(DIS) PLACING THE SOCIAL IN CORPORATE
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:
Accounting for environmental refugees
Paper for submission to the Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting (IPA) Conference,
Cardiff, July 2012
17th February 2012
Authors
Stephanie Perkiss*, Graham Bowrey & Lee Moerman
School of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Commerce
University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2500
* Corresponding Author
sperkiss@uow.edu.au
+61 423 673 317
1
Abstract
Purpose: This paper problematises current sustainability discourse through exploring
organisational accountability for environmental refugees. Sustainability discourse in this
study relates to future generations of persons displaced as a result of climate change. This
paper will consider the need for acknowledged corporate accountability for causes attributed
to organisational activity which contribute to the creation of environmental refugees.
Discussion will include accountings lack of ability to recognise and be accountable for future
stakeholder; environmental refugees. This paper will consider; science, corporate control,
social responsibility and human rights- drawing on previous examples of displaced persons;
and finally the notions of sustainability, intergenerational equity.
Design/ Methodology/ Approach: This paper is based on the exploration and critical
reflection of accounting and accountability for future stakeholders. Included is a review of
voluntary disclosure frameworks with reference to the human rights of individuals impacted
by the consequences of climate change.
Findings: The findings of this paper suggest that despite the consequences of climate change,
the threats of sea level rise and the notions of sustainability the corporate accounting
discourse is yet to adequately accommodate environmental refugees. In addition, it was found
there is a deficit in the terminology and mechanisms of accountability for activities which
have sustainability consequences for future generations including environmental refugees.
Research Limitations/ Implications: This paper emphasises the importance of critical
reflection and contest of the understanding of accountability and social responsibility and
highlights current limitations within the accounting discipline.
Originality/ Value: Recent accountability literature has been focusing primarily on
accountability processes rather than on the understanding and the purpose of being
accountable, especially in terms of sustainability. This paper attempts to address this over
sight with specific focus on the creation and plight of environmental refugees.
Keywords: Accountability, corporate social responsibility, environmental refugees, future
stakeholders, sustainability
2
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to problematise sustainability accounting as a disclosure and
accountability practice by exploring accounting (or lack of) for environmental refugees. The
sustainability agenda, promoted by both corporate and public sector entities, is grounded in
the basic tenet of intergenerational equity and emphasises the belief that today’s actions will
have an impact on the future and future generations [stakeholders]. One such group of future
stakeholders, environmental refugees, are presented as an illustrative case to critique the use
of ‘sustainability’ in the corporate discourse that has infused the social and environmental
accounting literature.
Environmental refugees represent people who are “directly or indirectly affected by
environmental pressures as a result of climate change. As a consequence of these pressures
they are no longer able to live in their homeland and therefore find themselves displaced”
(Perkiss et al. 2010, p.4). They have also been classified as ‘environmental migrants’ (ElHinnawi 1985), ‘climate refugees’ (Commonwealth Australia 2007; Friends of the Earth
Australia 2010) and ‘environmentally displaced persons’ (IOM & RPG 1992; UNHCR et al.
1996). Consistent with the competing and ambiguous nomenclature the classifications,
definition and legal status also remain unclear (McNamara 2006). Despite the predications of
up to, or beyond 150 million environmental refugees by the year 2050 (Myers 1997), there
remains no protection or assistance for environmental refugees.
Sustainability defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, p.8) encompasses all facets of
society However this inclusive definition also poses challenging questions about the
capability of a social system to predict and disclose potential impacts on a social ecosystem
(Buhr 2007). To this end, environmental refugees as future generations embedded in the
notion of sustainability, provide challenges for accountability and disclosure discourses.
Accounting academic literature linking accountability, sustainability, future generations and
environmental refugees is limited for a range of reasons. There is a lack of agreement as to
the meaning ascribed to accountability within the accounting literature and this paper draws
on this contestable aspect to problematise sustainability discourses. While, the mainstream or
traditional view is bounded in the principal-agent relationship, the meaning has been
extended to include accountability is: “the duty to provide an account... or reckoning of those
actions for which one is held responsible” (Gray et al. 1996, p.38): “a relationship in which
people are required to explain and take responsibility for their actions” (Roberts and Scapens
1985, p.447) with “both a moral and strategic dimension” (Roberts 1991, p.367); is
subjectively constructed (Sinclair 1995); and, limited as a transparency device (Roberts,
2009). Despite the encompassing and inclusive nature, accountability in terms of corporate
disclosure practices is limited in the context of future generations.
Corporate accountability is said to be driven by social norms, pressures and expectations
(Buhr 2007) and this accountability is discharged through social, financial, environmental
and sustainability accounting (Buhr 2007). Corporate social and environmental accounts
3
acknowledging the threats and effects on the security of people’s access to land and
livelihood because of sea level rise and the direct impact this [may] have on communities are
scant as the paper demonstrates. While some corporations disclose displacement due to such
activities as mining, the impact of corporate activity on the level of greenhouse gas (GHG)1
and subsequently the phenomena of ‘global warming’ and sea level rise resulting in
environmental refugees is absent.
Based on three arguments from the perspective of science, the concept of regulation and
control and the ideals of the human rights agenda, this paper considers the possibilities for
responsibility and subsequent accounting for environmental refugees. The perspective of
science provides evidence that anthropogenic activities are responsible for GHG emissions
(Stern 2007): and, a large percentage of these emissions are a result of industrial activity
(Garnaut 2008). The concept of regulation and control is discussed with an emphasis on the
notions of: legitimacy and public perception (Hooghiemstra 2000); business interests (Adams
and Zutshi 2004); and, the ‘capturing’ of future regulation (Cortese 2011). Finally, human
rights are considered within supranational organisations and normative promulgations;
including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948) and the UN
Global Compact (United Nations Global Compact 2000). The arguments of science,
regulation and control and human rights provide an initial, albeit ‘blurred’ starting point to
investigate corporate responsibility and environmental refugees.
