Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

This Books is available in PDF format
http://www.accountingpdfbooks.com


Accounting,
Auditing &
Accountability
Journal
AAAJand research innovation
Guest Editor: Garry D. Carnegie
Volume 25Number 2 2012
ISSN 0951-3574
www.emeraldinsight.com
Celebrating 25 years 1988-2012
Access this journal online_______________________________ 214
Editorial boards___________________________________________ 215
GUEST EDITORIAL
The special issue:AAAJand research innovation
Garry D. Carnegie_______________________________________________ 216
It was 20 years ago today: Sgt Pepper,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, green accounting
and the Blue Meanies
Rob Gray and Richard Laughlin ___________________________________ 228
We’ve come a long way! Maybe! Re-imagining gender
and accounting
Cheryl Lehman _________________________________________________ 256
Rethinking impact and redefining responsibility:
the parameters and coordinates of accounting and
public management reforms
Christopher Humphrey and Peter Miller _____________________________ 295
Accounting’s past, present and future: the unifying
power of history
Garry D. Carnegie and Christopher J. Napier _________________________ 328
Environmental performance accountability:
planet, people, profits
Roger L. Burritt ________________________________________________ 370
Conference announcement_______________________________ 406
Call for papers____________________________________________ 409
Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal
AAAJand research innovation
Guest Editor
Garry D. Carnegie
ISSN 0951-3574
Volume 25
Number 2
2012
CONTENTS
This journal is a member of and
subscribes to the principles of the
Committee on Publication Ethics
As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant,
electronic access to this title via Emerald Management eJournals.
Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of
your journal subscription.
How to access this journal electronically
Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your
institution to access your journal electronically, making your
subscription more cost-effective. Our web site has been designed to
provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only
minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or
username and password.
To benefit from electronic access to this journal, please contact
support@emeraldinsight.comA set of login details will then
be provided to you. Should you wish to access via IP, please
provide these details in your e-mail. Once registration is completed,
your institution will have instant access to all articles through the
journal’s Table of Contents page at www.emeraldinsight.com/
0951-3574.htmMore information about the journal is also available
atwww.emeraldinsight.com/aaaj.htm
Emerald online training services
Visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/helpand take an Emerald online
tour to help you get the most from your subscription.
Key features of Emerald electronic journals
Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual
articles
This facility can be used for training purposes, course notes,
seminars etc. within the institution only. This only applies to articles
of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/copyright
Online publishing and archiving
As well as current volumes of the journal, you can also gain access
to past volumes on the internet via Emerald Management
eJournals. You can browse or search these databases for relevant
articles.
Key readings
This feature provides abstracts of related articles chosen by the
journal editor, selected to provide readers with current awareness of
interesting articles from other publications in the field.
Non-article content
Material in our journals such as product information, industry trends,
company news, conferences, etc. is available online and can be
accessed by users.
Reference linking
Direct links from the journal article references to abstracts of the
most influential articles cited. Where possible, this link is to the full
text of the article.
E-mail an article
Allows users to e-mail links only to relevant and interesting articles to
another computer for later use, reference or printing purposes.
Structured abstracts
Emerald structured abstracts provide consistent, clear and
informative summaries of the content of the articles, allowing faster
evaluation of papers.
Additional complementary services available
When you register your journal subscription online you will gain
access to additional resources for Authors and Librarians, offering
key information and support to subscribers. In addition, our
dedicated Research, Teaching and Learning Zones provide
specialist ‘‘How to guides’’, case studies, book reviews,
management interviews and key readings.
E-mail alert services
These services allow you to be kept up to date with the latest
additions to the journal via e-mail, as soon as new material enters
the database. Further information about the services available can
be found atwww.emeraldinsight.com/alerts
Emerald Research Connections
An online meeting place for the world-wide research community,
offering an opportunity for researchers to present their own work and
find others to participate in future projects, or simply share ideas.
Register yourself or search our database of researchers at
www.emeraldinsight.com/connections
Choice of access
Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of
channels. Our web sitewww.emeraldinsight.comis the
recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully
searchable and value added access to the complete content of the
journal. However, you can also access and search the article
content of this journal through the following journal delivery
services:
EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service
ejournals.ebsco.com
Informatics J-Gate
www.j-gate.informindia.co.in
Ingenta
www.ingenta.com
Minerva Electronic Online Services
www.minerva.at
OCLC FirstSearch
www.oclc.org/firstsearch
SilverLinker
www.ovid.com
SwetsWise
www.swetswise.com
Emerald Customer Support
For customer support and technical help contact:
E-mailsupport@emeraldinsight.com
Webhttp://info.emeraldinsight.com/products/
subs/customercharter.htm
Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278
Fax +44 (0) 1274 785201
www.emeraldinsight.com/aaaj.htm
Editorial boards
215
Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2012
p. 215
#Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
EXECUTIVE EDITORIAL
BOARD
Professor Allan Barton
The Australian National University,
Australia
Professor Garry Carnegie
RMIT University, Australia
Professor David Cooper
University of Alberta, Canada
Professor Mahmoud Ezzamel
Cardiff University, UK and IE Business
School, Spain
Professor Robert Gray
St Andrews University, UK
Professor John Holland
University of Glasgow, UK
Professor Trevor Hopper
University of Sussex, UK
Professor Irvine Lapsley
University of Edinburgh, UK
Professor Tom Lee
St Andrews University, UK
Emeritus Professor Reg Mathews
Charles Sturt University, Australia
Professor Kenneth Merchant
University of Southern California, USA
Professor Hiroshi Okano
Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan
Associate Professor Chris Poullaos
University of Sydney, Australia
Professor Robert Scapens
University of Manchester, UK
Professor Tony Tinker
City University of New York, USA
EDITORIAL ADVISORY
BOARD
Professor Carol Adams
LaTrobe University, Australia
Dr Gloria Agyemang
Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
Associate Professor Marcia Annisette
York University, Canada
Professor Richard Baker
Adelphi University, USA
Professor Amanda Ball
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Professor Vivien A. Beattie
University of Glasgow, UK
Associate Professor Gordon Boyce
La Trobe University, Australia
Professor Niamh Brennan
University College Dublin, Ireland
Professor John Burns
Exeter University, UK
Professor Roger L. Burritt
University of South Australia, Australia
Professor David Campbell
Newcastle University, UK
Professor Tyrone Carlin
University of Sydney, Australia
Professor Salvador Carmona
Instituto de Empresa, Spain
Professor Nieves Carrera
Instituto de Empresa, Spain
Dr Mark Christensen
Southern Cross University, Australia
Associate Professor Chung Lai Hong
Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore
Professor Paul Collier
Monash University, Australia
Professor David Collison
University of Dundee, UK
Professor Christine Cooper
University of Strathclyde, UK
Professor Russell Craig
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Professor Suresh Cuganesan
Swinburne University of Technology,
Australia
Professor Jane Davison
University of London, UK
Associate Professor Sylvain Durocher
University of Ottawa, Canada
Professor Lisa Evans
University of Stirling, UK
Emeritus Professor Richard
Fleischman
John Carroll University, USA
Professor Martin Freedman
Towson University, USA
Professor Warwick Funnell
University of Kent, UK
Professor Sonja Gallhofer
Queen Mary University of London, UK
Professor Yves Gendron
Universite´ Laval, Canada
Professor Andrew Goddard
University of Southampton, UK
Associate Professor Cameron Graham
York University, Canada
Professor Jim Haslam
Durham University, UK
Professor Christine Helliar
University of Dundee, UK
Associate Professor Chung Lai Hong
Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore
Professor Zahirul Hoque
La Trobe University, Australia
Professor Christopher Humphrey
University of Manchester, UK
Professor Noel Hyndman
Queen’s University, UK
Professor Helen Irvine
Queensland University of Technology,
Australia
Dr Ingrid Jeacle
The University of Edinburgh, UK
Professor Mike Jones
University of Bristol, UK
Dr Rania Kamla
University of Dundee, UK
Professor Linda Kirkham
Robert Gordon University, UK
Professor Katsuhiko Kokubu
Kobe University, Japan
Professor Kim Langfield-Smith
Monash University, Australia
Professor Carlos Larrinaga Gonzalez
Universidad de Burgos, Spain
Professor Stewart Lawrence
University of Waikato, New Zealand
Professor Cheryl Lehman
Hofstra University, USA
Associate Professor Margaret
Lightbody
University of South Australia, Australia
Professor Alan Lowe
Aston University, UK
Professor Ken McPhail
La Trobe University, Australia
Professor Cheryl McWatters
University of Ottawa, Canada
Professor Dr Martin Messner
University of Innsbruck, Austria
Professor Lokman Mia
Griffith University, Australia
Professor Markus Milne
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Professor Jan Mouritsen
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Professor Christopher Napier
Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
Professor Dean Neu
Schulich School of Business, York University,
Canada
Professor Hanne Norreklit
University of Aarhus, Denmark
Professor Deryl Northcott
The Auckland University of Technology,
New Zealand
Professor Richard Petty
Macquarie Graduate School of Management,
Sydney, Australia
Professor Paolo Quattrone
Instituto de Empresa Business School, Spain
Associate Professor Vaughan Radcliffe
University of Western Ontario, Canada
Professor John Roberts
University of Sydney, Australia
Professor Robin Roslender
University of Dundee, UK
Professor Christine Ryan
Queensland University of Technology,
Australia
Associate Professor Massimo
Sargiacomo
University G.d’Annunzio of Chieti-Pescara,
Italy
Professor Stefan Schaltegger
Leuphana University of Lu¨neburg, Germany
Professor Prem Sikka
University of Essex, UK
Professor Peter Skaerbaek
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Professor Jill Solomon
King’s College London, UK
Associate Professor Crawford Spence
United Arab Emirates University, UAE
Professor Ian Thomson
Strathclyde Business School, UK
Professor Carol A. Tilt
Flinders Business School, Flinders University,
Australia
Professor Mathew Tsamenyi
University of Birmingham, UK
Professor Stuart Turley
University of Manchester, UK
Professor Thomas Tyson
St John Fisher College, USA
Professor Stephen Walker
Cardiff University, UK
Professor Pauline Weetman
University of Edinburgh, UK
Professor Paul Williams
North Carolina State University, USA
Professor Joni Young
University of New Mexico, USA
GUEST EDITORIAL
The special issue:
AAAJand research innovation
Garry D. Carnegie
School of Accounting, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to a special issue commemorating
the 25th anniversary of the publication ofAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal(AAAJ).
Design/methodology/approach– The paper provides the background to the special issue and a
summary of the articles appearing across the following pages. It features five
retrospective/prospective essays by the guest editors of selected special issues, published between
1991 and 1997 within the first ten volumes ofAAAJ.
Findings– The guest editors of selected special issues have endeavoured to identify and assess the
impacts of the issues they edited in shaping future developments in the literature and to consider
issues for future research developments in those fields.
Research limitations/implications– This paper serves as a selected commentary and is not a
substitute for carefully reading each of the essays published. Each individual paper provides a
comprehensive review of developments in the relevant literature and of the possibilities for future
research developments within the theme addressed.
Originality/value– The paper outlines a novel approach to the development of theAAAJspecial
issue which may gain wider acceptance or provide a basis for the further development of approaches
to the production of other special issues.
KeywordsAccounting, Auditing, Accountability, Special issues, Research innovation
Paper typeGeneral review
Special issues of scholarly journals tend to be published for two main reasons. First, to
stimulate research in little developed or emerging fields. Second, to stimulate new
research and illuminate path-breaking directions on more developed themes that may
not have been otherwise initiated. Drawing on the work of Ludwik Fleck, originally
published in 1939 (Fleck, 1979), Olk and Griffith (2004, p. 122) conceptualised journal
special issues “as a special type of vanguard of knowledge development”. Under this
conceptualisation, Olk and Griffith, (2004, p. 122) argued that two assumptions take
prominence:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
Appreciation is expressed to all authors for their dedication to the project brief and admirable
performance in meeting the project’s timelines. Gratitude is also expressed to Lee Parker and
James Guthrie for placing faith in the idea for “the special issue”. Finally, appreciation is
expressed to the referees, whose valuable and timely comments, addressed to the authors as
anonymous reviewers, assisted in enhancing the quality of the articles appearing in this
commemorative issue.
AAAJ
25,2
216
Received 25 September 2011
Revised 15 October 2011
Accepted 17 October 2011
Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2012
pp. 216-227
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
DOI 10.1108/09513571211198809
(1) “that the vanguard advances knowledge more rapidly than the main body”; and
(2) “that the vanguard, by virtue of its earlier presence, has a greater impact on
knowledge development than the trailing main body”.
The authors concluded that the vanguard perspectives readily provided by special
issues on any topic can “become the garrison of the main body” (Olk and Griffith, 2004,
p. 129).
Special issues in management research have become “more common” only since
around 1990 (Olk and Griffith, 2004, pp. 120-121). As the first special issue of
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal(AAAJ) was published in 1990, the
journal has, in Olk and Griffith’s (2004) terms, pioneered the use of the special issue as
a vanguard of knowledge development in the literature on accounting, auditing and
accountability (also see Walker, 2008a). While the publication of special issues has
proliferated across the past two decades[1], the journal special issue remains “popular
with both editors and readers” (Mowday, 2006, p. 391) and constitutes a way of “adding
spice to our scholarly journals” (Eden, 2010, p. 904)[2]. By the end of 2011,AAAJhad
published 35 special issues in total. Appendix (Table AI) provides an outline of the
special issues ofAAAJthat have been published between 1990 and 2011.
The 25th anniversary of AAAJ is heralded by the publication of this
commemorative special issue on “the special issue”. It is concerned with special
issues from an historical perspective. AAAJhas a successful record of publishing
special issues as part of a strategy to encourage research development and wide
readership on an eclectic array of themes in accounting, auditing and accountability.
The journal’s foundation editors, Lee Parker and James Guthrie, have demonstrated
inspirational leadership and foresight in commissioning special issues and, in so doing,
have positionedAAAJas a leader in research innovation in its domain.
The firstAAAJspecial issue on “Japanese accounting” featured articles by Japanese
authors about accounting in Japan. This special issue was recognised by the guest
editors as “experimental” (Jinnai and McKinnon, 1990, p. 6)[3]. Its purpose was “to
provide a forum for Japanese scholars to inform non-Japanese academics and interested
readers of the issues in Japanese accounting that they consider important, and to place
the perspectives on those issues that they desire” (Jinnai and McKinnon, 1990, p. 7).
Guest edited by a Japanese and a non-Japanese scholar, this inaugural special issue
was not only about Japanese accounting, but was intended to assist in bridging any
cultural or language barriers to understanding between Japanese and non-Japanese
scholars and was also intended to be relevant beyond accounting academe.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, the criteria for selection
of special issues for inclusion in this 25th anniversary special issue are outlined.
Second, a review of the retrospective/prospective articles appearing in this special
issue is provided. Finally, concluding comments are presented.
Selection of special issues for “the special issue”
While this special issue is commemorative in nature and marks an important milestone
in the journey of AAAJas a high quality journal in the sociological, interpretive and
critical tradition, the purpose of publication is to revisit certain themes that were the
subject of special issues of the journal in the first ten years of publication. The articles
AAAJand
research
innovation
217
published in this special issue, therefore, were commissioned and each submission was
subjected to review by two anonymous referees[4]. In all, five articles by the original
guest editors of the special issues involved follow this introduction. The authors of
these articles were invited to prepare works of a retrospective and prospective nature,
dealing with developments that have occurred in the literature since the publication of
the respective special issues, including those which the special issues may have
stimulated, and involving the identification of fields of enquiry and topics for future
researchers to contemplate and explore. Given the historical flavour of this project,
special issues that were published in the period of 15 years after 1997 were identified as
being ineligible for inclusion in “the special issue” on the grounds that insufficient time
had passed for the guest editors involved to explore adequately the retrospective
dimension of the investigations.
Of the nine special issues ofAAAJthat were published between 1990 and 1997
within the first ten volumes, the following themes have been revisited in this special
issue:
.
“Green accounting” (1991), guest edited by Rob Gray and Richard Laughlin.
.
“Fe[men]ists’ account” (1992), guest edited by Cheryl Lehman.
.
“Accounting, accountability and the ‘new’ UK public sector” (1993/1994), guest
edited by Christopher Humphrey, Peter Miller and Robert Scapens.
. “Accounting history into the twenty-first century” (1996), guest edited by
Christopher Napier and Garry Carnegie.
.
“Environmental performance accountability” (1997), guest edited by Roger
Burritt.
Of the guest editors who initially participated in preparing these five special issues in
the 1990s, only Robert Scapens did not participate in this project. Other special issues
published in the first ten volumes were not encompassed by this special issue for a
range of reasons, including the death, since publication, of certain guest editors and the
inability of certain guest editors to participate in the project. More generally,
participation was necessarily restricted due to the constraints of the available page
space.
The guest editors of the five special issues revisited were aware of the opportunities
for agenda setting that were being presented in editing thematic special issues. Gray
and Laughlin (1991, p. 5) identifiedAAAJas one of “the more innovative journals” of
accounting and referred to the “creative decision” by the editors to commission the
special issue that was “an especially exciting challenge and perhaps signalled that
social accounting – and that particular branch, environmental accounting – has
finally come of age and could now come out of the closet where it had been (off and on)
for 20 years”. Lehman (1992, p. 12) perceived the special issue on accounting and
gender as “inspired by the need to address problems”, thereby “providing an
opportunity for men and women to examine issues previously underarticulated in
accounting literature, in order to extend the discipline, promote new ways of knowing,
develop new conceptualizations, categories, and values, and to generate new directions
for research”. Humphreyet al.(1993, p. 6) focused attention on the emerging calculative
AAAJ
25,2
218
means of managing the UK public sector, including the impacts of such changes,
pointing out that:
[...] accounting, accountability and the ‘new’ public sector is ripe for future international and
interdisciplinary research, focusing not just on the application of accounting-based reforms
but also on the construction of alternatives in an area where the notion of an alternative is
frequently, and undeservedly, absent.
Napier and Carnegie (1996, p. 6) advocated archival-based critical and interpretative
histories of accounting, emphasising that such studies “will help us to understand the
nature of accounting change and its impacts on organizational and social functioning,
as well as enabling us to appreciate better, and thereby effectively critique, the
accounting of today”. Burritt (1997, p. 474) pointed to the editors’ commitment to
“developing accounting’s potential”, resulting in the commissioning of a special issue
focused on “the examination of ecological and environmental issues”, thereby
expanding and extending the perspective provided in the special issue of 1991.
Two of the five special issues were drawn from earlier presentations of papers at
various events. The Humphreyet al.guest edited special issue was published in two
parts (Vol. 6, No. 2, 1993 and Vol. 7, No. 1, 1994). The nine papers in all appearing
across these two issues were developed from a series of papers, which were presented
at four interdisciplinary public sector research workshops held at the University of
Manchester and the London School of Economics and Political Science during the
period of three years before the publication of the 1993/1994 special issue (Humphrey
et al., 1993). The publication of this special issue drawing on presentations made at
“special research forums” was itself innovative given that such connections were still
relatively new at that time in the field of management. For example, the first issue of
theAcademy of Management Journalto be prepared from presentations delivered at a
special research forum occurred in December 1993 (Rynes, 2003), shortly after Vol. 6,
No. 2 was published. The Burritt guest edited special issue also had its genesis in a
special research forum in the form of an Environmental Accountability Symposium
that was held in Canberra, Australia in 1996. This event was co-ordinated by Burritt
and was conducted in order to “bring together a small group of Australasian expert
academics, professional accountants, environmental consultants and representatives
from non-government agencies to discuss the research, teaching and policy
implications of environmental accounting” (Burritt, 1997, p. 474). The other three
special issues were assembled by more conventional means where guest editors
actively encouraged papers to be specifically written on the themes articulated.
Contributions in “the special issue”
Gray and Laughlin (2012) are not as comfortable with the term “green accounting” as
they evidently were in 1991 when guest editing the special issue on that theme. They
now perceive the term as both a novelty and populist, having witnessed the
development of the broader field of social accounting, which now reflects a substantive
and serious concern with ecological issues and sustainability around the globe.
Reflecting on the articles published in the special issue of 1991, the guest editors point
out, with the benefit of hindsight, that the special issue authors were seeking to
examine fundamental issues within a developing research agenda. In examining the
AAAJand
research
innovation
219
nature of these articles, Gray and Laughlin (2012) apply a useful heuristic as stimulated
by a diagram found in Power (1991) to classify these works, thereby elucidating the
important themes that were dealt with in the special issue and indicating others that
were not developed as much or were hardly addressed.
Since the publication of the special issue, four specialist journals in the field of social
accounting have eventuated and other accounting journals such asAAAJ, Accounting
Organizations and Societyand Critical Perspectives on Accountinghave regularly
published works in the field. Various accounting journals and other journals
sympathetic to accounting contributions have published special issues in the field. In
examining the relevant literature since 1991, the guest editors report on the explosion
of fieldwork that has assisted in identifying potential accountings. There has been, in
their view, an abundance of disclosure studies published since 1991, many of which
appear to focus on routine descriptions of disclosure practices, including attempts on
occasions to associate disclosure with certain theoretical explanations. Such
descriptive studies, in general, do not appear to be developing the literature in
fundamentally different or radical ways. While reporting on such developments in the
literature and, in the process, identifying certain key contributions that have addressed
important questions, Gray and Laughlin (2012) also argue, with some sadness, that the
themes represented in the special issue remain largely under-developed. In looking
forward, the authors return to the heuristic as a basis for possible future developments
and point out major themes around which future research may be focused. They urge
social accounting researchers to address challenging questions and to work at the edge
of accounting’s margins in driving the research agenda. Researchers are also urged to
explicitly recognise the baleful influence of the “blue meanies”[5] and to avoid
narrowing perspectives of accounting, especially given its enabling characteristics
which may be deployed in creating and maintaining a more sustainable future.
As Lehman’s (1992, p. 12) introduction to the special issue, “Fe[men]ists’ account”,
suggests, the issue was intended as “a forum for examining current gender and feminist
literature, exploring its significance in an accounting context ... and [to] uncover
meaning to guide our (accounting) practices and our daily lives”. Her orientation,
therefore, “was the pursuit of change in the present” (Walker, 2008b, p. 581). In 2008,
AAAJpublished a follow-up special issue on gender in accounting entitled “Accounting
and gender revisited”, in which the guest editors, Jane Broadbent and Linda Kirkham,
endeavoured to advance research on the theme[6]. Broadbent and Kirkham (2008, p. 466)
posed a number of questions, including “Why had we not moved on?” and “Why had the
ground-breaking work that had appeared in the literature earlier, for example in the
special issue ofAAAJin 1992, not been built upon and replicated”? Lehman (2012) too is
concerned that the gender in accounting research agenda has not moved on. Apart from
celebrating the 1992 special issue for the insights it provided, Lehman (2012) proposes
new visions for future gender in accounting research, demonstrating a strong focus on
the prospective dimension of the project in view of limited progress made by those
accounting researchers who have been endeavouring to contest repression and
discrimination of women and advance social justice around the globe.
Lehman (2012) calls for researchers to embrace pioneering feminist research in
various disciplines in order to inspire innovative multidisciplinary works from across
the globe. It is an enterprise of challenging entrenched positions and recasting new
AAAJ
25,2
220
meanings. The work of Nussbaum (2000), Buck-Morss (2009), Collins (2009), Fraser
(2010), Judt (2010) and Spivak (1996, 2010), among others, is drawn on to illuminate the
possibilities for re-imagining the accounting-gender dilemma and for creating new
visions. Lehman’s (2012) call to transform gender research in accounting is
accompanied by the offering of practical research concepts regarding values, class,
the construction of gender and repressive economic structures. Building on prior
feminist theories, new ways of thinking are proposed with the intention of supporting,
promoting and inspiring us to think differently.
Humphrey and Miller (2012) reflect on the interdisciplinary analysis of the
development of “new” accountable management reforms in the UK public sector, which
was provided in the 1993 special issue. This was at a time when the notion of accounting
as a social and institutional practice was still at a relatively early stage of development.
In addition to reflecting on their roles as guest editors, the authors address the academic
impact of articles in the special issue, with a particular regard for Emerald download
data and Google Scholar citation counts, both of which aptly illustrate the passion for
calculative order under accountable management. In considering the wider impacts of
“New Public Management” (NPM) in the public sector, the authors address the
consequences of attempts to responsibilise ever-increasing aspects of social life. They
also report on their personal experiences of NPM as both researchers and managers in
UK public universities and examine more recent developments in the international NPM
research literature. The authors emphasise the relative lack of attention by other
disciplines to accounting research and accounting journals in this field.
In contemplating future research on the theme, Humphrey and Miller (2012) address
the parameters and coordinates of accounting research in the context of ongoing public
management reforms. The authors call for a rethink of the parameters of public sector
accounting research. They caution against the further compartmentalisation of such
research as well as encourage researchers to consider and highlight the impact,
outreach and public policy implications of public sector accounting research. They also
call for the conduct of cross-national or comparative investigations of transnational
knowledge communities which exert a pervasive influence in shaping our thinking
around public service delivery and management, and advocate further historical
analyses which embrace examinations of the impacts of public sector accounting
reforms on both organisational and social functioning. Moreover, Humphrey and
Miller (2012) call for researchers to dispel the “taken-for-grantedness” of NPM. With
notable exceptions, the apparent displacing of a sense of intellectual curiosity about
such reforms has seemingly marginalised the propensity to evaluate the impacts of
new accountings and has tended to restrict the effective critique of rationales, concepts
and practices. For how much longer will NPM be privileged as “new”?
Carnegie and Napier (2012) revisit the 1996 special issue on accounting history in
order to identify and assess the impact of that issue in shaping future developments in
the accounting history literature and to consider issues for the future of historical
accounting research. The authors make use of citations available on Google Scholar in
endeavouring to ascertain the impact of the 1996 special issue. In reviewing the articles
in the AAAJspecial issue, they draw attention to the opening and frequently-cited
historiographical article, Carnegie and Napier (1996), in which the conduct of critical
and interpretive histories of accounting was advocated, particularly within the various
AAAJand
research
innovation
221
research themes identified in that article. Perhaps one of the most important
contributions of the special issue was its emphatic endorsement of calls for more
theoretically informed and methodologically rigorous accounting history research.
Largely through the work of Hammond and Sikka (1996) on using oral history as a
means of hearing “voices from below”, the special issue also assisted in proposing a
new agenda for taking our understanding of accounting’s past to a different and more
inclusive level from the perspective of those acted on and monitored by accounting,
rather than those who built and shaped accounting.
Using the eight research themes identified by Carnegie and Napier (1996), the
authors review developments in the historical accounting literature across the period of
15 years to 2011 and, in the process, offer ideas, insights and reflections that may assist
in stimulating future studies in the field. In looking forward, they address
historiographical considerations such as evidence, theory, explanation and narrative,
and stress their importance for maintaining and enhancing quality in historical
accounting research. Carnegie and Napier (2012) emphasise the unifying power of
history in addressing accounting’s past, present and future dimensions. According to
the authors, developing knowledge of accounting’s past as a social practice furnishes
the unifying power that permits a fuller understanding not just of accounting’s present,
but more broadly of society’s present, and also provides a basis for constructive input
into developing and assessing the possibilities for accounting’s and society’s future.
Burritt (1997) believed that the special issue ofAAAJon “green accounting”
published in 1991 was “somewhat in anticipation of current trends”. Burritt (1997,
p. 474) observed that the editors ofAAAJ“have continued to encourage articles aimed
at developing accounting’s potential (see, for example, the special issue on “Enabling
accounting”, Vol. 10 No. 3), including the examination of ecological and environmental
issues in accounting, auditing and accountability”. Therefore, the 1997 special issue,
developed from papers presented at an environmental accountability symposium, and
featuring an article by a practitioner (Medley, 1997), was aptly timed while its
motivation was reflected in the title of the editorial “Accounting for environmental
performance: time to suck it and see” (Burritt, 1997, p. 474). In the article published in
this special issue, Burritt (2012) reflects on the ability to inspire innovation by moving
academics and practitioners into the same space on environmental improvement
within organisations. Burritt’s (2012) personal reflection on the advent and
contribution of the 1997 special issue as well as the philosophy behind its
development (or a story within a larger story) was achieved through a diegesis and
hypodiegesis respectively. The contextual elements around the symposium and the
subsequent special issue are considered around the planet, people and profits themes.
In considering the contribution of the special issue, Burritt (2012) makes use of
citations available on Google Scholar for the articles included in that issue. The ways in
which these articles were used by a select number of authors is also addressed. In
reflecting on the future of environmental performance accountability research,
attention is turned to the growing interest in the concepts and practice of integrated
reporting, to the adoption of a pragmatic approach to theorising and also to the
development of a transdisciplinary perspective. In concluding, Burritt (2012) calls for a
stronger and more integrated focus on environmental performance accountability
issues to be accompanied by considerably enhanced engagement between accounting
AAAJ
25,2
222
academics and practitioners in order to progress towards improved environmental
performance accountability in future.
Conclusion
The articles comprising “the special issue” provide unique insights into selected
thematic special issues of AAAJthat were published between 1991 and 1997. This
project has enabled the guest editors to identify and assess the impacts of their
previous special issues in shaping future developments in specific fields and to
consider issues for future research in those fields. These authors have matured by
between 15 and 20 years since the respective special issues prepared under their
research leadership were published[7]. The intervening years provide sufficient scope
for evaluating research impacts and for reassessing research possibilities. While
greying hair and wisdom tend to accumulate with age, the latter tends to assist in
reflecting on the past and in placing developments or trends, or the lack of them, into
perspective and in shaping and inspiring future research developments.
Apart from providing an historical perspective on developments in the literature on
the respective themes since each special issue was published, it is hoped that the
contributions within “the special issue” may also be recognised as a unique form of
vanguard of knowledge development. In particular, the articles published in this issue
provide the potential to stimulate reflection, renewed or fresh questioning, further
conceptualisation and theorising, re-imagining, and connectivity with policy-makers.
The articles may also contribute to further debate among researchers, and even an
engagement with practitioners, and hopefully motivate further research on the
applicable themes in either predicted or unexpected directions. In summary, “the
special issue” is intended to contribute positively to the reputation of AAAJfor
innovation in accounting, auditing and accountability research.
Notes
1. A recent debate has occurred in the management literature on whether special issues remain
“so special” (see, for example, Priem, 2006, 2007; Mowday, 2006, 2007; McKinley, 2007).
2. According to Bisman (2012, p. 21), journal editors assume greater control over agenda
setting in publishing as “publishing regular issues alone implicitly puts more control in the
hands of authors and readers”.
3. Jill McKinnon sadly died on 15 June 2008 (Guthrie and Parker, 2008).
4. In view of the nature of the submissions, the identity/identities of the author/authors were
known to the referees, but the author/authors, of course, were not advised of the identities of
the referees.
5. This term is described by Gray and Laughlin (2012) in Figure 3.
6. At the 2005 British Accounting Association conference held in Edinburgh, Lee Parker heard
Jane Broadbent and Linda Kirkham “lamenting the fact that gender research in accounting
had not moved on since the publication of the 1992 special issue that was guest edited by
Cheryl Lehman. Given their concern, I challenged them to take action in redressing this lack
of progress by potentially acting as guest editors of a further special issue ofAAAJon the
theme” (Parker, 2011). Clearly, the challenge was accepted and the Broadbent and Kirkham
special issue was published around three years later.
7. These dates were calculated to the time of completion of writing.
AAAJand
research
innovation
223
References
Bisman, J. (2012), “Surveying the landscape: the first 15 years ofAccounting Historyas an
international journal”, Accounting History, Vol. 17 No. 1.
Broadbent, J. and Kirkham, L. (2008), “Glass ceilings, glass cliffs or new worlds? Revisiting
gender and accounting”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 465-73.
Buck-Morss, S. (2009),Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History, University of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Burritt, R.L. (1997), “Accounting for environmental performance: time to suck it and see”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 474-8.
Burritt, R.L. (2012), “Environmental performance accountability: plant, people, profits”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 370-405.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (1996), “Critical and interpretive histories: insights into
accounting’s present and future through its past”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 7-39.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (2012), “Accounting’s past, present and future: the unifying power
of history”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 328-69.
Collins, G. (2009),When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from
1960 to the Present, Little, Brown and Co, New York, NY.
Eden, L. (2010), “Adding spice to our scholarly journals: the JIBS experience”,International
Studies Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 901-7.
Fleck, L. (1979),Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Fraser, N. (2010), “Feminist thinking, theory and feminist action”, paper presented to the
conference “No Longer in Exile: The Legacy and Future of Gender Studies”, The New
School, New York, NY, 26 March.
Gray, R. and Laughlin, R. (1991), “The coming of the green and the challenge of
environmentalism”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 5-7.
Gray, R. and Laughlin, R. (2012), “It was 20 years ago today: Sgt Pepper,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, green accounting and the blue meanies”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 228-55.
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (2008), “A tribute to Jill McKinnon”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1076-7.
Hammond, T. and Sikka, P. (1996), “Radicalizing accounting history: the potential of oral
history”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 79-97.
Humphrey, C. and Miller, P. (2012), “Rethinking impact and redefining responsibility:
the parameters and coordinates of accounting and public management reforms”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 295-327.
Humphrey, C., Miller, P. and Scapens, R.W. (1993), “Editorial: Accounting, accountability and the
‘new’ UK public sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 5-6.
Jinnai, Y. and McKinnon, J. (1990), “Critical studies in Japanese accounting: an introduction”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 5-7.
Judt, T. (2010),Ill Fares the Land, Penguin Press, New York, NY.
AAAJ
25,2
224
Lehman, C. (1992), “Introduction”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 4-15.
Lehman, C. (2012), “We’ve come a long way! Maybe! Re-imagining gender and accounting”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 256-94.
McKinley, W. (2007), “Special issues as vertical integration: a rejoinder to Priem and Mowday”,
Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 240-5.
Medley, P. (1997), “Environmental accounting – what does it mean to professional accountants?”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 594-600.
Mowday, R.T. (2006), “If special issues of journals are not so special, why has their use
proliferated?”,Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 389-93.
Mowday, R.T. (2007), “Vertical integration as an explanation for the creation of special journal
issues”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 250-3.
Napier, C.J. and Carnegie, G.D. (1996), “Editorial”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 4-6.
Nussbaum, M. (2000),Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Olk, P. and Griffith, T.L. (2004), “Creating and disseminating knowledge among organizational
scholars: the role of special issues”,Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 120-9.
Parker, L.D. (2011), E-mail message to author, 30 August.
Power, M. (1991), “Auditing and environmental expertise: between protest and
professionalisation”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 30-42.
Priem, R.L. (2006), “What happens when special issues just aren’t ‘special’ anymore?”,Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 383-8.
Priem, R.L. (2007), “Let’s make special issues ‘special’ once again”,Journal of Management
Inquiry, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 246-9.
Rynes, S. (2003), “Special research forums: past, present and future”,Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 535-7.
Spivak, G. (1996), “‘Woman’ as theatre: United Nations Conference on Women, Beijing 1995”,
Radical Philosophy, Vol. 75, January, pp. 2-4.
Spivak, G. (2010), “Situating feminism, Beatrice Bain Research Group (BBRG)” Annual Keynote
Talk, 26 February, available at: http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/spivak (accessed
17 September 2011).
Walker, S.P. (2008a), “Innovation, convergence and argument without end in accounting
history”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 296-322.
Walker, S.P. (2008b), “Accounting histories of women: beyond recovery?”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 580-610.
AAAJand
research
innovation
225
Appendix
Vol. 3 No. 2, 1990 Japanese accounting Yoshiaki Jinnai and Jill McKinnon
Vol. 4 No. 3, 1991 Green accounting Rob Gray and Richard Laughlin
Vol. 5 No. 3, 1992 Fe[Men]ists’ Account Cheryl R Lehman
Vol. 6 No. 3, 1993
a
Accounting, accountability and the
“new” UK public sector
Christopher Humphrey, Peter Miller
and Robert W Scapens
Vol. 7 No. 3, 1994 Worrying about accounting in health
care
Wai Fong Chua and Alistair Preston
Vol. 8 No. 3, 1995 Ethics, politics and academic
accounting
Tony Puxty, Prem Sikka and High
Willmott
Vol. 9 No. 3, 1996 Accounting history into the twentyfirst century
Christopher J Napier and Garry D
Carnegie
Vol. 10 No. 3, 1997 Enabling accounting: the way
forward?
