 591–596. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/35098000.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shreck, A., Getz, C., & Feenstra, G. (2006). Social sustainability, farm labor,
and organic agriculture: Findings from an exploratory analysis.
Agriculture and Human Values, 23(4), 439–449.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10460-006-9016-2.
Söderholm, P., & Sundqvist, T. (2003). Pricing environmental externalities
in the power sector: Ethical limits and implications for social choice.
Ecological Economics, 46(3), 333–350.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
s0921-8009(03)00185-x.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2011). Sustainability science: A review, an analysis
and some empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation, 38(03),
275–287.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270.
Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in
combining economic and political processes to value environmental
change. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 690–699.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.014.
Spence, C. (2007). Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic
discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(6),
855–882.
Spence, L. J., & Rinaldi, L. (2014). Governmentality in accounting and
accountability: A case study of embedding sustainability in a supply
chain. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 433–452. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.03.003.
Stern, N. (2006). The economics of climate change: The Stern review.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. (2009). Report by the commission on the
measurement of economic and social progress.
Stone, C. (2010). Should trees have legal standing?: Law, morality and the
environment (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010). The economics of
ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A
synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
Thomson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2004). It doesn’t matter what you teach?
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(4–5), 609–628.
Thomson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2005). Social and environmental reporting
in the UK: A pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
16(5), 507–533.
Thomson, I. (2007). Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting. In J.
Unerman, B. O’Dwyer, & J. Bebbington (Eds.), Sustainability accounting
and accountability. Oxon: Routledge.
Trotman, K. T., & Bradley, G. W. (1981). Associations between social
responsibility disclosure and characteristics of companies. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 6(4), 355–362.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0361-3682(81)90014-3.
Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (Eds.). (2007). Sustainability
accounting and accountability. Oxon: Routledge.
United Nations (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development.
New York: United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development.
United Nations Environment Programme (2007). Global environmental
outlook: GEO4 environment for development. New York: United
Nations.
United Nations Environment Programme (2012). Global Environmental
Outlook 5. New York: United Nations.
UNWCED (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and
development: Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
USEPA (1996). Environmental accounting case studies: Full cost accounting
for decision making at Ontario hydro. Washington: USEPA.
Victor, P. (2008). Managing without growth: Slower by design not disaster.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Walker, W. E., Harremoes, P., Rotmans, J., Sluijs, J. P. V. D., Asselt, M. B. A.
V., Janssen, P., et al. (2003). De?ning uncertainty: A conceptual basis
for uncertainty management in model-based decision support.
Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 5–17.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies
almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.
Wilson, E. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Random
House.
Xing, Y., Horner, R. M. W., El-Haram, M. A., & Bebbington, J. (2009). A
framework model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban
development. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 209–224.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.accfor.2008.09.003.
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 413
doc_816369821.pdf
As the social and environmental impacts of human activity have become more evident, the
role of sustainable development as an organising principle in a variety of policy contexts and
over multiple scales has become central. There are, at least, two implications that emerge
from this observation. First, morally infused problems that need to be addressed have
become more intractable, requiring innovation in our modes of thinking. Second, new spaces
have emerged where the academy might explore how knowledge is created, validated and
translated (or not) alongside policy and practice settings. One outcome of these trends has
been the emergence of a stream of work (sustainability science) which investigates how disciplines
might develop knowledge that progresses sustainable development. The aim of this
paper, in line with the focus of the special issue, is to explore what possibilities emerge for
accounting in light of a sustainability science approach. To achieve this end the paper starts
with an exploration of the frustrations expressed in the literature over the perceived lack of
progress made by social and environmental accounting towards addressing sustainable
development. The paper then introduces sustainability science with the aim of imagining
how an accounting for sustainable development might emerge
Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration
Jan Bebbington
a,?
, Carlos Larrinaga
b
a
School of Management, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, The Gateway, North Haugh, Scotland KY15 9SS, United Kingdom
b
Departamento de Economía y Administración de Empresas, Universidad de Burgos, Plaza Infanta Elena, s/n, 09001 Burgos, Spain
a b s t r a c t
As the social and environmental impacts of human activity have become more evident, the
role of sustainable development as an organising principle in a variety of policy contexts and
over multiple scales has become central. There are, at least, two implications that emerge
from this observation. First, morally infused problems that need to be addressed have
become more intractable, requiring innovation inour modes of thinking. Second, newspaces
have emerged where the academy might explore how knowledge is created, validated and
translated (or not) alongside policy and practice settings. One outcome of these trends has
been the emergence of a streamof work (sustainability science) which investigates howdis-
ciplines might develop knowledge that progresses sustainable development. The aimof this
paper, in line with the focus of the special issue, is to explore what possibilities emerge for
accounting in light of a sustainability science approach. To achieve this end the paper starts
with an exploration of the frustrations expressed in the literature over the perceived lack of
progress made by social and environmental accounting towards addressing sustainable
development. The paper then introduces sustainability science with the aim of imagining
how an accounting for sustainable development might emerge. The paper closes with two
illustrations of how a sustainability science approach to accounting could develop.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Since the 1970s, and most in?uentially within the pages
of Accounting, Organizations and Society, our understanding
of accounting has been enriched by drawing on new intel-
lectual agendas and approaches. This paper seeks to
contribute in a small way to this history by exploring pos-
sible links between the sustainable development literature
and accounting. The accounting literature
1
has not been
silent on the issue of sustainable development and during
the last decade (Gray, 2002) started to describe itself as
‘accounting for sustainable development’ to cope with an
interest, both in theory and praxis, in organizational
accounts that encompass global social and environmental
issues, beyond the previous concern with local stakeholders
and the immediate organisational context (Gray, 2010;
Hopwood, Unerman, & Fries, 2010; Schaltegger, Bennett, &
Burritt, 2006; Unerman, Bebbington, & O’Dwyer, 2007). At-
tempts to develop accounting practice in this area, however,
has turned out not to be straightforward.
In particular, scholars note that it is dif?cult to de?ne
what sustainable development might mean in an organiza-
tional context (Gray&Milne, 2004) alongwitha lackof cred-
ible sustainable development accounts in practice. Two
speci?c concerns focus our attention here. First, reviews of
external reporting (sometimes described as sustainable
development reporting) have found that this form of
reporting has little to do with sustainable developmenthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.01.003
0361-3682/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
?
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01334 46 23 48.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Bebbington).
1
The terminology used in the paper warrants a mention. When we use
the phrase accounting we will be referring to the entire discipline of
accounting. Social and environmental accounting refers to a sub-set of this
discipline that focused more closely on the social and environmental
impacts of organisational activities. In line with others (notably Thomson,
2007 and Buhr, 2007) we will argue that accounting for sustainable
development is likely to be distinctive compared to social and environ-
mental accounting and accounting itself, while having a connection to both
those arenas of scholarship.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accounting, Organizations and Society
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ aos
(Gray, 2010). This has led some to suggest that these ac-
counts should be conceived of as narratives decoupled from
underlying organizational realities, intended (at best) to
construct a plurality of discourses about sustainable devel-
opment andamongwhichit is impossible toadjudicate. This
perspective is re?ected in studies that examine the con-
struction of corporate discourses about sustainable devel-
opment (see, for example, Bebbington, Larrinaga, &
Moneva, 2008; Buhr & Reiter, 2006; Ferguson, 2007; Laine,
2009; Llewellyn & Milne, 2007; Spence, 2007). The merit
of the narrative turn in this stream of research is that it
has provided a healthy scepticism about claims found in
these accounts that organizations operate in accordance
with the demands of sustainable development.
Our second focus is on how accounting has sought to
engage with sustainable development principles through
full cost accounting (Antheaume, 2004; Atkinson, 2000;
Bebbington, 2007; Bebbington, Brown, & Frame, 2007;
Bebbington & Gray, 2001; Bebbington, Gray, Hibbit, & Kirk,
2001; Bent, 2006; Frame & Cavanagh, 2009; Fraser, 2012;
Herbohn, 2005; Xing, Horner, El-Haram, & Bebbington,
2009). Of the various accounting techniques that have
attempted to better expose social, environmental and
economic externalities (at the root of unsustainable devel-
opment), full cost accounting was seen as the most prom-
ising as it moves beyond the entity to identify externalities.
However, despite some experimentation in this area, how
one might create a defendable account of (un)sustainabil-
ity
2
remains elusive.
These two sets of observations have created something
of a conundrum. We seem unable to observe in practice, or
realise in academic experimentation, robust accounts of
organisational (un)sustainability. At the same time, the
challenges that face human society in social, environmen-
tal and economic terms (and issues emerging from the
interplay of these factors) remain non-trivial. In addition,
sustainable development remains the overarching concept
under which an array of research and praxis takes place
and as such remains central to an articulation of these var-
ious challenges. Drawing these points together, this paper
is motivated by a desire to keep open the possibility that
the discipline of accounting might, under certain condi-
tions, allow organisations to address sustainable develop-
ment challenges. In order to achieve this, however, we
suggest that the intellectual roots of any accounting for
sustainable development might have to be (re)envisaged.
In particular, it is our contention that attempts to ac-
count for sustainable development have drawn too closely
on accounting and too little on sustainable development
thinking. Indeed, Gray (2010, p. 47) suggests the same,
stating that the ‘‘baggage associated with conventional
accounting is no longer apposite when seeking to account
for sustainability’’. We agree with this and would suggest
that accounting for sustainable development, as a distinc-
tive research area, is yet to fully emerge and that its reali-
sation requires a re-connection with wider discussions
about sustainable development (in a variety of disciplines)
to identify research questions that are of broader relevance
and research approaches that might be valuable. To
achieve this aim, this paper draws on the area of sustain-
ability science to develop propositions for accounting.
The paper is structured as follows. Section two re?ects
on the disappointment expressed in social and environ-
mental accounting concerning its attempt to address sus-
tainable development. We argue that environmental
accounting in the nineties connected with broader envi-
ronmental debates and generated a new approach in the
accounting literature which has subsequently been lost
with the literature now focusing on accounting and man-
agement research questions. Recovering this connection
to social and ecological concerns might, therefore, be valu-
able for accounting for sustainable development.
Section three refocuses attention on the links between
sustainable development and accounting for two reasons.
First, much of the accounting literature reproduces the
Brundtland Report de?nition but does not explore more
contemporary sustainable development work. There are
some underlying elements of sustainable development
that, if not recognized, might lead to accounting scholar-
ship being decoupled from sustainable development con-
cerns. Second, we argue that social and/or environmental
accounting must be distinguished from accounting for sus-
tainable development and this is attempted at the close of
this section.
In section four the focus moves to an extended intro-
duction to sustainability science (drawing on material that
has been published over the last ?fteen). We have framed
our discussion in two ways: ?rst, by describing the motifs
of this area and, second, by addressing the issue of how to
judge the merits of work in this area.
Section ?ve brings the analysis undertaken to date to-
gether and seeks a consilience between accounting and
sustainability science by way of two case studies. The ?rst
takes an existing area of accounting (that of full cost
accounting) and explores how a sustainability science ap-
proach might in?uence the practice and evaluation of this
work. The second case examines what we might learn if we
start from a sustainable development perspective and
identify a problem area where accounting might play an
important role, but on which it has remained mostly silent,
despite its importance. This example relates to sustainable
consumption and production (an overarching theme of the
United Nations’ sustainable development agenda) where
institutions have developed around the creation of certi?-
cation processes (often re?ected in certi?cation labels).
Certi?cation seeks to identify more socially, environmen-
tally and economically sound production processes and
through this to shape consumption choices. We will argue
that there is a role for the accounting academy to contrib-
ute to an evaluation of the possibilities for and outcomes
from certi?cation. Both cases are used to demonstrate
2
As re?ected in the call for papers, discussions of the pursuit of
sustainable development sometimes note that what we are in fact doing is
seeking to move away from being unsustainable due to the problems with
de?ning a singular point of sustainable development. Likewise, sustainable
development, sustainability and organisational sustainability are terms
that are often used without clear articulation of the differences between
them. For the purposes of this paper we use the phrase sustainable
development for the overarching concept; sustainability as the end point of
achieving sustainable development; and organisational sustainability to
indicate actions that organisations might undertake in accordance with the
principles of sustainable development.
396 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
how a sustainable science inspired accounting investiga-
tion might develop.
