PurposeThis paper aims to suggest that companies have ethical reasons to report about biodiversity issues and to investigate whether companies act on these reasons by examining the extent of biodiversity reporting in Denmark.Design/methodology/approachFor the first purpose, desk research was conducted using consequentialist ethics, while for the second purpose, data were gathered from the 2009‐2011 annual reports, CSR‐type reports and homepages of 24 Danish large‐cap companies.FindingsPhilosophically, it is shown that biodiversity preservation and reporting is an ethical issue, even on the assumption that biodiversity does not possess intrinsic value. Empirically, it is shown that Danish companies score poorly overall, both quantitatively and qualitatively, with regards to reporting on biodiversity.Research limitations/implicationsEven though the importance of biodiversity can be justified on different assumptions, biodiversity reporting is under‐researched offering potential for future research on a globally important issue.Practical implicationsJustifying the preservation of biodiversity from an instrumental viewpoint might convince accounting audiences that are sceptical of normative ethical argumentation based on intrinsic value. The relative lack of biodiversity reporting in Denmark shows the need for the State and accounting standard setters to address this issue together with business and other stakeholders.Originality/valueFew studies theorize on why there is a need for environmental reporting. Those that do are based on non‐instrumental considerations. This paper gives philosophical arguments for biodiversity reporting normally outside the scope of accounting. It emphasizes how even those who deny that biodiversity has intrinsic value are morally obliged to account for biodiversity. The argument also provides novel reasons for why thinking about discount rates should be governed by pure preference considerations. Empirically, this is only the second paper examining biodiversity reporting and the first about the Danish context.

Purpose: The technological developments have implied that companies store increasingly more data. However, data quality maintenance work is often neglected, and poor quality business data constitute a significant cost factor for many companies. This paper argues that perfect data quality should not be the goal, but instead the data quality should be improved to only a certain level. The paper focuses on how to identify the optimal data quality level.Design/methodology/approach: The paper starts with a review of data quality literature. On this basis, the paper proposes a definition of the optimal data maintenance effort and a classification of costs inflicted by poor quality data. These propositions are investigated by a case study.Findings: The paper proposes: (1) a definition of the optimal data maintenance effort and (2) a classification of costs inflicted by poor quality data. A case study illustrates the usefulness of these propositions.Research limitations/implications: The paper provides definitions in relation to the costs of poor quality data and the data quality maintenance effort. Future research may build on these definitions. To further develop the contributions of the paper, more studies are needed.

This systematic literature review explores the role of performance measurement systems (PMSs) in managing multiple logics in social enterprises. Social enterprises are hybrid organizations that simultaneously pursue a social mission (social logic) and financial sustainability (commercial logic). Satisfying multiple logics often leads to tensions, which are addressed and managed through PMSs. For this, we conduct a systematic literature review to derive our conclusions. PMSs in social enterprises may assume the roles of mediator, disrupter and symbolizer. The PMS works as a mediator in combination with sincere stakeholder involvement when both logics are represented in the PMS. If a PMS represents only one logic, it increases tensions and the PMS becomes a disrupter. When the PMS is used to enhance legitimacy, the PMS assumes the role of a symbolizer. In particular, we find that PMSs are most useful for monitoring performance and enhancing legitimacy. The role of PMSs in decision-making is limited due to difficulties of integrating social and commercial logics into a single PMS. Several factors—such as decision-makers’ influence—further shape the role of PMSs.

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and social enterprises are increasingly under pressure to justify their use of resources and report their impact on society. Frameworks that monetize social value such as social return on investment (SROI) have emerged as a response. The existing literature highlights many benefits and technical challenges of SROI, but largely ignores strategic and organizational learning aspects. This paper explores the use of SROI in an NPO conducting cultural heritage preservation. By analyzing the challenges managers face in agreeing on a reliable (“correct”) computation of SROI and in assessing the validity and relevance (“appropriateness”) of SROI, we seek to understand the challenges and boundaries of SROI. Challenges with a reliable computation of SROI are identifying stakeholders, the choice of proxies, the time horizons, and deadweight factors. Challenges with an appropriate SROI calculation are comparability, subjectivity, legitimacy, and resource utility. We argue that SROI calculations might not be reliable or appropriate in organizations with fuzzy purposes, broad value creation goals, broad target groups, very individual or subjective proxies, strongly lagged outcomes, complex or unobservable causality, and with lack of legitimacy among stakeholders. Organizations should not trustingly adopt SROI without being aware of these limitations.

Se pretende argumentar que la relación entre contabilidad y auditoría se ha perdido porque los supuestos filosóficos básicos de la auditoría no se han desarrollado tanto como sus correspondientes en el campo de la contabilidad. En tanto que la contabilidad a valor razonable representa una realidad socialmente construida, la auditoría parece siempre estar fundada en la tradición positivista de la teoría de la evidencia (Cfr. Mautz y Sharaf, 1961; AAA, 1973; Flint, 1988). El resto del trabajo se focaliza en el análisis del problema de la relación perdida entre contabilidad y auditoría, problema que se ha planteado en la sección primera (status quæstionis). En primer lugar, la siguiente sección describirá brevemente la metodología utilizada para el análisis. En la tercera sección se dará una breve descripción del cambio histórico del paradigma principal de la contabilidad, que pasa de informar la verdad a informar en coherencia con los principios de contabilidad generalmente aceptados (PCGA) y los cambios correspondientes en el paradigma principal de la auditoría, desde los tiempos antiguos hasta la auditoría moderna en el siglo XIX, que culminó con la promulgación de ASOBAC. En la cuarta sección, se analizan los avances de la última o dos últimas décadas, más concretamente, el cambio de un enfoque contable basado en la correspondencia con criterios, a un enfoque contable basado en la construcción social de consenso, como puede constatarse en el giro contable a partir de la década de 1990 en adelante con el paradigma del valor razonable. Se argumentará que la auditoría no se ha modificado en consecuencia, y que este eslabón perdido entre el enfoque ontológico de la contabilidad y de la auditoría puede acarrear problemas a los académicos, emisores de normas y profesionales. El artículo concluye con estas implicaciones y la necesidad de investigación futura.