Sonja Gallhofer and Jane Broadbent
Vol. 10 No. 4, 1997 Environmental performance
accountability
Roger L. Burritt
Vol. 11 No. 3, 1998 Transforming the public sector Irvine Lapsley, Nils Brunsson and
Peter B Miller
Vol. 12 No. 3, 1999 Organising the accounting
profession in Asia
Chris Poullaos
Vol. 13 No. 3, 2000 Accounting and indigenous peoples Sonja Gallhofer and Andrew Chew
Vol. 13 No. 4, 2000 Accounting at home Stephen P Walker and Sue Llewellyn
Vol. 14 No. 4, 2001 Managing, measuring and reporting
intellectual capital for the new
millennium
Richard Petty, James Guthrie and Ulf
Johanson
Vol. 15 No. 3, 2002 Social and environmental reporting
and its role in maintaining or
creating organisational legitimacy
Craig Deegan
Vol. 15 No. 4, 2002 Communication, corporate annual
reports and perception engineering
John K Courtis
Vol. 16 No. 1, 2003 Intellectual capital and the capital
markets: reflections on the EAA
2002 Symposium
Jan Mouritsen
Vol. 16 No. 3, 2003 Public Private Partnerships Jane Broadbent and Richard
Laughlin
Vol. 17 No. 3, 2004 Theological perspectives on
accounting
Ken McPhail, Tim Gorringe and Rob
Gray
Vol. 18 No. 2, 2005 Critiquing the sacred secular divide Ken McPhail, Tim Gorringe and Rob
Gray
Vol. 18 No. 5, 2005 Accounting research and the public
interest
Dean Neu and Cameron Graham
Vol. 19 No. 3, 2006 NGO accountability Jeffrey Uneman and Brendan
O’Dwyer
Vol. 19 No. 5, 2006 Online reporting Sonja Gallhofer and Jim Haslam
Vol. 20 No. 3, 2007 Engagement: ethical, social and
environmental accounting and
accountability from the inside
Carol A Adams and Carlos
Larrinaga-Gonzalez
Vol. 20 No. 6, 2007 Accounting as codified discourse Sue Llewellyn and Markus J Milne
Vol. 21 No. 2, 2008 Into the light and engagement: 20
years of theAAAJ
Lee D Parker, James Guthrie and
Markus Milne
(continued)
Table AI.
AAAJspecial issues
published during
1990-2011
AAAJ
25,2
226
About the author
Garry D. Carnegie is Professor of Accounting at RMIT University and can be contacted at:
garry.carnegie@rmit.edu.au
Vol. 21 No. 4, 2008 Accounting and gender revisited Jane Broadbent and Linda Kirkham
Vol. 21 No. 7, 2008 Corporate governance,
accountability and mechanisms of
accountability
Niamh M Brennan and Jill Solomon
Vol. 22 No. 3, 2009 Accounting and subalternity Cameron Graham
Vol. 22 No. 6, 2009 Visual perspectives on accounting
and accountability
Samantha Warren and Jane Davison
Vol. 23 No. 3, 2010 Accounting for cities in the 21st
century
Irvine Lapsley, Peter Miller and
Fabrizio Panozzo
Vol. 23 No. 5, 2010 Power, politics and accounting Chris Carter
Vol. 23 No. 7, 2010 Sustainability Roger L Burritt and Stefan
Schaltegger
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2011 French philosophers and accounting
research
C. Richard Baker and Eve Chiapello
Vol. 24 No. 8, 2011 Climate change, greenhouse gas
accounting, auditing and
accountability
Markus J. Milne and Suzana Grubnic
Note:
a
Continued in Vol 7, No. 1, 1994 Table AI.
AAAJand
research
innovation
227
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
It was 20 years ago today
Sgt Pepper,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal,green
accounting and the Blue Meanies
Rob Gray
School of Management, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK, and
Richard Laughlin
Department of Management, King’s College London, University of London,
London, UK
Abstract
Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to revisit the special issue of Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journalwhich was published in 1991 and which sought to stimulate the “green
accounting” debate, to evaluate that issue and, in particular, to examine what we might learn about the
development of the social and environmental accounting literature in the last 20 years.
Design/methodology/approach– The paper takes the form of a discursive, polemical essay.
Findings– The special issue exhibited a wide range of approaches and possibilities; it also exhibited
some theoretical naivety and a charming optimism and fetching trust in the power of reasonable
argument. Retrospectively, the field has expanded considerably and has made many advances in
theoretical and empirical understanding but researchers appear to be less willing to examine the
fundamental issues that originally motivated the development of the field.
Research limitations/implications– The implications and limitations stem from the ambitions of
this discursive attempt to encourage debate of a more direct and confrontational nature – both within
and at the margins of social, environmental and sustainability accounting.
Originality/value– The originality and value of the paper is in its critical engagement with the
literature and ideas of social accounting, which is the generic descriptor used in the paper to include
“green accounting”. It provides not only an analysis of the achievement of the work to date but some
critical pointers to the work that still needs to be done.
KeywordsJournals, Social accounting, Green accounting, Environmental accounting, Sustainability,
Academic community, Research projects
Paper typeResearch paper
1. Introduction
It was twenty years ago to-day,
Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play
They’ve been going in and out of style
But they’re guaranteed to raise a smile
(Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,The Beatles).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
The authors are pleased to acknowledge the comments, suggestions and advice from
Carol Adams, Nola Buhr, Garry Carnegie, Jesse Dillard, Sue Gray and David Owen, participants
at the 22nd International Congress of Social and Environmental Accounting Research at
St Andrews in September 2010 and delegates at the 3rd Italian CSEAR Conference in Catania,
September 2010, as well as two anonymous referees ofAAAJ. Despite all this assistance the
contents of the following are entirely the responsibility of the authors.
AAAJ
25,2
228
Received 1 October 2010
Revised 3 February 2011
6 April 2011
Accepted 8 April 2011
Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2012
pp. 228-255
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
DOI 10.1108/09513571211198755
Although green accounting (sic)[1] was by no means a new idea in the early 1990s (see,
for example, Parker, 1971, reprinted in Gray et al., 2010; American Accounting
Association, 1973; Ullmann, 1976; Dierkes and Preston, 1977) it was certainly an
under-developed one. Not only had the subject received relatively little attention in the
academic or professional literature, it was not (as far as one could tell) much practiced
in organisations either. Indeed, the upsurge in interest in environmental matters more
generally was largely unpredicted, following, as it did, the neo-liberal days of the
1980s. That the natural environment should reach centre stage in the developed west,
from a position of relative obscurity, over a very few years (from about 1989-1991) and
yet such a relatively long time after the important milestones of the Stockholm
Declaration (United Nations Environment Programme, 1972) and the Brundtland
Report (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)
perhaps speaks of the apparent seriousness with which the (then) forthcoming Earth
Summit (UNCED, 1992) was being treated worldwide. This upsurge (whatever the
initial cause) was certainly long overdue (see, for example, Meadows et al., 1972) and
sent ripples through all branches of business, politics and society (see, for example,
Elkington, 1987; Pearceet al., 1989; Daly and Cobb, 1990; International Chamber of
Commerce, 1991). These ripples were felt in accounting: in practice (see, for example,
Touche Ross, 1990; Price Waterhouse, 1992), in the professional bodies (see, for
example, CICA, 1992, 1993a, b) and in academe, (see Gray, 1990).
We were the guest editors of a special issue ofAccounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journalon “green accounting” – an issue which represents one of
the early responses in academe to this developing agenda[2]. We think that the green
accounting phenomenon needs to be seen in the wider context of social accounting[3].
With exceptions (which we will consider briefly below) the approach to what was
initially called “green accounting” or “accounting for the environment” drew heavily
from the longer and more substantial social accounting literature and practice. Social
accounting had generated a substantial presence in the (so called) developed world
from the 1960s and 1970s (see, for example, Bauer and Fenn, 1973; Gambling, 1974;
ASSC, 1975; Epsteinet al., 1976; Estes, 1976; Medawar, 1976; Ramanathan, 1976;
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1977) and, especially in Europe and
the UK, with a strong emphasis on employee and employment matters, (see, for
example, Foley and Maunders, 1977; Lessem, 1977; Brockoff, 1979).
Although this nascent subject of social accounting struggled to gain any
mainstream recognition during the 1980s it did succeed in becoming more established
as an area of legitimate enquiry (Grayet al., 1987) as a number of key themes emerged.
These themes included the development of the rich political context within which
matters of social accountability were to be considered (Benston, 1982; Puxty, 1986;
Tinkeret al., 1991); the stronger political sense with regard to, especially, employees,
employment and communities (see, for example, Owen and Lloyd, 1985; Harte and
Owen, 1987) and, somewhat, more prosaically, exploration of the relationships between
social performance, financial performance and social disclosure, (Ingram and Frazier,
1980; Wiseman, 1982; Rockness, 1985; Ullmann, 1985).
The enthusiastic take-up of environmental matters in the early 1990s led to an
almost complete abandonment of many of these wider social concerns – a matter
which Owen in particular has noted and bemoaned (Owen, 2008; and Owenet al.,
1997)[4]. Notwithstanding the continuing absence of an employee and employment
It was 20 years
ago today
229
agenda, the social accounting literature by the turn of the century had re-discovered
“social issues” (primarily through the business-centre renaissance of corporate social
responsibility – CSR) and the much wider and (potentially) more demanding
sustainability and sustainable development agendas. These developments in, what we
are calling, social accounting have been examined, articulated and interpreted in a
variety of ways (see, for example, Grayet al., 1996; Mathews, 1997; Gray, 2002, 2005;
Parker, 2005; Deegan, 2007; Milne, 2007; Owen, 2008;) and it is not our intention to add
yet another review of the area. (Not least because the increasing diversity of the field
makes it less and less amenable to neat summary).
Our intention here is to offer, in part, a retrospective on the special issue of
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,and in doing so, to employ the diversity
and possibilities displayed by the papers in that issue as a basis for a critique of the
directions and emphases in “green accounting”[5]. To that end this essay is structured
as follows. Section 2 offers a brief review of the contents of the special issue. Sections 3,
4 and 5 then attempt to take, respectively, a backwards, a mid-term report and a
forward looking response to the themes from the special issue – particularly in the
light of some of the changes in the last 20 years. Taken as a whole the essay speculates
on whether we might see Hambrick and Chen’s (2008) notion of emerging fields as a
useful heuristic for further developmental work and calls for a more diverse and
adventurous academe. We do this with the explicit recognition of the baleful influence
of blue meanies (of which more later) who play a role in social accounting similar to the
one they attempted to play with Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, trying to stifle
creativity and neutralise, silence and normalise the messages that need to be heard and
acted upon.
2. The special issue
Our approach to editing the special issue ofAccounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journalinvolved aspiration; an attempt at imagination; an attempt to stimulate novelty
and excitement; the deployment of extreme pragmatism; and an explicit recognition
that the outcome depended, ultimately, on a fair degree of luck. The imagination and
novelty in the issue related to an attempt to stimulate what was, on the whole, a
potentially new literature. The luck related to the excellence, range and synergy of the
papers we were able to attract. And the pragmatism lay in overcoming the lacuna left
by the papers we did not manage to bring to fruition in the issue.
The experiences with social accounting had, (we can perhaps now see in retrospect),
suggested that many of those exercised by the issues of social accounting were both
(and perhaps simultaneously) testing the margins of accounting (Miller, 1998) and
wishing to address a praxis of accounts from a range of paradigms typically ignored
by accounting. In essence, we were seeing the first mewling struggles of what
Hambrick and Chen (2008) might see as a new emerging field of discourse and enquiry:
one which offered accounts of difference and where suggestions for alternatives might
thrive. Such a field would have to embrace challenge and eventually, we suspect,
explicitly celebrate conflict.
If the special issue was to reflect and encourage such struggles it would need to seek
to address several things at once. There would need to be papers which looked a lot like
“accounting” (whatever that is, Hopwood, 2007); papers which explicitly explored the
margins of accounting (Miller, 1998); papers which drew recognisably from social
AAAJ
25,2
230
accounting; and papers which very clearly came from unexpected, novel directions and
afforded unexpected insights and challenges. It is not entirely clear that any of the
papers would be clearly recognised as “accounting” by those who know what
accounting is (Hopwood, 2007) but in other regards we were very fortunate.
Milne’s paper “Accounting, environmental resource values and non-market
valuation techniques for environmental resources: a review” offered a crucial insight
into some of the implications for valuation (and hence for accounting) if the paradigmic
basis of accounting – typically neo-classical economics – is flexed a little to recognise
the environment, (Milne, 1991). Mainstream accounting still deals with externalities
and non-market issues by ignoring them (Bakan, 2004) and despite the attempts to
offer managerialist directions for a more engaged management accounting (see, for
example, Milne, 1996), the discipline continues to follow market practice rather than
seeking to lead it.
Similarly working at the margins was the paper by Power “Auditing and
environmental expertise: between protest and professionalisation” – one of the earliest
papers in his development of the highly influential “audit society” thesis. The principal
thrusts of Power’s paper were to add some much-needed critique to the simple models
of accountability – especially as they are applied in social accounting – and then to
advance a more subtle case for the constitutive nature of measurement, accounting and
auditing. It seems almost commonplace now to recognise that accounts themselves
determine what is accounted for and that that which deserves accountability may have
no prior influence on that which is accounted for. What is accounted for then becomes,
by default and construction, that which deserves the accountability. This was pretty
heady stuff – at least for social accountants – at that time.
Perhaps the most determinedly managerialist paper was that from Laughlin[6] and
Varangu “Accounting for waste or garbage accounting: Some thoughts from
non-accountants”. In a deliberately practical manner, this paper reviewed one of
Canada’s waste management initiatives and, in so doing, exposed the limitations and
potentials of accounting. This also represented the only paper in the issue which was
directly involved with practice and some of the practical issues in undertaking ways of
ameliorating environmental damage.
Two of the papers looked a lot like relatively “normal” social accounting in that they
examined the (voluntary) environmental disclosure by companies. Harte and Owen’s
paper “Environmental disclosure in the annual reports of British companies: a research
note” undertook (what we would now probably call) a “close” reading of an illustrative
selection of leading edge disclosers (noting that the stand-alone reports as we now
know them were not yet in play). They find an unsatisfactory diversity of reporting
practices with no apparent systematic coherence behind them. Roberts in her
“Environmental disclosures: a note on reporting practices in Europe” surveyed the
disclosure of 110 companies in five countries – effectively offering a counterpoint of
breadth to Harte and Owen’s depth – and explored how disclosure reflects national
context: if only to a degree.
Three papers in the issue explicitly offered a novel and challenging insight. Hines’
“Accounting for Nature” was a paean to simplicity. To label the paper as a radical
feminist critique would be to diminish a beautiful reminder that life is far, far more
than accounting and economisation (see Power again) and, indeed, the most important
aspects of being alive have nothing to do with accounting: accounting as usually
It was 20 years
ago today
231
understood, due to its formalisation and its tendency to make the complex simple,
abstract and objective, can actually only ever destroy the delicate beauty of nature and
living. Few papers can have so split the academic community between those who find
it quite superb in its insight and those who are less convinced, to put it mildly, by the
essence of her argument. And so do we find ourselves usefully creeping into a
much-overdue recognition of the importance and centrality of worldviews, values and
beliefs. Even for accountants, even for researchers.
Hazel Henderson was the other “non-accountant” from whom we invited input. Her
paper, “New markets, new commons, new ethics” introduced readers to the broad field
of “new economics” and how that paradigm challenges so much of what we take for
granted. More seriously still, Henderson’s piece was so clearly informed by imagining
– that is, thinking of futures and how these might be reached and/or avoided. It is,
itself, worthy of some note that this tradition of thought and imagination has been
unable to flourish in conventional academe: and yet without imagination we are
creatures of habit mired in the world of the immediate and our critiques are unlikely to
offer the emancipation of alterative that the environmental agenda so clearly demands.
Maunders and Burritt’s “Accounting and ecological crisis” was the first serious
critique (of which we are aware) of accounting and modernity from the increasingly
powerful point of view of deep ecology. While accounting academe (including social
accounting) had been greatly stimulated by critique from the range of critical theory,
little, if anything, had permeated through from that other radical body of thought. The
paper offers a strident case for a central place for ecological sensibility and thus echoes,
in more explicit terms, the message of Hines’ piece. Maunders and Burritt conclude –
as the critical theorists and, especially, the feminists have before them – that green
accounting might very well be doing more harm than good as a result of the tendency
to simplify and objectify that comes with the production of discrete accounts. This is
much the same message as Hines commends to us.
The special issue inevitably lacked representation in some areas – even at the time
it was apparent that we had not managed to attract anything of appropriate standard
in financial accounting (on, say, environmental liabilities), on management accounting
(on, say, investment appraisal criteria) or taxation. Dwelling on absence (a matter to
which we will return later) may well be a useful means of reflection and learning, but
for the moment we wish to explore what was in the issue. This we do in the next
section.
3. A first reaction: looking backwards
A 20-year old special issue like this represents a sort of academic time-capsule and
although neither of us is a historian, can we rake through the contents of the capsule
and see what seemed to be important at the time and how, if at all, things have
changed?
Re-reading the papers in the special issue illustrates how far social and
environmental accounting has come – theoretically, empirically, politically –
in 20 years, but also how far it has still to travel. Many of the elements of those
developments and gaps were more than hinted at in the special issue. We have already
made mention of the influence of Power’s observations of how all accountings in
making things “visible” may well make others “invisible” and the way in which
calculative rationalities may intrinsically exclude the possibilities of authentic
AAAJ
25,2
232
relationships (Power, 1991, p. 36). Although still not universally accepted, such insight
is widely accepted, (see, for example, Broadbent et al., 1997; Lehman, 2006).
Empirically, there is now no shortage of disclosure studies – although relatively few
are both international and analytical (see, for example, Kolk, 2003, 2008). The close
reading of texts has perhaps been slower to appeal to social accounting researchers but
in the more recent work of Milneet al.(2009) and Laine (2009), for example, we are now
seeing acceptance and employment of more subtle theories and methods as part of the
social accounting arsenal.
Equally, we suggest that it is important to recognise that the special issue appeared
at about the same time that the critical theory critique of social accounting was at its
most expressive: Tinkeret al.’s (1991) “middle of the road” blitz and Puxty’s (1991)
nuanced challenge to under-theorised social accountants were yet to be digested and
responded to, (see, for example, Owenet al., 1997; Bebbington et al., 1999; Gray et al.,
1996).
This was a world (largely) before stand-alone reporting, before the integrated
reporting initiative and pre-GRI. Climate change and “carbon” were not yet common
currency. Although all the data about environmental and planetary degradation and
social injustice was out there and readily accessible (Meadowset al., 1972; Daly, 1980;
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)
mainstream commentators and researchers had yet to wake up to it. Sustainability
was still not a mainstream notion[7] and, consequently, it had yet to be so tragically
and criminally emasculated and trivialised. So the special issue, without our intending
it, offered a brief insight into the tensions between deep and light green
environmentalism: between reasonable managerialism and incrementalism versus
the necessity of deep, fundamental and radical change in society and our methods of
economic organisation. This tension remains in social accounting to this day despite
the seemingly indisputable bodies of evidence that the gradualist optimism of the early
1990s (of which we also were guilty) is not going to deliver the level of change within
the timescales now required, (Yorket al., 2003; Meadows et al., 2004).
However, the most striking reaction on revisiting the special issue is the extent to
which the papers did – or more accurately did not – come to represent what “green
accounting” would become. That is, beyond the development of Power’s influential
thesis and the continuing advancement of studies of social, environmental and
sustainability (sic) disclosure, the themes represented in the issue remain sadly,
under-developed[8]. This may be interpreted as a simple mis-judgement on our part –
and that of the authors in the issue – as to what accounting could and should become.
Maybe our conception of environmental accounting was simply incorrect.
Such a suggestion would, however, be too trite and too easy a solution. The data on
planetary destruction, species stress, eco-system extinction, poverty and social
dislocation is overwhelming (UNEP, 2002; WWF, 2008; Meadowset al., 2004; United
Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Radical challenges (Maunders and
Burritt), new visions (Hines; Henderson); margins work (Milne) and practical iteration
(Laughlin and Varangu) are, we would suggest, among the most pressing and essential
tasks to which academics can direct themselves in the face of the evidence. And yet,
with notable and honourable exceptions, these themes remain largely underdeveloped
within the accounting and social accounting literatures, (see also Milne, 2007; Owen,
2008; Grayet al., 2009; Gray, 2010a). It is as though the wider lessons of systems
It was 20 years
ago today
233
thinking, its encouragement of more holistic and interconnected perception and
analysis, the awareness of complex interplay between planet, life and humanity has
been lost: context (if viewed at all) is viewed narrowly and functionally. Put simply and
directly the pressing planetary interconnected systemic problems are either not
recognised at all or are neutered and reduced to much smaller disconnected concerns
and issues.
Of course there are many possible explanations for this situation (and we will return
to this later) but, broadly, it remains something of a surprise that the visions,
challenges and opportunities offered by the issue have, to date, been embraced to such
a small degree.
One way in which we might explore this is suggested in the heuristic shown in
Figure 1. Figure 1 is initially stimulated by the diagram used in Power (1991)[9].
The starting point (at A) is broadly the macro concern that we might all share about
the survival of both current and future generations, the survival of other species and
humanity’s relationship overall with the planet. It is, we suggest, the source of the
underlying values that drive, or rather should drive, all forms of action and activities.
The actions we are most concerned about here are those of the corporations[10] and,
ideally, the concerns of sustainability should feed directly into the thinking and actions
of corporations (at C). After all, it is the economic functions and markets which tend to
exercise us and which, broadly, provide much of the basis for current concerns about
sustainability, (see, for example, Gray, 2010b).
That (especially western) society does not have corporations which are directly
capable of recognising or responding to such planetary concerns is hardly contentious
or surprising. Thus there is always a need for regulation and regimes of control and
governmentality, through the State and civil society, that provide (at a minimum) the
Figure 1.
AAAJ
25,2
234
“rules of the game” by which markets operate and the means of coercion to encourage
desired performance. The regulations and regime(s) at (B) should, one might hope,
direct the actions at C and be, themselves, a reflection of the values at A. (The naivety
of this simplicity might be mitigated by some thought about “ideal types”).
The final element in this interconnected system is at D which is intended to
represent the accountability and audit system – what is for many, the heart of the
social accounting project. This system, drawn widely, is intended to report on; the
aspirations at A; B’s regulatory requirements; and, of course, C’s actual activities. It is
principally in D where social accounting and audit works and from whence it draws its
value. The point to stress, and stress again, coming from this simplistic heuristic
overview is that social accounting and auditing are not simply some stand-alone,
isolated, activity. They are, and should be part of a complex interconnected system
from which they derive their meaning and purpose. Too often this is forgotten.
If we can be permitted a little more licence, we could use Figure 1 to reflect on how
we might position the papers from the special issue. In so doing we might
retrospectively identify gaps in the special issue and, consequently, try to see what has
happened since this time to fill these gaps. Figure 2 tentatively attempts this mapping -albeit that not too much should be to read into this portrayal. As a heuristic, it offers
one way of looking for gaps in the literature. It is sobering to see how many there are –
see also, Milne (2007).
Naturally enough, not all of the papers fit neatly into the heuristic but a brief
explanation of Figure 2 may be in order. Henderson (1991) seeks to open up the societal
agenda (A) and the regulatory processes (B) – her concerns do not extend to the
management or control of corporations but rather to the underlying essence of what a
civilised society might be. Laughlin and Varangu (1991) is located at the heart of the
Figure 2.
It was 20 years
ago today
235
organisational level at C. Yet while its location is clear, its linkages either to the
regulatory authorities (at B) and society more generally (A) are assumed rather than
demonstrated. Milne (1991) and Power (1991), on the other hand, are concerned, in
different ways, about the nature of the linkage between the corporations (at C) and
social accounting and auditing practices (at D). Neither, however, made the linkages
back to A or B explicit (and it will take their later work to begin to develop this set of
linkages in very different ways). Harte and Owen (1991) and Roberts (1991) lie within
the practices of social accounting (at D). Harte and Owen’s (1991) exploration of
voluntary social accountability practices effectively ignores the regulatory
requirements at B and they leave the rationale for these voluntary disclosures
unexplored. (Although, again, their later work starts to fill in the gaps). Roberts (1991),
on the other hand, links her survey of reporting practices across Europe to regulatory
requirements – but without actually articulating clearly what these are and whether
the resulting reports satisfy these requirements. Societal expectations (at A) are largely
unexamined.
Maunders and Burritt (1991) and Hines (1991) are asking much more fundamental
considerations of us. Although concerned with accountability (understood broadly),
with a focus, therefore, on the nature of the linkages between C and D, they try, in their
different ways, to bring an understanding of A into their analysis. Unlike Milne and
Power, they raise questions as to whether anything that remotely constitutes
accounting or audit could even get close to the accountability of corporations that is
required. In fact they go further, in different ways, to be clear that any involvement of
accounting, in almost any sense, could do more harm than good in terms of providing
any meaningful form of accountability. The judgements underlying the papers are
explicitly based on assumptions about the values at A.
This, as a heuristic portrayal, clearly has its limitations but it helps us depict how
many important themes were touched on in the special issue and how many were not
developed as much, if at all, as they could and should have been. Discussion of A and B
and their linkages to C, (in Figure 1), were largely missing from the special issue
(although Henderson, Maunders and Burritt; and Hines all have things to say here). Yet
these concerns are vital as a precursor for understanding what the nature of D should
be, the organisational issues that need to be discovered (i.e. the linkage between C and
D) and how this should lead to relevant forms of accountability to societal values
(i.e. the linkage between D and A). Understanding of these interconnections is a
challenge with which humanity continues to grapple and is clearly not only an
oversight of these papers. Our point here is, though, that it is the lack of recognition
that we do not understand and are not consciously addressing these connections that
remains the worrying part of the papers in the special issue and, as we will see,
subsequent work.
The special issue did touch on practices at the organisation level (Laughlin and
Varangu) and therefore helped, in a very limited way, to open up an engagement with
the internal practices in C. Similarly, the special issue achieved some advancement in
terms of accountability: indeed we see three achievements here. First, it set in place, for
better or worse, the value and importance of surveys of social accounting practices
through the Harte and Owen and Roberts papers. Second, it raised serious questions
about what should be the nature of these social accounting and audit practices, through
the papers by Milne and Power. Third, and finally, it questioned, at a fundamental
AAAJ
25,2
236
level, through the papers by Maunders and Burritt and Hines, whether the involvement
of anything that resembled or could be called social accounting and auditing could
provide the accountability that is required. The special issue, therefore, opened up
agendas, and made some important contributions – notwithstanding that it still
missed, (as often continues to be the case) a great deal relating to the important
interconnections within which social accounting sits.
With this critical reflection in mind we now turn to our mid-term report and future
conjectures.
4. How far has social accounting come: a mid-term report?
Prior reviews of social accounting have (for example) catalogued the literature and/or
castigated its proponents for (variously) naivety, a lack of engagement, the use of
limited methods and/or a failure to reform global financial capitalism, (Cooper et al.,
2005; Everett and Neu, 2000; Gray, 2010a; Milne, 2007; Parker, 2005; Puxty, 1986;
Tinkeret al., 1991). In the face of the exigencies of (un)sustainability there is clearly no
room for complacency but by any normal criteria the emergence of the “field” of (social
and) environmental accounting (Hambrick and Chen, 2008) has been and remains
dynamic and diverse.
Since the special issue four specialist journals in the field of social accounting have
been inaugurated (Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, Issues in
Social and Environmental Accounting;Social and Environmental Accountability Journal
(the CSEAR house journal) and Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal). This is in addition to those accounting journals which represent the bedrock
of the field (most notably,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Accounting
Organizations and Society, Accounting ForumandCritical Perspectives on Accounting)
as well as those journals that regularly publish accounting material in the field
(journals such as Business Strategy and the Environment, Greener Management
InternationalandJournal of Business Ethics). In addition, special issues in social and
environmental accounting are relatively commonplace (see, for example,Accounting
Forum(1995, 2007), Journal of Cost Management(1995),European Accounting Review
(2000), Journal of Investing(2000), Accounting Education(2001), Greener Management
International (2002), Journal of Cleaner Production (2006), Business Strategy and the
Environment(2006),Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, (2007, 2010)). The
literature, at the very least, is voluminous.
In the last 20 years the social accounting literature associated with the typical “core”
areas of accounting has grown but has not become a significant presence in the
mainstream literature. Financial accounting still tends to see the environmental and
social issues as just another potential cost or liability (see, for example, Hughes, 2000;
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, 2004; Hassel et al., 2005).
Management accounting similarly has responded only at the edges – typically around
“the business case” (Epstein, 1996; Bennett and James, 1999; International Federation
of Accountants, 1998; Burnett and Hansen, 2008) although there have been attempts to
push the margins of the subject matter in more engaging and innovative ways, (Milne,
1996; Norris and O’Dwyer, 2004). While taxation remains, as it does throughout much
of accounting research, something of an un-explored desert, auditing has attracted
significant attention from a number of perspectives, (see, for example, Collison, 1996;
It was 20 years
ago today
237
Ballet al., 2000; Cooper and Owen, 2007). Elsewhere, though, work is diverse and
vibrant.
Questions around the disclosure of social and environmental data undoubtedly
dominates research on social accounting since the publication of the special issue,
(Milne, 2007; Parker, 2005). Much of this research has been routine descriptions of
disclosure practices and/or attempts to link disclosure to theoretical explanations.
Much of it also continues to pursue that holy grail of a reliable, non-tautological
relationship between a range of corporate characteristics and social performance,
financial performance and social/environmental disclosure, (Gray, 2006; Murrayet al.,
2006). However, as the examination of these matters has become routinised so have key
scholars shown how such routine need not be an excuse to eschew the pursuit of clever
and important questions and the adoption of more subtle and nuanced method. The
work of, inter alia, Nola Buhr (e.g. Buhr, 2002), Craig Deegan (e.g. Deegan and
Blomquist, 2006), Markus Milne (e.g. Milneet al., 2009) and Den Patten (e.g. Blacconiere
and Patten, 1994) exemplifies the quality of nuanced scholarly pursuit.
The increased sophistication of the research endeavour has, importantly, not been
restricted to the more positivist methods. One notable thrust which has energised the
literature has been the explosion of fieldwork[11]. This work has not only increased the
understanding of the forces and impediments around the adoption of social and
environmental issues within organisations but has offered insights into how the
discourse around social and environmental issues is managed and how the “art of the
possible” can be increased at the margins. Equally encouraging has been the reporting
of fieldwork which acted as an essential input into the steadily growing range of “new
accountings”. If social accounting has a pragmatic element, it is that some
practicability can be envisioned and new accountings derived. Many of the growing
library of potential accountings emerge through the direct intervention of the
researcher in field situations[12].
Although perhaps to a lesser degree, theorising and critique (some of whose seeds
were perhaps planted by the special issue) have continued to develop. Power’s work
continued to be influential in helping inform the environmental accounting research
agenda (Power, 1994; Grayet al., 1995; Collison, 1996; Cooper and Owen, 2007) and
Lehman’s powerful analyses have offered constructive challenge to the simple
assumptions of accountability that run through much of social accounting (Lehman,
1999, 2001; Gray et al., 1996; Gray, 2010b). Maunders and Burritt’s deep ecology
critique continues to echo in the literature (see, for example, Andrew, 2000; Gray,
2010b; Everett and Neu, 2000; Milneet al., 2006) and although the critiques from
neo-liberalism and from critical theory have, unfortunately, not been as active it may
well be that social accounting is showing a more nuanced understanding of the
theoretical terrain (Tinker and Gray, 2003; Deegan, 2002; Brown, 2009). More generally,
though, there appears to have been a contentment within social accounting to operate
within a relatively narrow range of theoretical spectra dominated by stakeholder and
legitimacy theories, (see, for example, Gray et al., 2010). The visionary, the new
economics, and the enchantment of simplicity all seem almost entirely absent from
social accounting however (as indeed they do from much of social science!) with the
possible exception of some of the “first nations” and culture explorations (Gallhofer
and Chew, 2000) and some of the more exploratory pedagogic themes of the literature.
Social accounting has a long history of combining research and educative interests
AAAJ
25,2
238
(see, for example, Mathews, 1995) and this has continued in, for example, Gordon (1998)
and, especially, in Thomson and Bebbington’s (2005) work.
Other themes which were absent in 1991 and which are apparent in the research
literature since include the relatively newly emerging concerns over NGOs (Unerman
and O’Dwyer, 2006), the third sector (Osborne and Ball, 2010) and the public sector
(Ball, 2002). Although attempts so far to generate a “finance equivalent” of social
accounting (McGoun, 1997) have been relatively unsuccessful there is an increasingly
important presence in socially responsible investment (see, for example, Kreander,
2001). In addition, new recognitions and responses to emerging issues are happening
all the time – perhaps most notably at the time of writing are carbon accounting and
trading (Bebbington and Larrinaga-Gonzalez, 2008; Lohmann, 2009).
So, how might this be encapsulated? Social accounting is clearly a diverse and
vibrant area of research (Parker, 2005) and for reasons which are rarely immediately
obvious it, like so many academic fields, has blossomed in some areas, has exhibited
novelty and dynamic innovation in others while, inexplicably, ignoring clearly
important themes and possibilities elsewhere. That social accounting is no less guilty
than other disciplines and fields of appearing to follow fashions and trends is a little
disappointing.
In terms of Figures 1 and 2 these changes involve an overwhelming concentration
on and development of D (accountability and audit). To a worrying extent this focus
has left the interconnections to elements A (the over-riding criteria), B (the regulatory
regime) and C (the actions of corporations) relatively un-examined and probably
underdeveloped. The expansion in the description of social and environmental
accounting practices (D in Figures 1 and 2) has been considerable. There has been a
commensurate rise in the sophistication of these studies although this has been
accompanied by a diversity of intent from those who embrace a more Kuhnian (Kuhn,
1962, 1970) “normal science” approach to their insights, without consideration of the
underlying “paradigm” (A to C in Figures 1 and 2) that might make such insights
understandable and, in the final analysis, open to question. Unfortunately, the growing
awareness of the nature of practices in organisations (both that of reporting, D, and the
field-based work at C) still remains only occasionally embedded in a critical sense of
what society and regulators believe to be appropriate behaviour from corporations and
how such practices reflect (and thereby reveal) the political patterns of the society.
There is a growing serious literature which examines the exigencies of sustainability, a
moral basis for a society and the regulation and regime(s) indicated by this critique
(A and B in Figures 1 and 2). Certainly there are more pockets of analysis of how an
understanding of A and B will and should influence C. Some of this is now filtering into
prescriptions about the nature of accountability – the links between C and D in
Figures 1 and 2 – and even the practices in D itself. These prescriptions have been
primarily accounting/audit focussed in nature – although not without challenge[13].
The continuation of a critical engagement as seen by Maunders and Burritt and Hines
remains essential but far too often does not occur.
Equally, (reversing the order of the arrows in Figure 1), we can find work examining
the morality of accountability (see, for example, Lehman, 2006; Shenkin and Coulson,
2007), as well as work on how accountability systems influence the behaviour but it is
not obvious that the social accounting project as a whole has yet embraced such
behavioural issues – or that it has fully embraced an understanding of how corporate
It was 20 years
ago today
239
activity itself influences regulatory frameworks and, more substantially, morality and
accountability. It is failures such as these that seem to inspire Spenceet al.(2010) and
there is clearly more work to be done here.
We might well conclude that social accounting has made considerable advances but
also continues to leave considerable gaps. Put simply and directly: innovative work
struggles to get a foothold in the welter of the normalising, quasi-scientific tendencies
of much of the business, management, accounting and finance literatures[14]. How do
scholars and communities recognise and maintain the wider picture and its interlinked
framework when rigour is judged not by speculative, innovative, interconnected
thinking but essentially by standards that are determined by the marginal additions to
knowledge provided by similar narrowly based previous studies?
With this in mind we turn to our more speculative, forward-looking, analysis.
5. Speculating on the issues: looking forward
There are many ways in which we might use the foregoing as a springboard for future
intellectual journeys, but we will take Power’s themes and, not least because we are
both relatively obsessed with issues of accountability, explore what accountabilities
might be usefully developed and trace the implication that this has for business and
economic organisation.
One way of seeking to understand a society is by teasing out its relationships and,
particularly in our present case, the relationships between (and within) civil society, the
market and the state. Accountability can be thought of as one of the mechanisms by
which these relationships are negotiated, articulated and developed, (see, for example,
Ebrahim and Weisband, 2007). Accounting, at its broadest (and stretching rather)
might be thought of as the recording and control systems by which the elements of
civil society, the state and the market define, articulate and monitor the behaviours by
which they will be judged and held accountable. In this sense, 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 speak-able - even knowable. So the process of
social accounts 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 re-negotiated to accommodate – or even to prioritise – the social and the
environmental within these relationships.
