There are three main reasons why the management of environmental costs is becoming increasingly important in organisations. First， society as a whole has become more environmentally aware， with people becoming increasingly aware about the ‘carbon footprint’ and recycling taking place now in many countries. A ‘carbon footprint’ (as defined by the Carbon Trust) measures the total greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly by a person， organisation， event or product.

　　Companies are finding that they can increase their appeal to customers by portraying themselves as environmentally responsible. Second， environmental costs are becoming huge for some companies， particularly those operating in highly industrialised sectors such as oil production. In some cases， these costs can amount to more than 20% of operating costs. Such significant costs need to be managed. Third， regulation is increasing worldwide at a rapid pace， with penalties for non-compliance also increasing accordingly. In the largest ever seizure related to an environmental conviction in the UK， a plant hire firm， John Craxford Plant Hire Ltd， had to not only pay ￡85，000 in costs and fines but also got ￡1.2m of its assets seized. This was because it had illegally buried waste and also breached its waste and pollution permits. And it‘s not just the companies that need to worry. Officers of the company and even junior employees could find themselves facing criminal prosecution for knowingly breaching environmental regulations.

　　But the management of environmental costs can be a difficult process. This is because first， just as EMA is difficult to define， so too are the actual costs involved. Second， having defined them， some of the costs are difficult to separate out and identify. Third， the costs can need to be controlled but this can only be done if they have been correctly identified in the first place. Each of these issues is dealt with in turn below.

　　定义环境成本 - DEFINING ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

　　Many organisations vary in their definition of environmental costs. It is neither possible nor desirable to consider all of the great range of definitions adopted. A useful cost categorisation， however， is that provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1998. They stated that the definition of environmental costs depended on how an organisation intended on using the information. They made a distinction between four types of costs：

　　conventional costs： raw material and energy costs having environmental relevance

　　potentially hidden costs： costs captured by accounting systems but then losing their identity in ‘general overheads’

　　contingent costs： costs to be incurred at a future date， eg clean up costs

　　image and relationship costs： costs that， by their nature， are intangible， for example， the costs of preparing environmental reports.

　　The UNDSD， on the other hand， described environmental costs as comprising of：

　　costs incurred to protect the environment， eg measures taken to prevent pollution and

　　costs of wasted material， capital and labour， ie inefficiencies in the production process.

　　Neither of these definitions contradict each other; they just look at the costs from slightly different angles. As a Paper F5 student， you should be aware that definitions of environmental costs vary greatly， with some being very narrow and some being far wider.