To close, section six provides some concluding com-
ments. Taken together, we hope that this paper might cause
scholars to think differently about accounting investiga-
tions that are linked to sustainable development ideals as
well as have more practical hope (Orr, 2002) of addressing
sustainable development via the discipline of accounting
(in concert with other disciplines). Before we reach that
point, however, anexaminationof social andenvironmental
accounting (as the place where sustainable development is-
sues have most frequently been considered) is undertaken.z
Social and environmental accounting
3
Many putative accounts for sustainable development
(however incompletely they have been realized) emerged
from environmental accounting, which itself was an exten-
sion of work in social accounting (see Gray & Laughlin,
2012). Before the eighties environmental accounting was
not articulated as a distinct research subject. During this
decade, however, there was pressure for companies to dis-
close environmental liabilities (often emerging from litiga-
tion) and this led to studies that tried to explain
environmental disclosures in terms of corporate character-
istics (see, for example, Trotman & Bradley, 1981). The fo-
cus of these studies was the disclosure of environmental
issues that were essentially local in nature and which
could have a material impact on corporate accounts. By
the end of the 1980s, however, various developments, per-
haps most in?uentially the publication of the Brundtland
Report (UNWCED, 1987), created the impetus for an identi-
?able area of research in this area: environmental account-
ing. The Brundtland Report re?ected a concern about the
scale of human impact on the global environment as well
as the possibilities for equality in human ?ourishing and
used the concept of sustainable development to describe
the outcome sought (socially just and ecologically sound
development). The Brundtland Report motivated the UK
Department of the Environment to commission economist
David Pearce to write a report on environmental econom-
ics ultimately giving rise to the in?uential Blueprint for a
Green Economy (Pearce, Markandya, & Barbier, 1989). In
turn, the Chartered Association of Certi?ed Accountants
commissioned Rob Gray to describe how accounting might
contribute in the wake of Pearce et al. (1989). This resulted
in the publication of The Greening of Accountancy. The Pro-
fession After Pearce (Gray, 1990). This report, alongside spe-
cial issues of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
and Accounting, Organizations and Society in 1991 and in
1992 (volume 4, issue 3 and volume 17, issue 5, respec-
tively) created arguably the base from which environmen-
tal accounting emerged as a distinctive sphere of inquiry.
Environmental accounting in the early nineties was
strongly inspired by ideas imported from both the science
and the economics of sustainable development, creating a
fertile ground for experimentation and for the emergence
of a new literature (Gray & Laughlin, 2012). This new liter-
ature was concerned, for example, with the interplay be-
tween accounting and environmental valuation (Hines,
1991; Milne, 1991; Power, 1992; Rubenstein, 1992). As
environmental accounting became institutionalized within
accounting departments its focus reoriented to core
accounting concerns including management accounting,
?nancial auditing, ?nancial accounting, and annual report
analysis as well as emerging practices of environmental
audit and stand-alone reporting (see Thomson, 2007 for
an overview). Once this occurred, this earlier interdisci-
plinary focus was largely lost. Some social and methodo-
logical reasons could explain this focus.
The dominance of corporate reporting orientated re-
search has resulted from a tendency of scholars to take
on board the pre-occupations of accounting itself (that is
explaining managerial behavior as well as examining
?nancial and non-?nancial indicators) and to use the theo-
ries and methods that are readily available and encouraged
by academic departments and journals in this area. As Gray
and Laughlin put it, ‘‘[m]uch of this research has been rou-
tine descriptions of disclosure practices and/or attempts to
link disclosure to theoretical explanations’’ (2012, p. 238).
This research has been dominated by explanations draw-
ing from voluntary disclosure (Healy & Palepu, 2001), re-
source dependence (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975) and
legitimacy theory (Deegan, 2002; Patten, 1992). A focus
on narratives has been pivotal in constructing what could
be labeled as a ‘‘sociology of preparers’’ (see Christenson,
1983).
4
This focus also creates methodological preferences.
In particular, with a sociology of preparers perspective
the object of research is de?ned as being a narrative
(Czarniawska, 2004) about environmental (and to a lesser
extent social) sustainable development found in corporate
reports. The reports themselves are decoupled ‘‘from the fac-
tual organizational actions’’ (Laine, 2009, p. 1047) which
from a sustainable development perspective are unsustain-
able. Further, the dif?culty of translating sustainable devel-
opment to an organizational level (Gray, 2010; Gray & Milne,
2004) is left unaddressed along with an assessment of the
unsustainability of organisations in and of themselves.
Understanding organisations in a sustainable development
context is hence not developed within this literature/framing.
These preoccupations are comprehendible if one takes
accounting and its modes and rationales as given. We
would argue, therefore, that a similar process to that which
initiated environmental accounting has to happen so that
accounting of sustainable development can emerge. Specif-
ically, we argue in section three (and seek to demonstrate
by example in section four) that accounting for sustainable
development implies a research approach that is distinc-
tively different from that of accounting, environmental
3
Debates around the ef?cacy of social and environmental accounting are
lively and ongoing – see, for example, most recently the thematic issue of
Critical Perspectives on Accounting journal in 2013 (Vol. 24, No. 6).
4
Taken together this literature has uncovered a lack of correspondence
between reporting and any conception of social and environmental ‘reality’
(Hopwood, 2009) and an overarching bias toward the disclosure of good
news. Further, research suggests that accounting and reporting discourses
are intended to align public perception with institutional demands (Buhr,
1998; Buhr & Reiter, 2006; Laine, 2009) derived from the interests of the
most powerful stakeholders (Neu, Warsame, & Pedwell, 1998), notably the
providers of ?nancial resources (Bebbington et al., 2008).
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 397
accounting and social accounting and which might address
the problems noted above.
Indeed, there are hints of similar suggestions in the envi-
ronmental accounting literature itself (Owen, 2008; Parker,
2005, 2011) with scholars suggesting that colleagues in
mainstream accounting and other ?elds could be making
contributions to environmental accounting by avoiding a
purely narrative focus. One example is provided by critical
sociologists who focus on detailed accounting issues in the
area of carbon accounting and who argue accounts are both
contestable and provisional (which is different than saying
that it is impossible to adjudicate between them). Indeed,
sociologists have focused on the more modest (from an
accounting perspective) role of carbon accounting in the
everyday operation and institutionalization of carbon mar-
kets. In this arena accounting technologies have been
‘black-boxed’, thereby allowing the carbon market to oper-
ate (Callon, 2009; Lohmann, 2009; MacKenzie, 2009). In
contrast with, for example, Gray (2010), critical sociologists
thus foresee a potential in environmental accounting when
they argue that we need to understand in detail accounting
and other technologies if we wish to in?uence the basis for
praxis and policy making. As MacKenzie (2009, p. 453) puts
it ‘‘making carbon markets more effective is crucial, and the
esoteric nature of their subpolitics means that researchers
have a particularly salient role to play in bringing to light
matters of apparent detail [by which he means the account-
ing] that in fact play critical roles in this respect.’’
In summary, we have argued in this section that a sim-
ilar process to that which initiated environmental account-
ing might be needed for an accounting for sustainable
development to emerge. In order to create this possibility
we believe that we need to renew our understanding of
sustainable development so that the focus on accounting
problems might be replaced with a more contextual appre-
ciation of the issues at stake. Likewise, we will argue that
accounting for sustainable development requires a particu-
lar research approach that allows this broader context to
emerge. Taken together we hope that this material might
point towards research investigations that will respond
to the frustrations expressed in environmental accounting
about the achievements of that ?eld in the context of sus-
tainable development.
Accounting and sustainable development
This section seeks to point towards what accounting for
sustainable development might entail by way of a two
stage investigation. First, a description of the issues that fall
under the ambit of sustainable development is attempted.
Second, a translation of these concerns into an accounting
context is undertaken drawing from and building on sec-
tion two. The aim of this approach is to distinguish social
and/or environmental accounting more clearly from any
putative accounting for sustainable development.
De?ning sustainable development
Sustainable development is most frequently character-
ised as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs’’ (UNWCED, 1987, p. 8). While this
de?nition is familiar to many, its radical nature can only be
appreciated in the context of the time it was ?rst promul-
gated. For example, Cohen, Demeritt, Robinson, and
Rothman (1998, p. 351, emphasis added) note that in
‘‘adopting the term ‘sustainable development’, the
[Brundtland] Commission argued that problems of
human development (poverty, inequity, basic human
needs) could not be separated from, indeed were caus-
ally connected with environmental problems of resource
depletion, biodiversity, pollution and life support sys-
tems . . . [and that] the explicit linkage of the population
and development ‘problem’ in developing countries
with the ‘consumption’ problem in industrialized coun-
tries meant that SD was inherently a global concept.’’
As a consequence, they argue that sustainable develop-
ment ‘‘is not a scienti?c concept but a contested term in an
essentially political discourse about human activities and
behaviour’’ (Cohen et al., 1998, p. 52). At the same time,
however, elements of environmental evaluation, for exam-
ple, can be scienti?cally based (see, for example,
Rockstrom et al., 2009). This reasoning raises both ontolog-
ical and epistemological questions.
From an ontological perspective, it is argued that a dis-
tinction in conceptualization exists between natural and
social systems. Although there is uncertainty about the
natural system aspects of sustainable development, this
uncertainty is of a different kind than that which exists
when it comes to examining social systems aspect of sus-
tainable development (see also Frame & O’Connor, 2011).
For example, the politics involved in the de?nition of
notions of opportunity costs or hypothetical baselines
(Lohmann, 2009) make carbon accounting the subject of
deep controversy. Carbon emissions and the science of cli-
mate change, however, resist a purely narrative approach
that would reduce them solely to social constructions that
can be deconstructed (Dunlap, 2010; Herbohn, 2005; Redc-
lift, 1999) with the purpose of underplaying climate
change and the processes by which physical measurement
is sought. At its most extreme, the physical phenomena
could be dismissed as being ‘unreal’ by virtue of a focus
on the narratives that surround it. As Latour (2004, p.
231) put it, referring to the science of climate change:
‘‘[m]y argument is that a certain form of critical spirit
has sent us down the wrong path, encouraging us to
?ght the wrong enemies and, worst of all, to be consid-
ered as friends by the wrong sort of allies. . . The ques-
tion was never to get away from facts but closer to
them, not ?ghting empiricism but, on the contrary,
renewing empiricism.’’
5
5
Relatedly, Gray (2010, pp. 52–55) suggests that one might place
accounting for sustainable development beyond modernity (and in so
doing, draws on post-modernity references). This is in contrast to the
premise of sustainability science which emerged (at least in part) as a
reaction to postmodernity (see also Dunlap, 2010 and Redclift, 1999). As
will become apparent later in the paper, sustainability science retains its
attachment to modern ways of thinking (albeit that these are reconcep-
tualised). For example, Fadeeva and Mochizuki (2010) allude to the idea of
re?exive modernity (drawing from Beck) and liquid modernity (drawing
from Baumann) in their exploration of sustainability science.
398 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
In conclusion, although it has to be recognized that
environmental problems have an (uncertain) physical sub-
stance, accounting for sustainable development needs to
be based on a distinction between the incomplete knowl-
edge of phenomena in the natural system (Brugnach, De-
wulf, Pahl-Wostl, & Taillieu, 2008; Walker et al., 2003)
and the inherent contestability and multiple framings of
the ‘social’, as an object of knowledge.
This ontological position gives rise to epistemological
implications. For example, it is noted that the introduction
of the concept of sustainable development pointed to-
wards a desire for ‘‘a more integrated approach in tackling
deeply intertwined global environmental problems and
development issues’’ (Goeminne, 2011, p. 627). Implicit
within such an integrated approach is a re-examination
of how knowledge is produced, including the relative level
of interaction between disciplines and the movement
through multi, inter and trans-disciplinarily approaches.
6
The point that may have been lost with the passage of time
(and with the frequent repetition of the bare bones of the
Brundtland Report de?nition with little or no subsequent dis-
cussion) is that sustainable development requires not only a
new approach on the ground, but new ways of re?ecting
upon and shaping practices. In particular, investigations that
focus on an issue of concern (rather than a discipline framed
starting point for problem identi?cation) might more readily
allow subjective and objective dimensions of issues to be
appreciated together rather than either perspective being
assumed to provide unique access to truth. In addition, a
plurality of perspectives (including those who are affected
by the problem) can be brought together in such an inquiry.
Indeed, the issues of concern that are widely accepted to fall
within the ambit of sustainable development (Clark &
Dickson, 2003, p. 8059) are sometimes called the
‘‘WEHAB. . . targets of water, energy, health, agriculture and
biodiversity’’. What is relevant to note is that these areas
do not neatly map onto disciplinary ?elds. Rather, they are
arenas which can only be understood through multiple
lenses: in short they require, at least, inter-disciplinary
approaches for their investigation.
While the WEHAB targets emerged from a policy con-
text, collectives of in?uential scientists (see Rockstrom
et al., 2009) also focus on the threat to human wellbeing
presented by climate change (see Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, 2007, 2013; Stern, 2006) along with
concerns about the integrity of ecosystems through
modi?cation of the nitrogen cycle or through declining
biodiversity
7
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment., 2005;
United Nations Environment Programme, 2007, 2012). These
concerns about human modi?cation of the planet’s life sup-
port systems focus, in the main, on the threats to human
wellbeing that arise from these trends through the loss of
ecosystem services,
8
albeit that all species will be affected
by global environmental climate change (for a signi?cant
publication on the implications of these trends see The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2010). Indeed,
it is widely believed that we are now living in the anthropo-
cene, which is described as an era in which ‘‘human actions
have become the main driver of global environmental
change’’ (Rockstrom et al., 2009, p. 472)
While ecological concerns focus on future threats to hu-
man ?ourishing, there are also contemporary challenges to
wellbeing. Development, however conceptualised (see Sen,
1999, for an in?uential conceptualisation of development
as freedom) around the globe is highly unequal with some
experiencing grinding poverty while others are starting to
experience the ‘diseases of af?uence’ (for example, obesity,
heart disease and psychological ill health). Concern about
unequal development manifests itself in global equity de-
bates (as expressed in the Millennium Development Goals,
seehttp://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ along with an-
nual updates published by the United Nation’s Department
of Economic and Social Affairs) but equity within countries
remains a major policy concern and drives, to greater
or lesser extent, all national government policy agendas
(Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Indeed, the nature and drivers
of wellbeing of human populations has re-emerged as an
area of active debate and experimentation in many coun-
tries (see Jackson, 2009; Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009;
Victor, 2008), drawing on earlier work in this area (Ayres,
1998; Daly, 1996).
