social accounting research

Social Accounting Research As if the World Matters:

Postalgia and a new Absurdism1,2

Rob Gray, Jesse Dillard and Crawford Spence3

Prepared for the IRSPM/EGPA International Workshop on Social Audit, Social Accounting and Accountability, Charles University, Prague, 2008

DRAFT: 3B (February 2008):

Address for Correspondence: Rob Gray, CSEAR, Gateway, School of Management, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9SS, Scotland. Email: [email protected]

1 The clearly derivative nature of the title is conscious and deliberate. In particular both Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful: Economics As If People Matter (Schumacher, 1973) and the far more recent and pragmatic contribution of Porritt’s Capitalism as if the World Matters (Porritt, 2004) is woven within what follows. Postalgia “refers to a longing for a heavenly future, a desire that is central to change-talk and change initiatives…” Ybema, 2004)

2 Acknowledgements: This paper is derived from a presentation initially prepared for the AOS seminar “Calculating Sustainability” Venice, March 2007. The comments of participants at that seminar and the early stimulus of Anthony Hopwood and Fabrizio Panozzo are very gratefully acknowledged. Subsequent comments from, inter alia, David Collison, Sue Gray Anthony Hopwood, Markus Milne, David Owen and participants at the 2007 APIRA and CSEAR (UK) Congresses have had a major influence on the direction of the paper and its long struggle towards completion. Thank you.

3 Rob Gray and Crawford Spence are respectively Professor and Lecturer in Social and Environmental Accounting at the University of St Andrews. Jesse Dillard is Professor of Accounting at Portland State University.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Social Accounting and Postalgia

Social Accounting Research As if the World Matters:

Postalgia and a new absurdism

AbstractThis essay- principally directed at the academy - considers the question “Has the social accounting project failed?” in a deliberately speculative exploration of social accounting in its most inclusive articulation. The examination re-evaluates what social accounting is, could and/or should be. Our departure point is recent papers from Lehman and Milne, that deal with both the limitations and the possibilities of social accounting and those involved therewith. More specifically, we seek to understand whether social accounting could have succeeded more obviously in raising and maintaining an energetic discourse that is reflective of the distorted societal milieu, the crisis-ridden social and environmental context, and the pernicious system that our accounting and our research reifies, supports or, worse, ignores. The analysis attempts to offer some new directions and conceptions. A new(er) notion of social accountability in complex institutional situations emerges from the analysis reflecting promising advances in shadow, counter, and alternative accountings. In looking to the future, we consider: social accounting as an empty signifier; the possibilities of commitment to community overriding concerns for the subject matter; and an overwhelming, even immobilizing, sense of privilege. We seek to abandon hubris and the self-indulgence of the precious and embrace what a ‘good’ academic and a ‘good’ social accountant might be.

2


“The short-termness of politicians and the media …. can be balanced only by confident scholars shielded from political and commercial pressures. But academia has become so dependent and demoralised that it can no longer play that vital role”Sampson (2004) p210

1. IntroductionTo try and talk about `social accounting’ as a singularity is probably to invite

confusion. `Social accounting’ embraces an immense diversity of practices – from

(for example) environmental management accounting to habitat inventories; from

Multi-National Corporation stand-alone `sustainability’ reports to dialogue-based third

sector syntheses (Schaltegger and Burritt; 2000; Jones; 1996; Kolk; 2003; Pearce,

2003). It is to this diverse notion of social accounting and to social accounting in the

academy that we wish to direct our attention here.

Social accounting has attracted a range of criticisms over the years for its: quietism

(Tinker et al, 1991); masculism (Cooper, 1992; Cooper et al., 1992); managerialism

(Neu et al, 1998); attachment to modernity (Everett and Neu, 2000; Andrew, 2000)

and liberalism (Shenkin and Coulson, 2007); its (incorrectly alleged) attachment to

voluntarism (Gallhofer and Haslam, 1997); its (correctly alleged) attachment to

proceduralism (Lehman, 2001); and its under theorised nature (see, for example,

Puxty, 1986; 1991). Many of these challenges have substance and various attempts

have been made to respond directly to them and/or to re-direct social accounting

research, teaching and thinking in the new directions suggested by a synthesis of the

resultant dialectic.

More recent and telling critiques have been offered by (for example) Cooper et al.,

(2005) and the challenge that their illustration of an entirely different type of social

account presented to the potentially conservative, organisationally-based exploration

of social accounting. More recently still, there have been a series of formal and

informal discussions around the possibility that the social accounting project might

have failed4; and Milne (2007) has challenged social accountants to consider the

narrowness of their enterprise and their own social and environmental behaviours.

Such challenge is cast into relief by endeavours such as that from Cooper et al. and

4 This is not intended as a straw person and the suggestions certainly deserves attention. Specific examples of this suggestion occurred both in exchanges prior to and during an AOS seminar in Venice in March 2007 and emerged in an international consultation by CSEAR of its wider membership reconsidered the Centre’s mission, governance and success, (see, for example, Social and Environmental Accounting Journal 26(2) pp1, 14-18).

3


by the growing interest in shadow, silent and counter-accounts. Such initiatives offer

a challenge to potentially sterile academic pursuits and they act as telling examples

of engaged and self-conscious action research (see Gray et al, 1996; for an

introduction and summary and see, for example, Gray, 1997; Adams, 20045;

Gallhofer et al., 2006)6,7.

It is initiatives such as these that remind us that we are engaged in a critical

endeavour of debate around accountability, business and society. As such, there is a

probably a persuasive case for arguing that our only concerns should be that which

might demonstrably contribute to a better life – and never forgetting that for many, a

better life is any life at all. If, then, social accounting discourses and conversations

are to more actively (and exclusively) engage the liberationist purpose (that the

critical project amongst others has counselled)8 then a case emerges that all

conversations which refuse to permit such examination must, of definition, be

considered illegitimate. If we cannot openly discuss the contention that commerce, in

principle at least, cannot be responsible or sustainable then those who would prevent

us from so talking must either justify that suppression or have their voices silenced.

On a planet on the verge of desecration, nicety and parlour manners may have a

diminishingly important place.

So we come to our key questions. Our primary concern is to ask how we as

accountants and especially as accounting academics might act/speak/be in ways

which are commensurate with the immense privilege most of us in the academy

enjoy. How might an accounting make any positive difference to the brutalised

oppressed, a vandalised nature and the wounded planet? Subsidiary to that question

we hope to address why social accounting is needed and, tangentially perhaps, how

we might start to improve the debates within social accounting.

5 In private conversation Carol Adams questions whether her work on Alpha and the reporting-portrayal gap should be thought of as a “counter account”.

6 For more information see Gibson et al, (2001a, 2001b) and the associated information on the CSEAR website.

7 Action Research – or more especially critical action research as articulated by Richard Baker (Baker 2006) may offer a way of articulating the social accounting project and is being developed in a way that offers a richer way in which to conceptualise engaged work of this sort.

8 The ambition here is that social accounting may need to hitch Habermas, Gadamer, Taylor et al., to a more violently liberationist wagon: a suggestion which probably takes us closer to the debates in Butler, Laclau and Zizek (2000)

4


The essay is organised as follows. Following this Introduction, Section 2

examines whether social accounting has any importance and whether accountants

are indeed the right people to address and develop social accounting. Section 3 gets

to the meat of the issue and examines whether or not we might think that social

accounting has failed before considering whether we can talk about a social

accounting in Section 4. The final section of the paper explores, in Section 5, how we

might move forward.

