• R&D Management Innovation & Biodiversity – Pisa 2025 (www.rnd2025.org). Track 8.3 - Biodiversity disclosure and sustainability reporting. Integrated Thinking for transformational nature-positive business models. Keywords: Biodiversity, management control systems, critical review

The loss of biodiversity, a critical resource for human survival, is primarily driven by unsustainable resource exploitation accelerated by neoliberal capitalism of the last decades (Poor et al., 2019; Richardson and Rejmanek, 2011; Reuscher et al., 2020). 

Among environmental crises, biodiversity loss is arguably the most serious, hidden, and difficult to quantify (WHO, 2021; IPBES, 2019; Richardson et al., 2019). Therefore, it should be central to the sustainability transition. This has profound implications for accounting research, as traditional accounting frameworks are ill-equipped to capture the value of biodiversity and the costs associated with its degradation. By addressing biodiversity loss, accounting can play a crucial role in guiding organizations toward more sustainable decision-making and resource allocation. This research focuses on understanding the ideological underpinnings of how accounting research, specifically management control systems (MCS) and performance measurement research, has attempted to address this issue. Our research is informed by both Dempsey’s (2016) critical work which highlights how biodiversity is commodified and transformed into an "enterprising entity" within a utilitarian hierarchy, and Georgescu-Roegen's (1971, 1975, 1977) bioeconomic theory that bases the economic process on the physical law of entropy and biology. Taken together, these two approaches allow us to address questions deemed relevant for Critical Perspectives on Accounting’s (CPA) call for papers such as: “Are there specific influences on research and critical scholarship within the environmental domain? For instance, with some scholars focusing on the hard/natural sciences, does this have an influence on the level of criticality within the literature?”. Since Dempsey (2016) has demonstrated such influences in fields closely linked to accounting, her framework could help us uncovering similar dynamics in MCS and performance measurement systems for biodiversity (Malmi & Brown, 2008; Merchant & Van Der Stede, 2003; Simons, 1994). In fact, our research aims to investigate the fundamental theories, dominant narratives, and power structures - e.g., enterprising nature, extinction accounting, ecosystem and natural capital accounting (Atkins, & Maroun, 2018, Fleming et al., 2018, Atkins et al., 2023) - shaping research on said systems. We further refine our research aim into the following research questions:

RQ. 1: What are the most prevalent and influential theories and frameworks guiding research on MCS and performance measurement for biodiversity?

RQ. 2: In what ways is the neoliberal paradigm influencing the development and implementation of MCS and performance measurement for biodiversity in organizations, both directly and indirectly?

RQ. 3: What alternative perspectives or frameworks exist, if any, in MCS and performance measurement for biodiversity in companies that diverge from the influence of the neoliberal paradigm, and what are their key characteristics?

To answer these questions, we will conduct a critical literature review (Grant & Booth, 2009) of business, management, and accounting literature organized around Alvesson and Deetz’s (2021) critical management framework for generating insight from the academic literature, critiquing said insight to uncover dominant narratives and underlying power dynamics and propose transformative redefinitions. Critiquing the generated insights via the integration of Dempsey’s (2016) critical framework and Georgescu-Roegen’s (1971, 1975, 1977) bioeconomic theory represents an innovative approach to environmental accounting research, because it implies the recognition of physics and biology as fundamental pillars of economic processes without which no accounting system can truly preserve biodiversity. This approach goes beyond conventional methodologies and seems promising for novelties in accounting, aligning with CPA’s call for papers: “What could particular theories or methodological approaches do when applied to, or put in service of, the environment and environmental accounting research? Are there novel theories or methods from outside of our domain that could provide promise in this area?”. What we expect to find – based also on preliminary analysis we have conducted – is MCS and performance measurement research subjugated by dominant, neoliberal economic paradigms that are ill-suited to address the complex challenges of biodiversity loss. Consequently, this research posits that alternative economic theories must underpin accounting frameworks to effectively tackle this challenge. Therefore, we place our research on the line traced by Correa et al. (2023, p.2) when asking whether “such growing interest in social and environmental accounting research do any good for the aspired sustainability transformation (Gray, 2010; Laine, Scobie, Sorola & Tregidga, 2020; Owen, 2008)? Is it sufficient that scholars are interested in social and environmental accounting questions, or should we also think about how we do such research and why?”. Highlighting relevant approaches while critically evaluating ineffective – or dangerous – ones is an expected contribution of our research or, as the call for papers puts it, “a ‘re-consideration’ of existing research papers in the field providing and demonstrating the potential for insights when engaging a critical perspective”.

Acknowledgements

Funded by the European Union – Next Generation EU - PNRR - MISSION 4 COMPONENT 2 INVESTMENT 1.4 - AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES - D.D. 3138 OF 16.12.2021 - NBFC - National Center for the Future of Biodiversity (CN 00000033) CUP: J53C21000290006. However, the views and opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them.

Funded by the European Union – Next Generation EU - PNRR - MISSION 4 COMPONENT 2 in the framework of the GRINS -Growing Resilient, INclusive and Sustainable project (GRINS PE00000018 – CUP J53C22003140001). The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, nor can the European Union be held responsible for them.