The role of accounting in enabling the flourishing of nature: opportunities and challenges Open Access

Accounting has recently been defined as “… a technical, social and moral practice concerned with the sustainable utilisation of resources and proper accountability to stakeholders to enable the flourishing of organisations, people and nature” (Carnegie et al., 2021, p. 69). This proposed multidimensional definition of accounting, with a focus on enhanced, broader forms of accountability, positions accounting as an enabler of action and emphasises its potential to influence peoples' behaviours in relation to the protection of the natural world (Carnegie et al., 2021). The public interest framework for multidimensional accounting (see Carnegie et al., 2024) describes the aspiration of accounting as shaping a better world through enabling this flourishing across organisations, people and nature. Achieving this aspiration, where accounting is a potential enabler of flourishing, necessarily involves greater focus on recognising broader societal stakeholders, including both human and nonhuman ^[1] stakeholders (Carnegie et al., 2024). This broader aspiration and potential role for accounting aligns with the current shift towards stronger and expanded forms of accountability that encompass not only financial resources but also environmental considerations (Bebbington et al., 2020).

The concept of flourishing, as presented in the multidimensional definition of accounting (Carnegie et al., 2021), has received little attention in accounting research to date. Though not always explicitly labelled as flourishing, accounting has been primarily concerned with the flourishing or thriving of organisations, where this flourishing is predominately measured in financial terms through profitability. Flourishing, in the context of accounting, has also been discussed in relation to humans (see Bebbington, 2021), and with respect to sustainability challenges and the threats to both human and economic flourishing (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014). Here, Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach to flourishing has been described as a highly pertinent approach in sustainability accounting research (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018). The Capabilities Approach to flourishing relates to opportunities for one to exercise their innate capabilities, or substantive freedoms, that are central to a flourishing life (Nussbaum, 2006, 2011, 2018, 2023). Developed by economist and philosopher Amartya Sen, this approach was then extended by the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, first in relation to the flourishing of humans and subsequently to encompass the flourishing of sentient nonhuman animals (Nussbaum, 2023; Sen, 1992). Here, animal flourishing relies upon opportunities for free movement, companionship and relationships with other species members, sensory stimulation and a suitable habitat (Nussbaum, 2018). The Capabilities Approach to nonhuman flourishing has also been discussed in the context of accounting education, where Powell and McGuigan (2024) propose learning strategies and interventions that allow students to explore what nonhumans need to live a flourishing life, considering whether and how accounting impedes or enables this flourishing. Thus, whilst there exist initial steps within accounting to recognise the concept of flourishing, accounting's potential role in enabling flourishing, particularly flourishing of nature, is not yet well developed in accounting literature.

In positioning accounting as an enabler of nonhuman flourishing, the multidimensional definition of accounting adopts the broad term, nature. Specifically, the role of accounting is “… to enable the flourishing of organisations, people and nature [emphasis added]” (Carnegie et al., 2021, p. 69). In accounting, nature is often used as a monolithic term to describe the array of nonhuman species, including animals, plants and habitats (Vinnari and Vinnari, 2022). Beyond accounting, nature is defined in a similarly inclusive way where it encompasses “… multiple perspectives and understandings of the natural world, such as biodiversity and the perspectives of indigenous peoples and local communities who use and embody concepts like Mother Earth” (IPBES, 2022, p. XIV). If accounting is to play a role in enabling the flourishing of nature, in the broadest sense, this would therefore encompass the flourishing of both ecological collectives, including ecosystems, biodiversity and species, along with individual animals. Existing accounting approaches tend to operate at the collective level, predominately organisational disclosures relating to biodiversity and particular (usually endangered) species. Here, biodiversity accounting is often conceived from an anthropocentric viewpoint, particularly within the concept of ecosystem services, such as where biodiversity is positioned as an asset to humanity (Kuokkanen, 2024). More recently, extinction accounting directs attention to the species level, where emancipatory elements have been identified (Atkins et al., 2018). The accounting focus on ecological collectives reflects traditional conservation practices that prioritise the integrity of ecosystems and species, often resulting in the sacrifice of individual wild animals (Wallach et al., 2020a,b). Whilst maintaining the integrity of ecosystems and species is indeed crucial, the continued focus on the collective ecological level tends to overlook flourishing at an individual level, such as the wild animals that exist within ecosystems. The more recent approach of compassionate conservation differs from traditional conservation approaches in that it is informed by a pluralism of ethical values and extends moral consideration to individual animals alongside ecological collectives (Lynn et al., 2025).

In exploring accounting's role in enabling the flourishing of nature, that is, flourishing across ecological levels, the Capabilities Approach presents a useful starting point. The Capabilities Approach describes the flourishing of individual animals, where “… each sentient creature (capable of having a subjective point of view on the world and feeling pain and pleasure) should have the opportunity to flourish in the form of life characteristic for that creature” (Nussbaum, 2023, p. 18). Here, animals provided with opportunities to exercise their innate capabilities are able to lead flourishing lives. Whilst the Capabilities Approach applies only to individual animals, others have further extended the approach to encompass the flourishing of ecological collectives, including species and ecosystems (see Fulfer, 2013; Kortetmäki, 2017, 2018; Schlosberg, 2007). Thus, if accounting is to play a role in the flourishing of nature, which includes collective and individual ecological levels, the Capabilities Approach to flourishing, and extensions of this approach, represent a potential avenue in which to explore how this could be achieved across the various ecological levels. Additionally, compassionate conservation, through recognising the moral worth of individual animals alongside ecological collectives, provides useful guidance in actualising accounting's role in enabling flourishing.

The exploration of accounting's role in enabling flourishing across ecological levels is timely given the escalating biodiversity loss caused by human activities (Keck et al., 2025) and the critical importance of continued efforts to preserve and restore nature. There exists an urgent need to explore the potential expanded role of accounting, including how accounting could contribute to the flourishing of ecosystems, species, and individual animals. In discussing individual animals, the focus here is on wild animals ^[2], specifically, animals that are “… not systematically bred to be interactive with and companionate with humans” (Wichert and Nussbaum, 2021). Accordingly, the broad aim of this article is to initiate an exploration into the potential role of accounting as an enabler of the flourishing of nature. Specifically, I introduce an accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing to provide preliminary conceptual guidance for accounting in working to enable the flourishing of nature. The accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing draws upon the Capabilities Approach, with respect to the flourishing of individual animals, and extensions to this approach, in relation to the flourishing of ecological collectives, including species and ecosystems. As the framework encompasses flourishing of both ecological collectives and individual animals, it necessarily involves consideration of the interconnections between flourishing at the different ecological levels. This includes how a focus on enabling the flourishing of one level, such as the ecosystem level, interacts with and can impede flourishing at another level, such as individual wild animals. In attempting to achieve a balance in enabling flourishing across ecological levels, the framework is founded upon a compassionate conservation ethos. This is essential to ensure that the flourishing of wild animals is not overlooked in working towards flourishing species and ecosystems.