There is a growing consensus (and concern) that we occupy a world lacking
intimacy, closeness (Rawls, 1972; Grayet al., 2006), active communitarianism (Lehman,
2001), substantive means of dialogue (Cooper and Owen, 2007) or even the wherewithal
to equate responsibility and power. In such a world, our capacity to deconstruct
apparent relationships and offer new mechanisms for their re-creation (however formal
this might seem) seems to be a potentially essential component of any reclaiming of
democracy[15]. This alone might be motivation enough but the small matter of
society’s engagement with sustainability and sustainable development takes this out
of the optional add-on and into the essential (Milneet al., 2009; York et al., 2003). If we
are to directly confront, articulate and address sustainability and to offer
counter-accounts to the specious nonsense that is spoken in its name becoming the
AAAJ
25,2
240
mainstream in business and academic discourse (Gray, 2010b; Milneet al., 2009), then
there is a need for a multiplicity of social and environmental accountings and
accountabilities and these may well come to sit at the very heart of how human society
attempts to reconstitute its economic relationships within nature and between its
peoples and species. Trying to understand social accountability in this way requires a
re-drafting of our mental maps and starts to ask new and potentially innovative and
challenging questions within a research orientation.
A number of thorny questions are suggested by such a perspective: many of which
have occupied thinkers for much of modernity. These include such issues as: to what
extent can and does civil society (taken in a world of sustainability to include future
generations) exercise focused influence over the state? To what extent does the state
successfully control the market and to what extent does such control necessarily
include explicit regulation? To what extent do organisations respond directly to the
preferences of civil society and the state? To what extent do larger elements of the
market actually control the state and civil society itself? What forms of accountability
are manifest and hence privileged? To what extent do such forms of accountability
reflect corporate propaganda, existing regulation, the preferences of society and/or
moral accountabilities, for example? And, crucial in the present context: what role can,
do and should academics play in the articulation and negotiation of these questions
and the development of the underlying relationships? (The work of, for example,
Cooperet al., 2005; Shenkin and Coulson, 2007; Spence et al., 2010 all offer robust
challenges to any sense of complacency that might be present in the academy.)
The most important thing for social accounting academic researchers to recognise is
that their work should not be narrowly defined. Figures 1 and 2 make the clear
suggestion that elements A to D are interconnected. Future work for many may well
continue to be located in D. This is not a problem provided it is conducted with both an
awareness of how A to C interconnect with practices and an explicit problematisation
of what constitutes these elements. Given our embryonic understanding of A to C this
may well shift attention to their nature as the necessary prior for further work on D;
this would be no bad thing. What must be avoided in the future is the myopic, isolated
and colourless concentration on descriptive studies of social accounting practices in D
which has dominated research over the last 20 years.
Clearly seeking to address, definitively, these questions would require a
jaw-dropping level of hubris; several lifetimes of thought and discourse, rather more
space than this short essay can command – and rather more patience than any readers
might be minded to exhibit. But at least the asking of such questions within this
holistic societal framing might suggest some new ways in which we might perceive the
field and look forward to some future potentials and action. One aspect of significance,
of course, is the extent to which accountability and sustainability require substantial,
as opposed to marginal, change in the relationships. To what extent can accountability
and sustainability be developed within a “business as usual” framework (Milneet al.,
2009). To what extent are we discussing (as Milneet al., 2009 so carefully outline)
minor changes within the existing dominant (technological) social “paradigm”, to use
that well overused Kuhnian descriptor; a need for refinement and adjustment towards
a new compromise of resource management or a deeply fundamental, radical shift to
eco-development. (See Milneet al., 2009 for more detail and supporting references; see
also Yorket al., 2003.) These questions are at least as essential now as they were
It was 20 years
ago today
241
20 years ago and although the subtlety with which they are examined may have
advanced, it is not at all obvious that any “paradigm shift”, to continue the language of
Kuhn, has been felt in the mainstream or that the increasing bodies of evidence are
making any greater in-roads into mainstream culture – both inside and outside
academe.
Speculation around some of the possible explanations for what we suggest is a
conservatism in the academic pursuit, also offers some suggestions for possibilities
through which new accountabilities and new accountings might be sought and
considered. So, for example, Tuttle and Dillard (2007) employ institutional theory to
explore why members of the academy seem to be so susceptible to research trends and
fashions and find what they see as isomorphism exhibited by academics around
identifiable and powerful institutional fields. Depressing though this might be, the
argument is persuasive. Yet the inherently conservative nature of institutional theory
as normally applied in accounting does not lend itself to suggesting especially radical
new directions and, crudely, despite the opening up of a new institutional field (in the
sense that Hambrick and Chen (2008) identify it) the conservatism as we see it might
suggest isomorphic tendencies even within that new field (social accounting) itself. An
alternative suggestion, drawing from Shenkin and Coulson (2007), is that we might
suggest that the horizon-reducing tendencies of many academics is more generalisable
than we might suspect. Perhaps there is a tendency for those who join an academic
community to be drawn towards a homogenising of beliefs and pre-dispositions such
that the unconscious skills (habits) with which they navigate the academic community
converge. As the most pressing facet of this should surely relate to sustainability as
opposed to an individually-focused, infinite-resource world this convergence is all the
more bewildering. All we really know is what Hopwood (2009, p. 892) perceptively
observed that: “...the mainstream of a great deal of accounting research is now the
result of a complex set of institutional and personal factors rather than the need for a
new understanding.” What these “complex set of institutional and personal factors” are
remains unclear and we are not, contrary to Tuttle and Dillard (2007), convinced that
institutional theory has the answer to this question. But the tendency is clear and the
effect on the development of “new understanding” is considerable and very disturbing.
Of course, it is inevitable that in an increasingly performance-orientated profession,
dominated by pressure to publish in restricted journals and in a world where research
training and its immediate pay-off are of increasing importance, to call for a more
reflective and idiosyncratic scholarship may seem unjust. Novelty still emerges but the
pressure is on explicit performance in narrow areas and this, inevitably, leads to a
narrowing of focus and an embracing of instrumental reasoning. It is worthy of
exploration whether the trappings of normal science (including performance according
to impact factors and the like) and the exploration of the new, different and oblique are
in conflict. Initial reaction would suggest that they must be. Nevertheless, how much
sympathy we should have for this dilemma is a matter of some debate (Bebbington and
Dillard, 2007).
We lack the wherewithal to explore either these potential analyses or the
possibilities that they suggest – but the more one dwells on these matters, the more
there seems to be a need for disruption and thinking outside of more traditional and
“safe” acceptable boundaries. The leading edge of research and thinking of some
20 years ago knew this – as we saw with Maunders and Burritt, Milne, Henderson and
AAAJ
25,2
242
Hines. This disruption must continue through the employment of methods that succeed
in exposing essential challenges (see, for example, Milne et al., 2009) or through forms
of engagement that are essentially based on notions of challenge, disruption and
interconnected thinking such as the shadow accounts and external social audits (see,
for example, Cooperet al., 2005; Dey, 2007; CSEAR web site: “Approaches to Practice”).
Critical engagement through wider forms of understanding and the development of
what Spenceet al.(2010) refer to as a new “discursive field” or even a new “academic
field” (Hambrick and Chen, 2008) is only a start to what needs to be done. We need
these developments but also active engagement with regulatory processes (element B
in Figures 1 and 2) and corporations (element C in Figures 1 and 2) as well based on our
new levels of understanding. Imagination and courage are needed to expose both the
absurdity of the present academy and the vacuous and destructive mileu in which we
research and teach. Whatever this new social accounting might be it will probably need
to be generated by a new generation of academicians who have not been trained in
instrumental careerism but have been supported in eccentric explorations by
established (if still sceptical) members of the community. That is quite a challenge but
clearly invokes that the unthinkable must eventually become thought.
More pragmatically and more immediately social accounting cannot settle quietly
and comfortably into undertaking ever finer and more detailed descriptions of
practices (an isolated and disconnected understanding of D in Figures 1 and 2). The
issues are simply too important. To continue to restrict social accounting to such
Kuhnian “normal science” creates a myopia and closure in thinking that is dangerous
at best. What is continually required is some “joined up” systemic thinking (see
Meadows, 2009) which recognises and self-reflects on its own limitations to grapple
with the complexities of the world that it is trying to analyse – something which is far
from any form of “normal science”[16]. We certainly are still a long way from this. It
may never be achieved in its entirety but it should never be lost sight of as a guide to
any scholarly contribution.
Where we think this leaves us and how such speculation might be taken on is the
matter of the final short section.
6. Conclusions
Despite Parker’s (2005) finding that the largest component of the social accounting
literature is of a theoretical/essay/speculative nature, data collection and analysis
remains essential to the research community – especially for neophytes coming
through doctoral programmes. Trite though it might seem, data largely derives from
extant practice and, consequently, current research must predominantly be a function
of current and past practice. It is something of a tautology to state that current practice
is essentially managerialist (at best); that disclosure is voluntary and not necessarily
substantial; and that the business case must necessarily dominate the marginal
developments in management accounting. The evidential basis of social accounting –
just like the rest of social science – will be necessarily managerialist and conservative
unless its practitioners exercise a conscious deliberate policy to formulate and pose the
challenging questions and/or to deliberately manoeuvre themselves to work at the
margins. There seems to be a reluctance among accountants to confront the really
radical challenges. This does not seem to be the case with sociologists, for example,
who appear to be managing fundamental critique in mainstream sociological thinking
It was 20 years
ago today
243
(see, for example, York et al., 2003; Kovel, 2002). There can be no justification for
accounting and accountants not to do likewise and social accounting must take a lead
on this critical engagement.
One other approach that we see occasionally adopted to develop the margins (as
Miller, 1998; sees it) is the response to Choudhury’s (1988) call to examine absence.
Absences abound: absence in practice (for example, refusals to report; absence of
evidence to support public claims; or the lack of innovative accounts of (say) social
justice); absence in policy (for example, the lack of compulsory disclosure requirements
or GRI’s apparent inability to abandon a linear approach which cannot – in all
probability – approach sustainability); absence in academe (for example, the lack of
concern with taxation or relative indifference towards employment issues) and, of
course, Cooperet al.(2005) and Unerman and O’Dwyer (2006) have exposed the need for
different sorts of accounts of, for and with civil society. All such pursuit of absence is
likely to stimulate challenge and difference. We hope that the introduction of Figures 1
and 2 into the research literature of social accounting will help to highlight these
absences. This heuristic is intended to provide a means of locating and perhaps even
justifying a piece of research such that it can be seen to fit with and, add to, the
interconnected set of elements that constitute the tentative framework of thinking
contained in these Figures.
Equally important – although no less attracting of conflict – is the extensive levels
of engagement undertaken by members of the social accounting community. At its
most marginalist this involves direct involvement with policy and professional bodies,
advice to companies and active involvement in a variety of local, national and
international fora. At its more radical it involves deep engagement with the marginal,
the new, and the different; conflict and confrontation and the empowerment of the
other. This process of engagement – although still not fully reflected in research
writing in the field – remains a major source of insight, novelty and creation, as well as
frustration, conflict and compromise.
These are the concerns that might exercise us if, today, we were once again
considering the editing of a special issue on social, environmental and sustainability
(sic) accounting. The special issue was intended to be seminal and, 20 years ago today,
it achieved that to some degree. It does not stand as the beacon or zenith that
Sgt Pepper does in another context but neither did the special issue lead to the break-up
of important partnerships: rather it represented the starting point of a vibrant
community.
Were we to be setting out to produce such a Special Issue today, we might hesitate
over whether this is what is required at this juncture; and whether we were now the
right people to deliver it (Gray, 2010a). What we saw as the essential radicalism of
20 years ago, and what we now see as the heartbreaking refusal to face up to moral
demands on a dying planet, might call for an alternative set of strategies that go
beyond yet more words. The latter may not be what a radical, organic intellectual or
the dying world more generally needs today. However, that is for others to identify,
imagine and decide – a mantle that papers such as Spence et al.(2010) seem keen to
adopt.
That the community is not as vibrant or as self-consciously innovative as it might
be is no matter for finger wagging. Social accounting has at least as much to
congratulate itself for as (say) critical accounting – which has also failed to sound the
AAAJ
25,2
244
death knell of international financial capitalism. We blame the blue meanies who, in
their original context, wanted to silence and marginalise Sgt. Pepper’s band. These are
the baleful forces of institution and control that engender individualism over
collegiality; rigour over importance; normal science over innovation; publication over
scholarship; student appraisal over education; and career over the issues at stake (see
Figure 3). Like Sgt. Pepper we must expunge the blue meanies wherever they have a
foothold and banish forever such small-minded, colourless and, in the final analysis,
destructive beings and their thinking. The stakes are just too high and too important
not to do otherwise.
Notes
1. The nomenclature “green accounting” speaks of its novelty in 1991. It is rare to see such a
reference now when “environmental” (or ecological, or social or sustainability etc.)
accounting is more usual. The term, “green accounting” does continue in the environmental
economics field however but for no reason we can discern. The move away from the term
“green accounting” echoed a wider (but by no means universal) move away from labelling
environmental concerns as simply “green” – a move, we assume, which reflected an attempt
to distinguish between a populist if restricted notion and a more substantive and serious
consideration of mankinds’ relationship with natural ecology.
2. Like all the other papers in this Special Issue ofAccounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journalthis current paper is intended as a reflective and prospective piece considering the
work contained in the “green accounting” Special Issue in 1991. That special issue was a
very early example of what has become almost commonplace and in commissioning such a
special issue on such an emerging field – and in laying down the foundations for a
substantive programme of special issues –AAAJconfirmed its place as a major innovator in
the accounting literature.
3. We will refer to the field generically as “social accounting” hereafter but that should be taken
to embrace not just “green accounting” (of which more later) but the full range of social,
environmental, ethical, responsibility and sustainability accounting, accountability,
reporting, auditing, investment, costing and management. Attempts to define and delimit
“social accounting” are probably unnecessary and counterproductive but, see, for example,
Figure 3.
The Blue Meanies
It was 20 years
ago today
245
Thomson (2007) and Pestoff (2011) and see also Parker (2005) and Owen (2008) for different
“counts” of social accounting literature.
4. Indeed, it remains striking that a key concern with employment, trades unions and
employees in both critical and social accounting literatures has yet to fully re-emerge.
Whether this mantle has been adopted by the intellectual capital and the human resource
costing literatures is a moot point, (Roslender and Dyson, 1992; Mouritsen, 2006).
5. To do so inevitably raises the problem that “we” who undertake this retrospective are not the
same “we” who edited the special issue. Not only is the past a different country but we are
also different denizens of these countries.
6. Not the present author, but a close relative who is an engineer and expert in Canada on waste
management rather than accounting.
7. It remains highly contestable whether it is “sustainability” that has become mainstream or
the word “sustainability” has become used to mean that which is mainstream.
8. At least in the accounting and related literature. We introduce this comment as there is a
vibrant theme around environmental management accounting that is explicitly
managerialist but rarely finds its way into the academic journals, (see, for illustration,
Jasch, 2009).
9. The Figure is intended heuristically and the linear functionality is perhaps misleading.
Although we have recognised the reflexive nature of the relationships between the elements
in the diagram, this reflexive nature is only briefly considered later in the paper. And see also
Grayet al.(1996) for further development.
10. There is much dispute about this also. Our explicit concern here with corporations is not
intended to suggest that other organisations are not of significant importance, (see, for
example, Osborne and Ball, 2010). The heuristic might be taken to embrace all organisations
and, with some further manipulation, might be applicable to civil society and the market.
That is beyond our scope or intention here.
11. Examples include: Adams (2002); Bebbingtonet al.(2007); Bebbington and Gray (2001); Buhr
(2002); De Villiers (1999); Friedman and Miles (2001); Georgakopoulos and Thomson (2008);
Grayet al.(1995); Gray and Bebbington (2000); Gray et al.(1998); Larrinaga-Gonza ´lez et al.
(2001); Larrinaga-Gonzalez and Bebbington (2001); O’Dwyer (2002); Spence and Gray (2008).
12. Examples include: Adams (2004); Antheaume (2004); Bebbington (2007); Bebbington and
Gray (2001); Cooperet al.(2005); Figge and Hahn (2004); Gray et al.(1997); Herbohn (2005);
Jones (2003); Lamberton (2000); and Taplinet al.(2006).
13. Examples of work which might illustrate these trends include Cooperet al.(2005); Lehman,
2001), Spenceet al.(2010).
14. Of course, examples of innovative work do manage to break through. One difficulty we face
with providing a critique of a new field like social accounting is that such fields are
not-context free. This is not the place to try to offer a coherent (although very much needed)
critique of English-language social science research and its (if we may simplify) comfortable
embracing of theoretical nicety at the cost of relevance, critique, organic engagement or
challenge in a complex and far from ideal world. Social accounting may lack that theoretical
sophistication due, in part, to a similar lack of theoretical coherence in the principle parent
discipline of accounting itself and, in part, as a result of the very ambition to address novelty
and place issues and problems before methodology and theory. To lambaste social
accounting for failing to navigate this balance is unjust. However, despite the growth in
theoretical lenses available to and employed by social accountants (see, for example, Gray
et al., 2010) social accounting academics seem no more immune than anybody else to the
attraction of the immediate publication; the easier data set; and, for neophytes especially, the
AAAJ
25,2
246
need to learn their craft through relatively routine research methods. Navigating the truly
radical and the truly theoretically sophisticated is a major challenge for the community.
15. The formality of the accountability appears to be equivalent to the distance and formality of
the initial relationship itself. In a world of distance, formality and power inequalities, formal
accountability – even procedural accountability – has its place (if only in a way to seek to
disrupt relationships). In a world of closeness, relationships are more intimate and the
accountability is appropriately more diverse and informal. It seems as though a world of an
interactive communitarianism (as envisaged by Lehman (2001)) would be closer to these
ideals of closeness.
16. Using the descriptors of Figure 1, this requires that A’s requirements should determine the
nature of B’s regulations over the actions of C; which also should be led by A directly. D, on
the other hand, which is at the end of the process, needs to be able to report on the actions of
C in an accountability for A’s values and concerns.
References
Accounting Standards (formerly Steering) Committee (1975),The Corporate Report, ICAEW,
London.
Adams, C. (2002), “Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical
reporting”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 223-50.
Adams, C. (2004), “The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 731-57.
American Accounting Association (1973), “Report of the committee on environmental effects of
organisational behaviour”,The Accounting Review, Vol. XLVIII, supplement.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1977),The Measurement of Corporate Social
Performance, AICPA, New York, NY.
Andrew, J. (2000), “The accounting craft and the environmental crisis: reconsidering
environmental ethics”,Accounting Forum, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 197-222.
Antheaume, N. (2004), “Valuing external costs – from theory to practice: implications for full cost
environmental accounting”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 443-64.
Bakan, J. (2004),The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, Constable and
Robinson, London.
Ball, A. (2002),Sustainability Accounting in UK Local Government: An Agenda for Research,
ACCA, London.
Ball, A., Owen, D.L. and Gray, R.H. (2000), “External transparency or internal capture? The role
of third party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports”,Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Bauer, R.A. and Fenn, D.H. Jr (1973), “What is a corporate social audit?”,Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 37-48.
Bebbington, J. (2007),Accounting for Sustainable Development Performance, CIMA, London.
Bebbington, J. and Dillard, J. (2007), “What really counts”,Accounting Forum, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 99-105.
Bebbington, J. and Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. (2008), “Carbon trading: accounting and reporting
issues”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 697-717.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B. and Thomson, I. (2007), “Theorizing engagement: the
potential of a critical dialogic approach”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 356-81.
It was 20 years
ago today
247
Bebbington, K.J. and Gray, R.H. (2001), “An account of sustainability: failure, success and a
reconception”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 557-87.
Bebbington, K.J., Gray, R.H. and Owen, D.L. (1999), “Seeing the wood for the trees: taking the
pulse of social and environmental accounting”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 47-51.
Bennett, M. and James, P. (Eds) (1999),Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of
Environmental and Social Performance, Greenleaf, Sheffield.
Benston, G.J. (1982), “Accounting and corporate accountability”,Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 87-105.
Blacconiere, W.G. and Patten, D.M. (1994), “Environmental disclosures, regulatory costs and
changes in firm value”,Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 357-77.
Broadbent, J., Deitrich, M. and Roberts, J. (Eds) (1997),The End of the Professions? The
Restructuring of Professional Work, Routledge, London.
Brockoff, K. (1979), “A note on external social reporting by German companies: a survey of 1973
company reports”,Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 77-85.
Brown, J. (2009), “Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: taking
pluralism seriously”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 313-42.
Buhr, N. (2002), “A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports”,Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 17-38.
Burnett, R.D. and Hansen, D.R. (2008), “Eco-efficiency: defining a role for environmental cost
management”,Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 551-81.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (1992),Environmental Auditing and the Role of the
Accounting Profession, CICA, Toronto.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (1993a),Environmental Stewardship: Management
Accountability and the Role of Chartered Accountants, CICA, Toronto.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (1993b),Environmental Costs and Liabilities:
Accounting and Financial Reporting Issues, CICA, Toronto.
Choudhury, N. (1988), “The seeking of accounting where it is not: towards a theory of
non-accounting in organizational settings”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13
No. 6, pp. 549-57.
Collison, D.J. (1996), “The response of statutory financial auditors in the UK to environmental
issues: a descriptive and exploratory case study”,British Accounting Review, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 325-49.
Cooper, C., Taylor, P., Smith, N. and Catchpowle, L. (2005), “A discussion of the political potential
of social accounting”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 951-74.
Cooper, S.M. and Owen, D.L. (2007), “Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability:
the missing link”,Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 649-67.
Daly, H.E. (Ed.) (1980),Economy, Ecology, Ethics: Essays Toward a Steady State Economy, W.H.
Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
Daly, H.E. and Cobb, J.B. Jr (1990),For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Towards the
Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future, Greenprint, London.
Deegan, C. (2002), “The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: a theoretical
foundation”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 282-311.
Deegan, C. (2007), “Organizational legitimacy as a motive for sustainability reporting”,
in Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and
Accountability, Routledge, London, pp. 127-49.
AAAJ
25,2
248
Deegan, C. and Blomquist, C. (2006), “Stakeholder influence on coproate reporting: an exploration
of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry”,
Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 Nos 4/5, pp. 343-72.
De Villiers, C.J. (1999), “The decision by management to disclose environmental information:
a research note based on interviews”,Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 7, pp. 33-48.
Dey, C. (2007), “Social accounting at Traidcraft plc: a struggle for the meaning of fair trade”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 423-45.
Dierkes, M. and Preston, L.E. (1977), “Corporate social accounting and reporting for the physical
environment: a critical review and implementation proposal”,Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Ebrahim, A. and Weisband, E. (Eds) (2007),Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism and
Public Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Elkington, J. (1987),The Green Capitalists: Industry’s Search for Environmental Excellence, Victor
Gollancz, London, (with Tom Burke).
Epstein, M.J. (1996),Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: Best Practice for Costing
and Managing an Effective Environmental Strategy, Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Epstein, M., Flamholtz, E. and McDonough, J.J. (1976), “Corporate social accounting in the United
States of America: state of the art and future prospects”,Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Estes, R.W. (1976),Corporate Social Accounting, Wiley, New York, NY.
Everett, J. and Neu, D. (2000), “Ecological modernization and the limits of environmental
accounting”,Accounting Forum, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-29.
Figge, F. and Hahn, T. (2004), “Sustainable value added – measuring corporate contributions to
sustainability beyond eco-efficiency”,Ecological Economics, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 173-87.
Foley, B.J. and Maunders, K.T. (1977), Accounting Information Disclosure and Collective
Bargaining, Macmillan, London.
Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2001), “Socially responsible investment and corporate social and
environmental reporting in the UK: an exploratory study”,British Accounting Review,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 523-48.
Gallhofer, S. and Chew, A. (2000), “Introduction: accounting and indigenous peoples”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 256-67.
Gambling, T. (1974),Societal Accounting, George Allen & Unwin, London.
Georgakopoulos, G. and Thomson, I. (2008), “Social reporting, engagements, controversies and
conflict in an arena context”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 1116-43.
Gordon, I. (1998), “Enhancing students’ knowledge of social responsibility accounting”,Issues in
Accounting Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Gray, R. (2010a), “A re-evaluation of social, environmental and sustainability accounting: an
exploration of an emerging trans-disciplinary field?”, Sustainability Accounting and
Management Policy Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-32.
Gray, R. (2010b), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability...and
how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Gray, R.H. and Bebbington, K.J. (2000), “Environmental accounting, managerialism and
sustainability: is the planet safe in the hands of business and accounting?”,Advances in
It was 20 years
ago today
249
Environmental Accounting and Management, Vol. 1, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley,
pp. 1-44.
Gray, R., Bebbington, J. and Collison, D.J. (2006), “NGOs, civil society and accountability: making
the people accountable to capital”,Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 319-48.
Gray, R.H. (1990),The Greening of Accountancy: The Profession After Pearce, ACCA, London.
Gray, R.H. (2002), “The social accounting project and Accounting Organizations and Society:
privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique”,
Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 687-708.
Gray, R.H. (2005), “Taking a long view on what we now know about social and environmental
accountability and reporting”, Radical Organization Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-31,
electronic journal, available at: www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot
Gray, R.H. (2006), “Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour? Wrong question?
Right time?”,Accounting and Business Research (International Policy Forum), Vol. 36,
pp. 65-88.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, K.J. and Gray, S. (Eds) (2010),Social and Environmental Accounting,
Sage Library Series, Vol. 1, Sage, London, pp. 145-54.
Gray, R.H., Dillard, J. and Spence, C. (2009), “Social accounting as if the world matters: an essay
in postalgia and a new absurdism”, Public Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 545-73.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Adams, C. (1996),Accounting & Accountability: Changes and
Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Prentice-Hall, London.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Adams, C. (2010), “Some theories for social accounting? A review
essay and tentative pedagogic categorisation of theorisations around social accounting”,
Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, Vol. 4, pp. 1-54.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1987),Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting and
Accountability, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, K.J., Walters, D. and Thomson, I. (1995), “The greening of enterprise:
an exploration of the (non) role of environmental accounting and environmental
accountants in organisational change”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 211-39.
Gray, R.H., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. (1997), “Struggling with the praxis of
social accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures”, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 325-64.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, K.J., Collison, D.J., Kouhy, R., Lyon, B., Reid, C., Russell, A. and
Stevenson, L. (1998),The Valuation of Assets and Liabilities: Environmental Law and the
Impact of the Environmental Agenda for Business, ICAS, Edinburgh.
Hambrick, D.C. and Chen, M.-J. (2008), “New academic fields as admittance-seeking social
movements: the case of strategic management”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 32-54.
Harte, G. and Owen, D.L. (1987), “Fighting de-industrialisation: the role of local government
social audits”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 123-42.
Harte, G. and Owen, D.L. (1991), “Environmental disclosure in the annual reports of British
companies: a research note”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 51-61.
Hassel, L., Nilsson, H. and Nyquist, S. (2005), “The value relevance of environmental
performance”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 41-61.
AAAJ
25,2
250
Henderson, H. (1991), “New markets, new commons, new ethics”,Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 72-80.
Herbohn, K. (2005), “A full cost accounting experiment”,Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 519-36.
Hines, R.D. (1991), “Accounting for nature”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 27-9.
Hopwood, A.G. (2007), “Whither accounting research?”,The Accounting Review, Vol. 82 No. 5,
pp. 1356-74.
Hopwood, A.G. (2009), “Reflections and projections – and many, many thanks”,Accounting
Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 887-94.
Hughes, K.E. II (2000), “The value relevance of non-financial measures of air pollution in the
electric utility industry”,The Accounting Review, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 209-28.
Ingram, R.W. and Frazier, K.B. (1980), “Environmental performance and corporate disclosure”,
Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 614-22.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (2004), Sustainability: The Role of
Accountants, Information for Better Markets series, ICAEW, London.
International Chamber of Commerce (1991), International Chamber of Commerce Business
Charter for Sustainable Development, ICC, Paris.
International Federation of Accountants (1998),Environmental Management on Organizations:
The Role of Management Accounting, IFAC, New York, NY, Study No. 6, March.
Jasch, C. (2009),Environmental and Material Flow Cost Accounting, Springer, Dordrecht.
Jones, M.J. (2003), “Accounting for biodiversity: operationalising environmental accounting”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 762-89.
Kolk, A. (2003), “Trends in sustainability reporting by theFortuneGlobal 250”,Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 279-91.
Kolk, A. (2008), “Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring
multinationals’ reporting practices”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Kovel, J. (2002),The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or The End of The World?,
Zed Books, London.
Kreander, N. (2001),An Analysis of European Ethical Funds, Research Paper No. 33, ACCA,
London.
Kuhn, T. (1962),The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kuhn, T. (1970),The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., enlarged, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL.
Laine, M. (2009), “Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes? A longitudinal interpretation
of the environmental disclosures of a leading Finnish chemical company”,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 1029-54.
Lamberton, G. (2000), “Accounting for sustainable development: a case study of City Farm”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 583-605.
Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. and Bebbington, J. (2001), “Accounting change or institutional
appropriation? A case study of the implementation of environmental accounting”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 269-92.
Larrinaga-Gonza´lez, C., Carrasco-Fenech, F., Javier Caro-Gonza ´lez, F., Correa-Ruiz, C. and Maria
Pa´ez-Sandubete, J. (2001), “The role of environmental accounting in organisational change:
It was 20 years
ago today
251
an exploration of Spanish companies”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 213-39.
Laughlin, B. and Varangu, L.K. (1991), “Accounting for waste or garbage accounting: some
thoughts from non-accountants”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 43-50.
Lehman, G. (1999), “Disclosing new worlds: a role for social and environmental accounting and
auditing”,Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 217-42.
Lehman, G. (2001), “Reclaiming the public sphere: problems and prospects for corporate social
and environmental accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 713-33.
Lehman, G. (2006), “Perspectives on language, accountability and critical accounting:
an interpretative perspective”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 755-79.
Lessem, R. (1977), “Corporate social reporting in action: an evaluation of British”,European and
American practice, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 279-94.
Lohmann, L. (2009), “Toward a different debate in environmental accounting: the cases of carbon
and cost-benefit”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 Nos 3-4, pp. 499-534.
McGoun, E.G. (1997), “Hyperreal finance”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 8 Nos 1/2,
pp. 97-122.
Mathews, M.R. (1995), “Social and environmental accounting: a practical demonstration of ethical
concern?”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 663-71.
Mathews, M.R. (1997), “Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research:
is there a silver jubilee to celebrate?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 481-531.
Maunders, K.T. and Burritt, R. (1991), “Accounting and ecological crisis”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 9-26.
Meadows, D. (2009),Thinking in Systems: A Primer, Earthscan, London.
Meadows, D.H., Randers, J. and Meadows, D.L. (2004),The Limits to Growth: The 30-year
Update, Earthscan, London.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.H. (1972),The Limits to Growth, Pan,
London.
Medawar, C. (1976), “The social audit: a political view”,Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 389-94.
Miller, P. (1998), “The margins of accounting”,The European Accounting Review, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 605-21.
Milne, M.J. (1991), “Accounting, environmental resource values and non-market valuation
techniques for environmental resources: a review”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 81-109.
Milne, M.J. (1996), “On sustainability, the environment and management accounting”,
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 135-61.
Milne, M.J. (2007), “Downsizing Reg (me and you)!: addressing the ‘real’ sustainability agenda at
work and home”, in Gray, R.H. and Guthrie, J. (Eds),Social Accounting, Mega Accounting
and Beyond: A Festschrift in Honour of M.R. Mathews, CSEAR Publishing, St Andrews,
pp. 49-66.
Milne, M.J., Kearins, K.N. and Walton, S. (2006), “Creating adventures in wonderland? The
journey metaphor and environmental sustainability”, Organization, Vol. 13 No. 6,
pp. 801-39.
AAAJ
25,2
252
Milne, M.J., Tregigda, H.M. and Walton, S. (2009), “Words not actions! The ideological role of
sustainable development reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1211-57.
Mouritsen, J. (2006), “Problematising intellectual capital research: ostensive versus performative
IC”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journa,l, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 820-41.
Murray, A., Sinclair, D., Power, D. and Gray, R. (2006), “Do financial markets care about social
and environmental disclosure? Further evidence and exploration from the UK”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 228-55.
Norris, G. and O’Dwyer, B. (2004), “Motivating socially responsive decision making: the
operation of management controls in a socially responsive organisation”,The British
Accounting Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 173-96.
O’Dwyer, B. (2002), “Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish story”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 406-36.
Osborne, S. and Ball, A. (Eds) (2010),Social Accounting and Public Management Accountability
for the Public Good, Routledge, London.
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
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 240-67.
Owen, D., Gray, R. and Bebbington, K.J. (1997), “Green accounting: cosmetic irrelevance or
radical agenda for change?”,Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 175-98.
Owen, D.L. and Lloyd, A.J. (1985), “The use of financial information by trade union negotiators in
plant level collective bargaining”,Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 329-50.
Parker, J.E. (1971), “Accounting and ecology: a perspective”,The Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 134
No. 4, pp. 41-6.
Parker, L.D. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the
commentary box”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842-60.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E.B. (1989),Blueprint for a Green Economy, Earthscan,
London.
Pestoff, V. (2011), “Social accounting and public management: accountability for the public good
– conclusions”, in Osborne, S. and Ball, A. (Eds), Social Accounting and Public
Management Accountability for the Public Good, Routledge, London, pp. 344-60.
Power, M. (1991), “Auditing and environmental expertise: between protest and
professionalisation”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 30-42.
Power, M. (1994),The Audit Society, Demos, London.
Price Waterhouse (1992),Accounting for Environmental Compliance: Crossroad of GAAP,
Engineering and Government, No. 2, Price Waterhouse, New York, NY.
Puxty, A.G. (1986), “Social accounting as immanent legitimation: a critique of a technist
ideology”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 1, pp. 95-112.
Puxty, A.G. (1991), “Social accountability and universal pragmatics”,Advances in Public Interest
Accounting, Vol. 4, pp. 35-46.
Ramanathan, K.V. (1976), “Toward a theory of corporate social accounting”,The Accounting
Review, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 516-28.
Rawls, J. (1972),A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Roberts, C.B. (1991), “Environmental disclosures: a note on reporting practices in Europe”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 62-71.
It was 20 years
ago today
253
Rockness, J.W. (1985), “An assessment of the relationship between US corporate environmental
performance and disclosure”,Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 339-54.
Roslender, R. and Dyson, J.R. (1992), “Accounting for the worth of employees: a new look at an
old problem”,British Accounting Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 311-29.
Shenkin, M. and Coulson, A.B. (2007), “Accountability through activism: learning from
Bourdieu”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 297-317.
Spence, C. and Gray, R. (2008),Social and Environmental Reporting and the Business Case,
ACCA, London.
Spence, C., Husillos, J. and Correa-Ruiz, C. (2010), “Cargo cult science and the death of politics:
a critical review of social and environmental accounting research”,Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 76-89.
Taplin, J.R.D., Bent, D. and Aeron-Thomas, D. (2006), “Developing a sustainability accountability
framework to inform strategic business decisions: a case study from the chemicals
industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 347-60.
Thielemann, U. (2000), “A brief theory of the market – ethically focused”,International Journal of
Social Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 6-31.
Thomson, I. (2007), “Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting”, in Unerman, J.,
Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (Eds),Sustainability Accounting and Accountability,
Routledge, London, pp. 19-36.
Thomson, I. and Bebbington, J. (2005), “Social and environmental reporting in the UK:
a pedagogic evaluation”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 507-33.
Tinker, T. and Gray, R. (2003), “Beyond a critique of pure reason: from policy to politics to praxis
in environmental and social research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 727-61.
Tinker, T., Lehman, C. and Neimark, M. (1991), “Corporate social reporting: falling down the hole
in the middle of the road”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 28-54.
Touche Ross (1990),Head in the Clouds Or Head in the Sands? UK Managers’ Attitudes to
Environmental Issues: A Survey, Touche Ross, London.
Tuttle, B. and Dillard, J. (2007), “Beyond competition: institutional isomorphism in US
accounting”,Accounting Horizons, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 387-409.
Ullmann, A.E. (1976), “The corporate environmental accounting system: a management tool for
fighting environmental degradation”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 71-9.
Ullmann, A.E. (1985), “Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships
among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of US firms”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 540-57.
Unerman, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (2006), “Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy”,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 349-76.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992),The Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development (The “Earth Summit”), United Nations,
Geneva.
United Nations Environment Programme (1972),Declaration of the United Nations Conference on
the Human Environment, United Nations, Stockholm.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2002),Global Environmental Outlook (GEO -3)
2002, Earthscan, London.
AAAJ
25,2
254
United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005),Living Beyond Our Means: Natural
Assets and Human Well-Being: Statement From the Board, available at: www.
millenniumassessment.org/en/Products.BoardStatement
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987),Our Common
Future (The Brundtland Report), OUP, Oxford.