It is, therefore, possible to point to an array of issues
that sustainable development concerns itself with, without
coming to a formal de?nition that would encompass all
possible activities that might arise within its ambit (see
also Quental, Lourenço, & da Silva, 2011 for a synthesis of
characteristics and scienti?c roots of sustainable develop-
ment). Of course, this characterisation (as opposed to a def-
inition of sustainable development) poses problems if the
usual mode of inquiry in a discipline is to draw from con-
cepts and spheres of inquiry are relatively settled. Müller
(2003, p. 24) explored just this point and notes that that
‘‘pronounced transdisciplinarity of mode-2 science does
not support the development of any formalism
9
. . . [and fur-
ther notes that a] lack of formalism and generally accepted
de?nitions and ideas’’ makes such inquiries appear unusual
from the point of view of more formalised ?elds. By way of
clari?cation, Gibbons et al. (1994) distinguish mode-1 and 6
Max-Neef (2005, pp. 6–7), characterizes these distinctions as being on a
continuum from single discipline work (which he calls ‘‘specialization in
isolation’’) to trans-disciplinary. In brief, he sees multi discipline work as
arising where disciplines examine a common area without creating co-
operative practices or understandings. In contrast, inter discipline work
involves some level of co-learning or co-ordination of efforts between
disciplines. For him trans-disciplinary activity emerges where disciplines
fully integrate their concerns with each other and share and/or develop
values and concepts in common. Others characterise trans-disciplinary
work as necessarily involving practice and practitioners in its knowledge
production processes.
7
Indeed, there are suggestions that humankind is witnessing (and
indeed driving) the seventh mass extinction that the planet has experi-
enced (Carpenter & Bishop, 2009).
8
The previously mentioned Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
describes how human wellbeing relies on services drawn from the natural
environment. These services are frequently classi?ed in terms of supporting
services (such as photosynthesis, and nutrient and water cycling that allow
ecosystems to function); provisioning services (that is, materials such as
food, ?bre, fresh water and genetic resources); regulating services (most
notably the climate system); and cultural services (encompassing the non-
material bene?ts from ecosystems including enjoyment, psychic and
aesthetic bene?ts from being in nature).
9
Müller (2003, p. 24) notes that by ‘formalism’ he does ‘‘not mean a
mathematical formulation of a theory but merely some rather robust and
widely accepted framework to rely on in discussions.’’
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 399
mode-2 science in the following way. Mode-1 is used to de-
scribe a pattern of work that is motivated by academic con-
cerns as presented by the academy (this it characterised as
the usual mode of academic operation). In contrast, Mode-
2 science takes a problem centred focus, shaped by concerns
of practice and is likely to involve teams of researchers from
different disciplines.
The lack of formalised de?nition of sustainable develop-
ment also leads to accusations that the concept lacks
meaning (from a mode-1 point of view). Cohen et al.
(1998, p. 354) reject the suggestion that ‘‘the concept
of. . . [sustainable development] is empty.
10
Indeed, it can
be argued that it represents a potential breakthrough in
thinking about the linkage between environmental and so-
cial issues. It allows, even requires, a recognition of the glob-
ally interconnected nature of environment and development
questions.’’ As a result, the broad nature of the Brundtland
Report de?nition of sustainable development has allowed a
wide coalition to unite under its rhetoric while the implica-
tions that arise from its application in particular situations
remain contested. Further, given the complex and interlock-
ing nature of the issues identi?ed above, discipline speci?c
framing of research is unlikely to be suf?cient to fully
describe or remedy particular sustainable development
problems. For example, a characterisation of rural poverty
as arising from a lack of income would point towards an eco-
nomic based solution (that of increasing income). This fram-
ing and remedy, however, would not necessarily bring to
light issues of land tenure (a legal issue); agricultural prac-
tices (from technological studies) or gender inequity that
might reinforce poverty. While many disciplines have much
to bring the study (in this case of rural poverty) they each
only shed light on some aspects of the issue.
Two modes of inquiry have emerged in light of this:
discipline speci?c insights to sustainable development
problems as well as studies that seek to use a problem area
as the focus around which disciplines are assembled (the
sustainability science approach). Before moving to con-
sider this second approach, however, it is instructive to
consider in more detail how the discipline of accounting
has sought to engage with issues emerging from the
sustainable development agenda.
Accounting and sustainable development
There are no clear demarcations consistently drawn in
the literature between social and environmental account-
ing and accounting for sustainable development.
11
It is,
however, crucial for the line of argument proposed in this
paper to distinguish these two (undoubtedly linked) areas.
There is, however, no existing literature that seeks to devel-
op this distinction. As a result, we have used the faming
found in a book that seeks to explore accounting and
accountability issues that emerge in the context of sustain-
able development as a way to start our line of thinking.
12
Speci?cally, Unerman et al. (2007) gathered together in-
sights from colleagues who were likely to have a conception
of possibilities for accounting for sustainable development.
While many authors (due to their chapter scopes) did not di-
rectly address the difference between social and environ-
mental accounting and accounting for sustainable
development (and indeed often used these terms inter-
changeably), those that did fell into two categories. First,
some noted that they considered activities that constitute
social and environmental accounting could be seen to point
towards a possible accounting for sustainable development
while being unsure if the latter actually existed at the time
they wrote their contribution. For example, Buhr (2007)
noted that she was ‘‘not convinced that such a thing as sus-
tainability reporting exists [and that she was therefore pro-
viding]. . . a chapter on the histories and rationales for
something that is yet to be and, quite possibly may never
be’’ (p. 57). The second set of responses (notably those draw-
ing from Gray & Milne, 2004) asserted that there are step
changes at the level of scale of analysis and the standard
of attainment that is sought as one moves from social and
environmental accounting to accounting for sustainable
development. Indeed, the idea of a ‘step change’ lead to
Thomson (2007) asking if ‘‘it is now time to enter into a
meaningful discourse on whether sustainability accounting
is a coherent cognate ?eld of study in its own right’’ (p.
34). He also suggests that as presently constructed there is
a danger that accounting for sustainable development could
become ‘‘simply an interesting empirical site for accounting
and ?nance researchers to focus their empirical and theoret-
ical microscopes on’’ (Thomson, 2007, p. 34).
Taking these observations on board, two dimensions are
explored below in an attempt to more clearly delineate
social and environmental accounting from accounting for
sustainable development, namely: who ‘counts’ in any
investigation (that is, from whose point of view are ques-
tions framed), andhowissues of concernemergeintothedo-
main of accounting for sustainable development. In
exploring these two aspects, we are not suggesting that we
have the answers to what accounting for sustainable devel-
opment should become. Rather, this analysis is by way of
posing problems (a dialogic framing, see Thomson &
Bebbington, 2004; Thomson &Bebbington, 2005) for existing
accounting in order to point towards (as Thomson, 2007,
hopes) what accounting for sustainable development might
entail if it were to emerge as a coherent ?eld of its own. Each
aspect will betakeninturn, recognizingthat eachelement co-
evolves with each other. In addition, they in turn shape the
sort of theorizing that might emerge in this context.
In seeking to identify ‘who counts’, social and environ-
mental accounting has made a ?rm commitment to
10
See also Frame and O’Connor (2011) who consider these issues in terms
of sustainability assessment and suggest that a non-bounded de?nition of
sustainable development could become an open signi?er.
11
Gray (2010), for example, moves to talking about accounting for
sustainable development on the basis that some for pro?t corporations use
the term ‘sustainability’ in their corporate reporting practices. While this
might be descriptively correct, it is not a particularly useful basis from
which to de?ne an academic ?eld.
12
Other potential synthesises of accounting and sustainable development
was also examined. Schaltegger et al. (2006) focus on the sustainability of
corporations in the face of challenges rather than on conceptualising
sustainable development itself. Hopwood et al. (2010) was also reviewed
and was starting to develop a conception of sustainable development that
points towards the discussion in this paper. The nature of the book (the
presentation of organisational centred cases), however, was not conducive
to a theoretically informed discussion.
400 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
pluralism and it is, therefore, not surprising that informa-
tion rights for stakeholders are a central issue to develop-
ing a more pluralistic setting. De?ning stakeholders,
however, requires a de?nition of an area of concern (or
an entity) around which stakeholder’s rights might be
determined. In accounting, this is primarily determined
by reference to an entity which is itself de?ned in some le-
gal form (and which is the ‘usual’ entity of analysis for
accountants).
13
Likewise, how stakeholders make their im-
pact felt and/or those stakeholders that require an organiza-
tional response is usually determined by relative power to
affect the entity in question (see Mitchell, Agle, & Wood,
1997). This has, naturally, lead to the development of stake-
holder theory as a way to determine ‘who matters’ as well as
a focus on the extent to which the legitimacy of the entity in
question is created and maintained.
14
In contrast, the sustainable development literature
points towards an interest in those who are adversely af-
fected by current arrangements (such as the environment
itself, future generations and the least well off of present
generations).
15
These could be seen as the stakeholders of
the sustainable development project and as a result the
question arises as to what entity (or combination of entities)
creates the conditions that result in any harm. The answer to
this is more complex because no one single entity creates
and sustains these problems. Rather, a combination of insti-
tutions (including modes of organising) frames these out-
comes. This would suggest that the entity in question in
any account of sustainable development might be based in
these socio-economic arrangements (embedded in a variety
of historical, legal and cultural contexts). This includes large,
listed for pro?t companies (the typical focus of accounting
research) but also how they are affected by institutions that
might cause them to behave in an unsustainable manner
(such as providers of capital and capital markets). Moreover,
a focus on the actions and accounts from those entities that
are not bound to the rationales of pro?t making and listing
markets (such as family owned business, social enterprises
and the public sector) are likely to yield more insight about
possibilities for change than focusing on the heavily con-
strained listed corporations.
Taken together this would also create an argument for a
sustained examination of the setting within which organi-
sations operate. For example, if we wished for ‘better’ sus-
tainable development reporting we need to understand
how performance and/or reporting guidelines are devel-
oped (see, for example, O’Sullivan & O’Dwyer, 2009). In
addition, looking at particular points of change (for exam-
ple, the passage of key pieces of legislation/regulation or
physical shocks) that might be necessary (but insuf?cient)
for less unsustainable operations is possible. Likewise, con-
sidering possibilities for change at country or sector levels
(Figge & Hahn, 2004; Frame & Bebbington, 2012; Russell &
Thomson, 2009) and how this might cascade to individual
organisations would be relevant insights to have. Finally,
examining the work of the public sector (as a shaping
and guiding process in society and in and of itself) is likely
to be fruitful (see Ball & Bebbington, 2008, for a summary).
Such approaches would reduce a focus on those entities
(listed for pro?t entities) for which pursuing sustainable
development is more problematic, at least until institu-
tions around them are reformed.
The second point of distinction relates to how issues of
concern present themselves to researchers. As noted before,
in social and environmental accounting issues considered
are those that are most closely related to operational con-
cerns of large for pro?t entities. This has dictated the focus
on reporting activities previously noted as well as some
organisational operational activities such as environmental
costing routines, performance management, translation of
strategy and supply chain analysis. Likewise, the impact
of operation of newmarkets (for example social responsible
investment) has created a substantive focus on the impacts
of these markets and their intersection with existing
investment/governance issues. Of the various concerns
from the sustainable development agenda (framed as WE-
HAB) recently water and carbon accounting (notably spe-
cial issues on carbon have been published in Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal and the Journal of Cleaner
Production in 2011 and 2012 respectively) have most con-
sistently captured researchers’ attention, not least because
markets have been developed to translate these concerns to
the entity level. There are, however, some aspects missing
as a result of this framing (Bebbington & Larrinaga, 2008).
If we return to the literature on sustainable develop-
ment then the two planetary processes that are most be-
yond boundary limits are biodiversity loss and the
nitrogen cycle (see Rockstrom et al., 2009). While there is
an emerging literature on biodiversity (Jones, 1996; Jones,
2003; Lamberton, 2000 and a special issue of Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal in 2013), the implica-
tions of the nitrogen cycle has yet to be translated into
organisational research. The area where one would make
the connection (in operational terms) is in the farming
industry (or via food as the focus of research). We would
suggest that these research gaps arise because accounting
researchers have insuf?cient exposure to the ecological
concerns that emerge from the sustainable development
?eld. A similar picture emerges in the social arena where,
except some work in fair trade and human rights (see
McPhail & McKernan, 2011 and the rest of articles pub-
lished in the 2011 special issue of Critical Perspectives on
Accounting), accounting has not been systematically and
actively considering social equity concerns. Our argument
here is that if one took sustainable development as the
point of departure then a wider array of relevant topics
13
This might be compared with other possible entities (some of which
make more ecological and social sense) such as: cities, communities,
regions, ecosystems or sectors. While these entities are likely to be more
familiar as ?elds of analysis for geographers or economists they remain
legitimate possible units of account for accounting scholars as well.
14
Stakeholder analysis and a focus on organisational legitimacy have
been dominant conceptual foci of the corporate social responsibility (and
social and environmental accounting) literature and have also been subject
to lively ongoing debate. Historical entry points to this substantive body of
work include (for stakeholder theorising) Freeman (1984); (its application
to accounting) Roberts (1992) while Deegan (2002) provides an important
summary of legitimacy theory informed work.
