No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Editorial 2021: Reflections on Vision and Perseverance
In these editorial reflections, we revisit the main developments of the last year with a particular emphasis on themes of inspiration and orientation. In doing so, we pay tribute to one of SEAJ’s longstanding contributors, Conny Beck, who sadly passed away at the end of last year. Then, the evolution of the sustainability accounting field leads us to revisit the current and future orientation of SEAJ, in light of its ongoing and explicit commitment to the development of a new literature in social and environmental accounting. We discuss the implications for the type of work we welcome to the journal, as well as for areas of work that are no longer compatible with the journal’s aims and scope. Ultimately, we invite submitting authors to be bold, to dare, to challenge, to take us into unchartered areas. This will not only help keep SEAJ distinctive, but most importantly this is how, as a community, we will take our field further.
Jeffrey Unerman was a prominent figure in the social and environmental accounting research community. In this review I reflect on one specific element of his legacy, namely the research Jeffrey conducted and published on corporate social and environmental disclosures both on his own as well as with various co-authors. In addition to giving an overview of this research, I will also provide some reflections on his work. I structure my review around three themes featuring across Jeffrey’s research on organisational disclosures: methodological insight, theoretical diversity and agenda-setting discussion. I conclude by highlighting how Jeffrey emphasised the importance of pursuing rigorous scholarly research with societal relevance.
Because accounting needs serious #change (it must go way beyond the narrow focus on capital markets but also let go of 'old school' traditions and gatekeeping, and embrace progressive mindsets)... watch and read our #Manifesto to #Open #Accounting below.
#Decolonize #IndigenousPerspectives #Africa #LatinAmerica #Asia #DefenseIndustry #Feminism #Queering #Disability #Labour #PrefigurativePoliics #Engagement #Impact #EarlyCareerResearcher #PhDStudent #Journey #MakeChange
Many thanks to all contributors listed here: www.openaccountingmanifesto.com
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the themes emerging from the first studies exploring accounting, accountability and management practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and coming from a diversity of experiences, across countries, organizations and individuals. In so doing, the paper gives an overview of the most recent findings about the role of accounting and accountability in times of crisis that are hosted in this special issue of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ).
Design/methodology/approach
The paper draws together and identifies emerging themes related to the current COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on accounting, accountability and management practices and considers how the studies in this issue extend one’s knowledge of accounting and contribute to accounting research.
Findings
Three emerging themes are drawn and their contribution to accounting scholarship is discussed. The first theme deals with the role of accounting and numbers in supporting governmental responses to COVID-19. The second theme considers accounting practices used to make exceptional decisions at the organizational level in times of crisis. The third theme addresses a relevant frontier of research into accounting and inequalities.
Practical implications
In considering the diverse contributions of this special issue, the paper points out how uncertainty and change can impact the design, use and understanding of accounting, management and accountability practices and can be accepted by scholars and practitioners as part of such practices.
Originality/value
This paper provides a timely and comprehensive picture of the first reflections and research findings on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on one’s interpretation of accounting, accountability and management practices.
Humanity aspires to live in harmony with nature. The difficult question is: how can such harmony be achieved? In the Anthropocene, nature is socio-ecological systems. This changes how we can think about the role played by accounting in achieving some kind of harmonious co-existence with nature. It is not just about tracking the deleterious impacts of one domain (i.e. human society) upon another domain (i.e. nature). Rather, accounting becomes a vital force in the organising of socio-ecological systems. Nature conservation can be understood to be the work of organising socio-ecological systems with the aim of protecting and sustaining ecological processes and biological diversity. The papers in this SEAJ special issue on Accounting and Conservation explore how all manner of accounting practices facilitate the organisational work involved in conserving the socio-ecological systems comprising nature on Earth.