Wiseman, J. (1982), “An evaluation of environmental disclosure made in corporate annual
reports”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-63.
WWF (2008),Living Planet Report 2008, WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland.
York, R., Rosa, E.A. and Dietz, T. (2003), “Footprints on the Earth: the environmental
consequences of modernity”,American Sociological Review, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 279-300.
Further reading
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (2007),Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management,
Thomson Learning, London.
Corresponding author
Rob Gray can be contacted at: rob.gray@st-andrews.ac.uk
It was 20 years
ago today
255
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
We’ve come a long way! Maybe!
Re-imagining gender and
accounting
Cheryl Lehman
Department of Accounting, Taxation and Legal Studies in Business,
Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose– Transforming gender research in accounting is possible, desirable, and promising: the
past few decades have included prescient work and expansive theories. The purpose of this paper is to
reflect on the legacy of the 1992 special issue “Fe[men]ists’ account” and urge new linkages and
contexts for a continuation of visionary inquiries.
Design/methodology/approach – By reviewing pioneering feminist research in various
disciplines, the author opens the margins and boundaries of gender-in-accounting research.
Innovative multidisciplinary works from different regions of the globe reveal methods for challenging
entrenched premises and recasting new meanings.
Findings– Reflecting on our embedded ideas, expanding boundaries, and imagining new areas of
inquiry are not only plausible, they are essential, for contesting repression and discrimination and
advancing social justice.
Research limitations/implications– Tying the current rhetoric of global neo-liberalism to
contemporary feminist struggles, the paper illustrates the significant consequences of economic
globalization on women, and accounting’s connection. As there is no single story regarding gender,
research exploring the unexplored has precedent in accounting literature, providing a foundation for
new insights and enhanced possibilities for advancing and transforming the field.
Originality/value– The paper re-imagines the accounting-gender dilemma, offering practical yet
expansive research concepts regarding values, class, the construction of gender, and the impositions of
economic structures.
KeywordsAccounting, Gender, Feminism, Accountability, Women, Neo-liberalism, Violence,
Social construction
Paper typeResearch paper
Section 1
Introduction
This story is neither neat nor perfect. Rather, it is the tale of struggle and compromise as well
as gain and loss (Bettye Collier-Thomas, 2010, pp. xxvii).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
The research support of Hofstra University is gratefully acknowledged. The author is indebted
and grateful to the many scholars developing gender-accounting research, and regrets if their
specific contribution is omitted here. Thanks for the thorough reading of the paper and insights
by Martin Brown, Peter Cross, Leni Goodman, Eva Kant, Carole Lapidus, Ellen Lus,
Margaret McGinty, Fahrettin Okcabol; and thanks to two anonymous reviewers, and for the
steadfast encouragements of Garry Carnegie.
(Dedicated to the memory of three amazing and beloved women: my grandmothers, Esther
and Bessie, and my dear mother, Lillian.)
AAAJ
25,2
256
Received 29 November 2010
Revised 20 April 2011
8 May 2011
Accepted 9 May 2011
Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2012
pp. 256-294
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
DOI 10.1108/09513571211198764
The power of women and girls...is one of the greatest forces for global transformation
(Jensine Larsen, 2010).
Why do we experience such difficulty evenimagining a different society...Our disability is
discursive: we simply do not know how to talk about these things any more (Tony Judt, 2010,
p. 34).
Feminist research has long been associated with boundary expanding versus
boundary-preserving dynamics. By revealing deeply embedded prejudices,
challenging discriminatory world-views, and re-configuring meanings, feminism’s
raison d’e ˆtreis: transformation. In urging empowerment, exposing marginalities, and
confronting abuses, feminism embodies a long history of championing change. It has
advocated for emancipation, defied hierarchies, and celebrated multiplicities and
alternatives. In the previous special issue, “Fe[men]ists’ Account” (AAAJ, 1992), this
legacy of unconventionality was represented in theories uncharacteristic of traditional
gender-and-accounting research; it was an issue in which new ideas were developed,
contested, and fostered. Authors embraced revision and exposed consequences of
repressive economic structures.
The opportunity here, to write on developments in the area of gender-in-accounting,
and the issues that have been debated and emerging since 1992, is welcomed. It is also
daunting given the complex dynamics of culture, class, race, and power. Additionally,
there have been extraordinary evolutions in the field of gender, including amplified
awareness of the unthinkable mistreatment of, violence against, and human rights
abuses toward, girls and women. Under such circumstances, defining an appropriate
terrain on which to write is humbling.
My goal is straightforward: choosing for this article the aim of stretching our
gender-in-accounting discourse once again with theories from feminist, philosophical,
and historical writings. As with other papers in this current Special Issue, this paper
examines previously cultivated work, specifically the 1992 Special Issue “Fe[men]ists’
Account”, and reflects two decades later on how those landmark articles fostered,
advanced, and changed the dialogue of gender in accounting, utilizing broad and
diverse theories and conceptualizations of the field. Behavioral accounting,
environmental accounting, forensic accounting, and radical accounting all utilize
research innovations in varied disciplines: economics, finance, and sociology (to name a
few). So why not, in moving feminist accounting research forward, look again at
innovative and pathbreaking work in related crafts as a way of “mining ideas”?
Advancing sexual rights, promoting action, challenging racism, classism, sexism,
ageism, ability-ism – all the isms – and evolving social justice – necessitates openness
in our ways of imagining and relating to each other (See, e.g. Barsamian, 2000; Bell,
1987; Chang, 2008; Faludi, 1991; Giddens, 1979; Gilroy, 2000, Hallet al., 1978; Hines,
1992; Judt, 2005; Said, 1978; Skloot, 2010; Waring, 1988; West, 1993.). In light of the
need for new visions, pioneering research informs this article – continuing the
advancement of the gender agenda. Questions will remain, but the outcome of this
paper includes diverse recommendations and practical applications.
There has always been a discourse creating aspect of the accounting profession
with no one history or truth (See, e.g. Arnold, 1999; Arrington and Francis, 1989;
Briloff, 2001; Chua, 1988; Chwastiak, 2001; Chwastiak and Lehman, 2008; Ciancanelli,
2010; Cooper and Neu, 2006; Dillard, 2009; Dillard and Reynolds, 2008; Gallhofer, 1998;
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
257
Hines, 1988; Laughlin, 1999; Lehman, 2006; Lehman and Okcabol, 2005; Llewellyn and
Milne, 2007; Merino and Mayper, 2001; Mitchellet al., 2001; Neu, 1992; Sikka, 2000;
Young, 2006; Young and Oakes, 2009). Accounting’s active, re-invention of itself is of
particular concern for critical research and gender-in-accounting. Our accounting
discourse becomes part of social practice, it contributes to the creation of meaning, and
it becomes part of the reality by which we live our lives. The notion of accounting
objectivity is characteristically used by the profession to establish its legitimacy and
ethical high ground. But we know better. Its factual basis is suspect, its myth making
legendary. We know accounting as subjective, socially constructed and mutable.
These ambiguities provide an exciting and expanded space for academic research;
and they suggest an academic responsibility for shaping the terrain of gender politics
and accounting work. The objective of this paper is to do just that. In order to make
changes, we must first imagine them (Steinem, 2010). We must perceive new ways as
plausible, legitimate, and worthy. And then, we must consciously re-evaluate, and push
our boundaries once again.
The main aspiration of this paper is for re-imagining how we view the landscape
and possible worlds of gender and accounting. The article proceeds, in Section 2, with
“The thrill is gone?” a brief review of where gender-and-accounting has been, and a
practical example of how thinking differently in a research setting – “just by changing
the question” – can be profound in establishing a new reality and challenging policies
toward women.
Section 3, “Vive la differenceor indifference?” offers multidisciplinary theoretical
frameworks in different regions of the world. These perspectives are illuminating:
describing research and ideas in ways different than our usual readings. Section 4,
“The ‘F’ word; are we Ghetto?” looks at successes as well as dangers in gender research
and ponders our predicament regarding the limits of the accounting-gender research to
date. Section 5 examines gender issues with particular perspectives from the USA,
looking at over 40 years of change, including triumphs, myths, and the labor market.
Section 6 extends the discussion on valuation, noting the impact on women with
research recommendations re-addressing and re-casting accounting possibilities.
Section 7 further discusses values in the context of statistics on women and violence
and also presents the milieu of neo-liberalism as it has had such significant
contemporary impacts. Section 8 provides conclusions, and a “small wall”.
Section 2
The thrill is gone?
The 1992 feminist special issue promoted nuanced discussions of gender: authors
examined conflicts, economic rights, philosophy, global discrimination, and ecology
(see, for example: Ciancanelli, 1992; Cooper, 1992; Gallhofer, 1992; Hammond and
Oakes, 1992; Moore, 1992; and Welsh, 1992). A diverse discourse in the volume
developed, noting that feminist theories themselves could be simplistic, naı¨ve, co-opted
and negate the needs of the already underrepresented. Researchers acknowledged the
need to break silences on critical issues of survival, and they confronted unequal
economic and power distributions while advocating liberating theories and practices.
The work was creative, imaginary, inventive, and boundary expanding.
Sixteen years later, Broadbent and Kirkham (2008) perceptively visit the debates in
their AAAJspecial issue “Accounting and gender revisited” (see, e.g. Dambrin and
AAAJ
25,2
258
Lambert, 2008; Dillard and Reynolds, 2008; Haynes, 2008; Komori, 2008; Parker, 2008;
Walker, 2008). While acknowledging the prescience and boundary-expanding work
taking place, Broadbent and Kirkham lament the lack of greater advancements since
the 1992 publication of Fe(men)ists’ Account[1]. They question: “Why had we not
moved on?...Why had the ground-breaking work that had appeared...in 1992 not
been built on and replicated?... at least [in researchers] asking themselves if and how
gender might impact on both the questions they were asking and the understandings
they were seeking”? Walker (2008, p. 582) concurs with their lament, stating, “Whereas
feminist historians and historians of gender boast substantial advances in research and
transformative impacts on the wider discipline of history, similar momentum is less
evident in accounting history”. He suggests core themes to be explored would include
“the oppression and subordination of women, the public-private divide ...
investigating socio-cultural relations and the construction of identities” (Walker,
2008, p. 582). So, what would it mean to move on?
Before exploring what moving on would look like, we keep in mind the inheritance
of the 1992 special issue. Lehman’s introduction is intent on the historical and
international precedent of gender issues, observing, “History has shown that the brunt
of chaos, crises, and transition is often borne by women of all classes, races, and
backgrounds” (Lehman, 1992, p. 4). In describing the shifting political dynamics after
the crumbling of the Berlin wall, and the concurrent dismantling of social protections
and rights for women, we see the precursor of the breakdown illustrated in this paper,
below regarding Russia and in Section 5 regarding Poland. Disputing the “implication
that one can resolve economic issues [justly] by excluding the interest and needs of one
half of the population” (Lehman, p. 10) the research foreshadows recurring assertions
in accounting gender work: the ubiquitous separation of social and economic spheres
rationalizes the denial of power for women, silences theories, obscures visionary
possibilities and disrupts transformative ways of knowing. The article’s exploration of
valuation in market economies, the probing into the dynamics of culture, and the
inquiry of the (unequal) gender division and hierarchy of labor, also foretells research
on gender-in-accounting extending to a multiplicity of issues. These include the roles of
divergent economies, social and labor policy, and violence, and their impact on women
– the emergent research of this article.
Advocating the work ofHe´le `neCixous and other French feminists, Cooper’s, 1992
contribution dislocates meanings previously embraced. The article “attempts to
present a fairly new, radical and remarkably exciting philosophy of praxis...as a way
of seeing the world and a guide to action...it empowers women...[and] also liberates
men... it allows for difference; it opens new possibilities” (Cooper, 1992, p. 16).
Challenging our accepted, unreflected on, and regressive understandings –
particularly those relating to women and the environment, Cooper’s work stands
accounting on its head. Accounting for what, when environmental degradation is
named an “externality”, or ignored, or considered a static market exchange needing a
“price”? And accounting for whose understanding, betterment, and vision?
Future researchers might ponder: “whose accountability is discharged?” By
accounting’s logic and accounting’s language all is well, equal, and safe: for which
social groups she asks? Accounting practice denies and obfuscates any claim or
participation in social injustice or in detrimental activities. Rather than be co-opted by
binary thinking, corrupt logics, and solutions that are in fact limiting and
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
259
contradictory, feminist research in accounting is better served by remaining outside
the pull of such logic, devoted instead to visualizing many differences. In this call,
Cooper sets the foundation for the continually disruptive work of the genre.
Preserving the political economy emphasis for feminist analysis, Gallhofer is
concerned with the erasure of class in some French feminist writings. Gallhofer’s
advocacy is to more prominently tackle issues of political praxis, noting that firstworld abundance implicit in elite feminism is a dangerous simplification and
abstraction from the severity and diversity of problems imposed on women across the
globe given the threats of global capitalistic systems. Challenging the privileges of
certain groups implies consequences and activism, such as the redistribution of wealth
and the “active involvement in political actions as part of the story or integral to the
possibilities of feminism” (Gallhofer, 1992, p. 53). Gallhofer’s research supports the
analysis of class and the urgency of political challenges to international global
capitalism as central to feminist work in accounting, themes reiterated throughout the
subsequent two decades of gender research and highlighted here in Sections 6 and 7.
Hammond and Oakes ask, “What would a feminist accounting look like? Is such a
thing possible? These questions may be unanswerable. There are many different
definitions of feminism, so the notion of one true feminist accounting is unimaginable”
(Hammond and Oakes, 1992, p. 52). By providing a “theoretical tutorial” of several
major streams of feminist thinking in the USA, incisively distinguishing advantages,
disadvantages, and implications, their work provides an inspiration for
gender-accounting research to form an accounting with emancipatory potential for
all women, underscored by their belief that positive political change is more important
than theoretical purity. This view is replicated with many subsequent
gender-in-accounting researchers, disturbed by the inadequate transformations in
emancipatory accounting practice, continuing to question where power resides,
providing nuanced discussions of gender conflicts, promoting the needs of the already
underrepresented, and providing inspiration for gender, race, and ethnicity research.
The title of Welsh’s contribution addresses one of the more fundamental questions
in feminist research: how do we conceptualize “The construction of gender”. Welsh
subtitles her work: “Some insights from feminist psychology”, highlighting her
perspective and emphasis: contributing to the debate on gendered roles, the social
construction of gender, and power hierarchies. Ciancanelli observes that Welsh’s input
is significant, but it is insufficient. In regard to differences in power relationships,
limiting discussion to “the individual” can do more harm than good; and such
restrictions cannot be sustained very long. “Individuals, after all, exist in time and
place and are shaped by a pre-existing social and political environment” [and thus]
“gender is best seen (1) as a process (rather than fixed, immutable, given) and (2) rooted
in asymmetric power distribution (rather than in biology) [with] attention to the
dynamic interplay between the individual and broader social structures, social
memories and socialized needs” (Ciancanelli, 1992, p. 133). Thus one needs to expand
the research to perceive the distribution of power and authority in organizations as
neither random or meritocratic but part of social stratification in the larger society. As
with any stratification, whether on “the basis of class, race, sex or business function,
[they] are social constructions. They are not in any sense biological or natural”
(Ciancanelli, 1992, p. 136). These insights provide the foundation for the significant
accounting-and-gender research that has proliferated regarding nature versus nurture,
AAAJ
25,2
260
analysis of organizational structures within social milieus, and the global inequality in
economic systems, exemplified throughout much of the paper.
It ain’t necessarily so
One poignant illustration of foresight and re-imagining research took place in the early
1990s in Russia within the newly formed Moscow Center for Gender Studies. A time of
transformation from state to market economies, and social upheavals as well, the
researchers could not agree with the undercurrents of the media news. It was reported
that Russian women, when asked if they were given the opportunity to quit their
current job, overwhelmingly replied yes: approximately 80 percent of women answered
they would leave their current job. The data was presented as proof that women
“wanted to return to the home” and became a rallying point for a
smorgasbord-of-interpretations of “women’s desire” and social policies. The statistic
was used as: a rationale for eliminating women from the workforce; a justification for
eliminating quotas for women in public spheres; a validation for disbanding maternity
leaves (of full or partial pay for 6 months to 3 years); and as a defense of “special
treatment” regarding women at work and restricted access to certain jobs. Researchers
at the Center were convinced that the rhetoric gave a slanted and simplistic view by
indicting all state socialist policies toward women and granting a blanket celebration
of the market economy for women.
Perplexed and disbelieving, the researchers replicated the survey. They visited the
same factories and bureaucracies and in a brilliant twist, they asked the men at these
organizations the same question: if given the opportunity would they choose to quit
their current job. And the results were exactly the same as the response of the women:
80 percent of the men answered they would not continue with their current job if given
the opportunity to quit. The rhetoric of women “wanting” to leave as a category
separate from being a “citizen” or a “parent” or a “worker” could not be defended. All of
the workers – women and men, in the same proportions – wanted different and better
jobs, with greater security, more advancement, more interesting tasks, a sense of
independence, flexible work schedules, etc.
The Center’s scholars were supported and inspired by feminist beliefs. They
understood the complexity of gendered positions: women needed and wanted to work
outside the home for compensation; unemployed women in any society would be
vulnerable but even more so with the dismantling of state-sponsored social safety nets;
and women in Russia were not suddenly going to become (nor wanted to be) “country
club wives and women of leisure” – the market-stereotype that was being presented.
They saw women becoming poorer quicker as discrimination against women
applicants increased and as women were fired first, with little legal recourse. The
escalating vulnerabilities included elimination of medical and childcare supports and a
rise in violence against women.
Understanding the social construction of identities and desires and differential
political power for women, they feared women’s needs would become invisible. And
they brought their theories to their analysis and their hopes for changing society. The
numbers just did not make sense, the rhetoric mattered to the lives of women, and the
interpretations had to be challenged. Propelled by their insights and driven to defend
women’s future well-being, they presented a reality with a different story. The
transformation to a more market-oriented society continued to have mixed impacts on
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
261
the lives of women – an issue examined later in this paper for the case of Central and
Eastern Europe, Poland in particular. With this in mind, we review and build on
theories of new visions.
Section 3
Vive la difference or indifference?
You have the capabilities, the possibilities...even the responsibilities to be – light (Angelou,
2010a).
No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the far greater part of the members
are poor and miserable (Adam Smith).
Nussbaum (2000), continuing her pioneering work, grounded in philosophical and
international spheres, once again extends our reaches in her bookWomen and Human
Development: The Capabilities Approach. A study of human capabilities in order to
develop fundamental political principles, her philosophy is contextualized in the stories
of the lives of women in developing countries. She quotes one such woman from the
Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA): “We not only want a piece of the pie; we
also want to choose the flavor and to know how to make it ourselves”. (p. x). Using the
backdrop of India to illustrate how a moral philosophy can be implemented in public
policy, Nussbaum’s revolutionary idea is to break policy development’s disregard of
women’s difference in social status – on a global scale. With the difference as a core
fact and premise, only then can we appropriately set in motion theorizing, pursuing,
choosing, and executing social justice.
A starting point of Nussbaum’s journey is Ahmedabad, the textile-mills city where
Gandhi organized labor on the principle of non-violent resistance. The town also
attracts attention as the home of the women’s resistance movement SEWA, with more
than 50,000 members. For over 20 years SEWA has been helping female workers
improve their living conditions through credit, education, and a labor union.
Nussbaum’s narration of two women who have begun to flourish with such support,
Vasanti and Jayamma, is a backdrop for theorizing social justice and change for
women across boundaries.
Acknowledging that she can only address some of the issues in her book (and,
similarly, my account of it) nevertheless, her descriptions are discerning, practical, and
inspiring and devastating at the same time. Nussbaum’s introduction is a regrettably
familiar one: women in much of the world lack support for fundamentally functioning
their lives. They are less well nourished and healthy than men, they are vulnerable to
physical violence and sexual abuse in greater proportion, and their attempts to enter
the workplace are faced with intimidation from family, sex discrimination in hiring,
and sexual harassment on the job – with virtually no legal recourse. These obstacles
are mirrored in political spheres. In many nations women are not full equals under the
law, they do not have the same property rights as men, the same rights to make a
contract, the same rights of association, mobility, or religious liberty.
This is the context that must be articulated, repeated, and acknowledged in
formulating any philosophy and any policy. In all these ways, unequal social and
political circumstances give women unequal human capabilities. Nothing is inherently
un-able about women; rather Nussbaum recounts triumphs over daunting obstacles,
and women overcoming social inequities. Her argument is more to emphasize that
AAAJ
25,2
262
“One might sum all this up by saying that all too often women are not treated as ends
in their own right, persons with a dignity that deserve respect from laws and
institutions. Instead, they are treated as mere instruments of the ends of others –
reproducers, caregivers, sexual outlets, agents of a family’s general prosperity”
(Nussbaum, 2000, p. 2).
The work of economics and development has not seen the fundamental issue of
gender and differences as critical. Thus, Nussbaum provides a defense of the need for
re-philosophizing: feminist imbued philosophy en route to development policies. “The
world community has been slow to address the problems of women, because it has
lacked a consensus that sex-based inequality is an urgent issue of political justice.
Other forms of hierarchy and inequality – apartheid, for example, have been deemed
world outrages and have mobilized the international community” (Nussbaum, 2000,
p. 298). The basic philosophical hierarchy of simple utilitarianism, used for setting
policy without acknowledging the difference for women, is a flawed philosophy of
moral reasoning. But why worry about these ideas, she points out: “People concerned
with political change often have doubts about philosophy, wondering how such an
abstract and remote discipline can possibly be helpful when people are suffering. Why
should we fuss so obsessively about getting conceptual distinctions precisely drawn
when there is so much practical work to be done?” (Nussbaum, 2000, p. 300).
The urgency is that abstract theory over and over again formulates practice.
Repeatedly using utilitarianism, economists – with little training or concern for
normative arguments – and frequently unfamiliar with complicated debates about
political norms, become the specifiers and authorities of policy. Yet they fail to
acknowledge and embrace challenges, concepts, and effects. Un-argued specifications
of core concepts such as “development” go unnoticed. This mirrors the myopia in
accounting with its appeal to neo-classical economics, rationality, efficient markets,
and wealth maximization – applications of which assure neither objectivity nor social
integrity.
We need good theory to drive out bad...we do not need philosophy only as a counterweight
to the philosophical assumptions of development economists. We need it to help us think
through our own intuitive ideas...People do not go through life without forming views...
about what is justice and mercy and aggression and grief...When public policies are chosen,
then, they are the product of many people’s intuitions and theories ...It seems sensible to
deliberate about which theories we really want to hold onto... [particularly] when we
consider the interests of the powerless, who rarely get the chance to bring their own ideas
about such matters to the table (Nussbaum, 2000, p. 300).
Her work reminds us how and why ideas and debate matter. Accountants – unaware
or uninvolved with the lives affected – are often arbiters without thoughts of social
justice. “Feminists rightly demand that theories dealing with women’s lives show their
understanding of women’s experience of subordination and exclusion...not intended
as a recommendation by elite specialists to people who have no ideas on the topic...
[but] how their lives might be improved, and what governments should be doing about
that” (Nussbaum, 2000, p. 301).
It is poignant that Nussbaum summarizes her field work with an “annual report”
prepared by the women, where she is serenaded by the women and presented with a
list of their desires and plans[2]. Next to the list of plans is a drawing of a child in
wedding dress, under a canopy – with a large red X drawn across it, with the
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
263
description, “Twelve year old Swarupa...During the vacation her parents tried to get
her married. She sought the help of thesangham and together they managed to
convince the parents to allow her to pursue her studies” (Nussbaum, 2000, p. 302). The
story confirms the practical power of the capabilities approach: women strive for a
“plurality of irreducibly distinct components” (Nussbaum, 2000, p. 302). To transform
our gender work, we can be guided by her ideas: creating choices rather than imposing
modes of functioning, insuring our work maintains the underlying ideas of human
dignity, and adding a framing political approach for legitimate concerns about
diversity and pluralism. We examine in the next section how other researchers have
challenged entrenched premises and promoted diverse thinking.
Whose universal history? Removing blinders: globally
Arendt, De Beauvoir, Gramsci, Kristeva, Marx, Socrates, Wollstonecraft: the list goes
on, a library’s worth of great thinkers informs us. Buck-Morss’s (2009) workHegel,
Haiti, and Universal Historyis a new addition with ideas resonating with our themes.
Contemplating the role of Haiti (in the nineteenth century), racism, and democratic
principles, with her strong interspersing of Europe’s hypocrisy regarding equal rights
andliberte ´ – while perpetuating slavery – Buck-Morss uncovers complex notions of
interpreting, re-writing and seeing history. Ever changing is the narrative of women’s
history, and like Haiti, it is the story of race, class, and struggle. It is anything but an
easy one-way path to humanitarian conditions.
Buck-Morss makes new connections between ideology and social conflict, asking:
What rhetorical devices become imbedded and unchallenged and how can we recast
and transcend the boundaries of our historical imagination? Her observation is that in
the “edges” of human experiences, unexpectedly while seeking boundary expansion,
we might find connections and linkages in spite of cultural differences. The title of her
work is, in part, the question: how might the passionate struggle for Haitian
independence, and a reinterpretation of Hegel’s master-slave dialectic provide a means
of opening critical theoretical understandings?
She proposes a writing “that changes what we think we know about the past, and therefore
how we think about the present” (Buck-Morss, 2009, p. ix). There is political urgency to this
project. The contemporary slogan, Think Global – Act Local, requires modification...
Judgments of difference are not suspended. Political struggles continue. But they can take
place without the traditional preconceptions that set barriers to moral imagination before
deliberations even begin (Buck-Morss, 2009, p. ix).
The above mirrors Nussbaums’s urgency and insistence: how can we talk about
development without arguing what it means and to which groups and without a
feminist perspective? Shortly, we will see in Calas et al.(2010), Holvino (2010), Penn
(2009), and Bennett (2008) how these arguments are presented in their gender work, but
first a brief sketch of Buck-Morss’s proposals, particularly the influence of market
dogma, imperialism, and neo-liberalism as impacting women.
Buck-Morss points to the rise of neo-liberalism and its dominance on a global scale
in the post – Cold War years and contemplates just how market rationality became the
legitimating mantra. Critical accounting scholars know very well the inevitable
intertwining of economics and social relationships, and have also wondered how terms
such as maximization of utility and rationality have been inserted to justify every kind
of economic and social policy, regardless of the devastating results for the most
AAAJ
25,2
264
vulnerable. Buck-Morss puts the question well: “Just what was this bodiless phantasm,
‘the economy’ that was the object of such fetishistic reverence? ... just how the
economy works remains inscrutable to today’s general public; it is knowledge reserved
for a priesthood of experts who have inordinate power to determine our lives. No one
reads economic journals for fun. So, what accounts for the enormous excitement with
which the 1776 publication of Adam Smith’sWealth of Nationswas received?”
(Buck-Morss, 2009, p. 3).
Apparently influenced by Smith, Hegel’s reworking of the concept of civil society
was epoch making: seeing the dual, dialectical unity of the modern person as public
and private. Political economy was the focus of intellectual excitement in the beginning
of the nineteenth century, and the subsequent rupture of social life observed by Hegel
was ubiquitous. “Nothing keeps history univocal except power...truth is singular, but
it is a continuous process of inquiry because it builds on a present that is a moving
ground” (Buck-Morss, 2009, p. 150).
Thus, Buck-Morss asks, “Why do we write history?...history’s meaning cannot be
asked outside of time but only in the thick of human action, the way the question is
posed, the methods of inquiry, and the criteria of what counts as a legitimate answer all
have political implications” (Buck-Morss, 2009, p. 109). “Exposing ungovernable
connections is relevant to feminist issues. The word ‘commerce’ in multiple languages
has a sexual meaning. Traffic in women was the prototype of commercial slavery”
(Buck-Morss, 2009, p. 113) and for Haiti in the nineteenth century, sexual commerce
was precisely what threatened to dissolve the conceptual boundaries of race.
Elaborate sub-categorizations of degrees of “racial mixture” were created, only for
sex trades to threaten conceptual distinctions and to increase fears of contagion.
Napoleon ordered all white women who had slept with blacks expelled from
Saint-Domingue based on fears that were “not merely psychic fantasies, but rooted in
the actual, boundary-disrupting potential of women’s sexual agency that was
economically powerful and escaped political control. The figure of the free mulatto
woman looms large here, brilliantly interrogated by Joan Dayan in her history of Haiti”
(Buck-Morss, 2009, pp. 113-114).
How do we draw on this history of the slave trade in girls and women, sold into
prostitution, and contemplate its booming business in contemporary twenty-first
century globalization with connections to economic-liberalism, democracy, and
sexuality? Endless accounting linkages evolve: an “annual report” of slave-sex-trade of
women; devising transparency; and portraying accountability. What would be
revealed in researching the language of business’s connection to commerce with sexual
origins? According to a UN report, in Asia alone about one million children working in
the sex trade are held in conditions indistinguishable from slavery (Kristoff and
WuDunn, 2009; issues expanded on in Section 7).
Dayan’s (1995)Haiti, History, and the Gods(referenced above by Buck-Morss),
re-tells the history of Haiti with all of its complicated traditions in religion and rituals
of devotion and vengeance. And what happened to women in this “contentious,
reversible space [in Haiti in the 19
th
century]? Whether nuns in Cap Francais, mulatto
courtesans, black slaves or white Creole wives, women in Saint-Domingue were vessels
for the taxonomic vocations of white male supremacy. Alternately etherealized and
brutalized, represented as angels, virgins, furies, or wenches, they carried the symbolic
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
265
weight necessary to the learned discourse on race and the justifications of slavery”
(Dayan, 1995, p. 267).
How will and can we take our learned discourse on women, race, and justifications
and reinvent our scholarship, knowing there is not a single answer (nor a single
definition of woman, race, power, etc.)? Calaset al. (2010) open their special-issue
editorial ofGender, Work & Organizationwith the quote:
How we think about the local in/of the global and vice versa without falling into colonizing or
cultural relativist platitudes about difference is crucial in this intellectual and political
landscape (Calas et al., 2010, quoting Mohanty, 2004, p. 229).
Global capitalism constitutes the context of the research and they note, “we are all also
traversed by shared social and economic conditions fueled by powerful ideological and
political apparatuses” (Calaset al., 2010, p. 243). Holvino’s (2010) article undercuts
these concepts, “proposing theoretical and methodological interventions for
researching and practicing more forcefully and intentionally the simultaneity of
race, gender and class in organizations” (Holvino, 2010, p. 248).
Holvino’s work articulates and extends the explorations of the Combahee River
Collective, recognizing as early as 1974 the hegemony of a feminist theory based on
white women’s experience – a concern also specifically examined in the special issue,
by Hammond and Oakes, 1992. Four themes of major differences are significant: a
different consciousness and a different way of knowing; women of colour have always
worked; men are not the enemy and family is not necessarily the problem; and white
women are privileged too. Broadening these themes, Holvino employs a “relational
dovetailing”: instead of an adversarial mode of taking apart knowledge, she suggests a
strategic deployment of multiple feminist frameworks to advance the study of the
simultaneity of race, gender, and class in transforming social relations in
organizations. “For Black women, including those who consider themselves to be
feminist, this is an issue of wholeness” (Collier-Thomas, 2010, pp. xxviii). Holvino’s
recommendations are named by others as intersectionality or multiracial feminist
theory (see also Dill, 2010), and they share a perspective that affords more complete
analyses and policy change applications.
Activists and “everyday women” alike in Central and Eastern Europe and the
Former Soviet Union have also challenged imposed-on social and political rhetoric and
their impact on women. In particular, they have mulled over the question – before and
after the abandonment of communist governments – what were the effects of socialism
on women’s lives? New worlds of research: diverse, paradoxical, conflicting, and
ambiguous have emerged in the past 20 years (see, e.g. Penn and Massino, 2009,
pp. 5-7). Archives were opened. Oral histories were taken. Untold stories were
published. The power of newly actualized on-line accessibility was enthusiastically
consumed. And in Poland, one of the first government acts astounded feminists: the
attempt (and success) at changing access to reproductive rights[3]. “What women
achieved under Communism was so obvious that we never believed we had something
to lose” (Penn, 2009, p. 201).
Penn observes:
Come 1989 and the shattering of the Iron Curtain, it seemed that grassroots feminism, long
dormant in Central Europe, suddenly leapt to life to counter the completely unanticipated
AAAJ
25,2
266
threats to reproductive rights, women’s employment, state-run childcare and healthcare that
accompanied the dismantling of the communist infrastructure (Penn, 2009, p. 201).
For Polish feminists the 1990s disillusionment (following the tragic loss of reproductive
rights) was overcome as activists and scholars reclaimed and recounted the indigenous
feminist thinking in Poland, reaching back to the late eighteenth century. Thus, Polish
feminists “have been writing themselves back into history”, examining their identities
within family structure; their roles within class and as opponents to state controls; their
experiences with sexism; etc. (Penn, 2009, p. 202).
It is instructive how the evolution of feminism in Poland has required abandonment
of entrenched ideas for gathering new perspectives, and Penn (2009) eloquently
captures this transformation.
As feminists analyzed the complexities of their transitional society, constructed a feminist
history of the last several centuries, and studied themselves...first the blinders had to come
off. Nearly everyone, feminists and non-feminists alike, in the East and in the West, was
locked into the binary cold-war mode of thinking that divided the world into Good versus
Bad, East versus West, and Top-Down versus Bottom-Up. This either/or perspective
precluded recognition of feminism’s pre-World War II history or of any advances made under
Communism. Breaking it enabled and legitimized the development of both academic and
activist feminism...the opponents of feminism continue to denounce it either a “Western
import” or a “Soviet plot”...Conceptual and organizing space for women and gender issues
had finally opened up after persistent, tenacious effort. Maintaining it will require continual
vigilance (Penn, 2009, p. 219).
Re-conceptualizing gender takes place in lives, books, and the academy on a daily and
global basis. In the African Gender Institute (AGI) at the University of Cape Town,
South Africa, one aim is providing high quality scholarship in the interdisciplinary
field of Gender and Women’s Studies (GWS) particularly in the African context.
Bennett (2008), similar to Nussbaum, and other feminists above, is concerned that there
are very strong ideas about the segregation of research from activism. Feminist work
has always been concerned with the relationship between theory and practice, and the
legacies and contemporary realities of privilege (of class, of race, of ethnicity, for
example) continue to live out across definitions, identities, and the value of feminist
work. Again, there are substantial debates concerning priorities, modes of analysis,
and differences of ideology and vision.
While it might seem obvious, Bennett’s thoughtful observation is particularly
germane: “perhaps the issue that most fundamentally challenges the design of research
methodologies is daily life” (Bennett, 2008, p. 8). Repeated here in its original for her
evocative voicing of these concerns:
[...] the intricacies of lives negotiated through violence and poverty, the arduousness of work
and family engagements...the frustrations of resources, the implacability of life’s capacity
to surprise, befuddle, and infuriate all bedevil the hope of clean methodological journeys. And
that is in contexts of “peace”. In contexts formally under military siege, or suffering natural or
man-made disasters, daily living constitutes a strategic negotiation from one moment to
another, not a terrain on which a long-term research plan can be mapped. It is not that
research cannot be undertaken in conditions of relative chaos, gross economic disparities,
displacement, uncertainty and surprise – it is more that methodologically-focused writing
and thinking on these conditions as the norm is rare... No feminist, whether working in a
shelter for abused women, within a farm workers’ union, within a teaching environment, or
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
267
within a parliamentary office finds his or her life “stable” environmentally. Indeed,
instabilities, uncertainties, are often the grounds from which the most interesting insights
and intuitions about realities and possibilities for change emerge (Bennett, 2008, p. 8).
On the forefront of change, Buck-Morss also suggested, are instabilities and
uncertainties: precursors of insights and intuitions. The crumbling of the wall in
Eastern Europe brought too the symbolic moving ground: bringing chasms between
theory and practice into question. As pointed out by Penn, evolution requires removing
blinders, abandoning entrenched ideas, and discarding binary thinking. Re-imagining
gender compels knowledge of the self, of the feminist within, and requires vigilance to
continually maintain gender space and move it forward. When Bennett, above, asserts:
“No feminist...finds his or her life ‘stable’ environmentally” the integral connection of
one’s own life, as well as the lives of those impacted when pursuing research is stark.
How can we not be self-reflective? Numerous structural and personal factors converge,
rendering gender-in-accounting research as entrenched in static views. Shaking the
gender-accounting research tree requires abandoning artificial and dangerous
assumptions of accounting objectivity. It imposes a questioning of the continually
enforced and false separation of accounting from the everyday lives and struggles of
people, and of women specifically.
