far from over. Thus Kolk’s book gives us a feel for why weneed to be very careful about the way in which weapproach conservation in other cultures. To some extent,the growing strength of NGOs in the South means thatthese situations will not be replicated exactly in the future,but the same complaints about neocolonialism and doublestandards are also starting to be heard amongst thecountries of the former Soviet Union – currently the targetof much environmental interest in the west.

Nigel DudleyEquilibrium Consultants

BOOK REVIEWS

ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING AND SUSTAIN-ABLE DEVELOPMENT: THE FINAL REPORT edited byChris Hibbitt and Hans Blokdijk, 1996. Limperg Instituut,151 pp, NLG 45.00 (pbk). ISBN not given

This volume is the culmination of an ambitious workshopthat brought together researchers and practitioners in thefield of environmental accounting and auditing. The FinalReport reflects, in an accessible way, a wide range offrameworks and measurement issues facing any corporateentity wishing to evaluate its environmental performance.As outlined by Martin Bennett and Peter James a possibletaxonomy includes options such as liability assessment,environmental costing (e.g. of processes, products andcapital budgets) and the estimation of external costs arisingas a result of unabated pollution. The resolution of thisagony of choice is in large part aided by selecting, at theoutset, specific target audiences. Unfortunately, as noted byDavid Owen, this clarity of purpose has been lacking inmany past efforts, resulting in questionable usefulness ofsubsequent information. On a more optimistic note, othercontributors to this volume argue that this preliminary trapcan been avoided. For example, Manfred Wirth of DowChemicals writes about the primary concern of his companyto inform its employees and site managers. Externalaudiences – e.g. customers and shareholders – are seen asless of a target group where, as Wirth further notes,decision-makers face a traditional, although gradually reced-ing, fear that providing environmental information mayexpose weaknesses and risk wrong inferences by thefinancial community.

The message is that once an audience has been identified,data collection can be prioritized and reporting formatsdetermined with this group in mind. To the extent thata given firm has an internal audience in mind, its focus islikely to be relatively detailed so as to inform site specificdecisions regarding say, environment-related expendituresas well as more general monitoring data regarding the firm’soverall environmental impact. External audiences will, onthe other hand, desire an easily interpretable focus on thelatter. The extent to which the increasing number ofcompany environmental reports fulfil this need is reviewedby Matteo Bartolmeo and Federica Ranghieri. They arguefor minimum reporting standards and in doing so set out a

? 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

140 EUROPEAN ENV

detailed candidate framework. In a similar vein, NancyKamp-Roelands reports on the degree to which environ-mental reports can be formally judged by external auditors.In her view, there is an increasing role for guidelines thatprovide a benchmark against which auditors can evaluatewhether the environmental claims of a firm are credible andadequate.

A central feature of this volume is that some guidancecould be sought with reference to the on-going sustain-ability debate. However, as Jane Bebbington and RobGray point out, this needs to be loaded with caveatswhere, in particular public statements regarding ‘what issustainability’ – e.g. by governments – tend to be rathervague. Supporting evidence for this claim is revealed in afascinating survey indicating that representatives of manycorporations reflect this lack of guidance by public decision-makers. Indeed, many of those surveyed believed thatsustainability does not involve future generations or con-sidered their firm to be sustainable, begging the question asto what ‘sustainable’ actually means to them. For example, isit the sustainability of the corporation that is the issue or thecontribution of the corporation to sustainability in somewider sense? Arguably the two are related insofar aspollution externalities associated with the generation of firmincome become actual liabilities in the future. Bebbingtonand Gray offer their own candidate definition that a firmshould at a minimum ‘leave the environment no worse off atthe end of each accounting period than at the beginning ofeach period’. While superficially appealing, this does notoffer much that is useful in an operational sense. Elsewherein this chapter it is suggested that corporate sustainabilitydefies precise interpretation, which is likely to be nearer themark.

Nevertheless, other chapters make even stronger claims.For example, Owen appears to argue that social issuesshould, if anything, dominate the accounting challengeinsofar as they are the domain of sustainability. As it stands,Owen’s claim is more of an assertion rather than based on areasoned argument. That is not to say that no connection –between social issues and sustainability – can be made, butrather that it does not appear here (or in other chapters).One case might be made using the concept of social capital’from the wider sustainability literature. Moreover, a greaterreference to some of the findings in the green nationalaccounting literature would have offered much of interest inthe context of this volume, in particular, those issues thatrelate to interpretations of sustainability and frameworks forthe treatment of external pollution caused by firms. Thatsaid, this book should still appeal to a wider audience,especially those familiar with the national but not thecorporate accounting literature. It is to be hoped that, in thefuture, benefits to both groups will be realized by bringingthese two avenues of investigation closer together.

Giles AtkinsonCentre for Social and Economic Research on the GlobalEnvironment (CSERGE), University College London and

University of East Anglia

Eur. Env. 8, 139–140 (1998)

IRONMENT