Given the increasing participation of accounting technologies in purported solutions to deal with the ecological crisis, we address two areas where a growing accounting literature is emerging, the circular economy and the COVID-19 pandemic, testing some ideas to inform an ecological critique of accounting that could help us ward off the “dreams of escaping” (Latour, 2018). We suggest that the conceptual separation between nature and society renders accounting for the circular economy and the COVID-19 pandemic problematic. A critical account of the circular economy might problematize things like the whole economic system’s physical scale, spatial and temporal system boundaries, consumer culture, and the inherent politics of the circular economy. We also suggest that a critical account of the COVID-19 pandemic needs to take on board the participation of accounting representations in the construction of particular narratives about the virus. In particular, calculations of the costs caused by COVID-19 need to be connected to the ecological value of viruses to illustrate how the social and the biological worlds are inextricably connected. In both cases, we suggest critical accounting researchers need to be actively involved in discussions about how valuation constructs narratives about resource or waste, with significant implications on how we conceive the relationship between humanity and the environment.
This paper responds to calls for more normative research on biodiversity accounting and reporting. It develops a model for reporting on biodiversity informed by earlier work on biodiversity reporting, ecological reporting and extinction accounting as well as the guidance on integrated and sustainability reporting developed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) respectively. The resulting ‘integrated biodiversity reporting mode’ is designed to provide a more nuanced tool for reporting on biodiversity. While the model is intended to be used by multiple organisations, its application is illustrated using the South African National Parks (SANParks). A detailed content analysis of the SANParks’ annual reports over seven years (2013–2019) is used to identify different types of disclosures, categorised according to the type of environmental information being reported and the associated capitals outlined by the IIRC. Applying the model to SANParks reveals how it is possible to provide a more detailed report on biodiversity than would be the case if only existing reporting frameworks are used. The proposed reporting model is not without challenges, but it can be applied to report more effectively on biodiversity-related risks and the interconnections between biodiversity and the different resources/capitals which are required to manage it. As a result, this paper contributes to the debate on how to report on biodiversity and demonstrates how the largely theoretical work on biodiversity reporting can be applied in practice.
The purpose of this commentary is to encourage academics to be more open about the intellectual challenges involved in undertaking research. To that end, I will tell you my story of confronting an intellectual dead end and reflect on the more general lessons that could be drawn from this experience.
Social enterprises are organisations that employ commercial strategies to deliver societal impact, rather than shareholder value, and may play an important role in the transition to a more socially sustainable society. However, social entrepreneurship has become a contested terrain due to its ambiguous identity and ideology. This study maintains that accounting plays a role in the development of social enterprises due to its ability to shape the domain of economic operation. Using interview data obtained from the key actors in Finland, this study identifies and analyses perceptions of the roles of accounting for social enterprises. Overall, the study highlights the ambiguities related to accounting for social enterprises and draws attention to the plural roles of accounting. It encourages opening up the processes of defining the principles and tools for accounting for social enterprises, arguing that such decisions may have broader organisational and societal implications.
This discursive paper develops a normative model for accounting for soil health inspired by earlier work on biodiversity reporting, ecological accounting and extinction accounting. The model provides a framework for reporting on the biological context, strategic relevance and policy implications of soil degradation at an organisational level. It offers suggestions on how to report on environmental performance and post-implementation reviews using the guidelines provided by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) as a frame of reference. While the model focuses specifically with soil health, it can be readily adapted to deal with other environmental issues. It should be relevant for practitioners considering how to deal with emerging environmental issues in their sustainability or integrated reporting. At the same time, the paper answers calls for additional research on the change potential of accounting systems which bridges the gap between theory and practice.
This paper critiques the metaphor of theory as a ‘lens’ in social and environmental accounting (SEA) research, and proposes alternatives. The main purpose is to challenge images of SEA theories as essentially interchangeable perspectives that are more or less valid on their own terms and which provide incremental contributions to knowledge. Lens metaphors matter, therefore, insofar as they imply or cultivate this perspective. The paper begins by analysing more precisely what understandings of the function and role of SEA theory lens metaphors lead towards, and identifies conceptual and practical risks of these perspectives. The paper then proposes two alternatives: (i) A metaphor of theory as limb; and (ii) the related image – drawn from Hans-Georg Gadamer and Charles Taylor – of theories as part of ‘bodies’ of tradition rather than discrete units. The paper argues these twin images offer an embodied and engaged perspective on theory’s role that aligns more closely with SEA’s distinctive agenda to hold organisations accountable to civil society, and can also help maintain vibrant SEA communities. Where prior research advocates passion, agonism or less theory, this paper advocates more visceral and reflexive engagement with the theories and theoretical traditions our research applies.