The paper begins with a discussion of accountability, environmental refugees and
sustainability. Examples of the recognition of displaced persons in extant corporate social and
environmental disclosures are presented using the Business and Human Rights Resource
Centre (2011) database. The paper concludes with the threefold argument for accountability
and disclosure and reflects on corporate social responsibility and voluntary accounting
frameworks and their potential to facilitate corporate accountability and visibility for
environmental refugees, in particular, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G3.1
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines and the GRI Resource Guide to Corporate Human Rights
Reporting (GRI et al. 2009) the AccountAbility Institute (AccountAbility) AA1000 standards
and principles.
Accountability
Accountability is defined in various disclosure frameworks, including accounting.
Accountability is defined in non-accounting discourses and includes:
acknowledging, assuming responsibility for and being transparent
about the impacts of your policies, decisions, actions, products and
associated performance... to report, explain and be answerable to
stakeholders for decisions, actions and performance (AccountAbility
2008, p.6).
1
Greenhouse gas is: carbon dioxide; or methane; or nitrous oxide; or sulphur hexafluoride; or a
hydrofluorocarbon; or a perfluorocarbon (NGER Australian Government 2007).
4
In addition, accountability is a social and political process about perceptions of power (Day
and Klein 1987) in which accountability is “about using power responsibly” (Humanitarian
Accountability Partnership 2011).
Accountability is an elusive term that, in spite of its extensive use in academic literature and
everyday discourse, does not have a precise definition (Cooper and Owen 2007; Cousins and
Sikka 1993; Sinclair 1995). Accountability is subjectively constructed, changes with context
and exists in many forms (Sinclair 1995). According to promulgations by accounting
standard-setters, disclosures via financial reporting discharge accountability to a variety of
financial stakeholders. This notion of accountability has developed from a principal-agent
rationality derived from feudal times (Chen 1976). More recently accounting scholars have
explained accountability as “the duty to provide an account (by no means necessarily a
financial account) or reckoning of those actions for which one is held responsible” (Gray et
al. 1996, p.38) that entails “a relationship in which people are required to explain and take
responsibility for their actions: the giving and demanding of reasons for conduct” (Roberts
and Scapens 1985, p.447). Recently institutions function in a society where stakeholders seek
greater transparency and accountability (Milne and Gray 2007) and organisations use social
and environmental accounting to discharge their corporate social responsibility or social
accountability. Social norms, pressures and expectations drive who a corporation believes
they are accountable to and therefore reports to (Buhr 2007) and “employee, social,
environmental, triple bottom line and sustainability reporting all serve as mechanisms to fulfil
accountability requirements” (Buhr 2007, p.62).
“In practice, accountability it is a form of social relation which reflects symbolically upon the
practical interdependence of action; an interdependence that always has both a moral and
strategic dimension” (Roberts 1991, p.367). To be accountable, therefore requires disclosures
of corporate activity to provide the necessary transparency or visibility of these
interdependicies. It is called accounting but we only account for certain things. However, as
Roberts (2009, p.968) argues, the ideals of transparency are unattainable and, at best provide
an “essential source of confidence for distant others”; and, at worse, does violence to those
one is accountable. Transparency is said to be problematic “when we believe or act as if as if
all there is to accountability is transparency” (Roberts, 2009, p.968). Therefore, despite the
increase in social and environmental accounting discourses it may be possible that “no
accounting can ever help deliver sustainability, equality or justice” (Grey and Schaltegger,
2011, p.10).
Who are environmental refugees?
The term environmental refugee represents those people who are:
directly or indirectly affected by environmental pressures as a result
of climate change. As a consequence of these pressures they are no
longer able to live in their homeland and therefore find themselves
displaced (Perkiss et al. 2010, p.4)
5
Originally, coined in the human geography literature, environmental refugees were
characterised using the term ‘environmental migrant’ (El-Hinnawi 1985). Earlier work by
Myers, an academic and ecologist, contributed significantly to the environmental refugee
literature (1986; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1997). Myers defines these refugees as:
people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their erstwhile
homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, and other
environmental problems. In their desperation, they feel they have no
alternative but to seek sanctuary elsewhere (1993, p.752).
Environmental refugees represent people both displaced by rapid onset events such as natural
disasters including flooding, landslides and hurricanes as well as people displaced by slow
onset events such as sea-level rise. This paper focuses on the slow onset events- persons
affected by climate change and the resulting sea level rise. There is no current legal
protection and assistance and a dearth of accountability processes for these persons, despite
the predications of up to, or beyond 150 million environmental refugees by the year 2050
(Myers 1997).
Within political discourse and discourse found among NGOs the term ‘climate refugees’ is
most commonly used (Commonwealth Australia 2007; Friends of the Earth Australia 2010).
The UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the Refugee Policy
Group (RPG) avoid using the term ‘refugee’ and refer to this group as ‘environmentally
displaced persons’ (IOM & RPG 1992; UNHCR et al. 1996). Consistent with the imprecise
definition and inconsistencies in environmental refugee recognition, classification and
definition their legal status also remains unclear (McNamara 2006). While the authors
acknowledge the contested meaning of the term environmental refugee and that the ambiguity
in nomenclature has both political and social consequences2; this paper specifically focuses
on discourse, recognition and accountability.
Sustainability
Buhr suggests that “sustainability reporting may remain an unattainable ideal” (2007, p.58)
and considerable debate on the issue of sustainability and accounting has arisen. Gray and
Schaltegger (2011) argue that sustainability is not vastly considered in daily discourse and
that those discussing sustainability lack both an understanding of the term and its
implications. They also argue that what is discussed in terms of sustainability in the literature
is, in essence, a representation of eco-efficiency. Another difficulty rests with the idea of
whether corporations can be sustainable and recognise social responsibility alongside the aim
of profit maximisation (Gray and Milne 2004).
Sustainability has both a temporal (intergenerational) and spatial (intragenerational)
dimension. Sustainable development is considered as;
e.g. a ‘refugee’ has legal rights according to the United Nation’s 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees
2
6
development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs (United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987, p.8).
The concept of ‘needs’, in particular, refers to the “essential needs of the world's poor, to
which overriding priority should be given” within a context “limitations imposed by the state
of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future
needs” (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, p.8).
