Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering and Knowledge Management Department, Federal University of Santa Catarina (EGC/UFSC),
Campus Universitrio Reitor Joo David Ferreira Lima,
Mail Box 476, Trindade, Florianpolis, Santa Catarina 88040970, Brazil
b
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
c
School of Geo and Spatial Science, North-West University Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
d
Department of Industrial and Transportation Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (DEPROT/UFRGS), Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99 e 5 Floor,
Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul 90.035-190, Brazil
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 19 April 2012
Received in revised form
18 November 2012
Accepted 27 December 2012
Available online 4 March 2013
Monitoring and auditing are regarded as essential activities for process control and follow up, which
contribute to improving performance in organizations and provide a key role in preventing or reducing
environmental harm. However it is not unusual to nd them confused with each other in the academic
literature. This paper provides a detailed literature review of theoretical and review papers in order to
clarify concepts and characteristics of environmental monitoring and auditing; and to suggest ways
forward which can overcome this confusion. It was found that confusions stemmed from considerations
of: similarities, hierarchy, overlaps, scope, risk issues and timeliness. The development of accounting and
auditing over time was found to have led to a exible understanding of follow up practices, and the
disregard of adaptive management as originally understood in the impact assessment eld. It is suggested that adaptive management, recovered from impact assessment and recent specic literature, can
be applied to improve environmental monitoring and auditing.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Environmental monitoring
Environmental auditing
Accounting
Impact assessment
Adaptive management
1. Introduction
Environmental monitoring and auditing are deemed essential
procedures for organizations pursuing better control of their activities to avoid environmental harms (that is, it is inherently riskbased) or to bring positive impacts to the environment while getting a desirable performance towards economic and social assets
involved in their business. In a broader sense, environmental
monitoring is considered to be internal to an organizations scope
and should address technical aspects of processes, such as operational controls (Pfaff and Sanchirico, 2000; Viladrich-Grau, 2003;
Ramos et al., 2004; Kemp et al., 2012) or daily inspections through
repetitive observation (Verschoor and Rejinders, 2001; Heyes, 2002)
for facilities improvement (Mahwar et al., 1997; Stone, 2006).
166
167
Table 1
Raw retrieved results of academic literature on monitoring, auditing and accounting.
Subject
Findings
Agriculture/Farming/Veterinary
Air Quality/Indoor environment
Biomakers/Geomakers/Biotechnology/Biodiversity
Building
Climate/Meteorology
EIA/SEA
Energy
Fishing
Forestry
Food
GHG (greenhouse gases)
Health cleaning/hospital/exposure/occupational)
Industry
Information
Landscape
Mining
Polluted land/Toxicology
Port/Airport/Railway
Public policy/Planning
Radioactivity/Nuclear
Rivers/Beaches/Lakes
Soil
Solid wastes
Species (control/biodiversity/invasive)
Theoretical/Review papers
Tourism
Water
Papers sum
1st search*
2nd search**
3rd search***
4th search****
Subject sum
5
3
0
1
1
5
5
1
4
0
1
7
3
0
3
1
0
3
9
1
6
0
2
2
10
0
6
79
3
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
18
1
1
40
10
3
5
1
2
3
5
1
2
6
3
20
7
1
7
1
4
1
17
2
3
1
0
2
47
2
5
161
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
15
18
6
5
3
3
8
13
2
6
6
4
27
13
1
11
2
4
4
31
3
9
1
6
4
90
3
12
295
*Database: Web of Knowledge: search terms: environmental monitoring AND environmental auditing 79 valid results e July 12th 2012.** Database: Web of
Knowledge, search terms: environmental auditing AND environmental accounting 40 valid ndings e July 13th 2012.*** Database: Scopus, search terms: environmental monitoring AND environmental auditing 1189 results AND risks 161 valid results.****Databasis: Web of Science, search terms: environmental
monitoring AND environmental auditing AND origins of 526 results, from which 15 were deemed relevant and not conicting with previous searches. In all searches
references not subject to peer-review, or missing authorship details or abstracts were excluded., Paper subject was drawn from the focus of the paper extracted from the title
or abstract and represents sub-categories of applied studies, apart from the single category of theoretical/review papers.
Table 2
Authorship of the theoretical references considered to develop the research.
