Rethinking Planetary Boundaries: Accounting for Ecological Limits

References

• Andrew, J., and C. Cortese. 2011. Accounting for climate change and the self-regulation of carbon disclosures. Accounting Forum 35, no. 3: 130–8.
   Google Scholar
• Antonini, C., and C. Larrinaga. 2017. Planetary boundaries and sustainability indicators. A survey of corporate reporting boundaries. Sustainable Development 25: 123–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arboleda, M. 2020. Planetary mine: Territories of extraction under late capitalism. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Arjaliès, D.-L., S.P.C. Casa Nova, Y. Gendron, C. Lehman, P.A. Navarro Pérez, J.P. Resende de Lima, G. Stoner, and M.A. Vera-Colina, eds. 2021. Breaking Boundaries: (Counter) Accounts during the Pandemic - Letters for Future Generations, Rompre les barrières: (Contre) rapports sur la pandémie - Lettres aux générations futures, Rompendo Barreiras: Contra-relatos diversos durante a pandemia - Cartas e mensagens para as gerações futuras, Rompiendo Fronteras: (Contras) Cuentas durante la pandemia - Cartas para futuras generaciones. London, Canada: Western University. Available at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/breaking-boundaries/
   Google Scholar
• Ascui, F., and H. Lovell. 2011. As frames collide: Making sense of carbon accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24, no. 8: 978–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asdal, K., T. Druglitø, and S. Hinchlifee. 2017. Humans, animals and biopolitics: The more-than-human condition. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Atkins, J., W. Maroun, B.C. Atkins, and E. Barone. 2018. From the Big five to the Big four? Exploring extinction accounting for the rhinoceros. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31, no. 2: 674–702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bebbington, J., and C. Larrinaga-González. 2008. Carbon trading: Accounting and reporting issues. European Accounting Review 17, no. 4: 697–717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bebbington, J., and C. Larrinaga. 2014. Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration. Accounting, Organizations and Society 39, no. 6: 395–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bebbington, J., H. Österblom, B. Crona, J. B. Jouffray, C. Larrinaga, S. Russell, and B. Scholtens. 2020. Accounting and accountability in the Anthropocene. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 33 (1): 152–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biermann, F. 2012. Planetary boundaries and Earth system governance: Exploring the links. Ecological Economics 81: 4–9. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biermann, F., and R.E. Kim. 2020. The boundaries of the planetary boundary framework: A critical appraisal of approaches to define a “safe operating space” for humanity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45, no. 1: 497–521.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, F., and B. Wittneben. 2011. Carbon accounting: Negotiating accuracy, consistency and certainty across organisational fields. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24, no. 8: 1022–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brand, U., B. Muraca, É Pineault, M. Sahakian, A. Schaffartzik, A. Novy, C. Streissler, et al. 2021. From planetary to societal boundaries: An argument for collectively defined self-limitation. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 17, no. 1: 264–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresnihan, P., and N. Millner. 2023. All we want is the earth: Land, labour, and movements beyond environmentalism. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, G., C. McAlpine, J. Rhodes, D. Lunney, R. Goldingay, K. Fielding, S. Hetherington, et al. 2018. Assessing the validity of crowdsourced wildlife observations for conservation using public participatory mapping methods. Biological Conservation 227: 141–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burchell, S., C. Clubb, and A.G. Hopwood. 1985. Accounting in its social context: Towards a history of value added in the United Kingdom. Accounting, Organizations and Society 10, no. 4: 381–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadena, M.D.L., and M. Blaser, eds. 2018. A world of many worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ceballos, G., P.R. Ehrlich, A.D. Barnosky, A. García, R.M. Pringle, and T.M. Palmer. 2015. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1, no. 5: e1400253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, R. 2006. Participatory mapping and GIS. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 25 (2): 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Chandler, D. 2017. Ontopolitics in the anthropocene: An introduction to mapping, sensing and hacking. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, C. 1992. The non and nom of accounting for (M)other nature. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 5 (3): 16–39.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, C, and D Senkl. 2016. An(other) truth: A feminist perspective on KPMG’s true value. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal 7 (4): 494–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornell, S. 2012. On the system properties of the planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society 17, no. 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronin, M. 2017. Eco-translation: Translation and ecology in the age of the anthropocene. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cuckston, T. 2017. Ecology-centred accounting for biodiversity in the production of a blanket Bog. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30, no. 7: 1537–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuckston, T. 2018a. Making accounting for biodiversity research a force for conservation. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 38, no. 3: 218–26.