15
Driscoll and Starik (2004) consider the environment as an organisa-
tional stakeholder while in 1972 Stone seminally considered the potential
legal standing of trees (see Stone, 2010). In the area of philosophy Mulgan
(2006) has produced a relatively accessible introduction to the philosoph-
ical issues of treating future people seriously.
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 401
might be researched, drawing on pockets of work in
accounting that already address these various issues of
concern.
Likewise, if a different research agenda was pursued, it
might be that a different set of theories would provide a
touchstone for researchers. In particular, the usefulness
of theories that provide a sense of how longer cycles of
change behaviour (and associated rationalities) are likely
to emerge. One area that has been used to inform many
areas of work (including some in accounting) is that of gov-
ernmentality (Bebbington & Thomson, 2007; Frame &
Bebbington, 2012; Gouldson & Bebbington, 2007; Spence
& Rinaldi, 2014). This theoretical framing widens the scope
of what might be examined beyond particular techniques
and practices (such as accounting) to their place in constel-
lations of governing activities (and the impacts of these
shaping contexts). Theories that explain how organisa-
tional practices become more similar to each other as well
as how moments of change arise are also likely to be valu-
able (and are applicable to institutions themselves). More-
over, if one puts sectors and countries at the heart of
problem posing, one might identify contexts where coun-
tries have substantial natural resources (such as, but not
limited to, those in the Paci?c) but relatively weak capacity
to effectively govern activities of private corporations. In
these settings, a possibility for oversight and disciplining
of corporate activities might be those opportunities pro-
vided by private regulatory means (for example, sector
based self-regulation, problematic though that is also
likely to be – see, for example, Bebbington, Kirk, & Larrina-
ga, 2012). Lessons from private regulatory processes (such
as the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment
and/or the Global Compact) might provide a basis from
which Governments could control (at least to some extent)
the likely impacts of these corporations. To the best of our
knowledge there has not been a systematic attempt to use
these existing regulatory contexts to enforce some
accountability on corporations whose impacts are viewed
as problematic from a sustainable development perspec-
tive. This is not to say that these are the only possible ave-
nues forward, but these sorts of framing device do tend to
shift the focus onto the context which shape entities
behaviours rather than a focus on entity accounts.
16
In addition to considering speci?c theories that might
contribute to understanding and answering research ques-
tions, a literature has been developing that addresses
methodological questions about how we might address
sustainable development issues. This approach is termed
sustainability science. This approach does not mean that
there is any less need for excellence within discipline
knowledge.
17
Indeed, this is viewed as a pre-requisite for
bringing knowledge to a more sustainability science orien-
tated exploration. Rather, proponents of sustainability sci-
ence argue that unless we develop additional modes of
intellectual investigation it will be impossible to engage
effectively with the complex, interlocking and ethically
imbued problem set that we are facing. Hallmarks of this ap-
proach are introduced in more depth in the next section and
will infuse the rest of the paper.
Sustainability science
18
The purpose of this sectionis toprovide a bridge between
earlier concerns about how one might research sustainable
development issues and an appreciation of the complexity
of the real world contexts in which these issues emerge
andevolve. We havearguedthat additional modes of knowl-
edge production (in conjunction to discipline based investi-
gation) are required for this task and that this has been
attempted by an emerging ?eld of inquiry termed sustain-
ability science. In particular, sustainability science is a
description applied to a particular approach to knowledge
production that seeks to point ‘‘the way towards a sustain-
able society’’ (Komiyama & Takeuchi, 2006, p. 2; see also
Kajikawa, 2008; Kastenhofer, Bechtold, & Wil?ng, 2011).
The term is most frequently credited to Kates et al. (2001),
although it draws extensively on previous discussions of
wicked problems (Beilin & Bender, 2011; Rittel & Webber,
1973) and post normal science
19
(Funtowicz & Ravetz,
1993) with clear links to notions of ‘mode 2’ knowledge pro-
duction (Gibbons et al., 1994; Müller, 2003), addressing
‘divergent problems’ (Orr, 2002), and/or seeking consilience
(the ‘jumping together’ of knowledge, see Wilson, 1998).
20
Motifs of sustainability science
Various motifs that characterise a sustainability science
approach have been outlined in the literature, namely its:
domain of concern (inter-disciplinary understandings of
nature–society interactions); how it de?nes its research
focus (on sustainable development problem sets); how it
decides what knowledge ‘counts’ (re?ecting participatory
and democratic desires); and its recognition that normativ-
ity is inherent in the problem set. Each characteristic is
outlined in more depth in the following paragraphs.
21
Sustainability science is concerned with the ‘‘funda-
mental character of interactions between nature and soci-
16
We don’t believe that it is helpful to the ?ow of the paper to fully
develop these propositions. Rather, they are offered in order to ground our
suggestions in more particular terms as a way to encourage a move beyond
focusing on corporate produced narratives as a way to regulate organisa-
tional behaviour.
17
We will return to this point later in the paper. Being open to other
disciplinary focuses in the context of a sustainability science orientated
investigation is not about ‘anything goes’. Likewise, a desire to be inter-
disciplinary does not imply a rejection of disciplines as useful ways to
understand and act in the world.
18
In this context, science is used to describe the generic process of
systematically developing knowledge.
19
Wicked problems are described as problems that defy resolution.
Brown, Harris, and Russell (2010, p. 4) paraphrase these as resisting
‘‘complete de?nition, for which there can be no ?nal solution, since any
resolution generates further issues, and where the solutions are not true or
false or good or bad, but the best that can be done at the time’’. Post-normal
science is the approach one has to take with wicked problems, with
sustainability science being an example of a post-normal approach.
20
Material in this area is found in journals such as Futures and Ecological
Economics which are journals in which accounting scholars sometimes
publish and which sometimes inform accounting work. There are also
sustainable development journals, such as Sustainability Science and
International Journal of Sustainable Development.
21
These motifs have been developed on the basis of an extensive review
and synthesis of the sustainable science literature.
402 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
ety’’ (Kates et al., 2001, p. 641; Clark & Dickson, 2003;
Quental et al., 2011). Understanding such interactions re-
quires both an understanding of the particular systems in
question as well as the interactions that emerge at their
intersection and at different scales (Holling, 2001). For
example, Jerneck et al. (2011, p. 72) describe natural sys-
tems as being ‘‘driven by a set of fundamental natural prin-
ciples, such as gravity, thermodynamics and natural
selection, while social systems are driven by. . . dynamics,
such as demography, ideology, inequality and power strug-
gles, as well as rationalisation, specialisation, institution-
alisation, competition, capital accumulation, ef?ciency
and technological change’’.
22
Table 1 outlines the questions
that Kates et al. (2001) identi?ed as needing to be
addressed.
23
Crucially, sustainability science emerged at a time when
science was being asked to engage in policy domains
which were characterised by high levels of complexity
and uncertainty.
24
At this time it also became apparent that
‘‘laypersons (e.g. judges, journalists, scientists from another
?eld, or just citizens) could master enough of the methodol-
ogy to become effective participants in the dialogue’’
(Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1994, p. 204). Moreover, Funtowicz
and Ravetz (1994, p. 204) note that since ‘‘no particular
expertise can deliver certainty for policy decisions, no exper-
tise can claim a monopoly of wisdom and competence.’’
Con?dence in the ability of a single discipline (and/or ‘scien-
ti?cally’ derived knowledge) was challenged at this time
after a period where ‘science’ had enjoyed (and then lost)
the con?dence of many.
As a result, sustainability science adopts an inter-
disciplinary approach to problem de?nition and analysis
(Clark & Dickson, 2003; Jerneck et al., 2011). This arises
because it is believed that we are facing problems that
are different in both scale (they are global in expression,
see Allen, Fontaine, Pope, & Garmestani, 2011), as well as
complexity (in that there are possibilities for irreversible
outcomes as well as the potential for discontinuities/tip-
ping points in these systems – see Jerneck et al., 2011;
Quental et al., 2011; and especially Scheffer, Carpenter, Fo-
ley, Folke, & Walker, 2001). Indeed, Jerneck et al. (2011, p.
70) suggest that taken together ‘‘anthropogenic in?uences
on global life support systems have reached a magnitude
unprecedented in human history, levels that now jeopar-
dise the well-being of humanity’’ with emergent properties
arising from systems interactions (Clark & Dickson, 2003).
To further complicate matters, many of the problems that
are faced are in need of urgent resolution (Cohen et al.,
1998). Taken together, these characteristics are often de-
scribed as being ‘wicked’ (Rittel & Webber, 1973), and sus-
tainability science suggests that wicked problems can only
be addressed through a post-normal approach (Funtowicz
& Ravetz, 1993).
The second motif of sustainability science is that it is
problem focused along with being applied in nature. This
focus is required if one believes that problems emerge
from complex interactions between systems. Further, if it
is assumed that problems are driven by a particular con?u-
ence of aspects in particular settings then this is a robust
approach to knowledge production. A particular focus sits
in contrast to a trend in knowledge production towards
generalizability (Cohen et al., 1998 discuss this in the
context of global climate change). In this vein, Clark and
Dickson (2003, p.8060) caution against a focus on the spe-
ci?c leading to a presumption that sustainability science
does not address fundamental questions – indeed the
questions posed by Kates et al. (2001), among others, are
fundamental in nature, albeit that their investigation may
be particular in execution.
The focus on the particular also creates the opportunity
for a more nuanced appreciation of individuals’ experience
of the particular problem set. Speci?cally, there is a greater
potential for individual narratives about subjective experi-
ence of sustainable development problems to be heard
(and voiced) if one focuses on speci?c times and places. Gi-
ven this ‘closer’ view, there is a belief that sustainability
science is more likely to expose the position of the most
vulnerable and hence might engage researchers more di-
rectly with moral judgements (which is itself linked to
the fourth characteristic of sustainability science described
below).
One critical question arising from a focus on the partic-
ular is how, if at all, knowledge from one study may be
connected to knowledge from another study. This question
is usually addressed in two ways. First, the nature of learn-
ing within a sustainability science approach is character-
ised as social learning. Social learning has two aspects to
it. The ?rst is that learning is best achieved through ‘‘learn-
ing together to manage together . . . by doing’’ (Cummins &
McKenna, 2010, p. 799). This characteristic is implied by a
post-normal approach where the knowledge to action
nexus emerges through ‘‘re?ned interplay between itera-
tive practice and planning’’ (Cummins & McKenna, 2010,
p. 799). A second aspect of social learning is that through
working closely with others (both other disciplines
and with practitioners), ‘‘new relational capacities’’
(Pahl-Wostl, Mostert, & Fabara, 2008, p. 24) are created.
Learning how to collaborate, how to listen and when
(and how) to challenge is, therefore, core to a sustainability
science based interaction.
The third motif of sustainability science (linked to the
previous point) is that it tends to be more participatory
in nature than traditional science: that is, knowledge is
coproduced, (see Clark & Dickson, 2003; and Cortner,
2000, who describe this as ‘civic science’). The reasoning
for this is as follows: if one seeks to understand complex
problems and their expression in a particular context then
those who are directly affected by those problems are
22
This observation speaks to earlier suggestions that sustainable devel-
opment has both objective and subjective bases for understanding.
23
In this characterisation of sustainability science, the humanities (which
can be seen as re?ecting on the ‘‘values implied in human aspirations and
projects’’, Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 7) is relatively under explored. One could
argue that a focus on social systems also encompasses issues that the
humanities can and do shed light on. Equally, the natural science
background of the main proponents of sustainable development is likely
to lead to an undervaluing of humanities research.
24
Brown et al. (2010) and Pielke (2007) provide examples of various
issues that fall into this category including: persistent organic pollutants;
genetically modi?ed organism; trans boundary diffuse pollution and the
bioethics of cloning. Likewise, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmen-
talist (and the controversy that followed this publication) is an example of
this situation.
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 403
likely to have insight into how they have been created,
how they are sustained and what might be done to address
them (Cohen et al., 1998; Jasanoff, 2007). Further, the dis-
tinction between experts and laypersons is becoming
blurred in contemporary controversies and hence there is
a wider group who might have insights to offer in any
problem area. At the same time, a realisation that individ-
uals and communities not usually thought to be ‘knowl-
edgeable’ (such as indigenous peoples or, in general,
those affected by problems) might have relevant knowl-
edge has reinforced this more open attitude to who might
‘know’. As a result, a more participative approach to
knowledge generation is at the core of the post normal ap-
proach, especially in its use of extended peer communities
(Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993) to assess the robustness of
knowledge generated.
What is more, many actions that are sought in the name
of addressing sustainable development will require indi-
viduals, communities and institutions to change and may
involve dif?cult trade-offs to be negotiated (see de Vries
& Petersen, 2009, for a description of how the Netherlands
has attempted this). If the resolution of a problem cannot
be achieved by resorting to ‘facts’, a collectively agreed
course of action has to be sought. Likewise, the wicked nat-
ure of sustainable development problems means that solu-
tions are never permanent. Rather, ‘solutions’ require
continual reworking as actions taken often create other
manifestations of problems. The active and on-going par-
ticipation of those who are affected by (and who affect) a
sustainable development problem situation is therefore
necessary. Indeed, this point speaks to another characteris-
tic of wicked problems. That is, ‘‘scienti?c exploration and
practical application must occur simultaneously . . . [and
hence] in?uence and become entangled with each other’’
(Kates et al., 2001, p. 642).