In exploring the role of accounting as an enabler of the flourishing of nature, this article does not attempt to provide an all-encompassing discussion of nonhuman flourishing nor to present a definitive view of how accounting could achieve this. Rather, the aim is to initiate discussion on what it might mean for accounting to contribute to enabling nonhuman flourishing. The accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing presented here provides initial insights into the potential opportunities for accounting, along with considerations of the challenges that may be faced. I attempt to develop a sense of what might be required for accounting to play a role in enabling flourishing across both collective and individual ecological levels, working with the tensions between the different levels, and exploring how a balance between these levels could be achieved. This article contributes to existing literature on biodiversity and extinction accounting by considering the relationship of these approaches to nonhuman flourishing at the collective ecological level. In exploring the concept of flourishing, it addresses the call to explore the Capabilities Approach in the context of accounting and accountability (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018). In considering accounting's role in the flourishing of individual wild animals, this article further directs attention towards the needs of individual animals in exercising their agency and subjectivity. Thus, this article complements the work of Vinnari and Vinnari (2021, 2022) in attempting to make individual animals visible in accounting.

The remainder of this article is organised as follows. Section 2 draws upon interdisciplinary literature to introduce the concept of nonhuman flourishing. This includes the Capabilities Approach to flourishing of individual animals and extensions of this approach to flourishing at the species and ecosystem level. Section 3 presents further interdisciplinary exploration into nonhuman flourishing, conservation approaches and ethical perspectives. Examples are provided to illustrate the differing approaches and tensions in working towards flourishing across ecological levels. Section 4 begins by discussing existing accounting practices, including biodiversity accounting, extinction accounting and ecology-centred accounting, and their relationship to the flourishing of ecological collectives and individual animals. Following this, an accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing is introduced, drawing upon the Capabilities Approach and extensions to this approach. Broad strategies are presented to provide preliminary guidance in working towards nonhuman flourishing. Finally, in section 5, concluding reflections are provided and potential avenues for further research are suggested.

In positioning accounting as an enabler of the flourishing of nature (Carnegie et al., 2021), it first needs to be considered what is meant by flourishing. Understanding and determining flourishing is often undertaken through consideration of opportunities to exercise one's capabilities, that is, the Capabilities Approach to flourishing. Accordingly, this section firstly discusses Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach in relation to the flourishing of individual animals. Given that the broad term nature encompasses ecological collectives along with individual animals, this section then explores how the Capabilities Approach has been expanded by others to encompass collective ecological levels, including species and ecosystems.

The Capabilities Approach is based upon opportunities to exercise innate capabilities and was first developed in relation to humans, where it considers “What are people actually able to do and to be?” (Nussbaum, 2023, p. 92). The Capabilities Approach comprises a list of Central Capabilities, or substantive freedoms, that represent a minimum threshold required to achieve a life of flourishing (Nussbaum, 2018). These capabilities are not skills, but rather represent opportunities for choice and action, where an individual is free to choose whether to act on these entitlements according to what is deemed valuable (Nussbaum, 2023). Nussbaum extends these capabilities beyond humans to sentient animals, where flourishing is not just avoidance of pain or suffering, but rather entails positive opportunities for animals to exercise their capabilities as they choose (Nussbaum, 2018). Here, Nussbaum (2023) explains that, like humans, sentient animals possess dignity and have a capacity for agency with their own important goals for which they strive. This includes opportunities to develop relationships with others and their environment, use their senses and exercise their subjectivity and autonomy in choosing how they want to live their lives. The Capabilities Approach thus considers sentient animals as subjects of justice, where animals are regarded as ends in themselves (Nussbaum, 2006).

The list of 10 Central Capabilities comprises life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; and control over one's environment (Nussbaum, 2023, pp.98-99). While this list was developed for humans, the broad general categories can also be applied to nonhuman animals and specified further for each animal based on their individual lives (Nussbaum, 2018). For instance, all animals require opportunities to exercise their senses and cognitive capacities; however, this varies across species, such as where dolphins have the capacity for echolocation, or where birds can detect magnetic fields (Wichert and Nussbaum, 2021). Some of the capabilities are also more relevant for particular species, for example, the capability of practical reason is more relevant to those animals that engage in complicated strategies and plans (Nussbaum, 2018). The focus of the Capabilities Approach is thus on providing opportunities for exercising innate capabilities, recognising that each animal is different in their capabilities and individual preferences. Here, each animal has the choice to exercise their capabilities and flourish in their own individual way, characteristic of their species, whilst also noting the subtle differences between species members. In ascribing innate capabilities to animals, sympathetic imagining is needed to cross the species barrier to make judgements about what flourishing looks like for individual animals (Nussbaum, 2006). Animal flourishing thus comprises an objective component, the Central Capabilities as relating to the species norm, and a subjective component relating to sentience and the perceptions of the subject (Fulfer, 2013).

The Capabilities Approach adopts a sentience threshold and does not encompass plants and nonliving parts of nature. In this respect, Fulfer (2013) suggests that the sentience threshold in the Capabilities approach is too high, arguing for the extension of the approach to nonsentient beings. Plants, for instance, are not considered sentient and may not feel, but they experience and react to their environment, thus giving them a degree of agency beyond mere objects (Fulfer, 2013). Even though nonsentient beings lack the subjective component of flourishing, Fulfer (2013) argues that it is possible to track the objective component of flourishing in relation to nonsentient beings. “Being objective in this sense does not mean the list of relevant capabilities cannot be amended, but rather that there is a standard external to the cognition of the subject that outlines what is good for it” (Fulfer, 2013, p. 26). Thus, even though it may be difficult to sympathise strongly with nonsentient beings, it is possible to determine the objective flourishing of nonsentients through identifying capabilities, such as activities and resources, relevant to their species norm (Fulfer, 2013). Further, the Capabilities Approach applies to individual animals only and does not extend to ecological collectives such as ecosystems and species. Here, Schinkel (2008) argues that the Capabilities Approach should focus not on individual animals but rather on flourishing at the species or population level to avoid disturbing the balance between the different animal populations. However, Nussbaum (2018) explains that the Capabilities Approach is built upon individual beings, where each individual counts, and counts equally. Whilst individual animals can suffer injustice, ecological collectives cannot (Nussbaum, 2018). Although ecosystems are acknowledged as being extremely important, the inclusion of ecosystems would go against the principles of dismantling hierarchies and individuation within the Capabilities Approach. Nevertheless, others have proposed extensions to the Capabilities Approach to encompass species and ecosystems. These approaches are discussed now.

Some scholars have proposed extending the Capabilities Approach to go beyond individual animals to encompass ecological collectives. Indeed, Schlosberg (2007, p. 148) argues that the individualistic focus in the Capabilities Approach “… unnecessarily limits the reach of a capabilities approach in a system of ecological justice”. One such approach is extending the Capabilities Approach to the species level. Here, Kortetmäki (2018) argues that although ecological collectives are ontologically and epistemologically different from individuals, it is nevertheless possible to ascribe capabilities to species. Rather than positioning species as taxonomic categories, Kortetmäki explains that species represent evolutionary groups that “… exist regardless of human identification” (2018, p. 309). As evolutionary groups, species have the capability of adaptive capacity, where species respond to the changing environment through adaptation essential for the species' continued existence (Kortetmäki, 2018). When a species' adaptive capacity is harmed or reduced, such as when human activities cause extinction or habitat destruction, the species' ability to flourish is impeded. Thus, the flourishing of a species is dependent upon the opportunity for that species to exercise its central capability of adaptive capacity. Whilst there is currently limited research on extending the Capabilities Approach to species, more studies have extended this approach to biodiversity and ecosystems.