Discarding artificial dichotomies is transforming. Economic versus social; private
versus public; legal versus moral; nature versus nurture; and theory versus activism
are among them. These dualisms are fictitious and silence the needs of the most
vulnerable. Economic and social issues are intimately intertwined: to be illustrated in
neo-liberalism’s impacts on women and accounts of violence in Section 7. Feminists
worldwide have provided decades of ample illustrations of how the personal is political
– regarding domestic violence, educational opportunities, and access to water,
condoms, and medical care for example. And they carried these beliefs worldwide into
local jirgas, community centers, courtrooms, parliaments, and UN deliberations,
seeking and securing protection, justice, sanity, and new laws (a US Supreme Court
case is described in Section 5). Researching creates meanings and theories change
actions. The science community has long recognized this (Angier, 1999, 2007; Rose and
Rose, 1970; Zukav, 1989). Researching gender-in-accounting obliges us to scrutinize
our research choices. Nussbaum said it so well it’s worth repeating: “People do not go
through life without forming views about...what is justice...When public policies are
chosen...It seems sensible to deliberate about which theories we really want to hold
onto” (Nussbaum, 2000, p. 300). Where this has lead in academia is addressed next.
Section 4
The F word: are we ghetto?
The names you uncaged primates give things affect your attitude to them forever after
(Herchberger, cited in Haraway, 1989).
Howshouldwe talk about the way we choose to run our societies? (Judt, 2010, p. 37).
“No longer in exile: the legacy and future of gender studies” – the expectant conference
title at The New School (see Dill, 2010; Eichhorn, 2010; Ellsworth, 2010), allowed
participants to debate the different constructs of gender and its complex history.
Contributors recognized the continuously moving frameworks, the creating of new
AAAJ
25,2
268
languages, and richness and nuances. Celebrating that Gender was no longer an
“exiled” field of inquiry, participants also noted the caveat: gender studies are
perpetually at risk for funding, support, legitimacy, status, etc. Currently there are
800 gender studies programs in the USA, 45 in China, and 100 feminist journals
worldwide.
Yet, Ann Snitow (Associate Professor, Literature and Gender Studies) observes the
pervasive struggles and challenges in moving forward and the backlash: “enough
complaining from women about gender and race. Just tie up your shoes or get out”
(Snitow, 2010). A paradox remains: feminism’s long historical expansion, and yet its
potential instant demise. The lingering related question is whether “Gender Studies”
was or is a “ghetto” discipline. Gender and feminist work contests and renegotiates
terminology, identities, and boundaries: not because feminist researchers are mixed up
and confused, but because often terms and identity get confused with “horrible
bio-politics” (Snitow, 2010). It may be attractive indeed that “gender” be obsolete, but
our utopian yearnings cannot deny the open space of our work of politics (Snitow,
2010) and the co-opting of feminism is alarming – as illustrated below.
Nancy Fraser (2010) in “Feminist thinking, theory and feminist action” describes
disturbing and unintended intersections with politics in the current wave of feminism.
While feminist thinking means reflecting and feminist action had previously existed in
the knots that needed to be untied, suddenly “no longer in exile” also means that
feminist movements have been integrated into the global gestalt. Fraser does not
lament that feminism is a major discourse; what horrifies is that it is taken up by
anybody and used for any purpose. “Even George W. Bush was using it as a ‘rationale’
for invading Afghanistan. We don’t control our own discourse!” (Fraser, 2010). What is
the historical significance that feminism is now part of the “normal” political discourse
versus the “older radical” interpretation of trying to overthrow domination, she asks?
Has there been in the new feminisms: complicity with militarism, alliance with
neo-liberalism, and convergences with dangerous liaisons?
Fraser’s desire is not for a distancing from feminism but making feminism a social
political movement that is something other than “a neo-liberalist project”. The second
wave of feminism was “embedded liberalism”: the post-Second World War experience
was managed capitalism and social welfare states; the emerging identifications of third
world countries; and other emancipatory movements. The current third wave, within
neo-liberalism, is a disturbingly different context – the intersection – or collision –
of three forces as shaping the world we live in. First is her observation of the pervasive,
absolute, and unlimited drive of marketization within neo-liberalism with its
pure-markets-are-best mentality. Second, there are colliding social protection forces:
these are pushbacks against marketizations and resistance to neo-liberalism. These
include regulatory reforms and/or religious configurations. Third, there is the drive for
emancipation.
How will the latter manifest itself in an environment of neo-liberalism and what can
be done to promote it?[4] In our time, the ambivalences of feminism between
marketization (force 1) and social protections (force 2) have purportedly been “worked
through” with more connections to, and celebrations of, markets. These have
manifested, for example, as the Romance of Micro Entrepreneurship, and the Romance
of Women’s Financial Empowerment. Without a doubt, unburdening women
financially and lifting them out of poverty is a necessary and often empowering
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
269
transformation; but it not sufficient. What looms large is the enduring neglect of basic
political, medical, and educational rights for women, the continuation of violence
against women, and treatment of women as second-class citizens – an incomplete
emancipation. The task of breaking entrenchments, forging new principled alliances of
social protections – without oppressive hierarchies – remains vague. It may mean a
re-imagining of social protections, etc., but as feminism is an intellectual project of over
600 years to transform the world, Fraser’s call is to continue to change regions of power
and to change imperialism. The milieu of neo-liberalism, post neo-liberalism, and the
questions that can be raised regarding women, and the possibilities for
accounting-gender research, are addressed further in Sections 6 and 7. But first, one
last remark regarding Fraser’s research.
“Gender is inserted everywhere” asserts Fraser. “A feminist section appears in
every caucus,” she claims, jolting me to think about the contrasts with accounting.
Affirming the changes that have taken place in the academy in history, economics,
legal studies, and other “sister disciplines” to accounting, Fraser’s comment is that
gender and feminist research is integral. Indeed, this is part of Fraser’s lament: the
common-ness in contrast to the revolutionary aspect of gender discussions, and thus
her remark.
Feminism, defined as opposition to social, personal, or economic subordination
because of sex, would seem to be an essential goal of a just society[5, 6]. Yet, if we look
at traditional accounting literature and professional associations we would be unlikely
to find, as Fraser suggests, a feminist section in every caucus. Feminism in accounting
still disquiets like an “F” word. What is the impact on our own discipline if the term
and the research are silenced and under-represented? In order to change, we must
acknowledge our complicity in using antiquated economic thinking, the latter’s
convergences with oppressive hierarchies, and dangerous liaisons in our own theories
and activities. Some stories from the USA come next.
Section 5
A long way, maybe: markets and myths in the USA
Other people cannot transform you...it is you who has to transform yourself (Wangari
Maathai, 2010).
Collins has a genius for combining intimate personal stories with seismic social change
in her chronicle of achievement and discrimination, When Everything Changed: The
Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present(Collins, 2009). The
book is a landmark in its narrative of prejudice, inequity, and triumph, and its
interweaving of women’s struggles – whether poor or privileged, rural or urban,
African American or Caucasian or Latina – in the long march for civil rights in the
USA since the 1960s.
Recognizing that women have always worked – in the unpaid labor of home work,
childcare, parent care; in the highly underpaid positions of home care for other people;
and in sweat shops and kitchens, given that access was denied other positions, Collins
exemplifies the denial with a medical school dean’s comment:
Hell yes, we have a quota...yes, it’s a small one. We do keep women out, when we can. We
don’t want them here – and they don’t want them elsewhere, either, whether or not they’ll
admit it (Collins, 2009, p. 20).
AAAJ
25,2
270
In 1960, women accounted for 6 percent of American doctors, 3 percent of lawyers, and
less than 1 percent of engineers. “Since it was perfectly legal to discriminate on the
basis of sex, there was no real comeback when employers simply said that no women
need apply” (Collins, 2009, p. 21). That eventually changed: women entered these fields,
yet with persistent pay gaps.
As of the end of 1970, for the first time more than half of US adult women had jobs
outside the home[7]: earning, compared to white men, less than 60 percent as white
women, 52 percent as black women, and less than 50 percent as much as Hispanic
women (Collins, 2009, p. 217; IWPR, 2003). By 1990 there was a narrowing of the gap –
in part due to a drop in men’s wages[8]. The ratio of white women to white men’s
median pay in the USA was approximately 70 percent; approximately 61 percent for
black women; and 55 percent for Hispanic women; and for black men: 67 percent of
white men’s wages (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; IWPR, 2003).
Many economists believed the wage gap was due to continued discrimination.
Certainly some women thought so. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the first
bill signed into office by President Barack Obama (29 January 2009), was the result of a
unexpected and tireless crusade by an Alabama woman who learned on retirement
from the Goodyear Tire plant – through an anonymous letter – that she was being
paid 71 percent of men’s wage rate of her seniority. Ledbetter had sacrificed medical
care for her family and education of her children in those 20 years of lower wages, and
it was going to continue to diminish her quality of life after her retirement. “I was just
emotionally let down when I saw the difference in pay and knowing the effect it had on
my retirement. I could not let it slide. I went to the EEOC my next day off” (Collins,
2009, p. 356).
It was a bumpy eight-year ride. A ruling in Ledbetter’s favor was ultimately
overturned in 2007 by the US Supreme Court. In a 5-4 majority vote, siding with
Goodyear, the court indicated that Ledbetter’s complaint was time-barred: that she was
required to file her complaint within 180 days of the time the discrimination occurred.
Ledbetter noted the absurdity, exclaiming with a “my goodness” in her deep Southern
drawl that in 180 days she barely knew where the ladies’ rooms were at Goodyear,
much less the personal wages of the men around her (Ledbetter, 2010).
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was enraged at the 5 to 4 vote. A quiet,
low-key justice, not normally given to dynamic gestures, she had spent much of her
professional life working for women’s rights (Collins, 2009, p. 357). She took the
unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench, claiming, “In our view, the Court
does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be
victims of pay discrimination” (Collins, 2009, p. 357). It was Ginsburg’s proposal to
amend the Civil Rights act, which was the legislation Obama passed in 2009: to restart
the 180-day clock every time a discriminatory paycheck was issued. It should be noted
that Ledbetter would not be remunerated; it was a forward ruling for all future claims
of pay discrimination.
A few years early, Betty Friedan, the feminist leader exclaimed triumphantly: “The
way women look at themselves, the way other people look at women, is completely
different,completely differentthan it was thirty years ago...Our daughters grow up
with the same possibilities as our sons” (Collins, 2009, p. 351, quoting Betty Friedan).
On some accounts, these observations of a founding member of NOW (the National
Organization of Women) rang true; but in a significant way, they did not. By the
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
271
beginning of the twenty-first century, almost half of the seats in the nation’s medical
and law schools were claimed by women “although as late as 1970 the dean of the
University of Texas dental school had insisted...‘girls aren’t strong enough to pull
teeth’” (Collins, 2009, p. 352). Yet instead of celebrating girls’ achievements, the nation
started to worry. Newsweek’s 2006 cover story on “the Boy Crisis” reported with alarm
that there were only “44 percent of male undergraduates on college campuses: thirty
years ago the number was 58 percent” (Collins, 2009, p. 352).
The “failure of boys seemed to be seen as a threat to civilization itself” with
Margaret Spellings, G.W. Bush’s secretary of education, suggesting the dominance of
young women in higher education had “profound implications for the economy,
society, families, and democracy” (Collins, 2009, p. 353). The alarm versus the reality
was disquieting: “anyone fearing that women were taking over the world needn’t have
fretted. Their overrepresentation at the top ended with the classroom” (Collins, 2009,
p. 353) while in the “financial towers of power” women remained at levels of a decade
past: 12 percent of partners in major law firms; only a handful of CEOs inFortune500
companies and less than one-fifth in the chambers of the US Congress.
Reflecting on the distance between theory and practice Collins remarks:
In an ideal world, the revolution in the national attitude toward a women’s place would have
led to a revolution in the pay and prestige awarded to the careers that had traditionally been
regarded a women’s work, and [predominantly female] teachers would have been paid as
much as [predominantly male] stockbrokers. But that – obviously – had not happened
(Collins, 2009, p. 354).
These remarks are as fundamental to the gender debate as any. Inequities in
hierarchies, differential treatment, disparities in opportunities, stifling of aspirations,
and discriminatory attitudes continue: Nussbaum’s “difference as core”. Feminist
research acknowledges, as a fundamental premise, the social construction of desire,
prestige, status and “value”. Value: market value, historical value, present value, fair
value, impairment value, etc. are familiar terms in accounting. Value is quintessential
to the language of accounting. A fundamental linkage to the social construction of
value for feminists and accountants endures.
Section 6
Valuation and accounting openings
[...] there’s a world of difference between facts and the truth. You can have so many facts that
you don’t deal with the truth. You never get to the truth. You have the places...the methods
how, blah, blah, and never get to the human truth. The human truth is as elusive as the air
and as important as the air (Angelou, 2010b).
If you don’t measure the right thing you don’t do the right thing (Joseph Stiglitz, 2010).
Instead of using their vastly increased material and technical resources to build a wonder
city, the men of the nineteenth century built slums...we are capable of shutting off the sun
and the stars because they do not pay a dividend (John Maynard Keynes, 1933).
How are values and wage values socially constructed? What does it mean to establish a
price of labor: a valuation on a person’s labor? How do we establish the wage value of
an hour of a Latina US kindergarten teacher, a male Chilean miner, or a female
Indonesian rice farmer and relate it to the wage hour of a white UK hedge fund trader?
AAAJ
25,2
272
Or relate the latter to an hour of sex traded by a girl held in captivity? Clearly, this was
among Marx’s essential genius: to analyze within capitalism in his labor theory of
value the complex social relations embodied in a commodity and in activities of
production. Services and commodities are imbued with complicated and
interconnected social characteristics: differential access to the means of production,
pervasive exploitation and alienation, intra- and inter-competition between forms of
capital, etc. Marx layered his work with dialectics, the establishment of class
relationships, and the significance of ideologies. Unemployment and low wage
pressure were observed as a distinctive features of capitalist systems: to insure a
reserve army of labor: a distinct class of low wage, insecure, less skilled, less educated
(“schooled”) workers, frequently marginalized by race, ethnicity, religion, and gender
as well. These interactions in society and in political economy have been fertile ground
for feminist and accounting researchers alike (see, for example, Armstrong, 2002;
Coontz and Henderson, 1986; Gallhofer, 1998; Hartmann, 1979; Jaggar, 1983;
Kessler-Harris, 1981; Kirkham, 1997; Kirkham and Loft, 1993; Knights and Willmott,
1986; Strier, 2010).
Waring’s (1988) seminal work,If Women Counted, disputed the UN’s exclusion of
what had been deemed “women’s work”, the unpaid majority of women’s labor:
childcare, parental care, household work, farm labor, etc., in national accounts. Thus
billions of dollars of women’s productivity is negated each year (assuming a valuation
of this unpaid labor). Its consequences resound in the setting of global policies and in
differential access to political and economic power. An abundance of research has
documented the full participation of women in all spheres of life as well as the
differential in “status”, wages, and expectations between male and female workers (see,
for example: Berinato, 2010; Bodanis, 2006; Carter and Silva, 2010; Chang, 2008;
Collinson and Hearn, 1996; Collier-Thomas, 2010; Coontz and Henderson, 1986; Faludi,
1991; Kelan, 2010; Kessler-Harris, 1981; Kirkham and Loft, 1993; Knights and Willmott,
1986; Lerner, 1986; Louie, 2001; McGuire, 2009; Mohanty, 2004; Rosenberg, 2002; Strier,
2010). So frequent in the past two decades was the observed reduction of wages and
status when women began to dominate a field, that the phrase “the feminization of
professions” was born; the phrase pointing to recurrent research: the entrance of
women or the dominance of women in a specialization often signals a decline in
professional status, a reduction in average wages, and other marginalizations.
Accounting connections
This arena is fertile ground for gender-in-accounting research: examining “valuation”
regarding labor and the valuation of “women’s labor in contrast to” or
“in-and-of-itself”. Studies of the low proportion of women achieving accounting
partnerships, together with research on the intersection of advancement and “personal
characteristics” of male and female accountants, have dominated much of
gender-accounting research. The critique of this work is well founded and well
documented (see, e.g. Gallhofer, 1998; Ciancanelli, 1998; Dambrin and Lambert, 2008;
Kirkham, 1992; Maupin and Lehman, 1994). Dambrin and Lambert’s (2010) recent work
examines the discourses and messages produced in “rarity at the top” publications
over the past two decades. Not only is their work attentive to the systemic and varied
forms of unequal opportunities, and the nuanced rhetoric regarding this research, they
do not presume “choice” of partnership is a goal for all auditors – male or female. Their
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
273
work adds to the discussion by including theories of reflexivity within the production
of gender-and-accounting research and a reflexive analysis of their own experiences
researching the field.
Thus while there are many troubling aspects of the frequent denial of accounting
partnerships to women, it is the tip of the iceberg in the big picture of what
gender-in-accounting is all about, particularly in regard to labor within capitalist
structures. As academics (or “public intellectuals” (Said, 1993)), it behooves us to
re-write and re-imagine the stories: to change them. While there are inestimable
possibilities, three broad overlapping categories are briefly suggested below. The latter
two categories are expanded on in the valuation and neo-liberalism portions of section 7.
One area would continue assessing the meaning behind research of “women at the
top” and evaluating “differential characteristics” of males and females. What does this
research really tell us (see, for example, Gallhofer, 1998; Ciancanelli, 1998; Dambrin and
Lambert, 2010; Hooks, 1998)? As Dambrin and Lambert suggest: “The controversial
nature of the stories developed by researchers and the numerous debates that oppose
them, call for an examination of how argumentations are structured” (Dambrin and
Lambert, 2010, p. 2). What meanings are created; how are the questions posed; are
differences for race, culture, class, and changing social structures cultivated?[9] The
construction of accounting as a “masculine language” has been explored and in an
increasingly aggressive rhetorical milieu such analysis deserves continued critical
scrutiny (see also for example Buckmaster, 2002; Collinson and Hearn, 1996; Cooper,
1992; Ezzamel and Willmott, 1998; Hines, 1992; Knights and Collinson, 1987).
A second arena of exploration: how is it that women are always “paid” a lower
wage? Women’s labor is either “unpaid” work, or – across the entire landscape of
waged work – women receive lower compensation. In every country. Within virtually
every job category. Within every economic system. Women are over represented and
proportionally always dominant in lower paid jobs (Lim, 1996). If we factor in race in
the USA the figures are relentlessly worse. Analysis and visibility can be a cultivated
area for gender-in-accounting research; for example, assisting in comparable worth
analysis of equal pay for work of equal value: necessary to eliminate male-female wage
differences within industries and in the highly gender-segregated world of work.
It is widely acknowledged that “the poorest of the poor, women in developing
countries work extremely hard for the basic survival of their families... often low-wage
or non-wage producers who are structurally subordinate and dependent and
overwhelmingly poor... Development programs have largely continued women’s
segregation in labor that generates the lowest wages and prestige” (Burn, 2000,
pp. 136-138). A 1995 document by the UN reports that women’s economic contributions
are undervalued to the tune of $11 trillion a year (Burn, 2000, p. 12). Although women
work more, they still account for an overwhelming majority (70 percent) of the
estimated 2 billion people living in poverty, suffering higher rates of underemployment
and unemployment than men. “Women do two-thirds of the world’s work and produce
nearly 60 percent of its food; however, they own less than one percent of the world’s
farmland and earn only 10 percent of the world’s income...three quarters [are] without
access to education” (Gayle in Bisoux, 2010, p. 20). Our literature can contribute to
assessing accountability, exposing the inequities, and contextualizing these effects –
as contemporary neo-liberalist economies have worsened the condition for the most
vulnerable women. Is the economic structure incapable of a different result?
AAAJ
25,2
274
The third stream, an expansion of the two above, is the story of wealth and power.
We observe a celebrated social norm of wealth as a measure of success and we need to
ask: Why? What is the difference that it makes? The social construction of status and
the social implications manifest in positions of partnership or CEOs compels analysis.
Instead of comparing the number of women in partnership positions, why not research
the meaning of these positions and examine accounting’s participation in sustaining
these values? Similar to research stream one, the gender component needs to be
assessed. What are the changing contexts – and accounting’s role in them – of
accumulation-of-wealth reifications, survival of the fittest mentalities, social
Darwinism, or previous illusions of corporate social responsibility?
Examining the consequences of holding power has some precedent in accounting
literature. Decisions of CEOs warrant our accounting scrutiny as we observe critical
social, economic, and ideological impacts. Chwastiak’s (2009) work is illuminating,
regarding corporate malfeasance in Iraq and the resulting disasters, as is Dillard’s
(2003) work regarding IBM and the Holocaust – challenging accounting’s use of
“technique” while obfuscating human effects. These works are illustrative of
innovative recasting of accounting’s consequences. And what can be said for women in
the images, stories, and impacts of corporate power? CEOs assume that young women
on the global assembly line can “take a lot of abuse” and will “work harder for less
money with fewer complaints” (Gray, 1986). Revealing these assumptions and the
“externalities” imposed on women by manipulating socially constructed inequalities
deserves scrutiny, research, visibility, and accountability. How can we enable
accountability, enhancing assessments of vulnerable women’s circumstances, and the
restrictive levels of women in management and directorship ranks?
Within this third stream is the observation that accounting is a purveyor of risk
assessment, with inherent conceptual and financial failures manifested in the process
(Power, 2009). The societal and financial impacts can be crippling (Beck, 1993;
Saravanamuthu, 2008). Frequently “risk” is used as an explanation for exorbitant
compensation for partners and CEOs. What is meant by this risk and how is this risk
measured? Accountants serve as experts on employment contracts and stock option
plans, and are educated on golden parachutes, bonding, and insurance policies. For
whom, then, is there risk[10]? Investigating the 2008 banking collapses, Kristoff reports
that Richard Fuld, the longtime chief of Lehman Brothers, took home nearly
half-a-billion dollars in total compensation between 1993 and 2007, “roughly $17,000 an
hour in 2007 to obliterate the firm” (Kristoff, 2008). It does not appear that Fuld is
personally economically devastated, regarding the “risky business of investment
banking”. Is risk being used in a moral responsibility sense: a CEO’s moral
responsibility to stockholders? How does that differ from a female nursery school
teacher’s responsibility in measureable ways for the enormous compensation
differences? What is the valuation, meaning, and message whereby nursery
schoolteachers – overwhelmingly female – responsible for the care of children, earn
in a year the same as (overwhelmingly male) CEOs in two hours – in charge of paper
profits?
As we socially construct our reality, we need to cast the net wider in gender and
accounting research. Contextualizing the rhetoric of risk, of “earned” wealth, of power,
not on an individual scale but as a broad social context, informs critical accounting, as
it should gender and accounting. Thus in the next section we look at the global
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
275
accounts – and silences – of women regarding violence and the relationship of
violence to “value”; and then we assess the context and discourse of neo-liberalism, and
its effect on women.
Section 7
Values, violence and neo-liberalism
The pen is mightier than the sword (Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1839, in “Richelieu”, the play).
Both pen and sword have perpetrated all forms of violence against girls and women.
The toll of poverty, rape, and war on girls and women; the booming contemporary
natal mortality business of sex selection; differential medical treatment for women and
girls; and the corresponding ideologies are fertile ground for exploratory,
accountability, and profound research in accounting and gender.
Violence
The number of women who die because of gender-related violence, deprivation and
discrimination is larger than the casualty toll in all the wars of the 20th century combined
(Swiss Ambassador Winkler in Lederer, 2005).
“The deeply rooted phenomenon of violence against women is one of the great crimes
of humanity,” affirms Swiss Ambassador Winkler, in a 335-page study by 60 authors
in 2005 (in Lederer, 2005). “Violence against women is one of the four key reasons why
women die on this planet, the other ones being war, hunger and disease...We need to
confront the world...in order to get enough political momentum to confront this issue
...This situation is simply intolerable” (Winkler, in Lederer, 2005).
“Globally, women aged between 15 and 44 are more likely to be injured or die as a
result of male violence than through cancer, traffic accidents, malaria and war
combined...The causes are multiple, but...the simple fact [is] that...a woman’s life
and dignity are worth less than a man’s” (Winkler, in Lederer, 2005). In all societies, in
differing degrees, girls and women are subjected to physical, sexual, and psychological
abuse that cuts across lines of income, class, and culture. “Gender-based violence both
reflects and reinforces inequities between men and women and compromises the
health, dignity, security and autonomy of its victims....Any one of these abuses can
leave deep psychological scars [and] damage the health of women and girls ...
Gender-based violence also serves – by intention or effect – to perpetuate male power
and control. It is sustained by a culture of silence and denial of the seriousness of the
health consequences of abuse” (United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA], 2010).
The World Health Organization estimates that globally one woman in five will be
the subject of rape or attempted rape: 700 million women have been raped during their
lifetime. According to Collins, “Women serving in the U.S. military today are more
likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq” (Collins, 2009,
p. 372). Benedict reports that in a 2003 survey of female US veterans, 30 percent said
they were raped in the military and those convicted of sexual assault or rape received
very lenient punishments (Benedict, 2009).
Kristoff and WuDunn state it bluntly “The global statistics on the abuse of girls are
numbing” (Kristoff and WuDunn, 2009, p. 33). In the developing world, millions of girls
and women are actually enslaved: locked in brothels and beaten if they resist, fed just
AAAJ
25,2
276
enough to be kept alive and often sedated with drugs (Kristoff and WuDunn, 2009).
Maternal mortality accounts for one woman dying in childbirth around the world every
minute. In Niger, a woman stands a one-in-seven chance of dying in childbirth at some
point in her life; in India, a 1-in-70-lifetime chance, while the lifetime risk is 1 in 4,800 in
the US and 1 in 47,600 in Ireland.
“The reason for the gap is not that we don’t know how to save lives of women in
poor countries. It’s simply that poor, uneducated women...have never been a priority
either in their own countries or to donor nations” (Kristoff and WuDunn, 2009, p. 34).
Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has researched the “terrible deficit of
women” in substantial parts of the world, which he asserts “arises from sex bias in
relative care” (Sen, 2003, p. 1297). As Nussbaum challenged, it is a question of the basic
value of a woman’s life.
What’s accounting got to do with it?
Or better yet...where are the accountants: silence is not golden
These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history
of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words (Hillary Rodham
Clinton, 1995).
Women’s rights are human rights (Adopted at the 1995 UN Conference on Women)[11, 12].
Measuring the size of the problem is a prerequisite for identifying the best solutions (Schwab
and Zahidi, 2010 inThe Global Gender Gap).
The false dichotomy – and the collision – of economics and social policies have been
highlighted in the statistics above and in the two that follow. First, in a study outlining
human rights violations, it was determined that 39,000 baby girls died annually in
China because of differential parental medical care and attention compared to boys –
and that was just in the first year of life (Kristoff and WuDunn, 2009). Second is the
statistic that in India, a “bride burning” takes place approximately once every two
hours, to punish a woman for an inadequate dowry or to eliminate her so a man can
remarry (Kristoff and WuDunn, 2009).
Feminists’ assertion that the personal is political – and that economic policy and
social policy are intimately linked – has been necessary to change the condition for
women, applying equally here to accounting contributions. Developing methods for
visibilities – by utilizing new concepts for revealing that which has been silenced, as
discussed in Section 6 regarding values, labor valuation, risk and power – is one
plausible innovation for recasting concepts of women’s rights. These include
reconfiguring what we mean by accountability, and by advocating for greater
transparency, as well as calculating and exposing the numbers regarding women and
violence – in contrast to reports remaining invisible. Challenging the “inevitability” of
violence, refuting “natural causations”, and advocating for accountability all provide
opportunities for transformation. As Gayatri Spivak affirms, these can only be partial
transformations until the economic and social systems and structures perpetuating the
violence are revealed and no longer under the radar (Spivak, 2010).
Accounting’s silence regarding environmental degradation has been lamented and
so too is accounting’s evasion regarding women and violence and reporting on them.
A near universal relation exists between heightened conflict and violence against
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
277
women, and equivocation regarding transparency and solutions is lethal (Ward and
Marsh, 2006). A recent 2009 UN publication (UNAMA, 2009) reports that
Afghanistan’s experience mirrors this: heightening conflict reverberating with
increasing abuses on women.
No less irrefutable is the conclusion that the silence surrounding the widely-known problem
of violence against the girls and women of Afghanistan must be broken. To be silent is to be
complicit in the rape of little girls who are then “sold” in marriage...To be silent is to
support those who are intent on maintaining their own power and authority by confining
women...To be silent is to abandon women who are conscientiously taking risks to play an
active role in their communities and in Afghan society to advance the rights of women
(UNAMA, 2009, p. 30).
Such issues as accountability were among the rationales in launching the $1.2-million
Trust Fund by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in 1998,
dedicated to eliminating violence against women. “More than one third of women in the
developing world are victims of domestic violence. UNIFEM is working to break the
silence of violence in women’ lives. We are bringing it out into the open and demanding
accountability and action” (Heyzer, 1998.) Similarly, the United Nations Population
Fund [UNFPA] “puts every effort into breaking the silence and ensuring that the voices
of women are heard...[and] to change the paradigm of masculinity that allows for the
resolution of conflict through violence...to engage men – policy makers, parents and
young boys – in discourse about the dynamics and consequences of violence”
(UNFPA, 2010)[13].
Creating visibilities and breaking silences are powerful legacies of critical
accounting research. So when we confront silencing, two key questions remain:
(1) what is to be done; and
(2) who is to do it?
How do we re-imagine the landscape of possibilities – even when conscious of their
limitations within existing systems? While some research ideas were previously
presented, the following is a “case-dilemma” illustrating the quandary of quantification,
the profound disunity in representing women, the vacuum of structural critique, and
why some researchers recommend, “staying on the margins”. How can one “quantify”
abuse or inequality? If the economic and social systems are suspect, what can
quantification achieve? There are no simple answers or easily recommended paths but
instead a multiplicity of ideas with consciousness and recognition of gender politics.
Making policy
For the last thirty years, when asking ourselves whether we support a policy, a proposal or an
initiative, we have restricted ourselves to issues of profit and loss – economic questions in the
narrowest sense. But this is not an instinctive human condition: it is an acquired taste (Tony
Judt, 2010, p. 34).
Once we allow ourselves to be disobedient to the test of an accountant’s profit, we have begun
to change our civilization (John Maynard Keynes).
The idea is essentially repulsive, of a society held together only by the relations and feelings
arising out of pecuniary interest (John Stuart Mill).
AAAJ
25,2
278
Identifying lapses in human rights toward women takes fortitude, courage, insight,
and research. Why and how we choose to privilege ideas and data is problematic in a
society dominated by an ideology of “the bottom line”. A worldwide “gender gap”
study offers an example. Reading the numbers, assumptions, and priorities of the
World Economic Forum’s 2010 Global Gender Gap Report (a 334-page document) we
can uncover insights and agreement toward its aims, as well as expose incongruity and
endorse criticism. Stating that the Forum is “among the institutions at the forefront of
...change in mindset...emphasizing the message that gender gaps have an impact on
competitiveness. Through the Global Gender Gap Reports...[data is] revealing those
countries that are role models...to improve the use of female talent” (Schwab and
Zahidi, 2010, p. v). The 2010 Global Gender Gap Report, aggregating five years of data,
is “a call to action ...to leverage the current unique window of opportunity so that
faster progress can be achieved. Every moment that we wait entails colossal losses to
the global society and economy” (Schwab and Zahidi, 2010, p. v).
So there we have it: a paradox: a potentially useful report, but motivated by a
certain brand of justification. These global reports can provide needed information for
advocacy, accountability, transparency, and action and we can identify with the
multifaceted humanitarian aims, credentials, accomplishments, conflicts, and
contradictions of its authors[14]. What are the gender politics behind the seemingly
laudable goal of “Measuring the size of the problem is a prerequisite for identifying the
best solutions”? Among the dilemma is by “measuring” we might restrict what is
meant, deny the significance of underlying structural repressions, and erase that which
we haven’t “seen” or “identified”. How is this forum suited as a privileged orator for
these policies? Spivak (2010) notes that while we don’t disavow these reports and
activities as unimportant – as they may lead to the passing of important laws and
protecting women from violence – these limited gestures are often “missionary
impulses” with imperfect interventions. They may even be considered “tremendously
well-organized and broad repressive ideological apparatuses” (Spivak, 1996, p. 2).
Additional re-imagining needs to be done: “we don’t know how to talk about it in
moral sense but in economic terms” (Judt, 2010, p. 34). Opportunity, safety, creativity,
education, and equality are fundamental human issues. Yet among the justifications
and rationalizing in the gender gap report is: to enhance global “competitiveness”; to
reduce the squandering of female labor-input; and to minimize the “colossal losses” to
the economy. Such is the discourse of our time.
Neo-liberalism
While couched in the language of classical liberalism, neoliberalism should be not viewed as a
simple extension of either classical or neoclassical economic theories. It is much more
draconic (Merinoet al., 2010, p. 774).
Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a
virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes
whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose (Tony Judt, 2010, p. 1).
Neo-liberalism takes the separation of economics and social impacts to a whole new
level. Fraser’s description of neo-liberalism, referring to destructive economic policies
that have attained influence in the past 30 years is illustrated in Klein’s (2007) bookThe
Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. In detailing the expansive rise to
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
279
power of Milton Friedman’s economic theories, applied in its strictest sense –
unfettered markets with “shock therapy” application – Klein reveals the
destructiveness of Friedman’s distortion of Smith’s moral invisible hand.
Adam Smith’s economic-liberalism advocated that barriers to commerce be limited,
but his theories are often simplified and over-generalized. In fact, Smith supported
social protections for the vulnerable; partly for security of the system: poverty and
vulnerability of the poor could foster discontent and exposure to disruptions. Smith
never suggested that government should not intervene to set and enforce minimum
social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest.
For Smith, [an] uncritical adulation of wealth for its own sake was not merely unattractive. It
was also a potentially destructive feature of modern commercial economy, one that might in
the course of time undermine the very qualities which capitalism, in his eyes, needed to
sustain and nourish: “The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the
powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect, persons of poor and mean condition...[is]...
the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments” (Judt, 2010,
p. 23).
Klein asserts that the new form of unfettered capitalism, whether in Chile or China[15],
is not born of freedom but of desperation for a populous – countries or communities –
in shock, by wars, terror attacks, coup d’e´tats, and natural disasters. In these fraught
and desperate circumstances, corporations and politicians impel countries to accept
draconian economic policies that would otherwise be rejected (Klein, 2007, p. 26). These
global policies could not be enacted without support of economic theories, accounting
numbers, and a claim that pure markets go hand in hand with democracy. The
Friedman “Chicago Boys” (as they have become known) had a signature desire for
unattainable purity in contrast to the Keynesian model offering a mixed regulated
economy with checks and balances (Klein, 2007, p. 20). The Chicago boys separated
economic and human rights issues: an “intellectual firewall” (Klein, 2007, p. 118).
Generally acknowledged is that neo-liberalism has benefited a minority of the
world’s people and contributed enormously to further bifurcating the world’s rich and
poor (Rosenberg, 2002). So much so, that the United Nations Human Development
Report for 1999 called the increase in the gap “grotesque” in proportions (Jaggar, 2002).
In 1960, the countries with the wealthiest 20 percent of the world’s people had per
capita incomes 30 times that of the poorest fifth; by 1997, it stood at 74 to one. By 1997,
the richest 20 percent had captured 86 percent of the world’s income while the poorest
20 percent captured a mere one percent. “For many – perhaps most – poor people in
the world, neo-liberal globalization has resulted in their material conditions of life
deteriorating not only relative to the more affluent but also absolutely” (Jaggar, 2002).
Those who have borne the largest burden by neo-liberal globalization are the already
poor and marginalized – in both the developing and the developed worlds[16].
Accounting researchers have recognized neo-liberalism’s affront: a process by
which “a relative handful of private interests is permitted to control as much as
possible of social life” (McChesney, 1999, quoted in Merinoet al., 2010). Advocating
accountability, critical research must “unmask neoliberal myths, examine the
socioeconomic impact of deregulatory policies and assess the effect of continued
reliance on the traditional corporate governance model on the lives of ordinary people”
(Merinoet al., 2010, p. 775). It is necessary to confront the inevitable link of accounting
research, ideology, and social justice. “We need accounting academics to reject Milton
AAAJ
25,2
280
Friedman’s focus on negative freedom as the sole objective of economic activity and
examine economic well being in terms of positive freedom”[17] (Merinoet al., 2010,
p, 787).
Linking philosophy, economics, and real social impacts, as Nussbaum, Buck-Morss,
and Klein do, so too does Judt.
Behind every cynical (or merely incompetent) banking executive and trader sits an economist,
assuring them (and us)...that their actions are publicly useful...our inability to think our
way beyond...cliche´s...thus pays homage to one of Keynes’s greatest insights: “Practical
men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually
the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are
distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back” (Judt, 2010, p. 106).
