Reclaiming the public sphere: problems and prospects for corporate social and environmental accounting

This article encourages accountants to consider their role in the debates concerning social and environmental accounting. It outlines a placement ethic which provides a framework to explore various schools of thought on social and environmental accounting. A placement ethic uses ideas central to Habermas and Rawls to provide a continuum model to explore whether an arbitrated political consensus concerning social and environmental accounting is a possibility. It also advances some ideas to overcome the procedural limitations of the Rawls–Habermas debate that have been used by accounting reformers. In this context, it is possible to move beyond the usual deadlock between procedure and critique to combine insights from different traditions to construct new critical and democratic social and environmental pathways.     

Politicizing the expertise of the accounting industry in the realm of corporate social responsibility

The accounting industry plays an important role in the production and implementation of accountability mechanisms surrounding corporate social responsibility practices. Operating as both politicians and implementers of knowledge (Gendron, Cooper, & Townley, 2007), the expert activities of accountants are never purely technical. This paper focuses on the mediating role of accounting firms and professional bodies in aligning the socially responsible practices of organizations with the rational morality of the market. I show that the construction of the market as a moral marker of socially responsible action is the result of a major effort of rationalization aimed at justifying the emergence of a social and moral conscience in business, not in the name of subjective feelings or human values, but in the name of an economic and depoliticized logic of profitability. Drawing on the political analysis of Latour (2004) [Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy] and his metaphor of the ‘modern constitution’, I view the economicization of corporate social responsibility as symptomatic of the power imbalance between the world of humans and the world of objects governing the political structure of contemporary society and weakening democratic activity.     

Meanings of the term ‘sustainable development’ in Finnish corporate disclosures

There is an on-going discursive struggle over how the social and environmental problems related to modern societies should be understood and resolved. Sustainable development has become a pre-eminent concept in these discussions and businesses are increasingly employing the term in their communications. However, sustainable development means “different things to different people in different contexts” [Bebbington, J. (2001). Sustainable development: A review of the international development, business and accounting literature. Accounting Forum, 25(2), 128–157; see p. 129]. Thus, there have been recent calls in the literature to analyse what the companies are actually saying in their disclosures [Thomson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2005). Social and environmental reporting in the UK: A pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting; Kolk, A. (1999). Evaluating corporate environmental reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8, 225–237]. Subscribing to the social construction of reality, this study critically assesses how the term ‘sustainable development’ is constructed in the disclosures of Finnish listed companies.

Overall, in the disclosures, sustainable development is constructed as a win-win concept, which allows society to enjoy economic growth, environmental protection and social improvements with no trade-offs or radical restructurings in the social order. However, behind the usual business rhetoric, there is very little evidence of anyone actually walking this talk. Accordingly, this research calls for further discussion on companies’ role in achieving sustainable development and on the business interpretation of sustainable development in general.     

OF MESSINESS, SYSTEMS AND SUSTAINABILITY: TOWARDS A MORE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING

This essay is a personal attempt at a re-visitation and re-consideration of a number of the fundamental questions which underlie accounting and finance but which only rarely receive explicit consideration. Social and environmental accounting has been the principal focus of my research interests since I became an academic and the subject was, indeed, the primary reason I became an academic in the first place. A concern with social and environmental accounting automatically forces one to raise basic questions about (what is conventionally thought of as) accounting and finance—its foundations, its purposes, its assumptions. In trying to answer those questions one comes to see all of accounting and finance in different ways—both in terms of what it assumes about the world and what it can potentially do for the world. This paper seeks to clarify some of the ways in which conventional accounting and finance and social and environmental accounting (and finance) can be in harmony. However, the principle purpose of the paper is to suggest that many of our ghettos, our internecine squabbles and our misunderstandings are trivial when compared with the essential question of what we place at the centre of our teaching and scholarship. At the core of accounting and finance is a truly fundamental conflict between sustainability and modern international financial capitalism. Our choices between these are likely to be a great deal more than matters of methodological nicety or intellectual convenience. Social and environmental accounting (and finance) offer a way to recover a moral and productive accounting and finance that places survival of the species at its very heart.     