In extending the Capabilities Approach to nonsentient life, Fulfer (2013) argues that this is best applied at the ecosystem or subsystem level. As individual nonsentient beings respond to their environment, so too does the organic whole of the ecosystem, the difference being in determining the capabilities of an ecosystem, which would require a more flexible and contextual definitional process (Fulfer, 2013). Further, in expanding the Capabilities Approach to encompass ecosystems, Schlosberg (2007) argues that it is not possible to discuss individual animal flourishing without also referring to the environment in which the flourishing occurs. Almost all animals need not only others of their own species, but also a full environment with nonsentient beings and ecosystem relations in order to live a flourishing life (Schlosberg, 2007). In ascribing capabilities to ecological collectives, Schlosberg (2007, p. 153) explains that recognition of a different type of agency is important, as “… a potential, a process, or a form of life illustrated by its history, ecology, way of being, and nonreason-based forms of communication”. Capabilities of ecosystems, therefore, relate to the functional integrity of the ecosystem, including the capacity to retain typical characteristics of adaptation and succession (Kortetmäki, 2017; Schlosberg, 2007). Moyano-Fernández (2023) further proposes the concept of synergistic flourishing, emphasising interdependent capabilities amongst both human and nonhuman species to better understand flourishing from a nonanthropocentric, relational perspective. However, as noted by Melin (2021), there are some problems with ascribing capabilities to ecological collectives, including the presupposition that collectives are objectively existing entities, where characteristics such as agency have a different meaning, and the assumption that collectives have their own interests that differ from the individual animals' interests within those systems. Despite this, even if capabilities are not ascribed to ecological collectives, there remain strong reasons to protect ecosystems and species within the Capabilities Approach (Melin, 2021).

In summary, species-specific capabilities are ascribed to individual sentient animals in Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach, and extending this approach, the capabilities of adaptive capacity and functional integrity have been ascribed to species and ecosystems (Kortetmäki, 2017, 2018; Schlosberg, 2007). However, working towards simultaneous flourishing across ecosystems, species and individual animals can present challenges and ethical tensions. The next section explores these challenges and tensions, including the differing conservation approaches and how these serve to promote or impede nonhuman flourishing across ecological levels.

Establishing accounting's role as an enabler of the flourishing of nature involves enabling flourishing across both collective and individual ecological levels. However, enabling the simultaneous flourishing of ecosystems, species and individual animals can present challenges and lead to ethical tensions. First, challenges stem from the need to overcome anthropocentrism in promoting nonhuman flourishing. Second, there exist ethical tensions between the collective focus, through environmental ethics, and the individual animal welfare position. These challenges and ethical tensions are exemplified in differing approaches to conservation, such as anthropocentric conservation approaches that position nature as ecosystem services, and the divide between traditional conservation approaches that prioritise ecological collectives and the more recent compassionate conservation and multispecies justice approaches that encompass consideration for individual animals. These challenges, ethical tensions and conservation approaches are discussed in this section, along with examples to illustrate how differing conservation approaches allow for, or in some cases prevent, flourishing across ecological levels. This section then ends with a discussion to reconcile these differing approaches and relate these to the Capabilities Approach and accounting's role in enabling the flourishing of nature.

Anthropocentrism is a predominant axiology that positions intrinsic value mostly or only in humans (Lynn et al., 2024). This anthropocentric worldview has resulted in “biological annihilation” (Washington et al., 2022, p. 682), where “moral consideration for nonhumans (as well as for devalued humans), and respect for their intrinsic being and homelands, have been virtually annihilated via ideational disparagements” (Crist and Kopnina, 2014, p. 390). In conservation, anthropocentric approaches prioritise human needs and regard nature as a resource for human use and consumption, positioning humans as the owners of nature (Washington et al., 2021). Under these approaches, nature is seen to hold instrumental value only, where nature should be protected solely for the sake of humans (Piccolo, 2017). One such approach is ecosystem services, which prioritises the benefits that humans derive from nature. However, whilst the ecosystem services approach may contribute to biodiversity protection, a transformation in humans' relationship with nature away from anthropocentrism is needed to address the biodiversity crisis (Piccolo et al., 2018).

Alternative paradigms, termed nonanthropocentrism, recognise that value does not reside solely in humans and that nature also possesses intrinsic value (Kopnina et al., 2018; Lynn et al., 2024). Examples of nonanthropocentrism include biocentrism, where all living beings are afforded intrinsic value, and ecocentrism, where intrinsic value is located in ecological collectives such as species, biodiversity, and ecosystems (Lynn et al., 2024). These approaches move away from positioning humans at the centre, instead recognising the moral worth of living beings and ecological collectives. Such nonanthropocentric approaches are fundamental in attempting to enable nonhuman flourishing, which requires centring nonhuman individuals and collectives in order to understand what flourishing means for them. This involves identifying nonhuman capabilities and determining whether there exist opportunities to exercise these capabilities for a flourishing existence. Here, challenges and ethical tensions arise in the differing conservation approaches and in attempting to attain flourishing across collective and individual ecological levels. These conservation approaches, along with the challenges and ethical perspectives, are discussed now.

Traditional conservation practices are concerned with the integrity and long-term viability of whole systems (Soule, 1985), and are generally underpinned by an environmental ethics, or ecocentric, position. Environmental ethics refers to the moral standing of environmental collectives, such as ecosystems, habitats, nonhuman species and nonhuman populations (Parke and Russell, 2018). Within this ecocentric approach to traditional conservation, wild animals are considered primarily as parts or components of ecosystems, species or populations (Keulartz and Swart, 2012; Swart, 2005). That is, “… the moral status of a wild animal is derived from and subordinate to the value of these collective entities or processes” (Swart, 2005, pp.251-252). In situations where there are conflicting interests between ecological collectives and individual animals, traditional conservation practices tend to prioritise ecological collectives (Johnson et al., 2019). This has led to the marginalisation of individual animals within traditional conservation, where these approaches have been criticised for sacrificing individual wild animals for the “greater good” of wildlife collectives (Wallach et al., 2018). Such approaches include sacrificing “invasive” or non-native species in the aim of preserving biodiversity. An example of this is the killing of possums in New Zealand to preserve native wildlife. The possums, along with rats and mice, suffer a painful death from poisoning; where the representation of possums as pests and predators causes a blindness to their suffering (Cantens, 2024). In these approaches that prioritise protection of certain species, native species are hierarchically positioned above non-native species, and individual animals are rendered valueless (Fredriksen, 2016).

The focus on ecosystem flourishing at the expense of individual animals can also be seen in certain rewilding practices, which seek to restore habitats and biodiversity in order to support functioning ecosystems. Rewilding was originally described as the restoration of wilderness areas, where it encompasses the three C's of cores (large protected core reserves), corridors (connectivity of core reserves), and carnivores (top predators or keystone species) (Soule and Noss, 1998). Here, large expanses of wilderness and corridors are needed for keystone species, which are essential in maintaining the integrity of ecosystems. However, rewilding is not limited to the restoration of wilderness areas. Noss (2019, p. 171) explains that rewilding essentially means “bringing back wildness”, in other words, restoration of the spectrum of wild areas, including wilderness, along with smaller wild areas in urban landscapes. Here, true wilderness typically represents large, remote areas that are mostly free of human domination, with wildness being a broader term that encompasses more land and water, and greater species biodiversity, than wilderness (Noss, 2019). These wild areas include both large expanses of vegetation along with smaller sites of vegetation within urban areas such as parks, gardens and roadside verges. As rewilding typically draws upon a Western conception of wild rather than an Indigenous perspective ^[3], rewilding initiatives aim to restore functioning ecosystems; hence, the focus is on the flourishing of ecological collectives.

