25 Years of SEAR Within CPA Deegan 2016

Critical Perspectives on Accounting 43 (2017) 65–87
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Critical Perspectives on Accounting

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cpa
Twenty five years of social and environmental accounting

research within Critical Perspectives of Accounting: Hits, misses
and ways forward
Craig Deegan
School of Accounting, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 29 April 2015 This commentary provides a reflection on 25 years of social and environmental accounting
Received in revised form 7 January 2016 (SEA) research within Critical Perspectives of Accounting (CPA). It is shown that CPA has
Accepted 17 June 2016 been a major vehicle for disseminating SEA research with the published research coming
Available online 1 July 2016 from a variety of ‘critical’, ‘middle-of-the-road’, and ‘managerial’ perspectives. A number of
topic areas attract attention with the most populated topic area relating to ‘new
Keywords: imaginings’ of accounting, with useful insights provided in terms of the use of counter,
Social and environmental accounting shadow, and dialogic accounts’ which reflect multiple voices and perspectives. It is
Accountability
emphasised within the commentary that SEA researchers need to examine the political
Engagement
foundations of their work. Important issues associated with SEA researchers’ role with
engagement (both in terms of how they are undertaking their research, as well as where
they are disseminating their results), in challenging existing practice, and in fostering a
more enlightened and balanced form of education are also addressed.
ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The editors of this journal kindly asked me to reflect on the last 25 years of social and environmental accounting (SEA)
research, and in particular, Critical Perspectives on Accounting’s (CPA’s) contribution to the ongoing debate. As somebody who
coincidentally has been publishing in this area for almost 25 years this was a fascinating request and one that required a deal
of reflection both of others and of self particularly in relation to the contribution and positive change (if any) created
from this diverse body of work. The last 25 years has indeed been an interesting (albeit also somewhat frightening and
alarming) period when it comes to the global state of society and the environment, and accounting’s potential contribution
both positive and negative to this state.
Whilst many people might argue that during the last 25 years there have been many positive initiatives globally in
relation to societies and environments, the reality is that social inequities continue to abound with increasing numbers of
people being displaced or subject to some form of workplace injustices, urban violence and/or not having access to basic
requirements of life, and the state of the environment in general seems to be getting worse with accelerating species
extinctions, climate change, deforestation, desertification, land and water pollution, over population; the list goes on
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014; Garnaut, 2011; Stern, 2006). Corporations, financial markets, quests for
continuous economic growth (which obviously are not sustainable in the presence of continuing damage to the environment
E-mail address: craig.deegan@rmit.edu.au (C. Deegan).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2016.06.005
1045-2354/ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
66 C. Deegan / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 43 (2017) 65–87
and to societies), markets for managers (and associated incentivisation practices), government action/inaction, consumers,
educators, accounting and accountability (and a lack thereof) are all central elements to these problems.
So what has been the contribution of SEA research? As a research community, do we have something to celebrate? Has
‘accounting’ contributed towards resolving any problems within societies and environments, or has it contributed to the
problems? How has CPA addressed, and potentially helped, solve some of the problems or isn’t the issue of solving real
social and environmental problems within the remit of accounting journals? These issues, and more, will be considered in
this commentary.
The balance of this commentary will be organised as follows. I will start with an overview of possible meanings that can
be attributed to SEA which will then be followed by a brief overview of what SEA research is perceived to address. I will then
consider the role of CPA in the wider debate about SEA as well as providing an overview of the number of SEA publications
appearing in CPA over 25 years. Broad comments will then be made about the philosophical perspectives embraced across
the publications, followed by a summary of the topic areas covered within those publications. Various insights provided
within the various topic areas will then be highlighted and a concluding section of the commentary provides a reflection
upon the SEA publications within CPA, and elsewhere, in respect of ‘hit, misses and ways forward’.
2. What is social and environmental accounting?
This commentary focuses on research into SEA in itself a somewhat nebulous term as SEA can take many different
forms. Broadly speaking, SEA can be thought to relate to the preparation and capture of information to inform stakeholders
(within and outside the organisation) about an organisation’s impact on the societies and environments in which it operates
(including, past, present, and future societies and environments). Of course, such a definition is too broad to be operational as
questions remain about many issues, including the nature and breadth of the reporting entity, the extent of impacts to
consider, and the stakeholders to which related ‘accounts’ are due. A somewhat more articulate definition is provided by
Gray and Laughlin (2012, p. 240) who state (and they use the more general term ‘social accounting’):
Social accounting is concerned with exploring how the social and environmental activities undertaken (or not, as the case
may be) by different elements of a society can be and are expressed. In essence, how they are made speakable even
knowable. So the process of social accounting then offers a means whereby the non-financial might be created, captured,
articulated, and spoken. The analysis of such accounts and their absence (Choudhury, 1988) provides a basis through
which social accountability can clarify how the relationships which are largely dominated by the economic (Thielemann,
2000) might be renegotiated to accommodate or even to prioritise the social and the environmental within these
relationships.
Gray, Adams, and Owen (2014, p. 4) further note that the resulting social and environmental ‘accounts’ that emanate from
this form of accounting:
may serve a number of purposes but discharge of the organisation’s accountability to its stakeholders must be clearly
dominant of those reasons and the basis upon which the social account is judged.
The above descriptions reflect perspectives of what SEA could be, how it can be ‘imagined’, and the potential it could have.
But how it can be imagined is very different to how social accounting is typically undertaken to the lament of many people
within the discipline.
There are many different ways to generate social and environmental ‘accounts’ and there has been much debate about the
merits of different approaches (as well as the merits of abstaining altogether from ‘accounting’ for societies and
environments). Some approaches to SEA are innovative and challenging to extant practice, but most are not. Some
approaches provide challenges to ‘business as usual’ philosophies, but the overwhelming majority do not. Whatever the case,
across the last 25 years there has certainly been a great increase in the amount of companies providing some form of social
and environmental ‘accounts’, and a burgeoning research literature attempting to explain the motivations driving such
predominantly voluntary behaviour. Initially in this time period (early 1990s) such accounts tended to focus on the
environment, however in the mid-1990s reporters tended to reintroduce a consideration of society into the analysis (a topic
that was the focus of some reporters in the 1970s). Reporters then embraced such notions as triple bottom line reporting
(Elkington, 1997), CSR reporting, and more recently, sustainability reporting (although in reality, such accounts do not
address sustainability in any substantive way).
With the increase in the incidence of reporting it could be speculated that reporting quality has improved across time
particularly with the advent of such global initiatives as those instigated by the Global Reporting Initiative and the
International Integrated Reporting Committee. However, the view amongst many prominent researchers in the area is that
quality has not greater improved, and that perhaps various initiatives have been captured by business interests with the
intent of stifling any real efforts that might broaden the accountability of business. Many reporters still appear to use SEA as a
means of legitimising their existence and potentially forestalling efforts including legislative efforts that might require
them to be more accountable for the many social and environmental impacts they are generating (Deegan, 2014). Key
information which would challenge claims about the sustainability of organisations is overwhelmingly omitted. As such, it is
generally difficult to understand a deal of current research that utilises various measures of reporting quality (often using the
GRI Guidelines as some measure of quality, despite the limitations of such guidelines) and which often, for some reasons
C. Deegan / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 43 (2017) 65–87 67
which do not necessarily appear logical, try to link reporting quality to measures such as corporate profitability (which is
determined by using accounting procedures which are actually antipathetical to the sustainability agenda see Deegan,
2013). In relation to reporting quality, Gray and Milne (2015, p. 22) ruefully state:
Quality of reporting is a complex notion but it actually doesn’t really need measuring in most cases of voluntary social and
environmental disclosure. And this is because it is so clearly woeful by any of the standards that accounting would apply
to its own variables. It is only obliquely approximated by a GRI proxy itself a woeful approximation of anything related
to accountability or sustainability.
So at this early point in this commentary the reader would be forgiven for thinking that, given the quality of SEA has
remained fairly low (of course there are some exceptions, for example, the early innovative work of Social Audit in the UK,
Norsk Hydro in Norway, and Danish Steelworks, and more recently, Watercare Services (NZ) ‘Sustainability Accounting
Analysis’, and Kering (France) ‘Environmental Profit and Loss’) then whatever research has been done with the aim of
improving practice has, to date, amounted to nothing but let’s not ‘abandon ship’ just yet.
Central to a lot of debate in the SEA literature has been the issue of ‘accountability’, and specifically, quests to extend the
level of accountability being demonstrated by organisations so that stakeholders can at least make informed decisions about
whether to support an organisation or not (the view often being that information provides ‘power’ to the holders of the
information in enabling them to differentiate between organisations. This does assume of course that society is relatively
pluralistic in nature with some level of shared power to create change). Whilst potentially being seen as a simple concept, the
reality is that accountability a concept often (and strangely) ignored in accounting education is arguably quite a radical
concept if applied in a way that creates fundamental changes to business practices. As Owen (2014, p. 77) states:
Accountability is a fundamentally radical (and perhaps even subversive) concept particularly in view of the absolute
refusal of present day politicians, bankers, corporate executives and their ilk to accept any degree of personal
accountability whatsoever for the adverse consequences of their decisions.
Reviews of practice indicate that most organisations appear to steadfastly reject calls for increased accountability,
including efforts to legislate broader-based accountability. Indeed, it could be argued that, in the presence of all the
(distracting) good news being disclosed by organisations, corporate accountability is worse than it has ever been. In relation
to efforts to restrict accountability, Gray et al. (2014, p. 325) note:
Powerful people the world over appear to know just how transformative a full accountability and transparency would be
and work very hard to prevent it coming to fruition. It seems difficult to avoid this conclusion however unsettling it
might be.
In relation to the issue of legislation, referred to above, the other point to be made is that unlike financial reporting, which
is very heavily regulated (primarily to protect the interests of the owners of the capital, and relatedly, community confidence
in capital markets), SEA has been and remains a predominantly voluntary exercise despite the fact that it addresses issues of
relevance to all stakeholders (current and future), and despite the increasingly parlous state of the environment and the
great inequities that abound in many societies. Calls for legislation appear compelling. But when calls are made to legislate
various aspects of SEA, business organisations predominantly oppose such actions on the basis that legislation would
inappropriately introduce a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to reporting, would ‘stifle innovation’, ‘create a compliance
mentality’, and ‘increase compliance costs’ even though the logic of such claims are greatly flawed (Deegan & Shelly, 2014;
Owen, Shaw, & Cooper, 2005). Governments tend to believe that SEA should overwhelming remain voluntary and
determined by ‘market forces’ and by the ‘enlightened self-interest’ of the respective reporting entities (Deegan and Shelly,
2014). In relation to regulation, Gray et al. (2014, p. 327) state:
Little will attract aggression in this field more directly than calls for law (as we know to our cost). It is quite clear that
governance needs to be legally and/or regulation driven and that such legal backing must be imaginative and substantial.
The opposition to such a call for law especially in some countries and regions of the world verges on the fanatical.
So, in summary to this point we can say that SEA has many possible meanings and many possibilities, but however
defined or imagined, it seems to have grown in practice across the last 25 years. Despite the passing of time there is some
argument that its quality has not greatly improved and the level of accountability being embraced has also not improved
(and may have in fact got worse given that the style of reporting being adopted tends to highlight ‘good news’ which arguably
distracts us from most of the detrimental impacts being generated). Further, despite its importance and necessity (if it is to
increase accountability in a substantive way), which is not abating, it remains predominantly a voluntary activity to be
determined and defined by the business entities themselves. With this brief context in mind we will now consider a general
and brief overview of research into the practice of SEA.
3. Research in SEA a brief overview
Research into SEA was certainly not a mainstream area of academic pursuit at the time when the inaugural issue of CPA
was issued. Indeed, it was accepted in many universities as being somewhat career limiting to undertake such research.
According to some researchers applying predominantly ‘North American capital market style’ research, SEA research was
apparently only done by people who did not have the necessary quantitative skills to do large scale positivistic research into
such apparently important issues as understanding causes of share price movements, the ‘value relevance’ of various
disclosures, or the motivations driving particular financial accounting policy choices. Indeed, because of the focus of some of
his own research, the author of this commentary was challenged a number of times in the early 1990s with searching
questions of the form “what has the environment got to do with accounting?” the view being that some justification for any
focus on society or the environment was surely necessary. Obviously people asking such questions (who were accounting
academics) did not really understand accounting and its link to notions of accountability too often they could not
comprehend that ‘accounting’ can extend beyond the financial and I should note that some of these same people a decade
or two later, and with various research ‘pay-offs’ in mind, started to investigate various SEA issues, albeit typically
investigated by way of large scale quantitative research attempting to link various (dubious) proxies of corporate financial
performance to social and environmental reporting quality or social and environmental performance.
By contrast to 25 years ago, many people would argue today that SEA research has become “a centre stage research
agenda, at least in comparison to its former marginalised state” (Parker, 2014). Reflecting on the locations from where a great
deal of the research emanates, Parker (2014, p. 89) states:
Our leadership and momentum internationally appear to be coming from scholars in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and
Japan. Nonetheless, the trend towards capital markets researchers moving into the SEA field as a ‘hot topic’ area in which
to flex their methodological preferences, presents a spectre on the horizons of which the SEA research community must
be aware.
Certainly it would probably not surprise many people who are advocates of a more critical analysis of accounting practice
that ‘capital markets’ researchers, referred to above by Parker, have moved into the “SEA field”. They would see ‘the
environment’ and ‘society’ as ‘new’ variables (opportunities) against which to associate share price movements, corporate
profits, accounting based bonuses, or other such measures. This also brings into question whether researchers who really do
not care about, or understand societies or the environment, or do not care about extending corporate accountabilities and
responsibilities can really do research of any consequence to advancing the interests of society or the planet (something that
is addressed by Gray & Milne, 2015 and something that we will return to in the concluding section of this commentary).
Research into SEA can and has taken many forms, some which might not obviously be seen as relating to the definition of
SEA provided earlier. Whilst not exhaustive, and relying upon past experience about what the accounting research
community considers to be ‘SEA research’, SEA research includes (and I note that this list in itself is open to debate):
descriptions and/or evaluations of social and environmental reporting practice;