This paper argues that the Integrated Reporting (IR) framework developed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) is double-edged from a critical sustainability perspective. The paper is based on qualitative content analysis of public documents from four leading non-financial reporting organisations: the IIRC, the Accounting for Sustainability Project, the Global Reporting Initiative and the King Committee on Corporate Governance in South Africa. This analysis shows that IR moves away from three key tenets of prior social and environmental reporting frameworks by privileging: (i) communication over holding organisations accountable, (ii) organisational over social sustainability and (iii) the entitlements of providers of financial capital over other stakeholders. Yet, IR is also a practical attempt to shift financial capital from a short-term to long-term investment horizon. As critical social and accounting theorists have argued, extensive short-term
investment is a threat to environmental and social sustainability. Hence, IR has the potential to progress
sustainability goals if it forms part of a broader re-organisation of capital markets to reward longer term
perspectives.
This paper highlights the need to take materiality into account when analysing the absence of social and/or environmental disclosures from organisational sustainability reports. It argues that materiality must be considered as a prerequisite when researchers seek to interpret lack of disclosures of specific social and/or environmental issues or incidents. Illustrating these arguments using an example from interpretation of absence from reporting in a recent award-winning paper, we contend that such interpretations can only be justified if organisational processes related to materiality are factored into the analysis of rhetorical or symbolic representations of sustainability within organisational reporting, a point that tends to be missed in studies of absence from sustainability reporting.
This paper outlines the merits of two approaches to social impact measurement that are currently the subject of debate within the third sector: social accounting and audit (SAA) and social return on investment (SROI). Although there are significant similarities between the methods, a number of important differences remain. In particular, while SAA involves a more ‘conventional’ mix of narrative and quantitative disclosures, SROI outcomes are more explicitly quantitative and reductive. This is most evident in the production of the ‘SROI ratio’, which calculates a monetised ‘return’ on a notional £1 of investment. In the UK, with available resources becoming increasingly scarce, the third sector is facing demands for increased accountability as well as being encouraged to ‘scale up’ in preparation for assuming greater responsibility for public service delivery. In this context, it is easy to see why the simplicity and clarity of SROI is attractive to policy-makers, fundraisers and investors, who are keen to quantify and express social value creation and thus make comparative assessments of social value. However, this apparent simplicity also risks reducing the measurement of social impact to a potentially meaningless or even misleading headline figure and should therefore be treated with caution. This is especially so where exact measures are unobtainable, and approximations, or so-called ‘financial proxies’, are used. The use of such proxies is highly subjective, especially when dealing with ‘softer’ outcomes. There is nothing to prevent SROI being used within an SAA framework: indeed, a greater emphasis on quantitative data could improve many social accounts. Nevertheless, we conclude that current efforts to promote SROI adoption, to the likely detriment of SAA, may ultimately promote a one-dimensional funder- and investor-driven approach to social impact measurement in the third sector.
This short paper is an adaptation of a series of presentations I have undertaken – notably in Cardiff (Wales) and Grazalema(Spain) – based on an attempt to developthe ideas in my paper in BAR in 2002. The paper is an unashamedly personal one but the interest it has generated amongst (particularly) newer researchers encourages me to revise it and publish it in SEAJ. Hopefully this is not a self‐indulgence on my part. The second part of the paper – on research design, theory andmethodology – will appear in some futureissue of SEAJ.