2. If We Wanted To Get There Would We Start Here?In order to clear the ground a little, we consider that there are four basic questions

that deserve revisiting. These are as follows. First; why is it that social accounting(s)

might matter - if at all? Second, does the use of the term “accounting(s)” constrain us

in any important way? Third, need social accounting have anything to do with themes

of conventional accounting? And, finally, need social accounting have any necessary

attachment to accountants? To some degree, these may seem trivial questions but if

we are to try and re-imagine a new future for social accounting, it behoves us to have

some notion of at least some of our built-in biases and historically acquired

limitations.

Why might social accounting matter?

Briefly, social accounting within the academy has been predominantly concerned

with organisation-based accounts of social and environmental interactions. One

major theme within this has been a concern to develop accountability in the name of

some democratic ideal, (see, for example, Lehman, 1999; Shenkin and Coulson,

2007). The focus, possibly unfortunately, has principally been upon corporations –

especially large corporations. This has, at its simplest, probably been driven by the

conventional focus of traditional accounting academe mingled with a very proper

concern over the power and influence of the corporation in the construction of

hegemony, (see, for example, Porritt, 2005; Korten, 1995). If conventional accounting

matters – and it most clearly does – then social accounting can (a priori) matter at

least as much.

Enquiry into social accounting offers, inter alia, holds the promise of an international

industrial and financial complex held substantially accountable for its activities. Such

an accountability – if applied successfully – would expose much duplicity; it would

make transparent the essential and unavoidable conflicts that a global, astonishingly

5


successful (and probably essentially rapacious) capitalism generates. The vision –

optimistic though it might be – is that even such a procedurally-based accountability

(Lehman, 2001; Shenkin and Coulson, 2007;) would allow for the possibility that a

stark clarification of the social injustice and environmental degradation embedded in

production, consumption and expansion – indeed in modern financial capitalism -

would demand that both civil society and the state act in a manner which has the

potential to produce a very different world from the one in which we now live.

Such an accountability would have the potential to heavily temper – even erase –

current notions of success and reputation as the currency of late financial capitalism.

The uncontrollable financial markets – possibly the most pernicious fora on the planet

– would, at least be recognised for what they are and, even, possibly, be subject to

questioning and retrenchment, (Gray 2002b). Debates about organisational

sustainability and responsibility might be held with evidence rather than entirely

through assertion and public relations machines, (Milne et al, 2006).

This sense of the potential of social accounting and accountability is not intended as

utopian in itself but rather as a means through difference might be able to emerge.

vision9. The essence, as we understand it, is to re-introduce some intrinsic but

explicit ethic to capitalism that might offer a path towards limiting current devastation

and injustice and perhaps potentially halt our current headlong plunge towards

dystopia.

It is in this way that we see social accounting mattering and it is these types of

underlying principles – albeit reformist rather than directly revolutionary – by which

we would like to see social accounting should ultimately judged.

Social ….. `accounting(s)’?

The creation and communication of accounts in the broad sense has been frequently

identified as a ubiquitous human activity, (Abercrombie et al., 1984; Arrington and

Puxty, 1992; Arrington and Francis, 1993). Thus a social accounting which envisages

a universe of all possible accountings need only engage with the baggage of

traditional accounting to a limited – and possibly deliberate - degree. This seems, to

us, to be a red herring and the considerable literature in social accounting that pays

9 Indeed, any vision of utopia lies beyond our scope here and, as we have argued elsewhere (Gray, 1992; Dillard XXX; Spence 200?), our notion of utopia would be unlikely to possess much in the way of formal accounting and little or no formal social accounting.

6


almost no recognisable obeisance to the literature and principles of traditional

accounting tends to confirm this, (see, for example, Raynard, 1995; Spreckley, 1997;

Pearce, 2003; Pearce and Kay, 2005; Quarter et al., 2003).

Social within conventional accounting?

It seems important to recognise that for many commentators, social accounting is

predominantly concerned with the manifestation of social and environmental issues

within the conventions of traditional accounting (see, for example, Solomons, 1974;

and for illustrations of this see, for example, Schaltegger and Burritt, 2000; Epstein,

2004; Hughes et al., 2000; Gray et al.,1998). As (for example) risk, asset impairment,

environmental liabilities and the implications of carbon trading find their way into the

financial numbers of the organisation and the financial statements begin to morph

slightly; as (for example) cost classifications develop and investment appraisal takes

a longer view; and as audit (for example) adds environmental and reputational risk to

its issues of concern, social and environmental issues begin to have some – probably

fairly slight – impact on the world of the economic. But, the social and environmental

issues are only manifest here to the extent that they are translated into the economic:

they have no intrinsic social or environmental importance.

The concerns within this area of the literature appear to owe more to an interest in

the conventionally financial and economic than they do to an interest in the social or

the environmental, per se. The interest in social accounting here seems lie in the

potential for – albeit incremental – change in conventional accounting practice.

However, much more substantively, traditional accounting itself must be treated with

considerable care if we are to ever think of it as a vehicle for justice or environmental

responsibility. To the extent that any social accounting is inseparable from

conventional accounting, it must fall foul of the penetrating and significant charges of

`the’ critical accounting project, (see, for example, Cooper and Hopper, 1990;

Gallhofer and Haslam, 1997; Laughlin, 1999; Power and Laughlin, 1992; Tinker,

1984). That is, as we well know, accounting, inter alia, serves vested interests, is

masculist, positivist and oppressive,; it silences voices and only recognises that

which is and can be priced – and price reflects only what vested interest will allow it

to. If international financial capitalism is not the answer to your problems then neither

is traditional accounting.

7


So what about accountants?

Medawar has commented (see 1976 as well as in conversation and see

Hopwood,1985) that if you were setting off to develop a system of social accounting

and accountability you would be well advised not to start with accountants. The

reasons for Medawar’s concerns are obvious once pointed out. Accountants’

attachment to rules and procedures; their general identification with those holding the

power; and their largely deserved reputation for conservatism and avoidance of risk

and innovation will inevitably limit their ability to innovate. Any worthwhile social

accounting will involve innovation and an interactive and developmental approach to

the new craft. Accountants are trained (see, for example, McPhail, 1999; Annisette,

2000; Gray and Collison, 2002; Gray et al., 2001) to believe themselves, for example,

to be impartial, technical and concerned with precision and accuracy, (Hines, 1988)

when they are, of course, none of these things. Accountants are by no means

disinterested (see, for example, Morgan, 1988) and there is little evidence to suggest

that, as a group, they would be your first choice to embrace a public interest which

privileged civil society and the disenfranchised over capital and the powerful.

And yet, to see the social accounting initiatives from accountants over the years as

only exercises in (say) legitimation or appropriation of territory seems contentious,

(see, for example, ASSC, 1975; AAA, 1973; but see also Hopwood, 1978). Indeed,

the frames, methods or disciplines acquired by accountants have potential value10,11.

In many regards, the most important talent of the accountant probably lies in the design,

recognition, assessment and control of information systems both within and outside an

organisation. In putting these internal and external systems together, the accountant

can generate data, evaluate its probable reliability and determine its appropriateness to

the issues under consideration. These factors, together with an experience in the

communication of information, suggest a range of talents that seem essential for much

social accounting of whatever form.

10 There is the more difficult issue of the extent to which accountants will adopt the baggage of traditional accounting through unconscious attachment rather than as a conscious rational choice.