Procedure
Authors
Papers sum
Monitoring
Russel and Landsberg (1971), Keiser (1975), Kelcey (1986), Clement et al. (1991), Clement and Yang (1997),
Quevauviller (2000), Walton (2000), Verschoor and Rejinders (2001), Viladrich-Grau (2003), Kliopova and
Staniskis (2006), Legg and Nagy (2006), Aintablian et al. (2007), Alexander (2008), Batzias and Lagodimos (2008),
Rubio and Perez-Benedito (2009), Cormier et al. (2010), Eckert and Eckert (2010), Verma et al. (2010)
Tomlinson and Atkinson (1987), Roussey (1992), McMillan and White (1993), Thompson and Wilson (1994),
Ellis et al. (1996), Sinclair-Desgagn and Gabel (1997), Mahwar et al. (1997), Nitkin and Brooks (1998), Packham
(1998), Houghton and Jubb (1999), Gray (2000), Humphrey and Hadley (2000), Pfaff and Sanchirico (2000), Petroni
(2001), Spraakman (2001), Heyes (2002), Power (2003), Wallace (2004), Watson and Emery (2004), Fadzil et al.
(2005), Birkmire et al. (2007), Knechel (2007), Pagano and Immordino (2007), Savcuc (2007), Balzarova and
Castka (2008), Humphrey (2008), Whitford (2008), Clarke and Kouri (2009), Rika (2009), Sahnoun and Zarai (2009),
Sinchuen and Ussahawanitchakit (2009), Alin et al. (2010), Kolk and Perego (2010), Penini and Carmeli (2010),
Boiral and Gendron (2011), Kells (2011), Oliveira et al. (2011), Parmigiani et al. (2011), Tangpynioputtkhun and
Thammavinyu (2011)
Maletta and Kida (1993), Milne (1996), Power (1997), Pruzan (1998), Short et al. (1999), Ittner and Larcker (2001),
Toms (2002), Moor and Beelde (2005), Lee and Humphrey (2006), Colwill and Gray (2007), Kent and Monem (2008),
Kent and Stewart (2008), Alvarez et al. (2009), Gordon et al. (2009), Nicholls (2009), Reverte (2009), Auld and
Gulbrandsen (2010), Rof and Danuletiu (2010), Campbell and Slack (2011), Trotman et al. (2011), Kemp et al. (2012)
Morrison-Saunders and Bailey (1999), Evans (2003), Strausz (2005), Stone (2006), Spekl et al. (2007), Verver (2008),
Viegas et al. (2011)
Feess (1999), Lehman (1999), Cooney and Lang (2007), Langeld-Smith (2008), Sutantoputra et al. (2012)
18
Auditing
Accounting
39
21
7
5
168
- Similarities
When operational and managerial aspects are indistinctly
considered, a common meaning appears for monitoring and auditing: they are described to be the same, addressed to inspections
(Eckert and Eckert, 2010) or to better management (Oliveira et al.,
2011; Parmigiani et al., 2011), with no clear boundary to identify
any difference. Another source of confusion in similarity comes from
the idea of a continuum relationship, as stated by Colwill and Gray
(2007). They refer to monitoring and auditing as complementary:
the former related to compliance, and the latter to assurance; in this
case the confusion arises because, while assurance is usually based
on a standard (of environmental quality), outwardly known and
shared, compliance refers to conformity that can embrace internal
or external rules, mandatory or not, therefore comprising both
monitoring and auditing procedures. Humphrey and Hadley (2000:
229) also consider that environmental auditing is the monitoring of
a companys performance against previously agreed policy or statutory standards. A third similarity is to refer to environmental
monitoring or auditing as follow up for controlling processes or
procedures e which is common in the cleaner production eld or
similar frameworks where informal arrangements prevail (Viegas
et al., 2011). In the supply chain eld, Parmigiani et al. (2011)
deem monitoring capabilities as central skills that are performed
throughout the auditing function, so that is difcult to clearly
distinguish one from another.