Sustainability at its heart is about inter-generational accountability,
how we prepare the world for our children and theirs in turn. Business
has a key role to play in operationalizing this in how they value and
manage their impact on children’s live, today (Zadek in Mcphail and
McKernan 2011, p.734)
The idea of future stakeholders [generations] is embedded in the notion of sustainability and
sustainable development. Thus, sustainability presents challenging questions as to how a
social system can be sure of and disclose the impact it has on a social ecosystem (Buhr 2007).
Social and environmental accounting, in aiming to “address the information needs and
concerns of organisational stakeholders”, (Owen et al. 2001, p.265) must also address the
needs and concerns of future stakeholders according to the sustainability discourse. The
consequences of sea level rise are well-documented in the scientific literature (see e.g. IPCC,
2007) but are only emergent in the area of social and environmental accounting.
The global community has the obligation to pass the earth onto future generations in good
condition, and the economic progress taking place today should not come at a cost of
environmental deterioration in the future (Beder 2001). Intergenerational equity, therefore,
considers equity between present and future stakeholders. Intergenerational equity is linked to
sustainability ideology by guaranteeing that relationships make visible the “responsibility to
ensure the continuing order and survival of community” in the present and future (Moerman
2009, p.142).
Corporate Responsibility and Displaced Persons
The following demonstrates that within corporate [social and environmental/ sustainability]
reporting recognition of corporate activities on local communities resulting in displacement
as well as the threat of sea level rise has emerged. These disclosures often recognise that
GHG and other emissions result in climate change and sea level rise and, to reduce the effects
of climate change, the corporation must reduce their emissions. However these disclosures
have yet to draw direct links between their activity and those displaced through sea level rise.
As indicated corporations within the mining and resources industries, in particular, recognise
the effects they have on the local communities in which they operate. A number disclosed:
7
the threats leading to; their approaches towards; and, the actual occurrences of resettlement
due to business activities.
A survey of companies listed on the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (2011)3
provided a sample of disclosures of corporate activity and human rights. Gray and Gray
(2011) identify this Centre (website), containing details on 180 countries and over 4000
companies, as “an important source for any researcher in the field” (p. 5). From the sample4 a
content analysis on the 289 listed companies human rights/ sustainability/ responsibility/ CSR
reports highlighted the key terms and disclosures, e.g. sea level, displacement, refugee,
community and vulnerable.
While Goldcorp Inc. did not have any displacements recorded in their 2010 Sustainability
Report, they did mention that resettlement is life-changing, complex and if their activities did
involve resettlement it would be negotiated with the household and communities as to the
timing and location (Goldcorp Inc. 2010). E.ON, a gas corporation, also reported that no
persons were displaced due to their operations (E.ON 2010). FREEPORT- McMoRan has
mining operations in Tenke-Fwaulu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. They note in their
Sustainable Development Report 2010 that a number of communities have been affected and
must be “relocated because of unavoidable impacts” (FREEPORT-McMoRan Copper and
Gold Inc. 2010, p.22). They have constructed resettlement plans with the communities, the
government and other stakeholders; and, also offered additional resources to the displaced to
ensure community livelihood. Barrick Gold Corporations outlines in their 2010
Responsibility Report that they have had multiple resettlement programs e.g. the Pueblo
Viejo project (Barrick Gold Corporation 2010). Although they “seek to avoid, or at least
minimize, involuntary resettlement by exploring alternative project designs,” (Barrick Gold
Corporation 2010, p.72) where resettlement is required they provide planning, development
programs, monitoring all which is managed under local laws and international best practices.
Where resettlement is required they aim to “restore the livelihoods and standards of living of
displaced persons” (Barrick Gold Corporation 2010, p.72).
ExxonMobil and BP together have received a great deal of publicity on their operations and
effects on society and the environment. As large multinational corporations they have
operations in multiple countries. BP’s reaction to the Gulf of Mexico’s oil spill included:
We recognize that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill affected the livelihoods
and local business sectors in Gulf Coast communities. Having worked
among these communities for many years, we understood the
economic impacts of the oil spill. We have made investments to help
the region recover and have committed to meet all legitimate claims
from individuals and businesses (BP 2011).
3
The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre is a leading independent centre for human rights resources.
They provide encouragement and tools for businesses aiming to develop or improve their human rights approach
as well as a library of information for stakeholders.
4
The sample of companies used in this analysis was listed under the category Company Policy Statements on
Human Rights, found at http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/Policies.
8
BP disclosed the effects that the spill had on the community, recognising that involuntary
settlement was unavoidable. In general their response to any resettlement is to screen for the
social and environmental impacts in the hope of minimising the extent re-settlement. Further
they plan, document, monitor, evaluate and report on any actions relating to resettlement (BP
2011).
ExxonMobil stated in their 2010 Citizen Report:
We seek to avoid resettlement through project design, and where
resettlement is unavoidable, we seek to ensure appropriate restoration
of livelihoods of displaced persons (ExxonMobil 2010, p.46).
ExxonMobil document in their report that there has been 13 projects with involuntary
resettlement (2010). One example is the PNG (Papua New Guinea) LNG project where both
physical and economic displacement was experienced due to land acquisitions, obstructed
access of loss of resources resulting in economic problems. The resettlement plans were
carried out in accordance with international best practices and the countries laws and ensured
local needs were looked after including identity, membership and access to food and power
(ExxonMobil 2010).
Most of the current disclosure relating to displaced persons is shown in qualitative form;
however some accounts of compensation and funding are disclosed. These could provide a
starting point for corporations recognising their affect on sea level rise.
A number of corporations recognise that a consequence of climate change is sea level rise.
However, there is a lack of acknowledgement of the threat of displacement as a result of sea
level rise. The sea-level disclosure is presented in one of two ways. The first is recognising
sea level rise as an issue of sustainability. For example under the heading Growing Threat,
the Allianz Group state “scientific studies have shown that climate change will most probably
lead to more natural disasters... A global sea level rise of up to two meters by the end of this
century” (2011, p.26). Cemex discuss sea level rise in the context of global challenges: “The
general scientific consensus is that climate change cannot be ignored and that average global
temperatures are likely to increase... These increases in temperatures will mean not only
rising sea levels, but also more intense precipitation in some countries, increased risk of
drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health, biodiversity, and water resources
around the world” (2010, p.12).