11 These comments are drawn from Gray (1990) which was designed to encourage accountants to engage in environmental accounting practices. Whilst the statements may well be accurate, they are also fairly naïve in a number of regards. Amongst the most striking is that accountants appear to value themselves for abilities that actually they do not possess – like valuation and the like, (Gray, 1990; Gray et al, 2001).

8


Whilst it may very well be that it is the attachments to the baggage of the accountants

that attracts the most telling of the criticisms of `the social accounting project’ as

manifest in the accounting literature (that social accounting is managerialist, marginalist,

liberal, procedural, reformist etc) Nevertheless, we retain a (wary) association with

accounting/accountants for the time being. We do this reasons both pragmatic and

moral.

First , there is a moral, deontological case for the development of social accounting by

accountants. This rests on the notion that, faced with poverty, injustice,

environmental degradation and so on, our position of awesome privilege demands

that we seek to reform, not just our own lives and our roles in civil society, but our

professional and employment lives as well. So a natural moral question is to ask

“what can accountants qua accountants do?” – and one answer is to make

accounting more “social”. Social accounting is one possible manifestation of that.

Second, as the critical accounting project has so vividly and convincingly

demonstrated, accounting and finance are deeply implicated in the state of society

and the natural environment. That suggest a moral responsibility to understand,

ameliorate and possibly reverse the negative aspects of that implication. If

accounting (and finance) are closely associated with poverty, injustice and

environmental degradation can a more social accounting offer a better prospect for

the species (and, indeed, other species)? This seems a project worth pursuing –

although the answer is far from clear.

A crucial caveat needs spelling out. Nothing we say here is suggesting that

accounting is the best or only place to start. But having made some prior decision (for

whatever reasons) to remain an accountant albeit one in the academy, examination

of the possibilities offered by accounting seem an appropriate place to start. There is

no suggestion that social accounting is any more important than a social finance;

social business, social law, or even social activism outside the academy etc etc.12

(See, for example, Shenkin and Coulson, 2007, for one tentative foray in this

direction)12 What seems remarkable (and perhaps tells us something useful about accounting and accountants) is the diverse traction that social accounting does appear (we stress `appear’ as we have no empirical support or this) to have gained. The hypothesis may be worth exploring; explanation might be interesting.

9


Finally, there are the better established arguments which suggest that (utopian

visions aside) a social accounting will, eventually, be a part of any solution to the

extent that it can be prevented from becoming part of the problem. Crucially, there is

a recognition that traditional accounting is so mischievously interested and

distracting, colonising and totalising that, for any liberation or emancipation to take

place it must change its nature. Social accounting can offer some of the ways in

which accounting might change13. Now, whilst seeking to change accounting practice

has the potential to change organisational practice and consequently societal

perceptions (see, for example, Ball, 2007) there remains the very real empirical

concern that the only accounting change that is likely to gain traction is that which

has either the backing of the powerful (currently international financial capitalism) or

a groundswell of civil society behind it. That social accounting appears to have

neither is, obviously, a major issue that needs to be addressed because it means (we

now know) that most change that occurs in the public domain is likely to be anodyne.

However, within the academy, there remains (in principle at least) the freedom to

seek out such change as may be feasible. And so, to move on, we believe we need to

address a slightly more stark – if potentially parochial - concern that is occasionally laid

at the door of social accounting: namely, has it failed?

3. Has Social Accounting Failed?Despite the challenges that social accounting has attracted, and despite the fact that

it has not succeeded in the benign and global reformation of capital, to see the social

accounting project as all failure (or perversely, as all success) would be unhelpful.

Social accounting has, for much of its life, had to fight to have an existence: it was so

contemptuously treated (certainly in accounting) until the about 1990 in most

locations that to expect survival of a “social accounting project” at all was ambitious.

That it has survived and thrived means, we would suggest, that whatever else it is,

the social accounting project is no failure. (See, for example, Gray, 2004; Laine,

2006) .

13 Of course, in principle, if social accounting is the universe of all possible accountings then it probably offers all the ways in which accounting might change.

10


Histories of social accounting already exist (see, for example, Mathews, 1997; Gray

et al., 1996; Gray 2002; Owen, 2007b) and so there is no need to repeat them here.

It is probably worth, however, drawing out two temporal threads for what follows14.

First, we might draw a crude periodisation of social accounting activity. The

experimentation of the early 1970s which led to employee and employment reporting;

the 1980s emphasised additional disclosures in the annual report and then we see

the re-emergence of the stand-alone reports from 1990. These standalones

emphasised the environmental, (until about 1995), then the social and community

issues alongside environmental matters (until about 2000) since when there has

been considerable diversity in the legends of reporting but “sustainability” and

“responsibility” have dominated.15

A second temporal thread might seek to draw parallels between the development of

legislation covering social and environmental issues in business (including reporting)

and the climate and nature of voluntarism. The initial Anglo-American optimism and

interest in accountability and responsibility in the 1970s (see, for example, ASSC,

1975; AICPA, 1977) gave way to increasingly focused guidelines (typically on

environmental reporting) and then to the current enthusiasms for the Triple Bottom

Line (TBL) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Such insistent voluntarism

contrasts with both the evidence about the failures of voluntarism (see, for example,

Kolk et al, 1999; Leipzeiger, 2003) and the marginal but nevertheless more

regulatory efforts that have occurred outside the Anglo-American nexus, (Hibbit and

Collison, 2004).

Theorising these developments has not been the strongest element of the social

accounting project. Much is offered by the normative frameworks of accountability

and, increasingly, an over-arching context is offered by sustainability16. More positive

theorisations have drawn from an immense array of theory from agency theory to

Marxian analysis, from institutional theory to reflexivity. As with much of conventional

14 That both of these threads ignore the public and third sectors is an important matter to which we will return later.

15 Such a crude periodisation could be leant support by the KPMG surveys – KPMG (1999, 2002, 2005).

16 The extent to which accountability and sustainability can be made mutually supportive remains, however, unclear.

11


accounting, however, an ad hoc activity like social accounting is likely to defy

attempts to coherently theorise its practice.

But what, if anything, has social accounting achieved?

Accepting that we do not have any clear and objective yardstick by which to make

such an evaluation an ad hoc assessment might recognise that social accounting:

has produced a healthy and diverse network of scholars, teachers and (to a lesser

extent) practitioners; it has advanced the subject in teaching and, most significantly, it

has generated a range of experiments, engagements and challenges with practice,

(see, for example, Unerman et al, 2007). More especially, if we consider social

accounting within the academy then its achievements:- to develop what is

understood by social accounting; to make the subject of social accounting teachable

and researchable; to give a community of scholars a legitimacy; and to engage with

and stimulate practice –strongly suggest that project has actually been a noted

success. Certainly applying any label of “failure” to social accounting seems

unwarranted.

But has social accounting managed to develop or maintain a creative energy, an

imaginative angst, a frontier of antagonism, between the world as is and the world as

should be? (See also Everett, 2007). Here we might be less sanguine.

There are two themes we want to explore here: social accounting in the academic

community and, of more essence, social accounting and engagement with practice

and policy.