The concept of empathy lies amid much confusion This analysis addresses that confusion using Walker and Avant's model of concept analysis, and looks at what empathy is is it trait or state, is it dynamic or static, and how is it recognized and measured' Implications of these findings are discussed, limitations of the study are acknowledged and areas for further work suggested
This paper highlights the immense contribution of Professor Jeffrey Unerman to the field of sustainability accounting. It reflects on how he, together with his co-authors, initiated and advanced a research stream on non-governmental organisation (NGO) accounting and accountability. The paper reviews some of Jeffrey’s most influential work and explores three aspects that are of particular relevance to current debates on NGO accountability: accounting for the unintended and unforeseen consequences of NGO activities; impediments and resistance to broader NGO accountability; and striving for enhanced downward accountability. Further, the paper highlights how Jeffrey’s research has inspired other accounting scholars to investigate issues of NGO accountability and offers several directions for future research in this area.
The corporate sector is devoting increasing energy to the development of practices targeted to address diversity and inclusion. These developments present significant opportunities to accounting scholars, to develop a range of topical studies that might have both important theoretical and practical implications. In this commentary piece, I seek to offer a broad range of suggestions for further study in this field. In particular, I suggest that related developments matter, as they have significant potential to impact, and hopefully redress, issues of disempowerment, marginalisation, discrimination, and bigotry. Well-designed studies in this field, therefore, have the potential to offer important political and critical contributions.
The majority of research into corporate reporting on biodiversity and conservation generally concludes that such reporting is dominated by impression management, corporate self-interest and an anthropocentric mindset. This has led many researchers to dismiss corporate reporting, focusing increasingly on the activities of NGOs, the public sector and government level reporting. However, recent work has explored the potential for a corporate reporting (and reporting by other entities) to encapsulate emancipatory
elements, where such elements demonstrate at least an intention to be transformative and emancipatory in the sense of improving conservation, enhancing biodiversity protection and, critically, preventing species extinctions. Extinction accounting that provides details on how a company is protecting/restoring habitat, enhancing biodiversity, and taking a dynamic approach to conservation could, potentially, lead to ecological and
environmental improvements. Chinese listed companies have not, to date, received attention from researchers in relation to extinction accounting. This paper seeks to analyse an extensive sample of Chinese listed companies in a high ecological impact
sector to assess the extent to which their biodiversity disclosures are dominated by impression management, in order to identify any elements of the reporting that could be interpreted as emancipatory extinction accounting. We respond to a call from the
literature to research extinction accounting by companies in developing economies, given the paucity of the research in this area. Our findings suggest that despite a strong tendency for companies to reveal impression management and self-interest in their disclosures, there are examples of emancipatory extinction accounting, where they appear to be eliciting genuine transformation in their conservation behaviours and activities. Further, we identify species-specific, species-centric reporting as a significant element of extinction accounting, demonstrating the way in which emancipatory extinction accounting is growing and evolving in practice. This represents a significant contribution to the existing literature as previous research in the mining industry found only anthropocentric’ legitimacy-dominated extinction accounting. It is encouraging that elements of an emancipatory extinction accounting are beginning to emerge in reporting
practice in a high impact sector in a developing economy.
The purpose of this research is to provide an account of whether extinction accounting and the use of IUCN categories offers a valuable and feasible addition to biodiversity disclosures for an organisation that has a professional interest in conservation programmes. Specifically, when and where IUCN categories can be used as biodiversity disclosures to address the threat of extinction. This study is based on a single anomalous case a Nordic zoo, located in Sweden, which has focused its operations exclusively on the conservation of threatened species and is the only zoo in Europe to do so. In order to comprehend the use of IUCN categories the annual report and the corporate website of Nordic Zoo have been examined. An open-ended interview with zoo management has been conducted to learn the intentions behind such specific disclosures and the use of IUCN categories. The findings of this study reveal that IUCN categories are appropriate biodiversity disclosures for highlighting extinction threats to various species. In an organisation with a professional interest in practicing conservation programmes, IUCN categories play a central role in communicating with stakeholders. This study demonstrates that biodiversity disclosures are part of a sincere effort to report on conservation.
