Schaltegger vd., 2008.pdf - Stefan Schaltegger Martin Bennett Roger L Burritt Christine Jasch Editors E C O E F F I C I E N C Y I N I N D U S T R Y A N

Schaltegger vd., 2008.pdf - Stefan Schaltegger Martin...

This preview shows page 1 out of 500 pages.

Unformatted text preview: Stefan Schaltegger Martin Bennett Roger L. Burritt Christine Jasch Editors E C O E F F I C I E N C Y I N I N D U S T R Y A N D S C I E N C E 24 Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production   Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production ECO-EFFICIENCY IN INDUSTRY AND SCIENCE VOLUME 24 Series Editor: Arnold Tukker, TNO-STB, Delft, The Netherlands Editorial Advisory Board: Martin Charter, Centre for Sustainable Design, The Surrey Institute of Art & Design, Farnham, United Kingdom John Ehrenfeld, International Society for Industrial Ecology, New Haven, U.S.A. Gjalt Huppes, Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands Reid Lifset, Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, U.S.A. Theo de Bruijn, Center for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy (CSTM), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands For other titles published in this series, go to Stefan Schaltegger • Martin Bennett Roger L. Burritt • Christine Jasch Editors Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production Editors Stefan Schaltegger Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM) Leuphana Universität Lüneburg Lüneburg, Germany Roger L. Burritt Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability School of Commerce University of South Australia Adelaide SA, Australia Christine Jasch Institut für Ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung Vienna, Austria Martin Bennett University of Gloucestershire Business School Cheltenham, UK ISBN 978-1-4020-8912-1 e-ISBN 978-1-4020-8913-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008931993 © 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Chapter 11 figures and tables © Martin Kurdve Printed on acid-free paper springer.com Foreword from the Editors This fifth volume of the Environmental and Sustainability Accounting Network (EMAN) would not have been possible without the continuous support of the many active network members submitting papers and engaging in EMAN conferences. The role of environmental management accounting (EMA) support for Cleaner Production in companies and Cleaner Production initiatives by governments has been discussed intensively since the EMAN-EU conference in Graz in 2006. At the Helsinki conference in 2007 EMAN celebrated its tenth birthday. The network has grown since its foundation in 1997 to more than 2,000 members from academia, companies, NPOs and the public sector and is continuously accepting new members. From the initial core group of EMAN-EU the global network has developed five regional networks EMAN-Europe ( . net), EMAN-Asia Pacific ( ), EMAN Africa ( . net) and EMAN-Americas ( ). All regional networks are members of EMAN-Global ( ) which serves to secure communication and interaction between the regional EMAN sections. This development shows the growing interest in a topic which was previously considered to be a rather specialist area. It is of great solace that in the last decade various accounting organisations have started to deal with environmental and sustainability accounting and that IFAC has issued a guideline on EMA. Whereas the development and implementation of some tools of environmental management cost accounting, especially material flow cost accounting, is encouraging and spreading, other areas of sustainability accounting are still in an early stage of development or research. EMAN is therefore challenged to further support the research, knowledge transfer, and implementation of new tools supporting corporate sustainability. Furthermore, various application areas have substantial development potential, such as accounting for biodiversity and its related economic effects, and accounting for social and stakeholder related issues to name two growing areas of interest. Hence, in spite of the successes of the last decade EMAN is still confronted with various sustainability accounting and information management challenges. The editors would like to thank all authors for their contributions. Special thanks also to more than 20 reviewers who are not mentioned by name here to secure the v vi Foreword from the Editors anonymity of the review process and its scientific improvement effect. Many thanks to the Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability, University of South Australia, for assistance provided by Paul Shum and Paul Burger with the proofing process and to Maik Philipp for his patience and diligence bringing all papers to the required layout format. The support of Dorli Harms and Cornelia Fermum from the Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM), Leuphana University of Lueneburg, is appreciated very much. Last but not least the editors would like to thank Takeesha Moerland-Torpey from Springer for her support. The editors Stefan Schaltegger, Martin Bennett, Roger Burritt and Christine Jasch Preface Several current global trends are causing cleaner production to grow in relevance and importance. Of especial significance are the inexorable rises in the price of energy and raw materials in the global marketplaces as well as the ever-increasing pressures being brought to bear by international buyers and investors alike looking for greater and greater efficiency along supply chains. All this is making more and more companies aware of the low efficiency with which they use their material and energy resources and the negative effects this is having on their profitability and competitiveness. An independent global evaluation of UNIDO’s and UNEP’s joint cleaner production programme has underscored these facts, and has concluded that a cleaner production strategy is still very appropriate for companies, in the developing as well as the developed countries. Often, companies are using inefficient processes and technologies that are often obsolete, which, as a consequence, consume more energy and resources than would be the case if companies were using “state of the art” processes. As a result, production costs are higher, affecting competitiveness and