![Environmental costs at a Canadian paper mill: a case study of [An article from: Journal of Cleaner Production]](https://www.ebooknetworking.net/books/B00/0P6/bigB000P6NYKW.jpg)
Environmental costs at a Canadian paper mill: a case study of [An article from: Journal of Cleaner Production]
Book Details
Author(s)R. Gale
PublisherElsevier
ISBN / ASINB000P6NYKW
ISBN-13978B000P6NYK6
AvailabilityAvailable for download now
Sales Rank12,839,548
MarketplaceUnited States 🇺🇸
Description
This digital document is a journal article from Journal of Cleaner Production, published by Elsevier in 2006. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description:
An Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) framework is applied to the 2000 year-end financial report for the Mackenzie Paper Division paper mill owned and operated by Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. of Montreal, Quebec. A conventional reading of the obvious environmental costs from this financial report is Cdn$2,196,838. This figure is derived from an analysis of effluent treatment costs and other line item environmental costs. There is no ''environmental account'' category that breaks out either costs or the mass balance of inputs and outputs. For the most part, environmental costs are rolled up into overhead accounts such as administration, infrastructure and materials accounts. Application of the EMA framework is based on assigning environmental costs to one of four categories for which a tentative breakdown is as follows: (1) waste and emission treatment costs ($3,348,902); (2) prevention and environmental management costs ($270,109); (3) material purchase value of non-product output costs ($946,799); and (4) processing costs of non-product output ($2 92,943). There is also a category called Environmental Revenues, of which none were reported. Conservative estimates thus place the total environmental costs at $4,858,753. What is significant about this result is that the environmental costs under EMA are at least twice as much as would normally be reported. This supports the view that environmental costs are much higher than generally considered and makes it clear that many important environmental costs as well as benefits are ''hidden'' in other accounts. More studies of a similar design are required to confirm the validity of the EMA methodology reported here.
Description:
An Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) framework is applied to the 2000 year-end financial report for the Mackenzie Paper Division paper mill owned and operated by Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. of Montreal, Quebec. A conventional reading of the obvious environmental costs from this financial report is Cdn$2,196,838. This figure is derived from an analysis of effluent treatment costs and other line item environmental costs. There is no ''environmental account'' category that breaks out either costs or the mass balance of inputs and outputs. For the most part, environmental costs are rolled up into overhead accounts such as administration, infrastructure and materials accounts. Application of the EMA framework is based on assigning environmental costs to one of four categories for which a tentative breakdown is as follows: (1) waste and emission treatment costs ($3,348,902); (2) prevention and environmental management costs ($270,109); (3) material purchase value of non-product output costs ($946,799); and (4) processing costs of non-product output ($2 92,943). There is also a category called Environmental Revenues, of which none were reported. Conservative estimates thus place the total environmental costs at $4,858,753. What is significant about this result is that the environmental costs under EMA are at least twice as much as would normally be reported. This supports the view that environmental costs are much higher than generally considered and makes it clear that many important environmental costs as well as benefits are ''hidden'' in other accounts. More studies of a similar design are required to confirm the validity of the EMA methodology reported here.
