Talk:Environmental full-cost accounting

message: The title of this page is inaccurate. It should be "True Cost Accounting" or "Full Cost Accounting". This is just how this new bookkeeping theory is called. It's not relevant if the technique actually succeeds in measuring "true" or "full" costs; the name just indicates what the aim of the technique is. True Cost Accounting or Full Cost Accounting aims to measure the impact of production on both natural capital and on social capital, in terms of money. It does not only concern environmental impact, but also social impact. In general, it wants to take into account all the hidden costs of production that can have consequences for the value of the economy in the future. Alexisderoode (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate title 

message: OK, what the heck does this "MSW" stand for? In context, it looks like it would stand for something like "Management of Solid Waste", but in that case, it's ridiculous to use the phrase "MSW management". It could stand for something like "Municipal Solid Waste", I suppose. But whatever it is, an initialism that's used that heavily throughout the article really out to be spelled out exactly at least once. -- John Owens 20:01 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)
:MSW stands for municipal solid waste--Alex 13:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MSW

message: The title of this page and the citations used herein are highly misleading.  A more appropriate title would be Environmnental Full Cost Accounting.  One page 111 of the Schaltegger and Burritt text which is cited, it says "IFAC (1998: paragraphs 22 and 25) views full-cost accounting and environmental cost accounting as the same thing: 'the identification, evaluation, and allocation of conventional costs, environmental costs, and social costs...".  So, the authors of the textbook are saying that ONE source says that this is what full cost accounting is.  They then go on to say (on page 112) "...the term 'full cost accounting" can be misleading and has to be used with caution as it may or may not be seen to include environmental externalities (external costs).  In this chapter, only internal company costs will be considered."  The view that Full Cost Accounting only includes internal costs and NOT externalities is the dominant one in the field of cost accounting.  Please consult standard texts such as Horngren et al "Cost Accounting and Managerial Emphasis" or Kaplan and Atkinson, "Advanced Management Accounting" for this discussion.  I would highly encourage Wikipedia to take this page down or at the very least to change the title to Environmental Full Cost Accounting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmohr (talk • contribs) 18:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental full cost accounting

message: Arguably, all FCA is 'environmental' in some sense, but forwarding the FCA article to the current EFCA article gives free reign to define ALL FCA outside the specific domain in which it could have been applied (e.g. behavioral, food systems, educational, etc.) to climate-related environmental costs of such behaviors (and other micro-measurements may actually be useful analytically. MaynardClark (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Other TYPES of Full Cost Accounting