A framework for social and environmental accounting research

This essay explores recent trends in social and environmental accounting research (SEAR). We offer a basic SEAR typology to examine the limitations and possibilities within the current discourse. SEAR has taken a corporate approach in liberal democratic social space. Our typology examines the opportunities for SEAR to interpret and create change in social practice.     

Satanic Mills?: An illustration of Victorian external environmental accounting

The paper evaluates a Victorian environmental account of the pollution of the River Wandle. This account was produced during a period of social and environmental crisis, when there were no significant industrial environmental regulations. This problematising external environmental account provides valuable insights into the historical development of social and environmental accounting. Our analysis located this account within an institutional reform programme to create systems of governance to mitigate the damage arising from unfettered industrial growth. We argue that problematising external environmental accounting has a longer tradition than previously recognised in the literature and predates corporate social and environmental reporting.     

Exploring Accounting and Democratic Governance: A Study Comparing a Norwegian and a Russian County

Interpretations and explanations of experience that make consequences interpretable and actions imaginable are said to be given by accounts. Formal accounting systems used in economic, social and political institutions are seen as portraying their political realities. The purpose of this study is to explore connections and tensions between the realities portrayed in the accounting systems and the governance structures of local governments in two counties, one in Norway and one in Russia. The formal accounting and governmental systems of these two counties are described, analyzed and compared using accounting and democratic governance perspectives. The article ends with a discussion of interrelationships and tensions between accounting and democratic governance. Through comparing the democratic governing structures of these two counties with the accounting systems employed, three main conclusions are presented. Firstly, it is shown that principal–agent relations influence accounting procedures that symbolize democratic governance. Secondly, the accounting language applied does not portray local politicians. Thirdly, accounting norms do not reflect democracy and democratic governance. In summary, the study shows that even very formalized accounting offers flexibility by way of giving meaning to processes and structures in organizations characterized by strictly formalized structures.     

Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation

Richard Laughlin's work provides a framework for scholarly engagement that includes process (middle range thinking), a societal model of administration, and a means for reflexive and collective decision-making. The framework draws on Habermas’ theory of communicative action, which is underpinned by a deliberative, consensus-oriented conceptualization of democracy. Based on recent developments in political theory and related applied fields, we argue that deliberative democracy is only one of several democratic bases useful in understanding and/or improving accounting and accountability systems to better meet the needs of diverse contemporary societies. In particular, we contend that, in relying on Habermasian-style deliberative democracy, Laughlin's conceptualizations do not fully account for the dimensions of disagreement and difference in democratic interactions. Drawing on the work of agonistic political theorists and studies from the applied fields of communicative planning and critical policy analysis, we argue that deliberative democracy approaches based on ideal speech criteria and universalistic consensus need to be balanced with theorizations that recognize the reality and value of more open-ended and unfinalizable struggles among actors with different histories, cultures, and/or ideological orientations. While cognizant of the challenges involved in bridging deliberative-agonistic conceptualizations of democracy, such endeavors provide opportunities for (re)theorizations that offer promise for enriching critical accounting by, as we argue, reinforcing the critical/political in critical accounting. To this end, we consider possibilities of forging links between Laughlin's work and our own proposals for dialogic/polylogic accountings based on agonistic democracy in an effort to foster more enabling accounting praxis.     

Attitudes to the development and implementation of social and environmental accounting in Thailand

Motivated and shaped by a concern to realise the potentiality of accounting communication in relation to social and environmental issues in Thailand, this paper evaluates perceptions of current accounting as well as attitudes to social and environmental accounting among Thai accounting professionals. Making use of empirical data generated by questionnaire study and interviews, this paper aims to shed more light on the development and implementation of social and environmental accounting in Thailand. It argues that any change of accounting in future is likely to involve a change in the nature of the Thai accounting profession itself. The paper suggests ways in which the future development of social and environmental accounting practice might be given further impetus in the Thai context.     