The second form of corporate disclosure on sea level rise is about recognition or prevention
of the threats it places on corporate activity. For example Ford discusses under their section
Material Issues that “the warming trend is continuing, and 2010 was one of the warmest
years on record. Independent measurements of rising sea level, increasing acidification of the
oceans, loss of Arctic sea-ice, and the retreat of glaciers around the world are consistent with
the impact of rising GHG concentrations and global temperature” (2011, p.55). Sony
acknowledges that “rising sea levels and abnormal weather caused by climate change could
require certain measures with underlying physical risk” (2010, p.107), and that new or
amended regulations, laws or taxes may affect their activities. EDF state that they factor into
9
their operations and instillations the projected changes in sea levels and changing air and
water temperatures (EDF Group 2010). Finally Enagas disclose that they are insured against
the risk of sea level rise affecting their corporation e.g. their infrastructures (Enagas 2011).
The above examples demonstrate that corporations have begun recognising and disclosing the
direct effect of their activities that have resulted in displaced persons. It also shows that a
number of corporations are aware that an effect of climate change is sea level rise. In the
future these two issues may merge and as a result produce a twinned narrative of displaced
persons and sea level rise.
Corporate Accountability to Environmental Refugees
Given the corporations contribution to GHG emissions, the proposal that corporations have a
responsibility towards environmental refugees has emerged. The responsibility is based on
the three areas discussed below; science; regulation and control; and human rights. After
consideration, these levels of responsibility are vague and unconvincing; and, despite these
global activities, the argument for using corporate social accounting to support accountability
for environmental refugees is difficult.
Science
The earth’s atmosphere is threatened by the increase in GHG and evidence suggests the rise
in GHG emissions and the resulting climate change are caused by human
activity/anthropogenic events (Australian Academy of Science 2010; Stern 2007). These
anthropogenic activities allow for greater amounts of GHG to enter the atmosphere including;
carbon dioxide, through burning of fossil fuels, waste and chemical reactions; methane,
through the production and emission of coal, gas, oil and agricultural activities; nitrous oxide,
through agriculture and industrial activities; and fluorinated gases, also through industrial
processes (US Environmental Protection Agency 2011).
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an
international treaty established in 1992 and supported by nearly 200 countries (UNFCCC
2012). They report the total GHG emissions for 2009 (a total from all member countries) to
be 22,173,278Gg CO2 equivalent (CO2-e), which is approximately a 10% decrease from
1999 (UNFCCC 2012). The energy and industrial sectors release the majority of emissions
and while the industrial processes emissions have decreased the energy sector continues to
rise. Of this distribution the emissions most commonly come from fossil fuels for energy and
non-energy uses of fossil fuels e.g. chemical processing (IPCC 2007). These energy intensive
industries e.g. iron and steel, non-ferrous metals, chemicals, petroleum refining, minerals,
pulp and paper accounted for 85% of industrial final energy use in 2003 (IPCC 2007).
In considering the science large amounts of GHG are produced and emitted across many
global economic sectors through corporate activity. While this production of GHG
exacerbates climate change which ultimately results in environmental refugees the connection
between corporate activity and environmental refugees is indirect (see Figure 1).
10
Figure 1: Linking corporate activities with the science of climate change to show an indirect
accountability relationship
Regulation and Control
The concept of control has two dimensions; regulatory and voluntary. Corporations in
Australia include both mandated disclosures through government regulation5 and a plethora
of voluntary information on GHG emissions. From a regulatory perspective, these voluntary
management disclosures are used to predispose, control or foreshadow any future regulation.
Buhr (2007) suggests the rationales for voluntary sustainability reporting include; ensuring
the corporate views are “heard and represented in the process” (p.64), for example,
Regulatory Capture Theory explains instances where regulatory agencies are captured by the
industry they are purported to provide regulatory oversight (Uche 2001). Here the industry, or
in this example industries, use their power to mobilize and secure regulation to favour
themselves (Stigler 1971). Despite individual motivations, many corporate management may
produce their own voluntary standards and disclosures in order to minimise or benchmark
standards for future regulation.
Motivations for disclosing social and environmental issues are also largely based around the
concepts of reputation and legitimacy. Acknowledging environmental refugees as an attempt
to control aspects of their corporate social and environmental image is consistent with
impression management and legitimation studies. Adams and Zutshi (2004) state that it is in a
business’ interest to report as it assists in building trust and image among shareholders and
stakeholders. Disclosing can increase the legitimacy of the corporation, influencing the
public’s perception (Hooghiemstra 2000). The public, media and other external stakeholders
all play a role in driving the disclosure of social responsibility (Neu et al. 1998) and since
environmental refugees are not yet prominent in the discourse of social responsibility,
corporations will not disclose or recognise this vulnerable group.
From an accounting perspective, the entity principle states that only those economic
phenomena within control of an organisation are accounted for and visible. As Hines (1988)
argued, it is accounting rules that regulate the scope of accountability and the ‘fence’ or
boundary is socially constructed through a political process of negotiation by standard-setters.
However, just as Hines (1988) could not foresee the standardisation and accountability
regimes for water6, the issue of environmental refugees may push the boundary even further.
5
6
For example the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007
Hines (1988) paper considers new Water Accounting Standards
11
A Human Rights Approach
Socially, climate change raises profound questions of justice and
equity: between generations, between the developing and developed
worlds; between rich and poor within each country. The challenge is
to find an equitable distribution of responsibilities and rights (Hon
David Miliband MP cited in Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission 2008, p.1)
“Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of
nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status” (Amnesty
International 2011). Human rights represent modern, political, ideological and socially
constructed concepts (McPhail 2011). Without the acceptance of human rights people cannot
live with dignity. “Human rights are protected and upheld by international and national laws
and treaties” (Amnesty International 2011) and historically it has been the member countries,
as signatories to legislation, responsibility to be accountable for the fulfilment of human
rights (McPhail 2011) as they have the power and duty to ratify the instruments, respect and
protect the human rights they agreed to. Despite the fact that human rights are beginning to
make their way into corporate culture, language, workplace standards and social
responsibility (McPhail 2011) there still appears to be an apparent lack of focus on
accountability and human rights. Sikka (2011), outlines that a greater focus on human rights
can strengthen accounting, democracy, public accountability and progress towards a better
world.