Neo-liberalism and the global impact on women
The financialization of the globe must be represented as the North embracing the South.
Women are being used for the representation of this unity – another name for the profound
transnational disunity necessary for globalization (Spivak, 1996, p. 3).
The neoliberal frame... is about creating “market-friendly NGOs” and international
organizations that support a neo-liberal agenda “who identify conference organizing with
activism”...and thus fail to resist the ways in which women are being “framed” by the
neoliberal agenda (Runyan, 1999, p. 212).
As Buck-Morss urges: when, why, and how truths get created deserves investigation
and thus it is important to look at neo-liberal globalization and the impact on women.
How have the ideas of neo-liberalism silenced other possibilities, controlled the debate,
and affected women’s lives? Calas et al. reference this contextualizing, and Fraser puts
the impacts of neo-liberalism front and center regarding mismatched ideas, corrosive
gender politics, disastrous economic policies, repressive social structurings, etc. While
worthy of separate papers in their own rights, below we briefly acknowledge some of
the impacts on women.
Alison Jaggar recognizes just as there aren’t singular categories of people, so too the
consequences of neo-liberal globalization have mixed consequences for women. Yet
because women are represented disproportionately among the world’s poor and
marginalized, neo-liberal globalization has been especially harmful to women
(although not to all or only women) (Jaggar, 2002). She highlights the enormity of
impact on women due to World Trade Organization (WTO) policies[18]. Health
impacts due to WTO rejection of the Precautionary Principle are a disproportionate
burden for women, who tend to be poorer and less able to restrict their purchases of
foods and pharmaceuticals thought to be safer[19]. The WTO’s disregard for labor
rights affects women disproportionately not only because laws banning sex
discrimination and sexual harassment are unenforced but because women are
disproportionately represented among low-paid “sweatshop” workers. And the
worldwide cutbacks in social programmes are the most obviously gendered feature of
global neo-liberalism, encumbering women who are responsible for families and more
reliant on such programmes. Neo-liberalism’s assaults on women’s health are
overlapping and often mutually reinforcing. Jaggar’s research links the deteriorating
health of many Southern women with neo-liberal economic policies: a drastic decline in
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
281
their health status is inseparable from their political and economic vulnerability
(Jaggar, 2002).
Characterizing the decimations to women, Gayatri Spivak witnesses: poor women in
the North being denied access to a dismantling existing welfare structure; and for the
poorest women in the South – already at the bottom of a society – a welfare structure
that cannot emerge because of globalized exploitation[20]. The structural disparity is
immense (Spivak, 1996). The neo-liberal agenda seeks to limit and subsume strategies
for women’s advancements in spheres of policy-making where women’s interests
become collapsed and co-opted with power residing in the few and the already
privileged. A lavish show of global unity takes place (in UN conferences and platform
building, etc.) – necessary for expanding free market capitalism and neo-liberal
economics: while cutting social programs, health care, education and expanding the
feminization of poverty on a global scale (Ferguson, 2009; Runyan, 1999). Under such
conditions, survival of the fittest is gendered.
Section 8
Conclusions and a small wall
As we know, no one paper can be all things to all people, yet this research hopes to
connect with and inspire gender-in-accounting researchers toward new ways of
thinking, building on prior feminist theories, to consider what we might achieve in the
future. The work celebrates the 1992 special issue for the stimulation and exploration it
began. The legacy of the research in that issue is a foundation for this article regarding
the breadth of areas that can be explored: women and development literature,
meanings of histories, power, race, slave trade in women, false dichotomies and binary
thinking’s impact on women, and subaltern struggles. The geographical landscape
traversed included: Russia, India, Haiti, Poland, South Africa, the USA, and
Afghanistan; and all regions of the globe, local and diverse, warrant consideration. The
significant connections to culture, global economics, neo-liberalism and its ideology on
women’s issues, the critical connections of gender-accounting to risk values and the
valuation of work, the problematic of measuring systems to define women’s well-being
and the global linkages to accounting for violence, are additional legacies. The paper
honors other gender researchers and women-in-general with the Small Wall to follow.
In this sense, it pays tribute to the explicit hopes of the 1992 issue.
We have precedent to explore the unexplored and consider the art of the possible.
Chwastiak’s (2009) research on accountability, and access to life-needs in the Iraq war
is transformative accounting research. “Auditing does not necessarily contribute to
improved transparency or enhanced democracy...information may be transfigured or
rendered invisible” (Chwastiak, 2009, p. 6). Critical accounting research can thus
advance dialogue into these nuances and impact perceptions.
What creates visibilities and makes us see differently, know differently, and expand
ways of knowing and thus doing? Contemporary processes of globalization have been
transforming for women, and accompanied by unimagined, beneficent, and powerful
linkages: new economic partnerships, networks and connections, feminist dialogues,
internet debates, and intergenerational celebrations in addition to the serious declines
in the well being of many women across the world. Chimamanda Adichie (Adichie,
2009) counsels against “The danger of a single story” and it would be mistaken and
presumptuous to provide a summary narrative of the multiplicities of feminist
AAAJ
25,2
282
perspectives, dilemmas, and innovations. As Dambrin and Lambert (2010) point out, I
run the inevitable risk of limited reflexivity. Yet, exposure to visionary ideas creates
new theories, activism, and reflections to ensure there is no single story.
While it is true that a romanticism of markets has not challenged repressive
economic structures, women have significantly benefited from microenterprise loans
targeted to women. While it is true that the dismantling of state-planned economies in
Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union has been accompanied by
dismantling entitlements for women considered sacrosanct, other walls have crumbled
to open possibilities. Comparisons of women’s struggles seem bizarre. In different
societies and to different degrees women continue to assert: their right to work, to vote,
to choose, to protect and celebrate the environment, to be free of violence, and to be an
integral part of the dialogue. As the woman in SEWA indicated: to not only have a
piece of the pie, but to choose the flavor and know how to make it.
Although ludicrous to simply compare the challenges of women, it is not complete
folly: the bravery of women does give a message that much is to be done, and that many
diverse struggles exist with visionary and everyday satisfactions and achievements.
Thus it is important to witness the wide-ranging, creative, and pioneering achievements
of women in microenterprise, in reforming education for girls, in standing for freedom
from violence, for creating a space for transformative voices, etc. Below is a “small wall”
of some of the amazing 3.5 billion women on the planet, each in her particular way
embodying the themes of this paper (to which you’ll have many additions; noting that
although some of the below are deceased, their legacies continue).
A small wall
.
Loida Sabith: using funding in the Philippines, performing recycling to support
the environment and her family.
.
Nhech Sreymom: in microenterprise in Cambodia working to feed her family.
. Munay Tika Group: in Peru using funding for catering to support a community
of women.
.
Uuganchimeg Tumurbaatar: in Mongolia supporting her family with home
product sales.
. Rabeca Nhancale Zita: in Mozambique working to support her family with
animal sales.
. Henrietta Lacks: Mother of five, former tobacco farmer (as her slave ancestors in
the USA). Her cells, taken without her knowledge in 1951, became one of the most
important tools in medicine: the HeLa cell line; the first “immortal” cell line, vital
for the polio vaccine, cancer research, and gene mapping (Skloot, 2010).
.
Wanda Nowicka: Polish advocate for women’s reproductive rights.
.
Sitara Achakzai, a Kandahar Provincial Council member, shot dead only weeks
after she shared her views with UNAMA, on the situation of women in Afghanistan,
a woman who consciously fought to end the abuse of Afghan women.
. Emile du Chatelet: against the numerous social and hierarchical biases and
obstacles put in her way, she is now regarded as one of the eighteenth century’s
greatest scientific minds; muse and lover to Voltaire, she played a crucial role in
the development of the modern concept of energy (Bodanis, 2006).
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
283
This work offers a range of exploratory ideas and questions. Suggesting more pushing
of the margins and encouragement to do so, this paper is intended to support, promote
and inspire us to “think different”. Judt (2010, p. 237) puts it perfectly: “But if we think
we know what is wrong, we mustacton that knowledge. Philosophers, it was famously
observed, have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to
change it”.
Notes
1. Among the many researchers advancing the work see: Anderson et al., 1994;
Anderson-Goughet al., 2005; Buckmaster, 2002; Carnegie and Walker, 2007; Ciancanelli
et al., 1990; Collinson and Hearn, 1996; Cooper, 2001; Dambrin and Lambert, 2010; Fearfull
and Kamenou, 2006; Gallhofer, 1998; Hammond and Preston, 1992; Hammond and Streeter,
1993; Jeacle, 2006; Kim, 2004; Kim, 2008; Kirkham, 1997; Kirkham and Loft, 2001; Loft, 1992;
Oakes and Young, 2008; Roberts and Coutts, 1992; Shearer and Arrington, 1993; Walker and
Carnegie, 2007.
2. Toward the conclusion of her visit to the women’s collective (sangham) Nussbaum was
serenaded by a revision in a song that had expressed a woman’s life was a life of sorrow. The
re-written song begins with “Woman, why are you crying? Your tears should become your
thoughts.” And then the woman tells all her plans for improvements in her life. “Here is how
the annual report of the collective record the women’s plans...We want to plant fruit trees
in front of our houses...We want to travel...We want our school to be run better...Our
children need a better life than us. They should learn new things” (Nussbaum, 2000, p. 302).
3. Poland has one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe and it is illegal unless the woman’s
life or health is endangered, the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act, or the fetus is
seriously malformed. Consequently, many Polish women travel outside the country to get a
termination or resort to the many illegal clinics in Poland.
4. It is possible and problematic that projects seeking to overcome oppression as the result of
markets (or restrictive “social protections”) can be in contrast to emancipatory projects. For
example, aid to families with dependent children, a “social protection”, neither solves the
problem of market-force wage-oppressions nor quality of life issues for women. Does one
terminate or continue these “protections”, and if so, when? To be replaced by what in order to
transform and enhance women’s lives? Fraser recognizes the dilemma: to the extent that
markets are oppressive and social protections are “better”, it is still not freedom; and the
other way around, as well.
5. In the USA the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was written in 1923 by Alice Paul,
suffragist leader and founder of the National Woman’s Party (NWP). She and the NWP
considered the ERA to be the next phase in guaranteeing “equal justice under law” to all
citizens after the 19th Amendment was passed – affirming a woman’s right to vote. It reads:
“Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any state on account of sex; Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to
enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article; Section 3. This amendment
shall take effect two years after the date of ratification”. These simple words comprise the
entire text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA); it has been ratified by 35 states, leaving it
three states short of the 38 required for ratification and despite being reintroduced into every
US Congress it has not passed.
6. The ERA does not essentially shift economic and social structures maintaining inequities.
Thus for Fraser the notion of a new wave of emancipatory feminism’s emergence is not only
about liberal notions of equality. A recent study in US reports that 75 percent of women who
AAAJ
25,2
284
say that religion is an important part of their lives also say that they strongly support the
idea of women’s full equality (see McGuire, 2009). These linkages are both enhancing but
limiting if they do not change deeper oppressions nor foster new meanings.
7. The myths and status regarding race in the USA in this period is both triumphal and grim. It
was a period in which Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the use of the
derogatory term “welfare moms” were associated. Although Ronald Regan in his 1976
campaign for president never used the term, the image was planted at this time: many
Americans wrongly envisioned recipients as African Americans cheating the system,
purchasing luxuries, and having more and more babies for the meager benefits (Bureau of
the Census, 1995). The amounts they might gain were so small “it would have been a suicidal
strategy” (Collins, 2009, p. 336).
8. While pay for US women working full-time outside the home rose 12 percent on average
between 1979 and 1989, men’s dropped more than 4 percent. And for men with a high school
diploma but no college education, the average drop was a “chilling 11 percent” (Collins, 2009,
p. 302). Part of the narrowing of the wage gap was a drop in men’s wages; for some
comparisons: the rate of black to white men in 1979 was 70 percent and dropped to 67 percent
in 1989 (see Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; IWPR, 2010).
9. Why such a prevalence of this research: is there an assumption that women’s assent would
matter in a particular way, and how so? While scholars have documented female leaders who
exhibit detrimental impacts on “the female populous”, one also observes, for example,
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg (above) attacking the male dominated US Supreme Court
for ignoring insidious discrimination facing US women. This type of research would look at
the meaning of identities and the social construction of gender.
10. John Kenneth Galbraith once explained: “The salary of the chief executive of a large
corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm
personal gesture by the individual to himself” (Kristoff, 2008).
11. “Women’s rights are human rights” became an important declaration unanimously adopted
by the Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women, in Beijing, China in 1995. Hillary
Clinton’s speech became well know for its assertions of violations of women’s rights
including: “It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned ...
simply because they are born girls...when women and girls are sold into the slavery of
prostitution...when women are...burned to death because their marriage dowries are
deemed too small...when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of
war” (Clinton, 1995).
12. The Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women in 1995, held in Beijing, was also
problematic. “One is not ‘against’ the UN as such,” remarks Spivak (1996, p. 4). The critique
is for the misrepresentations of women and for the charade of claiming unity when in fact
“the North organizes a South ...what is left out is the poorest women of the South as
self-conscious critical agents, who might be able to speak through those very
nongovernmental organizations of the South that are not favoured by these
object-constitution policies” (Spivak, 1996, p. 4).
13. Concurring with the insightful commentary of one reviewer we note that religion and culture
have often incorporated messages and methods of repression and gender inequality and thus
re-imagining gender includes revealing, addressing, and engaging in dialogue about these
oppressions (see also
[8]
). This paper, by discussing different regions, ideologies, and
economic and social processes of repression has sought to embrace the effects of culture and
religion on women and to advocate for further research. The change in Poland regarding
reproductive rights implicitly remarks on the strength of the church-state relationship to
alter rights women regarded as undeniable (see also
[5]
). By revealing the culture-of-silence
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
285
regarding violence and human rights abuses against women in Afghanistan and throughout
the world, we seek to transform it.
14. The Global Gender Gap Index, introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2006, is in its
beginning stage as a framework for capturing the magnitude and scope of gender-based
disparities and tracking their progress. The Index benchmarks national gender gaps on
“Four Pillars”: economic, political, education, and health based criteria, and provides country
rankings. The rankings, according to the publication, are designed to create greater
awareness and the opportunities created by reducing them. The methodology and
quantitative analysis are based on measuring gaps rather than levels; capturing gaps in
outcome variables rather than gaps in means or input variables; and ranking countries
according to gender equality (see Hausmannet al., 2010).
15. With an estimated 150 to 200 million migrant workers in China, this movement is possibly
the largest migration in human history. Chang’s (2008) portrayal of young women, leaving
villages they reject for their isolation and poverty, only to be confronted with demanding
work for little money, loneliness, and no security in factories more like cities, is a frequently
harrowing depiction. These young women become part of a vast network of workers cut off
from family, friends, and inconsequential, yet their multiplicities of motivations are
understandable given the dictates of the changing social and economic structures.
16. Illustrative of the effect of neo-liberalism’s increasing disparity in wealth and income in the
USA are these figures. In 1970 the number of times of a CEO to an average worker was 39; in
1999, these figure grows exponentially to 1,000 times (Krugman, 2002).
17. Numerous policy makers, politicians, economists, and activists worldwide are questioning
the viability of neo-liberalism given the enormity of the global recessions in 2008 and
beyond, but its reach has been pervasive.
18. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a treaty organization, established in 1995, to determine
the rules for global trade. WTO rules supersede the national law of any signatory nation,
following a distinctive version of liberal political theory, namely, neo-liberalism (Jaggar, 2002).
19. The World Trade Organization rejects the Precautionary Principle, which puts the burden of
proof on manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of food and pharmaceuticals. The full
health implications of the WTO’s rejection of the Precautionary Principle are yet to emerge,
but any resulting harm is likely to be felt disproportionately by women.
20. Observations regarding the dismantling of welfare state provisions is not vindication of the
system but a witnessing of the disproportionate impact on women. It is recognized that
welfare entitlements are often necessary to assure legitimacy, management of economic
crises, resistance to upheavals, and “a modicum of safety, of security, of distributive justice
and the stimulation of hope in people” (Egbal Ahmad, quoted in Barsamian, 2000, p. 64) in
order for survival of the system.
References
AAAJ(1992), “Fe[men]ists’ account (special issue title)”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3.
Adichie, C. (2009), “The danger of the single story”,Ted Global 2009, available at: www.ted.com/
talks/lang/spa/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html (accessed April
2010).
Anderson, J., Johnson, E. and Reckers, P. (1994), “Perceived effects of gender, family structure,
and physical appearance on career progression in public accounting: a research note”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 483-91.
AAAJ
25,2
286
Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C. and Robson, K. (2005), “‘Helping them to forget’: the organizational
embedding of gender relations in public audit firms”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 469-90.
Angelou, M. (2010a), “Women and power”, available at: from www.omega (accessed
15 September 2010).
Angelou, M. (2010b), “A new home for Maya Angelou collection”,Tell Me More, National Public
Radio, available at: www.npr.org (accessed 16 November 2010).
Angier, N. (1999),Woman: An Intimate Geography, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Angier, N. (2007),The Canon, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Armstrong, P. (2002), “The costs of activity-based management”,Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 99-120.
Arnold, P. (1999), “From the union hall: a labor critique of the new manufacturing and accounting
regimes”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 399-423.
Arrington, C. and Francis, J. (1989), “Letting the chat out of the bag: deconstruction, privilege and
accounting research”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-28.
Barsamian, D. (2000),Eqbal Ahmad, Confronting Empire: Interviews with David Barsamian,
South End Press, Cambridge, MA.
Beck, U. (1993),Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage, London, (trans. Ritter, M.).
Bell, D. (1987),And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice, Basic Books,
New York, NY.
Benedict, H. (2009), “The nation: the plight of women soldiers” NPR, Washington DC, available
at: www.npr.org
Bennett, J. (2008), “Research for life: paradigms and power”,Feminist Africa, Vol. 11, December,
pp. 1-12.
Berinato, S. (2010), “Is a woman’s MBA worth less?”, HBR Blog, 13 April, available at: http://
blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/04/the-pay-gap-and-delusions-of-p.html
Bisoux, T. (2010), “Taking care”,BizEd, July/August, pp. 20-4.
Bodanis, D. (2006),Passionate Minds, Random House, New York, NY.
Briloff, A. (2001), “Garbage in/garbage out: a critique of fraudulent financial reporting:
1987-1997”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-48.
Broadbent, J. and Kirkham, L. (2008), “Glass ceilings, glass cliffs or new worlds?: Revisiting
gender and accounting”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 465-473).
Buckmaster, N. (2002), “Captured within masculine accounting: accountability of non-profit
organizations”,Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 9, pp. 31-44.
Buck-Morss, S. (2009),Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History, University of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Bureau of the Census (1995), “Statistical brief: mothers who receive AFDC payments”, US
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Washington, DC.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2010), available at: www.bls.gov (accessed September 2010).
Burn, S. (2000),Women Across Cultures: A Global Perspective, Mayfield Publishing, Palo Alto,
CA.
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
287
Calas, M.B., Smirchich, C., Tienari, J. and Ellehave, C.F. (2010), “Editorial: Observing capitalism:
gender and ethnicity as an entry point”,Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 243-7.
Carnegie, G. and Walker, S. (2007), “Household accounting in Australia: prescription and practice
from the 1820s to the 1960s”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 41-73.
Carter, N. and Silva, C. (2010),Pipeline’s broken promise, Catalyst Publication, New York, NY.
Chang, L. (2008),Factory Girls: From Village to City in a Changing China, Spiegel & Grau,
New York, NY.
Chua, W. (1988), “Interpretive sociology and management accounting research: a critical review”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 59-79.
Chwastiak, M. (2001), “Taming the untamable: planning, programming and budgeting and the
normalization of war”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 501-19.
Chwastiak, M. (2009), “War by other means: auditing and the deconstruction of Iraq”, paper
presented at the Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference, Innsbruck,
Austria.
Chwastiak, M. and Lehman, G. (2008), “Accounting for war”,Accounting Forum, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 313-26.
Ciancanelli, P. (1992), “M[othering] view on: the construction of gender: some insights from
feminist psychology”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 133-6.
Ciancanelli, P. (1998), “Survey research and the limited imagination”,Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 387-9.
Ciancanelli, P. (2010), “Managing for social outcomes: diverse value rationalities and financial
control”,Critical Sociology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 203-20.
Ciancanelli, P., Gallhofer, S., Humphrey, C. and Kirkham, L. (1990), “Gender and accountancy:
some evidence from the UK”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 117-44.
Clinton, H. (1995), “Women’s rights are human rights”, paper presented at the United Nations
Fourth World Congress, Beijing, China, 5 September, available at: http://gos.sbc.edu/c/
clinton.html (accessed August 2010).
Collier-Thomas, B. (2010),Jesus, Jobs and Justice: African American Women and Religion,
Random House, New York, NY.
Collins, G. (2009),When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from
1960 to the Present, Little Brown and Co, New York, NY.
Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (1996),Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on
Men, Masculinities, and Managements, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Coontz, S. and Henderson, P. (Eds) (1986),Women’s Work, Men’s Property, Verso, London.
Cooper, C. (1992), “The non and nom of accounting for (m)other nature”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 16-39.
Cooper, C. (2001), “From women’s liberation to feminism: reflections in accounting academia”,
Accounting Forum, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 214-45.
Cooper, D. and Neu, D. (2006), “Auditor and audit independence in the age of financial scandals”,
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 12, pp. 1-15.
Dambrin, C. and Lambert, C. (2008), “Mothering or auditing? The case of two Big Four in
France”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 474-506).
AAAJ
25,2
288
Dambrin, C. and Lambert, C. (2010), Who is she and who are we? A critical essay on reflexivity in
research into the rarity of women executives in accountancy, working paper, HEC School
of Management, Paris.
Dayan, J. (1995),Haiti, History, and the Gods, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Dill, B. (2010), “Intersectionalility: growth and diffusion”, paper presented at the conference No
Longer in Exile: The Legacy and Future of Gender Studies, The New School, New York,
26 March.
Dillard, J. (2003), “Professional services, IBM, and the Holocaust”,Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Dillard, J. (2009), “Buddhist economics: a path from an amoral accounting toward a moral one”,
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 325-53.
Dillard, J. and Reynolds, M. (2008), “Green owl and the corn maiden”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 556-79.
Eichhorn, K. (2010), “The state of the art: gender studies”, paper presented at the conference No
Longer in Exile: The Legacy and Future of Gender Studies, The New School, New York,
26 March.
Ellsworth, E. (2010), “Introductions”, presented at the Conference No Longer in Exile: The
Legacy and Future of Gender Studies, The New School, New York, 26 March.
Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H. (1998), “Accounting for team work: a critical study of group-based
systems of organizational control”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 358-96.
Faludi, S. (1991),Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, Crown Publishers,
New York, NY.
Fearfull, A. and Kamenou, N. (2006), “How do you account for it? A critical exploration of career
opportunities for and experiences of ethnic minority women”,Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 883-901.
Ferguson, A. (2009), “Women, corporate globalization, and global justice”, in Tessman, L. (Ed.),
Feminist Ethics and Social and Political Philosophy: Theorizing the Non-Ideal, Springer,
Dordrecht.
Fraser, N. (2010), “Feminist thinking, theory and feminist action”, paper presented at the
conference No Longer in Exile: The Legacy and Future of Gender Studies, The New
School, New York, 26 March.
Gallhofer, S. (1992), “M[othering] view on: the non and nom of accounting for (m)other nature”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 40-51.
Gallhofer, S. (1998), “The silences of mainstream feminist accounting research”,Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 355-75.
Giddens, A. (1979),Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in
Social Analysis, University of California Press, Berkley, CA.
Gilroy, P. (2000),Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gray, L. (1986),The Global Assembly Line, (film), Lorraine Gray, Director, New Day Films,
Harriman, NY.
Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978),Policing the Crises: Mugging,
the State, and Law and Order, Macmillian, London.
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
289
Hammond, T. and Oakes, L. (1992), “Some feminisms and their implication for accounting
practice”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 52-70.
Hammond, T. and Streeter, D. (1993), “Overcoming barriers: early African-American Certified
Public Accountants”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 271-88.
Hammond, T. and Preston, A. (1992), “Culture, gender and corporate control: Japan as ‘other’”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 795-808.
Haraway, D. (1989),Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Hartmann, H. (1979), “The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism: towards a more
progressive union”,Capital & Class, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-33.
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. and Zahidi, S. (2010),The Global Gender Gap Report 2010, World
Economic Forum, Geneva.
Haynes, K. (2008), “Moving the gender agenda or stirring chicken’s entrails?: Where next for
feminist methodologies in accounting?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 539-55.
Heyzer, N. (1998), “UNIFEM launches $ 1.2-million trust fund”,United Nations Chronicle, Spring,
available at: www.unfpa.org/gender/violence.htm (accessed September 2010).
Hines, R. (1988), “Financial accounting: in communicating reality we construct reality”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 251-62.
Hines, R. (1992), “Accounting: filling the negative space”,Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 17 Nos 3-4, pp. 313-41.
Holvino, E. (2010), “Intersections: the simultaneity of race, gender and class in organizational
studies”,Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 248-77.
Hooks, K. (1998), “The danger of misguided conclusions”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 377-85.
IWPR (2003), “The gender wage gap: progress of the 1980s fails to carry through”, fact sheet,
November, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, DC.
IWPR (2010), “Gender wage gap stagnant overall, women not doing better”, fact sheet,
September, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington DC.
Jaggar, A. (1983), Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Rowman, Allanheld, and Brighton,
Totowa, NJ.
Jaggar, A. (2002), “Vulnerable Women and neo-liberal globalization: debt burdens undermine
women’s health in the global south”,Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 425-40.
Jeacle, I. (2006), “Face facts: accounting, feminism and the business of beauty”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 87-108.
Judt, T. (2005),Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945, Penguin Press, New York, NY.
Judt, T. (2010),Ill Fares the Land, Penguin Press, New York, NY.
Kelan, E. (2010), “Gender logic and (un)doing gender at work”,Gender, Work and Organization,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 174-94.
Kessler-Harris, A. (1981),Women Have Always Worked: An Historical Overview, McGraw Hill,
New York, NY.
Keynes, J. (1933), “National self-sufficiency”,The Yale Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 755-69.
AAAJ
25,2
290
Kim, S. (2004), “Racialized gendering of the accountancy profession: toward an understanding of
Chinese women’s experiences in accountancy in New Zealand”,Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 400-27.
Kim, S. (2008), “Whose voice is it anyway? Rethinking the oral history method in accounting
research on race, ethnicity and gender”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 8,
pp. 1346-69.
Kirkham, L. (1992), “Integrating herstory and history in accountancy”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp. 287-97.
Kirkham, L. (1997), “Through the looking glass: viewing sexual harassment within the
accounting profession”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 273-83.
Kirkham, L. and Loft, A. (1993), “Gender and the construction of the professional accountant”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 507-58.
Kirkham, L. and Loft, A. (2001), “The lady and the accounts: missing from accounting history?”,
The Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 67-90.
Klein, N. (2007),The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Henry Holt and Co,
New York, NY.
Knights, D. and Collinson, D. (1987), “Disciplining the shopfloor: a comparison of the disciplinary
effects of managerial psychology and financial accounting”,Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 457-77.
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1986),Gender and the Labour Process, Gower, Brookfield, VT.
Komori, N. (2008), “Toward the feminization of accounting practice: lessons from the experiences
of Japanese women in the accounting profession”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 507-38.
Kristoff, N. (2008), “Need a job? $17,000 an hour. No success required”,New York Times,
17 September.
Kristoff, N. and WuDunn, S. (2009), “Why women’s rights are the cause of our time”,New York
Times Magazine, 23 August, pp. 28-39, special issue: Saving the World’s Women.
Krugman, P. (2002), “For richer”,New York Times Magazine, 20 October.
Larsen, J. (2010), “Women and power”, available at: www.omega (accessed 15 September 2010).
Laughlin, R. (1999), “Critical accounting: nature, progress and prognosis”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 73-8.
Ledbetter, L. (2010), Presentation of Honorary Degree: Doctor of Laws, Honoris Causa, CUNY
School of Law Commencement 2010, 14 May, CUNY School of Law, New York, NY.
Lederer, E. (2005), “Violence and discrimination against women is a major cause of death”,
18 November, Associated Press, available at: www.sacredchoices.org
Lehman, C. (1992), “Fe[min]ists’ account: introduction”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 4-15.
Lehman, C. (2006), “The bottom line”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 17 Nos 2-3,
pp. 305-22.
Lehman, C. and Okcabol, F. (2005), “Accounting for crime”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 613-39.
Lerner, G. (1986),The Creation of Patriarchy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lim, L. (1996),More and Better Jobs for Women: An Action Guide, International Labour
Organization, Geneva.
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
291
Llewellyn, S. and Milne, M. (2007), “Accounting as codified discourse”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 805-24.
Loft, A. (1992), “Accountancy and the gendered division of labour: a review essay”,Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 Nos 3-4, pp. 367-78.
Louie, M. (2001),Sweatshop Warriors: Immigrant Women Take On the Global Factory, South
End Press, Cambridge, MA.
Maathai, W. (2010), “Women and power”, available at: www.omega (accessed 15 September
2010).
Maupin, R. and Lehman, C. (1994), “Talking heads: stereotypes, status, sex-roles and satisfaction
of female and male auditors”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 Nos 4-5,
pp. 427-37.
McGuire, C. (2009), “New IWPR Report maps links between feminist and faith-based activism”,
Institute for Women’s Policy Research Quarterly Newsletter, Winter/Spring, IWPR,
Washington, DC.
Merino, B. and Mayper, A. (2001), “Securities legislation and the accounting profession in the
1930s: the rhetoric and reality of the American dream”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 501-25.
Merino, B., Mayper, A. and Tolleson, T. (2010), “Neoliberalism, deregulation and Sarbanes-Oxley:
the legitimation of a failed corporate governance model”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 774-92.
Mitchell, A., Sikka, P. and Willmott, H. (2001), “Policing knowledge by invoking the law: critical
accounting and the politics of dissemination”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12
No. 5, pp. 527-55.
Mohanty, C. (2004),Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity, Duke
University Press, London and Durham, NC.
Moore, D. (1992), “Notes towards feminist theories on accounting: a view from literary studies”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 92-112).
Neu, D. (1992), “Reading the regulatory text: regulation and the new stock issue process”,Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 359-88.
Nussbaum, M. (2000),Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Oakes, L. and Young, J. (2008), “Accountability re-examined: evidence from Hull House”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 765-90.
Parker, L. (2008), “Strategic management and accounting processes: acknowledging gender”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 611-31.
Penn, S. (2009), “Writing themselves into history: two feminists recall their political development
in the People’s Republic of Poland”, in Penn, S. and Massino, J. (Eds), Gender Politics and
Everyday Life in State Socialist Eastern and Central Europe, Palgrave Macmillan,
New York, NY, pp. 201-19.
Penn, S. and Massino, J. (2009),Gender Politics and Everyday Life in State Socialist Eastern and
Central Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Power, M. (2009), “The risk management of nothing”,Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 34 Nos 6/7, pp. 849-55.
Roberts, J. and Coutts, J. (1992), “Feminization and professionalization: a review of an emerging
literature on the development of accounting in the United Kingdom”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp. 379-95.
AAAJ
25,2
292
Rose, H. and Rose, S. (1970),Science and Society, Penguin Books, New York, NY.
Rosenberg, T. (2002), “Globalization: the free trade fix”,The New York Times Magazine,
18 August.
Runyan, A. (1999), “Women in the neoliberal frame”, in Meyer, M.K. and Pru¨gl, E. (Eds),Gender
Politics in Global Governance, Rowman & Littlefield, New York, NY.
Said, E. (1978),Orientalism, Vintage Books, New York, NY.
Said, E. (1993),Representations of the Intellectual: 1993 Reith Lecture, Vintage Books, New York,
NY.
Saravanamuthu, K. (2008), “Gandhian-Vedic emancipatory accounting: engendering a spiritual
revolution in the interest of sustainable development”, Advances in Public Interest
Accounting, Vol. 13, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 177-235.
Schwab, K. and Zahidi, S. (2010), “Preface”, in Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. and Zahidi, S. (Eds),
The Global Gender Gap Report 2010, World Economic Forum, Geneva.
Sen, A. (2003), “Missing women – revisited”,British Medical Journal, Vol. 327, pp. 1297-8.
Shearer, T. and Arrington, C. (1993), “Accounting in other wor(l)ds: A feminism without reserve”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 18 Nos 2-3, pp. 253-72.
Sikka, P. (2000), “From the politics to fear to the politics of emanicipation”,Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 369-80.
Skloot, R. (2010),The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Crown Publishing, New York, NY.
Snitow, A. (2010), “The state of the art: gender studies”, paper presented at the conference No
Longer in Exile: The Legacy and Future of Gender Studies, The New School, New York, 26
March.
Spivak, G. (1996), “‘Woman’ as theatre: United Nations Conference on Women, Beijing 1995”,
Radical Philosophy, Vol. 75, pp. 2-4.
Spivak, G. (2010), Situating feminism, Beatrice Bain Research Group (BBRG) Annual Keynote
Talk, February, available at: http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/spivak (accessed October
2010).
Steinem, G. (2010), Women and power, available at: www.omega (accessed 15 September 2010).
Stiglitz, J. (2010), Marketplace, available at: www.npr.org (accessed 14 October 2010).
Strier, R. (2010), “Women, poverty, and the microenterprise: context and discourse”,Gender,
Work and Organization, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 195-218.
UNAMA (2009), “Silence is violence: end the abuse of women in Afghanistan”, United Nations
Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Kabal, and the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Geneva.
UNFPA (2010), United Nations Population Fund, available at: www.unfpa.org/gender/violence.
htm (accessed August 2010).
Walker, S. (2008), “Accounting histories of women: beyond recovery?”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 580-610.
Walker, S. and Carnegie, G. (2007), “Budgetary earmarking and the control of the extravagant
woman in Australia, 1850-1920”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 233-61.
Ward, J. and Marsh, M. (2006), “Sexual violence against women and girls in war and its
aftermath: realities, responses, and required resources”, UNFPA (United Nations
Population Fund), New York, NY.
We’ve come a
long way!
Maybe!
293
Waring, M. (1988),If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics, Macmillan, London.
Welsh, M. (1992), “The construction of gender: some insights from feminist psychology”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 120-32.
West, C. (1993),Race Matters, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Young, J. (2006), “Examining audit relations: a reconsideration of auditor independence”,
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 12, pp. 49-65.
Young, J.J. and Oakes, L.S. (2009), “Reflections on the practice of research”,Accounting Forum,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 280-4.
Zukav, G. (1989),The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics, Bantam New
Age Books, New York, NY.
Further reading
Halberstam, J. (2010), “Gender studies and body politics: intersections, directions,
representations”, paper presented at the conference No Longer in Exile: The Legacy and
Future of Gender Studies, The New School, New York, 26 March.
AAAJ
25,2
294
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Rethinking impact and redefining
responsibility
The parameters and coordinates of accounting
and public management reforms
Christopher Humphrey
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, and
Peter Miller
Department of Accounting, London School of Economics & Political Science,
London, UK
Abstract
Purpose– The starting point for the paper is an assessment of the impact of a 1993 special issue of
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,which provided an interdisciplinary analysis of the
pursuit of accountable management reforms in the UK public sector. From this assessment, the paper
offers a set of reflections on the development over the last two decades of “new” public management
practice and research, and also indicates some of the obligations and responsibilities of academic
researchers and managers alike in the context of a continuing appetite for such reforms.
Design/methodology/approach– The paper is written in a reflective fashion, including
assessments of: our role as guest editors of the special issue; the continuing pertinence of key
messages emanating from the special issue; and broader considerations drawn from our own working
experience in managerial roles in universities and personal reflections on the state of the public
management literature.
Findings– The paper highlights the long-standing litany of failure attached to such public
management reform movements, as well as the limited degree of cross-disciplinary learning within the
field. The paper emphasises that we need to rethink the parameters of “public sector” (accounting)
research, and avoid the partitioning of (accounting) research into ever smaller and self-referential
sub-areas. We need more cross-national studies. We need to know more about which management
practices travel readily, and which travel less easily, and what happens when implementation is
problematic. We need also to reinforce the importance of historical analyses, if we are to derive the
most benefit from studies of the interrelations among accounting and public management reforms and
wider transformations in ways of governing economic and social life. Finally, we need to retain or
reinstate curiosity at the heart of our concerns, in order to dispel the self-evidence or
taken-for-grantedness of so much of our present.
Research limitations/implications– Personal reflections, while being beneficially close to the
subject under consideration, inevitably suffer from claims of bias and a lack of independence. We have
sought to control for such risks by drawing on a variety of sources of information with respect to
impact, including (albeit ironically) citation counts and an analysis of the writings of individual
authors contributing to the special issue.