- Hierarchy
The conception that monitoring exists within auditing (Birkmire
et al., 2007; Savcuc, 2007) serving to improve it (Batzias and
Lagodimos, 2008) is widely accepted for those that frame monitoring within the operational eld and auditing within the managerial eld. So, a picture of auditing as more complex and structured
than monitoring (Maletta and Kida, 1993) is easily drawn. If monitoring is deemed as fullling follow up commitments, conducted for
internal purposes only, while auditing is mandated on regulatory
pressures (Tomlinson and Atkinson, 1987), this reasoning is reinforced. There are several other ways to frame the same: to state that
auditing is strategic (Sinclair-Desgagn and Gabel, 1997; LangeldSmith, 2008) or that it is a more advanced stage of monitoring
(Nitkin and Brooks, 1998). All these conceptions present monitoring
as hierarchically subordinate to auditing. Nevertheless, other academic sources reverse this. Criticism about the lack of regulation for
environmental auditing, making it discretionary (Boiral and
Gendron, 2011), entail an inverse order in this relationship, and it
can lead to ambiguity in respective meanings.
Verschoor and Rejinders (2001), for instance, look to environmental monitoring as more comprehensive than environmental
auditing while extending monitoring to business activities. In the
impact assessment eld also, it is common to nd environmental
audits referred to as part of the monitoring programs, aimed at
process effectiveness (Thompson and Wilson, 1994; MorrisonSaunders and Bailey, 1999). In this eld, monitoring is often
conceived around the idea of adaptive management e a concept of
the early 70s coming from merged assumptions of ecology and
environmental management elds, which indicates a exible and
participatory path for dealing with the complexity of ecological and
human systems evolving together in, dynamic co-dependency
(Armitage et al., 2008). In this sense, it is relatively difcult to
indicate a hierarchic relationship between both practices due to
exibility and continuous rethinking of the processes. However,
once monitoring is conceived in this context as an umbrella activity
under which the management of the impacts is below scrutiny, the
subordinated relationship cannot be dismissed.
- Overlaps
Overlaps between environmental monitoring and environmental auditing could be identied as similarities, but they differ
because whenever the meanings are superimposed, they can assume common or diverse aspects. Ellis et al. (1996), for instance,
rstly consider environmental auditing systems aimed at the
monitoring practices of environmental management in
manufacturing, as monitoring embracing the whole system.
Nevertheless, further on, they state monitoring as a localized activity, operational and proactive at the same time. And in the
sequence, they move backwards referring to monitoring as an opportunity for learning in order to provide continuous advances in
manufacturing. Gray (2000) advocates that there is not a clear
terminology in the eld of environmental auditing, which leads to
alternate understanding. The overlaps become clearer while highlighting the argument that risk assessment and judgments are
inherent to both monitoring and auditing (Hopkins, 2007). This
apparent similarity in fact reveals a superposition. Studies related
to internal auditing (Fadzil et al., 2005; Savcuc, 2007; Cohen et al.,
2008), conceived as independent, objective assurance and
consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organizations operations (Labadie, 2008: 580), make it easy to become
confused over the extent to which this type of auditing is really
distinct from ordinary monitoring or to what extent they overlap.
Other references regarding superposition are those which indicate
some common features between operational monitoring and internal auditing (Spraakman, 2001; Spekl et al., 2007) and those
which recover the origins of auditing. In this latter case, Evans
(2003) shows that separation between the owner activities (risk
embracing and control) and stakeholders responsibilities (management and decision) provides an opportunity for two-way
monitoring, from one part to another, with different tools but
with an eventual concurrent purpose, linked to liability and trust of
the companies activities. Therefore in the roots of auditing, some
monitoring routines can stand as concurrent.
- Scope: internal vs. external
It is not difcult to differentiate the scope of monitoring and
auditing once operational and managerial aspects are separately
considered. Pfaff and Sanchirico (2000) and Kells (2011) argue that
in monitoring data and information are recorded for internal use
only, but in auditing their openness is essential due to the need to
achieve transparency. The same is the case for internal and external
auditing: Internal audits are audits prepared for clients internal to
the organization such as managers and boards; external audits are
primarily prepared for external parties such as stockholders,
stakeholders, government agencies, banks, and so on (Labadie,
2008: 502). Thus, under a wide understanding, scope would not
be a matter of confusion for environmental monitoring and environmental auditing as well. However, a deeper look at the scope
issue makes things somehow blurred. Because auditing takes place
not just due to internal processes, but is also pushed by external
questions that affect organizations, such as the costs of enforcement and compliance and incentives, it is argued that it avoids
ambitious targets (Pagano and Immordino, 2007; Kells, 2011) and
can lessen monitoring efforts as result. On the other hand, when
internal audits are carried out with stringent controls, they can also
produce the same effect e fading of monitoring (Fadzil et al., 2005).