Purpose
This paper aims to discuss the relation of the COVID-19 pandemic to sustainable development and, in particular, the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). In so doing, the author highlights how sustainability accounting, management and policy (SAMP) research can help to build a more sustainable post-COVID-19 era.
Design/methodology/approach
The motivation behind this research note is to allow SAMP-research to learn from the COVID-19 pandemic. To do so, in the first step, the author conducts an initial factual analysis to identify patterns of how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the SDGs and has emphasized the interconnectedness of the SDGs. On this basis, the author develops a research agenda for SAMP-research.
Findings
The author argues that the COVID-19 crisis not only relates to the SDGs but is part of the research field of sustainable development itself. The pandemic has been found to severely threaten the achievement of the SDGs, while opportunities concerning selected SDGs can also be found. In this regard, the author identifies patterns, concerning which types of SDGs opportunities or respectively, threats exist.
Practical implications
The patterns identified for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic highlight for which SDGs additional efforts will be needed for the achievement of the respective SDGs.
Social implications
The analysis emphasizes that numerous SDGs can help to alleviate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and of potential future pandemics.
Originality/value
This research note is the first to analyze the threats and also the opportunities the COVID-19 pandemic presents for the achievement of the SDGs. It is also the first to not only examine direct effects but acknowledge the interconnected nature of the SDGs in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Various studies investigate the design of corporate sustainability reporting in light of institutional theory. Whereas most of this literature examines the external factors that influence sustainability reporting, few studies focus on the internal drivers of sustainability reporting, especially the role of environmental orientation. This paper attempts to address this research gap by comparing companies with differences regarding environmental orientation. Therefore it distinguishes between companies that prioritise sustainability as business goals (Emerging Davids) and companies that use sustainability goals supplementary to their core business goals (Greening Goliaths). The paper finds differences in the sustainability reporting guidelines used by Emerging Davids and Greening Goliaths. Greening Goliaths are more likely to report according to the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative than Emerging Davids are. Thereby the study leads to the assumption that Greening Goliaths react more strongly to institutional pressures in terms of sustainability reporting than Emerging Davids do. This paper applies institutional theory in the context of environmental orientation and provides first insights into different institutional pressures within this field. While institutional pressures strongly influence the sustainability reporting of Greening Goliaths, they have less impact on the sustainability reporting of Emerging Davids.
This commentary on the article “On the centrality of peripheral research and the dangers of tight boundary gatekeeping” is a personal reflection developed around four considerations. (1) Boundaries are defined according to the center we position ourselves in, which implies that multiple centers and boundaries are possible. (2) Although tension between multiple centers is typical across disciplines in their endeavor to create disciplinary identity, their existence is related to paradigmatic divides. (3) Problems related to excessive gatekeeping arise to protect the reputation of the dominant center. (4) The complexity of today’s societal and environmental challenges calls for an interdisciplinary approach. My concluding remarks develop the idea that, if bridges cannot be built across paradigmatic divides, tensions can be harnessed productively by nurturing academic empathy. Academic empathy, I argue, becomes key for the way in which we – as individual scholars – face today’s greatest challenges that are, in their nature, interdisciplinary and require us to rethink boundaries.
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal (SEAJ) made notable progress as a specialist journal for disseminating social and environmental accounting research (SEAR) over the past 26 years. This study reviews SEAJ’s published papers to establish the journal’s achievements and to suggest possible areas to address heading into the future. We analyse the volume, methodology, impact (citation) of articles and jurisdictions represented in SEAJ. The findings show that original articles employing qualitative methods have the most representation in SEAJ. While there is a reasonable spread of published research focusing on the UK, the US and Australia, the results indicate a paucity of research emanating from developing countries. The projections herein are in line with the intent of SEAJ to advance the journal’s goals by 2020 and beyond. Consequently, we call on SEAJ contributors to consider research that accounts for the underrepresented jurisdictions and the extant SEAR gaps, as well as the emerging issues affecting social and environmental accounting (SEA).