A number of instruments support corporate accountability for human rights. Such instruments
include The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, The International Labour Organisation (ILO), United Nations (UN) Global Compact,
Professor John Ruggie’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and a number of
voluntary frameworks that are further explained in the next section. These instruments
provide reflections and frameworks to ensure a global acceptance and distribution of human
rights.
These frameworks offer a vision for accepting responsibility and linking corporate
accountability to environmental refugees:
The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations (UN) general assembly on the 10 December
1948 as a result of experiences in World War II. The UNDR is a rich body of legally binding
human rights treaties and developments that;
represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental
freedoms are inherent to all human beings, inalienable and equally
applicable to everyone, and that every one of us is born free and equal
in dignity and rights. Whatever our nationality, place of residence,
gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any
12
other status, the international community on December 10 1948 made
a commitment to upholding dignity and justice for all of us (United
Nations 1948).
The UDHR through the articles outlines such things as: equality in dignity and rights; the
right to freedom without the influence of race, politics, location; the right to security and
recognition under law; the right to a nationality and to seek asylum (United Nations 1948). In
considering the UDHR and environmental refugees, two articles support the human rights of
environmental refugees:
Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They
are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood (United Nations 1948).
This article supports equality in dignity and rights for each person. Given that climate change
is largely a result of human domination of nature (IPCC 2007) developed countries/ high
polluters should bear responsibility (Conisbee and Simms 2003).
And Article 25 (1):
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health
and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right
to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control (United Nations 1948).
This article highlights the right to a standard of living as well as security in the event of
circumstances beyond ones’ control and supports environmental refugees who become
displaced, losing their standard of living due to climate change: an event beyond their control.
Applying this treaty to environmental refugees is difficult given that the UDHR was
constructed in 1948, before climate change and any knowledge of environmental threat were
known (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 2008).
The next instrument of discussion is The UN Global Compact. The UN Global Compact is a
policy initiative aimed at organisations committed to supporting and applying 10 universally
accepted principles of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption, into their
everyday business activities (United Nations Global Compact 2000). The voluntary initiative
was launched on the 26 July 2000 to encourage collaboration on a global scale between
business, governments, society and the United Nations. The key objectives are “to
mainstream the ten principles in business activities around the world” and to “catalyse actions
in support of broader UN goals, including the Millennium Development Goals” (United
Nations Global Compact 2000).
13
The Global Compact is global and local; private and public; voluntary
yet accountable (United Nations Global Compact 2000).
The benefits gained through application of the principles include adopting a policy and
framework to enhance development, disclosure and solution towards environmental,
sustainable and social practices and better governance.
The principles enshrined in the UN Global Compact include; equal in dignity and rights; no
discrimination; the right to life and security; the right to personal freedom, including freedom
of movement; the right to seek asylum to a nationality; and finally, the right to economic,
social and cultural freedoms including social security, fair pay, adequate health and
wellbeing, standard of living, food, clothing and housing and a culture life in a community.
The UN Global Compact calls organisations to develop, be aware of and uphold human rights
and their values: “on the basis that responsibility falls to every individual in society” (United
Nations Global Compact 2000). These principles can be used for corporate accountability and
responsibility to environmental refugees as it states; business should support and respect
human rights in their daily activities, including preventing:
the forcible displacement of individuals, groups or communities [and]
by working to protect the economic livelihood of local communities
(United Nations Global Compact 2000).
The themes of science; regulation and control; and human rights, have provided a starting
point for a discussion of accounting for environmental refugees. The critique of extant
accountability frameworks has demonstrated that while there is a link between corporate
activity and environmental refugees, this connection is blurred.
Discussion
The rise of CSR is said to have developed from the limitations of regulated financial
reporting to disclose corporate social and environmental performance.
The movement towards sustainable development has given rise to the
criticism that the traditional financial reporting framework gives an
incomplete account of business activities (Farneti and Guthrie 2009,
p.91).
However, the voluntary disclosure of information has been criticised as a mere exercise in
impression management, while the use of voluntary reporting standards as a legitimating
activity. Despite these criticisms voluntary reporting has grown considerably. In 2008 45% of
corporations were reporting against their corporate responsibility, this increased to 57% in
2011 (KPMG 2011). The main drivers for this increase were reputation, brand, ethical
considerations, motivation, innovation and risk management (KPMG 2011).
CSR is said to also take into account broader stakeholders to facilitate decision-making with
regard to the corporation’s social and environmental impact (Adams 2002) which, in turn,
14
influences the public perception of the corporation (Hooghiemstra 2000). CSR has moved in
the area of accounting for sustainability or sustainable development in order to incorporate
the tempero-spatial limitations of CSR by the provision of a more long-term perspective on
corporate social and environmental impacts and an acknowledgement of the communities and
the public on issues of human rights and climate change (Jenkins and Yakovleva 2006).
The moral arguments for greater corporate accountability arise from
the increase in size, power and global spread of multinational
companies and increased awareness of the impacts of companies on
the environment and local communities (Adams 2004, p.733).
However, according to Unerman et al. (2007), sustainability reports do not deliver on greater
accountability to stakeholders as;
businesses are simply using sustainability accounting techniques as a
public relations tool to win (or maintain) the approval of those
stakeholders whose continued support is crucial for the survival and
profitability of the business... [In this case] the social and
environmental reporting practices adopted will have little to do with
the genuine sustainability, and will merely be addressing the interests
of the most powerful stakeholders in any organization, while leaving
the interests and needs of the less powerful stakeholders marginalized
(2007, p.3-4)
Despite these criticisms, multiple tools and frameworks are available to assist corporations in
social responsibility disclosures including support for sustainable development concepts,
action against climate change, human rights, social accounting and accountability. Both the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the AccountAbility Institute (AccountAbility) have led
the way in developing international voluntary standards (Adams 2004). The following section
discusses these as well as the International Standardization Organizations (ISO) as reporting
opportunities for the disclosure of corporate impacts in terms of a group of future
stakeholders, environmental refugees.
Global Reporting Initiative
GRI is a network-based organisation that has led the way in the world’s most used
sustainability reporting framework (GRI 2011). Their voluntary standards are used by
organisations to commit to and report on sustainable development, and to measure and
compare performance to laws, standards, norms and other initiatives (GRI 2011).