Social accounting and the academic community

Milne’s trenchant critique provides a helpful stepping off point (Milne, 2007). Milne

examines Mathews’ categorisation of the elements of social accounting: Social

Responsibility Accounting; Total Impact Accounting; Socioeconomic Accounting and

Social Indicators Accounting (Mathews, 1984). Milne then re-assesses social

accounting research over the past 20 years and concludes that most effort has been

directed at the disclosure of social and environmental information by companies

(what Mathews called Social Responsibility Accounting) to the almost exclusion of

wider research. Balancing the recognition that Milne somewhat overstates his case17

with the recognition that Mathews’ categorisation was not universal in the first place,

17 There is, for example, now a fairly substantial corpus of fieldwork research in social accounting.

12


there is still, in all probability, a substantial charge to be answered. Casual

empiricism (see also the CSEAR website Reviews section for support) would suggest

that a significant majority of the 20-30 international articles published each year on

social accounting18 are concerned with disclosure studies. Such circumstantial

evidence of potential herding behaviour might be a function of data availability and

convention but might contain a more worrying hint of Tuttle and Dillard’s argument

about research exhibiting institutional isomorphism as it moves from diversity to

homogeneity, (Tuttle and Dillard, 2007). Would different emphases have encouraged

the emergence of a different landscape in social accounting? We would, however,

contend, as does Milne (2007), that there is something fundamentally unhealthy

about an area of study that has such infinite potential and yet seems to exhibit what

appears to be so relatively limited an imagination.

Has the revolutionary fervour given way to systematic development of smaller and

smaller issues in the interests of publication and research assessment? Is the

complexity of the issues addressed in social accounting research a function of the

research tools and modes of scholarship and publication which are considered

currently acceptable? Alternatively is there something about accountants (Medawar,

1976, Hopwood, 1985) that encourages conformity and, at its extremes, the

inability/reluctance to escape the “epistemology of modernity” as Lehman has it

(Lehman, 2006; 2007). Additionally, it appears that there are conservative tendencies

in academe itself (Tuttle and Dillard, 2007).

So, although social accounting might succeed in attracting accounting academics

dissatisfied with the mainstream and who have some wish to undertake an

engagement closer to matters of `real’ (not exclusively economic) concern and

importance, perhaps neither we as individuals nor as a community possess the

capacity or imagination to research absence (Choudhury, 1988) or silence (Hines,

1992) in new and innovative ways. Social accounting research has, for example, few

theorists. Consequently it seems to rely inordinately on either some very loose

approximation to normal science or the work of, for example, Lehman, Power and

Tinker. We continue to struggle with the ways to energise imagination and produce a

literature of imagination and engagement (Gray, 2002; but see later). Such an

absence leaves us open to charges of failure from theoretical communities. More

substantially, we would have to accept that while most social accountants (see

18 For more on this see Gray (2005); Parker (2005); Deegan (2007).13


below) explicitly recognise that social accounting is “interested”, it is probably the

case that the full extent of that interest has not been carefully explored, understood

and exposed (see, for example, Hopwood, 1985; Lehman, 2006).

Furthermore, it seems important to note that there would appear to be a high degree

of self-discipline in the work that is undertaken in social accounting. That is,

speculation and proposals for practice in the literature are probably unlike to sit too

far from what is currently considered to be the art of the possible. Speculations about

the consequences of (for example): profoundly reducing the volume of financial

accounting; producing accounts through poetry; developing full TBL accounts;

applying full dialogic accounting systems19 to all TNCs, etc.; are scarce. Are they a

victim of self-discipline? Would journals refuse to distinguish between such careful

speculation and indulgent arm waving and incoherent assertion? This may well be an

issue that academe needs to sort out.

This leads to a significant point: social accounting academe is so often limited to

being a function of current social accounting practice20. Research is largely limited by

an activity that is a function of international financial capitalistic hegemony. In a

remarkable sense, we find ourselves only able to study that which power will allow us

to study – how revolutionary is that? This is not a new phenomenon21 – nor is it

limited to social accounting. But it certainly offers a challenge to any project which

wishes to be both innovative and reformist (perhaps even revolutionary) when the

empirical terms of the work must be negotiated in unfairly balanced contracts with the

very organisations one wishes to change.

So, whilst there might be a case that social accounting is currently not obviously

building a new or revitalised project, it has achieved a great deal. The social and

environmental language of business, accounting and finance has changed; claims for

19 See, for example, Thomson and Bebbington, (2005)

20 One of the most remarkable recent manifestations of this must surely be the almost complete absence of any “carbon accounting” in the social accounting literature. With the largely unprecedented adoption of “carbon“ as a focal point by both business and policy, we predict an upsurge in interest in carbon accounting and, somewhat belatedly, an academic literature on it

21 The irony here is that much early social accounting research managed to gain some empirical traction through the cataloguing and analysis of disclosure in annual reports as a way to provide the subject with some reification and validity. Do we remain haunted by this initiative?

14


accountability by capital have been shown to be empty; through the analysis of

“completeness”, voluntary disclosure has been exposed as cherry picking; the claims

for responsibility and sustainability are exposed as hollow; and we do now know how

to undertake substantial social, environmental and sustainability reporting. The claim

that “it cannot be done” is no longer tenable. And each of these achievements has

been made within the language and terms of business - and ought to be less

refutable as a result. (That business – and most of business academe - chooses to

ignore them is not entirely the fault of social accounting).

Engagement with practice and policy

The social accounting academic community can take some (in places considerable)

credit for innovations: the leading edge reporting by “values-based” organisations like

Traidcraft and Landcare; the experiments in accounting for sustainability in Landcare

and BP; the engagement and support of SRI and its community; work with trades

unions; work with social accounting in third sector organisations; the policy

developments of GRI, ISEA and, especially, the ACCA (and now worldwide)

reporting awards; the EMAN project and so on. These (and other such examples) are

not trivial achievements in any sense. However, the community has really (of course)

failed to transform capitalism (!?) and whilst it has supported the growth in

increasingly substantive social and environmental reporting, it has not managed to

encourage mainstream organisations to adopt full social and environmental

accountability. Perhaps most telling, social accounting academics – and practitioners

have had mixed success in burrowing into policy, government, regulation with some

successes reported in Australia and Denmark and less obvious impacts in (say) the

UK and USA.

It seems inevitable that our exploration must take us into a brief examination of the

social accounting “community” itself.

4. A Social Accounting Community?If there is such a thing as a social accounting “community” it is a somewhat

amorphous and shifting one: whether considered by reference to its personnel or by

reference to its interests22. In the early years the range of interests that were initially 22 We will maintain an heroic and potentially improper assumption that there is a social accounting project and that such a project can be conflated with CSEAR and its network. Of course this is facile and some major actors have (it seems) actively disavowed involvement with the CSEAR network, (such as, for example, Everett, Neu, Friedman and Miles, Gallhofer and Haslam). Other work, most obviously that appearing in the North American positivist

15


considered with the ambit of social accounting was extremely diverse and seemed to

encourage anything which was not hard, mainstream accounting: issues in lesser

developed countries, behavioural aspects of accounting, accounting for employees

and value added statements all appeared in the pages the Social Accounting Monitor

(SAM). SAM, however, probably served a more important role than encouraging the

parameters of a field to develop: its existence from the late 1970s until 1992 (when it

was transmuted by CSEAR into the Social and Environmental Accounting Journal)

provided the first hints of an emergent community that wanted to talk to others of

vaguely similar interests23. This desire manifested itself in the formation of CSEAR in

1991 and has remained a fairly dominant characteristic of the community since. It is

as though through some sense of being marginalised, a range of individuals (mostly

but by no means all accounting academics) have felt a need for community and so a

the community is formed.