One such rewilding experiment took place at the Oostvaardersplassen, a 56 square kilometre fenced nature reserve located in the Netherlands. The intervention involved converting the cultivated land into a reserve designed to function as it would have done 10,000 years ago (Marris, 2011). Domesticated animals, brought in to represent their wild ancestors, underwent a process of de-domestication where veterinary assistance and supplementary food were gradually withdrawn with the aim of encouraging natural behaviour (Reed, 2022). These non-native grazers include red deer, along with Konik horses and Heck cattle, selected due to their resemblance to extinct species. However, the absence of natural predators, along with the small size of the reserve with fences preventing connectivity through corridors, led to a shortage of food for the herbivores. An approach such as this in a contained area requires an intensively managed interventionist strategy to avoid food shortage (Kopnina et al., 2019). However, project managers instead took a hands-off approach from the outset, resulting in the deaths of thousands of herbivores through mass starvation, and subsequently, through lethal methods in the form of armed wildlife officers patrolling the reserve and killing animals that are perceived as unable to survive the winter (Kopnina et al., 2019). The Oostvaardersplassen experiment “… violates the principle of respect for nonhuman subjectivity, interests, agency, and autonomy by assigning moral value to once-domestic horses as functional constituents of the greater ecological whole” (Reed, 2023, p. 552). This rewilding experiment thus underscores the conflicts between environmental ethics and animal welfare. The establishment of a functioning ecosystem at the Oostvaardersplassen was considered paramount, and in so doing, little consideration was given to the welfare and wellbeing of individual animals. Poor and inappropriate planning and management resulted in the overpopulation of herbivores (Kopnina et al., 2019). This, combined with noninterventionist strategy, meant that individual animals had little opportunity to exercise their innate capabilities and flourish.

The focus on the integrity of ecological collectives in traditional conservation approaches, along with anthropocentric views of nature, serves to impede consideration of individual animals within conservation (Ramp and Bekoff, 2015). The above-mentioned rewilding experiment highlights the need to consider individual animal flourishing alongside the flourishing of ecosystems in conservation approaches. Efforts to achieve the simultaneous flourishing of ecological collectives and individual animals are discussed now.

Compassionate conservation is an emergent paradigm that arose in response to the relative dismissal of the welfare and wellbeing of sentient and sapient wild animals in traditional conservation approaches (Lynn et al., 2025). Whilst compassionate conservation shares some of the values of the broader conservation community, it is distinguished from traditional conservation approaches through its greater focus on individual animals in addition to ecological collectives (Batavia et al., 2021). Here, it is suggested that summoning compassion could transform conservation and interactions with the natural world (Batavia et al., 2021; Coghlan and Cardilini, 2022). Compassionate conservation encompasses four overarching tenets; first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity; and peaceful co-existence (Wallach et al., 2018). These tenets serve as an aspiration for how conservationists should interact with wild animals when engaging in conservation practices to protect ecological collectives (Wallach et al., 2018). Extending beyond promoting compassion for sentient animals, compassion conservation further recognises nonhuman personhood within conservation (Wallach et al., 2020b).

The emergence of compassionate conservation has received a critical response from traditional conservationists, where some have referred to compassionate conservation as “a major threat to conservation” (Callen et al., 2020, p. 8). Those opposed to compassionate conservation argue that the primary goal of conservation is to protect biodiversity and that conservation is already compassionate towards animals (Wallach et al., 2020a). However, compassionate conservationists argue that traditional conservation practices, through exemplifying collectivism, instrumentalisation and nativism, suppress compassion for wild animals (Wallach et al., 2018). This suppression of compassion can be seen in traditional conservation approaches that employ lethal or otherwise harmful methods towards individual animals, particularly those animals deemed invasive. Moreover, even those traditional conservation practices that include recognition of the intrinsic value of nature can result in systemic harm to individual sentient animals (Wallach et al., 2020a). In this respect, compassionate conservation recognises the tensions in relation to harm of individual animals and conservation practices. As Cantens notes, “… it would be the height of naivety to believe, especially in the context of conservation, that harm and death could be altogether avoided” (2024, p.15). Here, compassion plays a central role in moral deliberation and remains essential in minimising harm to individual animals through informing and, where necessary, redirecting conservation goals and practices (Cantens, 2024; Wallach et al., 2020a).

Due to its focus on minimising harm to individual animals, compassionate conservation has often been associated with animal ethics, which refers to the moral standing of individual nonhuman animals (Parke and Russell, 2018). Here, animals are considered to have morally relevant features, such as sentience and sapience, that collective ecological entities are assumed to not possess (Swart, 2005; Wallach et al., 2018). However, compassionate conservation extends beyond solely animal ethics and is instead “… guided by a bounded pluralism of ethical values that inform its practice” (Lynn et al., 2025, p. 1). This bounded moral pluralism recognises fundamental principles rather than rigid rules and allows for a range of differing, and sometimes conflicting, values and beliefs (Lynn et al., 2024, 2025). This also extends to actions where, despite shared foundational values, there may exist differing views around conservation efforts depending on the context (Coghlan and Cardilini, 2022).

An example of compassionate conservation can be found in Victoria, Australia, where Maremma dogs were introduced to protect the Middle Island Little Penguin Colony ^[4]. Whereas lethal methods such as shooting had been ineffective in controlling red foxes, the introduction of the guardian dogs successfully deterred the foxes, allowing the penguin colony and other seabirds to recover (King et al., 2015). The success of this initiative led to the development of a further successful project where Maremmas were introduced to conservation reserves to protect the Eastern Barred Bandicoot from foxes (Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, 2021). The Maremma projects demonstrate success in supporting the flourishing of endangered species through careful management and monitoring from the outset, tracking the penguin colony, the bandicoots and the predatory foxes. This approach provides opportunities for the penguins, seabirds and bandicoots to exercise their innate capabilities, such as access to habitat and food sources, whilst also allowing flourishing at the species level through the species capability of adaptive capacity. This approach also provides greater support for the flourishing of foxes, as without employing lethal methods of control, fox populations also benefit (Bommel et al., 2024). This outcome is notable given that foxes are an introduced species in Australia and considered to be invasive; thus, in the species hierarchy, foxes are seen to possess a lower intrinsic value compared with native species (Washington, 2018). The Maremma projects are consistent with the guiding principles of compassionate conservation, where consideration is given to individual animals, whether native or non-native, alongside wildlife collectives (Wallach et al., 2018).

Compassionate conservation is also recently discussed in relation to multispecies justice, which sits within the broader field of multispecies studies (Steinhardt et al., 2022). Multispecies justice, representing both a theory and practice of justice, recognises how dominant theories of justice have contributed to the global ecological crisis and offers an alternative ecological and ontological approach (Celermajer et al., 2021, 2024). Built upon a relational ontology, multispecies justice rejects anthropomorphism, anthropocentrism and species hierarchy, and instead takes a pluriversal stance in accepting “… that all existence and the existence of all on Earth are dependent on relationships between living and non-living, plant and animal, material and elemental being” (Celermajer et al., 2024, p. 7). Although multispecies justice and compassionate conservation represent distinct approaches to the consideration of individual animals, they nevertheless demonstrate complementary ethical visions (Santiago-Ávila and Lynn, 2020). Both compassionate conservation and multispecies justice are concerned with the harm directed towards individual animals in traditional conservation, and both approaches challenge the many ways that traditional conservation makes animals killable (Steinhardt et al., 2022). However, whereas compassionate conservation prioritises cultivation of compassion to recognise and mitigate harm to nonhumans, multispecies justice contributes to establishing fair relationships with others and advancing the claims of nonhumans (Santiago-Ávila and Lynn, 2020). This convergence in paradigms implies both are indispensable in the consideration of individual animals in conservation (Santiago-Ávila and Lynn, 2020).

This section will begin by briefly summarising the preceding discussion and then relating these concepts and approaches to the accounting context. The focus of traditional conservation approaches is the integrity of ecological collectives where individual animals, particularly those labelled invasive, fall outside the scope of moral concern (Wallach et al., 2020a,b). These traditional approaches that routinely sacrifice individual animals for the greater good (Wallach et al., 2018) are inconsistent with the role of accounting in enabling the flourishing of nature, where nature encompasses both ecological collectives and individuals. Furthermore, anthropocentric approaches to conservation that position nature as ecosystems services, to be maintained at the level required for human use, are also at odds with enabling the flourishing of nature. Indeed, anthropocentric exploitation of nature has contributed to the failure of biodiversity conservation (Treves et al., 2019). Instead, working towards the flourishing of nature necessarily relies upon the centring of nonhumans and what it means for them to live a flourishing life.

Despite the differences in conservation approaches and ethical values, this distinction need not be a binary one. Supporting animal welfare does not mean rejecting ecological values (Reed, 2022). Indeed, the flourishing of ecological collectives depends upon the flourishing of individual sentient and nonsentient beings, an interaction which is sometimes overlooked (Keulartz and Swart, 2012). In exploring how accounting could contribute to flourishing across ecological collectives and individual animals, the Capabilities Approach provides useful guidance in identifying central capabilities of individual animals. Further, whilst the Capabilities Approach applies only to sentient animals, Nussbaum (2023) nevertheless explains that healthy habitats are indeed necessary for animals to exercise their capabilities and live flourishing lives. In addition, extensions of the Capabilities Approach provide guidance in recognising the capabilities of species and ecosystems (Kortetmäki, 2017, 2018; Schlosberg, 2007). Moreover, compassionate conservation, with its bounded pluralism and expanded moral consideration that encompasses individual animals along with ecological collectives, represents an essential underlying ethos. Compassionate conservation upholds the need for due consideration to individual animals alongside ecological collectives and aligns with the Capabilities Approach, where Nussbaum (2005, 2023) proposes the need for compassion alongside justice. Both compassionate conservation and the Capabilities Approach centre the consideration of sentient animals, regardless of their native or non-native status, thereby rejecting species hierarchy. Accordingly, the Capabilities Approach, extensions of this approach, and compassionate conservation represent key elements in guiding accounting's role in enabling simultaneous flourishing across ecosystems, species and individual wild animals. The next section expands on this discussion by introducing an accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing.

This section begins by examining accounting practices in relation to nonhumans, including whether current practices relate in some way to nonhuman flourishing or otherwise serve to enable flourishing of nonhumans at the collective level and/or individual level. Existing frameworks developed in response to the lack of attention towards individual animals in accounting are also discussed. Following this, I introduce an accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing that encompasses flourishing of individual animals, species and ecosystems. Here, the concept of flourishing is drawn from the Capabilities Approach, for individual animals, and extensions of this approach, for species and ecosystems. The framework, founded upon a compassionate conservation ethos, is conceptualised as a guide for accounting in enabling the flourishing of nature. Broad strategies for accounting in working towards enabling the flourishing of nature are then discussed.

In traditional accounting practices, nonhuman species are valued solely for their instrumental and economic value. This occurs at both the individual nonhuman level, such as with the valuation of living “biological assets”, and at the ecosystem level through the notion of ecosystem services, where nature exists only to serve the needs of humans. In contrast, the proposed multidimensional definition of accounting (Carnegie et al., 2021) positions the flourishing of nature alongside the flourishing of humans. Whilst there has been increasing recognition that human flourishing can only be achieved with the flourishing of nature through thriving ecosystems, the multidimensional definition presents the flourishing of nature in its own right as a worthwhile goal for accounting. This represents a paradigm shift in the way nonhuman individuals and collectives are recognised within accounting, where nonhumans are no longer perceived through a solely anthropocentric viewpoint. Further, by referencing the flourishing of nature, in the broadest sense, the multidimensional definition encompasses flourishing across all ecological levels. That is, accounting is positioned as an enabler of ecosystem and biodiversity flourishing, species-level flourishing and individual animal flourishing. Considering this, at what ecological level do current accounting practices operate? And further, do these practices somehow represent, or otherwise enable or impede, nonhuman flourishing?

Existing practices in accounting for aspects of nature are focused on the collective ecological level and include biodiversity accounting and, more recently, extinction accounting. A recent comprehensive literature mapping of biodiversity accounting identified five thematic clusters, including natural resource management, biodiversity economic evaluation, natural capital accounting, biodiversity accountability, and biodiversity disclosure and reporting (Maione et al., 2024). Although accounting for aspects of nature such as biodiversity has been a discussion in accounting research for some time (Jones, 1996), including integration of biodiversity into environmental, social and governance frameworks (see Kopnina et al., 2024), the level of reporting on biodiversity remains low (Roberts et al., 2022). Here, much of the research around accounting and biodiversity relates to corporate reporting and disclosures (Cuckston, 2018). Accounting standards and frameworks such as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards and Global Reporting Initiative cover disclosures for impacts, risks, and opportunities associated with biodiversity (ESRS, 2023; GRI, 2024). Whilst disclosure of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems can be seen as promoting corporate accountability, some aspects of corporate biodiversity disclosures may remain limited by organised hypocrisy and subject to impression management (Boiral, 2016; Cho et al., 2015; McBride et al., 2024; Solomon et al., 2013), and there persists a human/nature dualism (Morrison et al., 2024). Further, the primary objective of disclosing biodiversity risk is to raise awareness in the financial sector so that those in that sector are protected from the effects of biodiversity decline, rather than the aim of halting biodiversity loss itself (Irvine-Broque and Dempsey, 2023). Combined with recognised challenges in measuring biodiversity (Irvine-Broque and Dempsey, 2023), the need for a combination of quantitative and qualitative information (Schaltegger et al., 2023), and poor understanding of biodiversity protection (Panwar et al., 2023), biodiversity disclosures may not address the loss of biodiversity and conceivably bear little relationship to its flourishing. This is particularly the case where the consequences of organisational biodiversity disclosures include legitimising unsustainable practices (Dey and Russell, 2014).

