Biodiversity reporting in Denmark

Abstract

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.

A review of biodiversity reporting by the South African seafood industry

“…These are summarised in Table 1. The disclosures recommended by the GRI are similar to those found in the prior biodiversity reporting research (see Jones & Solomon 2013;Mansoor & Maroun 2016) which suggests that companies provide a descriptive account of the species and habitats affected by their operations (Van Liempd & Busch 2013), paying particular attention to animal populations and ecosystems under pressure because of human activity (Atkins et al 2015b). These can be complemented by 'scene-setting disclosures' that include a clear explanation of what a company understands about biodiversity, its biodiversity mission statement or policy and an explanation of any affiliations with applicable environmental groups, NGOs or research communities (Jonäll & Rimmel 2016;Mansoor & Maroun 2016;Van Liempd & Busch 2013). Additional detail can be provided on specific engagements with these groups, including partnerships, conservation initiatives and any advice provided on how to make business models more sustainable (partnership engagements).…”

“…This should be supported by a clear explanation of the risks posed by biodiversity loss (risk reporting) and specific actions or plans used to mitigate or manage these risks (internal management reporting) (Hossain 2017;Van Liempd & Busch 2013). A company can support its biodiversity risk management with details recommended by the GRI and its involvement in specific environmental initiatives such as its participation on the SASSI project (WWF-SA 2016).…”

“…[Company 4, Integrated Report 2014] As indicated in Figures 1 and 2, the scene-setting and risk themes had two of the lowest disclosure scores. The companies under review do not provide a clear definition of 'biodiversity', lists of affected species and a breakdown of biodiversity impact by geographical or operating 0 S c e n e -s e ƫ n g S p e c i e s -r e l a t e d S o c i a l e n g a g e m e n t s S t a k e h o l d e r e n g a g e m e n t s P e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a Ɵ o n s R i s k I n t e r n a l m a n a g e m e n t E x t e r n a l r e p o r t s segment (Van Liempd & Busch 2013;GRI 2016). Explicit statements on the risks posed by biodiversity loss are also limited (Mansoor & Maroun 2016;Raemaekers et al 2016).…”

“…Source: Adapted from: Jonäll and Rimmel 2016;Mansoor and Maroun 2016;Van Liempd and Busch 2013 and disclosures that deal directly with biodiversity risks related to the seafood industry (see Michelon et al 2015;Romi & Longing 2016 and D SR denote the total possible biodiversity disclosures (being eight themes in the integrated report and eight themes in the sustainability report). A QI equal to 1 means that the biodiversity metrics referred to by the GRI and prior literature (per Table 2) have been addressed.…”

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

“…First, the impact of human activities on biodiversity loss is one of the main issues of sustainable development and the protection of natural habitats is increasingly considered to be an ethical imperative for decision-makers, especially in natural resource-based economic activities (e.g., SCBD 2010;GRI 2007;Bonini and Oppenheim 2010). The moral intensity of biodiversity issues (Jones 1991;Chieh-Wen and Ming-Chia 2011) requires companies to demonstrate their commitment in this area to stakeholders and to disclose more specific information on the measures implemented (Jones and Solomon 2013;Rimmel and Jonäll 2013;VanLiempd and Busch 2013). Second, institutional pressures to protect biodiversity have increased over the last few years (Jones and Solomon 2013;SCBD 2010).…”