The fourth motif of sustainability science concerns its
explicit recognition of normative and politically infused
nature of sustainable development arenas (Cohen et al.,
1998; Spangenberg, 2011). There is some debate if this is
a clearly distinguishing feature of sustainability science
with, for example, Cohen et al. (1998, p.366) arguing that
science ‘‘is political in non-trivial ways’’ and has always
been normative (Cortner, 2000; Goeminne, 2011). It would
appear, however, that even while many have accepted the
value driven nature of science, not all have and hence the
usefulness of explicit recognition of this aspect of sustain-
ability science.
Sustainability science, therefore, points towards a dif-
ferent sort of investigation for the academy. Differences in-
clude: (i) a focus on a broader class of problems than that
usually present within a discipline based investigation; (ii)
an assumption that it is necessary to adopt inter-disciplin-
ary framings of problems in order to understand them; (iii)
an assumption that there needs to be a deep and reciprocal
engagement between practice and the academy; and (iv) a
recognition that action is likely to precede full understand-
ing, with all the attendant risks that this brings. Arenas
that are starting to demonstrate these characteristics in-
clude: industrial ecology, ecological economics, human
ecology, social ecology transition theory, resilience theory,
cultural theory, world systems analysis and earth system
governance (see Pretty, 2011 for other examples).
Moreover, sustainability science emphasises that learn-
ing from feedback obtained from experiments in action are
necessary to address sustainable development issues. In-
deed, Allen et al. (2011, p. 1339) characterise sustainability
science as being ‘‘based on the philosophy that knowledge
is incomplete and much of what we think we know is actu-
ally wrong, but despite uncertainty managers and policy
makers must act’’. As a result, we need continually to imag-
ine and shape a sustainable trajectory (Kates et al., 2001).
Sustainability science, therefore, implies a break from
models of knowledge production that assumes that a
‘right’ answer can be found with the application of disci-
pline speci?c methods and foci. While this has and likely
will continue to be ideal for some topics, these approaches
are not viewed as being suf?ciently robust for the sustain-
able development problem set.
Evaluation and sustainability science
An area of substantive debate within sustainability sci-
ence is how one might judge the outcomes of an investiga-
tion and/or policy intervention. In particular, the
traditional role of science in delivering valid and reliable
knowledge to society becomes problematic in sustainabil-
ity science (Farrell, 2011) for several reasons. Speci?cally
(and as is apparent from the previous characterisation of
sustainability science) it is impossible to say that a
problem is ‘solved’ or to say what an ‘ideal’ outcome might
Table 1
Core questions of sustainability science (from Kates et al., 2001, p. 642).
d How can the dynamic interactions between nature and society—including lags and inertia—be better incorporated into emerging models and
conceptualizations that integrate the Earth system, human development, and sustainability?
d How are long-term trends in environment and development, including consumption and population, reshaping nature—society interactions in
ways relevant to sustainability?
dWhat determines the vulnerability or resilience of the nature-society system in particular kinds of places and for particular types of ecosystems and
human livelihoods?
d Can scienti?cally meaningful ‘‘limits’’ or ‘‘boundaries’’ be de?ned that would provide effective warning of conditions beyond which the nature-
society systems incur a signi?cantly increased risk of serious degradation?
d What systems of incentive structures—including markets, rules, norms, and scienti?c information—can most effectively improve social capacity to
guide interactions between nature and society toward more sustainable trajectories?
d How can today’s operational systems for monitoring and reporting on environmental and social conditions be integrated or extended to provide
more useful guidance for efforts to navigate a transition toward sustainability?
d How can today’s relatively independent activities of research planning, monitoring, assessment, and decision support be better integrated into
systems for adaptive management and societal learning?
404 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
be, or even to de?ne in a unique manner the problem to be
subject to investigation. Whereas more mainstream
knowledge systems use the standards of scienti?c peer re-
view structures with a method-oriented quality control
(Farrell, 2011), we would argue that this approach is not
suf?ciently robust for addressing sustainable development.
Instead, the principle of ‘quality’ is suggested in post nor-
mal and sustainability science as an alternative criteria
against which an evaluation might be undertaken for the
production of usable information for decision makers and
the public. Interrogating what quality means in this con-
text is necessary.
Aslaksen and Ingeborg Myhr (2007, p. 489) state that
when ‘‘science no longer is imagined as delivering ‘‘truth’’
irrespective of context, science receives a new organizing
principle, that of quality’’ (see also Farrell, 2011; Funtowicz
& Ravetz, 1994; Spangenberg, 2011). Quality is character-
ised as being information of a quality solid enough to guide
decision makers and the public at large (Spangenberg,
2011) and which will reduce unsustainability (Baumgartner,
2011). This characterisation of the standard against which
to judge a sustainability science investigation is likely to
cause discomfort for discipline based scholars as ‘quality’
is de?ned by reference to an outcome (that of guiding a
decision) without providing any evidence as to whether
the decision is the ‘right’ one. This is, however, the heart
of the issue with wicked problems – there is no straightfor-
ward way in which to know if a decision is or will be ‘right’.
Sustainability science, therefore, seeks to honour the nat-
ure of the problem set and to try (as far as possible) to
‘proof’ a decision by involving as many people as it is
appropriate in the construction of and review of courses
of action.
Indeed, Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) coined the notion
of ‘‘extended peer communities’’ to refer to the idea that
‘‘an ever-growing set of legitimate participants [are in-
cluded] in the process of quality assurance of scienti?c in-
puts’’ (p. 752), re?ecting a ‘‘wider set of criteria’’ (Gibbons
et al., 1994, p.8) for the evaluation of science. This ap-
proach is consistent with the third motif of sustainability
science (investigations are participatory) with extended
peer communities being indispensable in situations where
judgements are no longer about validity or reliability
alone. Rather, in these settings judgements are also politi-
cal (Cohen et al., 1998; Goeminne, 2011; Spangenberg,
2011), involving negotiations or judgements about
whether enough knowledge exists to guide action. Facts
or conclusions about the solution are unavailable in such
context. Rather, the pursuit of requisite quality is likely
to be an on-going task. Careful and deliberate use of ex-
tended peer communities to examine research ?ndings
are, therefore, the key mechanism used to make judge-
ments on the quality of the work.
This depiction of ‘quality’ as the way to evaluate sus-
tainability science will seem insuf?cient from a normal sci-
ence perspective. As Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) put it,
however, extended peer review is not new to science but
is an emergent phenomenon and an existing empirical
reality. For example, they describe how AIDS research
has operated ‘‘in the full glare of publicity involving
sufferers, carers, journalists, ethicists, activists and
self-help groups, as well as traditional institutions for
funding, regulation and commercial application. . . [in such
a way that t]he researchers’ choice of problems and evalu-
ations of solutions are equally subjected to critical scru-
tiny’’ (see also Farrell, 2011).
In summary, Funtowicz and Ravetz (1994, p. 205) pro-
pose that ‘‘unity in post-normal science derives not pri-
marily from a shared knowledge base, but from a
common commitment to certain sorts of approaches for
resolving complex policy issues’’. The heuristic of extended
peer communities is offered as a way to ensure that the
quality of problem description and proposed actions are
the best they can be given the inherent complexity of the
problem sets. Farrell (2011, p. 339) notes, extended peer
communities do not resolve a ‘‘host of contentious is-
sues. . . [Rather, they offer] a conceptual frame within
which the character and dynamics of these situations can
be placed and through which the complexity of their
dynamics can be better understood and constructively
managed’’.
In summary, Clark and Dickson (2003, p. 8060) note
that sustainability science ‘‘is not yet an autonomous ?eld
or discipline, but rather a vibrant arena that is bringing to-
gether scholarship and practice, global and local perspec-
tives from north and south, and disciplines across the
natural and social sciences, engineering, and medicine’’ in
a structured manner. The approach has some support and
it is believed that it may provide a methodological basis
for addressing sustainable development problems (but
not resolving them as they are, by nature, irresolvable). In-
deed, Baumgartner (2011, p. 785, emphasis added) noted
that given ‘‘sustainability problems are concerned with
many different disciplines, the interactions of which are
of high complexity. . . sustainability science must be both
integrated into traditional disciplines as well as be inte-
grated within multi, inter and transdisciplinary research
programs.’’ This brings us to consider how a link may be
made between sustainability science and the discipline of
accounting.
Accounting and sustainability science investigations
The thesis explored in this paper is that if a sustainabil-
ity science approach is taken accounting’s interaction with
sustainable development would develop in new ways. This
penultimate section seeks to further build this case by ref-
erence to two areas of study, both of which are non-
exhaustive examples of how work might develop within
accounting. First, we take an area of accounting investiga-
tion (that of full cost accounting) which is connected to
sustainable development concerns (namely the description
of externalities) and suggest how this area might develop if
it were more formally infused with sustainability science
thinking. The second investigation takes a theme of impor-
tance to sustainable development (that of sustainable con-
sumption and production) and demonstrates the relevance
of accounting expertise to this arena of investigation, and
speci?cally in the context of certi?cation schemes. This
second topic was selected because a substantive research
literature exists in this area to which accounting has not
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 405
contributed and is an area that has not been addressed by
accounting (but see Elad, 2001; and Francis, 2011 who
hints at the possibilities for research in this area). Taken
together, this section seeks to ground the preceding
conceptual discussions into more concrete propositions
concerning accounting research agendas. Both areas of
study embrace the characteristics of sustainability science
outlined earlier, namely: exploring areas of signi?cant eco-
logical–societal interaction by focusing on a particular
problem set that requires the participation of multiple par-
ties (as well as disciplines) in seeking a more socially just
and ecologically sound outcomes.
Sustainability science and full cost accounting
Interest in full cost accounting was inspired by practice
and research on cost bene?t analysis/externalities valua-
tion
25
and encouraged by the impetus provided by the intro-
duction of the ‘polluter pays principle’ in policymaking
(European Union, 1992; United Nations, 1992). Drawing
from the tenets of the polluter pays principle, proponents
of full cost accounting (see below) suggest that identifying
more sustainable ways for obtaining goods and services re-
quires shedding light on the (un)sustainability of current
activities by assigning a value to the use of otherwise free
environmental (and social) services. The rationale underly-
ing full cost accounting is that implicit valuations are al-
ready present in decision making and a zero value is likely
to be attached to impacts that are not internalized (Bebbing-
ton et al., 2001; Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants,
1997; Costanza et al., 1997). Academic focus on full cost
accounting has spread in the last decade (Antheaume,
2004; Atkinson, 2000; Bebbington & Gray, 2001; Bebbington
et al., 2001; Bent, 2006; Herbohn, 2005; Lamberton, 2000),
with variants such as the Sustainability Assessment Model
also emerging (Bebbington, 2007; Bebbington et al., 2007;
Frame & Cavanagh, 2009; Fraser, 2012; Xing et al., 2009).
In accounting terms, ?nancial accounting is enabled by,
and constitutes, the boundary between an organization
and its environment. This framing of the organization,
based in the ‘entity concept’, dictates that accounting
should be only interested in some costs (that is, those
borne by the entity) even though this obscures social and
ecological impacts that arise at a wider scale. By ignoring
these wider impacts, ?nancial accounting contributes to
the construction and maintenance of a bounded organiza-
tion that ignores its full character (Lohmann, 2009).
In contrast, external costs are central to full cost
accounting and hence it is an approach that addresses
the interlinkages between sustainable development prob-
lems and an entity. Although full cost accounting shows
potential, it also inherited the limitations of cost bene?t
analysis (discussions of which prompted discussions on
foundational aspects of post normal science and ecological
economics). These limitations revolve around the extent to
which externalities can be de?ned in multiple ways and
are often not easily amenable to ecological, social or eco-
nomic modeling. For example, planetary ecological pro-
cesses which require protection ‘‘react in a nonlinear,
often abrupt, way, and are particularly sensitive around
thresholds levels of certain key variables’’ (Rockstrom
et al., 2009, p. 472). The consideration of the socioeco-
nomic subsystems whereby these ecological processes
are affected creates further complexity, as do the values
that might be used to translate physical aspects to the eco-
nomic measures that can then be used in a full cost ac-
count (Niemeyer & Spash, 2001; Spash, 2007; Söderholm
& Sundqvist, 2003). Taken together, these issues make
any full cost accounting exercise inherently contestable.
Drawing on the previous discussion about sustainability
science, we contend that the contestability of an account
is not a limitation. Rather, it is a reality with which any ac-
count must work.
Full cost accounting has a direct link to the sustainability
science literature in that ecological valuation was the focus
of the seminal work of Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993), Fun-
towicz and Ravetz (1994). Further, full cost accounting
sheds light onto the ‘‘complex dynamic that arises from
the interaction between human and environmental sys-
tems’’ (Spangenberg, 2011, p. 278) and, more speci?cally,
the systems for monitoring the sustainability performance
of institutions (Spangenberg, 2011). Asustainability science
infused conceptionof full cost accounting is also re?ectedin
Bebbington (2007), Bebbington (2009), Bebbington et al.
(2007), Frame and Brown (2008), Frame and Cavanagh
(2009), and Frame and O’Connor (2011). In contrast to this
literature, we would argue that a lack of appreciation of a
post-normal approach held Herbohn (2005) and her re-
search collaborators back frommoving to a fully monetized
full cost account (noting that a reluctance to monetize is not
necessarily a good/bad thing).