profitability. These inefficiencies are also leading to rapid environmental degradation, as excessive amounts of pollution and wastes are generated, and a reduction in population’s quality of life. Company audits undertaken by our 38 cleaner production centres and programmes have highlighted time and again the large savings waiting to be enjoyed in all industry sectors. However, most factories do not know it, because they have no monitoring and data collection system in place, so bearing out once again the old saying: “What you do not measure you cannot manage!” The environmental and sustainability accounting tool gives companies the opportunity to collect, evaluate, and interpret the information they need to estimate their cleaner production saving potential and to make the right decision for the right CP option. In the following chapters, readers will find different applications of the tool and interesting case studies. I hope this will inspire many companies to adopt this tool and to tap into the savings waiting to be harvested through cleaner production. Heinz Leuenberger Prof. Dr., Director Environmental Management Branch United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) vii Contents Part I 1 Introduction and Structure Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) as a Support for Cleaner Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stefan Schaltegger, Martin Bennett, Roger L. Burritt, and Christine Jasch 3 Part II EMA in Cleaner Production—Theories and Models 2 3 4 Applying Best Available Techniques in Environmental Management Accounting: From the Definition to an Assessment Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valérie Laforest Estimating Environmental Impact in the Early Stages of the Product Innovation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Claus Lang-Koetz, Severin Beucker, and Daniel Heubach 49 Unravelling the Impacts of Supply Chains—A New Triple-Bottom-Line Accounting Approach and Software Tool . . . . . . Thomas Wiedmann and Manfred Lenzen 65 5 Life-Cycle Based Sustainability Assessment of Products. . . . . . . . . . . Walter Klöpffer and Isa Renner 6 Environmental Statements on the Internet—From a Mere EMAS Requirement to an On-line Environmental Communication Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ralf Isenmann 7 29 Phenomenological Model of Cleaner Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zygfryd A. Nowak and Michal J. Cichy 91 103 123 ix x Contents Part III 8 9 10 11 Using EMA to Benchmark Environmental Costs—Theory and Experience from Four Countries Through the UNIDO TEST Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maria Csutora and Roberta de Palma 13 14 15 16 17 143 Sustainable Development in the South African Mining Industry: The Role of Cleaner Production and EMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maryna Möhr-Swart, Faan Coetzee, and James Blignaut 165 Environmental Management Accounting in the Metal Finishing Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Koefoed 193 Chemical Management Services: Safeguarding Environmental Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martin Kurdve 209 Part IV 12 EMA Support for Cleaner Production—Case Studies Recent Conceptual Developments in EMA and New Areas The Development of Environmental Management Accounting: An Institutional View. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wei Qian and Roger Burritt 233 Does Corporate Environmental Accounting Make Business Sense? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seakle K.B. Godschalk 249 An Environmental Accounting Model for a Natural Reserve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Francesco Marangon, Maurizio Spoto, and Francesca Visintin 267 Measurement and Recognition of Wildlife in the Financial Statements of Public Sector Entities: A South African Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wynand J. Wentzel, Brian Kevin Reilly, and Yvonne Reilly Environmental Management Accounting and Environmental Accountability Within Universities: Current Practice and Future Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huei-Chun Chang and Craig Deegan The IFAC International Guidance Document on Environmental Management Accounting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christine Jasch and Deborah E. Savage 283 301 321 Contents Part V 18 19 20 22 23 24 339 The Need for Standardised Disclosure on Climate-Risk in Financial Reports: Implications of the JICPA Reports . . . . . . . . . Takeshi Mizuguchi 353 Environmental Management Accounting Practices in Japanese Manufacturing Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katsuhiko Kokubu and Eriko Nashioka 365 26 Case Studies in EMA Waste Reduction Program Based on IFAC’s EMA Guideline in Danisco A/S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lars Munkøe and Christine Jasch 379 Implementing Material Flow Cost Accounting in a Pharmaceutical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yasushi Onishi, Katsuhiko Kokubu, and Michiyasu Nakajima 395 Operational Use of the Environmental Accounting and Information Software TEAMS at Hydro Aluminium Sunndal, Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John E. Hermansen, Anne Kristine Mølmen-Nertun, and Grunde Pollestad 411 Failure of an Environmental Strategy: Lessons from an Explosion at Petrochina and Subsequent Water Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xiaomei Guo Part VII 25 International EMA Developments and Surveys Environmental Performance Indicators—Key Features of Some Recent Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert Langford Part VI 21 xi 423 Success Factors in Implementation Evaluating Management Accounting from a User Perspective: A Study of the Environmental Accounting System of the Environment Agency in England and Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martin Bennett An Empirical Examination of the Role of Environmental Accounting Information in Environmental Investment Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tapan K. Sarker and Roger L. Burritt 443 457 xii 27 Contents Success Factors in Developing EMA—Experiences from Four Follow-Up Case Studies in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anna Kumpulainen and Tuula Pohjola 477 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 