So, a careful analysis is needed about the extent to which the scope
must be considered especially when environmental issues are at
stake, because in this case the interfaces become more numerous
than in single nancial monitoring or auditing. Scope issues can
trigger a dichotomous relationship between environmental
169
170
- Owner/stakeholder separation
Up to the beginning of the 90s, accounting theory and application was a long way distant from the environmental issues
(Roussey, 1992). Trotman et al. (2011) identify three main stages of
development in this area: in the 70s, nancial accounting relied on
171
disclosure and intended participatory processes. However, traditional ways of reasoning about control and follow up mechanisms
for operations and management still blur the good distinction of
both concepts and practices. Furthermore, impact assessment
evolution was pointed out as another conicted eld serving to
exacerbate an already unclear distinction. Because the impact
assessment eld has traditionally associated monitoring with the
pursuit of effectiveness in EIA, it identied monitoring as an umbrella for auditing. In doing so, the impact assessment tradition left
behind adaptive management, although originally conceived as one
of their theoretical branches in the early 70s. This introduced a,
signicant gap through time for a more integrative understanding
of environmental, monitoring and auditing as simultaneously
associated with ecology and environmental, management elds.
Untangling confused relationships between environmental
monitoring and auditing could imply, at the rst sight, the imposition
of clear boundaries for both roles. Ordinarily, it is possible to keep
framing monitoring as operational sets of procedures, focused on
internal subjects of organizations, and auditing as managerially
focussed, for organizational and interorganizational reasons. However, the awareness of adaptive management as one of the origins for
monitoring, in the context of impact assessment of natural systems
(as identied in the present research), and the development of
adaptive management itself in diverse elds related to ecological and
environmental management studies, opens the opportunity to also
consider the adaptive management principles for improving both
environmental monitoring and auditing especially for lling gaps
between the operational and managerial aspects of organizations.
It is not proposed that adaptive management will provide a
solution for all failures or inadequacies in environmental monitoring and in auditing. Rather, it is suggested that the adaptive
management set of principles: exibility, consideration of uncertainties, participatory overture and continuous learning, are
appropriate characteristics to be embedded in environmental
monitoring and auditing, and could enhance their connection.
It must be highlighted that impact assessment, as just one
source of adaptive management, is applied to both natural and
man-made projects (organizations). Because impact assessment
relates to the interfaces of natural and anthropogenic environments, adaptive management principles also can be related to the
relationships between environmental monitoring and auditing for
harnessing one to each other. This is nevertheless a missing insight
in industrial engineering systems where monitoring and auditing
are usually confounded. The input of adaptive management in this
context is considered worthy mainly due it comprehensiveness in
the integration of processes, operations and concerned people.
Acknowledgment
This research was possible under grants from CAPES and CNPq,
Brazilian funding agencies for academic investigation.
References
Alin, I.I., Daniel, C.V., Octavian, M.V., 2010. Instruments that are needed to ensure
the, credibility of environmental disclosure. Annals of the University of Oradea.
Economic, Science 1 (1), 522e552.
Aintablian, S., Mcgraw, P.A., Roberts, G.S., 2007. Bank monitoring and environmental
risk. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 34 (1e2), 389e401.
Alexander, M., 2008. Survey, Surveillance, Monitoring and Recording Management
Planning for Nature Conservation. Springer, Netherlands, 49e62.
Alvarez, R., Urbina, L., Guerrero, F., Castro, J., 2009. Accounting for environmental,
management in exercise of public accountant profession in State of Zulia.
Revista de Ciencias Sociales 15 (3), 499e508.
Armitage, D., Marschke, M., Plummer, R., 2008. Adaptive co-management and the
paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 18 (1), 86e98.
172
Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L.H., 2010. Transparency in non-state certication: consequences for accountability and legitimacy. Global Environmental Politics 10 (3),
97e119.
Balzarova, M.A., Castka, P., 2008. Underlying mechanisms in the maintenance of ISO
14001 environmental management system. Journal of Cleaner Production 16,
1949e1957.
