Friday, May 22, 2020

Method Of Valuation Of Environmental Externalities Finance Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 14 Words: 4257 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Narrative essay Did you like this example? Introduction The hole in the layer of ozone above the Antarctic, the birds oiled following the shipwreck of a tanker such EXXON VALDEZ or the ERIKA and very recently lately the escape of the oil platform of BP to broad of the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the mine with open sky of Thedford Mines which emits asbestos dust in the atmosphere have a whole a common point: environmental externalities released by each situation. Indeed, each fact enumerated above has an negative impact on the environment or on the health of the individuals resulting from an activity of a company or a person which is not held responsible in spite of its responsibility for their generation such is in oneself, moreover, the definition of the term environmental externality. However, an externality is not obligatorily negative and can be, consequently, positive like showed it very well James Meade (1952), through its famous example of the bee-keeper and the nurseryman. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Method Of Valuation Of Environmental Externalities Finance Essay" essay for you Create order A externality is often the resultant of a fact that we can see or not to in the case of see an atmospheric pollution and whose monetary quantification is not easily realizable. Moreover, questions remain on the cogency of their quantification like on the way and the accuracy in their evaluation points out Antheaume (2004). Indeed, how can we consider the money value of a bird oiled, or the impact on public health following the atmospheric pollution rejected by a company? Moreover and a general way, the importance of the environment has been in increasing demand for more than two decades. Indeed, a real awakening on behalf of recipients (community, customers, shareholders, the State, etc.) request to find solutions with the growing number of environmental catastrophes or pollution various within the framework of the exploitation of the companies. Indeed, the companies have a central role to play in the action towards a better natural stock management of planet. In fact, even if the original intention of a company is to maximize its profits, this one must above all hold for account that each activity generated by the organization with an impact on the company and the environment in terms of environmental externality. However, if these impacts are not quantified, those are likely not to be taken as a real concern. Indeed, to affix a cost on an externality makes it possible to better become aware of its reality, to encourage their management while reducing his costs and thus directly its environmental impact. It will be the role of the accountancy of management, and thus of the accountant, to allow the monetary quantification of the environmental externalities. However, the various fields of expertise (economic, sociological and psychological) on the quantitative tools having to be employed in their quantification do not facilitate the task of the experts and often imply a joint collaboration between the engineers, ecologists, sociologists, etc. Moreove r, it is Pigoul  [1]  which, in 1920, brought for the first time the concept of externality, model rising directly from an economic theory. Moreover, it is well-known that one can manage only what one measures. It is besides with this long-winded speech that even comes the gasoline to have to quantify what appears unquantifiable such as the environmental externalities and that, in order to better be able to manage them. Even if the management of the external costs remains an important point in the need for their quantification, it is especially their internalization in the financial statements which will be seen facilitated. Indeed, the current countable standards do not accept the qualitative data yet from where the need for their monetary evaluation. However of many methods exist ultimate to this end. Consequently, this literature review wants to be a synthesis of the various existing methods in order to draw some the conclusions being able to be useful within the compan ies wanting to quantify the externalities and that in the attack of their objectives. Valuation and integration of Environmental externalities Let us recall first of all that the integration of the environmental external cost within the management system of the costs of the companies is not made compulsory yet. This integration is by optional definition, it is however recommended by many authors based on the principles of increase in the competitive regulation and advantage. However, as point out it Jasch and StasiÃÆ'†¦Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¡kienÃÆ'„- (2005) like Epstein, Roy Schroeder and Winter  [2]  , the quantification of the externalities is only at its beginning. Thus, for the organizations choosing this integration, there exist today three great types of methods make it possible to evaluate the externalities cost: based on the control costs, the restoration cost, or the damage cost. Control cost The method evaluation of the external costs as regards to the control cost or avoidance cost is one of simplest. Indeed, the principle is that the cost of the environmental