Originality/value– The paper is novel in that it seeks to combine an analysis of the literature on
public sector accounting and management reforms over several decades with our own, multi-faceted,
engagement with public management research and practice.
KeywordsUnited Kingdom, Public administration, Public sector reform, Accountability, Government,
New public management, Research impact, Academic management
Paper typeResearch paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
295
Received 28 May 2011
Revised 14 September 2011
Accepted 21 September
2011
Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2012
pp. 295-327
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
DOI 10.1108/09513571211198773
The term impact has quickly gained ascendancy in academic life, thanks most recently
to the latest incarnation of the UK research assessment exercise, coupled with a longer
history of major grant-awarding bodies requiring evidence of the impact of research
beyond the academic community. While few know what impact means, many are keen
to measure it. This makes the task we were invited to undertake for this special issue
unusually fraught with difficulties. The invitation was to consider the impact of a
special issue ofAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalthat was published in
1993. The title of the special issue was “Accounting, accountability and the ‘new’ UK
public sector”, and our role in that special issue was to act as guest editors (together
with Robert Scapens). We approached the invitation to reflect on that special issue,
published nearly two decades ago, with some considerable trepidation. How might we
identify impact? How might we differentiate the various types of impact? Is impact
always, and of necessity, indirect? If so, how might one trace the connections,
affiliations, and mediations which mean that the end result looks very different from
the starting point, making claims of “impact” often appear tenuous at best. How might
we consider the impact of impact assessment itself, the dialectics of impact? And, is it
realistic to even seek to assess the impact of one’s own work? In any event, what
contribution might arise from such an exercise? For there are already many reviews of
the ways in which public sector accounting research has developed over the last two
decades (for recent examples, see: Broadbent and Guthrie, 2008; Lapsley, 2008, 2009;
van Helden, 2005; van Helden and Northcott, 2010; Groot and Budding, 2008; ter Bogt
et al., 2010; Goddard, 2010). Finally, what does it mean to reflect on a phenomenon such
as public management – whether “new” or “old” – at a time when it is being vilified in
ways that exceed even those witnessed during the more extreme moments of the
Thatcher governments?
Such hesitation can, of course, inhibit and ultimately stall any attempt to trace the
linkages that connect words, things, people, and processes. And, while policy makers
and those designing resource flows may care little about the nuances of impact and its
mediated nature, and may be insensitive to the differences between the natural and the
social sciences in this regard, it is our job to examine, not exclude. Also, set against the
potential pitfalls, there were opportunities. These included the chance to reflect on the
profound changes that have occurred in public life and academia over the past two
decades or so, both in terms of writings on public sector financial management, as well
as administrative and policy changes. For the ongoing process of rethinking impact is
linked to attempts to redefine the responsibilities of academics, whether in their
teaching, in their research and writings, or in their administrative roles.
Since these various dimensions are so closely interlinked, we felt that the
opportunities outweighed the potential pitfalls, and this paper is the outcome. It is a
somewhat unconventional paper, in that it brings together observations on
developments in a still expanding and still relatively young literature, as well as
reflections on the personal experiences of the authors as editors, authors, and managers
(of a sort). It is unconventional in a further sense, in that it reflects on the durability and
density of the developments that we identify, as well as the ways in which the
boundaries between domains and disciplines have been altered or reinforced in the
process of researchers studying changes in public sector accounting and financial
management We do not propose a formal template for monitoring or evaluating the
changes discussed here, not least because the inherent dynamic or dialectic of the
AAAJ
25,2
296
changes at issue means that those initiating and “leading” reform are themselves likely
to change yet again – but do consider the responsibilities that such developments
place on accounting academics. We wrote in 1993 that “accounting, accountability and
the ‘new’ public sector is ripe for future international and interdisciplinary research,
focusing not just on the application of accounting-based reforms but also on the
construction of alternatives in an area where the notion of an alternative is frequently,
and undeservedly, absent” (Humphreyet al., 1993, p. 6). This remains the case today.
However, at a time when any discussion of the public sector is dominated by the
language of cuts and costs, the rationale for investigating the ways in which the ideas
and instruments of accounting are being deployed in the public sector in so many
countries could not be higher.
The paper is organised as follows. The first section addresses the experience of
guest editing in the early 1990s, including how the special issue came into being, and
how we sought to encourage a particular focus for the papers. The second section
examines how we might analyse the academic impact of the findings of the special
issue regarding the spread of what came to be called the New Public Management
reforms. The third section offers a tentative assessment of the extent to which
contemporary public sector organisations have actually been transformed into the
sorts of entities and processes that the reforms imagined. The fourth section develops
such reflections by considering some of our own personal engagement with new public
management as heads of department. The paper closes with reflections on certain
critical parameters of “public sector” accounting research and the possibilities of what
we refer to as a research renewal in the field of New Public Management reform.
Guest editing in the early 1990s
The special issue on “Accounting, accountability and the ‘new’ UK public sector” was
the fourth one undertaken by Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.It
followed special issues on Japanese accounting (Vol. 3 No. 2, 1990), on accounting and
the environment (Vol. 4 No. 2, 1991), and on gender and accounting (Vol. 5 No. 3, 1992).
The volume of papers – which collectively amounted to more than two hundred pages
– meant that the material had to be published across two separate issues of the journal.
For those not familiar with journal publishing, this meant negotiating additional pages
with the publishers (MCB University Press then). This was due to recommended
binding capacity for individual issues, something that may seem rather quaint in these
days of electronic publishing (although other considerations, including cost, can still
produce similar outcomes). Also, it is worth noting that, at that time, the entire
submission process, the reviewing, and the proof-reading had to be done in hard copy,
which meant relying heavily on what was then the leading-edge technology of
facsimile machines to ensure sufficiently speedy turnaround.
In fact, the whole editing process was a rather more personal task than is typically
the norm today. For instance, the special issue did not start from an external call for
papers. It was, instead, constructed from a selection of papers presented at a series of
four interdisciplinary public sector research workshops held in the early 1990s at the
University of Manchester and the London School of Economics[1]. All the papers were
reviewed exclusively by the three guest editors, without external reviewers, suggesting
a different “governance” conception of the submission and review process. Indeed, we
can both remember our surprise when, in subsequent years, we started to receive
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
297
papers from “guest editors” asking us to act as reviewers for the special issue that they
were “editing”. With the sheer volume of papers that some special issues attract from
published calls for paper, coupled with increasing concerns for “transparency”, we
appreciate why such an approach is nowadays the norm, although this sub-contracting
model can give rise to awkward outcomes, if the overall editors of the journal choose to
add yet another layer of reviewing and assessment after the “guest editors” and their
reviewers have completed their tasks. However, going back 18 years, the guest
editorial task for us was very much one of personal review and development work,
rather than a matter of managing the review work of others. Further, while
double-blind reviews have now become the norm (at least in principle) for special
issues of journals, and sometimes even for edited books, the eschewing of an often
illusory anonymity certainly did not mean that authors got off lightly. Each paper was
reviewed at least twice by two of the guest editors, with a final careful copy-editing and
proof-reading stage, often involving numerous exchanges to deliver the final approved
copy for publication. It is for others to judge whether the current predilection for the
uncoupling of editing and reviewing for special issues, and the generalised pretence of
anonymity, results in improved quality. At the very least, we suggest, the quality
pay-off should be no more presumed than the possibility of maintaining anonymity in
our ever more “googled” world.
Regardless of such assessments, the limiting of the review process to the guest
editorial team did allow for a clear and consistent focus for the special issue to be
crafted throughout. This had begun even before the actual submission of papers. For
the papers developed out of sponsored research workshops that brought authors and
editors together, along with other participants of course. There was nothing unique to
this process, and it continues today through a variety of venues and journals. But what
was relatively distinctive was the bringing together of scholars from a wide range of
different disciplines, including sociology, public administration, economics,
government, criminology, healthcare and accounting. Given how curiously bounded
the various disciplines and sub-disciplines remain in our ever more “connected” world,
this offered an unusual opportunity for the workshops to address a common problem,
by allowing us to work at the margins of a number of disciplines.
Many others have of course sought to foster similar encounters and engagements
across disciplinary boundaries, both before and after. But it is worth recalling that, by
1990, accounting research addressing the social and institutional aspects of accounting
was still at a relatively early stage of development. This was particularly the case for
the field of public sector accounting research. Even as late as 1992, Broadbent and
Guthrie (1992) could refer to their paper as a review of “recent, ‘alternative’ accounting
research” in the public sector arena. More generally, it is worth recalling thatFinancial
Accountability & Managementcommenced publication only in 1985, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journalin 1988, and Critical Perspectives on Accounting
(which has since gone on to publish many papers on public sector accounting reforms)
began in 1990. If one contrasts this with a journal such asPublic Administration, which
commenced publication in 1923, the late arrival of a social and institutional perspective
on public sector accounting research appears starkly. It also suggests that we should
not be surprised at the still nascent state of public sector accounting research.
Within accounting, but looking beyond forums specialising in public sector
accounting research, by 1990 Accounting, Organizations and Societyhad been in
AAAJ
25,2
298
existence for 15 years. But it was only in the mid- to late-1980s that it had begun to
publish articles focusing more explicitly on the social and institutional contexts of
accounting (see Chapman et al., 2009; Hopwood, 1987). Such articles encouraged
researchers to examine the particular roles played by accounting in seeking to promote
and shape the pursuit of efficiency in public sector organizations (see Hopwood, 1984,
1985). Here, we saw accounting being deployed in unfamiliar settings, and being called
on to make operable some rather ambitious socio-political aspirations. The analysing
of this phenomenon called for the tools of a range of social scientists, including
anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists and many others. Our project sought
to build on such developments, in part by involving scholars from beyond accounting
who had (to differing extents and in varying ways) already begun to address elsewhere
the intersection of accounting and finance practices with public policy. This included
people like Andrew Gray, whose work on financial management reforms with Bill
Jenkins (and others) was being widely cited in public administration journals, and had
already been published inFinancial Accountability & Management(see Gray and
Jenkins, 1986). They also included Allan Cochrane, who, with Alan Clarke, had been
studying the relationship between finance professionals and the political left in British
local government (see Clarke and Cochrane, 1989) and David Mayston who was
interested in the economics of markets and processes of accountability in the “new”
public sector (see Mayston, 1985).
Despite these coordinates, which meant that we were not starting from atabula
rasa, the special issue was not subject to a master plan. And it certainly did not begin
with the grand narratives of globalisation, modernisation, post-modernity or whatever.
Instead, the workshops and the special issue were avowedly experimental, with
discussions and debates often developing out of individual incidents and experiences,
and with reference to specific “technical” developments and managerial initiatives that
were taking place in the public sector. Over time, and with a perspective that
increasingly traversed disciplines, service domains, and national settings, the linkages
and liaisons between these apparently discrete (and even, perceived, minor) events and
instruments began to emerge. The opportunity to guest edit a special issue of
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalin fact arose only after the first of the
workshops had taken place, and when the multiple and heterogeneous alliances that
connected apparently very different domains began to be apparent.
There were, however, some loosely framed questions that acted as a rough heuristic
to the overall process of inviting speakers, papers, reviewers, and so on, and that
derived from our joint work as well as our work with others at the time. We were
interested, for instance, in what happens to the idea of accountability, as accounting is
called on increasingly to make visible performance, waste, maladministration and
inefficiency. In the 1960s and 1970s, there had been pressures in many Western
countries to expand the concept of accountability, in the name of environmental
impact, quality of working life, and other broader social concerns. With the benefit of
hindsight, these were no doubt less prominent in the UK than elsewhere in Europe, but
they had none the less contributed to a broadening of the notion of accountability
(Miller, 1996; Miller and Rose, 1990a, b, 1991). In the 1980s and early 1990s, however,
there was a move in the other direction, towards an economising of the notion of
accountability. The rhetoric of accountability acquired an increasingly constrained
meaning, as notions of efficiency, value for money, financial management and much
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
299
more gained ascendancy. In this context, a particular vocation for accounting was
constructed, one that fitted the increasing demands to make public services
understandable and calculable as a set of measurable financial inputs and outputs,
with their corresponding efficiencies or inefficiencies. The inefficiencies typically
received the most attention, not least as it was presumed (especially by those keen to
trumpet the virtues of markets) that these were much easier to calculate than the often
hidden and indirect benefits of public services.
In the early 1990s, as the workshops were starting to happen, and the special issue
was beginning to take shape, we knew remarkably little about what was at stake in the
reshaping and narrowing of ideas of accountability that was taking place. The context
was not particularly conducive to a careful empirical analysis of the consequences of
abandoning long-held and much cherished public service values, and their associated
processes and practices. These values were not only quickly dismissed by those who
saw nothing other than bureaucracy and inefficiency in the public sector at the time.
Such values were themselves depicted as part of the problem, yet another prop for the
idle and incompetent who needed to be dragged into a new, modern, efficient and more
responsive world populated by customers, providers, purchasers and other agents who
had previously not inhabited the world of public services. Although we did not appeal
explicitly to the notion of genealogy, we certainly felt that it made sense to disturb the
self-evidence of the appeals to a newly economised and constrained idea of
accountability. To show that it was not necessary or inevitable that the other
dimensions of accountability, which had briefly shown their face in discussions of
public services only a decade or two earlier, should be effaced. And to ask what were
the conditions and consequences of the transformation of the idea of accountability
that we were witnessing?
We were also interested in the instruments of accountability that were called on to
make visible and comparable the performance of the public sector. Cost accounting
was particularly prominent here, and so too was budgeting in its various forms. In
combination with many other little devices, such instruments multiplied in unfamiliar
settings, including schools, GPs’ surgeries, hospitals, social service departments, care
homes for those with learning disabilities, prisons, universities and so forth. Such
devices were to make real the desires of those who thought they knew exactly what the
problem was, and what the solution was. But almost nothing was known about what
Hopwood (1984) called the implications of accounting for the “process of organising”.
As these calculative instruments increasingly proliferated in settings where the
language of accounting was at best little understood, decision-making processes and
organisational hierarchies were affected, although we did not know exactly how, to
what extent, and with what consequences.
Likewise, with the plethora of monitoring, control and planning processes that
multiplied both within and between organisations, again with uncertain implications.
There was an intriguing tension here between the language of decentralisation (in the
form of appeals to notions of autonomy, responsibility, delegation, entrepreneurship
and so forth), and the implicit centralising impetus that arose from the plethora of
information flows that created centres of calculation both within and beyond
organisations. This is an issue that remains very topical, at times assuming ironic or
surreal forms, as appeals are made to the need for greater centralisation in order to
decentralise at some unspecified point in the future. We were interested, too, in whether
AAAJ
25,2
300
the incessant calls for accountability meant bringing in a whole new level and cadre of
administrators, whose sole job would be to monitor and measure the efficiency of
others. One thing we were clear about was that the consequences of the increasing
intensity of accounting and other forms of quantification and calculation within public
sector organisations were not known, and should not be presumed. For processes of
organising, and the processes of accounting for such organising, are reciprocally
related and not invariant. We needed to know much more about this interrelation, and
still do today. For it is through such interplay that the instruments of accounting
impact on organisational life, and on all those that are subject to them, whether as
employees or as recipients of the services they provide.
An issue that preoccupied us greatly was the interrelations between the increased
intensity of accounting information, and changing conceptions of the state and its
boundaries. There were those such as Gamble (1988) who had depicted the ongoing
processes in the late 1980s as an inherently contradictory and tension-ridden process,
characterised by the dual aims of the free hand (of markets) and the strong (leaner but
tougher) state. We were also concerned with what was happening as the state sought to
withdraw from many of the spheres to which it had become central under the welfarist
mentality of the previous decades, and as notions of choice, the customer and the
entrepreneurial self gained ascendancy. But our perspective differed. Whereas political
scientists had traditionally asked “why” type questions, we were more interested in
“how” type questions, a distinction that has continuing salience today, and which
emerged very much out of work conducted jointly and separately over two decades
earlier (Miller and Rose, 2008). In so far as the ongoing shift in political rationalities or
ideas was paired with a shift in the instruments through which political power was
exercised “beyond the state”, we wanted to know how this re-crafting of modalities of
power took shape. What linkages, affiliations, networks, and contagions enabled moral
and ethical discourses of personal autonomy and responsibility to be connected to
highly specific reform programmes for schools, hospitals and much more? And how, in
turn, was this coupled with what might be called a bureaucratisation of freedom, as
audits, budgets, standards, risk management, targets and so forth sought to act at a
distance on both those individuals delivering services, and the organisations or entities
within which they worked? For the new ethic of the active citizen, as it was being
fashioned in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was about an individual curiously
entrapped within a web of calculations which reinforced central control while at the
same time eschewing it.
It was in this context that Rose and Miller (1992) spoke of the “congenitally failing”
nature of government, the gap between the sublime image of a perfect regulatory
machine on the one hand and the reality of professional rivalries, unreliable
information, breakdowns in communication systems, unclear lines of command, poorly
designed buildings, or whatever. Even if we did not use the term “resistance” as much
as others might have liked, we were fascinated by what happens as persons and events
escape the political programmes that seek to govern them. In the words of Rose and
Miller:
We do not live in a governed world so much as a world traversed by the “will to govern”,
fuelled by the constant registration of “failure”, the discrepancy between ambition and
outcome, and the constant injunction to do better next time (Rose and Miller, 1992, p. 191).
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
301
With these somewhat inchoate and loosely connected questions, but no specific
template, we sought through the workshops and the special issue to analyse the
differential impacts of the New Public Management reforms. This meant examining
the shifting notions of organisational trust, rather than privileging one particular set of
achievements over others. It meant exploring how and to what extent new “rational”
forms of expertise were supplanting the expertise of those who had defined the
contours of their domains, whether this was in the field of medicine, social work,
education, or policing. The monopolies or enclosures such groups had formed, and now
sought to defend, had themselves been subject to critique from other directions on a
number of grounds. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, and even more so today, the issue
had become one of the extent to which the calculable expertise of managers (and those
who sought to manage the managers) was transforming not only the flow of resources
but also the types of decisions and the modes of delivery of those providing the actual
services. It was far from clear at the time, and remains so today, what happens when
the dreams of the reformers come into contact with the inconsistencies, contradictions
and paradoxes of delivering services in the “new” world of accountable management.
Our introductory paper for the special issue sought, above all else, to capture the
importance of addressing such questions through careful empirical investigations,
rather than presuming that the claimed potential of accounting would be matched by
its achievements once put to work.
Assessing the academic impact of the special issue ofAccounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal
But what happened when, together with others, we started trying to answer such
questions and many more? Put differently, what was the academic impact of the
special issue? One tangible outcome was the receipt of the Mary Parker Follett prize for
the best paper published in the journal during 1993 (see Humphrey et al., 1993, see
Figure 1). But, while most welcome, academic impact should perhaps be viewed more
as the forming of a set of connections or affiliations between issues, observations, and
persons. This is akin to a process of “problematising”, through which some level of
agreement comes to form as to the content and contours of those issues that are
thought to need addressing. It is a linking up of hitherto disparate and unrelated
phenomena into a recognisable ensemble, the creation of a sort of “family resemblance”
among previously unrelated questions and concerns. A process that is highly mediated
and almost always indirect.
One example of the forming of such linkages was the extensive international study
sponsored by the Stockholm Centre for Organizational Research (SCORE), resulting in
two books on financial management (see Olsonet al., 1998; Guthrie et al., 2005), several
articles and chapters (see Guthrie et al., 1999; Olson et al., 2001) and additional
academic awards – such as the John Perrin prize for the best paper published in
Financial Accountability and Management(FAM) journal (see Guthrie et al., 1999).
A further linkage, which itself brought with it an extensive set of existing connections
and connectors, was the affiliation between one of the authors (Miller) and Irvine
Lapsley at the University of Edinburgh. Together, they have organised a series of, still
ongoing, annual workshops under the heading of the “New Public Sector” since 1996.
These, in turn, have facilitated relationships with other bodies, including research
funding agencies such as the ESRC, the Research Foundation of CIMA, and the Public
AAAJ
25,2
302
Services Interest Group of the British Accounting Association, the latter receiving
funding from CIPFA. Each year, the workshop comprises three key elements –
namely, presentations of academic papers; a round table of external experts; and a
doctoral forum. Recent workshops have been on: Government Budgeting in the Global
Recession (2009); Accounting in Cities (2008); E-Government (2007); Targets and
Performance Measurement (2006); Public-Private-Partnerships (2005) – for more
details, see www.business-school.ed.ac.uk/research/centres/public-sector-accountingresearch).
Figure 1.
Citations for the paper by
Humphreyet al.(1993)
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
303
A further and important set of linkages began to form across national boundaries. It
has long been recognised that accounting instruments can travel freely, even if some
travel more readily and “light” than others (Miller, forthcoming). But the new public
management reforms were, and still are, much more than an invariant toolkit
inherently suited to the “task” in hand. If the calculative instruments of accounting are
simultaneously social and technical, they must operate within historically specific
assemblages whose coherence or unity is derived from the co-functioning of its
components. Accounting instruments thus remain marginal until they are mobilised
within a social machine or a collective assemblage. Put differently, the instruments of
accounting always operate in conjunction with a set of ideas which are themselves
multiplicities. This was shown most clearly as work developed to study notions of
responsibility and accountability in different national settings. It quickly became
apparent, for instance, that some terms or phrases were simply not present in some
languages (see Olson et al., 1998). Olson et al.(2001) demonstrated the significance of
such findings, using the contrast between the action-orientation of responsibility and
the primary reporting-dimension of accountability, to argue that the public sector was
increasingly caught in an evaluatory trap, committed, even in a so-called “new” and
“efficient” world of public management, to ever increasing levels of monitoring and
administrative bureaucracy and declining levels of resources devoted to front-line
service provision. Such patterns of thought extend beyond the domain of new public
management, into broader institutional shifts in the field of international financial
regulation and transnational governance (e.g. see Djelic and Sahlin-Andersson, 2006;
Loftet al., 2006; Humphrey et al., 2009).
There is, of course, a further way of seeking to demonstrate impact, and one that is
wholly in line with the new public management way of thinking. This is to examine the
number of times an article is downloaded, a metric that is appealed to increasingly. The
following table is based on data provided by Emerald[2], the journal’s publishers.
As Table I shows, the introductory paper to the special issue was (marginally) the
most downloaded, with two other papers also being heavily downloaded. It is often the
case that introductory papers are heavily downloaded or cited, as indeed are literature
reviews, so any assessment of “impact” needs to take this into account. A further
interesting aspect of the data, this time the citation counts, is the tail off over time. This
is such that two recent special issues of Financial Accountability & Managementon
new public management (Vol. 24 No. 1, 2008; Vol. 26 No. 1, 2010) made no reference to
any of the papers published in the 1993 special issue of Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, although a number of references were made to other work
(e.g. Olsonet al., 1998) to have emerged from related collaborative research projects[3].
The lifespan of articles (and books) is a complex phenomenon, and this is not the place
to examine this issue at length. But it does seem to be the case that earlier labels such
as “accountable management” and “financial management” have been less durable
than the term New Public Management, although even that phrase may be reaching the
end of its lifespan as audiences come to ask how “new” the phenomenon really is.
There is a more general issue here, which is the danger of neglecting the
achievements of existing scholars and failing to build on their work. “Whig history”
may have had its day, but this does not mean that researchers have to start with a clean
slate every two or three decades. This is particularly the case in a policy domain that is
characterised by a recurrent re-labelling of the phenomenon, and when this is mirrored
AAAJ
25,2
304
Author Title Volume Downloads GS
Christopher Humphrey, Peter Miller and Robert
W. Scapens
“Accountability and accountable management in the
UK public sector 6.3 2,073 119
Andrew Gray and Bill Jenkins Codes of accountability in the new public sector 6.3 2,023 90
Allan Cochrane From financial control to strategic management: the
changing faces of accountability in British local
government 6.3 1,166 30
David Mayston Principals, agents and the economics of
accountability in the new public sector 6.3 1,134 45
A.J. Fowles Changing notions of accountability: a social policy
view 6.3 896 34
Mahmoud Ezzamel and Hugh Willmott Corporate governance and financial accountability:
recent reforms in the UK public sector 6.3 1,793 54
Maureen Mackintosh Economic behaviour and the contracting outcome
under the NHS reforms: theory and the example of
community nursing 6.3 273 6
Richard Laughlin, Jane Broadbent, David Shearn and
Heidrun Willig-Atherton
Absorbing LMS: the coping mechanism of a small
group 7.1 453 38
David M. Rea Better informed judgements: resource management
in the NHS 7.1 751 20
Average 1,174 48
Average from intervening issue (6.4, 1993)! 1,015 51
Table I.
Downloads and citations
relating to articles in the
special issue of
Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 3, 1993
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
305
(to some extent) in the writings of those who are trying to analyse it. It is very easy to
end up with a foreshortened history of new public management, and a concomitant
failure to identify both continuity and change in a particular domain. A further and
potentially negative effect of this re-labelling is that it can hinder the analysis of what
is actually at stake in new public management reforms. For instance, while new public
management is classically broken down into its various component parts (e.g. see
Hood, 1995), the interrelationship between its key components has been insufficiently
explored. This has rather constrained or partitioned work that has emanated directly
from the special issue ofAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. For instance,
some of us went on to use the term New Public Financial Management (NPFM) to try
and signal the mutual interplay between ideas of financial management and ideas of
new public management, as well as the interplay between such ideas and the
instruments of financial management. However, terms like NPFM have tended to be
used subsequently in a narrower sense, to suggest that accounting has merely supplied
some of the techniques which the reformers have made use of.
Our view, instead, was (and, indeed, still is) that the instruments and ideas of
accounting have been a constitutive part of a far-reaching transformation in ways of
thinking about and seeking to act on the very substance of public services, and on
those who make use of, or are entitled to use them. Not only are notions of costs and
costliness, efficiency, going concern and insolvency increasingly applied to the entities
that provide services and those that manage them. The citizens who use them are
redefined, in a parallel move, as consumers, budget holders and so forth. As many
accounting researchers have long argued, accounting is much more than a neutral
device that can be put to work without regard to the setting in which it is deployed. It
is, or rather it has become, part of the institutional framework within and through
which public services are now delivered. It is integral to and constitutive of a new way
of seeking to govern employees as well as the recipients of public services. Many, of
course, realise this. But the image of accounting as little more than bookkeeping has
tended to inhibit the development of a fully-fledged social science engagement with the
economisation of public life that is still ongoing. No doubt this is partly explained by
the disciplinary compartmentalisation of academic life that continues to stifle academic
enquiry, notwithstanding the incessant calls for interdisciplinary research. But it is
particularly acute with regard to the way accounting research is often viewed by those
“outside” the discipline, who continue to taint it unduly with a predominantly
“technicist” image. Typically, researchers in other disciplines do not reciprocate the
attention that accounting researchers have paid to them. Put differently, sociologists
and other social scientists today are more bounded in their horizons than one might
expect, and possibly more bounded than they have been historically (Miller, 2008).
One example may illustrate the point, even if it is hardly conclusive proof. Take the
relatively recent paper by Christensen et al. (2008), which explores new public
management reforms in Norway. The authors are from Departments of Political
Science and Adminstration, and Organization Theory, and are prolific publishers on
the subject of new public management (e.g. see Christensen and Lægrid, 2001, 2007,
2011). However, in their 2008 paper, published in Financial Accountability
& Management, they do not make a single reference to a paper on new public
management published in an accounting journal, nor to a book on the subject written
by accounting academics, even though their basic theme as to why Norway has been a
AAAJ
25,2
306
relatively slow adopter to new public management has been covered in the accounting
literature (e.g. see Pettersen, 2001; Mellemvik and Pettersen, 1998)[4]. Similarly, and
somewhat paradoxically, in a very recent background briefing paper to the World
Bank reviewing 30 years of public management reforms, Christopher Pollitt (2011),
whose work is widely cited in the academic accounting literature, makes only one
reference to papers authored by other people in accounting journals (namely, Newberry
and Pallot, 2005). Interestingly, although citing work by Christopher Hood, another
leading researcher in the field of public management, Pollitt makes no reference in his
30 year review to Hood’s (1995) paper on new public management. Published in
Accounting, Organizations and Society, this paper is one of the most widely cited
articles on new public management among accounting researchers working in this
area[5].
There are of course exceptions with regard to the interdisciplinary appeal of
accounting research. Michael Power’s superb diagnosis of the nature and spread of the
audit society (Power, 1994, 1997) has certainly travelled across a wide variety of
disciplines. The work of the social anthropologist Marilyn Strathern (2000) is just one
indicator of its recognition. Likewise, Peter Miller’s work with Nikolas Rose (Miller and
Rose, 2008, p. 5) has accorded histories of accounting and management – including
what has come to be called New Public Management – a significance that extends far
beyond the discipline of accounting. Focusing on “varied and often lowly forms of
expertise”, including instruments as diverse as standard costing in accounting and
mental measurement in psychology, Miller and Rose have explored issues at the
margins of various disciplines, well away from grand theories of world systems,
modernization and globalisation and so forth. By attending to the minor figures in
history, and the aspirations foisted on them, they have shown that governing or ruling
takes place through a multiplicity of interactions with numerous authorities that, in
turn, make their authority operable through a plethora of instruments and
interventions. Accounting is just one set of such instruments, but it is one that has
been pivotal in the attempts to reshape the nature and provision of public services and
modes of governing in liberal societies across the past two decades and more.
These, however, are rare exceptions. Given the centrality of accounting ideas and
instruments to new public management reforms, one might have expected, for
instance, greater engagement by political scientists and scholars of public
administration with the accounting literature, in view of their historical attention to
the topics of budgeting, and to a lesser extent auditing and transparency (Wildavsky,
1964, 1975; Heclo and Wildavsky, 1974; Pollitt and Summa, 1997; Pollittet al., 1999;
Hood and Heald, 2006). Gray and Jenkins (1995) stands as a relatively isolated example
of such interchange in the journal,Public Administration. They put the point forcibly
that accounting reforms are integral to new public management, that notions of
accountable management, financial management, performance assessment,
“entrepreneurial” budgeting, local financial management (of Schools) and
fundholding (for GPs) are accounting issues at the core, and have been addressed
extensively in a range of new journals such asFinancial Accountability & Management,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability JournalandPublic Finance. Yet, despite the
importance of the accounting aspects of new public management, and notwithstanding
the increasing attention being paid to accounting issues in journals such as Public
Management Reviewand Public Money & Management, public administration
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
307
researchers have generally demonstrated little appetite for engaging with accounting
researchers on the accounting aspects of new public management[6].
We note this lacuna in the mainstream public administration literature not as a
gripe. In any event, this partitioning of academic literatures is a common phenomenon,
and is not confined to public administration. One sees it even in the somewhat separate
trajectory and citations of the relatively new social studies of finance, when
set alongside the equivalent and prior social studies of accounting. Our point, rather, is
substantive and relates primarily to the demands of the subject[7]. Public sector
accounting practices, as Gray and Jenkins emphasised, are of cross-disciplinary
significance. New public management is a mix of both ideas and instruments, an
assemblage of practices that range from the very local to the most general and abstract.
The “everyday doings of practitioners” (Kurunma¨ki and Miller, 2011a) can, we argue,
only be fully understood if one analyses them both in terms of the micro-practices that
practitioners and others design and deploy, and the highly general ideas they seek to
make operable. And we see this process as one that is highly fluid, rather than static.
Whether it is a matter of seeking to make accrual accounting operable in a wide variety
of national contexts, encouraging the use of “personal care budgets” for the elderly, or
designing and redesigning “failure regimes” for public services, it is essential to
capture the interplay between the local and the non-local, as well as between the
domain of instruments and the domain of ideas which in turn can be both local and
non-local. For it is through such exchanges that the previously incalculable is made
calculable. And it is through such a process that the attempt to responsibilise ever
increasing aspects of social life is enacted.
Programming, performativity and new public management
Our own writings, and those of others (e.g. Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000; McLaughlin
et al., 2002), suggest that the ideas and instruments of phenomena such as new public
management are likely to transform the actors, actions and entities they target. Even if
the transformation in question is only partial, and if there is always likely to be a gap
between the imaginary world of the reformers and that of those who are expected to
make it real, it would be curious if things remained wholly unchanged after a couple of
decades of so-called new public management reform. As noted at the outset, we need of
course to be mindful of the mediated nature of “impact”, and that change can come
about through major reforms and restructurings, but it can also come about through
subtle alterations in vocabularies and terminology, as well as through a myriad of
minor changes to the instruments and interventions through which people are
managed and monitored (Pollitt, 2002). Assessment procedures, the linking of these to
diagnostic tools, the linking of these in turn to budgetary constraints and cost
apportionment models are just some of the devices through which the management of
public services can be rethought and restructured. Many of these changes are visible
only at the level of the “everyday doings of practitioners”, and those closest to them,
rather than at the grander level of ideas and ideologies. These go hand in hand with a
more public dimension, in the form of various league tables or rankings, the external
reporting of costs, of performance, of risk ratings and so forth.
Taken together, this assemblage of visible and less visible devices for monitoring
and managing the varied and multiple domains of public services has created a world
that is fundamentally different from that which prevailed in the early 1980s. However,
AAAJ
25,2
308
the current onslaught on all forms of public services that has developed in the wake of
the recent global financial crisis, and in the context of the resultant cuts in public
expenditure, might make some think that nothing has changed since the early 1980s.
While this is clearly not the case, it continues to be appropriate to ask questions about
the impact of the reforms that have occurred under the banner of new public
management, even if such impact differs significantly from that envisaged by the
reformers.
Ironically, one of the most striking things to stand out, when such a question is
posed of new public management reforms, is the notion of, and association with,
failure. Failure and the calculating of failure has, in the aftermath of the recent global
financial crisis, come to dominate public life and public services in ways that go far
beyond the crisis itself (Kurunma¨ki and Miller, 2011b). To the extent that public
services are designed increasingly according to the precepts of the market game, it
seems that the entities providing them now have to be allowed to fail according to the
same precepts. Education, healthcare, social care, prisons, and indeed virtually any
public service can now be spoken about and assessed in terms of the likelihood or the
actuality of failure. Even a body born in the midst of the new public management
reforms, such as the UK’s Audit Commission, and charged with independently
verifying the value-for-money provided by public services, has now been deemed, by
the new British coalition government, to have failed, albeit without the rigorous
investigations and assessments that the Audit Commission itself was required to
conduct.
A distinctive merit in looking back and reflecting on the impact of new public
management reforms is the realisation of just how persistent is the issue of failure.
Humphreyet al. (1993, pp. 23-24) emphasised the importance of examining the
“congenitally failing” nature of reforms carried out in the name of accountable
management, the constant discrepancy between what is sought and what is achieved.
This was a theme reiterated across all the other papers in the special issue. Cochrane
(1993), for instance, in addressing the issue of UK local government, spoke of
continuing confusions concerning public sector accountability, albeit without actually
using the term failure. Gray and Jenkins (1993) considered the impact of financial
management reforms on codes of accountability in the UK public sector, and envisaged
a host of problematic implications, including what they termed a “co-ordinative
vacuum” and a relative disintegration not only of strategic management but of
accountability itself. And Mayston (1993, p. 93), in studying the economics of
accountability in the new public sector, argued that it was important to note the “less
than perfect” experience with formal financial reporting and accounting mechanisms
in the private sector.
The continuing pertinence of such messages after almost two decades suggests that
we need to register more firmly the inherently failing nature of New Public
Management[8]. This is not a matter only of pointing to the more obvious and
everyday failings of the reforms at the level of operation and implementation,
highlighted most recently by the inability of new public management systems to
prevent burgeoning public sector deficits. It is also, as Rose and Miller (1992) pointed
out, a matter of viewing new public management as inherently a problematizing
activity, one that poses the obligations of governing in terms of the problems it seeks to
address. For the ideas of new public management have been formed around the failings
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
309
it is called on to rectify, the ills it is supposed to cure. Accordingly, we are told what is
needed to be done to rectify “failing” financial or risk management processes, and the
new tools and techniques that can deliver improvements in levels of service quality.
But it is almost always a matter of struggling to overcome management failings and
secure such improvements. Much is promised in the name of efficiency and
effectiveness, but invariably it is difficult to demonstrate such improvements. Likewise
with transparency, which is typically linked to appeals to enhancing performance and
accountability (see Hood and Heald, 2006). And we have even got so used to the term
failure that policy makers are formally resorting to the establishment of so-called
“failure regimes”, modelled on private sector insolvency models, to deal with the
failings or anticipated failures of institutions such as NHS foundation trusts (see
Kurunma¨ki and Miller, 2011b)!