The most recent iteration is the GRI G3.1 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines with an
expanded guidance for human rights, local community and gender. Alongside this there are
also many supplement reporting frameworks beneficial for specific issues or industries.
Given the topic of environmental refugees the following will consider the GRI sections most
relevant; society and human rights.
15
Recently the GRI, together with the UN, produced a Resource Guide to Corporate Human
Rights Reporting (GRI et al. 2009). It states:
Human rights are an increasingly important aspect of the developing
global Corporate Social Responsibility movement... In the area of
sustainability reporting, it is clear that disclosure on human rights is
of growing relevance to companies and to their diverse stakeholders.
Yet coverage of human rights relevant issues in reports is still not
common practice and many questions about how best to integrate
these within reports remain unanswered (p.19).
This framework aims to challenge companies to improve the quality and quantity of their
human rights reporting and identify human rights issues that come as a result of their
operations, and include these into meaningful and effective reporting (GRI et al. 2009). Many
sections of this report are applicable to future stakeholders and those affected by climate
change. It outlines that companies have a responsibility not to affect the rights of peoples,
demonstrating the requirement for organisational accountability. In their reporting,
companies;
need to think carefully about which rights, stakeholders and situations
they can and do affect, and which are most relevant for purposes of
transparency, accountability, and improving performance (GRI et al.
2009, p.8).
The requirement that a corporation performs due diligence with regard to human rights as
well as ensure they take measures to anticipate, prevent and/ or mitigate negative threats or
impacts is evident (GRI et al. 2009). The GRI outlines potential stakeholders at threat of
corporate activities including; customers, employees or a “community affected by
environmental or health impacts resulting from a production facilities waste” (GRI et al.
2009, p.13). The GRI also acknowledges a number of stakeholders and vulnerable groups
including those suffering social, economic and environmental burdens due to company
operations, including the “internally displaced and refugees” (GRI et al. 2009, p.2). These
two statements/definitions provide an avenue for voluntary disclosure on environmental
refugees; however, once again the link is indirect.
The Society Performance Indicators focus on the corporate impacts on the local communities
they operate in. Within these indicators definitions are provided to assist the corporations in
acknowledging all relevant stakeholders including vulnerable groups as:
A set of subset of people with some specific physical, social, political,
or economic condition or characteristic that places the group at a
higher risk of suffering a burden, or at a risk of suffering a
disproportionate burden of the social, economic or environmental
impacts of an organisation’s operations...may include, but not limited
to, children and youth, the elderly, people with disabilities, excombatants, the internally displaced, refugees or returning refugees,
16
HIV/AIDS- affects households, indigenous peoples, and ethnic
minorities (GRI 2011, p.2).
Environmental refugees could and should, however are yet to, be considered within the GRI’s
representation of a ‘vulnerable group’.
The AccountAbility Institute
The AccountAbility Institute (AccountAbility) is a global organisation that aims to provide
solutions for challenges in corporate responsibility and sustainable development
(AccountAbility 2011). It was established in 1995 to help corporations, NGO’s and
governments include ethical, environmental, social and governance accountability into their
organisation and to improve business performance through a sustainable competitive
advantage (AccountAbility 2011).
AccountAbility provides a voluntary framework; AA1000. Their series of standards are based
on the principles of inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness. AA1000 Principles Standard
(2008) “provides a framework for an organisation to identify, prioritise and respond to its
sustainability challenges” (AccountAbility 2011). The principle highlights the corporation’s
commitment to be accountable to whom they have, or could have an impact on. AA1000
Stakeholder Engagement Standard (2011) “provides a principle based, open-source
framework for quality stakeholder engagement” and can be used as a standalone standard of
as a tool to achieve requirements in other frameworks such as the GRI (AccountAbility
2011). This standard states that an organisation must consider in their reporting “groups or
individuals to whom the organisation has, or in the future may have, legal, commercial,
operational or ethical/moral responsibilities” (AccountAbility 2011, p.20), this again supports
corporate accountability or ‘inclusiveness’ towards future stakeholders. Finally the AA1000
Assurance Standard (2008) “provides a comprehensive way of holding an organisation to
account for its management, performance and reporting on sustainability issues”
(AccountAbility 2011).
The International Organization for Standadization
Another accessible framework is The International Organization for Standadization (ISO)
which is a non-governmental organisation and the world’s largest developer and publisher of
standards (ISO 2011). In 2008 the ISO published a set of tools for addressing climate change
and later in 2010 ISO 26000 which addresses Social Responsibility. ISO 26000 highlights
seven core subjects; community involvement and development, human rights, consumer
issues, labour practices, fair operating practices, organisational governance and the
environment (ISO 2011). It encourages corporate accountability towards due diligence,
economic, social and cultural rights, climate change mitigation and adaption, discrimination
and vulnerable groups and social investment (ISO 2011). This standard also provides a
framework for disclosing the issues surrounding future stakeholders.
17
Within these organisational frameworks a number of aims, definitions and mechanisms have
been provided as examples of potential areas for the concepts of sustainability to be
embedded in an accountability discourse.
Conclusion and Future Direction
This paper has explored the accountability and accounting for environmental refugees using
the ideas of sustainability, control, human rights, science and social responsibility as a
justification disclosure. The idea of accountability is premised on the notion that relationships
are made visible through accounting disclosure. In the context of sustainability discourse this
accountability extends to future stakeholders including environmental refugees. The findings
of this paper suggest that, despite the consequences of climate change, the threats of sea level
rise and the notions of sustainability, there appears to be an evident deficiency or oversight
within extant accounting practices, including frameworks and disclosures, to accommodate,
account for and be accountable to environmental refugees.
Visible, yet tenuous links have demonstrated recognition of responsibility from corporations
(through science, control, human rights and, voluntary reporting) and the disclosure of
environmental refugees. While it is called social and environmental accountability,
accountants still only account for certain things. CSR is often only debated in regards to
society’s responsibility to nature, the environment and is oriented towards reporting past
practice. More recently, the temporal aspects of sustainability have infused the CSR literature
with currents impacts and future consequences of development. There is a deficit in the
terminology and mechanisms of accountability to recognise future consequences based on
past activities and there is a deficit in the terminology of social accounting and CSR that does
not recognise this vulnerability of humans. Based on the findings, this paper emphasises the
importance of critical reflection and challenges to the understanding of accountability, social
responsibility and sustainability.
Given the findings of this paper and the inability to convincingly connect corporate
responsibility to environmental refugees, the future direction of this accounting research has
been inspired by Lambourne’s7 presentation at the ‘Climate Change and Migration in the
Asia-Pacific’ conference. Lambourne (2011) stated that the populations at threat of
displacement due to sea level rise do not want to ‘point fingers’ or place blame on any
individual political institution. Lambourne mentioned (on behalf of these populations) that
they wish for recognition, inclusion and support, whether through reducing GHG emissions,
mitigation, aid, adaption and relocation when the time comes. Therefore instead of directing
responsibility toward multinational corporations, states or the high emitters, aim is to make
visible the issues and growing concerns of the future generations and environmental refugees.
In making these issues visible it will place them on the international agenda, both politically,
socially and regulatory.
7
Tessie Lambourne is the Secretary of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Kiribati
18
References
AccountAbility (2008), AA1000 Accountability Principles Standard London and Washington
D.C.
AccountAbility (2008), AA1000 Assurance Standard, London and Washington D.C.
AccountAbility (2011), AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard: Final Exposure Draft,
London and Washington D.C.
AccountAbility (2011), Setting the Standard for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainabile
Development, Retrieved 03/06/11, http://www.accountability.org/.
Adams, C 2002, 'Internal Organisational Factors Influencing Corporate Social and Ethical
Reporting: Beyond Current Theorising', Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 223-250.
Adams, C 2004, 'The Ethical, Social and Environmental Reporting-Performance Portrayal
Gap', Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 731-757.
Adams, C and Zutshi, A 2004, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Business Should Act
Responsibly and Be Accountable', Australian Accounting Review, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
31-39.
Allianz Group, Sustainable Development Report 2010/2011, Retrieved 19/12/2011,
www.allianz.com/responsibility.
Amnesty International (2011), Human Rights Basics, Retrieved 04/08/2011,
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics.
Australian Academy of Science (2010), The Science of Climate Change: Questions and
Answers, Canberra, http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf.
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (Australian Government).
Barrick Gold Corporation, Barrick 2010 Responsibility Report, Retrieved 23/12/2011,
http://www.barrick.com/CorporateResponsibility/Reporting/default.aspx.
Beder,
S
(2001),
What
Is
Equity?,
Retrieved
03/06/11,
http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/equity/meaning/index.html.
BP
(2011),
Sustainability,
Retrieved
23/12/2011,
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9036294&contentId=706
7039.
Buhr, N (2007), Chapter 3: Histories of and Rationales for Sustainability Reporting, New
York, Cited In Unerman, J, Bebbington, J and O'Dwyer, B 2007, Sustainability
Accounting and Accountability, Routledge, New York, pp. 57-69.
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2011), Company Policy Statements on Human
Rights,
Retrieved
31/08/2011,
http://www.businesshumanrights.org/Documents/Policies.
Cemex 2010, Sustainable Development Report: Building a Better Future, Retrieved
19/12/2011, www.cemex.com/sustainability.
Chen, P 1976, 'The Entity-Relationship Model- toward a Unified View of Data', ACM
Transactions on Database Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9-36.
19
Commonwealth Australia, Senate, Migration (Climate Refugees) Amendment Bill 2007,
Debates, pp. 95-125,
Conisbee, M and Simms, A 2003, Environmental Refugees, the Case for Recognition, NEF
pocketbook, London.
Cooper, S and Owen, D 2007, 'Corporate Social Reporting and Stakeholder Accountability:
The Missing Link', Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 649667.
Cortese, C 2011, ‘Standardizing oil and gas accounting in the US in the 1970’s: Insights from
the perspective of regulatory capture’, Accounting History, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 403421.
Cousins, J and Sikka, P 1993, 'Accounting for Change: Facilitating Power and
Accountability', Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 53-72.
Day, P and Klein, R 1987, Accountabilities: Five Public Services, Tavistock, London.
E.ON 2011, CR Report 2010, Retrieved 23/12/2011, www.eon.com/responsibility.
EDF 2011, Group Activity & Sustainable Development 2010, Retrieved 19/12/2011,
http://www.edf.com/html/RA2010/en/index.html.
El-Hinnawi, E (1985), Environmental Refugees, Nairobi.
Enagas 2011, Annual Report 2010, Retrieved 19/12/2011, www.enagas.ed.
Exxonmobil 2011, 2010 Corporate Citizenship Report, Retrieved 23/12/2011,
www.exxonmobil.com.
Farneti, F and Guthrie, J 2009, 'Sustainability Reporting by Australian Public Sector
Organisations: Why They Report', Accounting Forum, vol. 33, pp. 89-98.
Ford 2011, Sustainability Report 2010/11, Retrieved 19/12/2011, www.corporate.ford.com.
FREEPORT-McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc. 2011, 2010 Working toward Sustainable
Development
Report,
Retrieved
23/12/2011,
http://www.fcx.com/envir/sus_reports.htm.
Friends of the Earth Australia (2010), Climate Refugees, Retrieved 15/05/2010,
http://www.foe.org.au.
Garnaut, R (2008), Garnaut Climate Change Review, ACT.
Goldcorp Inc. 2011, 2010 Online Sustainability Report, Retrieved 23/12/2011,
http://www.goldcorp.com/Theme/GoldCorp/files/annual_reports/Report2010/index.ht
m.
Gray, R and Gray, S 2011, ‘Accountability and human rights: A tentative exploration and a
commentary’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 781-789.
Gray, R and Milne, M (2004), Towards Reporting on the Triple Bottom Line: Mirages,
Methods and Myths., London, Cited In Henriques, A and Richardson, J 2004, The
Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up?: Assessing the Sustainability of Business and
Csr, Earthscan, London, pp. 70-80.
Gray, R, Owen, D and Adams, C, 1996, Accounting and Accountability: Changes and
Challenges in Corporate and Social Reporting, Prentice Hall, London.