We suspect it is more than this though. At the heart of social accounting one does

not find some coherent notion of intellectual structure (despite the attempts by some

of us to make it so). A serious interrogation would probably suggest that a collective

sense of beleaguerment and marginalization contribute more to group cohesion than

does intellectual coherence or shared political vision. However, central to the heart

of the social accounting movement is a set of shared values – in effect, an epistemic

community. These values are not necessarily consciously about being marginalised

but are almost certainly about wanting something which is not the traditional

(accounting) academic and practitioner experience and, at least tacitly, are grounded

in a commitment to democracy. There is a shared notion that we must move back

from the compartmentalisation of life and that life lived without a reflective notion of

the good life at its heart, is no life at all.

This brings us to two speculations of potential interest. First, it may actually be that

for most members of the social accounting community, the social accounting project

is either relatively unimportant or not a matter on which a collective view is needed.

journals would probably not be any part of a social accounting project – except as a straw person for the purposes of occasional illustration. In 2006, CSEAR undertook a self-evaluation exercise designed to ensure an inclusive ambience rather than a clique-y or exclusive attitude. In addition, personnel are not consistent: for example, key characters such as Ralph Estes, Marc Epstein and Trevor Gambling made many substantive contributions to the field and then moved off to consultancy and activism and retirement (although Epstein returning more recently, see, for example, Epstein and Freedman, 1994; Epstein, 2008).

23 The role of Reg Mathews in this construction of a community is celebrated in Gray and Guthrie (2007)

16


That is, it maybe that the social accounting community is the project and it is the

existence of a place where individuals can think and talk freely, supported (in

perhaps warm but vague and un-critical ways) that makes the community. There is

little doubt that new accountings are going to need places where the noise of

individualist clutter does not drown out the silence and poetry of community.

Therefore, it might be that any attempt to articulate the project (as opposed to

articulation of a project around which a community may assemble) could be seriously

counter-productive. Such articulations could expose differences which could destroy

community, (as, indeed, many examples of research into the calculable and explicit

have shown - see, for example, Dey et al 1995). Maybe attempts to articulate the

social accounting project are actually very personal, almost solipsistic articulations

and of no formal community value – except that each acknowledge the right –

perhaps even duty – of each to make such an articulation24.

If this is the case, then it may be worth speculating upon the possibility that “social

accounting” is an empty – or at least a floating – signifier (Laclau1990; 1996; 2005;

Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). The term has no fixed meaning – nor should it. It is a

label under which people of incoherent desire and dissatisfaction meet to exchange

poetry in arena which explicitly eschew the aggressive testosterone of other

academic displays. And maybe this is all it is? But from this ill-formed empty signifier

has emerged a community and substantial body of research that, having achieved a

good deal, now (we think) needs to be re-energised.

The social accounting `community’ has used its networks, its communications, its

journals, and its conferences to tease out new and innovative ideas; they are places

where (albeit a limited expression of) the speculative, the personal and the spiritual

can sit alongside the conventionally rigorous, the engaged and the publishable. Any

sense of a/the project stalling is wrong then. There is no “project” as such. Repetition

and mundane research are the manifestations of the apprenticeship that new

academics have to pass through; to demand only novelty in an increasingly busy

area maybe foolish. `Normal science’ is also the currency of the realm of the

academy – the bedrock of traditional scholarship. No discipline, as we currently

conceive them, can exist without it. And maybe what we are facing is now a period of

recharging and renewal grounded in a broader and deeper base. If imagination is

important, then the social accounting community needs to provide a context whereby

24 “Hello, my name is Social Accounting and I am a paradigm”.17


innovation can germinate – is, perhaps, even demanded. But we also need to find a

way to apply these imaginings in ways which are both communicable and rigorous: a

need for innovation is no excuse for indulgence and triviality.

5. Imagination, Social Accounts and the FutureAs a response to Lehman’s (2006; 2007) exhortations to abandon the epistemology

of economic modernity and to escape its “economic terms of reference” (2006, p767)

and Shenkin and Coulson’s (2007) counsel to move from the “corpo-centrism” of

most social accounting, we would wish re-empower a sort of Brechtian adherence to

doubt and imagination and a seeking out of a greater authenticity as Sartre would

have it. And, at its heart, we would wish to maintain a key notion of guilt about

injustice that acts as an imperative to ensure that our awesome privilege to engage

with these issues is as close (in a Rawlsian sense) to the issues of concern as we

can make them. This is scholarship as a path to redemption and wisdom not as a

career option or the trappings of a life of leisure (or “academic labour”)25.

Whilst we may continue to struggle with the ways to energise imagination and

produce a literature of imagination and engagement (Gray, 2002; Adams and

Larrinaga, 2007) we have already seen that much important work takes place in

social accounting. In addition to the success with experimentation and, in particular,

the qualified success with accounting for (un) sustainability (see, for example,

Bebbington, 2007; Spence and Gray, 2008). The innovative use of a social account

by Cooper et al., (2005) offers a remarkably powerful way to switch the accounting

entity and engage directly with issues of policy. The early work on both social audits

and empowering “stakeholder” groups has a long and noble history (see, for

example, Harte and Owen , 1987; Geddes, 1991; and see especially Owen, 2007a)

and this has gained a new lease of life in recent years with initiatives such as the

CSEAR silent and shadow accounts; what Adams calls the reporting portrayal gap

and what Gallhofer et al. rediscover as counter-accounting, (Gibson et al., 2001a;

2001b; Adams 2004; Gallhofer et al., 2006). There is likely to be a very considerable

series of opportunities to offer alternative accountings in a variety of settings.

25 See Bebbington and Dillard (2007) for a robust development of this suggestion.

18


Such recognitions can encourage us to cast our net yet wider26. For example,

Collison et al (2007) and Gray (2006) offer ways in which global or national level data

may be employed to change the focus of how we conceive of the accounting entity

and thereby challenge much empty rhetoric in corporate modernity whilst the dialogic

accounting suggested by Thomson and Bebbington (2005) offers a new de-centred

approach to accounts. What we have here, in all probability, are the emergent

threads of new conceptions of what a social account might become.

But it may well be in the public and the third sectors where the most vibrant examples

of and opportunities for new accountings reside. Whilst for many such organisations

the drivers for social accountability may be broadly economic in nature, the values

which underpin the purpose of the organisation and its activities are more likely to be

in tune with the anxieties of the social accounting community. Seeking out the

contours of values-based organisations – whether social enterprise or NGO, for

example - and seeking to actively work with their creation offers considerable

promise, (see, for example, Spreckley, 1997; Quarter et al, 2003; Capron and Gray,

2000;Young and Tilley, 2006 ).

Beyond this lies the even more tantalising prospect of seeking the transformation of

conventional organisations to “new models” whatever that might be. Many of the

ingredients will lie in values based organisations and in NGOs and community

businesses and their social audits can become the seed of these processes perhaps.

(See, for interest, Ball, 2007)27.

What we are driving towards here are accountability regimes that are more actively

normative and that start to look more like, and may indeed act in partnership with, the

better forms of journalism. To summarize, we propose three interrelated strata of

activity for those who comprise the social accounting project. The first is the

conceptualization of new things through innovation in imagination. The second is to

identify and describe new modes of accountability being contemplated or used by

practitioners and third sector organizations. Third, develop new accounts of new or

26 We would acknowledge a suggestion from Alan Lowe at this point in which he notes that the pragmatic approach to change which has often informed the social accounting community bears a more than passing resemblance to the arguments of Bruno Latour and Actor Network Theory – a matter deserving of further exploration, (see, for example, Latour, 2005).

