Al Gore and many other mainstream environmentalists suggest that calculating and internalizing 'externalities' is the solution to environmental problems. Some critics counter that the spread of market-like calculations into 'nonmarket' spheres is itself a cause of environmental problems. In the course of a study of two real-world examples, carbon accounting and cost-benefit analysis, this article (published in the journal Accounting, Organizations and Society) proposes a possible way of getting beyond this stalled debate.


Hacia un debate diferente en la contabilidad ambiental: Los casos de la contabilidad de carbono y el análisis costo-beneficio

Al Gore y muchos otros ambientalistas de la corriente dominante afirman que la solución a los problemas ambientales es calcular e interiorizar las “externalidades”. Algunos críticos no están de acuerdo y dicen que la causa de los problemas ambientales es precisamente la expansión de la contabilidad mercantil hacia las esferas “ajenas al mercado”. Este articulo (de la revista Accounting, Organizations and Society) propone, a través de dos estudios de caso – los mercados de carbono y el análisis de costo-beneficio –, una salida de este debate improductivo.

On 10 April 2008, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the decision of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to drop an investigation into alleged bribes by BAE Systems in Saudi Arabia was unlawful. This is a summary and analysis of that judgment prepared by The Corner House.

On 17 January 2008, Lord Justice Moses finalised the grounds on which The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade could bring its judicial review, the disclosure of documents from the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, and the costs to be paid by both parties.

The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade held a press conference at the offices of the groups' solicitors, Leigh Day & Co, following the High Court ruling in response to the judicial review brought by both groups. This statement was read out at the press conference.

On 10 April 2008, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the decision of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to drop an investigation into alleged bribes by BAE Systems in Saudi Arabia was unlawful. This is their 42-page judgment.

On 10 April 2008, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the decision of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to drop an investigation into alleged bribes by BAE Systems in Saudi Arabia was unlawful. As the judgment is long -- on the judges' own admission -- they prepared a summary of the first part of their ruling.

Media coverage was extensive following the ruling by Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan on 10 April 2008 that the decision of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to drop an investigation into alleged bribes by BAE Systems in Saudi Arabia was unlawful. This is a selection of some leading articles from UK newspapers from 10-17 April 2008.

The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade issued this press release after the High Court ruled, in response to a judicial review brought by both groups, that the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) had acted unlawfully when he stopped a corruption investigation into BAE Systems' arms deals with Saudi Arabia.

On 9 November 2007, Lord Justice Moses sitting with Mr Justice Irwin granted The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade permission to bring a full judicial review hearing against the decision by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to terminate the SFO investigation into alleged bribery by BAE Systems in its Saudi Arabian arms deals. Their judgment outlines their reasons for giving permission, and summarises issues relating to the costs of the judicial review.

This Corner House submission urges the Woolf Committee, set up by BAE, to look in detail at BAE's use of agents and consultants to obtain contracts, lobbying policies, covert monitoring of NGOs, failure to cooperate with law enforcement authorities, and at how BAE should deal with allegations of its past malpractice.