More recently, extinction accounting has emerged in response to an increasing focus on corporate accountability for endangered species (Zhao and Atkins, 2021). Extinction accounting represents an approach to accounting at the species level, where organisations disclose their impacts on specific species and their habitats, along with measures taken to reduce these impacts and improve habitats (Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Maroun and Atkins, 2018). This can include disclosures relating to biodiversity programs, along with biodiversity partnerships and collaborations with environmental organisations and NGOs (Adler et al., 2018). The focus on species protection in extinction accounting presents a contrast to the human-centred forms of biodiversity accounting that position ecosystems as a resource for human use. In this respect, extinction accounting is said to exhibit emancipatory potential, encouraging organisations to move beyond solely anthropocentric viewpoints in working towards halting and reversing extinction trends (Atkins et al., 2018). Emancipatory elements of species-specific extinction accounting have been identified in conservation disclosures of Chinese mining companies (Zhao and Atkins, 2021), and beyond companies, in the disclosures of Sweden's Nordens Ark zoo (Rimmel, 2021). In efforts to protect the rhinoceros from extinction, Atkins et al. (2018) find that companies are not simply managing impressions but rather exhibiting genuine concern and passionate drive for the protection of the species. Here, there appears to be a move away from solely anthropocentric discourse to include accounts informed by deep ecological views that preserving the rhinoceros is a moral imperative (Atkins et al., 2018). Emancipatory accounts aimed at preventing the extinction of birds and orangutans have also been identified (Pujiningsih and Utami, 2024). Emancipatory disclosures such as these have the potential to shift corporate behaviour and ultimately lead to extinction prevention (Zhao and Atkins, 2021). Although research is yet to explain how extinction accounting creates agency to prevent species extinction (Cuckston, 2018), there nevertheless appears to be potential for extinction accounting to contribute to nonhuman flourishing at the species level. If these disclosures lead to a shift in corporate behaviour that allows species to exercise their capability of adaptive capacity, through preventing extinction, then extinction accounting potentially represents one of the ways in which accounting can contribute to enabling the flourishing of ecological collectives.

Beyond organisation-centred accounts, ecology-centred accounting represents an emerging area that exhibits potential to contribute to accounting's role in enabling the flourishing of nature. Ecology-centred accounting represents a “… shift away from organisation-centred biodiversity accounting towards a more system-level conceptualisation of the accounting entity” (Dey and Russell, 2014, p. 249). For instance, Dey and Russell (2014) designate the accounting entity in their case study as comprising the river and surrounding catchments, allowing for the examination of a broader range of biodiversity accounting and reporting information beyond organisational disclosures. A different view of ecology-centred accounting, applied in the case of restoring a degraded blanket bog habitat, was found to “… have rendered this blanket bog visible and comprehensible in multiple ways, so as to contribute towards making this biodiversity conservation thinkable and possible” (Cuckston, 2017. p. 1537). Ecology-centred accounting for biodiversity assists in making sense of nature beyond human agency (Cuckston, 2017) and thus may represent a promising approach for accounting in supporting nonhuman flourishing.

With respect to accounting practices and flourishing at the individual animal level, little, if any, attention is paid to the flourishing of individual wild animals. This is perhaps not surprising given the dominant positioning of nature as ecosystem services. If nature is seen as a warehouse for humans (Miller et al., 2014), and organisations are primarily concerned with the value that can be derived from nature, then individual wild animals would be seen as holding little or no value. The emphasis on accounting at the level of ecosystems, and to a lesser extent species, rather than individual animals, is consistent with a hierarchy of values. Such a hierarchy positions the planet, biomes and ecosystems at the top with the highest value and importance, followed by species, and with individuals said to have the lowest value and importance (Washington, 2018). Therefore, in positioning accounting as an enabler of nonhuman flourishing, it is the accounting for individual animal flourishing that arguably represents the greatest shift from existing accounting practices. Here, challenges stem from the shift from accounting solely at a collective ecological level to incorporating flourishing at an individual animal level.

Whilst not framed in terms of animal flourishing, Vinnari and Vinnari (2021) adopt a rights-based approach in developing a framework for accounting for animal rights, including the rights of both domestic and wild animals. Their hierarchical framework incorporates four levels, ranging from acknowledgment, basic needs, basic rights, through to advanced rights. For wild animals, these rights include recognition of sentience, freedom from excessive harm caused by humans, rights to not suffer and not be intentionally killed by humans, and ultimately, sovereignty (Vinnari and Vinnari, 2021). Here, the authors also suggest indicators that could be used to measure progress towards these goals. In a subsequent study, Vinnari and Vinnari (2022) present a further framework for social, environmental and animal accounting that complements biodiversity accounting by including animal welfare and rights in both weak and strong views of sustainability. Their framework includes three phases for progress in animal welfare using a legal perspective (no rights, simple rights, fundamental rights), along with indicators that can be used to assess each stage. In the case of wild animals, no rights indicates that human use of these animals and their habitats is legal, simple rights also indicates that human use of wild animals is legal however suffering should be minimised, whilst fundamental rights indicates that killing wild animals is illegal and further promotes preservation of habitats and minimisation of human impacts on animals (Vinnari and Vinnari, 2022). These frameworks, along with Vinnari and Laine's (2017) study into animal representation in counter accounts, represent some of the few attempts to explicitly make animals visible within the context of accounting.

In summary, current accounting practices often bear little relationship to nonhuman flourishing. Whilst there may exist emancipatory potential in extinction accounting in terms of enabling the flourishing of species, there is a limited connection between biodiversity accounting and ecosystem flourishing. Further, with few exceptions, individual animals are largely absent from accounting. Thus, examining the role of accounting in enabling the flourishing of nature, including the flourishing of individual animals and ecological collectives, is a significant departure from existing accounting practice and thought. In this respect, there is a need for initial conceptual guidance in exploring how accounting might contribute to the flourishing of nature, including a greater understanding of the concept of nonhuman “flourishing”, and how this could be achieved across ecological levels. The following section addresses this conceptual gap through the introduction of an accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing.

In this section, I introduce an accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing. The proposed framework is intended to provide preliminary conceptual guidance for actualising accounting's potential role as an enabler of the flourishing of nature. It does this by providing a conceptual basis for working towards nonhuman flourishing across collective and individual ecological levels. The framework recognises the moral worth of individual animals alongside species and ecosystems, and acknowledges that the flourishing of individual animals is inseparable from the flourishing of communities (Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2010). The three levels in the framework comprise ecosystem flourishing, species flourishing and individual animal flourishing. In this respect, the framework is conceptualised as nonanthropocentric and nonhierarchical, with collective and individual animal levels being equally worthy of moral consideration. The framework thus aligns with a compassionate conservation ethos that recognises the importance of individual animal flourishing alongside the flourishing of species and ecosystems. The framework demonstrates originality through its focus on nonhuman flourishing, including that of individual animals, and pluralistic values necessary in working towards flourishing across ecological levels. The accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing is presented in Figure 1.

In working towards the flourishing of ecosystems, species and individual animals, indicators are needed to guide progress at each ecological level. Here, indicators of flourishing across ecological collectives and individual animals are drawn from existing research, including the Capabilities Approach and extensions of this approach (see Table 1). At the individual animal level, indicators of flourishing are drawn from Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach and include life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses imagination and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; control over one's environment (Nussbaum, 2006, 2011, 2018, 2023). At the species and ecosystem level, capabilities are drawn from extensions to this approach. Specifically, at the species level, species-specific capabilities relate to adaptive capacity, including the capacity to respond to changes in the environment through adaptation required for the continued existence of the species (Kortetmäki, 2018). At the ecosystem level, ecosystem-specific capabilities relate to the functional integrity of the ecosystem, including the capacity to retain typical characteristics of adaptation and succession (Kortetmäki, 2017; Schlosberg, 2007).