Scientific Utopia and accounting

This paper approaches the question of the role of accounting in society by studying utopian social literature. Particular consideration is given to the work of Proudhon who proposed that accounting should be regarded as a means of solving the most important of all social problems, i.e. those of economy and justice. In spite of the fact that Proudhon presented accounting as a social scientific theory and technique for solving the problem of equality in society, the paper argues that such a view reflects a predominantly utopian vision of the world. Though Proudhon rightly pointed out the normative character of accounting, its juridical value and its capacity to reflect economic life, he failed to detach himself from the belief that there could exist a universal means of economic control and planning leading to a state of complete justice in society. However, the Proudhonian association between accounting and justice is not irrelevant in the modern debate on the role of accounting in society. If accounting has not taken the form envisaged by Proudhon it has at least evolved towards the similar objective of determining what is true in the context of economy. If only for this reason, Proudhon's general theory of accounting is worthy of attention.     

The relevance of history in accounting education: Some observations

This paper was commissioned by the Journal of Accounting Education in order to provide our readers with an assessment of the relevance of history in accounting education. Based on over 40 years of accounting experience, the author contends that accounting curricula should be broadened to include the teaching of accounting history. It is suggested that valuable insights can be gained from the study of how accounting has developed and changed in response to environmental changes (economic, political, social). Without such a historical perspective, accounting graduates will not have the necessary background to critically evaluate current accounting practices or be in a position to contribute significantly to our constantly changing profession.     

Ethics and accountability: from the for-itself to the for-the-other

Expanding global markets have resulted in renewed concern with accountability by transnational corporations and other economic agents. Reflections on economic accountability, however, often inadequately theorize necessary ethical presuppositions regarding the moral status of economic collectivities, including the scope of the moral community and the good that this community seeks. This essay addresses these ethical considerations. Taking as my starting point Schweiker's [Schweiker, W. (1993). Accounting for ourselves: accounting practice and the disclosure of ethics. Accounting Organizations and Society, 18(2/3), 231–252] claim that economic entities are properly accountable to a wider scope of good than their own by virtue of the accounts that accountants render of such entities, I argue that the discourse in terms of which the accounts are rendered serves to negate the very relation of obligation from which this accountability derives. Specifically, I argue that the discourse of neoclassical economics that informs accounting practice constructs the identity of the accountable entity such that it is obligated to pursue only its own good. Consequently, extant accounting practices are inadequate to meet the demands for accountability that are legitimately entailed by the act of rendering an account. I explore the implications of this conclusion for understanding economic accountability and related social accounting practices, and I propose the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas to establish a broader accountability on the part of economic entities.     

Commentary: A proposal for theoretical models of stakeholder perceptions of a new financial reporting system

This commentary explores the article by Fontes et al. published in this issue of Accounting Forum. They argue that the scope of IFRS continues to widen across the world, using a number of social science disciplines to discuss stakeholder perceptions of change. The commentary uses Hegel's Science of Logic to situate their arguments through four key theoretical approaches that are prominent in the accounting literature. Ultimately, this has the potential to position IASB frameworks in such a way as to challenge the economic and neoliberal logic on which modern accounting is based.     

Democracy,sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously

There is wide-ranging recognition of the need for “new accountings” that foster democracy and facilitate more participatory forms of social organization. This is particularly evident in the sustainable development and social and environmental accounting literatures, with calls for more dialogic forms of accounting. However, there has been very little consideration of how “democracy” should be approached; and, in particular, the implications of any particular model of democracy for the kinds of accounting technologies that might be advocated. This paper seeks to contribute to the theoretical development of dialogic accounting and focuses on the sustainability arena for illustrative purposes. It draws on debates between deliberative and agonistic democrats in contemporary political theory to argue the case for an agonistic approach to dialogics; one that respects difference and takes interpretive and ideological conflicts seriously. In recognition of the ways in which power intrudes in social relations so as to deny heterogeneity and privilege certain voices, it seeks to promote a broadly critical pluralist approach. To this end, the paper proposes a set of key principles for dialogic accounting and draws on ecological economist Peter Söderbaum’s work on positional analysis applied to an existing accounting tool – the Sustainability Assessment Model (SAM) – to illustrate how such an approach might be operationalized. The paper also discusses limitations of the dialogic accounting concept and impediments to its implementation.     

