“Mathematics maybe, but not money”

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider and compare different ways of using numbers to value aspects of nature-beyond-the-human through case analysis of ecological and natural capital accounting practices in the UK that create standardised numerical-economic values for beyond-human natures. In addition, to contrast underlying ontological and ethical assumptions of these arithmetical approaches in ecological accounting with those associated with Pythagorean nature-numbering practices and fractal geometry. In doing so, to draw out distinctions between arithmetical and geometrical ontologies of nature and their relevance for “valuing nature”. Design/methodology/approach Close reading and review of policy texts and associated calculations in: UK natural capital accounts for “opening stock” inventories in 2007 and 2014; and in the experimental implementation of biodiversity offsetting (BDO) in land-use planning in England. Tracking the iterative calculations of biodiversity offset requirements in a specific planning case. Conceptual review, drawing on and contrasting different numbering practices being applied so as to generate numerical-economic values for natures-beyond-the-human. Findings In the cases of ecological accounting practices analysed here, the natures thus numbered are valued and “accounted for” using arithmetical methodologies that create commensurability and facilitate appropriation of the values so created. Notions of non-monetary value, and associated practices, are marginalised. Instead of creating standardisation and clarity, however, the accounting practices considered here for natural capital accounts and BDO create nature-signalling numbers that are struggled over and contested. Originality/value This is the first critical engagement with the specific policy texts and case applications considered here, and, the authors believe, the first attempt to contrast arithmetical and geometrical numbering practices in their application to the understanding and valuing of natures-beyond-the-human.

Sustainability, responsibility and ethics: different concepts for a single path

“…If we talk about responsibility, and in particular about CSR, we have to move towards a different context: here we have an utilitaristic view of the nature and the external world, it is a homocentric vision. Nature has a value because of the thought of the mankind and its computations (Cuckston, 2018;Russell et al, 2017;Sullivan and Hannis, 2017).…”

Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges

“…Relational values are more difficult to quantify and indeed we find more theoretical than applied articles discussing this type of value. For example, Sullivan & Hannis (2017) criticize economic quantification of nature in environmental accounting, which (according to them) misses the point of "value" of nature and is set in a specific political setting where natural capital is a rent that rewards private ownership of nature. Figure 7: Number of applied articles using monetized methods (left, orange) and non-monetized methods (right, green) to construct accounts There are mainly two types of methods to produce ecosystem accounts: monetized methods and non-monetized (i.e.…”

Business Legitimacy, Agricultural Biodiversity, and Environmental Ethics: Insights from Sustainable Bakeries

“…The studies will be disseminated starting in 2013 on the occasion of the first Special Issue of a high-level international magazine (AAAJ) on "Accounting for biodiversity" (Cuckston, 2013;Groom & Freeman, 2013;Jones & Solomon, 2013;Rimmel & Jonäll, 2013;Siddiqui, 2013;Tregidga, 2013;van Liempd & Busch, 2013). Subsequently, other studies, always included in a special Issue of the same scientific journal, propose reflections on new forms of ecology-centred accounting and reporting practices for biodiversity conservation and promotion (Adler et al, 2017;Cuckston, 2017;Feger & Mermet, 2017;Ferreira, 2017;Gaia & Jones, 2017;Laine & Vinnari, 2017;Lanka et al, 2017;Russell et al, 2017;Sullivan & Hannis, 2017). Except contribution of van Liempd & Busch (2013), whose objective is to suggest that companies have ethical reasons to report on biodiversity issues, in these papers there is no prevailing ethical approach to biodiversity measurement.…”