27 Perhaps worthy of note are the efforts of a colleague at St Andrews University, Nick Barter, whose PhD is intended to articulate just such an idea.

19


different entities in different units with different notions of usefulness and

accountability. For this to happen, we speculate that the social accounting community

may need to make a number of conscious decisions.

Perhaps the most obvious of these decisions would be to learn how to escape the

dead hand of business hegemony on the thoughts actions and self-disciplined

imaginations of social accounting. We suspect that, without necessarily embracing

the often intellectually lazy kant of remote revolution, we must learn to treat any

notion that the economic power of the business world necessarily provides any sort

of morally or intellectually valid warranty to intellectual endeavour as entirely absurd.

We must learn a language that makes this absurdity evident and find empirical

domains whose engagement is not subject to the conservative reluctance of capital.

This is not to suggest that all associated with business must be held in contempt;

quite the opposite. It is, however, to ensure that the business of business is not

thinking and researching; that is the business of academe. If the social accounting

community is to the develop, getting out from under business hegemony may be an

essential step. Abandoning accounting for organisations – at least commercial

organisations - may, it seems, also prove an inevitable further step.

Equally obvious, and following from the foregoing, is the need to embrace more

actively the excellent and diverse work that takes place in the third and public

sectors. For those who have laboured in this field both within (see, for example,

Burritt and Welch, 1997; Cotton et al, 1997; Spedding, 1997; Lewis, 2000; Quarter et

al., 2003; Ball and Grubnic, 2007;) and without (see, for example, Zadek and Evans,

1992; Raynard, 1995; Spreckley, 1997; Pearce, 2003; Pearce and Kay, 2005;)

academe, such a suggestion must seem galling in its presumption. And yet here, as

with the social enterprise and values-based organisation sectors (see, for example,

De Leeuw, 1995; Capron and Gray, 2000; Gray et al., 1997; Dey, 2007), there is

relatively little that has systematically found its way into the academic literature (as

far as we know, that is). There is more important work to be done here in

systematically refining and evaluating this work and laying foundations for more

developed academic study. (See, especially, Ball and Grubnic, 2007; O’Dwyer, 2007;

Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2006 for important initiatives in this area.)

So, let us finish with a call to arms. Let us replace theory and normal science with dirt

under the fingernails. Let us be explicitly and daily conscious of our privilege and

20


seek an empathy with a mother who cannot provide a drink of water for her son or a

father who cannot protect his daughter. Let us maintain a watchful eye on a planet

which will threaten our children’s existence. Let us only ever account for these things.

Maybe we can learn how nature accounts – if at all. Maybe we must learn how we

account, person to person, how market alien values (Thiellemann, 2000) are the stuff

of human existence; and how commerce is valuable but dangerous. Maybe we are

stretching towards a new empowerment of accountability and accounting as

language – a re-examination of, for example, Cooper (1995); Hanninen (1995);

Mouck (1994); Simmons and Neu (1997); Harney (2006) and looking beyond the

imagination suggested there to a place where we study social accountability as the

very glue that binds persons together and which separates persons from their nature.

We need to learn new ways to authentically grant warranty in debate and deny all

suppression from others. We should abandon that which cannot be seen as

commensurate with a good life, and expose our taken for granted assumptions more

explicitly – despite the discomfort that will bring.

We may learn to transform old organisations or to build a “new model” of entity. We

may very well enjoin an abandonment of organisations as entities altogether.

Perhaps we can respond to the analysis of Albrow and Glasius (2008) and focus on a

new global civil society embedded in new and better understood forms of

communication and democracy. Maybe then we will face the conflicts and decide

who will suffer in the transition to a less unjust world. We suggest that closeness and

authenticity will become our criteria and a recognition of absurdity our chief weapon.

21


REFERENCES

Abercrombie N., S.Hill & B.S.Turner (1984) Dictionary of Sociology (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin)

Accounting Standards (formerly Steering) Committee (1975) The Corporate Report (London: ICAEW)

Adams C. (2004) “The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 17(5) (pp731-757)

Adams C.A. and C. Larrinaga-González (2007) “Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accountability and performance” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 20(3) pp333-355

Albrow M. and M. Glasius (2008) “Democracy and the possibility of a global public sphere” in Albrow M., H.Anheir, M. Glasius, M. Price and M. Kaldor (eds) Global Civil Society 2007/8 (London: Sage) pp1-18

American Accounting Association (1973) "Report of the committee on environmental effects of organisational behaviour" The Accounting Review Supplement to Vol.XLVIII

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1977) The measurement of corporate social performance (New York: AICPA)

Andrew J. (2000) "The accounting craft and the environmental crisis: Reconsidering environmental ethics" Accounting Forum 24(2) June (pp197-222)

Annisette M (2000) “Imperialism and the professions: The education and certification of accountants in Trinidad and Tobago” Accounting Organizations and Society 25(6) (pp631-659)

Arrington C.E. & J.R.Francis (1993) "Giving economic accounts: Accounting as cultural practice" Accounting, Organizations and Society 18(2/3) (pp107-124)

Arrington C.E. & A.G.Puxty (1991) "Accounting, interests and rationality: A communicative relation" Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2(1) (pp31-58)

Baker C. R. (2006) “Action research and social engagement” paper presented at the 2006 IPA Conference, Cardiff University, July 2006

Ball A., (2007) “Environmental accounting as workplace activism” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18(2) pp759-778

Ball A., and S.Grubnic (2007) “Sustainability accounting and accountability in the public sector” in Unerman J., J. Bebbington nad B. O’Dwyer (2207) eds Sustainability Accounting and Accountability (London: Routledge) pp243-265

Bebbington, J. (2007). Accounting for Sustainable Development Performance, (London: CIMA)

Bebbington J. and J. Dillard (2007) “What really counts” Accounting Forum Vol.31 2007 (pp99-105)

Burritt R. & S. Welch (1997) "Accountability for environmental performance of the Australian Commonwealth public sector" Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10(4) (pp532-561)

22


Butler, J., Laclau, E and Zizek, S. (2000) (eds), Contingency, Hegemony and Universality, Verso, London, pp.44-89.

Capron M. and R. H. Gray (2000) “Experimenting with assessing corporate social responsibility in France: an exploratory note on an initiative by social economy firms” European Accounting Review 9(1) (pp99-109)

Choudhury N. (1988) "The Seeking of Accounting Where it is Not: Towards a Theory of Non-Accounting in Organizational Settings" Accounting, Organizations and Society 13(6) (pp549-557)

Collison D.J., C. Dey, G. Hannah and L. Stevenson, (2007) “Income inequality and child mortality in wealthy nations” Journal of Public Health March (pp1-4)

Cooper C. (1992) "The Non and Nom of Accounting for (M)other Nature" Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 5(3) (pp16-39)

Cooper C. (1995) “Ideology, Hegemony and Accounting Discourse: A case study of the national union of journalists” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 6(2) (pp175-209)

Cooper, C., Dunn, J. & Puxty, A. (1992) "Anxious Murderers?- Death Drives in Accounting", paper presented at British Accounting Association Scottish Area Group Conferences, Dundee, 10 September 1992

Cooper, C., P. Taylor, N. Smith and L. Catchpowle (2005) “A discussion of the political potential of social accounting” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16 (pp951-974)

Cooper D.J. & T.M. Hopper (eds) Critical Accounts (Basingstoke: Macmillan) 1990

Cotton P., I. Fraser and W.Y.Hill (1997) “Piloting the social audit in primary health care” Social and Environmental Accounting Journal 17(2) September (pp7-10)

Deegan C. (2007) “Social Accounting Research: An Australasian perspective” in Gray R.H. and J. Guthrie (eds) Social Accounting, Mega Accounting and beyond: A Festschrift in Honour of M. R. Mathews (St Andrews: CSEAR Publishing) pp11-22

Dey C. (2007) Social accounting at Traidcraft plc: a struggle for the meaning of fair trade” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 20(3) pp 423-445

Dey C., R.Evans & R.H.Gray (1995) "Towards social information systems and bookkeeping: A note on developing the mechanisms for social accounting and audit" Journal of Applied Accounting Research 2(3) December

Epstein M (2004) “The Identification, Measurement and Reporting of Corporate Social Impacts: Past, present and future” Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management Volume 2, (pp1-29)

Epstein M. J. (2008) “Making Sustainability Work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts” (Sheffield: Greenleaf)

Epstein M.J. and M.Freedman (1994) "Social disclosure and the individual investor" Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 7(4) (pp94-109)

Everett J. (2007) “Fact, desire and lack in Deegan and Soltys’s `Social Accounting Research: An Australasian perspective’” Accounting Forum Vol.31 2007 (pp91-97)

Everett J., and D.Neu (2000) "Ecological modernization and the limits of environmental accounting" Accounting Forum 24(1) March (pp5-29)

23


Gallhofer S. & J.Haslam (1997) "The direction of green accounting policy: critical reflections" Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10(2) (pp148-196)

Gallhofer S. & J.Haslam (1997) "Beyond accounting: The possibilities of accounting and critical accounting research" Critical Perspectives on Accounting 8(1/2) Feb/April (pp71-96)

Gallhofer S., J. Haslam, E. Monk, C. Roberts (2006) “The emancipatory potential of online reporting: The case of counter accounting” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 19(5) (pp. 681-718)

Geddes M. (1991) "The social audit movement" in D.L.Owen (ed) Green Reporting (London: Chapman Hall) (pp215-241)

Gibson K., R. Gray, Y. Laing and C. Dey (2001) The Silent Accpunts project: Draft Silent and Shadow Accounts Tesco plc 1999-2000 (Glasgow: CSEAR) www.st-andrews.ac.uk/management/csear

Gibson K., R. Gray, Y. Laing and C. Dey (2001) The Silent Accpunts project: Draft Silent and Shadow Accounts HSBC Holdings 1999-2000 (Glasgow: CSEAR) www.st-andrews.ac.uk/management/csear

Gray R.H. (1990) The Greening of Accountancy: The profession after Pearce London: ACCA.

Gray R.H. (1992) "Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability" Accounting Organisations and Society 17(5) July (pp399-426).

Gray R.H. (1997) "The silent practice of social accounting and corporate social reporting in companies" in Zadek S., R.Evans & P.Pruzan (eds) Building Corporate Accountability: Emerging practices in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting (London: Earthscan) pp201-217

Gray R.H. (2002) “The Social Accounting Project and Accounting Organizations and Society: Privileging Engagement, Imaginings, New Accountings and Pragmatism over Critique” Accounting Organizations and Society 27(7) October (pp687-708)

Gray R.H.(2002b) "Of messiness, systems and sustainability: Towards a more social and environmental finance and accounting" British Accounting Review 34(4) December 2002 (pp357-386)

Gray R.H. (2004) “Why is social accounting so difficult? Part 1” Social and Environmental Accounting Journal 24(1) (pp12-17)

Gray R.H. (2005) “Taking A Long View on what we now know about Social and Environmental Accountability and Reporting” (Electronic Journal) Radical Organization Theory 9(1) December (pp1-31) http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot

Gray, R., (2006), “Social, Environmental, and Sustainability Reporting and Organisational Value Creation? Whose Value? Whose Creation?” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 19(3) (pp319-348)

Gray R.H., K.J.Bebbington, D.J.Collison, R.Kouhy, B.Lyon, C.Reid, A.Russell & L.Stevenson (1998) The valuation of assets and liabilities: Environmental law and the impact of the environmental agenda for business (Edinburgh: ICAS)

Gray R.H. and D.J.Collison (2002) “Can’t See The Wood For The Trees, Can’t See The Trees For The Numbers? Accounting Education, Sustainability And The Public Interest” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 13(5/6) (pp797-836)

24

http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/management/csear

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/management/csear


Gray R.H., & D.J.Collison with J.French, K.McPhail & L.Stevenson (2001) The professional accountancy bodies and the provision of education and training in relation to environmental issues (Edinburgh: ICAS)

Gray R.H., C.Dey, D.Owen, R.Evans, S.Zadek (1997) "Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures" Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10(3) pp325-364

Gray R.H. and J. Guthrie (2007) (eds) Social Accounting, Mega Accounting and beyond: A Festschrift in Honour of M. R. Mathews (St Andrews: CSEAR Publishing)

Gray R.H., D.L. Owen & C.Adams (1996) Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting (London: Prentice Hall)

Hanninen S. (1995) "Accountability lost? An environmental struggle over the economic feasibility of incineration" Accounting Organizations and Society 20(2/3) (pp175-192)

Harney S. (2006) “Management and self activity: Accounting for the crisis in profit-taking” Critical Persepctives on Accounting 17(7) November (pp935-946)

Harte G. & D.L. Owen (1987) "Fighting de-industrialisation: the role of local government social audits" Accounting, Organizations and Society 12(2) (pp123-142)

Hibbitt C. and D.J. Collison (2004) “Corporate Environmental Disclosure and Reporting Developments in Europe” Social and Environmental Accounting Journal 24(1) (pp1-11)

Hines R.D. (1988) "Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality" Accounting, Organizations and Society 13(3) (pp251-261)

Hines R.D. (1992) "Accounting: Filling the Negative Space" Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(3/4) (pp313-342)

Hopwood A.G. (1978) "Social accounting - the way ahead" in Social Accounting (London: CIPFA) (pp53-64)

Hughes S.B., J. F. Sander and J. C. Reier (2000) "Do Environmental Disclosure in US Annual Reports Differ by Environmental Performance?", Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management Vol 1 (pp141-161)

Hopwood A.G. (1985) “The tale of the committee that never reported: Disagreements on intertwining accounting with the social” Accounting Organizations and Society 10(3) pp361-377

Jones M.J. (1996) "Accounting for biodiversity: A pilot study" British Accounting Review 28(4) December (pp281-303)

Kolk A. (2003) “Trends in Sustainability Reporting by the Fortune Global 250” Business Strategy and the Environment 12(5) September-October (pp279-291)

Kolk A. (2008) “Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring Multinationals’ reporting practices” Business Strategy and the Environment 17(1) pp1-15

Kolk A., R.vanTulder and C.Welters (1999) “International codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility: Can transnational corporations regulate themselves?” Transnational Corporations 8(1) April (pp143-180)

Korten D.C. (1995) When Corporations Rule the World (West Hatford/San Francisco: Kumarian/Berrett-Koehler)

25


KPMG (1999) KPMG International Survey of Environmental Reporting 1999 (Amsterdam: KPMG/WIMM)

KPMG (2002) KPMG 4th International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting (Amsterdam: KPMG/WIMM)

KPMG (2005) KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility 2005 (Amsterdam: KPMG International)

Laclau, E. (1990). New Reflections on the Revolution of our Time, Verso Books, London.

Laclau, E. (1996). “The death and resurrection of the theory of ideology”, Journal of Political Ideologies, vol. 1 (3), pp. 201-220.

Laclau, E. (2005). On Populist Reason. Verso, London.

Laclau, E and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Verso, London.

Laine M. (2006) “Still the kiss of death: A personal reflection on encountering the mainstream paradigm as a PhD student” Social and Environmental Accounting Journal 26(2) September (pp9-13)

Latour B (2005) “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik: or how to Make Things Public” in Latour B. and P. Weibel (eds) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy (London: MIT Press) pp 1-32

Laughlin R.C. (1999) "Critical accounting: nature, progress and prognosis" Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 12.1 (pp73-76)

Lehman G. (1999) "Disclosing new worlds: a role for social and environmental accounting and auditing" Accounting Organizations and Society 24(3) April (pp217-242)

Lehman G., (2001) “Reclaiming the Public Sphere: Problems and prospects for corporate social and environmental accounting” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12(6) December (pp713-733)

Lehman G. (2006) “Perspectives on language, accountability and critical accounting: An interpretative perspective” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17 (pp755-779)

Lehman, (2007) “Ethics, Communitarianism and Social Accounting” in Gray R.H. and J. Guthrie (eds) Social Accounting, Mega Accounting and beyond: A Festschrift in Honour of M. R. Mathews (St Andrews: CSEAR Publishing) pp35-42

Leipziger D. (2003) The Corporate Responsibility Code Book (Sheffield: Greenleaf)

Lewis L. (2000) "Environmental Audits in Local Government: A useful means to progress in sustainable development" Accounting Forum 24(3) September (pp296-318)

McPhail K. (1999) “The threat of ethical accountants: An application of Foucault’s concept of ethics to accounting education and some thoughts on ethically educating for the other” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 10(6) pp833-866

Mathews M.R. (1984) "A suggested classification for social accounting research" Journal of Accounting and Public Policy Vol.3 Fall (pp199-221)

Mathews, M.R. (1997) "Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate?" Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10.4 (pp481-531)

26


Medawar C. (1976) "The social audit: a political view" Accounting, Organizations and Society 1(4) (pp389-394)

Milne (2007) “Downsizing Reg (Me and You)!: Addressing the `real’ sustainability agenda at work and home” in Gray R.H. and J. Guthrie (eds) Social Accounting, Mega Accounting and beyond: A Festschrift in Honour of M. R. Mathews (St Andrews: CSEAR Publishing) pp49-66

Milne M., A. Ball and R. Gray (2007) Paper presented at the Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference (APIRA), Auckland, 2007

Milne M.J., K .N. Kearins and S. Walton (2006) “Creating adventures in wonderland? The journey metaphor and environmental sustainability” Organization 13(6) (pp801-839)

Morgan G. (1988) "Accounting as Reality Construction: Toward a new epistemology for accounting practice" Accounting, Organizations and Society 13(5) (pp477-485)

Mouck T. (1994) "Corporate Accountability and Rorty's Utopian Liberalisim" Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 7(1) (pp6-30)

Neu D., H.Warsame, and K.Pedwell (1998) "Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports" Accounting Organizations and Society 23(3) April (pp265-282)

O’Dwyer B., (2007) “The nature of NGO accountability: motives, mechanisms and practice” in Unerman J., J. Bebbington and B. O’Dwyer (2007) (Eds) Sustainability Accounting and Accountability (London: Routledge) pp285-306

Owen D. (2007a) “ Social and Environmental Accounting: Celebrating a silver jubilee of engagement and community” in Gray R.H. and J. Guthrie (2007) (eds) Social Accounting, Mega Accounting and beyond: A Festschrift in Honour of M. R. Mathews (St Andrews: CSEAR Publishing) pp67-76

Owen (2007b) Paper presented at the Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference (APIRA), Auckland, 2007

Parker L. D. (2005) “Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 18(6) 2005 (pp842-860)

Pearce J. (2003) Social Enterprise In Anytown (London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation)

Pearce J. and A. Kay (2005) Social Accounting And Audit: The Manual (and CD) (Edinburgh: Social Audit Network)

Porritt J (2005) Capitalism: as if the world matters (London: Earthscan)

Power M. and R. Laughlin (1992) "Critical theory and accounting" in M.Alvesson and H.Willmott (eds) Critical Management Studies (London: Sage) (pp113-135)

Puxty A.G. (1986) "Social accounting as immanent legitimation: A critique of a technist ideology" Advances in Public Interest Accounting Vol.1 (pp95-112)

Puxty A.G. (1991) "Social accountability and universal pragmatics" Advances in Public Interest Accounting Vol.4 (pp35-46)

Quarter J., L. Mook and B. J. Richmond (2003) What Counts: Social Accounting for Nonprofits and Cooperatives (New Jersey: Prentice Hall)

Raynard P. (1995) "The New Economics Foundation's Social Audit: Auditing the auditors?" Social and Environmental Accounting 15(1) 1995 (pp7-10)

27


Sampson A. (2004) Who runs this place? The anatomy of Britain in the 21st Century (London: John Murray)

Schaltegger S. and R.Burritt (2000) Contemporary Environmental Accounting: Issues, concepts and practices (Sheffield: Greenleaf)

Schumacher E.F. (1973) Small is beautiful (London: Abacus)

Shenkin M. and A. B. Coulson (2007) “Accountability through activism: learning from Bourdieu” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 20(2) (pp297-317)

Simmons C. and D. Neu (1996) "Managing social disclosures: The cost of social responsibility report" Journal of Applied Accounting Research 3(1) pp35-58

Solomons D. (1974) "Corporate social performance - a new dimension in accounting reports?" in Edey H. and B.S.Yamey (eds) Debits, Credits, Finance and Profits (London: Sweet and Maxwell) pp131-141

Spedding L. (1997) "Environmental accounting and management" Public Eye 22 Oct/Dec (pp7)

Spence C. and R. Gray (2008 forthcoming) Social and Environmental Reporting and the Business Case (London: ACCA)

Spreckley F. (1997) "Has social audit a role in community enterprise and cooperative organisations?" Social and Environmental Accounting Journal 17(2) Septemeber (pp16-18)

Thielemann U. (2000) “A brief theory of the market – ethically focused” International Journal of Social Economics 27(1) (pp6-31)

Thomson I. and J. Bebbington (2005) “Social and environmental reporting in the UK: a pedagogic evaluation” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16(5) July (pp 507-533)

Tinker A.M. (1984) (ed) Social accounting for corporations (Manchester: MUP)

Tinker T., Lehman C., and M.Neimark (1991) “Corporate social reporting: Falling down the hole in the middle of the road” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 4(1) (pp28-54)

Tuttle B. and J. Dillard (2007) “Beyond Competition: institutional isomorphism in US accounting” Accounting Horizons 21(4) December (pp387-409)

Unerman J., J. Bebbington and B. O’Dwyer (2007) (Eds) Sustainability Accounting and Accountability (London: Routledge)

Unerman J., and B. O’Dwyer (2006) “Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 19(3) (pp349-376)

Ybema S. (2004) “Managerial postalgia: Projecting a golden future” Journal of Managerial Psychology 19(8) December (pp825-841)

Young W. and F. Tilley (2006) “Can business move beyond efficiency? The shift toward effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate” Business Strategy and the Environment 15. (pp402-415)

Zadek S. & R. Evans (1992) Auditing the Market:A Practical Approach to Social Accounting (London: New Economics Foundation)

28


29

social accounting research

Documents