The Idea of “Ethical Accounting” for a Livestock Farm

  • Karsten Klint Jensen
  • Jan Tind Sørensen


This paper presents the idea of a decision-support system for a livestock farm, called “ethical accounting”, to be used as an extension of traditional cost accounting. “Ethical accounting” seeks to make available to the farmer information about how his decisions affect the interests of farm animals, consumers and future generations. Furthermore, “ethical accounting” involves value-based planning. Thus, the farmer should base his choice of production plan on reflections as to his fundamental objectives, and he should make his final decision only after having seriously considered the various consequences for the affected parties.

animal welfare consumers economics environment ethics planning stakeholders 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackoff, R. L., Creating the Corporate Future (New York: John Wiley, 1982).Google Scholar
  2. Agger, J. F. and P. Willeberg, “Production and Mortality in Dairy Cows from 1960-1991: Time Series Analysis of Ecological Data,” Proc. 6. ISVEE. Symp. (Ottawa, 1991), pp. 357-360.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, B., “Intergenerational Justice in Energy Policy,” in D. MacLean and P. G. Brown (eds.), Energy and the Future (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1983).Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, J., “Two Departures from Consequentialism,” Ethics 100 (1989), 54-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogetoft, P. and P. Pruzan, Planning with Multiple Criteria. Investigation, Communication, Choice (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1991).Google Scholar
  6. Broome, J., Weighing Goods. Equality, Uncertainty and Time (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991).Google Scholar
  7. Broome, J., Counting the Cost of Global Warming. A Report to the Economic and Social Research Council on Research by John Broome and David Ulph (Cambridge: TheWhite Horse Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  8. Callicott, J. B., “Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair,” Environmental Ethics 2 (1980), 311-338.Google Scholar
  9. Demski, J., Managerial Uses of Accounting Information (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994).Google Scholar
  10. Elliott, R. E., “Faking Nature,” Inquiry 25 (1982), 81-93.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, E. R., Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach (Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman, 1984).Google Scholar
  12. Goodpaster, K. E., “On Being Morally Considerable,” Journal of Philosophy 78 (1978), 308-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffin, J., Well-Being. Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  14. Halberg, N., E. S. Kristensen and I. S. Kristensen, “Nitrogen Turnover on Organic and Coventional Mixed Farms,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 8-1 (1995), 30-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jensen, K. K., “The Trade-off between Animal Welfare and Human Interests,” Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A, Animal Sci. Suppl. 27 (1996), 104-108.Google Scholar
  16. Keeney, R. L., Value-Focused Thinking. A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  17. Keeney, R. L. and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (New York: John Wiley, 1976).Google Scholar
  18. Nozick, R., Anarchy, State and Utopia (Basic Books, 1974).Google Scholar
  19. O'Neill, J., Ecology, Policy and Politics. Human Well-Being and the Natural World(London: Routledge, 1993).Google Scholar
  20. Parfit, D., Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  21. Pruzan, P. and O. Thyssen, “Conflict and Consensus. Ethics as a Shared Value Horizon for Strategic Planning,” Human Systems Management 9 (1990), 135-151.Google Scholar
  22. Rachels, J., The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Second Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993).Google Scholar
  23. Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (Oxford University Press, 1972).Google Scholar
  24. Regan, T., The Case for Animal Rights (London: Routledge, 1984).Google Scholar
  25. Rollin, B. E., Animal Rights and Human Morality (New York: Prometheus, 1981).Google Scholar
  26. Rolston, H. III, Environmental Ethics. Duties to and Values in the Natural World (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  27. Sandøe, P. and F. Hurnik (eds.), Welfare of Domestic Animals. Concepts, Theories, and Methods of Measurement. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A, Animal Sci. Suppl. 27 (1996).Google Scholar
  28. Sandøe, P., L. Munksgaard, N. P. Bådsgård and K. H. Jensen, “How to Manage the Management Factor - Assessing Animal Welfare at the Farm Level,” in J. T. Sørensen (ed.), Livestock Farming Systems, More than Food Production, EAAP Publication No 89, 1997, pp. 221-230.Google Scholar
  29. Scheffler, S., The Rejection of Consequentialism, Revised Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  30. Singer, P., Animal Liberation (Wellington, Northamptonshire: Thorsons Publishers Ltd., 1976).Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, P., Respect for Nature. A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  32. Vallentyne, P., “The Teleological/Deontological Distinction,” Journal of Value Inquiry 21 (1987), 21-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vallentyne, P., “Gimmicky Representations of Moral Theories,” Metaphilosophy 19 (1988), 253-263.Google Scholar
  34. Van der Ploeg, J. D., “Rural Sociology and the new Agrarian Question. A Perspective from the Netherlands,” Sociologia Ruralis 33-32 (1993), 240-260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Varian, H. R., Microeconomic Analysis, Third Edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992).Google Scholar
  36. Williams, B., “A Critique of Utilitarianism,” in J. J. C. Smart and B. Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism: For and Against (Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 75-150.Google Scholar
  37. de Wit, C. T., H. Huisman and R. Rabbinge, “Agriculture and its Environment: Are There Other Ways?,” Agricultural Systems 23 (1987), 211-236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karsten Klint Jensen
    • 1
  • Jan Tind Sørensen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Education Philosophy and RhetoricUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen S.Denmark
  2. 2.Department of Animal Health and WelfareResearch Centre Foulum, Danish Institute of Agricultural ScienceTjeleDenmark

Personalised recommendations