   Google Scholar
• Cuckston, T. 2018b. Making extinction calculable. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31, no. 3: 849–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denedo, M., I. Thomson, and A. Yonekura. 2017. International advocacy NGOs, counter accounting, accountability and engagement. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30, no. 6: 1309–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dey, C., S. Russell, and I. Thomson. 2011. Exploring the potential of shadow accounts in problematizing institutional conduct. In Social Accounting and Public Management Accountability for the Common Good, Chapter 6, ed. A. Ball and S.P. Osborne, 64–75. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Drees, L., R. Luetkemeier, and H. Kerber. 2021. Necessary or oversimplification? On the strengths and limitations of current assessments to integrate social dimensions in planetary boundaries. Ecological Indicators 129: 108009. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrnström-Fuentes, M., and S. Böhm. 2023. The political ontology of corporate social responsibility: Obscuring the pluriverse in place. Journal of Business Ethics 185: 245–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ensor, J., and E. Hoddy. 2020. Securing the social foundation: A rights-based approach to planetary boundaries. Earth System Governance 7: 100086.
   Google Scholar
• Escobar, A. 2017. Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., H.L. Ballard, and V.E. Sturtevant. 2008. Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA.Ecology and Society 13 (2). doi:10.5751/ES-02400-130204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galafassi, D., T.M. Daw, M. Thyresson, S. Rosendo, T. Chaigneau, S. Bandeira, L. Munyi, I. Gabrielsson, and K. Brown. 2018. Stories in social-ecological knowledge cocreation. Ecology and Society 23, no. 1: 23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galafassi, D., J.D. Tabara, and M. Heras. 2018. Restoring our senses, restoring the earth. Fostering imaginative capacities through the arts for envisioning climate transformations. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 6: 69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibassier, D., and S. Alcouffe. 2018. Environmental management accounting: The missing link to sustainability? Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 38, no. 1: 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, R., and M.J. Milne. 2018. Perhaps the Dodo should have accounted for human beings? Accounts of humanity and (its) extinction. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31, no. 3: 826–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines-Young, R., M. Potschin, and D. Cheshire. 2006. Defining and identifying environmental limits for sustainable development: A scoping study. Nottingham: Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham.
   Google Scholar
• Hines, R.D. 1988. Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13, no. 3: 251–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hines, R. 1992. Accounting: Filling the negative space. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (3–4): 313–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iovino, S., and S. Oppermann. 2014. Material ecocriticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jabot, R. 2023. For an accounting translation of the Anthropocene: Fuelling the debate on planetary boundaries. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 14, no. 1: 21–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M.J. 2003. Accounting for biodiversity: Operationalising environmental accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16, no. 5: 762–89.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, M.J., and J.F. Solomon. 2013. Problematising accounting for biodiversity. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26, no. 5: 668–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keppner, B., W. Kahlenborn, H. Hoff, W. Lucht, and D. Gerten. 2020. Planetary boundaries: Challenges for science, civil society and politics. Dessau-Roßlau: German Environment Agency, Umweltbundesamt.
   Google Scholar
• Kimura, A.H., and A. Kinchy. 2016. Citizen science: Probing the virtues and contexts of participatory research. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2: 331–61.
   Google Scholar
• Krawec, P. 2022. Becoming Kin: An indigenous call to unforgetting the past and reimagining our future. Minneapolis: Broadleaf Books.
   Google Scholar
• Laaksonen, J. 2022. Translation, hegemony and accounting: A critical research framework with an illustration from the IFRS context. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 89: 102352.