Bailey, J., 1997. Environmental impact assessment and management: an underexplored relationship. Environmental Management 21 (3), 317e327.
Batzias, A.F., Lagodimos, A.G., 2008. A methodology for environmental quality
monitoring and knowledge base environment. In: Sakan, D.P.,
Konstantopoulos, N. (Eds.), International Conference of Marketing and Management Sciences. Marketing and Management Sciences, pp. 350e358.
Birkmire, J.C., Lay, J.R., McMahon, M.C., 2007. Keys to effective third-party process,
safety audits. Journal of Hazardous Materials 142 (3), 574e581.
Boiral, O., Gendron, Y., 2011. Sustainable development and certication practices: lessons learned and prospects. Business Strategy and the Environment 20, 331e347.
Burns, R.B., 2000. Introduction to Research Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Campbell, D., Slack, R., 2011. Environmental disclosure and environmental risk:
sceptical attitudes of UK sell-side bank analysts. British Accounting Review 43
(1), 54e64.
Clarke, A., Kouri, A., 2009. Choosing an appropriate university or college environmental management system. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 971e984.
Clement, R.E., Langhorst, M.L., Eiceman, G.A., 1991. Environmental analysis.
Analytical Chemistry 6 (N 2), 207Re292R. June 15th.
Clement, R.E., Yang, P.W., 1997. Environmental analysis. Analytical Chemistry 69 (N,
12), 251Re287R. June 15th.
Cohen, J.R., Krishnamoorthy, G., Wright, A.M., 2008. Form versus substance: the,
implications for auditing practice and research of alternative perspectives on
corporate, governance. Auditing 27 (2), 181e198.
Colwill, C., Gray, A., 2007. Creating an effective security risk model for outsourcing,
decisions. BT Technology Journal 25 (1), 79e87.
Cooney, R., Lang, A.T.F., 2007. Taking uncertainty seriously: adaptive governance
and, international trade. European Journal of International Law 18 (3), 523e551.
Cormier, D., Aerts, W., Ledoux, M.-J., Magnan, M., 2010. Web-based disclosure about,
value creation processes: a monitoring perspective. Abacus 46 (3), 320e347.
Dipper, B., Jones, C., Wood, C., 1998. Monitoring and post-auditing in environmental,
impact assessment: a review. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41 (6), 731e747.
Eberhard, R., Robinson, C.J., Waterhouse, J., Parslow, J., Hart, B., Grayson, R.,
Taylor, B., 2009. Adaptive management for water quality planning e from
theory to practice. Marine and Freshwater Research 60 (11), 1189e1195.
Eckert, H., Eckert, A., 2010. The geographic distribution of environmental inspections. Journal of Regulatory Economics 37 (1), 1e22.
Ellis, R.K., Jin, W.H., Warren, L., 1996. The feasibility of an environmental auditing
system for Chinese manufacturing industry: a systemic approach. Information
Intelligence and Systems 1e4, 3015e3020.
Evans, L., 2003. Auditing audit rms in Germany before 1931. Accounting Historians,
Journal 30 (N2), 29e65.
Fadzil, F.H., Haron, H., Jantan, M., 2005. Internal auditing practices and internal
control, system. Managerial Auditing Journal 20 (8), 844e866.
Feess, E., 1999. Lender liability for environmental harm: an argument against
negligence based rules. European Journal of Law and Economics 8 (3), 231e250.
Gibbs, M., 2011. Ecological risk assessment, prediction, and assessing risk predictions. Risk Analysis 31 (11), 1784e1788.
Gordon, L.A., Loeb, M.P., Tseng, C.-Y., 2009. Enterprise risk management and rm,
performance: a contingency perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public
Policy 28 (4), 301e327.
Gray, R., 2000. Current developments and trends in social and environmental
auditing, reporting and attestation: a review and comment. International
Journal of Auditing 4, 247e268.
Heyes, A., 2002. A theory of ltered enforcement. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (1), 34e46.
Hopkins, A., 2007. Beyond compliance monitoring: new strategies for safety regulations. Law & Policy 29 (2), 210e225.
Houghton, K.A., Jubb, C.A., 1999. The cost of audit qualications: the role of nonaudit services. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 8
(2), 215e240.
