School of Accountancy Discussion Papers

Permanent URI for this collection

https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/2540

Browse

Browsing School of Accountancy Discussion Papers by Subject "Environmental auditing"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The development of social and environmental accounting research 1995-2000
    (2000) Mathews, M. R.
    This paper reviews five years of social and environmental accounting literature (from 1995-2000) in an attempt to evaluate the current position. The methodology used follows that employed in Mathews (1997a) which covered a period of 25 years in three time periods: 1971-1980; 1981-1990; and 1991- 1995. The literature was classified into several sub-groups including empirical studies, normative statements, philosophical discussion, non-accounting literature, teaching programmes and text books, regulatory frameworks, and other reviews. In this review a number of new sub-categories have been employed as appropriate. The author is able to conclude on an optimistic note. The additions to the literature during the period 1995-2000 are encouraging. Researchers in this area are perhaps less naïve and more experienced than previously, and this, when added to their enthusiasm should lead to penetrating observations and commentaries over the next five years.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Externalities revisited: the use of an environmental equity account
    (2000) Mathews, M. R.; Lockhart, J. A.
    This exploratory paper attempts to restart a debate about the incorporation of environmental externalities into the cost structure of the organisation. A number approaches are considered; regulation together with all that would follow such as audit and policing; pollution permits, which probably can only be used with a sinking lid application; and other charging mechanisms such as making the private sector pay for public sector capital funding. The fourth alternative, the use of an environmental equity account, has not been widely considered in the literature. The paper proposes the use of an environmental equity account (after Boone and Rubenstein, 1997) with the express intent of generating a charge for environmental impact based on the cost of control. That is, the cost of implementing state of the art technology compared to that currently in use within the organisation, is used as a balance which may be either paid as a capital sum or carried as a balance sheet entry upon which dividend payments would have to be made. It is envisaged that both capital sums and dividend payments would go to an agency responsible for environmental remediation activity.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    One way forward: non-traditional accounting disclosures in the 21st century
    (2000) Mathews, M. R.; Reynolds, M. A.
    Recent empirical studies (Deegan and Rankin, 1999; Deegan et al., 2000) have indicated that although many corporations have begun to respond to perceived demand for environmental disclosures in published accounts, their perspective of organisational legitimacy is a narrow view, in which information is targeted towards specific stakeholders and not to the general public. This paper considers a range of models (variously called guidelines, standards and charters) which have been put forward by different organisations to aid the development of social and environmental disclosures. In all cases verification and attestation are part of the proposed regimen. The question which the papers attempts to answer is whether any one of the models would be capable of rapid adoption as part of an expanded GAAP, should the professional accounting bodies think that this is desirable. The outcome of our deliberations is cautious support for the use of EMAS and ISO 14000 as the basis for a modified GAAP plus the further development of the GRI 2000 guidelines into a set of standards covering both social and environmental reporting.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Resource consents - intangible fixed assets? Yes, but, too difficult by far!
    (2000) Hawkes, L. C.; Tozer, L.
    Recent international attempts to draft an accounting standard (IAS38) which establishes the most widely acceptable treatment for intangible assets have sparked debate among standard setters, practising accountants and media analysts. Contentious issues include differing treatment for internally and externally generated intangible fixed assets, and the requirement for the existence of a ready market for the exchange of intangible assets. A further question has been identified, that of whether the ‘right to do something’, as in permission to act, is in itself an intangible asset and if so how should it be treated. An example of this is resource consents issued under the Resource Management Act 1991. The aim of this research was to investigate the nature of resource consents as intangible assets according to ICANZ disclosure and recognition standards and to determine the level of disclosure practised by companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange. Disclosure of resource consent details as non-financial information would provide a significant proportion of the benefits involved in disclosing this class of asset while limiting the costs involved in the production of the information. We conclude that the details of resource consents held should be disclosed in the annual report as additional non-financial information, or as a separate schedule of resource consents held in the notes to the financial statements as per FRS1. This view is not addressed by the requirements of IAS38 or ED87 as this 'class of intangible assets' is not discussed at all. However, it can be argued that the omission of resource consents and other similar intangibles is contrary to the spirit of the true and fair view requirement of the Financial Reporting Act and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).