   Google Scholar
• Laine, M., M. Scobie, M. Sorola, and H. Tregidga. 2020. Special issue editorial: Social and environmental account/ability 2020 and beyond. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 40 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1080/0969160X.2020.1733631.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Trans. Catherin Porter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2017. Facing gaia: Eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Trans. Catherin Porter. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lenton, T.M., H. Held, E. Kriegler, J.W. Hall, W. Lucht, S. Rahmstorf, and H.J. Schellnhuber. 2008. Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, no. 6: 1786–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liboiron, M. 2021. Pollution is colonialism. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linnenluecke, M.K., J. Birt, J. Lyon, and B.K. Sidhu. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Implications for asset impairment. Accounting & Finance 55, no. 4: 911–929.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Living Earth. 2016. Field notes from the dark ecology project 2014-2016. Amsterdam: Sonic Acts Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lövbrand, E., R. Pielke, and S. Beck. 2011. A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology.Technology, and Human Values 36: 474–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor, M. 1997. Feminism & ecology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nykvist, B., A. Persson, F. Moberg, L. Persson, S. Cornell, and J. Rockström. 2013. Å national environmental performance on planetary boundaries. Bromma: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Arkitektkopia AB.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, J., and A. Persson. 2020. Democratising planetary boundaries: experts, social values and deliberative risk evaluation in Earth system governance. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 22 (1): 59–71. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2019.1661233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, L., and N. McGuigan. 2023. Responding to crises: Rewilding accounting education for the Anthropocene. Meditari Accountancy Research 31, no. 1: 101–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2017. Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raworth, K. 2017. Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, K., W. Steffen, W. Lucht, J. Bendtsen, S.E. Cornell, J.F. Donges, M. Drüke, et al. 2023. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances 9, no. 37: 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson, Keith. 1991. On the arenas of accounting change: The process of translation. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16 (5/6): 547–70. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(91)90041-C.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F.S. Chapin, E.F. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, et al. 2009a. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å Persson, F.S. Chapin, E.F. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, et al. 2009b. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14, no. 2: 1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, S., M.J. Milne, and C. Dey. 2017. Accounts of nature and the nature of accounts: Critical reflections on environmental accounting and propositions for ecologically informed accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30, no. 71: 1426–58.
   Google Scholar
• Salazar, J.F., C. Granjou, M. Kearnes, A. Krzywoszynska, and M. Tironi, eds. 2020. Thinking with soils: Material politics and social theory. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Samkin, G., A. Schneider, and D. Tappin. 2014. Developing a reporting and evaluation framework for biodiversity. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27, no. 3: 527–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaberg, C. 2019. Searching for the anthropocene: A journey into the environmental humanities. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Schaltegger, S. 2018. Linking environmental management accounting: A reflection on (missing) links to sustainability and planetary boundaries. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 38, no. 1: 19–29.
   Google Scholar
• Schaltegger, S., M. Beckmann, and E. G. Hansen. 2013. Transdisciplinarity in corporate sustainability: Mapping the field. Business Strategy and the Environment 22 (4): 219–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheffer, M., J. Bascompte, W.A. Brock, V. Brovkin, S.R. Carpenter, V. Dakos, H. Held, E.H. van Nes, M. Rietkerk, and G. Sugihara. 2009. Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461, no. 7260: 53–9. doi:10.1038/nature08227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt F. 2013. Governing planetary boundaries: Limiting or enabling conditions for transitions towards sustainability? In Transgovernance advancing sustainability governance, ed. L. Meuleman, 215–34. Berlin: Springer
   Google Scholar
• Shearer, T.L., and C.E. Arrington. 1993. Accounting in other Wor(l)ds: A feminism without reserve. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18, no. 2/3: 253–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sletto, B.I. 2009. “We drew what we imagined” Participatory mapping, performance, and the arts of landscape making. Current Anthropology 50, no. 4: 443–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobkowiak, M., T. Cuckston, and I. Thomson. 2020. Framing sustainable development challenges: Accounting for SDG-15 in the UK. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 33, no. 7: 1671–703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stibbe, A. 2021. Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Szerszynski, B., W. Heim, and C. Waterton, eds. 2003. Nature performed: Environment, culture and performance. Sociological Review Monograph. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, A. 2022. Belonging: Natural histories of place, identity and home. Edinburgh: Canongate.
   Google Scholar
• Tregidga, H., and M. Laine. 2022. On crisis and emergency: Is it time to rethink long-term environmental accounting? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 82: 102311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsing, A.L. 2015. The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Veldman, J., and A. Jansson. 2020. Planetary boundaries and corporate reporting: The role of the conceptual basis of the corporation. Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium 10, no. 2: 20180037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venuti, L. 2018. The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Ed, Routledge Translation Classics. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, S. 2021. The living world: Nan shepherd and environmental thought. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, K. 2018. The purposes, promises and compromises of extinction accounting in the UK public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31, no. 3: 875–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Linxiu, Kai Huang, Bradley Ridoutt, Yajuan Yu, and Ying Chen. 2021. A planetary boundary-based environmental footprint family: From impacts to boundaries. Science of The Total Environment 785: 147383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xian, Y., G. Cai, J. Sang, Y. Chen, and X. Wang. 2023. Agricultural environmental footprint index based on planetary boundary: Framework and case on Chinese agriculture. Journal of Cleaner Production 385: 135699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, L., and C. Huber. 2023. How accounting research understands performativity: Effects and processes of a multi-faceted notion. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 20, no. 5: 704–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar