IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/ecocul/v13y2016i1p14-20n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining Environmental and Spatial Discount Rates for Valuation of Assets According to International Financial Reporting Standards

Author

Listed:
  • Jaunzeme Justine Sophia

    (Ventspils University College, Latvia)

Abstract

Application of discount rate in finance and accounting is founded on the concept of time value of money. Discounted cash flow model is widely used for asset valuation under the International Financial Reporting Standards (in abbreviation, IFRS). The discount rate applied in valuation models normally is the best rate of return that investors would earn alternative investments. With emergence of ecological economics as a separate branch of economics, the concept of ecological (or in other words, environmental discount rate) has been elaborated. Muller (2013) in his paper ‘The Discounting Confusion: an Ecological Economics Perspective’, argues that traditional discounting can undermine long-term sustainability of the economy. In his work, Frank G. Muller considered adjusting the traditional discount rate in order to arrive at an environmental discount rate, which would help to ensure the sustainability of the economy. Hannon (2001) and Perrings (2001) in their paper ‘An Introduction to Spatial Discounting’ consider another variation of the discount rate - spatial discount rate. Spatial discount rate represents the rate at which the diffusion of environmental effects of economic activities is discounted over space. By February 2016, neither the application of environmental nor spatial discount rates under IFRS has been considered. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the implications that environmental and spatial discounting would have for the application of discounted cash flow model according to IFRS. The research methods applied are methods of economic analysis and synthesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaunzeme Justine Sophia, 2016. "Combining Environmental and Spatial Discount Rates for Valuation of Assets According to International Financial Reporting Standards," Economics and Culture, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 14-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:ecocul:v:13:y:2016:i:1:p:14-20:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/jec-2016-0002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jec-2016-0002
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jec-2016-0002?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank G. Müller, 2013. "The Discounting Confusion: An Ecological Economics Perspective," Revista Economía, Fondo Editorial - Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, vol. 36(71), pages 57-74.
    2. Leonard Eckel & Steve Fortin & Kathryn Fisher, 2003. "The choice of discount rate for external reporting purposes: Considerations for standard setting," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 28-59, March.
    3. Charles Perrings & Bruce Hannon, 2001. "An Introduction to Spatial Discounting," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 23-38, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Timo Goeschl, 2005. "Non-binding linked-issues referenda: Analysis and an application," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 249-266, September.
    2. Seth Baum & William Easterling, 2010. "Space-time discounting in climate change adaptation," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 591-609, August.
    3. Ricardo Luiz Menezes da Silva & Paula Carolina Ciampaglia Nardi & Maisa de Souza Ribeiro, 2015. "Earnings Management and Valuation of Biological Assets," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 12(4), pages 1-26, June.
    4. Gordon F. Mulligan, 2021. "Effects of a customer gradient in a spatial monopoly," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 155-167, February.
    5. Harmsen - van Hout, M.J.W. & Dellaert, B.G.C. & Herings, P.J.J., 2008. "Behavorial effects in individual decisions of network formation," Research Memorandum 019, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    6. Jordan, Geraldine J. & Fortin, Marie-Josee, 2002. "Scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 361-366, May.
    7. De Valck, Jeremy & Broekx, Steven & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Testing the influence of substitutes in nature valuation by using spatial discounting factors," Working Papers 182808, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    8. Goeschl, Timo, 2003. "Hijackers and Hostages in Non-Binding Linked-Issues Referenda: Analysis and an Application," Staff Papers 12625, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    9. W. Brock & A. Xepapadeas & A. Yannacopoulos, 2014. "Robust Control and Hot Spots in Spatiotemporal Economic Systems," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 257-289, September.
    10. Attila Lengyel & Sándor Kovács & Anetta Müller & Lóránt Dávid & Szilvia Szőke & Éva Bácsné Bába, 2019. "Sustainability and Subjective Well-Being: How Students Weigh Dimensions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-18, November.
    11. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2018:i:08:n:s0219525918500182 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Yamaguchi, Rintaro & Shah, Payal, 2020. "Spatial discounting of ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    13. Tjernström, E. & Tietenberg, T., 2008. "Do differences in attitudes explain differences in national climate change policies?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 315-324, April.
    14. Dorobantu, Sinziana & Müllner, Jakob, 2019. "Debt-side governance and the geography of project finance syndicates," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 161-179.
    15. Abhirup Chakrabarti & Will Mitchell, 2013. "The Persistent Effect of Geographic Distance in Acquisition Target Selection," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 1805-1826, December.
    16. M. Stárová & H. Čermáková & T. Hlavsa & H. Vostrovská & M. Levá, 2016. "Evaluation of applicability of IAS 41 - Agriculture to the valuation of growing forest stands and their accounting treatment in the Czech Republic," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(9), pages 429-440.
    17. Jeremy Valck & Steven Broekx & Inge Liekens & Joris Aertsens & Liesbet Vranken, 2017. "Testing the Influence of Substitute Sites in Nature Valuation by Using Spatial Discounting Factors," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(1), pages 17-43, January.
    18. Rafael Todescato Cavalheiro & Régio Marcio Gimenes & Erlaine Binotto & Carlos Ricardo Fietz, 2019. "Fair Value of Biological Assets: An Interdisciplinary Methodological Proposal," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 23(4), pages 543-563.
    19. Benjamin Volland, 2018. "Après nous le déluge? Perceived distance of climate change impacts and pro-environmental behaviour," IRENE Working Papers 18-05, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    20. David Aadland & Charles Sims & David Finnoff, 2015. "Spatial Dynamics of Optimal Management in Bioeconomic Systems," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 45(4), pages 545-577, April.
    21. Balado-Naves, Roberto & Baños-Pino, José Francisco & Mayor, Matías, 2018. "Do countries influence neighbouring pollution? A spatial analysis of the EKC for CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 266-279.

    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:vrs:ecocul:v:13:y:2016:i:1:p:14-20:n:2. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.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.