Post-Fordism and the end of work

Post-Fordism is a term which has largely been rejected by the Left, mainly on the grounds that it dignifies aspects of capitalist society that should be challenged. In this article I aim to redeem the political value of the concept by showing how it can contribute to a positive critique of wage-based society. Radicalising the theory of post-Fordism requires a deepening of the principles of autonomy and responsibility which are central to the post-Fordist work paradigm. These principles should be extended, I argue, to apply to the wider social repercussions of post-Fordist labour, including destructive environmental consequences, the manipulation of consumer needs and above all the production of non-work or unemployment which flexible production methods entail. I argue that workers’ recognition of their wider social responsibilities therefore requires theoretical mediations capable of loosening the reductive equation of ‘autonomy’ with ‘work’. I also argue that the trend towards knowledge-based societies, because of the difficulties it creates in the definition and measurement of individual labour time, is making the abolition of waged work an increasingly rational ideal. I conclude by highlighting the alternative scenario towards which post-Fordist capitalism is otherwise heading. This is a society where every social activity — including consumption — is recognised, formalised and remunerated as work, as people are paid to produce themselves in accordance with the needs of social reproduction.     

The politics of anticipation: On knowing and governing environmental futures

In this article we describe how the historical emergence and rise of future studies, since the founding issue of Futures in 1968, has been intricately connected to the emergence and development of environmental anticipation as discourse and practice. We trace a dialectical and inter-twined relationship between technologies of environmental anticipation and forecasting, and technologies of anti-environmentalist anticipation and counter-intervention, one which we argue shapes not only the contemporary politics of anticipation, but in a very material sense, the future conditions of biological and social life on Earth. In so doing we want to address the possible contributions that the field of futures studies can make to reimagining collective agency and ways of being on Earth, whilst reflecting critically upon its genealogical relations to the political reason and strategic horizons of powerful fossil fuel interests, from the crisis of the 1970s to the present. The article also offers a more in-depth contextualization to the other articles in this special issue of Futures on “The Politics of Environmental Anticipation”. The aim is to bring to the fore the role that social scientists play in environmental anticipation − i.e. drawing attention to the fact that the future could always have been otherwise.     

MARX AND ACCOUNTING

Does Marx's political economy provide a theoretical foundation for understanding accounting in modern capitalism? The commentators dispute my Marxism, and contest whether my accounting is more objective than the FASB's. I show they have misunderstood Marx and the purpose of my accounting. Underlying their views is a failure to take seriously Marx's social relations of production and traditional accountability. I conclude the commentators have not challenged my claim that Marx's analysis of the circuits of industrial capital could provide a general theory of accounting.     

Commentary on Parker: Groundhog Day and optimism

This paper seeks to provide a supportive commentary to the paper by Lee Parker that assesses the deliverables and relevance of qualitative accounting research. This commentary on Parker's work focuses more narrowly than Parker and concentrates on the differences between qualitative research and approaches adopting a positivistic or normative perspective and less on the exemplars in the management accounting literature. The commentary will seek to explore these differences by reverting to a broader social science literature. The commentary will argue for recognising the complementarity of different research approaches – recognising difference and but recognising the strengths of both; bringing their understandings together when it helps to do so, but not seeking to combine them and ignore their difference roots; not seeking to privilege any approach over any other apart from recognising that different questions need different approaches to answer them. At the latter end of this commentary I offer some solutions that might be considered in relation to the building of a body of knowledge, using the ideas of middle range thinking. Finally I develop some suggestions to meet for Parker's call for us to make efforts to communicate more broadly and argue for the academic accounting community to consider interdisciplinary engagement with the arts.     

On Gray,Malpas, and Brennan's “The role of social accounts: Situating political ideas”

In this paper we situate the political ideas that emanate from Gray, Malpas and Brennan on the role of social accounts (GBM in this issue). We explore Brennan's and Malpas’ work and commentary on social accounts in view of existent work in social and environmental accounting. We especially focus on the concept of affluenza and understanding of space and the role of accounting and raise questions that remain unanswered by the authors.