Extinction accounting and accountability: Empirical evidence from the west European tissue industry

Recently, human activities are more and more invasive with respect to biodiversity (Pachauri and Meyer, 2014). Several studies highlighted the key role played by accountants in contributing to the development of tools able to support company in assessing, reporting and disseminating, as well as accomplishing, the preservation of natural species and ecosystems (King and Atkins, 2016). Corporate reporting of environmental information might increase the credibility of forest certifications, given that some scholars argued that certified forests are not often run, in a sustainable way. Moreover, certifications sometimes cover harmful forest practices (Elad, 2014) and do not ensure a good quality of environmental reporting and performance. The research question therefore intends to explore how extinction accounting and accountability (EAA) is able to reflect ex-post the company’s business strategy and, at the same time, influence ex-ante its formulation by easing the prevention of deforestation risk and addressing the issue of credibility through specific actions. In more detail, the “Emancipatory Framework for Extinction Accounting and Accountability” (EFEAA) (Atkins and Maroun, 2018) was tested using the reports issued by top four companies working in West Europe in the tissue industry, where the preservation of forest heritage is a “compulsory route” for assuring the business sustainability, in terms of both raw material renewal and brand reputation. The findings highlighted that such companies tend to report advantages arising from the use of forest, but this information is too generic without providing evidence over the ecosystem services forests produce. Moreover, firm size affects the quantity and the quality of disclosure. At last, managerial implications and future research avenues are outlined and discussed.