positive research identifying explanations of, or motivations for, social and environmental reporting;
analyses of stakeholder demands or reactions (including market reactions) to SEA disclosures;
developments in, critiques of, or refinements to theories to explain why SEA is undertaken, or to explain why it should or
should not be undertaken;
potential roles of accountants/accounting in creating positive social and/or environmental change;
descriptions of alternative approaches or models of accounting for SEA (which we will refer to as ‘new imaginings’);
critiques of traditional accounting principles in terms of their appropriateness/inappropriateness for advancing social and
environmental issues;
the role of education in advancing awareness of social and environmental impacts as part of business decision making;
arguments for (or against) legislating aspects of SEA as well as theoretical explanations for the existence, or absence, of
legislation pertaining to SEA;
investigations into environmental management accounting;
analysis of socially responsible investment and/or CSR ratings agencies;
accountants attitudes to, or acceptance of, social and environmental accounting
discussions and evaluations of applicable research methods for undertaking research into various aspects of SEA;
positive research investigating relationships between economic (or financial) performance and social and/or
environmental performance;
evaluations of government initiatives, such as emission trading schemes (ETS) or carbon taxes, as means of reducing the
environmental impacts of business organisations; and
social audits.
Shortly we will use the above categories to summarise the SEA publications that have appeared in CPA.
Considering the history of SEA research generally (and not just that contained within CPA), much of the early SEA research
was descriptive in nature and not overly rooted in any theoretical basis. It provided various insights into what many (but not
all) people considered to be exciting developments in corporate reporting. A lot of the research then turned to trying to
explain the motivations driving disclosure. As the SEA disclosure was and still is predominantly voluntary, this provided
an ideal subject for much positivistic research. Much of this research was informed by legitimacy theory (typically of the
‘non-critical’, pluralist variety) and attempted to link corporate disclosure (typically using content analysis of company
reports) to external factors (such as changing community expectations, particular social and environmental crises, media
attention). This research was arguably necessary as it did highlight the typically biased nature of corporate reporting and the
perhaps obvious need to be extremely sceptical about such unregulated disclosures. It also acted to provide many warnings
about the potentially subversive role of corporate reporting in terms of distracting attention from key social and
environmental issues and the need to consider ways of legislating disclosure (with such calls predominantly being ignored).
Unfortunately perhaps, this style of research continues and similar results continue to be published without a great deal of
additional incremental knowledge clearly being generated.
Much of the SEA research has tended to be ‘desk based’ (Owen, 2008), relying upon secondary data and without active
engagement, and has tended to explain what is happening rather than evaluating the implications or ethics of what is
occurring. When it does come to the issue of engagement, ongoing arguments continue particularly within the ‘critical
literature’ about whether we should, as accounting academics, engage with business. Many SEA researchers find it hard to
understand how they can create change without engagement. CPA has been a particularly valuable source of knowledge
about how care must be taken before we simply believe that more ‘accounting’ (albeit of a different ‘variety’) can help to
solve many of the problems which, in some way, can actually be traced back to accounting in the first place. The academic
debates across the years between scholars such as Rob Gray and Tony Tinker provide valuable insights into perceptions of the
dangers and opportunities associated with engagement. As accounting academics we arguably do have some valuable
insights to offer, but do we let fears of being ‘captured’ by business stop our engagement? In this regard, Parker (2005, p. 856)
notes:
The risk for SEA scholars is that preoccupation with avoiding SEA capture may sentence their discourse to be confined to
the halls of academe and thereby distance them from any significant influence on whatever institutionalisation of SEA
occurs.
SEA researchers will continue to be faced with a dilemma about engagement. If we enter the halls of commerce can we be
vigilant enough not to be ‘captured’ by ‘business-as-usual’ philosophies? If we ‘stand on the outside’ and do not engage in
some way when we see particular problems or inequities then can we really be relevant (Roslender, 2006; Cooper, 2002;
Callincos, 1999)? If we believe there are ongoing problems associated with various types of corporate activities then can we
create change without engaging corporations or various stakeholders? Would it be irresponsible not to actively engage when
we see problems with current practices and structures? However, unlike some of the research that is being done now and
which involves engagement with management (unlike some earlier research in the 70 s and 80 s which engaged with labour
groups), greater potential for change may be possible if it involves engagement with broader stakeholder groups/social
movements (Cooper, 2002). Getting this balance right seems a key problem for our research community and one that
remains seemingly unresolved.
Whilst a lot of the SEA research undertaken over the last 25 years has been positivistic in nature (explaining what is) there
appears to be a clear need to embrace (or perhaps ‘reactivate’) a normative agenda if we really want to create change. Insights
provided in journals such as CPA are crucial to informing such agendas. Studies of existing practice will not do. Clear and
compelling argument for change are necessary. As Parker (2005, p. 844) states:
Reactivating a normative/policy research agenda arguably hinges on the preparedness of particularly senior researchers
to make the leap of faith from the comfortable templates of positivist or theoretical research design and writing, to
embrace innovative normatively oriented approaches including case-based experimentation, action research,
measurement and reporting design, and policy development
In relation to needs to create change through thoughtful, innovative and imaginative research we must also be realistic
and consider the pressures on our colleagues within our academic environment. In many countries throughout the world,
academics are confronted with expectations, often included within individual work-plans, that identify expected research
outputs and outlet targets (ranked journals). This is quite different to the academic environment when the inaugural edition
of CPA was released. Publication targets are now set, often on an annual basis but just as periodic (annual) corporate
financial reporting potentially acts to influence managers to be short term in orientation, the same can be said for academics.
Effectively, we are now in a time where there is a ‘commodification’ of research where academics must meet targets else
suffer issues associated with job insecurity. This is occurring at a time when we arguably need some very novel, thoughtful
and imaginative research to be undertaken to address many of the accountability (and other issues) associated with current
business practices (Gray & Milne, 2015). Thoughtful, innovative research takes time. Of course this concern relates to
academic research generally.
3.1. The role of Critical Perspectives of Accounting in the wider debate
Having provided a brief overview of SEA and related research, together with some issues of concern, I will now move on to
consider CPA’s role in this debate. What is clear is that CPA, as obviously would be expected, tends to publish research that
importantly questions the role of accounting, and SEA, in creating changes to structures and institutions which have
historically prioritised the interests of a certain powerful elite. In doing so, CPA has provided a basis for questioning much of
the SEA research and practice that is ongoing and some of the forms of engagement. Such questioning is essential.
Various reviews of social and environmental accounting research publication outlets has shown that amongst academic
accounting journals, CPA (as well as Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Accounting Forum, Journal of Business
Ethics, Business Strategy and the Environment) ranks as a leading outlet in terms of the publication of SEA research (Deegan &
Soltys, 2007; Parker, 2005). This would contrast with so called ‘leading’ North American accounting journals which tend to
ignore such research, probably because of perceptions held by the editors that in the presence of global problems such as
climate change, species extinction, poverty and starvation, issues to do with corporate impacts on societies and
environments are simply not as important as knowing how or why share prices change in the presence of particular events,
or why managers select particular financial accounting policies in preference to others (see also Gray & Milne, 2015 for a
commentary on this research journal-based bias).
4. An overview of SEA publication numbers in CPA
In identifying papers that relate to SEA some level of judgement is needed in determining the boundaries of SEA research
(Owen, 2008). I have identified what I believe to be 62 papers (using the overview of SEA research provided earlier) that have
been published in the area, although I accept other people might come up with different numbers. Also, because a great deal
of the research in CPA addresses, at least in part, the role accounting and accountants play in privileging the interests of
parties such as managers and shareholders, the number of articles addressing the ‘social’ could arguably be much larger. I
apologise in advance to those authors that I exclude from this commentary.
We can make some broad observations about the research that has been undertaken. In terms of the country from which
the research was undertaken (as indicated within the respective author/co-author details), the majority of the SEA research
published within CPA was written by authors from the UK (36% of the total number of authors/co-authors on the 62 papers),
US (22%), Australia (18%), Canada (9%) and New Zealand (7%). Some authors appear a number of times across the years, for
example Rob Gray has been a major contributor with authorship/co-authorship of 5 SEA papers in CPA between 1990 and
2014, the same number as his long term colleague Jan Bebbington. Martin Freedman has also been associated with 5 SEA
papers during this time. It is of interest that these major contributors would not be considered to be ‘critical theorists’ as
such. Several other authors appear a number of times across the 25 years.
In considering the number of SEA papers published, and using five equal periods of five years each, we can make the
following observations. Between 1990 (the first year of CPA) and 1994 there was only one paper that I would consider to
represent SEA research. This in itself is interesting. One reason for this would be that apart from some early leaders there was
not an abundance of researchers in the field, and therefore probably a limited number of submissions. Further,
environmental reporting was not common in the early years of the 1990s therefore there was a general lack of opportunity to
analyse this major component of the SEA research agenda. The one paper that was published in this first five year period was
not necessarily of the genre that one might have anticipated would be published in CPA. The paper – Freedman and Jaggi
(1992) – is one which has been fairly highly cited in the SEA literature. This paper is very ‘economic’ in nature and sought to
investigate by statistical means whether there was an association between long-run pollution and economic performance of
firms in the pulp and paper industry.
Relative to the first five year period, in the next period between 1995 and 1999 there was a significant growth in SEA
papers being published by CPA. Fifteen papers were published in this period with two editions of the journal accounting for
11 of these 15 papers. Volume 7, Issue 6, 1996, whilst not being designated as a ‘special issue’, provided 4 papers, one of which
was an overview of how to account for pollution rights from a traditional financial accounting perspective (Wambsganss &
Sanford, 1996), which was then accompanied by three other papers (by Gibson, Lehman and Milne respectively) which
provided critiques. Publishing ‘lead’ papers (some of which are quite counter to any form of ‘critical theory’) with
accompanying critiques has been used a number of times by the editors of CPA to great effectiveness. Volume 9, Issue 2, 1998,
whilst again not being identified as a ‘special issue’ included 7 papers of a social nature around the US-based Single Audit Act
requirements. Sutton and Arnold (1998) noted how the requirements of the Act could be extended to the private sector. This
was then followed by critiques from Defeo and Falk (1998), Freedman (1998), Gray (1998), Lee (1998), Roberts (1998), and
Shaol (1998).
In the third 5 year period from 2000 to 2004 there were 12 SEA papers published, with no specific ‘special issues’, and no
specific SEA themes seemed to dominate. In the fourth period from 2005 to 2009 there were 10 SEA papers, again with no
‘special issues’ and no dominating themes.
In the final five year period of the analysis, between 2009 and 2014, there was a spike in the number of SEA publications
within CPA, with 24 papers being published across this five year period. In part, this could be due to two ‘special issues’ being
issued in this period. It is also reflective of the broader increase generally in scholarly efforts undertaken to address SEA. The
first ‘special issue’ (Volume 22, Issue 8, 2011) related to ‘accounting for human rights’ and comprised 7 papers. The other
‘special issue’ in this time period (Volume 24, Issue 6, 2013) was entitled ‘Accounting for the environment’ and included
seven papers. One of these papers was entitled ‘Green accounting and green eyeshades twenty years later’ by Danielle
Thornton which was then accompanied by four critiques from Cho and Patten (2013), Deegan (2013), Gray (2013) and
Spence, Chabrak, and Pucci (2013).
5. The philosophical bases of the publications
In providing a broad overview of the philosophical bases embraced by the different SEA authors within CPA I will adopt
the classification system embraced by Gray and Collison in their 2002 CPA publication. They simply, but usefully, use three
broad classifications to classify the SEA literature, these being the ‘critical literature’, the ‘managerialist literature’, and the
‘middle of the road literature’. As they state (Gray & Collison, 2002):
The critical literature (drawing from, for example, a feminist – Cooper, 1992; Cooper et al., 1992 – or a radical
environmentalist perspective Gray, Owen, Adams (1996); Gray, 1992) provides cogent questioning of the very essence
of ‘organisational and economic success’, our current structures and aspirations and, consequently, the very legitimacy of
all we take for granted as accountants and accounting. Such perspectives would answer the question “what do
accountants need to know about the environment?” along the lines of “we do not actually need accountants or at least
not accountants as we would currently recognise them”.
By contrast, the “managerialist literature” takes the unquestioned view of a manager of a company and, largely
unquestioningly, accepts current financial, organisational and accounting orthodoxy . . . .in this regard, such
environmental accounting tends, like so much of accounting education and training, to be essentially conservative in
orientation and governed by the syllabi of the professional accounting bodies plus current practice in the area.
By contrast again, the “middle of the road” literature seeks to bridge the gap between the “managerialist” and “critical.”
This literature might be typified as seeking to use new forms of accounting as a means of opening up organisations to both
environmental and social accountability. The concern is to move organisations from their primary focus on economic
success and wealth accumulation for management and shareholders to a broader mission in which there is explicit
cognisance of both the social and environmental implications of corporate success . . . .The middle of the road literature
accepts (with some misgivings) the structures, organisations, society and accounting currently obtain but seeks to change
them in a manner which privileges social and environmental concerns.
Using the (admittedly) simple classification scheme provided above, what is interesting is that although there are
certainly a number of papers which are clearly embedded within a ‘critical literature’, the majority of the papers in the ‘SEA
stream’ as published in CPA actually tend to be ‘middle of the road’ in orientation. There were also a number of publications
that were clearly ‘managerialist’ in orientation. Hence, it is very clear that across time the editors have not had a policy of only
publishing papers that adopt some form of critical perspective. They have not tried to act as ‘gate-keepers’ of what can be
published and what ‘views of the world’ are acceptable, or not. The same cannot be said for some other, so called, ‘leading’
accounting journals. Indeed, the fact that the editors asked me to provide this commentary and I am certainly not known as
publishing in the ‘critical literature’ is again reflective of the fact that CPA does allow a variety of voices to be heard. Good
one!
6. Topic areas within the SEA research
Table 1 below provides an overview of the topics covered by the respective papers. Where a paper covered more than one
topic area the decision was made to locate the paper within the topic most addressed by the paper. Again I accept there is
some degree of subjectivity in assigning papers to particular categories particularly where the paper covers a number of
issues.
6.1. New imaginings
As indicated in Table 1, ‘new imaginings’ accounted for the largest number of papers in the ‘SEA area’ as published within
CPA. In using the term ‘new imaginings’ I am borrowing from Rob Gray as it is a term he, and some others, often use (for
example, see Brown & Dillard, 2013; Gray, 1998; Gray et al., 2014). It refers to works where authors suggest new (different)
ways of accounting for social and environmental issues/effects and can range from ‘new’ approaches that work within
Table 1
SEA topics published within CPA.
Topic Number of
publications
New Imaginings 22
Critiques of traditional accounting in terms of its appropriateness/inappropriateness for advancing social and environmental 10
issues
Positive research identifying explanations of, or motivations for, social and environmental reporting 8
Descriptions and/or evaluations of social and environmental reporting practice 6
Potential role of accountants/accounting in creating positive social and/or environmental change 5
Developments of, critiques of, or refinements to theories to explain why SEA is undertaken, or to explain why it should or should 3
not be undertake
Evaluations of government initiatives (such as ETS and carbon taxes) as means of reducing the environmental impacts of business 2
organisations
Accountants’ attitudes to social and environmental accounting 2
Positive research investigating relationships between economic performance and environmental performance 1
The role of education in advancing awareness of social and environmental impacts created by organisations 1
Arguments for (or against) legislating aspects of SEA as well as theoretical explanations for the existence, or absence, of legislation 1
pertaining to SEA
Analysis of socially responsible investment and/or CSR ratings agencies 1
TOTAL 62
‘mainstream’ approaches to accounting, to approaches that represent major changes to extant practice (and therefore utilise
more imagination).
One of the first papers in CPA to reflect ‘new imaginings’ was Sutton and Arnold (1998). This paper, which was far from
‘radical’ (it was actually quite ‘managerialist’ and hence was arguably on the lower end of the ‘imagination scale’), discussed
how the requirements embodied within the US-based Single Audit Act (1984) – which is applicable to US state and local
governments, as well as some recipients of federal funds, and which requires details of whether funds have been used in a
‘socially acceptable manner’ – could be applied to private sector entities, the results of which would be an increase in
disclosure of various social and environmental information and an improvement in social performance. The Act requires an
auditor to evaluate the systems of controls to form a judgement whether they are effective in adhering to federal government
requirements (there are nine requirements which include various social requirements pertaining to issues such as fair pay,
displacement of individuals, protection of civil rights).
Sutton and Arnold (1998) was accompanied by six critiques which embraced a variety of philosophical views. As already
noted, this has been a common approach within CPA where a particular paper is accepted (or invited) and which then forms a
basis for a number of interesting critiques. Often the ‘lead paper’ appears to be somewhat of a ‘straw person’ that predictably
would provoke a variety of responses (sometimes rather strong). The authors critiquing Sutton and Arnold saw value in
legislating disclosures (Freedman, 1998; Roberts, 1998), but questioned whether a vehicle designed for the public sector
could work within the private sector given that private sector entities do not typically operate in the ‘public interest’ (Lee,
1998). Another critique (Shaoul, 1998) provided a view that there is already enough information available publicly (including
through national economic and regulatory statistics) to demonstrate corporate accountability. Gray (1998) was critical of
many of the authors’ suggestions but nevertheless praised them for imaging new forms of accounting.
A paper that appeared in CPA in 2001 – Bebbington and Gray (2001) – is an important piece of work within the literature,
and one that is well known by SEA researchers. It provides an investigation of how, and whether, an account of sustainable
development could be constructed for a business entity. The research utilises Landcare Research New Zealand as the case
study organisation. The research investigates a potential link between sustainable development and accounting, and has at
its core, a ‘sustainable cost calculation’. From the outset the authors acknowledged that the sustainable cost calculation is an
incomplete account of sustainability because the justice and equity elements of the concept are not addressed. One of the
intentions of the work was to show that “businesses simply do not make a profit and that accounting in its measurement of
a thing that suggests success is simply a lie” p. 562. The research borrows from the concept of Hicksian income and
associated capital maintenance ideas. According to the authors, “a level of sustainable activity is that which maintains the
planet’s capital” (p. 562).
Various capitals are identified, including critical natural capital, renewable natural capital, and human made capital, and
“from an accounting perspective the tracking of capital flows could provide some idea about the extent to which the
organisation is advancing towards or retreating from sustainability” (p. 562). The sustainable cost calculation effectively uses
conventional accounting concepts to ascertain the notional costs of restoring the environment to its previous state on a year
by year basis (p. 563). As it turned out the authors acknowledged that “rather than constituting an account of sustainability
the sustainable cost calculation is actually an account of unsustainability” (p. 579). In concluding, the authors nevertheless
note that “the creation of an accounting with the potential to change the ‘factual universe’ of the organisation is possible. This
case has started the iterative process by examining the failure, success and reconceptualization of the sustainable cost
calculation” (p. 583). Other related work in CPA is that of Lamberton (2000). He reported the results of applying an
‘accounting for sustainable development’ model to an organisation known as ‘City Farm’. His results, however, suggested that
“the goal of ecological sustainability appears out of reach of individual organisations at least in the medium term” (p. 601).
Another paper within CPA which again suggested new ways to use traditional financial accounting practices was Grinnell
and Hunt (2002). They suggested a new way to account for gifted pollution permits. They suggested that the permits should
be treated as liabilities rather than as part of equity. Although they believed that such a small tweak to accounting could
create “fundamental changes in the way companies treat the natural environment“ (p. 213) this obviously is questionable.
Papers by Birkin, Edwards, and Woodward (2005) and Brown (2009) are also of interest. Birkin et al. (2005) discuss the
role of ‘conscious cultural evolution’ within the accounting profession and how this could change the ‘core’ of accounting.
Brown (2009) provides an insightful discussion of ‘dialogic accounting’ and focuses on the sustainability area for illustrative
purposes. She provides an interesting comparison with ‘monologic accounting’, which reflects the accounting traditions
currently in place and which involve the reporting of a given perspective, and the non-reporting of others, thereby inevitably
taking sides in situations where there are alternative viewpoints. According to Brown (2009, p. 317):
Dialogic accounting – in recognising heterogeneity and refusing to privilege capital markets – allows for a more pluralist
expression of public interest mitigating the dominance of instrumental rationality . . . . Accounting thus becomes viewed
as a vehicle with the potential to foster democratic interaction rather than a set of techniques to maximise shareholder
wealth and construct ‘governable’ others.
This is a very interesting suggestion and one that is counter to the views often proffered by many accounting practitioners
and researchers wherein there is one objective view of the world which can be objectively reflected within accounting
reports. Brown further states (2009, p. 318):
Given the essentially contestable nature of sustainability, new accountings should not be aimed at producing
incontrovertible accounts. Societal worth should be judged not in terms of the expert production of the ‘right answer’ but
in the facilitation and broadening of debate . . . . Accountants need to develop systems that prevent premature closure
and which infuse debate and dialogue, facilitating genuine and informed citizen participation in decision making
processes . . . . A framework of a dialogical approach would: recognise ideological assumptions; avoid monetary
reductionism; be open about the objective and contestable nature of calculations; enable accessibility of non-experts;
ensure effective participatory processes; be attentive to power relations; and recognise the transformative potential of
dialogic accounting
According to Brown, a form of accounting which embraced a dialogic approach would have considerable transformative
potential in areas such as sustainable development. Again, the views embodied within Brown (2009) would seem to be of
great value in informing debate to extend corporate accountability and to project different views about corporate
performance and success. However, despite its merit, it is unfortunately very difficult to envisage that the current
‘monologic’ practices will easily be displaced by dialogical approaches.
As already noted, Volume 22, Issue 8 (2011) was a special issue devoted to ‘accounting for human rights’ and comprised 7
papers. In this issue there was not a specific ‘lead paper’, but rather a number of authors gave their own (contrasting) views
on how accounting for human rights could be improved. One such paper was Cooper, Coulson, and Taylor (2011). Whilst
often a vocal critic of the role of accounting in undermining the welfare of various groups, and whilst often embracing the
view that whatever ‘accounting’ is undertaken it is largely incapable of making a difference given inherent power structures
within society, Cooper and her co-authors nevertheless suggest a new approach to accounting that might provide some help
towards advancing human rights. The paper, which provides some very interesting insights for SEA researchers, develops its
proposed approach to accounting for human rights through an analysis of an industrial disaster which occurred in 2004 at
the ICL Plastics plant in Glasgow. The theoretical perspective in the paper draws from the work of Pierre Bourdieu. According
to Cooper et al. (2011, p. 739):
Bourdieu takes a class/power perspective in which the point of view of the dominant groups is imposed as the universal
point of view. Our mental structures are strictly controlled by preconceived thematics which to a large extent are imposed
by a broadly defined state. The thematics portray a particular non-neutral vision of reality which serves to uphold the
interests of the most powerful.
In relation to the need for a new form of ‘account’, Cooper at al (2011, p. 754) state:
If safe working environments and not being killed or injured at work are human rights then these rights are being abused.
In order to overturn this violence we need to both understand its complex roots and try to invoke measures which would
restore equality on the field of power. One way of helping to address this imbalance would be to produce a new form of
health and safety account.
For pragmatic purposes, Cooper et al. (2011, p. 755) suggest:

Working within the current socio-economic system, we have set out a case that a new form of human and safety account
should be produced by a balanced team comprising of the HSE, workers’ representatives, staff from a newly formed
Scottish Hazard’s Advice Centre and/or Trade Union representative and a member of management. This collaboration
serves to legitimise the role of information provision by actors who may normally be seen to contributing to a social audit
process and bring them into the accounting function. The resulting health and safety account should contain unabridged
HSE Inspectors’ reports, the company risk assessment, a commentary by Scottish Hazards Advice Centre, workers and
trade unions, together with a financial report containing both previous expenditure by the company on health and safety
and costings of remedial work which have been highlighted in the HSE Inspectors’ report and workers’ response. A team
approach to such collaboration will help to self-regulate the process of accounting and ensure transparency is achieved.
However, Cooper et al. (2011, p. 756) stress that they have not abandoned their core view that any substantive changes to
the plights of employees (and many others) requires fundamental changes in the way societies are structured and governed:
We realise that our recommendations for such a health and safety account is only, at best, a partial solution. Our
recommendations will not alter the power structures in society and are thus reformist. However, given the state we are in,
we urgently need to fight for reforms.
The insights provided by Cooper et al. (2011) are quite consistent with the insights provided by Brown (2009), as
discussed previously. Both call for multiple voices and an acceptance that providing different perspectives of the same
situations or events is preferable to simply providing one view which inevitably is biased and privileges the rights of some
members of society over others.
Gallhofer, Haslam, and van der Walt (2011), Gray and Gray (2011), and Sikka (2011) also contributed to the special issue on
‘accounting for human rights’. Gallhofer made a number of interesting suggestions including identifying merits associated
with developing unified international laws for protecting human rights. Gray and Bebbington (2001) raise some interesting
issues in relation to whether human rights, as are typically enunciated, privilege western notions of individualism over a
broader sense of collectivism and whether ‘universal human rights’ denies cultural differences. Gray and Gray (2011) usefully
refer to an example of human rights accounting (p. 788):
Christian Aid’s work shows, such counter-accounts can be an important part of shaping the perceptions and dialogue
around accountability and human rights. It may very well be that focused, ‘topic-based’ approaches to shadow and silent
accounts may prove to be a productive route for future work and one in which academics can contribute either
independently or in liaison with the NGOs and policy makers directly.
Sikka (2011) utilises information about a Chad-Cameroon oil and pipeline project to provide insights about human rights
accounting. Like many others within CPA he calls for the production of ‘counter accounts’ to challenge the hegemony of
corporations but cautions that such accounts are not likely to be developed by bodies such as the International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB), as they are populated with ‘corporate interests’ (p 823). Despite the many hurdles to generating
‘counter accounts’, Sikka appears generally optimistic (p. 825):
The need to make corporations accountable for human rights opens up rich possibilities for research and interventions
(for some discussion see Cooper et al., 2005; Gray et al., 2006; Jochnick, 1999; Macleod, 2008; Neu et al., 2001; Sikka et al.,
1995; Spence, 2009). Scholarly research can play a pivotal role in advancing novel discourses, giving visibility to the plight
of the marginalised people and showing the social cost of corporate profits. It can create possibilities of emancipatory
change by examining corporate power through the lens of social justice, democracy, power, accountability and human
brotherhood so that the whole of humanity can live fulfilling lives with dignity and respect. The narrowness of
conventional accounting thought and practices needs to be exposed to create possibilities of alternative forms of
calculations and reporting (Bebbington & Gray, 2001). There are opportunities for academics to build alliances with civil
society organisations and significant others and use their expertise to produce richer social accounts to ferment
possibilities of emancipatory change. Such alliances open up the possibilities of going beyond the glossy CSR reports and
self-congratulatory statements to examine the impact of corporate practices on the lives of people.
The ‘accounting for human rights’ special issue also included contributions from two non-academics: Chetty (2011) who
is a Legal Officer at the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and Frankental (2011) who holds a senior role within Amnesty
International, UK. Frankental highlights the point that expecting under-funded NGOs to hold large corporations to account is
unrealistic. Frankental also highlights needs for changes in the law in relation to directors’ duties and their associated
reporting requirement so that directors are not explicitly required to be serving only the interests of their shareholders.
Frankental also makes the case for corporations to be accountable for the extraterritorial activities and for their supply
chains, and for undertaking and reporting the results of human right impact assessments.
In terms of other papers that address ‘new imaginings’, Brown and Dillard (2013) provide an interesting perspective and
one that is consistent with a number of other critical theorists publishing within CPA. They are convinced that “modern
environmentalism, with all of its unexamined assumptions, out-dated concepts and exhausted strategies, must die so that
something new can live” (p. 3). They adopt the position that providing ‘accounts’ of otherwise hidden ‘truths’ in the hope that
this will create change is naïve. As they state (p. 4):
Environmentalists formulate engagement strategy assuming they can “win” concessions and overcome ideological and
corporate opposition by using sound scientific evidence to prove “the truth” (e.g. about anthropocentric climate change).
“The facts” will precipitate change. Shellenberger and Nordhaus (2004, p. 13) describe this as a form of literal-sclerosis.
Such a position is analogous to SEA’s fixation on disclosure, a problem we might diagnose as disclosure-sclerosis. The
presumption is that by making transparent (disclosing) the actions of corporations, reason will lead us to the “right”
conclusion . . . . Shellenberger and Nordhaus’ (2004, 2005a, 2007) response to these flaws stresses moving beyond a
technical policy mindset and eschewing ideas of a politically neutral approach to environmentalism. Notions that issues
such as climate change and social justice can somehow be dealt with as “above politics” are fantasies. The facts alone are
not enough.
Consistent with a number of other authors already mentioned in this commentary, the authors state (p. 15):
We submit that SEA has much to gain from engaging with the interrelations of the social, environmental, and economic
domains in a more critically pluralistic fashion. Doing so requires, inter alia, the re-evaluation and extension of traditional
boundaries of what constitutes the environment and engagement, and giving greater visibility to the contested politics
inextricably bound up with technical practices such as accounting. Integrating the social and political with the technical
in a way that respects our diversity as socio-political beings requires active engagement among experts, business,
policymakers, social movements and citizens.
Again, as with a number of the authors we have discussed, disclosures which reflect multiple voices and multiple
perspectives are encouraged all of which seems very reasonable given the contested nature of sustainability and accounts
of corporate social and environmental performance. It is hoped that such arguments will, sooner or later, gain traction with
practicing accountants.
Two further papers linked to ‘new imaginings’ are Joseph (2012) and Saravanamuthu and Lehman (2013). Joseph (2012)
espouses the virtues of a principles-based perspective to sustainability reporting whilst Saravanamuthu and Lehman (2013)
provide insights into yet another form of analysis and ‘accounting’; in their case, through the use of risk matrices which
require decision makers to consider various factors beyond the ‘financial’ when making various operational choices and to
make transparent how the various factors were taken into account in making their decisions.
So in concluding the discussion on ‘new imaginings’ we can see that there are a number of ideas ‘out there’ some of
which are very interesting, and others perhaps not so. Particularly appealing seem to be the suggestions of greater
stakeholder involvement in producing accounts/counter accounts of course whether this will ever eventuate in the
absence of regulation or changes in the way corporations are governed is unclear. To date it is probably not unreasonable to
argue that the impacts of this research on practice appears to be minimal at best.
6.2. Critiques of traditional accounting in terms of its appropriateness/inappropriateness for advancing social and environmental
issues
Whilst ‘new imaginings’ represented the area that attracted the greatest number of SEA papers within CPA, the next most
populated area related to critiques of traditional accounting in terms of its appropriateness/inappropriateness for advancing
social and environmental issues. The body of work addressing this issue overwhelmingly concludes that traditional financial
accounting practices are far from benign and effectively contribute to environmental degradation and poor social outcomes.
For example, Birkin (1996) explores the potential of accounting to address ecological matters, but notes that the ‘voices of
nature’ are silent within traditional financial accounting. He stresses the point that traditional accounting has been
developed within a culture that places little value on nature and, indeed, may have lost the sensory ability to recognise any
such value. In a novel way, traditional accounting is linked to the works of Descartes in which it is perceived that the natural
world is ‘soulless and mechanical’ and that ‘reality’ resides within accounting reports. Reference is also made to the works of
Leopold which would argue for the recognition of the intrinsic worth of nature, which means that they would be assessed on
their terms and not in quasi-economic terms. Consistent with Birkin (1996), another paper within CPA by Saravanamuthu
(2004, p. 300) also notes:
The existing accounting framework for corporate accountability privileges economic growth over social needs. Its
standardisation across international boundaries serves to decontextualize wealth accumulation practices on a global
basis.
Volume 7, 1996 provided 4 interesting papers. The lead paper – Wambsganss and Sanford (1996, hereafter W & S) –
appeared very odd within the context of CPA as it applied various generally accepted accounting principles to explain how
pollution allowances (rights) would be reported, as well as bestowing various virtues of ‘the market’ in terms of mediating
the trades of such pollution rights, and placing values on them. But what this paper did was to provide a ‘strawperson’ against
which other authors (Gibson, Lehman, and Milne) could provide critique. W & S provided various insights into how a
pollution right should be valued (at cost or fair value) and when related expenses and revenues should be recognised. It
should be noted that such debates are still exciting many financial accountants today as bodies such as the IASB continue to
grapple with issues about how to account for rights generated by schemes such as the European Emission Trading Scheme.
The critiques provided by Gibson, Lehman, and Milne (some two decades ago) still have currency today and should still be
considered by organisations such as the IASB but of course it is questionable whether bodies such as the IASB would listen.
Nowhere within their paper did W & S consider the seemingly bizarre fact (well, at least to some of us) that a licence to
pollute would actually be shown as an ‘asset’ in financial statements. Further, the more ‘rights to pollute’ that have been
amassed by an organisation (with the pollutants to be released to the detriment of the planet), the greater the total amount of
assets the organisation can present, and if the market value of these rights increases across time (because of greater demands
in the ‘market place’ for the ‘rights to pollute’), the greater the income that might be shown. The explicit connection between
pollution and profits is somewhat confronting.
As might be expected Gibson (1996), Lehman (1996) and Milne (1996) were all quite bemused by the prescriptions
provided by W & S. For example, Gibson stresses how viewing the rights in economic terms makes them far more benign
than they are and portrays the environment as part of the economy (which also reflects the philosophy of Descartes as Birkin,
1996 previously informed us) when perhaps the reverse is true. The accounting debates about how to value such instruments
also distract us from the social consequences of such rights. Also, because of many omitted considerations, the permits do not
even reflect the economic cost of pollution (let alone the social and ecological costs) rather they (misleadingly) reflect the
cost of permission to pollute. Further, they only have value whilst in demand, which means there needs to be a continuation
in polluting practices. Lehman (1996) points out that the environment is a community issue so the logic of valuing a pollution
right held by an organisation is somewhat absurd. Also, in relation to the view that the operation of ‘market forces’ can help
the environment, Lehman rightly states (p. 671) that it is “problematic that the market can speak for other communities,
future generations who haven’t spoken, or have yet to be born.”
Moving to 2013, and as already noted, Volume 24, Issue 6 (2013) was a special issue devoted to ‘Accounting for the
environment’ and included seven papers. One of these papers was entitled ‘Green accounting and green eyeshades twenty
years later’ by Danielle Thornton and was accompanied by four critiques from Cho and Patten (2013), Deegan (2013), Gray
(2013) and Spence et al. (2013). In the lead article, Thornton (2013) sought to demonstrate the many issues that might arise if
we were to try to use the traditional double entry system of accounting to account for the social and environmental effects of
an organisation. A number of suggestions were made.
The first critique, by Cho and Patten (2013), addressed a number of factors. One interesting (but somewhat tangential)
point was about several ‘new entrants’ into the CSR field who came from more of a ‘capital markets/neo-classical economics
perspective’ (as noted earlier in this commentary, a number of such researchers have started seeing SEA as a ‘new
opportunity’ to flex their pre-existing methodologies). The observation was that such ‘new entrants’ tended to (p. 446):
know so little about what we have been exploring for more than a quarter of a century . . . . We would argue that a large
body of research—experimental and otherwise, already exists and offers explanations and understandings of CSR
disclosure practices including what drives firms to disclose this type of information.
This is not a new criticism of ‘capital markets’ type researchers they are often considered unlikely to think that research
from outside their own literature and particularly from a ‘radical/critical’ perspective has merit (but, to be fair, many SEA
researchers also reject capital markets and other research based on neo-classical economic philosophies as being irrelevant
on the basis that the various assumptions make the work quite useless to any attempts to improve the state of societies or
environments but perhaps (?) we can probably be secure in the view that our dismissal of their works is warranted for both
theoretical and philosophical reasons). In providing examples of the simplistic analysis often taken by ‘new entrants’, Cho
and Patten (2013, p. 446) state:
For example, Ballou et al. (2006, pp. 65–66), in a Journal of Accountancy article on sustainability report audit issues, claim
CSR reporting is used by companies in order to “create transparent reports that provide accurate and reliable data, as well
as a fair picture of overall performance.” Similarly, Dhaliwal et al. (2011, pp. 62–63) argue that “standalone CSR reports
likely provide incrementally useful information for investors to evaluate firms’ long-term sustainability”.
Again, if the authors identified in the above quote read a bit more widely then they might possibly (?) realise that their
beliefs appear rather naïve.
In responding to Thornton (2013), the critique by Deegan (2013) provides an overview of traditional financial accounting
in which he acknowledges the usefulness of financial accounting in providing information to those stakeholders with a
financial stake in an organisation, but dismisses its ability to provide information of relevance to assessing social and
environmental performance. Deegan (2013) identifies various conventions and assumptions of financial accounting that
constrain broader accountability, including notions of neutrality, objectivity, verifiability, the definition and recognition
criteria of the elements of financial reporting, and the practice of discounting future cash flows. Deegan (2013) also discusses
the perceived necessity to include material on personal social responsibilities and corporate accountability within business
education programs. In relation to accountability, Deegan (2013, p. 457) states:
It seems to me that an appropriate way to commence an education in ‘accounting’ is to spend a significant period of time
actually exploring the notion of accountability and asking students to reflect upon what they believe business
organisations are accountable for, and how that accountability should be demonstrated.
The critique from Gray (2013) includes the position and insights he has continued to maintain for decades, including
“financial accounting, per se, has no obvious interest in matters environmental” (p. 460). He further states (p. 465):
Voluntary environmental (and social and sustainability) reporting is beset by a remarkable irony. On the one hand, the
corporate world expends enormous efforts to produce extremely poor environmental reports whilst working hard to
ensure that such reports are neither legislated for nor analysed in legitimate fora and exposed as the trivia that they are.
Whilst on the other hand, experimentation and practice show that substantive and compelling accounts of the
environment are entirely feasible and offer the possibility of a truly significant mechanism for the discharge of
substantive accountability regarding environmental matters and economic modernity. The irony is that it probably
involved more expense and effort to ensure that the development of these reports does not have any material bearing on
accountability . . . . there are a range of reasons why the development of and pursuit of environmental accounting might
be desirable from a broader perspective. And a focus on those reasons will inevitably lead, I would suggest, to a realisation
that the employment of debits and credits and the conformance or otherwise with accounting standards (in the manner
reported in “Green Eyeshades”) seems a complete irrelevance.
On the ‘function’ of accounting, Gray (2013, p. 467) notes:

A world in which the larger organisations disclosed such things as eco-balances and ecological footprints; in which the
interactions in all relationships between organisations and stakeholders were exposed, warts and all; when society could
know the full extent of an organisation’s compliance with law and quasi law; would be unlikely to look a great deal like
the world we now inhabit. This, I suggest, is the function of social, environmental and sustainability accounting or, as I
prefer to call it, “accounting”.
Spence et al. (2013) was the final (fourth) critique of Thornton (2013). One interesting point they make is about what
crises are likely to evoke a response from accounting standard setters. They note (p. 470):
Financial accounting standard-setters have had little to say about the ecological crisis. They were quick to set up a
financial crisis advisory group, but no such equivalent has ever been suggested for the ecological crisis.
This is an obvious observation, but an interesting reflection nevertheless. As with some other authors (for example, see
Cooper et al., 2011) they utilise the work of Bourdieu and the concept of ‘symbolic violence’ to inform some of their
argument. In this regard they state (p. 472):
Thus, in spite of the reasonableness of the arguments presented by Thornton, indeed, because the arguments presented
therein are so ‘sensible’ vis-a-vis accepted economic doctrine, they constitute a rather unsettling form of symbolic
violence. Symbolic violence takes place when overt violence is impossible or unnecessary (Bourdieu, 1977) . . . .Gentle,
hidden, misrecognised and unnoticed, often appearing in the form of entirely sensible arguments, symbolic violence
prevents meaningful change by misrecognising partisan discourses behind the rhetorical cloak of the wider public
interest.
The publications within CPA about the limitations of traditional financial accounting could usefully be prescribed as
reading material for undergraduate students of accounting who spend so much time learning debits and credits. Whilst it
might be important to inform students about what debits and credits record it is arguably more important at this point in
time to emphasise what they do not record particularly given that debits and credits are not likely to go away any time soon
(indeed they have been used in practice for over 600 years and hence have outlasted many animal and plant species they
have perhaps helped to make extinct). However, and at fear of sounding pessimistic, whether our colleagues within
academia who are comfortable with existing financial accounting principles and conventions are likely to highlight the
very real problems, oversights, and biases inherent in ‘accounting’ is rather questionable.
6.3. Positive research identifying explanations of, or motivations for, social and environmental reporting
This topic area was the third ranked area of focus of SEA researchers within CPA. Across all accounting journals,
historically this would probably be the research focus attracting the most attention from SEA researchers. Generally, such
research is performed by undertaking content analysis of corporate reports and through some theory, trying to explain the
changes in reporting focus by associating the changes to particular external events (such as particular social and
environmental crises or changes in extent or type of media attention). Typically, this form of research involves little or no
engagement and typically does not challenge existing social structures or institutions.
In terms of the papers that appeared in CPA, Buhr and Freedman (2001) applied content analysis to investigate how
history, geography, political systems, environmental values, legal environment, business climate and the accounting
profession explain differences between US and Canadian disclosure practices. This is relatively unique as not much research
in SEA considers such factors. Buhr (2002) used structuration theory again something rather unique as this theory is not
often used by SEA researchers to investigate the initiation of environmental reports at two Canadian pulp and paper
companies.
Rahaman, Lawrence, and Roper (2004) used institutional theory as well as theory from Habermas to explain social and
environmental reporting at Volta River Authority in Ghana. In undertaking their research, which utilised both interviews and
document analysis, they noted (p. 50) that “strong institutional pressure, particularly from the World Bank is the dominant
explanation for the Authority’s environmental reporting practices” and that the required reporting practices are “also used as
a means for promoting the social and political agenda of these international financial institutions, in some cases, to the
detriment of the borrowing organisation”.
In other research, Crowther and Hosking (2005) investigate disclosures around the time of outbreaks of foot and mouth
disease in the UK and show how accounting is used as part of the process to create a preferred ‘reality’. They adopt a
relational constructivist perspective to show how social identities and relations are constructed in written discourses.
Belal and Cooper (2011) focuses on disclosure within Bangladesh and explore the reluctance to disclose issues in relation
to eco-justice issues. They note (p. 663):
According to our interviewees, the main reasons for non-disclosure include lack of resources, the profit imperative, lack of
legal requirements, lack of knowledge awareness, poor performance and fear of bad publicity.
They further conclude (p. 664):

In line with the political economy of accounting we maintain that silence on these issues is designed to serve corporate
interests and benefit powerful stakeholder groups such as management and shareholders.
Islam and McPhail (2011) investigate the adoption of the International Labour Organisation’s human rights standards by
major multinational garment retail companies and show that discourse relating to human rights has found its way into the
voluntary disclosures made by multinational garment manufacturers. However the objectivity of such disclosures is
questionable and appears to support the financial interests of the organisations.
As a reflection of the variety of papers published in CPA (for example, in respect of differences in philosophies and
methods) we can consider Mahoney, Thorne, Cecil, and LaGore (2013)—a paper that is extremely ‘managerialist’ in
orientation. The authors consider that there are two different explanations for social reporting: signalling and greenwashing
(p. 350):
The first explanation, signalling, proposes that firms use standalone CSR Reports as a signal of their superior commitment
to CSR, which suggests firms with stronger social and environmental records will be more likely to issue standalone CSR
Reports as compared to those without. The second explanation, greenwashing, proposes that firms use standalone CSR
Reports to pose as ‘good’ corporate citizens even when they do not have stronger social and environmental records. To
provide insight into these explanations we compare the CSR performance scores of firms that issue CSR reports to those
firms that do not.
This was certainly not ‘new’ research and I was actually a little surprised this was published in CPA. This was a case where
invited critiques could have added value—perhaps a lost opportunity. In terms of their method. Mahoney et al. (2013, p. 353)
state:
We use CSR performance scores from the KLD database as a proxy for U.S. firms’ CSR performance.
These authors do not pay attention to the inherent limitations in using such ratings. Unfortunately this is a little too
common in the SEA literature wherein some authors assume quite simplistically that such ratings provide some form of
objective truth about social and environmental performance and that there is no need to actually look within the ‘black box’
of the ratings agency to determine how such performance assessments were made, or whether they privilege the interests of
some stakeholders over others (as a notable example, consider Clarkson, Li, Richardson and Vasvari, 2008 a paper
published in the reputable journal, Accounting, Organizations and Society, and which simply used ratings provided by the
Investor Responsibility Research Centre to ‘verify the accuracy’ of the other performance measures the authors had
constructed based upon the US Toxic Release Inventory). The insights provided in CPA by Bessire and Onnee (2010) about
ratings agencies – which we will soon consider – could have been usefully considered by such researchers.
The other key variable used by Mahoney et al. (2013) was ‘reporting’ – organisations within the sample were categorised
as either producing a CSR report, or not – a very poor discriminator. They note (p. 357):
Our results show that U.S. firms issuing standalone CSR Reports are in fact better corporate citizens than firms that do not
issue standalone CSR Reports, which is consistent with a signalling theory perspective. Signalling theory suggests that
“good” corporate citizens issue standalone CSR Reports to eliminate information asymmetries that may be preventing
them from reaping the benefits of their actions.
Again, the proxies used for ‘reporting’ and ‘performance’ were naïve in the extreme (indeed, harshly we could say
‘garbage in, garbage out’, to reject their findings as being of no relevance). Further, noting that producers of CSR reports are
good corporate citizens is probably not terribly useful to the whole debate. Such research shows an apparent lack of interest
in a host of SEA research that is available within CPA, and elsewhere. Looking for a positive side, the paper itself would be a
good paper to assign for new research students to critique, particularly in relation to the use of questionable proxies (see
Gray & Milne, 2015 for more comments on the use of questionable proxies).
A more thoughtful paper to explain disclosure was that of Makela (2013). According to Makela (2013, p. 361):
This study is interested in how corporations talk about their employees. The study is based on a notion that discourse
serves to enforce certain ideological stance(s) that further affect the way we construct ourselves and the world around
us . . . . The aim of the paper is to critically analyse the narrative employee reporting of the top 25 Finnish publicly listed
companies.
Whilst digressing somewhat, we can reflect on how much more sophisticated this thinking seems to be when compared
to the paper by Mahoney et al. (2013), as just described. In terms of the results, Makela (2013, p. 372) states:
The reporting painted only a partial picture of people within the companies. Furthermore, most of the companies only
disclosed the minimum amount of employee information that was required by law . . . . The previous literature shows
how the interests of employees and management (particularly when related to the restructurings at the workplace) are in
conflict (Barsky et al., 1999; Ferrie et al., 2008; Makela and Nasi, 2010; Taloussanomat, 2009a). However, this was not
shown in the reports studied here, as any conflict of interest was silenced . . . . The overall way of talking about employees
highlighted employees as efficient and skilled, without any faults or weaknesses . . . . The analysis showed how certain,
conflicting issues (the consequences of lay-offs, for instance) were omitted and silenced in the corporate disclosure and a
“smooth” employee discourse was presented . . . . Linked to the debate on sustainability, we see a dominance of the
unitarist, neoliberal logic and managerialism that emphasise the financial interests of shareholders.
Consistent with a theme that weaves its way through a number of SEA papers within CPA, Makela (2013, p. 373) notes:
A stream of accounting literature shows interest in the idea of “self-accounting” by employees. The underlying philosophy
of self-accounting is pluralistic and emancipatory. In other words, employee self-accounting is designed to enable rather
than to control employees (Dillard and Roslender, 2011; Roslender and Stevenson, 2009; Roslender et al., 2006).
Again, this is consistent with the recommendations made by Cooper et al. (2011). Makela (2013, p. 374) further notes:
Accounting discourse can influence and serve counter-hegemonic interests (see also Arrington & Francis, 1993; Brown,
2009; Cooper, 1995; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2003 on these potentials) by opening up new ways of seeing and informing
society at large of the various implications of corporate performance. A debate should be continued, then, over who
should actually be conducting the accounting and reporting about people (or social accounting in general) and how it
should be done . . . . This paper acknowledges the merits and potential of social accounting in [at least] two ways: firstly,
in making visible the wider corporate impacts and ‘the contradictory and conflictual character of accounting’ (Gallhofer &
Haslam, 2003, p. 157). Social accounting can inform society at large and provide new ways of seeing. Secondly, there is
potential in ‘alternative accountings’ when applied in a context that is not corporate-centric.
In concluding this section on explanations of, or motivations for, social and environmental disclosures we can see that
there are some great insights on offer that the entire SEA research community could usefully consider. Arguably if some of
the researchers who are well rehearsed in capital markets/neo-classical economic methodologies, and who have seen ‘new
opportunities’ in matters social and environmental, read some of the more critical insights discussed above then their
research might take on a more ‘real world’ orientation and have the potential to add some value. But, of course, whether they
would feel compelled to read outside their literature is another issue altogether.
6.4. Descriptions and/or evaluations of social and environmental reporting practice
The fourth broad area attracting the most SEA publications in CPA are descriptions and/or evaluations of social and
environmental reporting practice. Papers addressing this issue include Buhr (2001), Thompson and Bebbington (2005),
Coupland (2006), Patten and Freedman (2008), Freedman and Stagliano (2008), and Andrew and Cortese (2013). Perhaps
predictably, the overwhelming conclusion is current social and environmental reporting practices are deficient something
that would not be surprising to many critical theorists given the voluntary nature of much of this reporting (but perhaps
would be counter to the beliefs held by many capital market researchers who cling to beliefs that corporate disclosures are
generally made to assist the efficient operation of ‘markets’).
Buhr (2001) investigates the influence of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its environmental
‘side agreement’ on the environmental accountability being demonstrated by US and Canadian companies. A number of
concerns were raised when NAFTA was being developed in terms of the impacts it might have on the environment,
particularly given the poor environmental performance being demonstrated by a number of Mexican factories. Because of
concerns about how NAFTA would create more pressure on the environment the general expectation was that larger firms
benefiting from the agreement would increase disclosures identifying how they are ensuring that various environmental
concerns were being addressed that is, there was a prima facie expectation that they would demonstrate accountability in
relation to the environmental issues connected to NAFTA. The authors show that there was general ‘silence’ within the
disclosures, and therefore a lack of accountability.
Thomson and Bebbington (2005) is a very interesting and novel paper as it seeks to explore how social and environmental
reporting may be evaluated from a pedagogical perspective. In doing so they utilise the work of Friere (p. 513):
There are three elements within Freire’s work which specifically relate to the themes developed in this paper. There are:
the role of education in creating and sustaining oppression, a description of ‘banking education’ (as a form of oppressive
education), and a description of dialogic education (as the antithesis of an oppressive education) . . . . Banking education
is characterised as a process whereby (knowingly or unknowingly) teachers assume that their role is to fill up students
with objective/correct knowledge which students can then withdraw from their ‘bank’ of knowledge to demonstrate
understanding.
In respect of their results, they state (p. 524):

In summary, we suggest that social and environmental reporting (SER) generally appears to follow a banking approach.
SER does not appear to rebalance the power between the givers and receivers of accounts. The ‘users’ of accounts seem to
be regarded (and to be) passive, patient, unreflective bankers of information and information in SERs are motionless,
static, compartmentalised and predictable.
Patten and Freedman (2008) provided an overview of an investigation by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO)
into corporate environmental disclosure. Consistent with other research, the perceived adequacy of environmental
disclosure requirements varied significantly. As they note (p. 437):
At one end of the spectrum, the GAO notes that stakeholders including environmental interest groups, investment analysts
with an interest in socially responsible investing, researchers, and others believe that existing requirements result in
inadequate corporate disclosure . . . .In contrast, stakeholders representing industry, independent auditors, financial
analysts with general investment interests and others view current reporting requirements as adequate. The GAO also
reports that this group of stakeholders further suggest that requiring additional disclosure would not allow for better
investment decision making. Rather than seeing the flexibility in current standards as detrimental, these stakeholder groups
emphasised that reporting companies need to have a framework that can accommodate a variety of circumstances.
Despite the results of their analysis, the GAO did not favour any introduction of legislation to improve corporate
environmental reporting and associated monitoring. This is consistent with research generated elsewhere (for example,
Deegan and Shelly (2014) and Owen et al. (2005) and again emphasises that government will typically take the side of
business when it comes to debates about extending corporate accountability. The weight of such results in CPA and
elsewhere needs to be considered by authors who argue, perhaps naively, for the need for regulation to address deficient
practice evidence suggests that problems alone will not lead to the creation of legislation. Summarising the position of the
GAO, Patten and Freedman (2008, p. 442) note:
Rather than taking a definitive stance on the existing state of corporate environmental disclosure, the GAO instead
formally concluded “without more compelling evidence that the disclosure of environmental information is inadequate,
the need for changes to existing disclosure requirements and guidance or increasing monitoring and enforcement by SEC
is unclear”.
Again, as is often the case, the will of business appeared to win out. Consistent with the view that the business case will
‘win out’, Andrew and Cortese (2013) – in an examination of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board role of the regulation of
reporting firms – report (p. 397) that:
the origins of carbon regulation have emerged almost exclusively from within non-elected coalitions of multinationals
operating through private, not-for-profit entities. These organisations continue to shape community expectations and
influence government of climate change abatement strategies.
Another paper addressing disclosure quality was Freedman and Stagliano (2008). They evaluate disclosures by electricity
utilities in the US following Phase 2 of Title IV of the US Clean Air Act. They found very little disclosure in relation to plans to
reduce emissions or intentions in relation to pollution allowances (whether they will ‘bank’ them, sell them, use them, or
acquire them). All in all, disclosures were deemed to be “relatively poor”.
Therefore, the body of research in CPA (and elsewhere) continues to show that social and environmental reporting is
rather poor. Nevertheless, CSR/sustainability reporting award schemes continue to proliferate with some entrants inevitably
receiving awards for ‘reporting excellence’ (with such awards typically being sponsored by various business interests or
professional accounting bodies).
6.5. Potential role of accountants/accounting in creating positive social and/or environmental change
There is a deal of research that shows that reporting continues to be biased and of poor quality. Nevertheless there are
researchers who remain optimistic that accounting (of some form) will ultimately generate information which is of a vastly
improved character. There were five papers which were classified under this general theme, the first of which was Gray,
Walters, Bebbington, and Thompson (1995). This is an empirical paper and one reflective of the early optimism generally
embraced by Gray and his colleagues with respect to the potential that accountants, and SEA, have to create improvements in
the accountability being embraced by business entities, and that accounting can represent “new voices, new visibilities and
new discourses which can disrupt and encourage possibilities for change” (although it does seem that later work from Rob
Gray demonstrates some despair in relation to lack of improvement in ‘accounting’). Although acknowledging the concerns
in the ‘critical accounting literature’ that “accounting may capture and colonize the environment cleansing it of all its
important qualities” (p. 214) and the concerns of Cooper (1992) that environmental accounting might be a “negative reform
in that it arises from, and is located firmly within, the dominant capitalist, masculist hegemony”, accounting is nevertheless
seen as a potential agent for organisation change. Through interviews, Gray et al. (1995) report that where ‘green policies’
were embraced, they were generally undertaken for “direct business reasons” (survival, marketing, savings, competitive
strategy). “Indirect business reasons” (fear of criticism, prosecution, staff morale) were also deemed important. Whilst in the
minority, there were some accountants and organisations that were able to imagine (“somewhat dimly”) ‘new accounting’.
However, in general, accountants had little involvement with environmental reporting. The need for accountants to look
beyond conventional financial accounting practices was highlighted and the risk that if accounting for the environment did
not embrace new imaginings then there was a very good chance that, consistent with Tinker, Lehman, and Niemark (1991),
Puxty (1986), Puxty (1991) and Cooper (1992), accounting would be a means by which business interests will capture the
environmental agenda.
Lehman (1995) provides an evaluation of the need for environmental accounting. As with a lot of Glen’s work, it is not
empirical but is well grounded in theory. He uses the theory of Rawl’s to attempt to justify, or otherwise, the existence of
environmental accounting particularly to the extent it is grounded in a moral perspective of accountability. Like Gray, he sees
a role for accountability based on ‘social and moral obligations’. Lehman sees the dangers associated with current accounting
conventions and the reliance on ‘decision usefulness’ as a basis for justifying disclosure. As Lehman emphasises, “when
accounting is defined in terms of decision-usefulness the technical role of providing a ‘set of numbers’ is given prominence at
the expense of accountability”. Lehman sees a place for environmental accounting to the extent that it requires managers to
give reasons for their use of the environment, which in itself should be treated as a ‘primary good’.
Lehman (1995) also provides a very interesting definition of accounting, this being that it is “both the means for defending
actions and the means for identifying which actions one must defend”. Accounting information should “form part of a public
account given by a firm to justify its behaviour” (p.408). It would be interesting to give these definitions to undergraduate
accounting students as the basis for stimulating debate.
Larringa-Gonzalez and Bebbington (2001) represents the results of a two year case study within a large Spanish firm that
generates electricity. It reviews the implementation of environmental accounting and its influence on creating
organisational change between 1992 and 1994. The research addresses an aspect of practice that seems important but
which has attracted little research, specifically “the mechanics of organisational change with the aim of providing a guide to
the process by which organisations ‘go green’, or a theoretical explanation of how such change may come about” (p. 279). The
authors identify two heuristics for understanding complex organisational process, these being ‘organisational change’ and
‘institutional appropriation’. According to the authors, the idea of institutional appropriation is drawn from (p. 270):
neo-Marxist and Critical Theoretical approaches, as well as ecological and feminist perspectives, to suggest that
organisations are unlikely to change in substantive ways in response to the environmental agenda. As a result, any
suggested changes in accounting need to be carefully evaluated to ensure that the radical intent behind environmental
accounting is not lost, or ‘swallowed up’ by corporate hegemony, with the result that the issues which environmental
accounting seeks to address will remain unaddressed. Indeed, some of these texts suggest that not only will the
accounting interventions fail to address the problems identified but the meagre action undertaken in the name of
accounting for the environment will be used to ‘appropriate’ the environmental agenda.
The alternative perspective is ‘organisational change’ in which (p. 270):

environmental accounting can be mobilised as a means of encouraging organisations to change in ways that reduce their
unsustainability.
The authors predict that change is likely to fall between these two extremes. The results show little substantive
organisational change and incidents of institutional appropriation are identified.
Other research in this general area include Lodhia (2003) and Ball (2007). Lodhia (2003) projected a role for accountants
in Fiji but found that they were generally absent from environmental management accounting and reporting in
organisations. Ball (2007) discusses the potential that SEA has as “part of a repertoire of tactics used by employees as they
attempt to build an organisational response to environmental issues” (p. 760). She suggests that SEA can be applied as a form
of “workplace activism”.
6.6. Developments of, critiques of, or refinements to theories to explain why SEA is undertaken, or to explain why it should or should
not be undertaken
A theme that has, in recent years, emerged in the SEA literature, and within CPA, is that institutional theory has many
insights to offer that have been largely ignored by SEA researchers, and that legitimacy theory, as used in the SEA is too
simplistic and ignores many insights that are otherwise available. In this spirit, Spence, Husillos, and Correa-Ruiz (2010) are
critical of theories popularly used within SEA research, in particular with the use of legitimacy theory. Whilst not a new
observation, they note that legitimacy theory the theory frequently used in SEA research has been embraced and then
developed in isolation from other literatures. They also note, consistent with a number of other critics, that the ‘society’
variable in legitimacy theory studies “remains a rather clumsy theoretical construct”. They specifically state (p. 81):
Legitimacy Theory the doyen of the SER literature does not appear to have been applied in any literature other than
SER (Adams and Larrinaga, 2007). Legitimacy is tackled in other organisational literatures, but generally through either
resource dependency theory or institutional theory (Oliver, 1991; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Scott, 1995; Suchman, 1995).
Within the resource dependency camp, legitimacy is considered as an operational resource on which the organisation is
dependent for survival (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). In contrast, within the institutional
approach, legitimacy is not considered as an operational resource but as a set of constitutive beliefs (Suchman, 1988)
which are adapted to conform to external expectations about what is acceptable (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In both
cases, these theories deal with how organisations obtain support from constituencies, much the same as legitimacy
theory does in SER. Therefore one obvious question which arises is ‘what does legitimacy theory explain that these more
developed theories cannot’?
Again, whilst the insights provided by Spence et al. (2010) are not new, it is an interesting point that whilst the construct
of ‘legitimacy’ is used across various literatures, it is within SEA research that the term ‘legitimacy theory’ has been
embraced. Researchers have borrowed the construct of ‘legitimacy’ from institutional theories and then it has taken on a life/
theory of its own within the SEA literature wherein legitimacy is often then linked to notions of social contracts. Certainly,
within the SEA literature ‘legitimacy theory’ did take over and effectively became institutionalised. Unfortunately many
researchers that adopt legitimacy do not appreciate its limitations or origins but effectively just join the ‘bandwagon’ of
people using it. That said, the application of ‘legitimacy theory’ has nevertheless provided some useful insights although it is
arguably time for a richer analysis, which perhaps would be available through an application of institutional theory and not
just of the type often used wherein the insights are restricted to those provided from institutional theory of the DiMaggio and
Power (1983) depiction (with its reliance on three forms of isomorphism and associated decoupling). There are many
insights in the sociological branch of legitimacy theory that should be of interests to SEA researchers (institutional theory
also has been developed relatively independently within the economics and political science disciplines).
Related to the above discussion, another paper in CPA – Ball and Craig (2010) – consider the ability of institutional theory
to explore the roles that ‘new accountings’ play in change processes. They state (p. 284):
The tendency to focus on individual organisation(s) as the level of analysis in social and environmental accounting
research also raises the question of whether sufficient attention has been accorded to the broader institutional
environment.
Turning our attention to another theory often used in the accounting literature generally, in the 1990s the dominant
accounting theory was Positive Accounting Theory (see, for example, Watts and Zimmerman, 1986). While its popularity has
waned somewhat, it nevertheless still informs a great deal of research within financial accounting. This theory is embedded
with many simplistic assumptions about market efficiencies and personal motivations but it is a theory that generated
predictions that were typically supported by research. There were many critics of the theory, including the leading SEA
researchers, Gray, Owen and Adams who, amongst other things, stated (1996, p. 75) that Positive Accounting Theory
promotes ‘a morally bankrupt view of the world’. Within CPA, Neu and Simmons (1996) use an empirical analysis (including
interviews) of site restoration costs to provide an interesting critique of Positive Accounting Theory (a theory which, because
of its reliance on notions of self-interest, also provides little hope for those that believe managers have a responsibility to care
about people and nature). This critique was important as it provided a contrary view to that which was dominating in so
many (so called) leading journals and accounting schools of the time. As many of us know, Watts and Zimmerman’s theory
became the dominant theory for many researchers seeking to explain managers’ choice or support of particular financial
accounting policies. It simply sought to explain practice but did not seek to evaluate that practice by any form of normative
analysis. As such it was a study of ‘what is’, rather than ‘what could be’. Because of its simplistic assumptions (managers are
self-interested and driven by wealth maximisation), and because it generally utilised only three hypotheses (the debt
hypotheses, the bonus hypothesis, and the political cost hypothesis) it ignored the richness of other possible explanations,
such as those available through institutional arguments, or through considerations of factors such as location. Neu and
Simmons therefore question the simplistic nature of the theory, particularly “the decontextualized nature of positive
accounting research” and the need to consider other factors, such as social location/relations, as well as a variety of
normative influences all of which can be complex and intertwined.
6.7. Other areas of SEA research within CPA
Apart from the topics of research already discussed above, there were a number of other issues/questions addressed
within the SEA research published within CPA. In the area of government initiatives to address climate change we can
consider Andrew, Kaidonis, and Andrew (2010). They address issues associated with the use of either emission trading
schemes or carbon taxes. They note that there is greater certainty of costs under a carbon tax, whereas the price of emissions,
as directly incurred by the firm are highly volatile under an emissions trading scheme (ETS). The authors point to the obvious
irony of an ETS it is a market based system designed to address a problem that was caused by freely operating markets. In
discussing the incentives-based nature of an ETS (the higher the price the greater the likelihood of reducing emissions) the
authors point out (p. 616):
Therefore the reliance upon an ETS as an incentive for behavioural change speaks to the neoliberal imperative that the
firm must have ultimate freedom of choice of whether to keep ‘business as usual’ based on commercial imperatives. In
fact it would be possible for a firm to financially benefit from participating in an ETS by keeping business as usual as long
as other firms were making reductions to pollution. Indeed, the responsibility for pollution is not placed with the polluter,
and there need not be a direct link with carbon mitigation . . . .The three big advantages of a carbon tax over an ETS are
that the tax would be more transparent and visible (and thus harder to evade or avoid), the revenue would flow to an
accountable government which would be able to use the extra funds for a socially useful purpose such as providing access
to ‘green’ energy for low-income households and to fund green energy sources (Andrew et al., 2010). The revenue under
an ETS would flow to a range of market participants and the benefits—that is profits on trading carbon permits need not
translate into carbon pollution reduction.
In terms of the apparent ‘legitimacy’ of an ETS, the authors also note (p. 616):
We argue that the legitimacy of market-based climate change solutions is largely constructed. It is constructed by
governments who have bought into a neoliberal ideology that presumes the best approach to policy is to allow markets to
work as freely as possible to address emerging social and environmental issues. The same drive to make a buck that
created global warming in the first place can now be harnessed to slow the carbon-based pollution.
The insights reflected in Andrew et al. (2010) have ongoing relevance throughout the world as various jurisdictions
consider the merits of ETS. In other related research, another paper in CPA, namely Mete, Dick, and Moerman (2010),
undertook discourse analysis of key public documents to analyse the meanings attributed to terms such as ‘carbon permits’.
Another area of SEA research to appear in CPA related to accounting education. There was (unfortunately) only one paper
which specifically delved into the role accounting education has in embedding social and environmental awareness, and this
was Gray and Collison (2002). We will return to imperatives associated with education in the concluding section of this
commentary. Gray and Collison (2002) take the position (which does seem very reasonable) that (p. 798):
it is highly appropriate for all professional bodies and institutions to start the process of examining how environmental
matters might most efficiently and effectively be embedded into their educational and training structures.
In trying to explain how or why teachers of accounting embed societal issues into the programs (or not) the authors
explain that it really depends upon how the teachers view accounting and its purpose. For example, their positions will be
related to whether they are advocates of the critical literature, the managerialist literature, or the middle of the road
literature (as explained earlier in this commentary). In summing up their findings, the authors state (p. 813):
Accounting education in the universities will produce, it seems, ethically immature, intellectually naïve, ill-educated,
non-reflective, uncritical minds who will, by and large, accept what they are given and reproduce what they are given
without any critical engagement with it.
This is certainly not a favourable view of accounting training/education and the reality is that the same conclusions could
probably still be made today.
Another area addressed within CPA was positive research looking at relationships between economic performance and
environmental performance. The paper – Freedman and Jaggi (1992) – is one which has been fairly highly cited in the SEA
literature (Freedman subsequently had further papers published in CPA which adopted similar methodologies). This paper
was very ‘economic’ in nature and sought to investigate by statistical means whether there was an association between long-
run pollution and economic performance (including return on equity, return on assets) of firms in the pulp and paper
industry. The results of the paper provided results which were counter to many of the expectations of the day, this being that
firms were not negatively impacted economically as a result of embracing technologies that reduced the level of pollution
being generated. According to the authors, such results could be used as a counter narrative to arguments being projected by
industry at the time that the introduction of environmental legislation was too costly and would be detrimental to the
economy.
CPA has also published papers that have investigated practicing accountants’, as well as accounting researchers’, views
towards SEA. For example, Ball (2004) investigated why accounting for sustainability in the public sector has received less
attention from accounting researchers than has the private sector. Kuasirikun (2005) explores attitudes to social and
environmental accounting among Thai accounting professionals.
Another interesting area of research to be published in CPA related to motivations for legislators/standard setters to
support particular SEA disclosure requirements. Cho, Chen, and Roberts (2008) investigate how, within the US, political
donations can be used to affect decisions about legislated disclosure requirements, specifically (p. 451):
This study examines how the chemical and petroleum industries, through their political action committees contributions
appear to have intended to suppress the passage of a piece of legislation requiring the disclosure of environmental
information.
In terms of the philosophical basis of the research (p. 453):

Most of these studies, including our study, examine the interactions between corporations, business interest groups, and
legislators as participants in a political market. Thus, all participants are viewed as self-interested motivated actors.
Corporations and other interest groups seek legislation that is beneficial to them. Legislators seek re-election and work
with interest groups to provide legislation that will enable them to get the financial support and votes needed to remain
in office.
In terms of their findings, they report (p. 463):

First our results show that the industries in question make significantly higher PAC contributions to members of Congress
who hold influential positions in the passage of environment-related legislation . . . .On average, those who received
more campaign funds from environment-damaging industries voted against the passage of pro-environment legislation,
which would satisfy such industries. The political strategies used by the chemical and petroleum industries appear to
have thus been effective in influencing environment-related votes.
So, overall, Cho et al. (2008) is a very interesting paper, albeit it is based on the rather pessimistic assumption that all
individual action is based on self-interest. The insights provided are not at all optimistic for those of us who see regulation as
a way forward. Research, such as that in Cho et al. (2008), caution us that it is naïve to assume that politicians will always act
in the public interest.
The last paper that I will mention, and one that I found particularly appealing was Bessire and Onnee (2010). Whilst
predating Gray and Milne (2015) it provides great support to Gray and Milne’s concern about the use of various dubious
‘proxies’ within SEA research. As indicated earlier in this commentary, many researchers use CSR ratings as objective facts
without delving deeper. They then tie these to other variables. According to the Bessire and Onnee (2010, p. 446):
Our study started with an action research project: we were asked by a social analysis and rating organisation which
operates in France to conduct a critical analysis of the grid they used to assess corporate governance (CG), with the
claimed objective of improving it.
It terms of the role of ratings organisations, Bessire and Onnee (2010, p. 453) note:
Social analysis and rating organisations play a decisive role in the process of legitimation in the field of CSR. They can be
considered as institutional entrepreneurs, that is “actors who create norms, values and scripts and by whose actions the
new institution becomes accepted”.
The authors see the ratings process as being part of a broader legitimation process (p. 454):
Through their evaluations, social analysis and rating organisations legitimate asset managers’ activities towards their
hierarchy and investors; they legitimate companies as regards their stakeholders; they legitimate index providers which
in their turn legitimate companies. Social analysis and rating organisations are therefore at the core of a legitimation
system which however appears to be fragile . . . . Obviously social analysis and rating organisations cannot deliver
legitimacy to the different actors in the field if they have not ensured their own legitimacy. It appears that this legitimacy
is fragile and that it is now subject to new challenges.
In terms of their results, the authors state (p.463):

Our study points to several points of concern. First, the selection of items to be rated, the scale used for measurement
(number of points, linear or non-linear. .), the algorithm used to aggregate the series of individual ratings into a global
rating (weight of each item, use of filters. .), appears more the result of an intuitive process than of a scientific process. The
methodology appears still weaker when social analysis and rating organisations try to establish a kind of mechanistic
correlation between rating and risk. . . . .In short, these ratings do not measure social performance but economic
performance in the most traditional sense, that is, according to the prescriptions of agency theory and of property rights
theory, and more generally speaking, of neo-classical economics which give priority to shareholders. Since socially
responsible stock market indexes are fed by social rating, it is obvious that they are even less reliable than the ratings
themselves . . . .we consider that research based on the exploitation of data bases provided by social analysis and rating
organisations is irrelevant, not only from a methodological, but also from a theoretical point of view.
The insights provided by Bessire and Onnee (2010) are therefore very relevant for people who are contemplating using
particular social and environmental ratings as part of their research.
7. Hits, misses and ways forward
I will now return to the title of this commentary ‘Twenty five years of social and environmental accounting research
within Critical Perspectives of Accounting: hits, misses and ways forward’. In relation to ‘hits’, there are certainly a number of
‘hits’ within CPA (and a few misses). These hits and misses have been addressed in the preceding pages of this commentary.
What has been emphasised in this commentary is that the works of a number of the authors are important in not only
highlighting how current approaches to ‘accounting’ privilege the interests of some members of society in preference to
others, but also in informing us about potential ‘new imaginings’ in respect of how more holistic ‘accounts’ could be
developed which incorporate multiple voices, and which present ‘counter accounts’. The whole notion of dialogic accounting
(Brown, 2009) has so much to offer. What a number of the papers with a more ‘critical edge’ importantly do is that they make
the important point that apart from considering the political foundations inherent in existing structures, institutions, and
practices we also need to critically examine the political foundations inherent within our work/research, otherwise we are
quite likely to implicitly adopt some form of conservative capitalist liberalism (see Gray, 1998, p. 213).
Directly related to the above points, we also clearly need to look beyond existing ‘business as usual’ practice when
undertaking our research. Undertaking more detailed and refined analysis of current business and reporting practices,
although interesting, is not likely to create great change.
Another issue that has also become apparent in recent years is that the SEA area is now starting to attract the interests of
‘capital markets researchers’ (Parker, 2014) many of whom could not previously see the relevance of the environment, or
societal issues, to the practice of accounting. Whilst of course they have every right to undertake such research, we probably
need to be careful that their preoccupation with issues such as the value relevance of particular social and environmental
disclosures, satisfying shareholder demands, and so forth, do not distract up-and-coming SEA researchers from issues which
are arguably of more importance. Gray and Milne (2015) actually question whether researchers “who know patently little or
nothing about society, the natural environment, or sustainability” can, or even should, be involved in the area—an interesting
point for debate. What is clear is that, apart from being mindful of the entrants from capital markets research (Parker, 2014),
we need to attract the right people with a mixture of imagination, real concern about current ecological and social problems,
an ability to engage, and some optimism. In terms of the need for attracting the right people with ‘bundles of imagination’,
Gray et al. (2014, p. 327) note:
It seems highly likely that the really effective and influential financial initiatives and the really serious accounts of
sustainability have yet to be imagined, let alone developed.
Whilst a number of authors within CPA have provided great insights/prescriptions into the needs for broader ‘accounts’,
we do need more refined details on what these new accounts actually might look like (although see, for example Bebbington
and Gray (2001) and Lamberton (2000)). Undergraduate students are often bombarded with traditional practice sets
wherein they are presented with a whole lot of transactions and events and then required to compose journal entries,
undertake ledger postings, and then prepare trial balances and financial statements. As a counter exercise to provide balance,
perhaps it would be useful to develop practice sets (or perhaps we would call these “counter” practice sets?) which are
assessable to both teachers and students and that enable dialogic accounts/counter accounts/shadow accounts to be
presented which emphasise that for many areas of operation there are potentially multiple perspectives/pictures of success
or failure. Interested people probably need to see what these ‘accounts’ might look like before they are able to decide to
employ them as part an ‘accounting’ function.
A theme that also arises within CPA relates to engagement (including issues associated with potential corporate ‘capture’
of researchers). When we undertake our research we often engage with management. The works within CPA emphasise that
it is important to engage beyond management and perhaps with social movements so as to explore the conflicts that exist
within society. ‘New accounts’ and ‘new imaginings’ do require new forms of engagement.
Beyond the process of research, how we engage with others in respect of disseminating our results is also a key issue. Over
the years I have met many academics who have passionately argued against current practices and institutions on the basis of
the perceived inequities such structures help to create and sustain. Often, their views are based upon well researched
philosophical foundations. If we do portray a perspective of concern about social injustices and with the way society is
ordered then aren’t we being hypocritical if our only form of engagement is with other academics through the vehicles of
journal publications and conference attendances? That is, publishing our research in academic journals and within
conferences is arguably not enough if we think our results do have some broader social relevance. Cooper (2002, p. 454) also
makes the point:
Academics at the beginning of the twenty-first century write theoretical pieces, which hardly anyone reads, mainly for
each other using impenetrable language.
Cooper also notes (2002, p.452):

I can’t help but feel that intellectual pessimism about the possibility of social change is alive and well in much critical
accounting research. Many academics who describe themselves as critical do not seem to believe in the possibility of
social change and certainly never strive to change the world, preferring instead to concentrate on theory alone or upon
work which is strangely separate from contemporary social movements. There are of course notable exceptions.
If we have key findings that are of potential relevance to particular social and environmental groups/movements, then we
need to make sure that these groups can avail themselves of our research (whether they act on it will be up to them but
arguably we are accountable to such groups). Also, the potential available in engaging with the news media needs greater
exploration. For example, we often generate results which identify significant concerns in the nature of the ‘accounts’ being
prepared by organisations (together with reflections of how these depictions then contribute to undermining the interests of
particular stakeholders). It would not hurt to make such results known to the news media again, we cannot expect to make
change if there are only a few hundred academics reading our results. In this regard we can learn much from the ongoing
actions of Prem Sikka in highlighting various concerns and injustices he perceives as occurring.
One area that did not attract much attention within the SEA research published within CPA related to the role of education
in creating change. The reality, sadly, is that most accounting programs throughout the world have probably not really
changed that much in the last 25 years in terms of fixating on financial performance and related measures, and ignoring the
role that ‘accounting’ can play in both creating social and environmental problems, as well as in addressing them. Social and
environmental accounting and related issues typically get no more than a few weeks consideration across an accounting
degree (typically within a subject on ‘accounting theory’). Of course there are some universities that have an entire subject
on the area but they are greatly in the minority. Arguably, the role of accounting in society, and the importance of broader
social and environmental considerations and ethics, needs to be embedded throughout a program not simply as an ‘add
on’.
As accounting educators, the group within society that we have the most likely impact upon are our students. In effect, we
have a captured audience. How can we really say we are trying to create change if we do not try to embed some form of social
and environmental consciousness within our programs (Gray and Collison, 2002)? Whilst a great deal of the content of
accounting programs seems to be governed by the requirements of the ‘accounting profession’ and governments we also
need to understand, consistent with various publications within CPA, that accounting professions, and governments, do tend
to privilege the rights of some groups over others. Hence, accepting that professional bodies can dictate course contents is
also a tacit acceptance that we believe in the philosophies inherent within such bodies. If we are to believe that many existing
practices within society are not ‘just’ then we need to consider integrating more critical thinking within our educational
programs. As Gray et al. (2014, p. 326) usefully state:
If social accounting is to be seen for the liberating and emancipatory and even essential innovation that it is, it requires a
much wider consideration amongst accounting and business teachers and a recognition that current dogma does not
represent the best of all possible worlds. A commitment to critical analysis of existing practices and dogma will,
inevitably, lead to a questioning and that allows the possibilities of social accounting to at least be considered.
Again, let us individually reflect upon how the teaching of accounting has really changed over the last 25 years? As various
ecological and social crises have become more and more apparent how has our education responded? Should it?
So, in concluding this commentary, we can probably agree that there really are some very real social and environmental
problems ‘out there’ that need to be addressed and probably rather urgently. Whilst many (but not all) of us thought that
social and environmental accounting would increase corporate accountability and highlight various areas of operation that
needed to be addressed (and therefore, improved), the reality is that reporting and accountability have really not improved in
substance over the last 25 years (which would not be surprising to many critical theorists) and the state of the environment,
and the equitable treatment of people within many societies has probably got worse over the same period. Therefore, if the
aim of this body of research was to create positive change then it is not at all clear that this ‘project’ has been successful. Some
might even argue that it has been an abysmal failure. We will have our own opinions on this. In general, and with some
exceptions, accounting educators have not embraced the need to instil beliefs about broadening organisational
accountability; corporate managers have typically used SEA as a means of bolstering business-as-usual practices and
philosophies; and, accounting regulators, such as the IASB and FASB, have paid scant attention to the area.
If, as accounting academics and researchers, we do have a commitment to society and the environment and if we do
accept that there are some real structural problems within society in terms of how organisations operate and the
accountability they demonstrate then this arguably does require: a refocus of our research efforts; a greater level of
imagination and a consideration beyond ‘business as usual’ practices; an explicit recognition of our own political biases; a
critical review of our engagement practices with reflection about whether we are motivated to create ‘change’, or whether
we are simply on a quest to have more sophisticated debate with like-minded colleagues; and, a scrutiny of our education
and teaching practices and the ideologies embedded therein.
References
Andrew, J., & Cortese, C. (2013). Free market environmentalism and the neoliberal project: the case of the climate disclosure standards board. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting397–408.
Andrew, J., Kaidonis, M., & Andrew, B. (2010). Carbon tax: challenging neoliberal solutions to climate change. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21, 611–618.
Ball, A., & Craig, R. (2010). Using neo-institutionalism to advance social and environmental accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21, 283–293.
Ball (2004). A sustainability accounting project for the UK local government sector? Testing the social theory mapping process and locating a frame of
reference. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15, 1009–1035.
Ball, A. (2007). Environmental accounting as workplace activism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18, 759–778.
Bebbington, J., & Gray, R. (2001). An account of sustainability: failure, success and a reconceptualization. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 557–587.
Belal, A., & Cooper, S. (2011). The absence of corporate social responsibility reporting in Bangladesh. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 654–667.
Bessire, D., & Onnee, S. (2010). Assessing corporate social performance: strategies of legitimation and conflicting ideologies. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 21, 445–467.
Birkin, F., Edwards, P., & Woodward, D. (2005). Accounting’s contribution to a conscious cultural evolution: an end to sustainable development. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 16, 185–208.
Birkin, F. (1996). The ecological accountant: from the cogito to thinking like a mountain. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7, 231–257.
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013). Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the ‘death of environmentalism’ debates. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 1–18.
Brown, J. (2009). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20, 313–342.
Buhr, N., & Freedman, M. (2001). Culture: institutional factors and differences in environmental disclosure between Canada and the United States. Critical
Buhr, N. (2001). Corporate silence: environmental disclosure and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 405–421.
Buhr, N. (2002). A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13, 17–38.
Callincos, A. (1999). Social theory: a historical introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Chetty, K. (2011). From responsibility to accountability—social accounting, human rights and Scotland. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 750–761.
Cho, C., & Patten, D. (2013). Green accounting: reflections from a CSR and environmental disclosure perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 443–
447.
Cho, C., Chen, J., & Roberts, R. (2008). The politics of environmental disclosure regulation in the chemical and petroleum industries: evidence from the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19, 450–465.
Cooper, C., Coulson, A., & Taylor, P. (2011). Accounting for human rights: doxic health and safety practices—the accounting lesson from ICL. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 22, [738–738.
Cooper, C. (1992). The non and nom of accounting for (m)other nature. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 5(3), 16–39.
Cooper, C. (2002). Critical accounting in Scotland. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13, 451–462.
Coupland, C. (2006). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in web-based reports: currency in the banking sector? Critical Perspectives on
Crowther, D., & Hosking, D. (2005). Accounting in babel? Constructing social accounting as a multi-logical performance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
16, 535–550.
Deegan, C., & Shelly, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibilities: alternative perspectives about the need to legislate. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 499–526.
Deegan, C., & Soltys, S. (2007). Social accounting research: An Australasian perspective. Accounting Forum, 31, 73–89.
Deegan, C. (2013). The accountant will have a central role in saving the planet . . . really? A reflection on ‘green accounting and green eyeshades’ twenty
years later. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 448–458.
Deegan, C. (2014). Financial accounting theory, 4th ed. Sydney: McGraw Hill Education.
Defeo, V., & Falk, H. (1998). Audited social responsibility disclosures. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9, 193–199.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.
Frankental, P. (2011). No accounting for human rights. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 762–764.
Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (1992). An investigation of the long-run relationship between pollution performance and economic performance: the case of pulp
and paper firms. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 3, 315–336.
Freedman, M., & Stagliano, A. (2008). Environmental disclosures: electric utilities and phase 2 of the clean air act. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19, 466–
486.
Freedman, M. (1998). Social disclosure: attestation and the single audit act. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9, 201–204.
Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., & van der Walt, S. (2011). Accountability and transparency in relation to human rights: a critical perspective reflecting upon
accounting, corporate responsibility and ways forward in the context of globalisation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 765–780.
Garnaut, R. (2011). Garnaut review 2011: Australia in the global response to climate change. http://garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-
2011.html.
Gibson, C. (1996). The problem with reporting pollution allowances: reporting is not the problem. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7, 655–665.
Gray, R., & Bebbington, J. (2001). An account of sustainability: failure, success and a reconceptualisation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 557–587.
Gray, R., & Collison, D. (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, 797–836.
Gray, R., & Gray, S. (2011). Accountability and human rights: a tentative exploration and a commentary. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 781–789.
Gray, R., & Laughlin, R. (2012). It was 20 years ago today. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(2), 228–255.
Gray, R., & Milne, M. (2015). It’s not what you do: it’s the way you do it: of method and madness. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 32, 51–66.
Gray, R., Walters, D., Bebbington, J., & Thompson, I. (1995). The greening of enterprise: an exploration of the (non) role of environmental accounting and
environmental accountants in organizational change. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6, 211–239.
Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and Accountability: changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice
Hall.
Gray, R., Adams, C., & Owen, D. (2014). Accountability. Social Responsibility and Sustainability. Pearson. London: Education.
Gray, R. (1998). Imagination: a bowl of petunias and social accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9, 205–216.
Gray, R. (2013). Back to basics: what do we mean by environmental (and social) accounting and what is it for?—a reaction to Thornton. Critical Perspectives on
Grinnell, D., & Hunt, H. (2002). Gifted pollution allowances: recognising a liability to society. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13, 211–228.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2014), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland.(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Islam, M., & McPhail, K. (2011). Regulating for corporate human rights abuses: the emergence of corporate reporting on the ILO’s human rights standards
within the global garment manufacturing and retain industry. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 790–810.
Joseph, G. (2012). Ambiguous but tethered: an accounting basis for sustainability. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23, 93–106.
Kuasirikun, N. (2005). Attitudes to the development and implementation of social and environmental accounting in Thailand. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 16, 1035–1057.
Lamberton, G. (2000). Accounting for sustainable development—a case study of city farm. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11, 583–605.
Larringa-Gonzalez, C., & Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting change or institutional appropriation? A case study of the implementation of environmental
accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 269–292.
Lee, T. (1998). A stakeholder approach to auditing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9, 217–226.
Lehman, G. (1995). A legitimate concern for environmental accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6, 393–412.
Lehman, G. (1996). Environmental accounting pollution permits or selling the environment. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7, 667–676.
Lodhia, S. (2003). Accountants’ responses to the environmental agenda in a developing nation: an initial and exploratory study on Fiji. Critical Perspectives on
Mahoney, L., Thorne, L., Cecil, L., & La Gore, W. (2013). A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports: signalling or greenwashing?
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 350–359.
Makela, H. (2013). On the ideological role of employee reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 360–378.
Mete, P., Dick, C., & Moerman, L. (2010). Creating institutional meaning: accounting and taxation law perspectives of carbon permits. Critical Perspectives on
Milne, M. (1996). Capitalizing and appropriating society’s rights to clean air: a comment on Wambsganss & Sanford’s accounting proposal. Critical
Neu, D., & Simmons, C. (1996). Reconsidering the social in positive accounting theory: the case of site restoration costs. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7,
409–435.
Owen, D., Shaw, K., Cooper, S. (2005). The operating and financial review: a catalyst for improved corporate social and environmental disclosure, ACCA
Research Report no 89, http://www.accaglobal.com/pubs/publicinterest/activities/research/ research_archive/rr-089-001.pdf.
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting
research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(2), 240–267.
Owen, D. (2014). The evolution of social reporting: the ‘early days’. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(2), 75–80.
Parker, L. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research Accounting. Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842–860.
Parker, L. (2014). Constructing a research field: a reflection on the history of social and environmental accounting. Social and Environmental Accountability
Journal, 34(2), 87–92.
Patten, D., & Freedman, M. (2008). The GAO investigation of corporate environmental disclosure: an opportunity missed. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
19, 435–449.
Puxty, A. (1986). Social accounting as immanent legitimation: a critique of a technist ideology. Advances in Public Interest Theory, 1, 95–112.
Puxty, A. (1991). Social accountability and universal pragmatics. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 4, 35–46.
Rahaman, A., Lawrence, S., & Roper, J. (2004). Social and environmental reporting at the VRA: institutionalised legitimacy or legitimation crisis? Critical
Roberts, R. (1998). A stakeholder approach to the corporate single audit. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9, 227–232.
Roslender, R. (2006). Critical theory. In Z. Hoque (Ed.), Methodological issues in accounting research: theories and method (pp. 247–270).London: Spiramus
Press.
Saravanamuthu, K., & Lehman, C. (2013). Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24,
410–437.
Saravanamuthu, K. (2004). What is measured counts: harmonised corporate reporting and sustainable economic development. Critical Perspectives on
Shaoul, J. (1998). Critical financial analysis and accounting for stakeholders. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9, 235–249.
Sikka, P. (2011). Accounting for human rights: the challenge of globalisation and foreign investment agreements. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 811–
827.
Spence, Husillos, & Correa-Ruiz (2010). Cargo cult science and the death of politics: a critical review of social and environmental accounting research. Critical
Spence, C., Chabrak, N., & Pucci, R. (2013). Doxic sunglasses: a response to ‘Green accounting and green eyeshades: twenty years later’. Critical Perspectives on
Stern, N. (2006). The stern review on the economics of climate change. London: UK Government.
Sutton, S., & Arnold, V. (1998). Towards a framework for a corporate single audit: meeting financial statement users’ needs. Critical Perspectives on
Thomson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2005). Social and environmental reporting in the UK: a pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16, 507–533.
Thornton, D. B. (2013). Green accounting and green eyeshades: twenty years later. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 474–476.
Tinker, A., Lehman, C., & Niemark, M. (1991). Falling down the hole in the middle of the road: political quietism in corporate social reporting. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4(1), 8–54.
Wambsganss, J., & Sanford, B. (1996). The problem with reporting pollution allowances. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7, 643–652.
Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1986). Positive accounting theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

25 Years of SEAR Within CPA Deegan 2016

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

25 Years of SEAR Within CPA Deegan 2016

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Critical Perspectives on Accounting 43 (2017) 65–87

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

Twenty ﬁve years of social and environmental accounting

E-mail address: craig.deegan@rmit.edu.au (C. Deegan).

2. What is social and environmental accounting?

3. Research in SEA a brief overview

 descriptions and/or evaluations of social and environmental reporting practice;

3.1. The role of Critical Perspectives of Accounting in the wider debate

4. An overview of SEA publication numbers in CPA

5. The philosophical bases of the publications

6. Topic areas within the SEA research

6.1. New imaginings

For pragmatic purposes, Cooper et al. (2011, p. 755) suggest:

On the ‘function’ of accounting, Gray (2013, p. 467) notes:

They further conclude (p. 664):

6.4. Descriptions and/or evaluations of social and environmental reporting practice

In respect of their results, they state (p. 524):

The alternative perspective is ‘organisational change’ in which (p. 270):

6.7. Other areas of SEA research within CPA

In terms of the philosophical basis of the research (p. 453):

In terms of their ﬁndings, they report (p. 463):

In terms of their results, the authors state (p.463):

7. Hits, misses and ways forward

Cooper also notes (2002, p.452):

Вам также может понравиться

descriptions and/or evaluations of social and environmental reporting practice;