IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v41y2021i4d10.1007_s10669-021-09817-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perspectives on the value proposition of enterprise-level natural capital accounting for three primary industries

Author

Listed:
  • E. Ingrid Putten

    (CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere
    University of Tasmania)

  • Elizabeth Pinkard

    (CSIRO Land and Water)

  • Anthony O’Grady

    (CSIRO Land and Water)

  • Rebecca K. Schmidt

    (CSIRO Land and Water)

  • Ian Cresswell

    (University of Newcastle)

  • Vincent Raoult

    (University of Newcastle)

  • Matt D. Taylor

    (Port Stephens Fisheries Institute)

Abstract

Globally we are experiencing a decline in aggregate natural capital. Many primary industries and enterprises are highly dependent on renewable and non-renewable natural capital, but there has been little focus on measuring and monitoring the flows benefits from natural capital. Natural capital accounting can help by potentially enabling the enterprise to better adapt and respond to risks in the future. To assist future implementation of natural capital accounting we assess the value proposition perceived by primary industry stakeholders. We use three primary industries in Australia as case studies (cotton, forestry and fisheries), and surveyed 140 stakeholders across the three industries. Interviewees generally suggested natural capital accounting is of public benefit by improving environmental outcomes. Private benefits are obtained through industry gaining social licence, greater market access and better business models. Although there was general agreement over improved environmental outcomes and access to premium markets, there were differences between industries and stakeholders. There were some concerns across the industries about the potential costs natural capital accounting may add to normal business operations and the lack of consistency in practices. Mainstreaming natural capital accounting across primary industries will mean that the value propositions and the implementation barriers need to be addressed. Overall the value proposition of implementing natural capital accounts at the enterprise level must stack up favourably against its costs.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Ingrid Putten & Elizabeth Pinkard & Anthony O’Grady & Rebecca K. Schmidt & Ian Cresswell & Vincent Raoult & Matt D. Taylor, 2021. "Stakeholder perspectives on the value proposition of enterprise-level natural capital accounting for three primary industries," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 541-555, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:41:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10669-021-09817-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-021-09817-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-021-09817-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-021-09817-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vallecillo, Sara & La Notte, Alessandra & Ferrini, Silvia & Maes, Joachim, 2019. "How ecosystem services are changing: an accounting application at the EU level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Dare, Melanie (Lain) & Schirmer, Jacki & Vanclay, Frank, 2011. "Does forest certification enhance community engagement in Australian plantation management?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 328-337, June.
    3. Francisco Ascui & Theodor F. Cojoianu, 2019. "Implementing natural capital credit risk assessment in agricultural lending," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1234-1249, September.
    4. Johan Rockström & Will Steffen & Kevin Noone & Åsa Persson & F. Stuart Chapin & Eric F. Lambin & Timothy M. Lenton & Marten Scheffer & Carl Folke & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber & Björn Nykvist & Cynthia , 2009. "A safe operating space for humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7263), pages 472-475, September.
    5. Glenn-Marie Lange & Quentin Wodon & Kevin Carey, 2018. "The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 29001.
    6. Richard Barker, 2019. "Corporate natural capital accounting," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 68-87.
    7. Baral, Himlal & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "A proposed framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from planted forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 260-268.
    8. Ekins, Paul & Simon, Sandrine & Deutsch, Lisa & Folke, Carl & De Groot, Rudolf, 2003. "A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 165-185, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fleming, Aysha & O'Grady, Anthony P. & Stitzlein, Cara & Ogilvy, Sue & Mendham, Daniel & Harrison, Matthew T., 2022. "Improving acceptance of natural capital accounting in land use decision making: Barriers and opportunities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean-François Ruault & Alice Dupré La Tour & André Evette & Sandrine Allain & Jean-Marc Callois, 2022. "A biodiversity-employment framework to protect biodiversity," Post-Print hal-03365820, HAL.
    2. Alan Randall, 2022. "Driving with Eyes on the Rear-View Mirror—Why Weak Sustainability Is Not Enough," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Child, Michael & Koskinen, Otto & Linnanen, Lassi & Breyer, Christian, 2018. "Sustainability guardrails for energy scenarios of the global energy transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 321-334.
    4. Kristin Linnerud & Erling Holden & Morten Simonsen, 2021. "Closing the sustainable development gap: A global study of goal interactions," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 738-753, July.
    5. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    6. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen, J., 2021. "Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Ruault, Jean-François & Dupré la Tour, Alice & Evette, André & Allain, Sandrine & Callois, Jean-Marc, 2022. "A biodiversity-employment framework to protect biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    8. Klauer, Bernd & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Manstetten, Reiner & Petersen, Thomas, 2017. "Sustainability as a Fair Bequest: An Evaluation Challenge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 136-143.
    9. Bigoni, Michele & Mohammed, Sideeq, 2023. "Critique is unsustainable: A polemic," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Sievers-Glotzbach, Stefanie & Tschersich, Julia, 2019. "Overcoming the process-structure divide in conceptions of Social-Ecological Transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Comte, Adrien & Sylvie Campagne, C. & Lange, Sabine & Bruzón, Adrián García & Hein, Lars & Santos-Martín, Fernando & Levrel, Harold, 2022. "Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    12. Usubiaga-Liaño, Arkaitz & Ekins, Paul, 2024. "Methodological choices for reflecting strong sustainability in composite indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    13. Maebe, Laura & Dufrêne, Marc & Claessens, Hugues & Maréchal, Kevin & Ligot, Gauthier & Messier, Christian, 2023. "The Navigate framework: How the ecosystem services and resilience concepts can help us navigate in the current crises," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Huiyuan Guan & Yongping Bai & Chunyue Zhang, 2022. "Research on Ecosystem Security and Restoration Pattern of Urban Agglomeration in the Yellow River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    15. Filipa Correia & Philipp Erfruth & Julie Bryhn, 2018. "The 2030 Agenda: The roadmap to GlobALLizaton," Working Papers 156, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    16. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    17. Hervé Corvellec & Johan Hultman & Anne Jerneck & Susanne Arvidsson & Johan Ekroos & Niklas Wahlberg & Timothy W. Luke, 2021. "Resourcification: A non‐essentialist theory of resources for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1249-1256, November.
    18. Genesis T. Yengoh & Frederick Ato Armah & Edward Ebo Onumah, 2010. "Paths to Attaining Food Security: The Case of Cameroon," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, August.
    19. Carina Mueller & Christopher West & Mairon G. Bastos Lima & Bob Doherty, 2023. "Demand-Side Actors in Agricultural Supply Chain Sustainability: An Assessment of Motivations for Action, Implementation Challenges, and Research Frontiers," World, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-20, September.
    20. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:41:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10669-021-09817-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.