Accordingly, if full cost accounting research and prac-
tice is to make a contribution to debates about sustainable
development it needs to work with uncertain and contest-
able information deriving from the scale and complexity of
the key ecological processes and diverse values imperfectly
translated into economic/?nancial terms. Indeed, Funtowicz
and Ravetz (1994) contended that uncertainty in input
information must lead to uncertainty in conclusions, and
to exhibit more certainty in the results than in the argu-
ments on which they are based is a methodological ?aw.
The notion of quality as an alternative to validity (as dis-
cussed previously) becomes important in these circum-
stances and is explained here by way of contrasting full
cost accounting examples.
The Spanish Railways (RENFE) disclosed in its 2010 an-
nual report that during that calendar year its services
‘saved’ 2297 million euros in external costs that would
have otherwise have arisen (due to the reductions in air
pollution, carbon emission and noise that resulted from
the use of this mode of transportation) if all rail traf?c
had moved by road. This single ?gure account of the value
of externalities that could have been avoided can usefully
be contrasted with Antheaume (2004) who reported that,
depending on the different assumptions and bases used
for the valuation of externalities, the external cost of an
industrial process could range from 1.52 to 18838.28 thou-
sands of euro per unit of product. This latter account could
25
Full cost accounts at the organisational level (USEPA, 1996) could be
argued to be equivalent to cost bene?t analyses undertaken at the macro
level (Epstein et al., 2011).
406 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
be characterised of being of a higher quality (in the sense
used previously) than the Spanish railways exercise.
Quality in full cost accounting, therefore, means that
uncertain and local data should not ‘‘be buried in a mass
of hyper-precise arithmetical data, assisted by models
involving advanced calculus’’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1994,
p. 203). Indeed, and drawing from Carl Friedrich Gauss, a
‘‘[l]ack of mathematical culture is revealed nowhere so
conspicuously as in meaningless precision in numerical
calculation’’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1994, p. 201). Rather, a
‘good’ (see later) ‘quality’ process in full cost accounting
terms would create context in which stakeholders have
an opportunity to debate and discuss the construction of
an account. This process (as illustrated by Frame & Cava-
nagh, 2009 and Fraser, 2012) is likely to bring to the fore
the issues of whose interests are served by choices made.
Choices over the boundary of investigation; externalities
to be included (or not); valuations that might be used
and who might be a part of these decisions will all impact
on the full cost account itself. Details of this process and
who such details are shared with would provide a base
from which project and data quality could be evaluated.
Likewise, the nature of a ‘good’ full cost account could
be suggested by drawing on sustainability science. For
example, Bebbington (2007) sought to communicate all
the steps that were taken from the raw data to an impacts
pro?le within the Sustainability Assessment Model. In
addition, the Sustainability Assessment Model self-con-
sciously separated modeling of impacts (which involve a
particular set of uncertainties and choices) from the evalu-
ation of what the pro?le produced means. Separating these
elements from each other created the chance for the values
that are used in the evaluation process to be acknowledged
and made visible. Finally, the decision within that re-
search–practice collaborative team not to monetize as-
pects of impacts that could be seen as ‘game changers’
(such as species extinction) re?ects greater awareness that
monetization is not always appropriate (see also, Frame &
O’Connor, 2011).
Indeed, a sustainability science framing suggests that
the complexity of system processes, the instability of the
boundaries between external and internal costs as well as
the need to carry out full cost accounting experiments in
particular contexts means that it would be likely for a range
of externalities data to be produced that may well vary be-
tween groups and over time. Taken together, these observa-
tions imply that rather than focusing on the generalization
of results, the validity of full cost accounting derives from
the quality of information derived from experiments and
the type of relations that are established between those in-
volved in the problem context. More fundamentally, full
cost accounting research needs to recognize that there is
a diversity of perspectives about the suitability and feasibil-
ity of monetary evaluation, the procedures to be followed
for monetary evaluation (if it is considered) and who has
the authority for any decision making subsequent to calcu-
lations. Considering this diversity in perspectives, cost ben-
e?t analysis (Samiolo, 2012) and full cost accounting
unavoidably stand in contested terrain.
However, notwithstanding the contestability of cost
bene?t analysis (and the in?uence it gives rise to), a sus-
tainability science conception of the technique would
stress the need to co-produce knowledge. In this respect,
previous research has concluded that the implementation
failures of full cost accounting exercises were due to the
attachment of actors to different sets of values (Bebbington
& Gray, 2001; Fraser, 2012; Herbohn, 2005). A sustainable
science approach, however, would frame those results not
as failures, but as the illustration of the importance and
legitimacy of different value commitments and would ex-
plore the spectrum of rationalities and values represented.
Such an approach would thus contend that since no partic-
ular expertise can deliver certainty in full cost accounts,
praxis and research needs to be negotiated and mediated
with different stakeholders with boundaries, baselines
and values being constructed during the accounting pro-
cess (Niemeyer & Spash, 2001). Full cost accounting, there-
fore, is an emergent ?eld of investigation requiring
deliberative approaches (Chilvers, 2008; Frame &
O’Connor, 2011; Niemeyer & Spash, 2001; Spash, 2007)
that would itself require the co-production of knowledge
about detailed issues with stakeholders (who have a un-
ique appreciation of the complexities of the situation and
the decision stakes). A deliberative approach to full cost
accounting is also at odds with any attempt to ‘‘squeeze
all value dimensions into a single axiological scale’’ (Nie-
meyer & Spash, 2001, p. 573) and, therefore, is a funda-
mental rede?nition of the conventional understanding of
accounting.
This suggests four avenues for further research in terms
of constructing an account. First, providing room for the
participation of stakeholders in deliberative full cost
accounting raises challenges such as, the representative-
ness of participants, inclusiveness, how to attain a
fair deliberation or the access to resources to participate
(Chilvers, 2008). Second, methods need to be devised to
communicate the uncertainty (or even the ignorance)
about different processes in the ecological and social sub-
systems (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, p. 743). Third, meth-
ods need to be developed to allow the possibility of
different forms of valuation, beyond monetary evaluation,
including the possibility of refusing to put a value to a gi-
ven process. Finally, full cost accounting research should
explore whether it is reasonable to use the bene?t transfer
method (Brouwer & Spaninks, 1999) even in those cases in
which stakeholders decide that a monetary measure is
acceptable, because this method assumes a generalizability
of values that is at odds with the foundations of delibera-
tive full cost accounting.
The examination of full cost accounting from a sustain-
ability science viewpoint could also help to provide insight
into whether and how full cost accounting can ‘‘make the
normative concept of sustainability operational’’ (Spangen-
berg, 2011, p. 276). This implies a focus on the politics of
full cost accounting as these accounts could be seen as po-
tential technologies of government that, through the pro-
blematization of particular challenges to sustainable
development, suggest particular frames for their remedia-
tion (Miller & Rose, 2008). Full cost accounting, therefore,
will construct narratives about sustainable development
and the desirability of some economic activities, thereby
mobilizing actors and resources in speci?c contexts. To link
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 407
back to the earlier example from the Spanish railways, it is
relevant to note that the viability of this organization re-
quires the mobilization of resources in the form of govern-
mental subsidies and investments and an externalities
account would certainly play into that negotiation. From
this perspective, further research on full cost accounting
could explore how issues of apparent detail such as the
de?nition of baselines, boundaries or monetization meth-
ods could in reality be driven by different political stands,
with important distributional and sustainable develop-
ment consequences (see Samiolo, 2012).
It might also be useful to link full cost accounting exper-
imentation in accounting to cost bene?t analysis (Frame &
Brown, 2008; Lohmann, 2009; Samiolo, 2012). Despite the
controversies generated by valuation, cost bene?t analysis
is used to make and legitimate decisions even while it ex-
cludes from the analysis those issues that are not mea-
sured/measurable thereby illuminating some aspects and
obscuring others (Espeland & Stevens, 2008; Funtowicz &
Ravetz, 1994; Lohmann, 2009; Niemeyer & Spash, 2001;
Porter, 1995). In contrast, the full cost accounting literature
still focuses on experiments rather than drawing on a deep
and wide set of practices that one might assume is taking
place behind closed doors.
26
This suggests that there might
be activity that is not being examined and also that full cost
accounting could inform other areas of accounting. For
example, carbon markets are essentially an attempt to inter-
nalize costs and identify externalities to inform decision
making. To date, however, the carbon accounting literature
seems not to have identi?ed a connection with the earlier
full cost accounting work. Regardless, we would argue that
an appreciation of sustainability science motifs would be
useful to any externalities account.
Accounting and sustainable consumption and production
While a sustainability science perspective has been
used to re?ect on existing accounting research and prac-
tices, it might also be used to explore areas where social
and environmental accountants are absent but where they
might make a contribution (noting that the mainstream of
accounting researchers have dealt with issue of certi?ca-
tion, but not in this particular policy context). Sustainable
consumption and production is a cross cutting sustainable
development theme (Spangenberg, 2011) that was ?rst
identi?ed in the Rio Declaration and Rio Principles (United
Nations, 1992) and which was then reinforced at the
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation in 2002. In addition,
it has been a key focus of the United Nation’s Department
for Economic and Social Affairs (see,http://www.un.org/
esa/desa/) for at least a decade (see alsohttp://www.
un.org/en/development/desa/climate-change/consumption.
shtml). This theme seeks to ?nd a way to transform pro-
ductive activities so that they might be less unsustainable
than they currently are (as a result consumption patterns
might also become less unsustainable). The context of sus-
tainable consumption and production often focuses on sit-
uations where producer and consumer communities are
distant from each other in terms of geographic location
as well as in terms of social and economic conditions. Most
usually, producer communities are located in the global
south while consumers are in the global north. Moreover,
markets in which products are traded are viewed as having
imperfections that will lead to either exploitation of the
natural environment and/or impoverishment of producer
communities. The idea behind sustainable consumption
is that if demand can be stimulated for products that better
support producers then sustainable development might be
more possible. Certi?cation schemes that focus on fair
trade would be an example of sustainable consumption
and production as well as ones that look at environmental
credentials of production (such as dolphin ‘friendly’ or
organic).
Sustainable consumption and production is a classic
sustainable development issue in that it considers prob-
lems/solutions that emerge at society–environment inter-
faces where concerns about ecological integrity, social
fairness and economic ?ourishing (for example, via fair ex-
change) are at the heart of the issue. Further, the nature of
consumption and production means that many institu-
tional players are involved, some with considerable eco-
nomic incentives to perpetuate current consumption and
production paradigms and others with incentives (but
not necessarily power) to create new forms of activity. In
the terms used previously in this paper this is a wicked
problem that require urgent resolution and which involve
complex moral and systems dynamics to be understood.
A subset of activity within the sustainable consumption
and production arena relates to how certi?cation schemes
might provide a set of incentives to producers and signals
to consumers concerning the sustainable development
characteristics of products and processes. Certi?cation
schemes address aspects of activities including the way
production impacts on natural resources in areas such as
?sheries (see, for example, Constance & Bonanno, 2000),
forests (comprising schemes such as Forestry Stewardship
Council and Rainforest Alliance certi?cation) and land re-
sources, including ‘organic’ food production methods
(Shreck, Getz, & Feenstra, 2006) and coffee production
(Raynolds, Murray, & Heller, 2007). At the same time, a
number of certi?cation schemes focus on social or eco-
nomic characteristics such as ‘fair trade’ (Gandenberger,
Garrelts, & Wehlau, 2011). Still others cover processes or
characteristics of services provided in areas such as tour-
ism (Font, 2002) and buildings via ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’
building codes (Ding, 2008; Haapio & Viitaniemi, 2008).
27
The construction of standards for certi?cation also need to
be underpinned by ecological data on what constitutes sus-
tainable production and/or by moral agreement as to what
constitutes (for example) fair labour practices. These are
substantive questions that require extensive discussion with
26
As Atkinson (2000) points out, as soon as you have environmental
impact data from corporate reporting (or from regulatory compliance
reporting) you can construct an externalities account from readily available
economic valuation data. This means that it is possible to create league
tables of the impacts of corporations, independent of them taking part in
such exercises. What we can note, however, is such accounts are not being
routinely constructed (but see Figge & Hahn, 2004).
27
Each of these areas have a substantial literature of its own, the review
of which would unreasonably lengthen this paper while not contributing to
the main line of argument being pursued.
408 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
extended peer communities as well as the input from a
variety of disciplines (such as agriculture, philosophy and
ethics).
Deeper questions also emerge from the examination of
certi?cation schemes, perhaps most interestingly in the
area of regulation. Some argue that in a globalized econ-
omy the nation state has less ability to regulate (mainly)
corporate activities (Constance & Bonanno, 2000) and
hence certi?cation schemes provide alternative gover-
nance mechanisms that can operate over national borders,
often with the active involvement of non-governmental
bodies with social and/or ecological concerns and creden-
tials. Of course, this is a contested terrain and the rami?ca-
tions of taking a certi?cation approach rather than a
regulatory one are the focus of literature in this area (see,
for example, Constance & Bonanno, 2000; Lawson, 2011;
Raynolds et al., 2007). Moreover, this approach has rami?-
cations for how we might understand consumers and their
role in shaping the behaviour of businesses (Eden, Bear, &
Walker, 2008).
28
Within the context of certi?cation schemes, the possi-
bilities for developing, scrutinising and evolving auditing,
assurance and/or certi?cation techniques
29
come to the
fore. It is therefore surprising that with a few exceptions
(for example, Elad, 2001) social and environmental account-
ing has had little to say about this sort of certi?cation.
30
There may be many reasons for this lack of literature includ-
ing a lack of comfort with providing accounts and certi?ca-
tion for research objects other than for pro?t entities (a
point alluded to by Gray, 2010). Alternatively, a lack of
knowledge among accounting researchers about the as-
sumed importance of and nature of these schemes, their
existence and/or their scale, scope and potential rami?ca-
tions (from a governance perspective) may have inhibited
an interest developing. Whatever the explanation, these
schemes (if they are to be understood holistically) need
the detailed input of the accounting discipline in terms of
expertise around how to certify and the meanings associated
with these actions.
In particular, an analysis of literature that addresses
sustainable consumption and production demonstrates
an absence of questions that would be expected if you
had an auditing/assurance/accounting background (but
see Francis, 2011). This is surprising as accounting,
auditing and reporting activities are exactly those that
allow for a ‘‘politics on reconnection’’ (Eden et al., 2008,
p. 1044) and are essential to ensuring that knowledge
intermediation happens. As such, examining sustainable
consumption and production from the viewpoint of
accounting is likely to be valuable for broader understand-
ings of sustainable consumption and production. The
opposite also holds. Certi?cation practices have the poten-
tial to illuminate accounting’s understanding of itself and
constitute a key cross over point where accounting might
support sustainable development.
As a result, accountants might be involved in sustain-
ability science investigations, working in partnership with
disciplines as diverse as anthropology, philosophy, geogra-
phy, agriculture, economics, health studies, consumption
studies, politics and sociology. Extended peer communities
that would have an interest in such a transdisciplinary in-
quiry would include individual producers, consolidators,
exporters, certi?er bodies, as well as consumers. Collec-
tively, we might then be able to address the question that
Raynolds et al. (2007, p. 148) pose as to ‘‘whether certi?ca-
tion works to hold the bar, avoiding the erosion of social
and environmental conditions, or to raise the bar, improv-
ing social and environmental standards’’ (emphasis in the
original). If accountants are to contribute to the Kates
et al. (2001) core question of ‘‘What systems of incentive
structures—including markets, rules, norms, and scienti?c
information—can most effectively improve social capacity
to guide interactions between nature and society toward
more sustainable trajectories?’’, a consideration of social,
environmental and sustainable development certi?cation
is an obvious site for engagement.
In summary, this section explored the contention that
the tendency in the accounting literature to take on board
the pre-occupations of its discipline has inhibited the
emergence of accounting for sustainable development. It
is likely that a focus on documenting (using content anal-
ysis) social and environmental related disclosures in An-
nual Reports or other media of a sub-set of economic
entities (primarily for pro?t listed companies) is not fully
in line with the demands that sustainability development
places on the academy. This suggests that while pessimism
about the actual and potential achievements of environ-
mental accounting is warranted, there are possible solu-
tions that do not require abandoning a commitment by
accounting academics to being involved in sustainable
development research. Rather, we would argue there is a
case for getting closer to contemporary sustainable
development debates in order to establish the utility of
accounting to the study of sustainable development (and
vice versa). We sought to illustrate this point using two
examples, but many others will also exist.
Concluding comments
O’Riordan (2004) notes that sustainable development
work is ‘‘energized by the failure to overcome complex
and policy-linked problem arenas such as climate change,
biodiversity management, social justice and entitlement
to all people to steward essential planetary resources for
permanent and workable livelihoods.’’ These outcomes
are not presently realised in practice and hence continue
to motivate researchers and practitioners. Indeed, the
failure to achieve sustainable development has prompted
the emergence of social and environmental accounting (a
sub-discipline of accounting) which focuses on the impact
28
In anything, reliance on certi?cation suggests a belief in the power of
consumers that might be unwarranted. At the same time, concerns arise if
one assumes that human agency might be reduced to expressing oneself as
a consumer in the absence of other forms of expression.
29
These terms are rarely fully de?ned or distinguished in the existing
non-accounting literature on certi?cation.
30
In contrast, the Journal of Business Ethics publishes many papers on this
topic. The paper most closely associated with this topic, that we could ?nd
in the social accounting literature, was on the use of social accounting
systems for fair trade organisations (Dey, 2007).
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 409
organisations have on society and the ecology. A wide ar-
ray of disciplines also seek to address these concerns,
drawing (as do accountants) from their own commitments,
theories and modes of generating knowledge, doing what
Spangenberg (2011) calls ‘science for sustainability’.
Spangenberg (2011) also calls for a ‘science of sustainabil-
ity’, whereby the particular demands for knowledge that
can be used in policy and other decision making domains
in order to move human society towards sustainable forms
of development are recognized and acted upon.
We have argued in this paper that this latter way of
thinking (known as sustainability science, after Kates
et al., 2001) has affected how disciplines come together
to develop knowledge and de?ne the subjects around
which knowledge is to be generated as well as informing
the development of disciplines themselves. Sustainability
science has several characteristics including considering
a problem area as being the object of research (rather
than an organisation) as well as encouraging a trans-
disciplinary approach to the research processes (that in-
cludes those that affect and are affected by the outcomes
of the application of knowledge in practice settings and in
policymaking). Taken together, this approach seeks to re-
spond to the particular characteristics of sustainable
development problems (that is, their wicked nature). We
also sought to describe how such an approach might
shape how accounting scholars approach research in this
area.
The particular reason for seeking to reinvigorate
accounting and sustainable development investigations is
that there appears to be widespread pessimism (expressed
most eloquently by Gray, 2010) that accounting can con-
tribute to a more sustainable/less unsustainable society.
It is our hope that by introducing a different approach to
research (in methodological terms) we might work to-
wards overcoming the limitations of our current account-
ing approaches to knowledge and its application. Of
course, seeking to pursue sustainable development is prob-
lematic. First, its empirical base is a unique global experi-
ment guided by partial scienti?c certainties and
uncertainty about the dynamics of the whole system. Sec-
ond, the translation of ecological limits and standards of
social justice into policy and decision making is non-trivial.
Third, the urgency to address sustainable development
problems and lack of belief regarding the possibility of ‘res-
olution’ requires us to blur the conventional frontiers be-
tween the creation of knowledge and its application to
actual policy and decision making. In adopting a sustain-
ability science approach, however, we hope to make ‘‘our
ignorance useful’’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, p. 743).
Sustainability science is a distinctive approach that has
developed as a result of a belief that there are problems
that are suf?ciently different in nature that we need to
experiment with new ways of knowing, including new
forms of research engagement.
With that in mind, we believe that the time has come
for accounting to self-consciously engage with the lessons
of sustainability science to see how it might refocus its
research activities as well as how it might engage more
closely with other disciplines around problems of common
interest. Jasanoff (2007, p. 33) frames the stakes thus:
‘‘[we] need disciplined methods to accommodate the
partiality of scienti?c knowledge and to act under irre-
deemable uncertainty. Let us call these the technologies
of humility. These technologies compel us to re?ect on
the sources of ambiguity, indeterminacy and complex-
ity. Humility instructs us to think harder about how to
reframe problems so that their ethical dimensions are
brought to light, which new facts to seek and when to
resist asking science for clari?cation. Humility directs
us to alleviate known causes of people’s vulnerability
to harm, to pay attention to the distribution of risks
and bene?ts, and to re?ect on the social factors that
promote or discourage learning’’.
We believe (and have argued in this paper) that the dis-
cipline of accounting has a contribution to make in this
area. In seeking to explore these themes in the context of
accounting we have attempted to provide some pointers
to how sustainability science framing might invigorate
accounting scholarship. We offer these ideas in a problem
posing mode. There are not recipes for how one gets
accounting for sustainable development ‘right’. Rather,
we can only offer these suggestions (many of which can
be empirically explored) as a starting point of a conversa-
tion. As with sustainability science, the standard of ‘qual-
ity’ as co-developed with you (our peer community) will
ultimately be the judge of these propositions.
Acknowledgements
Financial support provided by the Spanish Government
(PR2011-0031 and ECO2009-09937) is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The comments made by participants at the Critical
Perspectives on Accounting conference in 2011, the Span-
ish and South American CSEAR conferences of 2011, the
St Andrews CSEAR conferences of 2011 and 2012, faculty
of Queens University Belfast, colleagues at the University
of St Andrews and two anonymous reviewers for Account-
ing, Organizations and Society are gratefully recognized
along with the support of Jeffrey Unerman and Christopher
Chapman. Carlos Larrinaga is also indebted with the
Department of Sociology, Northwestern University. We
also thank Jesse Dillard, Bob Frame, Rhona McLaren, Louise
Reid, Shona Russell, Lorna Stevenson, Ian Thomson and col-
leagues in the sustainability science reading group at the
University of St Andrews for their input in developing
these ideas.
References
Allen, C. R., Fontaine, J. J., Pope, K. L., & Garmestani, A. S. (2011). Adaptive
management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92(5), 1339–1345.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2010.11.019.
Antheaume, N. (2004). Valuing external costs. From theory to practice:
implications for full cost environmental accounting. European
Accounting Review, 13(3), 443–464.
Aslaksen, I., & Ingeborg Myhr, A. (2007). ‘‘The worth of a wild?ower’’:
Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs.
Ecological Economics, 60(3), 489–497.
Atkinson, G. (2000). Measuring corporate sustainability. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2), 235–252.
Ayres, R. (1998). Turning point: The end of the growth paradigm. London:
Earthscan.
410 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
Ball, A., & Bebbington, J. (2008). Accounting and reporting for sustainable
development in public service organisations: Issues and emerging
directions. Public Money and Management, 28(6), 323–325.
Baumgartner, R. J. (2011). Critical perspectives of sustainable
development research and practice. Journal of Cleaner Production,
19(8), 783–786.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.01.005.
Bebbington, J. (2007). Accounting for SD performance. London: Elsevier.
Bebbington, J. (2009). Measuring sustainable development performance:
Possibilities and issues. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 189–193.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., & Frame, B. (2007). Accounting technologies and
sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3),
224–236.
Bebbington, J., Gray, R., Hibbit, C., & Kirk, E. (2001). Full cost accounting: An
agenda for action. London: ACCA Research, Report 73.
Bebbington, J., & Gray, R. (2001). An account of sustainability: Failure,
success and a reconceptualization. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
12(5), 557–588.
Bebbington, J., Kirk, E. A., & Larrinaga, C. (2012). The production of
normativity: A comparison of reporting regimes in Spain and the UK.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(2), 78–94.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.aos.2012.01.001.
Bebbington, J., & Larrinaga, C. (2008). Carbon trading: Accounting and
reporting issues. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 697–717.
Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social
reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337–361.
Bebbington, J., & Thomson, I. H. (2007). Social and environmental
accounting, auditing, and reporting: A potential source of
organisational risk governance? Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 25(1), 38–55.
Beilin, R., & Bender, H. (2011). Interruption, interrogation, integration and
interaction as process: How PNS informs interdisciplinary curriculum
design. Futures, 43(2), 158–165.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.futures.2010.10.004.
Bent, D. (2006). Towards a monetised triple bottom line for an alcohol
producer: Using stakeholder dialogue to negotiation a ‘licence to
operate/ by constructing an account of social performance. In S.
Schaltegger, M. Bennett, & R. Burritt (Eds.), Sustainability accounting
and reporting (pp. 61–82). Delft: Springer.
Brouwer, R., & Spaninks, F. A. (1999). The validity of environmental
bene?ts transfer: Further empirical testing. Environmental and
Resource Economics, 14, 95–117.
Brown, V., Harris, J., & Russell, J. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through
transdisciplinary imagination. London: Earthscan.
Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Taillieu, T. (2008). Toward a
relational concept of uncertainty: About knowing too little, knowing
too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecology and Society, 13(2),
30.
Buhr, N. (1998). Environmental performance, legislation and annual
report disclosure: The case of acid rain and Falconbridge. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(2), 163–190.
Buhr, N., & Reiter, S. (2006). Ideology, the environment and one world view:
A discourse analysis of Noranda’s environmental and sustainable
development reports advances in environmental accounting and
management (Vol. 3, pp. 1–48). JAI.
Buhr, N. (2007). Histories of and rationales for sustainability reporting. In
J. Unerman, B. O’Dwyer, & J. Bebbington (Eds.), Sustainability
accounting and accountability. Oxon: Routledge.
Callon, M. (2009). Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and
in vivo experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4),
535–548.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.04.003.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (1997). Full cost accounting
from an environmental perspective. Toronto: Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants.
Carpenter, P. A., & Bishop, P. C. (2009). The seventh mass extinction:
Human-caused events contribute to a fatal consequence. Futures,
41(10), 715–722.
Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence. Science, Technology & Human
Values, 33(2), 155–185.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0162243907307594.
Christenson, C. (1983). The methodology of positive accounting. The
Accounting Review, 58(1), 1–22.
Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging
research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
100(14), 8059–8061.http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231333100.
Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J., & Rothman, D. (1998). Climate change
and sustainable development: Towards dialogue. Global
Environmental Change, 8(4), 341–371.
Constance, D. H., & Bonanno, A. (2000). Regulating the global ?sheries:
The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever, and the Marine Stewardship
Council. Agriculture and Human Values, 17(2), 125–139. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1007625606243.
Cortner, H. J. (2000). Making science relevant to environmental policy.
Environmental Science & Policy, 3(1), 21–30.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
s1462-9011(99)00042-8.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al.
(1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural
capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
387253a0.
Cummins, V., & McKenna, J. (2010). The potential role of sustainability
science in coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management,
53(12), 796–804.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.019.
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. London: Sage.
Daly, H. (1996). Beyond growth. Boston: Beacon.
de Vries, B. J. M., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainable
development: An assessment methodology connecting values,
knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. Ecological Economics, 68(4),
1006–1019.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.015.
Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental
disclosures – A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.
Dey, C. (2007). Social accounting at Traidcraft Plc: A strugle for the
meaning of fair trade. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
20(3), 423–445.
Ding, G. K. C. (2008). Sustainable construction—The role of environmental
assessment tools. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3),
451–464.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025.
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values
and organizational behavior. The Paci?c Sociological Review, 18(1),
122–136.
Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing
the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural
environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 55–73. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000013852.62017.0e.
Dunlap, R. E. (2010). The maturation and diversi?cation of environmental
sociology: From constructivism and realism to agnosticism and
pragmatism. In M. R. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The
international handbook of environmental sociology (2nd ed.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Eden, S., Bear, C., & Walker, G. (2008). Mucky carrots and other proxies:
Problematising the knowledge-?x for sustainable and ethical
consumption. Geoforum, 39(2), 1044–1057.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.11.001.
Elad, C. (2001). Auditing and governance in the forestry industry:
Between protest and professionalism. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 12(5), 647–671.http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
cpac.2001.0478.
Epstein, P. R., Buonocore, J. J., Eckerle, K., Hendryx, M., Stout Iii, B. M.,
Heinberg, R., et al. (2011). Full cost accounting for the life cycle of
coal. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219(1), 73–98.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x.
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (2008). A sociology of quanti?cation.
Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 49(3), 401–436.
European Union (1992). Fifth action programme, Com (1992) 23 ?nal, Vol.
I–III, Brussels, 27 March 1992. CB-CO-92-151-EN-C.
Fadeeva, Z., & Mochizuki, Y. (2010). Higher education for today and
tomorrow: University appraisal for diversity, innovation and change
towards sustainable development. Sustainability Science, 5(2),
249–256.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0106-0.
Farrell, K. N. (2011). Snow white and the wicked problems of the west: A
look at the lines between empirical description and normative
prescription. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(3), 334–361.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243910385796.
Ferguson, J. (2007). Analysing accounting discourse: Avoiding the ‘‘fallacy
of internalism’’. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(6),
912–934.
Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2004). Sustainable value added—Measuring
corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-ef?ciency.
Ecological Economics, 48(2), 173–187.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2003.08.005.
Font, X. (2002). Environmental certi?cation in tourism and hospitality:
Progress, process and prospects. Tourism Management, 23(3),
197–205.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(01)00084-x.
Frame, B., & Bebbington, J. (2012). A comparison of the national
sustainable development strategies for New Zealand and Scotland.
International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(3), 249–276.
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 411
Frame, B., & Brown, J. (2008). Developing post-normal technologies for
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 65(2), 225–241.
Frame, B., & Cavanagh, J. (2009). Experiences of sustainability assessment:
An awkward adolescence. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 195–208. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.007.
Frame, B., & O’Connor, M. (2011). Integrating valuation and deliberation:
The purposes of sustainability assessment. Environmental Science &
Policy, 14(1), 1–10.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.009.
Francis, J. R. (2011). Auditing without borders. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 36(4–5), 318–323.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.aos.2011.07.003.
Fraser, M. (2012). Fleshing out an engagement with a social accounting
technology. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(3),
508–534.
Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston:
Pitman Publishing.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age.
Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). The worth of a songbird: Ecological
economics as a post-normal science. Ecological economics, 10(3),
197–207.
Gandenberger, C., Garrelts, H., & Wehlau, D. (2011). Assessing the effects
of certi?cation networks on sustainable production and
consumption: The cases of FLO and FSC. Journal of Consumer Policy,
34(1), 107–126.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9155-8.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotony, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow,
M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dinamics of science
and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.
Goeminne, G. (2011). Has science ever been normal? On the need and
impossibility of a sustainability science. Futures, 43(6), 627–636.
Gouldson, A., & Bebbington, J. (2007). Corporations and the governance of
environmental risk. Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, 25(1), 4–20.
Gray, R. (1990). The greening of accountancy: The profession after Pearce.
London: ACCA.
Gray, R. (2002). The social accounting project and accounting
organizations and society privileging engagement, imaginings, new
accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 27(7), 687–708.
Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for
sustainability. . . and how would we know? An exploration of
narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 35(1), 47–62.
Gray, R., & Milne, M. (2004). Towards reporting on the triple bottom line:
Mirages, methods and myths. In A. Henriques (Ed.), Triple bottom line:
Does it all add up?: Assessing the sustainability of business and CSR.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Gray, R., & Laughlin, R. (2012). It was 20 years ago today: Sgt Pepper,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, green accounting and
the Blue Meanies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
25(2), 228–255.
Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building
environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 28(7), 469–482.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002.
Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate
disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical
disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3),
405–440.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0165-4101(01)00018-0.
Herbohn, K. (2005). A full cost environmental accounting experiment.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(6), 519–536.
Hines, R. (1991). On valuing nature. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 4(3), 27–29.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic,
ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.
Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34, 433–439.
Hopwood, A. G., Unerman, J., & Fries, J. (2010). Accounting for
sustainability: Practical insights. London: Earthscan.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate change 2007:
A synthesis report (WMO/UNEP).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). Climate change 2013:
The physical science basis. Summary for policymakers. .
Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a ?nite planet.
London: Earthscan.
Jasanoff, S. (2007). Technologies of humility. Nature, 450(7166), 33. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/450033a.
Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., Ness, B., Anderberg, S., Baier, M., Clark, E., et al.
(2011). Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability science, 6(1),
69–82.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x.
Jones, M. (1996). Accounting for biodiversity: A pilot study. British
Accounting Review, 28, 281–303.
Jones, M. (2003). Accounting for biodiversity: Operationalising
environmental accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 16(5), 762–789.
Kajikawa, Y. (2008). Research core and framework of sustainability
science. Sustainability Science, 3(2), 215–239.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11625-008-0053-1.
Kastenhofer, K., Bechtold, U., & Wil?ng, H. (2011). Sustaining
sustainability science: The role of established inter-disciplines.
Ecological Economics, 70(4), 835–843.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2010.12.008.
Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., et al.
(2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386.
Komiyama, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a
new discipline. Sustainability science, 1(1), 1–6.
Laine, M. (2009). Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes?: A
longitudinal interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a
leading Finnish chemical company. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 22(7), 1029–1054.
Lamberton, G. (2000). Accounting for sustainable development—A case
study of city farm. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11(5),
583–605.
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact
to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.
Lawson, J. (2011). Tendential autonomy and con?ict containment in
nonstate governance mechanisms. Law & Policy, 33(3), 391–426.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2011.00343.x.
Llewellyn, S., & Milne, M. J. (2007). Accounting as codi?ed discourse.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(6), 805–824.
Lohmann, L. (2009). Toward a different debate in environmental
accounting: The cases of carbon and cost–bene?t. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 499–534.
MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and
the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
34(3–4), 440–455.
Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological
Economics, 53(1), 5–16.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2005.01.014.
McPhail, K., & McKernan, J. (2011). Accounting for human rights: An
overview and introduction. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(8),
733–737.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2011.07.007.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-
being: Synthesis. World Resources Institute.
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present. Cambridge: Polity.
Milne, M. J. (1991). Accounting, environmental resource values, and non-
market valuation techniques for environmental resources: A review.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 4(3), 81–109.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of
stakeholder identi?cation and salience: De?ning the principle of who
and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4),
853–886.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259247.
Mulgan, T. (2006). Future people: A moderate consequentialist account of
our obligations to future generations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Müller, A. (2003). A ?ower in full blossom?: Ecological economics at the
crossroads between normal and post-normal science. Ecological
Economics, 45(1), 19–27.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0921-
8009(02)00256-2.
Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions:
Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282.
Niemeyer, S., & Spash, C. L. (2001). Environmental valuation analysis,
public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: A critical
appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4),
567–585.
O’Riordan, T. (2004). Environmental science, sustainability and politics.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(2), 234–247.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2004.00127.x.
Orr, D. (2002). Four challenges of sustainability. Conservation Biology,
16(6), 1457–1460.http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-
1739.2002.01668.x.
O’Sullivan, N., & O’Dwyer, B. (2009). Stakeholder perspectives on a
?nancial sector legitimation process: The case of NGOs and the
equator principles. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
22(4), 553–587.
412 J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time?: A personal re?ection on the
current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental
accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
21(2), 240–267.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Mostert, E., & Fabara, D. (2008). The growing importance of
social learning in water resources management and sustainability
science. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 24–27.
Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: A
view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 18(6), 842–860.
Parker, L. D. (2011). Building bridges to the future: Mapping the territory
for developing social and environmental accountability. Social and
Environmental Accountability Journal, 31(1), 7–24.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/0969160x.2011.556389.
Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in
response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 471–475.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A., & Barbier, E. B. (1989). Blueprint for a green
economy. London: Earthscan.
Pielke, R. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making sense of the science in policy
and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science
and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Power, M. (1992). After calculation? Re?ection on critique of economic
reason by André Gorz. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5),
477–499.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90043-R.
Pretty, J. (2011). Interdisciplinary progress in approaches to address
social–ecological and ecocultural systems. Environmental
Conservation, 38(02), 127–139.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892910000937.
Quental, N., Lourenço, J., & da Silva, F. (2011). Sustainability:
Characteristics and scienti?c roots. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 13(2), 257–276.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-010-
9260-x.
Raynolds, L., Murray, D., & Heller, A. (2007). Regulating sustainability in
the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-party
environmental and social certi?cation initiatives. Agriculture and
Human Values, 24(2), 147–163.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-
006-9047-8.
Redclift, M. (1999). Sustainability and sociology: Northern
preoccupations. In E. Becker & T. Jahn (Eds.), Sustainability and the
social sciences. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of
planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Roberts, R. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility
disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F.,
et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263),
472–475.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a.
Rubenstein, D. B. (1992). Bridging the gap between green accounting and
black ink. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 501–508.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90044-S.
Russell, S. L., & Thomson, I. (2009). Analysing the role of sustainable
development indicators in accounting for and constructing a
Sustainable Scotland. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 225–244.
Samiolo, R. (2012). Commensuration and styles of reasoning: Venice,
cost–bene?t, and the defence of place. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 37(6), 382–402.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.04.001.
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., & Burritt, R. (2006). Sustainability accounting
and reporting. Delft: Springer.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C., & Walker, B. (2001).
Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413(6856), 591–596. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/35098000.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shreck, A., Getz, C., & Feenstra, G. (2006). Social sustainability, farm labor,
and organic agriculture: Findings from an exploratory analysis.
Agriculture and Human Values, 23(4), 439–449.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10460-006-9016-2.
Söderholm, P., & Sundqvist, T. (2003). Pricing environmental externalities
in the power sector: Ethical limits and implications for social choice.
Ecological Economics, 46(3), 333–350.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
s0921-8009(03)00185-x.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2011). Sustainability science: A review, an analysis
and some empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation, 38(03),
275–287.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270.
Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in
combining economic and political processes to value environmental
change. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 690–699.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.014.
Spence, C. (2007). Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic
discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(6),
855–882.
Spence, L. J., & Rinaldi, L. (2014). Governmentality in accounting and
accountability: A case study of embedding sustainability in a supply
chain. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 433–452. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.03.003.
Stern, N. (2006). The economics of climate change: The Stern review.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. (2009). Report by the commission on the
measurement of economic and social progress.
Stone, C. (2010). Should trees have legal standing?: Law, morality and the
environment (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010). The economics of
ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A
synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
Thomson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2004). It doesn’t matter what you teach?
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(4–5), 609–628.
Thomson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2005). Social and environmental reporting
in the UK: A pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
16(5), 507–533.
Thomson, I. (2007). Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting. In J.
Unerman, B. O’Dwyer, & J. Bebbington (Eds.), Sustainability accounting
and accountability. Oxon: Routledge.
Trotman, K. T., & Bradley, G. W. (1981). Associations between social
responsibility disclosure and characteristics of companies. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 6(4), 355–362.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0361-3682(81)90014-3.
Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (Eds.). (2007). Sustainability
accounting and accountability. Oxon: Routledge.
United Nations (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development.
New York: United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development.
United Nations Environment Programme (2007). Global environmental
outlook: GEO4 environment for development. New York: United
Nations.
United Nations Environment Programme (2012). Global Environmental
Outlook 5. New York: United Nations.
UNWCED (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and
development: Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
USEPA (1996). Environmental accounting case studies: Full cost accounting
for decision making at Ontario hydro. Washington: USEPA.
Victor, P. (2008). Managing without growth: Slower by design not disaster.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Walker, W. E., Harremoes, P., Rotmans, J., Sluijs, J. P. V. D., Asselt, M. B. A.
V., Janssen, P., et al. (2003). De?ning uncertainty: A conceptual basis
for uncertainty management in model-based decision support.
Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 5–17.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies
almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.
Wilson, E. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Random
House.
Xing, Y., Horner, R. M. W., El-Haram, M. A., & Bebbington, J. (2009). A
framework model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban
development. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 209–224.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.accfor.2008.09.003.
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 395–413 413
doc_816369821.pdf