This issue aims to reflect on the current state of research in the broad field of social and environmental accounting/accountability (SEA) as well as consider its future. In this editorial we introduce the topic of the special issue, outline the contributions that make up its content and offer some thoughts on the future of SEA research. Some observations as to current and emerging trends in the field are first offered and reflected on before the contributions provided by each of the papers is presented. We conclude by offering some thoughts on the future of SEA research and ultimately call for more (engaged/ reflective/ critical/ radical) research in this field which is motivated by, and seeks to address, the catastrophic social, ecological and economic devastation that defines our current state.
This article focuses on miscarriage and the sharing of intimate experiences as an example of alternative writing that can be used to challenge and resist dominant masculine discourse in academia. It steps back from patriarchal forms of writing organizations and contributes in three ways: in terms of methodology through the use of multi-voice autoethnography that embraces evocative language; with regard to the subject matter, by sharing a narrative that focuses on the bodily and dirty in day-to-day organizing; and in style, by going beyond traditional structures to foster personal, fragile and reflexive narratives that can enhance the understanding of lived experiences in organizations. More specifically, the first author’s autoethnographic account of perinatal loss in the context of contemporary academia is used as an example of resistance to patriarchal norms of organizing.
This paper reflects upon the behavioural and attitudinal issues of scholars within the community of social and environmental accounting research (SEAR) and seeks to stimulate debate by discussing our views on how this scientific community operates. The paper calls for passion and appeals to the emotions of SEAR individuals through a discussion on how to challenge current structures. More specifically, we address like-minded conformity as a threat to the future cohesion and health of SEAR. Thus, instead of blaming solely the Blue Meanies (Gray and Laughlin [2012] use ‘Blue Meanies’ as a metaphor for those factors which invade the world of scholarship, reflection, collegiality and enquiry. These Blue Meanies, which destroy the very essence of scholarship, include numerous modern phenomena, such as performance measurement, career mindedness, journal rankings and citation indexes. [Gray, R., and R. Laughlin. 2012. “It Was 20 Years Ago Today: Sgt. Pepper, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Green Accounting and the Blue Meanies.” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 25 (2): 228–255]), we call for passion and appeal to individual responsibility. Overall, we argue for greater emphasis on the human and passionate elements of research as a way to curb the effects produced by catalysts of conformity. We maintain that this will enhance not only mutual respect and good scientific conversation but also the relevance and innovativeness of SEAR.
In this paper, drawing on autoethnographic material, we document how we have been responding to our school's research incentive policy and its adoption of a new journal ranking process that has resulted in the marginalization of most accounting journals. Overall, we contribute to the accounting literature on journal rankings by reflecting on their impact on researchers’ identities. Our personal narratives illustrate how journal rankings, embedded in a research incentive policy, can fragment and politicize junior faculties’ identities, driving them, professionally and intellectually, into contradictory directions and throwing them into academic politics. In terms of sustainability, identity fragmentation and identity politicization are ambivalent processes. They can marginalize junior researchers who do not have the political skills required to play the games of academic politics and discourage those who feel trapped in identity conflicts. On the other hand, identity fragmentation and politicization can also stimulate a deeper form of reflexivity and action. Through increased awareness of self and the political stakes of the field, junior researchers might be able to promote greater diversity and respond actively to the needs of a sustainable accounting research environment.
Breaking Boundaries: (Counter) accounts during the pandemic - letters to future generations
- D L Arjaliès
- Y Gendron
- C Lehman
- A A Navarro Pérez
- J P De Lima
- S P De Castro Casa-Nova
- M A Vera-Colina
Call for Papers: Accounting in Competing Worlds
- L Moerman
- D Mcgrath
- D Murphy
- S Van Der Laan
Harness the Power of Groups to Beat the 'PhD Blues'.” Available at www.nature.com/articles
- K Harrington
- Bebbington J.
The Accounting Profession's Environmental Accounting and Reporting thought Leadership.” In TRoutledge Handbook of Environmental Accounting
- J Unerman
Sustainability Lives On
- H N Lindsay
Article Review. The Rise of the Global Reporting Initiative: A Case of Institutional Entrepreneurship
- J Unerman