Transparency
Closeness can be advanced through transparency which is defined as the expansion of corporate reporting to inform the community ‘about the use of its resources and the burdens/(benefits) it has been obliged to bear’ (Gray, 1992, p. 415). New institutions (Gray et al., 1987) may well be created because of the administrative response by accountants informing the community about corporate resource utilisation.
Self-respect and closeness are developed abstractly in order to advocate community principles. Thus, a closer and perhaps less divided society can emerge. This leads to the conclusion that accounting has a moral duty to provide corporate information that is transparent in order to advance closeness in society; it is a goal of financial reporting to achieve transparency. Closeness combined with transparency has the propensity to explain, and for society to evaluate, the activities of corporations. As Gray (1992) argues, the deep green view believes society has a right to this information together with transparent financial data:
Further, given the prominence of ‘community’ in the vision, the level at which information is reported - the level at which transparency must be sought - must be that of the community.
(Gray 1992, p. 415)12
The chapter does not underestimate the difficulties for institutions such as accounting in achieving the radical changes I propose. Given present social structures, it may well be that justice is not an immediate likelihood, but this should not diminish our quest for justice here and now (cf. Nagel, 1991).
The justice model for environmental accounting (Quietism)
This chapter has argued that Rawls’ moral system is based on pluralism using self-respect and is hence able to avoid the charge of relativism (cf. Tinker et al., 1991). The Rawlsian mechanism of self-respect provides the opportunity to develop new accounting concepts such as transparency and
Liberal accountability 159 closeness that can lead to the establishment of a more open and accountable democracy (Gray, 1989). Given that there exists an environmental crisis, accountants have a duty to make an account of corporate activity in order to alter awareness of corporate obligations.
Rawls accepts the possibility that his principles may necessarily have to be open to adaptation. The chapter adopts such a course in arguing that liberties can be expanded to include ‘the right to be free from environmental degradation and harm’. This provides a theoretical underpinning to Gray et al.’s (1987, 1991) concern about other interests that encompass environmental issues. This does not mean corporations have no right to earn a profit, but that profit is not the sole concern for organisations. Corporations responsible for environmental degradation, either directly through the consumption of natural resources in the name of development, or indirectly by doing nothing, in the name of allowing the market to work (Gray, 1990a, 1990b) must alter their behaviour.
Closeness and transparency respond to the political-economists’ concern that GEEA fails to provide a social welfare optimum (Cooper and Sherer, 1984; Gaa, 1986; Williams, 1987). In this view, environmental accountants can provide information about whether we need to maximise certain goods or account for their preservation (sustainability).15 Sustainability is the criterion outlined by Gray (1992) and is consistent with the principles of justice that have been outlined in the first substantive section of the chapter. Sustainability implies an obligation for accountants to provide information concerning a corporation’s utilisation of natural resources.
A concern for a sustainable future leads to the following three incommensurate issues, which arise from our earlier discussion of primary goods:
- (a) Greed versus altruism.
- (b) Present versus future generations.
- (c) Human species versus the rest of life.