Gray, R and Schaltegger, S 2011, 'Debating Accounting and Sustainability: Incompatibility
and Rapprochement in the Pursuit of Corporate Sustainability', 10th CSEAR
Australasian Conference, Launceston, Tasmania, 4-7 December 2011.
GRI (2011), Global Reporting Initiative, Retrieved 03/06/11, http://www.globalreporting.org.
20
GRI (2011), Indicator Protocols Set: Society Performance Indicators (Version 3.1).
GRI, UN Global Compact and GRI. Realizing Rights (2009), A Resource Guide to Corporate
Human Rights Reporting.
Hines, R 1988, ‘Financial Accounting: In Communicating Reality, we Construct Reality’,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 251-261.
Hooghiemstra, R 2000, 'Corporate Communication and Impression Management - New
Perspectives Why Companies Engage in Corporate Social Reporting', Journal of
Business Ethics, vol. 27, pp. 55-68.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2008), Background Paper: Human
Rights
and
Climate
Change,
Sydney,
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/media/papers/hrandclimate_change.html.
Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (2011), FAQ, Retrieved 22/11/2011,
http://www.hapinternational.org/other/faq.aspx#top.
IOM & RPG (1992), Migration and the Environment: Background Paper, Geneva.
IPCC (2007), 4th Assessment Report.
ISO (2011), International Standards for Business, Government and Society, Retrieved
03/06/11, http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm.
Jenkins, H and Yakovleva, N 2006, 'Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry:
Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure', Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 14, pp. 271-284.
KPMG (2011), KPMG International Corporate Responsibility Reporting Survey 2011,
KPMG
International
(eds.),
Retrieved
01/12/2011,
http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporateresponsibility/Pages/de-facto-business-law.aspx.
Lambourne, T 2011, ''Migration with Dignity': Kiribati and Climate Change', Conference On
Climate Change and Migration in the Asia-Pacific: Legal and Policy Responses, NSW
Parliament House, Sydney, 11/11/2011.
McNamara, K (2006), The Politics of 'Environmental Refugee' Protection at the United
Nations, PhD Thesis, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences,
Sydney, University of New South Whales.
McPhail, K and McKernan, J 2011, ‘Accounting for human rights: An overview and
introduction’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 733-737.
McPhail, K (2011), Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights & Business Schools'
Responsibility to Teach It: Incorporating Human Rights into the Sustainability
Agenda, Paper presented at UOW School of Accounting and Finance Doctorial
Colloquium 25/07/2011.
Milne, M and Gray, R, 2007, Future Prospects for Corporate Sustainability Reporting,
Routledge, New York.
Moerman, L (2009), A Theological Critique of the Hipc Debt Initiative: Redefining the
Sovereign Debtor and Creditor Relationship, PhD Thesis, School of Accounting and
Finance, Faculty of Commerce, Wollongong, University of Wollongong.
Myers, N 1986, 'The Environmental Dimension to Security Issues', The Environmentalist,
vol. 6, pp. 241-257.
21
Myers, N 1993, 'Environmental Refugees in a Globally Warmed World', Bioscience, vol. 43,
no. 11, pp. 752-761.
Myers, N 1994, 'Eco-Refugees: A Crisis in the Making', People and the Planet, vol. 3, pp. 69.
Myers, N (1995), Environmental Exodus: An Emergent Crisis in the Global Arena,
Washington.
Myers, N 1997, 'Environmental Refugees', Population and Environment, vol. 19, no. 2, p.
167.
Neu, P, Warsame, H and Pendwell, K 1998, 'Managing Public Impressions: Environmental
Disclosures in Annual Reports', Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 23, no.
3, pp. 265-282.
Owen, D, Swift, T and Hunt, K 2001, 'Questioning the Role of Stakeholder Engagement in
Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting', Accounting Forum, vol. 25,
no. 3, pp. 264-282.
Perkiss, S, Bowrey, G and Gill, N 2010, 'Environmental Refugees: An Accountability
Perspective', 9th CSEAR Australasian Conference, December 2010, Charles Sturt
University: Albury, NSW.
Roberts, J 1991, 'The Possibilities of Accountability', Accounting, Organizations and Society,
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 355-368.
Roberts, J 2009, ‘No one is perfect: The limits of transparency and an ethic for ‘intelligent’
accountability’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 34, pp. 957-970.
Roberts, J and Scapens, R 1985, 'Accounting Systems and Systems of AccountabilityUnderstanding Accounting Practices in Their Organisational Contexts', Accounting
Organizations and Society, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 443-456.
Sikka, P 2011, 'Accounting for Human Rights: The Challenge of Globalization and Foreign
Investment Agreements', Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 811827.
Sinclair, A 1995, 'The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and Discourses', Accounting,
Organizations and Society, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 219-237.
Sony
2011,
CSR
Report
2010,
Retrieved
19/12/2011,
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/csr/report/index.html.
Stern, N, 2007, The Economics of Climate Change: Stern Review, Cambridge University
Press, United Kingdom.
Stigler, G 1971, ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation’, Bell Journal of Economics and
Managament Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3-21.
Uche, C 2001, ‘The Theory of Regulation: A Review Article’, Journal of Financial
Regulation and Compliance, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.67–81.
Unerman, J, Bebbington, J and O'Dwyer, B, 2007, Sustainability Accounting and
Accountability, Routledge, New York.
UNFCCC
(2012),
Background
on
the
UNFCCC,
Retrieved
23/01/2012,
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php.
UNFCCC (2012), GHG Total Including LULUCF, Retrieved 23/01/2012,
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3841.php.
22
UNHCR, IOM and RPG (1996), Environmentally-Induced Population Displacements and
Environmental Impacts Resulting from Mass Migrations, Report on an international
symposium held in Geneva 21-24 April 1996, Geneva.
United Nations (1948), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Retrieved 07/10/2010,
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.
United Nations Global Compact (2000), The Global Compact, Retrieved 24/11/2011,
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/.
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, Our Common
Future. The Brundtland Report, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
US Environmental Protection Agency (2011), Climate Change- What You Can Do:
Businesses, Retrieved 22/11/2011, http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climatechange/emissions.aspx.
23