The levels of the accounting framework are naturally interdependent, where the flourishing of wild animals depends upon a suitable environment in which the animals have opportunities to exercise their capabilities. For these individual animals, the accounting framework references capabilities as described in the Capabilities Approach. Here, the reliance on the species norm has been discussed as a critique of the Capabilities Approach, particularly where individual animals do not necessarily fit the species norm. Although this is less of a concern for wild animals, compared to say domesticated animals, Donaldson and Kymlicka (2010) suggest a conception of animal flourishing that considers intraspecies individual variation and interspecies community membership. This becomes increasingly relevant as human encroachment causes a blurring between animals considered wild, liminal, or domesticated. For instance, in rapidly changing, mixed-category environments where “wild” and “domestic” categorisations may no longer apply as animals move from wild to semi-wild or through de-domestication processes (Keulartz and Swart, 2012), such as the herbivores in the Oostvaardersplassen.

The accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing differs from current approaches to accounting for aspects of nature in several ways. First, the aim of the framework is to provide guidance in enabling nonhuman flourishing. Whilst there may exist a relationship between species flourishing and emancipatory extinction accounting, there exists little or no association between accounting for biodiversity and ecosystem flourishing. Second, with a focus on nonhuman flourishing, the framework moves away from the notions of human exceptionalism and human supremacy inherent in many existing accounting approaches and practices. This is important given that anthropocentrism positions only humans as having value and being worthy of moral consideration and consequently serves to remove all compassion for nature (Washington, 2018). Instead, the accounting framework presented here adopts a nonanthropocentric approach by centring the flourishing of nonhumans. Third, whilst existing accounting approaches are directed at the collective ecological level, through biodiversity accounting and extinction accounting, the framework instead encompasses and positions individual animals alongside ecological collectives. Thus, the framework is founded upon normative views that it is not only biodiversity and species that are worthy of moral consideration, but rather this consideration extends to individual animals and their right to live flourishing lives. This pluralist valuing, exemplified in compassionate conservation, is fundamental if accounting is to contribute to enabling the flourishing of nature. In this way, the framework also contributes to making animals visible within accounting (Vinnari and Vinnari, 2022).

Further, the accounting framework presented here differs from other frameworks for animal welfare and animal rights developed by Vinnari and Vinnari (2021, 2022) with its focus on nonhuman flourishing and its consideration of both individual animals and ecological collectives. Despite these differences, the proposed framework presented here complements these other frameworks by highlighting the moral worth of individual wild animals. In this respect, the proposed framework and its emphasis on providing opportunities for individual animals to flourish closely aligns with the advanced rights goal of sovereignty for wild animals presented in Vinnari and Vinnari's (2021) animal rights framework. Indeed, sovereignty is crucial for protecting the autonomy and flourishing of wild animals (Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2010). Here, the Capabilities Approach, as a theory of justice, supports wild animal flourishing through its focus on providing opportunities for animals to exercise their diverse capabilities, including autonomy, agency and individual expression. Taken together, these frameworks converge in their ability to render animals visible within accounting, reorienting accounting towards multispecies recognition.

In reimagining accounting as an enabler of the flourishing of nature, there are several strategies that may prove beneficial. First, given the accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing is nonanthropocentric in nature, there is a need to decentre the human in accounting approaches and practices undertaken in relation to nonhuman flourishing. This involves moving away from notions such as ecosystem services in which nature is positioned as an asset for human use. Instead, centring nonhuman individuals and collectives is needed to develop an understanding of what their flourishing entails and how this could be achieved. Here, knowledge and insights from Indigenous cultures with a greater ecocentric focus would be particularly valuable in developing a deeper understanding of flourishing and coexistence (Beyers and Hawkins, 2023). This enhanced level of knowledge and deeper understanding helps to shape perceptions of, and attitudes towards, nature (Pettorelli et al., 2019).

Second, there is a need to strike a balance between collective level flourishing and the flourishing of individual animals. This can present a challenge and attempting to achieve such a balance can expose the ethical conflicts and trade-offs that may need to be made. However, enabling flourishing of species and ecosystems does not rule out the possibility of enabling flourishing at the individual animal level. Reed (2022) argues that it is possible to attain a balance between the competing environmental and animal welfare ethics through considering the context of place. Here, Reed (2022) proposes a place-sensitive, contextual approach to balancing ecological and animal welfare values, taking into account the unique combination of geography, climate, history, and native and introduced species in each situation. Such an approach may involve field observations of species, examining the site's policies and management, and including any actions taken (Reed, 2022). Here, the Capabilities Approach with its focus on providing opportunities to exercise capabilities required for flourishing, along with a contextual approach to place, could be beneficial in guiding accounting to support flourishing across different ecological levels. Additionally, the compassionate conservation approach would be central in guiding accounting in recognising the moral worth of all animals, regardless of whether they are deemed native or invasive. In this respect, the Maremma projects discussed previously represent examples of how compassionate conservation and pluralism of ethical values can be enacted in practice.

Third, consideration needs to be given to the flourishing of individual animals and how this could be enabled, given that the capabilities described include both objective and subjective components of flourishing. In the case of the more objective indicators of flourishing, life, bodily health and bodily integrity, Nussbaum provides some guidance. This involves ending human practices, such as poaching, hunting for profit and single-use plastics, that directly or unintentionally violate these capabilities, causing death and suffering (Nussbaum, 2023). More difficult to achieve, though necessary to enable animal flourishing, is the protection of wild animal habitats from the human-induced impacts of climate change and reducing human use of scarce habitat resources (Nussbaum, 2023). Further, using our knowledge to protect wild animals, such as developing capability-preserving interventions that reduce animal suffering (Nussbaum, 2023). However, other capabilities are more subjective in nature; opportunities for animals to use their senses, imagination and thought, to make key choices about their lives, and to relate well with the world of nature and other species (Nussbaum, 2023). Such subjective states cannot be measured directly; they can only be measured indirectly (Browning, 2023). Here, attempts have been made to assess subjective quality of life for wild animals, such as the welfare assessment tool for free-ranging dolphins (see Serres et al., 2024) and welfare indicators for the mental experiences of free-roaming horses (see Harvey et al., 2023). Under the Capabilities Approach, Nussbaum (2023) suggests it may not be necessary to assess the more subjective capabilities if the environment allows for the exercising of life, health, and bodily integrity. In this respect, Nussbaum (2023, p. 226) explains that once these latter capabilities are protected, “… the rest of the capabilities on the list take care of themselves”. Thus, accounting strategies that serve to protect animal habitats would also allow for the more subjective experiences such as self-direction, imagination, and affiliation with other species.

Fourth, actualising accounting's role as an enabler of nonhuman flourishing would necessitate collaboration with those outside of accounting in order to gather information around indicators of flourishing. Interdisciplinary collaborations, such as working with conservation organisations (Arjaliès and Gibassier, 2023), along with ecologists and scientists, would be essential. Identifying partnerships with compassionate conservationists would be particularly beneficial in ensuring that opportunities for individual animal flourishing are provided. Here, the accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing urges a questioning of our relationship with nature, particularly in terms of human intervention in wild animal lives. Protecting wild animals against threats to their sovereignty does not prohibit human intervention (Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2010). However, careful consideration of the nature and extent of human intervention would be needed to avoid causing further suffering to wild animals. In this respect, the unnecessary starvation and deaths of the herbivores at the Oostvaardersplassen serve as a reminder of how a hands-off approach can serve to impede the flourishing of individual animals. It would be essential to ensure that interventions in wild animal lives are built upon a compassionate response to alleviate suffering. Here, Nussbaum (2023) suggests working with diverse groups, including experts and scientists who have lived with wild animals, listening to the stories they tell of these animals, and learning about the obstacles faced by animals in their flourishing. Ideally, this would include a group of people for each species, where these “listeners” know individual animals and the variety within each species (Nussbaum, 2023). Whilst the Central Capabilities provide good guidance for all animals, Nussbaum (2023, p. 110) suggests that ideally there should be a separate list for each type of animal, where “the list is really made by the animals themselves as they express their deepest concerns while they try to live”.