impacts (pollution in particular) of a company would be equal to the cost to install, to operate and of maintenance of technologies which would have made it possible to avoid this damage with the environment (IFAC 2005, Epstein and Roy  [3]  ). Moreover, Antheaume (2004) note which this method reasons in terms of marginal cost, i.e the cost of an additional unit of damage is estimated by the cost that it would have been necessary to spend to avoid it. Jasch and StasiÃÆ'†¦Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¡kienÃÆ'„- (2005) support as it acts of the cost which the company would have really undergone to see will have to undergo one day if the regulation obliges it to reduce its damage. Thus, a possibility to obtain these costs, advanced by the IFAC (2005), is to refer at the cost supported by enterprises of countries where the regulation is more advanced. Consequently, Bà ¶er, Curtin and Hoyt (1998) raise that this method is frequently used as reference to choose between two investments related to the environment for example. This cost of control would be obtained also easily by the studies of the engineers or the companies of environment consultants. It is discussed as less as of other methods evaluation of the external costs according to Jasch and StasiÃÆ'†¦Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¡kienÃÆ'„- (2005), and Greene  [4]  . However, Antheaume (2004) raises several limits. Indeed, according to him, the main issue of this method is that it does not estimate really the cost of the damage for the environment, but a theoretical cost for the company. Consequently, an important variation can occur between the methods of estimate of the damage cost and this method. Moreover, Antheaume (2004) and the US EPA  [5]  point out that there always does not exist of technologies to avoid certain pollution and thus not cost of control associated with these pollutants, or these technologies are not developed enough to estimate the cost of it. Cost of restoration According to the IFAC (2005) it is also possible to estimate the externalities by the cost not of avoidance of the damage, nor of the damage itself, but by the cost of restoration, or treatment of the caused damage. Thus, for example, when Exxon Valdez with struck a reef in 1989, the 11 million released gallons of oil generated more than 1, 25 billion dollar restoration  [6]  . In the same way, in 1988, US Environmental Protection Agency had estimated the cost of handing-over in a state of 27,000 Superfund or National Priority List (NPE) industrial sites to be cleaned in priority to approximately 25 million dollars by site  [7]  . Burritt and Gibson (1993)  [8]  thus identified three types of costs of restoration: direct, indirect costs and of repercussions. The direct costs are costs supported by the company such as the costs of repair of the boat, of cleaning, the legal fines and penalties in the case of Exxon Valdez. The indirect costs and the costs of repercussions are external costs, i.e generated, but not supported by the company. Thus, the indirect costs are those supported by the company to clean the coasts or for example the loss of income of the fishermen and tourism industry. The costs of repercussions are those undergone by the other companies of the sector such as the increase in the premiums of insurance and the loss of reputation. In order to estimate the cost of the externalities according to this method, only the indirect costs and of repercussions must be considered. The direct costs are indeed already undergone and thus recorded by the company. The major limit of this method according to Zachry, Graharan and Chaisson (1998), is the lack and the difficulty in obtaining relative data at the cost undergone by the company and the other companies of the sector. The applicability of this method thus appears very limited. Damage cost The last type of method evaluation monetary of the externalities is the damage cost. Indeed, these methods aim at estimating in scientific manner or economic the cost of the damage caused with the environment, itself (IFAC, 2005). Several subcategories of methods are used: method of the contract price, the hedonic scale, the costs of the voyage, conditional evaluation. Method of the market price Matthews and Lave (2000) and Reich (2005) advise to evaluate the externalities by their market valuet. Indeed, they notice that it is particularly difficult to determine their value in the absence of a market. Thus, they recommend to search for similar goods on markets the most similar as possible. Ardestani and Shafie-For (2007) are, with this method, evaluated the damage carried out by air pollutions of the energetic sector in Iran. Another example would be the price difference between two houses perfectly identical, in perfectly identical grounds except for pollution. The difference of price sale of these two houses (and all the other houses of the ground) would constitute, according to this method, the estimate of the cost of the damage related to pollution. However, this method seems very little used, certainly due to the fact that the majority of the environmental credits are public goods, i.e the possessions for which the property rights are not dà ©finis  [9]  and thus for which it there generally no market. Method of the hedonic scale The hedonic price method is a technique of evaluation which calculates a value for the environmental quality from differences such as in rents or prices of the real goods by example  [10]  . Thus, if we take again the example of our two houses (see Method of the market price), here it would not act more than two identical houses out of two identical grounds, but, on the contrary, of two houses with different characteristics and different grounds, always one polluted, the other not. Thus, work here would mainly consist in determining which is the importance of environmental pollution in the choice of the houses by the population. The given proportion multiplied by the price difference between the two houses equalizes the estimate of the cost of pollution. It should be noted that the comparison between two goods is not necessary; the proportion can also be applied directly to the price of house. As Harscouà «t (2007) notices it, this method is particularly adapted to the real es tate and work sectors. However, according to Khalifa (2002)  [11]  , the statistics and econometrics and thus a solid database are necessary to determine the sum which the individuals are ready to pay to improve the environmental quality or to decrease the risks of their work. Travel Cost Method (TCM) Harscouà «t (2007) underlines that this method is used mainly for the natural sites and/or areas. The subjacent assumption is that the individuals are ready to travel to visit natural parks for example. Thus, the minimal value of the withdrawn advantages of the site would be equal to the cost of voyage to the park, and of entrance fee (Bougherara, 2003  [12]  ). The use of the variation of the travels costs between a polluted place and another not polluted can also be used as estimate according to this method. However, apart from the sites, the use of this method appears very complex. Conditional evaluation The method the conditional evaluation or contingent (Contingent Valuation Method, (CVM)), popularized since the beginning of the years 1980s, is a technique of evaluation of the externalities, where one asks directly the population concerned, which sum they are ready to pay/accept for an improvement or a deterioration of the quality of the environment  [13]  . It is based on the method of the preference declared, expressed by the people concerned (Harscouà «t, 2007). Thus, there exist two principal methods, Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) when one asks for the price which the people are ready to pay, and Willingness-To-Avoid (WTA) when one asks the price allowing to accept a degradation of their environment or for the price which the people are ready to pay in order to not undergo more degradation. This last method (WTA) is regarded by Grosclaude and Soguel (1994) as being a method of equivalent variation, because it measures the variation of income (price ready to pay or receive) al lowing an equivalence in their wellbeing between a situation with and without pollution. It is important to note according to Antheaume (2004) and Matthews and Lave (2000) that the WTP and the WTA are incremental methods, i.e. seeking to give a monetary amount at the impact of a marginal change of the environmental quality for the people. Thus, for example, Matthews and Lave (2000) sought to give a monetary amount the value which the people are ready to pay to avoid an environmental pollution increasing the risk of death by 1 per 1000, i.e a marginal degradation. Consequently, these two methods of conditional evaluation give an indication of the mobilizable resources, to prevent or repair damage for example, and also of the sensitizing of the opinion to the quality of the environment  [14]  . The assumption is that the sum of the assents to be paid/accept (often average or median) expressed to prevent or repair an environmental damage is equal to the value of the damage on the environment. It is it should be noted that it must sometimes be carried out an analytical regression in order to determine the share of the environment in the WTP or WTA, other criteria being able to enter in account as the case of the hedonic price method according to Grosclaude and Soguel (2004). Antheaume (2004) proposes to apply after a percentage equal to the proportion of company responsibilities in this pollution in order to obtain the external cost generated by this one. Several ways of applying these methods exist, even if all crosses by a survey. Indeed, according to Grosclaude and Soguel (1994) the principle of the contingent evaluation is to confront the individuals with a hypothetical market (contingent) on which environmental goods (e.g the appearance of historical buildings) are bought and sold. The interviewed people see themselves asking to indicate their preference for the good exchanged according to the bidding principle. Thus, these same authors identify thr ee means of asking for their preference: To propose an initial amount, then to increase or decrease the value suggested according to the response (iterative process) until obtaining an acceptance (and/or a refusal) or while limiting themselves to two questions. This last approach, resulting from Herriges and Shogren (1996)  [15]  , is called double bounded dichotomous choice. A trichotmous approach also exists, adding the possibility of saying if they would have accepted at a stronger or weak price with the approach of the double dichotomous choice (Loomis and Al, 1999  [16]  ). To let the person choose her own starting value then to propose lower values until to him he refuses the value suggested. However, according to Zhongmin and Al (2006) this first opened question often brings an absence of answer. This phenomenon is explained according to Grosclaude and Soguel (1994) by the lack of practice of the people with regard to the monetary evaluation of the quality of th eir environment. From where a bias of failure of non-answer of the surveys of the type WTP from 20 to 30%, to compare with the 5 to 7% traditional surveys according to Craig and McCann (1978)  [17]  . To regard the answering as a price taker, i.e to make him that only one price quotation which it accepts if its WTP (or WTA) is weaker or equal, and refuses if it is higher. This approach, developed by Bishop and Heberlein (1979)  [18]  thus leaves a dichotomous choice. Zhongmin and Al (2006) note that the suggested price can vary according to the answering. A fourth way of leading the people to reveal their preferences was developed by Mitchell and Carson (1989)  [19]  and bears the name of payment card. This one consists of the original proposal of multiple intervals of values including zero, the objective being that the answering can surround the value corresponding to him without being influenced by a particular value of reference. All these approaches search t o answer one of the main issues of the method evaluation contingent, i.e., according to Grosclaude and Soguel (1994), to manage to make express their preference by the people. Indeed, the skill even of the people to give precise, relevant and honest answers to this type of survey was questioned, and, in spite of several studies indicating a certain degree of validity of the answers (Matthews and Lave, 2000), any induced survey of behavioral skews. Principal skew, according to Zhongmin and Al (2006) is the skew of the yea, i.e. the tendency of the answering to say yes when them a question is asked. This skew would be particularly present when the answering are not accustomed to seeing themselves asking for their opinion (on the policies, etc.) (Matthews and Lave, 2000), and/or that the governments generally give the socially acceptable standard (all confused fields). Thus, for example, in its case study seeking to obtain the WTP to restore the site of Ejina in China, the authors h ad to use several methods in order to try to reveal truths WTP of the people. Following this study, Zhongmin and Al (2006) concluded that the approach of the payment card is that limiting a maximum skew of yea. Grosclaude and Soguel (1994) consider as for them that principal skew, of failure to reply or distorted answering, is related to the lack of information had by the answering to enable him to make a coherent choice by itself. Thus, they recommend, like Zhongmin and Al (2006) and Ortà ºzar, Cifuentes, Williams (2000), to devote part of the questionnaire to the setting in context and explanation of the environmental situation and its implications. Finally, the people would be generally perfectly able to answer this type of survey (Grosclaude and Soguel 1994, Ortà ºzar, Cifuentes, Williams 2000) even whereas it is about a hypothetical market for incremental modifications of public goods such as related to the environment. However, certain people are indifferent towards the surveys of conditional evaluation and they are increasingly numerous when the effects of the environment seem distant and total according to the principle of Not In My Back Yard  [20]  . Thus, Grosclaude and Soguel (1994) recommend to take into account only the answers of the receptive people (including if their WTP/A is null) and according to a representative sample of the local population. These problems are typical of this type of methods, resting on a survey and thus depending on the behavior of the questioned people even on people questioning. Thus, Ortà ºzar, Cifuentes and Williams (2000) come from there to think that measurement resulting from the conditional evaluation will be accepted only if it is close to the awaited values. However, it would seem that important variations can be obtained between two surveys of WTP. Indeed, the US EPA (1997)  [21]  used 5 surveys of conditional evaluation to measure the value attached to the risk to die prematurely becaus e by flight pollution. The results showed a median of 4,8 million dollars, but with a standard deviation of 3,2 million, i.e. almost 67%. Typology We reviewed the three various groups of methods monetary evaluation of the externalities: the cost of control, restoration or the damage cost itself. This classification is that of the IFAC (2005), but we can note several differences with that employed by certain authors. Thus, an important typological point should be noted concerning Willingness- To-Pay. Indeed, this name of method is used within two different frameworks: 1) for the contingent evaluation, i.e expressed preferences and 2) for the methods of market price, and the hedonic price, i.e preference observed (on a market). This last use is explained by the fact why the assent to be paid is usually (in economy) revealed by prices: more the price of a good is high, more it means (partly) that the people are ready to pay expensive for this one. Thus, certain authors such Harscouà «t (2007), GIEC  [22]  , OCDE  [23]  , use the term of WTP within the framework of evaluation methods of the externalities in economic m atter, i.e for the methods of market price, hedonic price and travel cost. It results from this a more general problem from classification of the various methods. Indeed, consequently, Harscouà «t (2007), Khalifa (2002) and Bougherara (2004) make following classification: Classification of the methods evaluation of the external costs Source: Harscouà «t, 2007, adapted of Khalifa (2002) and Bougherara (2004) And, in the same way, Antheaume (2004) does not classify the conditional evaluation within the methods measuring the cost of the damage, but in fact also a category with share. Jasch and StasiÃÆ'†¦Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¡kienÃÆ'„- (2005), the IFAC (2005), the Commission of the State of Massachussets  [24]  advise to rather use the method of the cost of control (or restoration according to the IFAC 2005) than that of the contingent evaluation, because they are discussed. Indeed, the methods of costs of control or restoration are based on costs which the company could, even would have, really to undergo and thus less variables. Moreover, the WTP and the WTA are considered very difficult to apply by the companies because of complexity of the surveys to realize and skews to be avoided. However, as Herborn (2005) could note it at the time of its case study, more the method is complex, less its result is accepted. Nevertheless, Harscouà «t (2007) and Grosclaude and Soguel (1994) consider that, in spite of its complexity, the method of contingent evaluation is to be privileged, because it reflects the individual preferences. In addition, Grosclaude and Soguel (1994) notice that it is the only one possible method when it is impossible to observe the preferences of the people on a market and that one wants to consider the damage cost to the environment. However, the control cost methods and restoration are methods, because they take the real hypothetical costs, fail to measure the cost of the environmental impacts. However, as Herborn (2005) also could notice it, one of the principal wills of the companies launching out in the monetary evaluation of the externalities is to reflect the importance of the environment in itself, e.g. of the biodiversity. Thus, in spite of the use of the contingent evaluation, the managers and shareholders are constrained to reduce the environment to a money value, because the environment represents more than of the money. Consequently, if the contingent evaluation, considering the values however that the people allot to the environment, is called in question for its reduction at the monetary terms, then in this case, the use of the methods of control cost and restoration does not appear possible. Indeed, there exists a significant difference between these last methods and those methods of damage costs (of which the conditional evaluation is most known). According to the case study realized by Antheaume (2004) this variation would vary the external costs by a factor from 1 to 12000 according to the method evaluation selected and of the impacts taken into account. Moreover, this variation can be considered as a subsidy of the society to the companies, because it represents the amount of damage which the society allows the companies to create without them having to support them one day. Whatever the method chosen, let us not f orget that the evaluation of external cost is thus shown feasible, with more or less large scales. Conclusion Refaire la conclusion As an accountant of management, our role is above all to provide information to the company. With regard to the environment, the most complete information is obtained when the environmental costs are identified, measured and allocated with the products or processes having generated them. ok To be done, several methods can combine. As we saw, the LCA, and the LCC makes it possible to arrive at our objective. However, in these methods based on the life cycle, certain costs (contingent, intangible) are with difficulty liables with a phase of the cycle, and thus often forgotten according to Norris, 2001. Thus, another solution is that of the complete cost in the form of the Total Cost Assessment, considering all the types of costs. However, the costs are not allocated with the products from this methods, from where interest of accountancy by activity (ABC) or of Full Cost Accounting. Thus, the FCA, the TCA and the ABC belonged to most frequently used by the companies interviewed by Parker (2000). Nevertheless, the FCA and the TCA imply also the accounting of the external costs. It becomes thus either optional, but necessary to choose a method evaluation monetary of the externalities. Among these last, the method of the cost of control (of prevention) and the conditional evaluation are most usually used. Nevertheless, the method of the cost of control is limited at a theoretical cost for the company, rather easily calculable, but not reflecting the damage really undergone by the environment and thus the company. Contrary, the conditional evaluation is based on the preferences and values of the individuals with respect to the environment. But, its great subjectivity and the methodological problems (choice of the approaches, skew) generate a controversy on the results obtained. Thus, the other methods measuring the cost of the damage (methods of the contract price, the price hedonic, the cost of voyage) seem to be to privilege when the y are applicable.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.