Humphrey, N., Hadley, M., 2000. Environmental Auditing. Palladian Law Publishing,
Bembridge.
Humphrey, C., 2008. Auditing research: a preview across the disciplinary divide.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21 (N 2), 170e203.
Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F., 2001. Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective. Journal of Accounting and
Economics 32 (1e3), 349e410.
Karatzoglou, B., Spilanis, I., 2010. Sustainable tourism in Greek islands: the integration of activity-based environmental management with a destination environmental scorecard based on the adaptive resource management paradigm.
Business Strategy and the Environment 19 (1), 26e38.
Keiser, B.E., 1975. A system approach to environmental control. IEEE Transactions
on, Industry Applications 1 A-11 (N 1), 7e13. Jan-Feb.
Kelcey, J.G., 1986. Environmental Impact Assessments e their development and
application. Long Range Planning 19 (N1), 67e79.
Kells, S., 2011. The seven deadly sins of performance auditing: implications for
monitoring public audit institutions. Australian Accounting Review N. 59 21 (4),
383e396.
Kemp, D., Owen, J.R., Van De Graaff, S., 2012. Corporate social responsibility, mining
and audit culture. Journal of Cleaner Production 24, 1e10.
Kent, P., Monem, R., 2008. What drives TBL reporting: good governance or threat to,
legitimacy? Australian Accounting Review 18 (4), 297e309.
Kent, P., Stewart, J., 2008. Corporate governance and disclosures on the transition to,
International Financial Reporting Standards. Accounting and Finance 48 (4),
649e671.
Kliopova, I., Staniskis, J.K., 2006. The evaluation of cleaner production performance
in, Lithuanian industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1561e1575.
Knechel, W.R., 2007. The Business Risk Audit: origins, obstacles, and opportunities.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 32, 383e408.
Kolk, A., Perego, P., 2010. Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance,
statements: an international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment 19 (3), 182e198.
Labadie, J.R., 2008. Auditing of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction activities.
Disaster Prevention and Management 17 (5), 575e586.
Langeld-Smith, K., 2008. Strategic Management Accounting: how far we have
come in 25 years? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21 (N 2),
204e228.
Lee, B., Humphrey, C., 2006. More than a numbers game: qualitative research in
accounting. Management Decision 44 (2), 180e197.
Legg, C.J., Nagy, L., 2006. Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a
waste of time. Journal of Environmental Management 78 (2), 194e199.
Lehman, G., 1999. Disclosing new worlds: a role of social and environmental
accounting and auditing. Accounting Organizations and Society 24 (3),
217e241.
Mahwar, R.S., Verma, N.K., Chakrabarti, S.P., Biswas, D.K., 1997. Environmental
auditing programme in India. Science of the Total Environment 204 (1), 11e26.
Maletta, M.J., Kida, T., 1993. The effect of risk-factors on auditors congurational,
information processing. Accounting Review 68 (3), 681e691.
McMillan, J.J., White, R.A., 1993. Auditors belief revisions and evidence-search e the
effect of hypothesis frame, conrmation bias, and professional skepticism. Accounting Review 68 (3), 443e465.
Milne, M.J., 1996. On sustainability: the environment and management accounting.
Management Accounting Research 7 (1), 135e161.
Moor, P., Beelde, I., 2005. Environmental auditing and the role of the accountancy
profession: a literature review. Environmental Management 36 (N. 2), 205e219.
Morgan, R.K., 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact,
Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (1), 5e14.
Morrison-Saunders, A., Bailey, J., 1999. Exploring the EIA/Environmental management relationship. Environmental Management 24 (N3), 281e295.
Nicholls, A., 2009. We do good things, dont we? Blended Value Accounting in
social, entrepreneurship. Accounting Organizations and Society 34 (6e7),
755e769.
Nitkin, D., Brooks, L.J., 1998. Sustainability auditing and reporting: the Canadian
experience. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (3), 1499e1507.
Oliveira, J., Rodrigues, L.L., Craig, R., 2011. Risk-related disclosures by non-nance,
companies: Portuguese practices and disclosure characteristics. Managerial
Auditing Journal 26 (9), 817e839.
Packham, C., 1998. Community auditing as community development. Community,
Development Journal 33 (N 3), 249e259. July.
Pagano, M., Immordino, G., 2007. Optimal regulation of auditing. CESifo Economic
Studies 53 (3), 363e388.
Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R.D., Russo, M.V., 2011. Efciency meets accountability:
performance implications of supply chain conguration, control, and capabilities. Journal of Operations Management 29, 212e223.
Penini, G., Carmeli, A., 2010. Auditing in organizations: a theoretical concept and
empirical evidence. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27 (1), 37e59.
Petroni, A., 2001. Developing a methodology for analysis of benets and shortcomings of ISO 14001 registration: lessons from experience of a large machinery manufacturer. Journal of Cleaner Production 9, 351e364.
Pfaff, A.S.P., Sanchirico, C.W., 2000. Environmental self-auditing: setting the proper,
incentives for discovery and correction of environmental harm. Journal of Law,
Economics, and Organization 16 (1), 189e208.
Power, M., 1997. Expertise and the construction of relevance: accountants and,
environmental audit. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (2), 123e146.
Power, M.K., 2003. Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28, 379e394.
Pruzan, P., 1998. From control to values-based management and accountability.
Journal of Business Ethics 17 (13), 1379e1394.
Quevauviller, P., 2000. Accuracy and traceability in environmental monitoring pitfalls in, methylmercury determinations as a case study. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2, 292e299.
Ramos, T.B., Caeiro, S., de Melo, J.J., 2004. Environmental indicator frameworks to
design and assess environmental monitoring programs. Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal 22 (1), 47e62.
Reverte, C., 2009. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings
by Spanish listed rms. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (2), 351e366.
Rika, N., 2009. What motivates environmental auditing? A public sector perspective. Pacic Accounting Review 21 (N 3), 304e318.
Rof, L.M., Danuletiu, D.C., 2010. Environmental accounting and corporate social
responsibility. Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Science 1 (1),
885e891.
Roussey, R.S., 1992. Auditing environmental liabilities. Auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory 11 (1), 47e57.
173
Thompson, D., Wilson, M.J., 1994. Environmental auditing e theory and applications. Environmental Management 18 (4), 605e615.
Tomlinson, P., Atkinson, S.F., 1987. Environmental audits: proposed terminology.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 8, 187e198.
Toms, J.S., 2002. Firm resources, quality signals and the determinants of corporate,
environmental reputation: some UK evidence. British Accounting Review 34
(3), 257e282.
Trotman, K.T., Tan, H.C., Ang, N., 2011. Fifty-year overview of judgment and decision
making research in accounting. Accounting and Finance 51 (1), 278e360.
Verma, D., Ko, B.J., Zerfos, P., Lee, K., He, T., Duggan, M., Stewart, K., Swami, A.,
Sofra, N., 2010. Understanding the quality of monitoring for network management. The Computer Journal 53 (N 5), 541e550.
Verschoor, A.H., Rejinders, L., 2001. Environmental monitoring of large international, companies. How and what is monitored and why. Journal of Cleaner
Production 9 (1), 43e55.
Verver, J., 2008. Continuous Monitoring and Auditing: What Is the Difference?.
Available
at.
http://www.acl.com/pdfs/Knowledge_leader_What_is_the_
difference.pdf (5p.).
Viegas, C.V., Ribeiro, J.L.D., Selig, P.M., 2011. Using cleaner production steps to improve
environmental impact assessment implementation and monitoring. In:
Giannetti, B.F., Ameida, C.M., Almeida, V.B., Bonilla, S.H. (Eds.), 2011. Advances in
Cleaner Production, V 1. Nova Science Publisher, So Paulo, pp. 197e221.
Viladrich-Grau, M., 2003. Monitoring policies to prevent oil spills: lessons from
theoretical literature. Marine Policy 27, 249e263.
Wallace, W.A., 2004. The economic role of the audit in free and regulated markets: a lookback and a look forward. Research in Accounting Regulation 17
(C), 267e298.
Walton, J., 2000. Should monitoring be compulsory within voluntary environmental, agreements? Sustainable Development 8 (3), 146e154.
Watson, M., Emery, A.R.T., 2004. Law, economics and the environment. A comparative, study of environmental management systems. Managerial Auditing
Journal 19 (N 6), 760e773.
Whitford, A.B., 2008. A test of the political control of bureaucracies under asymmetric, information. Rationality and Society 20 (4), 445e470.