Mr Muller and Ms Richardson appear to infer that by criticizing “Impact Accounting”, Ken Pucker and I are also against any attempt to evaluate the external costs of economic activity. That was not what we intended to convey. We agree that we need to evaluate those costs and benefits that are not yet captured by the price mechanism so that policies can be enacted that will internalize these costs. Instead, our concern with Impact Accounting is focused on the assertion that all marginal costs and benefits can be assessed, monetized, aggregated, and meaningfully reported at the corporate level. And, we do not believe such reporting will have the desired effect.
Also, for the record, neither Ken nor I benefit from critiquing Impact Accounting. We spoke out because we have witnessed, over our three decades of experience, the distraction and harm that can be created by hopeful but unworkable ideas.
COMMENTS
BY Andrew A King
ON February 3, 2022 09:10 AM
Mr Muller and Ms Richardson appear to infer that by criticizing “Impact Accounting”, Ken Pucker and I are also against any attempt to evaluate the external costs of economic activity. That was not what we intended to convey. We agree that we need to evaluate those costs and benefits that are not yet captured by the price mechanism so that policies can be enacted that will internalize these costs. Instead, our concern with Impact Accounting is focused on the assertion that all marginal costs and benefits can be assessed, monetized, aggregated, and meaningfully reported at the corporate level. And, we do not believe such reporting will have the desired effect.
Also, for the record, neither Ken nor I benefit from critiquing Impact Accounting. We spoke out because we have witnessed, over our three decades of experience, the distraction and harm that can be created by hopeful but unworkable ideas.