Fifth, in recognising the need to go beyond conceptual frameworks (Sobkowiak et al., 2025), the development and extension of accounting practices that exhibit emancipatory potential (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003, 2019), such as extinction accounting, could assist in supporting flourishing at the collective ecological level. For example, these forms of accounting practice may be beneficial in conservation efforts, such as in the Maremma Projects with the reintroduction and protection of the endangered bandicoots. Further, ecology-centred accounting practices may be useful in reconceptualising the accounting entity, and seeking out those efforts to conserve biodiversity and then working to identify and explore the role played by accounting (Cuckston, 2018). Though in doing so, it would be necessary to ensure individual animals are recognised within ecological systems, acknowledging their individual agency and subjectivity, and opportunities to exercise their innate capabilities. Here, accounting practices that consider individual animal flourishing could be developed. Capturing the concept of flourishing for sentient animals would likely present a challenge for accounting, and one which necessarily involves refusing to speak of nature in the language of numbers (Hines, 1991). However, as Gray and Milne (2018, p. 833) note, “within the context of accounting, finance, economics and business – our presumed stock in-trade – it seems perfectly plausible therefore that all that we do, teach, research and think are at the very heart of why species are going extinct”. Remaining sensitive to individual animals, their species, and the differences in determining the central capabilities most important to them is crucial, and here cross-disciplinary collaborations with ecologists and compassionate conservationists would be essential.

The accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing represents a first attempt to explore accounting's role in the flourishing of nature. In doing so, I recognise the enormity of such a challenge given the severity of human impacts across biodiversity, species and wild animals, and the role of accounting in instrumentalising and commodifying nonhuman life. Indeed, several scholars have questioned whether it is possible to achieve accounting's potential, and sacrifice profit to protect ecosystems and other species, in a capitalist society (Gray, 1992; Milne, 1996; Milne and Gray, 2013; Tweedie, 2024). Nevertheless, reimagining the role of accounting as an enabler of nonhuman flourishing presents new opportunities for emancipatory accounting and accountability to “help us escape the self-limiting constraints imposed through the discourse of conventional accounting” (Lehman, 2017, p. 36). This is particularly the case for individual animals which have been thus far predominantly overlooked in accounting. “As we come to know better animals of many kinds, we recognise that they have manifold desires and perspectives of their own, which human interference (intentional or not) may support or suppress utterly” (Lynn et al., 2024). Accounting as an enabler of the flourishing of nature acknowledges our moral and ethical responsibility to nonhuman others, including recognition of their subjective experiences, and the need to take affirmative measures to protect wild animal lives.

The multidimensional definition of accounting (Carnegie et al., 2021) prompts a fundamental rethinking of the role of accounting in enabling the flourishing of nature, where nature encompasses ecological collectives and individual animals. Accounting as an enabler of nonhuman flourishing stands in stark contrast to traditional notions of accounting that neglect nonhuman interests, particularly the interests of individual animals, where there exists little recognition of their agency, autonomy and subjectivity, and where their needs, desires and intrinsic value have long been ignored. The broadening of accounting's scope to encompass nonhuman flourishing necessitates an ethic of care and compassion that spans the range of ecological levels to encompass ecosystems, species and individual animals. This broader scope extends far beyond simply maintaining stable ecosystems and population levels solely for human use and rather requires a fundamental rethinking of our relationships with nonhuman others. Approaches that adopt a nonanthropocentric stance and assign moral worth across ecological collectives and individual animals are needed to actively protect wild animal lives and eliminate obstacles to their flourishing.

The accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing introduced in this article provides preliminary conceptual guidance in exploring accounting's role as an enabler of the flourishing of nature. It draws attention to, and promotes engagement with, nonhuman flourishing in the context of accounting. The framework brings together the notion of flourishing across ecological levels, including ecosystems, species and individual wild animals, where capabilities for flourishing are drawn from the Capabilities Approach and extensions to this approach. The focus of the Capabilities Approach on sentient animals and opportunities for them to exercise their innate capabilities is particularly pertinent, representing a way in which individual animals can be made visible (Vinnari and Vinnari, 2022). The expansion of the Capabilities Approach to encompass species and ecosystems provides further opportunities in which to situate accounting's role in enabling collective-level nonhuman flourishing. An underlying ethos of compassionate conservation and pluralistic valuing helps to ensure that the accounting framework for nonhuman flourishing is nonhierarchical across ecological levels, species and native and non-native animals.

In working towards accounting's role in enabling the flourishing of nature, several broad strategies have been discussed. These include the need to move beyond anthropocentric framings of nature to instead centre nonhuman collectives and individuals in developing an understanding of what they need to flourish. Despite the challenges and ethical tensions in attempting to achieve flourishing across ecological levels, it is possible to attain a balance through place-sensitive contextual approaches and compassionate conservation. Further, with respect to individual animal flourishing, strategies that involve protecting animal habitats allow animals to exercise their central capabilities, including those capabilities that are more subjective. Interdisciplinary collaborations with ecologists and compassionate conservationists would be essential, along with identifying partnerships with conservation organisations. Finally, development of accounting practices that support nonhuman flourishing, through extensions of current approaches, such as emancipatory extinction accounting and ecology-centred accounting, and development of new forms of accounting for flourishing would be needed.

Given the increasing recognition of the role of accounting in shaping a better world for both human and nonhuman species (Carnegie, 2022), there is much scope to build upon existing practices and develop new practices and approaches to support the flourishing of nature. This is especially important in relation to individual animals, which continue to remain largely invisible within accounting practice. Positioning accounting as an enabler of the flourishing of nature represents a significant departure from the traditional methods of accounting practice and associated ways of framing, thus opening numerous avenues for future research. Further research is needed in the context of accounting practices and disclosures across collective and individual ecological levels, and whether these practices and disclosures could be more closely aligned with nonhuman flourishing. Here, research is needed to explore different forms that these practices and disclosures may take. In addition, further exploration of ecology-centred accounting along with accounting's role in working alongside conservation groups and organisations would be beneficial in identifying ways in which accounting can support and promote balanced approaches to conservation, including interventions that consider both biodiversity conservation and wild animal flourishing.

It is hoped that the insights presented in this article will encourage reflection and discussion around our responsibilities to nature, including responsibilities at the ecosystem, species, and individual animal levels. Given that accounting continues to play a role in perpetuating the notion of nature for human use, placing animals in vulnerable positions and impeding their attempts to live flourishing lives, this surely places on us an obligation to reimagine accounting practice. The positioning of accounting as an enabler of the flourishing of nature encourages us to rethink the purpose of accounting, its basis in accountability that spans ecological levels and what could represent more meaningful accounting practices. Whilst the consideration of accounting as an enabler of nonhuman flourishing presents novel challenges for accounting, and indeed may seem rather idealistic, such dialogue based on deeper explorations and understandings of accounting is crucial if we have any chance of not only halting and reversing the biodiversity crisis but also allowing wild animals to flourish.

I am immensely grateful to Jan Bebbington for providing feedback on an early draft of this paper. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their highly constructive feedback throughout the review process.