List of Contributors Martin Bennett University of Gloucestershire, United Kingdom [email protected] Severin Beucker Borderstep Institute for Innovation and Sustainability, Berlin, Germany [email protected] James Blignaut University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa [email protected] Roger L. Burritt School of Commerce, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia [email protected] Huei-Chun Chang Department of Accounting, Transworld Institute of Technology, Touliu, Taiwan [email protected] Michal J. Cichy Silesian Technical University of Gliwice, Katowice, Poland [email protected] Faan Coetzee Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa [email protected] Maria Csutora Corvinus University, Budapest, Hungary [email protected] xiii xiv List of Contributors Craig Deegan School of Accounting and Law, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Roberta de Palma Astrale GEIE—Gruppo Soges S.p.A., Italy [email protected] Seakle K. B. Godschalk Faculty of Economics and Finance, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa [email protected] Xiaomei Guo School of Management, Xiamen University, Fujiang, China [email protected] John E. Hermansen Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway [email protected] Daniel Heubach Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (IAO), Stuttgart, Germany [email protected] Ralf Isenmann Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Germany [email protected] Christine Jasch Institute for Environmental Management and Economics, IÖW, Vienna, Austria [email protected] Walter Klöpffer LCA Consult & Review, Frankfurt a M., Germany [email protected] Michael Koefoed University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa [email protected] Katsuhiko Kokubu Kobe University, Kobe, Japan [email protected] List of Contributors xv Anna Kumpulainen Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland [email protected] Martin Kurdve International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden [email protected] Valérie Laforest Ecole National Superieure des Mines de Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France [email protected] Robert Langford Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales, United Kingdom [email protected] Claus Lang-Koetz Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (IAO), Stuttgart, Germany [email protected] Manfred Lenzen Center for Integrated Sustainability Analysis (ISA), The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia [email protected] Francesco Marangon Department of Economics, University of Udine, Italy [email protected] Takeshi Mizuguchi Takasaki City University of Economics, Japan [email protected] Maryna Möhr-Swart Chamber of Mines of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa [email protected] Anne Kristine Mølmen-Nertun AF Gruppen ASA, Oslo, Norway [email protected] Lars Munkøe Danisco A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected] xvi List of Contributors Michiyasu Nakajima Kansai University, Japan [email protected] Zygfryd A. Nowak The Polish Cleaner Production Movement Society, Katowice, Poland [email protected] Yasushi Onishi Faculty of Business Administration, Tezukayama University, Tezukayama, Japan [email protected] Tuula Pohjola Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland [email protected] Grunde Pollestad Aibel AS, Stavanger, Norway [email protected] Wei Qian Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability, School of Commerce, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia [email protected] Brian Kevin Reilly Department of Nature Conservation, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa [email protected] Yvonne Reilly Department of Auditing, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa [email protected] Isa Renner Isa Renner, Umwelt- und Energieberatung, Rüsselseim, Germany [email protected] Tapan K. Sarker Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia [email protected] List of Contributors xvii Deborah E. Savage Environmental Management Accounting Research & Information Centre, EMARIC, Arlington, USA [email protected] Stefan Schaltegger Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany [email protected] Maurizio Spoto Miramare Natural Marine Reserve, Trieste, Italy [email protected] Francesca Visintin Centre for Theoretical and Applied Ecology, Gorizia, Italy [email protected] Wynand J. Wentzel Specialised Audit Services, Pretoria, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] Thomas Wiedmann Centre for Sustainability Accounting Limited, University of York, York, United Kingdom [email protected] Part I Introduction and Structure Chapter 1 Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) as a Support for Cleaner Production Stefan Schaltegger, Martin Bennett, Roger L. Burritt, and Christine Jasch Abstract The potential for Cleaner Production (CP) to benefit businesses is well-demonstrated, but it is not yet as widely adopted as might be expected. This is unlikely to be entirely because of the lack of adequate information—other possible reasons could be that (i) CP is commonly seen as being only relevant to manufacturing, (ii) the institutional framework does not encourage the adoption of CP as well as it might do, and (iii) there is no single one-to-one relationship between organisational change (such as a move to CP) and accounting change. This contribution addresses the last-mentioned reason for hindrances to the wider adoption of CP and investigates the relationship between CP developments and innovations in relation to information requirements and accounting. Three distinct strategies can be identified through which CP might benefit business: efficiency, consistency, and sufficiency. So far CP policies and promotion have focused only on efficiency strategies. However, each of these strategies has differing information needs which might be at least partially met by EMA. Two factors that will affect the type of information that is most appropriate in any situation are (i) how radical and innovatory (rather than merely incremental) any particular change is, and (ii) whether a particular innovation is new and as yet only experimented with by a few early adopters, or applied in a m...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture