Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
REFERENCES
Clearly, management must now use their judge-
ment, which cannot be substituted by any model,
on which project to select.
Some would argue that selecting project (i)
adopts a short-term approach, while others would
argue that adopting project (ii) could deny the
company the opportunity to invest in newer re-
placement technologies earlier, i.e. in seven years
rather than fourteen years. If the company could
invest the difference between the capital cost of
the two project (i.e. $1,381,000) in a mutually
exclusive project to that of project (ii) and produce
a NPV in excess of $1,211,000, (at this figure
giving a DPBI of less than two) then this would
also favour the selection of project (i).
Booth, R. (1999). Avoiding pitfalls in investment
appraisal.
Management Accounting
,
77
(10),
22-23.
Burnett, R. D., Hansen, D. R., & Quintana, O.
(2007). Eco-efficiency: Achieving productivity
improvements through environmental cost man-
agement.
Accounting and the Public Interest
,
7
(1),
66-92. doi:10.2308/api.2007.7.1.66
Burritt, R. L. (2004). Management accounting:
Roadblocks on the way to the green and pleasant
land.
Business Strategy and the Environment
,
13
,
13-32. doi:10.1002/bse.379
Burritt, R. L., & Saka, C. (2006). Environmental
management accounting applications and eco-
efficiency: Case studies from Japan.
Journal
of Cleaner Production
,
14
(14), 1262-1275.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.08.012
CONCLUSION
Environmental sustainability is a subject of great
contemporary importance. We have highlighted
relevant environmental characteristics of some
capital projects and applied the financial ap-
praisal profile approach to their evaluation, which
is supported by a case study example. We have
described and shown how these factors can be
integrated into a comprehensive evaluation of
projects with significant environmental implica-
tions. We believe that this method helps fill a gap
in the environmental investment literature where
there is a paucity of comprehensive, structured,
and transparent methodologies that can prove ac-
ceptable to management decision-makers from a
variety of functions and viewpoints. However, we
need to reiterate at this point that the FAP model is
an aid to management decision-making and not a
substitute. We do not attempt to combine financial
and non-financial factors into a single cashflow
figure and accept that ranking of multiple criteria
is not a straightforward process. For these reasons,
we show the results of our analysis as a profile
and leave management to make the final decision.
Curkovic, S., & Sroufe, R. (2007). Total quality
environmental management and total cost assess-
ment: An exploratory study.
International Jour-
nal of Production Economics
,
105
(2), 560-579.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.04.021
Ekins, P. (2003). Identifying critical nature capital:
Conclusions about critical nature capital.
Ecologi-
cal Economics
,
44
(2-3), 277-292. doi:10.1016/
S0921-8009(02)00278-1
Fredrickson, J. W. (1985). Effects of decision mo-
tive and organizational performance level on stra-
tegic decision processes.
Academy of Management
Journal
,
28
(4), 821-843. doi:10.2307/256239
Hervani, A. A., Helms, M. M., & Sarkis, J.
(2005). Performance measurement for green
supply chain management.
Benchmarking:
An International Journal
,
12
(4), 330-353.
doi:10.1108/14635770510609015