If the appeal to failure, and to the design of failure regimes, appears so prominent
again today, that is because the questioning of the public sector is once again being
articulated in abstract programmatic terms, in terms of general political ideals rather
than in terms of the operational demands of healthcare, education, punishment or
whatever. This entails a range of attempts to make the world of public services
resemble the dreams of the reformers, regardless of their substantive content, who, in
turn, appeal to the instruments and interventions of accounting as one of the principal
ways of making operable the proposed solution. If, or when, deficiencies or unintended
consequences are noted, then these are still typically viewed as teething problems or
matters to be ironed out subsequently, rather than fundamental or intrinsic flaws.
There is a difference, however, when compared to the 1990s. The scope for alternative
forms of behaviour and action appears to have narrowed, not least because of the
global spread of the ideas of new public management, and the ways in which
international thought leadership in this area is dominated by small, tightly knit,
inter-connected knowledge communities (see Chow et al., 2010).
This leads into the second main issue which is the continuing importance of
knowing more about what is done in the name of new public management. The
importance of assessing impact has been emphasised in the new public management
literature (e.g. see Pollitt, 1995, 2011; McLaughlin et al., 2002) but it was a very strong
theme across all the papers in the special issue, not least because practical experience
with “accountable management” systems seldom tallied with what had been claimed.
Fowles (1993, p. 106), for example, writing from a social policy perspective,
acknowledged that some pathways of accountability had been downwards in
accordance with a government rhetoric of involving the consumers of services, but
ended up concluding that the most striking outcome of two decades of change was the
strengthening of the flow of accountability in the other direction. Ezzamel and
Willmott (1993, p. 127) also highlighted the limits of reforms premised on notions or
logics of formal rationality and their questionable disregard for the substantive needs
of either the provider or the consumer of public goods and services. Mackintosh (1993,
p. 153) drew on the example of community nursing, to demonstrate that there were
strong reasons for supporting moves to more locally integrated management systems
– which placed an emphasis on provider involvement, the sustaining of staff
motivation and trust, local integration of services and experimenting with ways of
involving clients at the local level. She emphasised that private sector commentators
had recently highlighted how private sector organizations had been transformed by
AAAJ
25,2
310
“focusing on the morale of the providers rather than by concentrating on measuring
outcomes”. Despite the strength of the theoretical arguments behind such ideas,
however, she expressed concern at the likelihood in the public sector of an “excluded
discourse” – with those proposing collaboration always running the risk of being
portrayed as “soft-hearted and illogical” (Mackintosh, 1993, p. 153). Laughlinet al.’s
(1993, p. 80) analysis of the Local Management in Schools (LMS) initiative concluded
that, despite its apparent promise, it was not proving to be a great liberating force. It
was sucking more teachers into administrative roles, and pushing the headteacher
further from educational issues as the administrative hierarchy grows. Rea (1993, p.
108) identified similar themes in his analysis of resource management in the NHS.
Despite all the rhetoric promoting the valuable solutions offered by resource
management, he concluded from his fieldwork that it was the very ineffectiveness of
resource management that made it most attractive to a centralist government.
Over the years, discussions regarding the relative impact and reach of new public
management have stimulated a fairly wide-ranging set of debates as to whether it has
been suitably evaluated and defined, and whether it is better viewed as a specific set of
ideas and practices or a movement with a certain spirit but a shifting technical toolkit
(see Pollitt, 1995, 2002, 2011; Gow and Dufour, 2000). Likewise, there have been a
variety of claims that new public management has either seen its better (or at least
most influential) days, that it is at best a tired if not moribund notion, and that it has
been replaced by newer, more networked approaches to government and public
administration including “New public governance” (Osborne, 2006, 2010), “Digital era
governance” (Dunleavyet al., 2005) or “Public value management” (Stoker, 2006).
Others have reasserted the continuing significance of new public management, or the
limitations of claims that it represents a distinctive and new stage or approach to
public management and the importance of discarding “one-best-way thinking” with
respect to the search for management solutions (see Alford and Hughes, 2008; Savoie,
1995; Lapsley, 2008, 2009; Hood and Peters, 2004; Pollitt, 2007; Greve, 2010;). Hughes
(2008), while critical of the term new public management, additionally claimed that its
critics often have little practical managerial experience. In light of the lengthy
engagement that we have both had with processes of public management, we turn
briefly to consider what such personal experiences reveal in terms of the impact and
understanding of new public management.
Engaging personally with new public management
One does not have to look too far to find regular urgings for more to be done in terms of
learning and communicating about the ways in which public sector accounting
systems, together with other forms of quantification and assessment, are being used by
public sector “accountants”, and the nature of their interactions with management and
other groups (see Goddard, 2010; van Helden, 2005). There is also real scope for more
studies that not only focus on what is being done (and not done) in the name of new
public management, but also seek to explain the residing endurance and resilience of
such reforms and reforming commitments. This can be about developing further our
understanding of the organisational interactions and battles or skirmishes that take
place as accountants, accounting systems, and other related forms of management
information engage with the day-to-day realities of contemporary public service
delivery and management. It can also be about explaining why the messages and
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
311
lessons of the past seem to have a residing significance, and the degree to which any
lessons are being learned from the past.
Our personal experiences, both as researchers and managers, confirm that
remarkably little is known about the ways in which accounting systems and
accountants impact on and interact with other management processes, and on the
operational activity and organisational strategies of those delivering public services,
particularly in an era of substantial cuts and cost savings. Unrealistic expectations
concerning accounting systems, combined with claims that some reporting systems
are “unfathomable”, suggest that the accounting reforms that have accompanied new
public management may have operated in a far from uniform or linear manner. In so
far as new public management is about the ideas and instruments of (largely private
sector) accounting travelling across the public sector, we need to bear in mind that the
travelling has often been at very different speeds and to widely differing extents, not
just internationally but even within specific national settings or individual public
sector organisations (for more discussion, see Carnegie and Napier, 1996, 2002; Gomes
et al., 2008). At times, and in certain contexts, there is an avalanche of accounting
numbers and other forms of quantification. At other times, in other places, and at
different organisational levels, one can be operating in the complete absence of
accounting numbers, or at least in the absence of those accounting numbers that one
would typically expect to find from reforms claiming to mimic “modern” accounting
practices of the private sector. The impact of reforms can depend on a wide variety of
factors, including the way in which they are promoted, adopted and resisted (see
Humphreyet al., 1993; Humphrey, 1994; Broadbent and Laughlin, 1998), their intended
and/or perceived uses and the institutional support behind them (see Chowet al., 2007).
The overall university academic environment, of course, is one in which educational
ratings and rankings have come to assume ever greater significance, and for a wide
range of activities. But this often does not translate into accurate and robust financial
information that can be used as a way of making intelligent decisions at the level of
sub-units (something that also occurs often in the private sector also). This is
unsurprising, in so far as universities still do not even have accurate figures for
estimating the full cost of different categories of student. But it does at the least raise
questions about the extent to which new public management has permeated all levels
of the hierarchy, something which is reinforced further by the number of heads of
department that we know who will admit to keeping their own parallel “black book”
accounting records, since these are often felt to be more informative and reliable than
those produced centrally.
Overhead allocations provide one illustration, in so far as these still tend to be
volume-based rather than activity-based. This can have the perverse yet predictable
effect that large and efficient programmes or departments are penalised for being
increasingly efficient, highlighting the not uncommon issue of cross-subsidisation in
public services (Kurunma¨kiet al., 2003). Another illustration relates to when one of us
sat on a university finance committee, a personal experience revealing that the primary
aim of this particular university’s accounting system was the maintenance of the
nominal ledger, rather than the provision of internal management accounting
information that could be used intelligently at the level of the Department or Faculty.
In another instance, this absence of appropriate information proved to be particularly
significant in relation to the maintenance, management and accessibility of
AAAJ
25,2
312
departmental reserves. Earning surpluses had little associated economic rationale in
such a context, unless the University could be convinced to make those surpluses (and
the underlying cash reserves) available to fund sensible and approved strategic
development plans by the departments generating such surpluses. On occasions this
did prove possible, especially if one was working with an enlightened and influential
dean who could see the benefits of a balanced system that sought to maintain academic
quality standards in terms of service provision but combined this with appropriate
financial incentives for departments. It should be noted that these examples arise in
highly specific contexts and that the differing presence or absence (for instance) of
intermediate managerial layers (such as Faculties), or the process of turning
Departments into profit centres, can alter the dynamics of the interaction between
accounting information and other managerial processes – as can managerial attitudes
to a range of other metrics such as research rankings, journal impact measures,
demand levels for individual programmes, student satisfaction surveys, and much else
besides.
As departmental heads, we have at times been in positions where we have openly
appealed to the supposed ideas and instruments of new public management (whether
the specifically accounting aspects, or the more generalised quantification of academic
qualities). This was done for very defensible reasons, such as trying to ensure that that
those for which one was responsible, whether students, faculty or administrative staff,
were properly supported. None the less, it was a curious and ironic set of experiences,
not least because at times a number of our efforts and claims were rebutted by a central
management supposedly committed to the pursuit of such “contemporary” approaches
to public sector management. It also suggests that the “virtues” of the market can be
somehow absorbed by those who are managing, even when the financial and other
information that would enable intelligent dialogue at the level of sub-units is absent
(for further reflections on such dilemmas in relation to a culture of research monitoring,
see Gendron, 2008; Humphrey and Lukka, 2011).
Overall, our personal experiences highlight a number of significant issues related to
new public management. The first is that the instruments of new public management
are not invariant or absolute, and they are developing at very different speeds in
different settings. As with other devices for acting on the actions of individuals, they
are not intrinsically good or bad, inherently liberating or constraining. The way they
operate when put to work depends on how they are put to work, and how they are
linked up to other modes of judgment and intervention. Second, it is important not to be
overly prescriptive as to what comprises and is represented by new public
management. This means, at one level, that its nature and impact depends very much
on the way in which associated systems are constructed and managed. They can be
individualising and intrusive, but they can also at times, and no doubt with effort, be
made to work in a positive and productive manner. Impact very much depends on the
role and approach of those charged with the task of management. Rather than a
definitive set of techniques and measures, new public management should be studied
in relation to what is practised and pursued under the name of public management in a
specific setting. It is not a set of practices and traditions that can be routinely and
uniformly described as centralising or decentralising – but something that comes to be
defined through its operationalisation. This emphasises the importance of further
analyses of the ways in which it is applied in practice and the dimensions that practice
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
313
serves to emphasise – and the way such balances, priorities, styles and patterns
change over time.
As such, in response to the above questioning as to whether the UK public sector
has really been transformed by new public management, it is possible to argue that
only certain elements or forms of new public management have been implemented.
Promises of financial delegation do not always materialise, notwithstanding political
devolution and the decentralisation of public service provision in areas such as health
care and higher education, while the criticisms of public sector bureaucracy and
inefficiency have often served to create an even more onerous and intrusive form of
bureaucracy, which at times can further consolidate power at the centre. Not only have
certain dimensions of new public management failed to reach the front-line of service
delivery, but, arguably, they have been discouraged or even disallowed in some
circumstances, whether through an unwillingness to relinquish central control, or
through a lack of confidence in the capacity of delegated financial management
systems to actually deliver enhanced public services.
These are just some of the issues that have arisen for us as we have come to terms
personally with new public management in the context of departmental management
within quite different organisational contexts. Perhaps one of the clearest lessons to
arise is that new public management, when it is put to work, and regardless of how
vigorously it is operationalised, is subject to a wide range of competing imperatives
and incentives. New public management is not a unitary and invariant phenomenon,
and it needs to be understood in terms of the “everyday doings” of those who end up
being required to put it to work. It is a “negotiated” phenomenon, even when the basic
parameters and processes are imposed by fiat, and we need to know much more about
how that process of negotiation operates in the wide range of settings in which it is
being attempted.
Conclusions and thinking ahead: parameters and coordinates
Our concern in this paper so far has primarily been retrospective, to reflect on the
impact of a special issue and some of the developments that have occurred in the past
decade or so in public sector accounting research. We turn now to some more
prospective reflections and conclusions on the ways in which responsibilities have
come to be redefined in the intervening years, and to consider some of the coordinates
that may usefully animate future research in the area.
The first and perhaps most important point to emphasise is that we need to rethink
the parameters of “public sector” accounting research. We need to avoid the
partitioning of accounting research into ever smaller and self-referential sub-areas. Put
differently, we need to dispel the perception that “public sector accounting research” is
a matter only for “public sector” specialists. Such a view does a disservice to those
scholars who have been working on issues pertaining to accounting and financial
management in public sector and public services, often for several decades. It is equally
unhelpful to scholars working in other areas, particularly those that are directly or
indirectly affected by developments in accounting for public services. The recent
banking and fiscal crisis, which has been translated into a crisis for public services, is
one instance of this spill-over. So, too, is the increasing attenuation of the boundaries
between the public and private sector, via sub-contracting relationships, public-private
partnerships, private finance initiatives, and so forth. There is also the matter of
AAAJ
25,2
314
examining how and to what extent accounting instruments transfer from the private to
the public sector, something that should be of interest to a wide range of scholars,
whether from accounting, management, public policy, sociology, political science, or
indeed a range of other adjacent disciplines.
For, in a matter of just a few years, we have seen yet another rethinking of the
meaning and role of the state, the importance of which extends far beyond “public
sector” accounting research. Initially, of course, there was a blame game as the scale of
the financial crisis became apparent, and that is still ongoing. Finance experts,
financial economists, financial modellers, regulators, risk managers, remuneration and
governance structures, financial accounting, international financial reporting
standards and so on were all ushered into the blame arena – ironically, the very
expertises, systems and practices that the promoters of new public management had
said to be sadly lacking in the public sector. Much cherished notions of the market and
market efficiency came to be deservedly tainted, in so far as they were held responsible
for the crisis. Miller (2009) spoke of a potential new turn in the theory of the state, as
even the hitherto dirty word “nationalisation” was initially appealed to proudly, as
something sitting comfortably alongside words such as responsibility, security and
society. But that was only a temporary phenomenon, and one that quickly evaporated
once it became clear that someone other than those who caused the mess had to pay for
it. The reality of having to pay for bail-outs of individual institutions and even entire
nations, and on a scale hitherto not even imagined, led to a further rethinking of risk,
regulation and the state. With disturbing haste, and to an extent that has surprised
even the most cynical, this has resulted in a re-establishing of the primacy of markets
and a market imperative, combined with a vilification of the state and public services.
To address such shifts in the theory and practice of statecraft, however, is
challenging to say the least. It requires that researchers understand and analyse the
transnational communities of “experts” that shape our ways of thinking about public
services and the ways in which they should be managed. Such analysis cannot be done
by partitioning “policy” research and researchers from “accounting”, and so on. It
requires a much wider set of skills that is often called interdisciplinary, although
typically this fails to capture the full extent of the skills needed. It requires also that
researchers be able to trace how and to what extent the imperatives of often abstract
policy debates intersect with operational obligations and the immediacy of service
delivery demands, particularly in a climate where we hear repeatedly that “front-line
services” will be protected. Put differently, researchers need the skills of the policy
analyst, together with those of the accountant and the ethnographer, which is often not
the case. This can of course be overcome to some extent by collaborative research.
Regardless of how it is achieved, however, the challenge is clear. With increasing
attention being paid to issues of global and financial governance, and with
ever-growing consideration being given to government budgets and deficit levels,
those researchers addressing issues concerning accounting and financial management
in the public sector are firmly at the centre of contemporary debates concerning the role
and accountability of the state. They are no longer working in a circumscribed area
termed “public sector accounting”, if indeed they ever were.
Second, we need to consider more carefully the impact, outreach and public policy
contributions of public sector accounting research papers (for a wide-ranging review,
see van Helden and Northcott, 2010). No doubt there are a variety of ways in which
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
315
public sector accounting researchers could highlight better the practical relevance of
their work, including writing in different ways and in different outlets, and for the
academic community as a whole to assign great value to the academic-practitioner
nexus. Regardless of the outlets chosen though, we need to make much more of the vast
range of public sector accounting research that has been undertaken and its
implications for public policy. For instance, Sir David Tweedie, the outgoing chair of
the IASB, has referred to a very critical and challenging ICAS monograph on public
private partnerships and accounting for roads (see Shaoulet al., 2008) as one of the best
academic pieces that he has ever read. Accounting researchers have been highly
influential in the workings of parliamentary committees and in both shaping and
critiquing national and international public sector accounting policy and practice
development (see Ellwood and Newberry, 2007; Newberry and Guthrie, 2006).
Researchers face considerable challenges in demonstrating the implications of their
findings for policy, particularly when their essential message is that the reforms are
fundamentally flawed. Where that is shown to be the case, academics have a
responsibility to say so, even if the pressure is in the other direction, to suggest
marginal improvements to initiatives that are often inherently misguided (see
Humphrey, 2005). Many have addressed such issues, in addition to those already
mentioned. For instance, on the matter of applying accrual accounting in public
libraries and museums, it is worth consulting the work of Carnegie and West (2005)
and West and Carnegie (2010). For those interested in the flaws in implementing
resource accounting in Universities, the work of Mellett (2002) is highly instructive.
Meanwhile, if your concern is with the success, or otherwise, of railway and other
privatisations, the work of Jupe (2009a, b) and Funnellet al.(2009) has much to offer.
These are of course just some examples, and there are no doubt many others we could
mention. The key point is that there is now a substantial body of work that has
examined the appropriateness and unintended consequences of many of the reforms
that go under the label of new public management. Even in cases where the reforms
have some inherent merit or plausibility at the level of policy or the abstract ideals in
terms of which they are articulated, the imperative is to understand what happens
when they are put to work. On this, accounting researchers have had, and still have,
much to contribute.
The third issue we wish to highlight is the importance of cross-national or
comparative studies. Our special issue focused primarily on financial management
reforms in the UK, and it is now very evident that this phenomenon is international in
nature. It is important to know what is happening in individual countries of course, and
we are not suggesting at all that studies conducted in only one country are of little
value. But we do need to pay increasing attention to the commonalities and the
contrasts across countries. We need to know how the ideas and instruments of
accounting and financial management travel internationally, and we need to know
through what channels and conduits they do so. We need to build further on the work
of those who have emphasised the importance of transnational knowledge
communities, considering how such networks form and how they seek to
standardise financial management (see Laughlin and Pallot, 1998; Carnegie and
Napier, 2002). Developing empirical work is addressing such issues in the context of
new public management reforms, exploring their roles and influence and noting the
often relatively small number of key actors in networks that have formed, for instance,
AAAJ
25,2
316
among national Treasury departments, accounting firms, and international standard
setting or regulatory bodies (for example, see Christensen and Skaerbaek, 2010; Chow
et al., 2010; Christensen et al., 2011). And, as Goddard (2010) has emphasised, we need
to know much more about how accounting and financial management reforms are
working in developing countries, where issues of audit and governance may play
different roles than in developed nations.
We need to know also which practices travel less well, and remain confined within
individual national boundaries. That is to say, some ideas and practices travel “light”,
whereas others travel less easily. Standard costing is an instance of the former, as
witnessed by its deployment in both the Soviet Union and the USA in the early
decades of the twentieth century, and its current deployment in healthcare in many
countries. Ratio analysis appears similarly able to travel light, as does audit, both
being deployed extensively in both the corporate world and the regulation of public
services. Accrual accounting, another practice still in the process of being
operationalised for public services in some countries, seems to travel with much
greater baggage, with the result that its insertion into “local” national settings creates
many tensions and points of friction (Lapsleyet al., 2009; Miller, forthcoming). This
suggests that we need to know much more about how and under what circumstances
the calculating instruments of accounting can be mobilised and put to work in
different national contexts.
The fourth and final dimension we would like to emphasise with a view to future
research in this area is the importance of history and historical analyses. This is not a
matter of appealing to esoteric or antiquarian concerns, as the “new” accounting
history has so firmly demonstrated (Hopperet al., 1991). It is more a matter of seeking
to understand the conditions of possibility of a transformation in ways of governing
economic and social life that has been taking place over the past two decades and more,
and that is in the process of being transformed further. As Pollitt (2008), has argued, we
need to attend to the importance of reinstating an understanding of the past as well as
the present of all those processes and institutions that make up what is today called the
public sector. Whether it is a matter of healthcare, social care, schooling, higher
education, policing, socially legitimated modes of confinement or whatever, apparently
localised events are part and parcel of much more far-reaching shifts in ways of
seeking to refashion the type and contours of the social relations we inhabit.
The relevance of historical studies of such changes is that they can help us understand
how and where the “solutions” currently being proffered emerged, and in the process
can dispel much of their apparent self-evidence and diminish their
taken-for-grantedness.
This is not a matter of expecting historical analyses to tell us what to do in any
specific instance. But, in depriving existing practices of their self-evidence and
immutability, we can perhaps be better placed to pose relevant questions about their
appropriateness. To this extent, historical studies of accounting and financial
management practices in varied public sector and public service contexts can help
locate them within broader shifts in the management of the economic and social
relations within which they are embedded. This is of particular relevance at a time
when the discipline of accounting is being called on to reaffirm its legitimacy and to
play a core role in the reshaping of so many areas of social life. This is in contrast to the
rather prevalent meretricious writing on such matters that promises a bright and
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
317
efficient future, shorn of all the trappings of bureaucracy and other outmoded ways of
organising and delivering services. It is in contrast also to the various reviews of public
sector accounting research that seek to analyse contributions by classifying
methodologies and theories (e.g. Goddard, 2010; van Helden, 2005; van Helden and
Northcott, 2010). While such categorising may have value when structuring a literature
review, it can encourage and reinforce the very compartmentalisation of research that
we have suggested has tended to constrain and partition pertinent accounting research
from other social sciences. We need not only to enhance the exchanges between
accounting researchers and other social sciences. We need also to maintain and
enhance the exchanges among researchers within the accounting community, rather
than territorialise research according to methodological preferences.
To borrow a term that had such resonance for Anthony Hopwood, we need to retain
or reinstate curiosity at the heart of our concerns. In an inspiring and closing editorial
in Accounting, Organizations and Society, Hopwood (2009, p. 892) lamented the fact
that:
[A]ccounting research is no longer driven solely by curiosity (Hopwood, 2008a). Indeed as
numerous of my recent writings have pointed out (Hopwood, 2007, 2008b), the mainstream of
a great deal of accounting research is now the result of a complex set of institutional and
personal factors rather than any need for a new understanding. Initially varying by country,
international influences and pressures are now creating a much more conservative context for
the conduct of accounting inquiry.
Put differently, by focusing on “how” type questions, and by exploring the emergence of
the ideas and instruments that are called on to refashion public services and public life,
we have a real chance of disturbing the apparent self-evidence that often attaches to
things after the event. We should be able to discern the singularities of this phenomenon
that has come to be called new public management, which can be obscured if one is too
quick to “explain” it (Miller and Rose, 2008, pp. 6-7). We should be better equipped to
understand the multiplicity of expectations that are associated with it, and the
immensely varied and complex worlds of service delivery with which it comes into
contact. We should also be better placed to understand the personal dilemmas and
demands that are placed on us as academics and as (at times) managers, as
responsibilities come to be redefined in an era where curiosity and enquiry is
increasingly difficult to appeal to. For we are no more “outside” these processes than the
medics, social workers, police officers, school teachers and so on that we study. It might
even be that, as accounting academics, we are better placed to analyse what is happening
than those who are more distant from the phenomenon, and possibly unfamiliar with the
recurring attempts over several decades to remake the world so that it fits the accounting
for it, a process that is not unique to the public sector. In this respect, it is worth
remembering that in the title of our 1993 special issue, “new” was written in inverted
commas, when referring to notions of a “new” public sector or a “new” public
management. Nowadays, “new” tends not to be written this way, even if it is even less
“new” than it was in 1993. We need to be attentive to this recycling of practices and
principles, particularly when they are already mature, to say the least, before being
applied in the public sector.
We noted in the conclusion to our 1993 paper how John Roberts (1991, p. 367) had
spoken of the need to “recover accountability from the exclusive and apparently
mesmeric grip of accounting”. More recently, both he (Roberts, 2009) and Martin
AAAJ
25,2
318
Messner (2009) called for greater recognition to be given to the limits of accountability
and the need to develop more intelligent forms of accountability that explicitly recognise
that we cannot measure and remember everything. There is much to be said for such
scepticism and recognition of the limits of accounting. But, rather than see the issue as
one of more or less accounting, perhaps it would be better to ask how can we develop
more “intelligent” information for senior (and often not so senior) managers, whether
based on conventional accounting information or a much wider set of information?
Until such development happens, we are destined to live (at least within a university
context) within a world of rankings and performance assessment that aspires to a
quantification of quality, while indirectly encouraging careerism and the erosion of
collegiality and genuine innovation. Regardless of our personal preferences concerning
such developments, a key responsibility is how we engage personally and
professionally with such a state of affairs. As mentors to non-professorial faculty,
we have to simultaneously advise and assess. And we have to do so in such a way that
we neither damage the careers of those who we have responsibility for, nor expunge
the curiosity that is so essential to academic life. Anthony Hopwood used to enjoy
recounting the tale of the (now seminal) paper by Ball and Brown, and how it was
initially rejected by The Accounting Reviewon the grounds that it was not an
accounting paper. Although it was published subsequently in the Journal of
Accounting Research, it is worth recalling that, at that time, this was a relatively new
journal, only being in its sixth year of publication (andAccounting, Organizations and
Societydid not yet exist). This is just one indication of the fundamental importance in
academic life of innovation, particularly when new research agendas or paradigms are
being formed. Whether we are at such a stage now, or at what point we arrive at such a
stage in the future, will be for others to judge subsequently. One thing is clear,
however, we are at a decisive juncture in the transformation of the state and its
relations of accountability, and accounting has rarely had such a prominent role to play
in public life. This is both a tremendous opportunity, and also a challenge for
accounting researchers. We very much hope that they will rise to the challenge,
whether as “public sector” specialists, or simply as responsible social science scholars
and stakeholders in a fascinating academic arena and field of inquiry and practice.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and
guidance, and also to Garry Carnegie as editor for detailed comments and
encouragement in the development of the paper. The initiative and expertise of
Simon Linacre and Caroline Gowan at Emerald in constructing the citation data for the
special issue is greatly appreciated. Participants at a seminar, organised by Albrecht
Becker and Martin Messner, at the Innsbruck University School of Management
provided very helpful comments on an early version of the paper. Indirectly, thanks are
due also to the original contributors to the special issue, as well as those with whom the
authors have worked, co-authored, and co-organised workshops over the past two
decades. Particular thanks here go to James Guthrie, Irvine Lapsley, Olov Olson, Nik
Rose and Bob Scapens. Finally at a time when the input of authors to papers is
increasingly quantified for various assessment purposes, it is important to remember
the input and support provided by other, unnamed, colleagues, that is almost
impossible to quantify but of such value.
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
319
Notes
1. Funding was provided by the University of Manchester, the London School of Economics
and Political Science and the Suntory-Toyota International Centre for Economics and
Related Disciplines. The focus of the workshops was on the “changing patterns of
organization and control that have emerged in the UK public sector over the last decade or so
in association with concepts such as efficiency, value-for-money, financial responsibility and
accountability. A particular intention of the workshops was to provide a forum through
which academics from a variety of disciplines could discuss the nature, impact and
implications of these changes. The workshops were initially structured on a disciplinary
basis, with papers examining changes from the differing perspectives of accounting,
economics, government and politics, social policy and sociology. Subsequently, applications
in particular areas of the public sector, including Health, Education, Social Services, the Civil
Service and Criminal Justice were considered” (Humphreyet al., 1993a, p. 5). The dedicated
special issue comprised nine of the papers presented at the workshops, with the papers being
selected and arranged to reflect the different perspectives and applications considered
during the workshops.
2. The collection of the citation data was undertaken in October 2010.
3. A 1999 special issue on Accounting and the New Public Management in Financial
Accountability & Managementextending over two issues of the journal (Vol. 15 Nos. 3&4)
included a joint paper reflecting on the key findings and implications of the afore mentioned
SCORE research project (Guthrieet al., 1999) and seven citations to papers in the special
issue (the majority of which were to the introductory paper).
4. Christensen and Lægrid’s edited books on new public management (see, for example,
Christensen and Lægrid, 2007, 2011), building on their initial work in this area (Christensen
and Lægrid, 2001) do not contain a single chapter written by an accounting academic.
5. It is worth noting that an initial version of Hood’s (1995) paper was presented at the first of
our interdisciplinary workshops, entitled “Changing Notions of accountability in the UK
public sector” and held at the LSE in December 1991. By the time we had secured approval
for the special issue of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, however, Hood had
already submitted his paper to Accounting, Organizations and Society.
6. Two rare examples of papers by accounting academics in Public Administration are Conrad
and Sherer, 2001 and Torres and Pina, 2004).
7. That said, attention will need to be paid to the disciplinary impact of a growing emphasis on,
and utilisation of, citation lists and data. For example, a recent paper (Marsilioet al., 2011) in
Public Management Reviewexplored the intellectual structure of research across different
disciplines on public private partnerships, (PPP) using as its basis research and citations of
PPP papers published in journals included in the Social Science Citations Index (SSCI). The
article did not cite a single paper authored by an accounting academic. This may reflect the
limited number of accounting journals included in the SSCI, although the journal Public
Money & Management(edited by Andrew Gray and Jane Broadbent) was listed as the
journal with the joint-second most papers on PPPs. In contrast, a 2010 international
handbook on PPP’s (see Hodgeet al., 2010) edited by scholars from law, politics and business
administration, included two chapters by leading accounting scholars in this field (David
Heald and George Georgiou and Jean Shaoul).
8. One might also characterise it as fundamentally experimental, albeit an experiment largely
devoid of evidence or systematic assessment (Humphrey, 2005b, p.483).
AAAJ
25,2
320
References
Alford, J. and Hughes, O. (2008), “Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public
management”,The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 130-48.
Broadbent, J. and Guthrie, J. (1992), “Changes in the public sector: a review of recent ‘alternative’
accounting research”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 3-31.
Broadbent, J. and Guthrie, J. (2008), “Public sector to public services: 20 years of ‘contextual’
accounting research”, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 129-69.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (1998), “Resisting the ‘new public management’: absorption and
absorbing groups in schools and GP practices in the UK”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 403-35.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (1996), “Critical and interpretive histories: insights into
accounting’s present and future through its past”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 7-39.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (2002), “Exploring comparative international accounting history”,
Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 689-718.
Carnegie, G.D. and West, B.P. (2005), “Making accounting accountable in the public sector”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 905-28.
Chapman, C.S., Cooper, D.J. and Miller, P.B. (2009), “Linking accounting, organizations and
institutions”, in Chapman, C.S., Cooper, D.J. and Miller, P.B. (Eds), Accounting,
Organizations and Institutions: Essays in Honour of Anthony Hopwood, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Chow, D., Humphrey, C. and Moll, J. (2010), “Sustaining accounting technologies: the UK’s whole
of government accounting project”, working paper, University of Durham, October.
Chow, D.S.L., Humphrey, C. and Moll, J. (2007), “Developing whole of government accounting in
the UK: grand claims, practical complexities and a suggested future research agenda”,
Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 27-54.
Christensen, M., Newberry, S. and Potter, B.N. (2011), “The role of global epistemic communities
in enabling accounting change: creating a ‘more business-like’ public sector”, paper
presented to the Seventh International Critical Management Studies (CMS) conference,
Naples, 11-13 July.
Christensen, M.J. and Skaerbaek, P. (2010), “Consultancy outputs and the purification of
accounting technologies”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 524-45.
Christensen, T. and Lægrid, P. (Eds) (2001),New Public Management: The Transformation of
Ideas and Practice, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Christensen, T. and Lægrid, P. (Eds) (2007), Transcending New Public Management:
The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Christensen, T. and Lægrid (Eds) (2011),The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public
Management, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Christensen, T., Lie, A. and Lægrid, P. (2008), “Beyond new public management: agencification
and regulatory reform in Norway”,Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 15-30.
Clarke, A. and Cochrane, A. (1989), “Inside the machine: the left and finance professionals in local
government”,Capital & Class, Vol. 37, pp. 36-61.
Cochrane, A. (1993), “From financial control to strategic management: the changing faces of
accountability in British central government”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 30-51.
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
321
Conrad, L. and Sherer, M. (2001), “Accountability and control in privatised industries: a case
study of British Gas”,Public Administration, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 511-32.
Djelic, M.-L. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2006),Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics
of Regulation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J. (2005), “New public management is dead –
long live digital-era governance”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 467-94.
Ellwood, S. and Newberry, S. (2007), “Public sector accrual accounting: institutionalising
neo-liberal principles”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 549-73.
Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H. (1993), “Corporate governance and financial accountability:
recent reforms in the UK public sector”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 109-32.
Fowles, A. (1993), “Changing notions of accountability: a social policy view”,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 97-108.
Funnell, W., Jupe, R. and Andrew, J. (2009),In Government We Trust: Market Failure and the
Delusions of Privatisation, Pluto Press, London.
Gamble, A. (1988),The Free Economy and the Strong State, Macmillan, London.
Gendron, Y. (2008), “Constituting the academic performer: the spectre of superficiality and
stagnation in academia”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 97-127.
Goddard, A. (2010), “Contemporary public sector accounting research – an international
comparison of journal papers”,British Accounting Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 153-69.
Gomes, D., Carnegie, G. and Lima Rodrigues, L. (2008), “Accounting change in central
government: the adoption of double entry bookkeeping at the Portugese Royal Treasury”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 1144-84.
Gow, J. and Dufour, C. (2000), “Is the new public management a paradigm? Does it matter?”,
International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 573-97.
Gray, A. and Jenkins, W.I. (1986), “Accountable management in British central government:
some reflections on the Financial Management Initiative”,Financial Accountability and
Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 171-86.
Gray, A. and Jenkins, B. (1993), “Codes of accountability in the new public sector”,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 75-99.
Gray, A. and Jenkins, B. (1995), “From public administration to public management: reassessing
a revolution”,Public Administration, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 511-32.
Greve, C. (2010), “Whatever happened to new public management”, paper presented at the Panel
on “New Public Management” at the Danish Political Science Association meeting, 4-5
November.
Groot, T. and Budding, T. (2008), “New public management’s current issues and future
prospects”,Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Guthrie, J., Olson, O. and Humphrey, C. (1999), ““Debating developments in new public
management: the limits of global theorising and some new ways forward”,Financial
Accountability & Management, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp. 209-28.
Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C., Jones, L. and Olson, O. (Eds) (2005),Debating Public Sector
Management and Financial Management Reforms: An International Study, Information
Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
AAAJ
25,2
322
Heclo, H. and Wildavsky, A. (1974),The Private Government of Public Money, Macmillan,
London.
Hodge, G.A., Greve, C. and Boardman, A.E. (2010), International Handbook on
Public-Private-Partnerships, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Hood, C. (1995), “The NPM in the 1980s: variations on a theme”,Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2/3, pp. 93-109.
Hood, C. and Heald, D. (Eds) (2006),Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?: Proceedings
of the British Academy, Vol. 135, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hood, C. and Peters, G. (2004), “The middle ageing of new public management: into the age of
paradox”,Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 267-82.
Hopper, T., Laughlin, R. and Miller, P. (1991), “The new accounting history: an introduction”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 395-403.
Hopwood, A. (1985), “Accounting and the domain of the public: some observations on current
developments”, The Price Waterhouse Public Lecture on Accounting, University of Leeds,
November.
Hopwood, A. (1987), “The archeology of accounting systems”,Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 207-34.
Hopwood, A.G. (1984), “Accounting and the pursuit of efficiency”, in Hopwood, A.G. and
Tomkins, C. (Eds),Issues in Public Sector Accounting, Philip Allen, Oxford, pp. 167-87.
Hopwood, A.G. (2007), “Whither accounting research?”,The Accounting Review, Vol. 82 No. 5,
pp. 1365-74.
Hopwood, A.G. (2008a), “Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an
age when curiosity is not enough”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 87-96.
Hopwood, A.G. (2008b), “Management accounting research in a changing world”,Journal of
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Hopwood, A.G. (2009), “Reflections and projections – and many many thanks”,Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 887-94.
Hughes, O. (2008), “What is, or was, new public management?”, paper presented to 12th Annual
Conference of the International Research Society for Public Management (IRSPM),
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 26-28 March.
Humphrey, C. (1994), “Reflecting on attempts to develop a financial management information
system in the Probation Service in England and Wales: some observations on the
relationships between the claims of accounting and its practice”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 147-78.
Humphrey, C. (2005), “The questionable nature of ‘third hand’ public sector accounting solutions:
a case for change?”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 341-51.
Humphrey, C. and Lukka, K. (2011), “(AC)Counting research: the value of a holistic
understanding”, in Cassell, C. and Lee, B. (Eds), Challenges and Controversies in
Management Research, Routledge, Abingdon.
Humphrey, C., Loft, A. and Woods, M. (2009), “The global audit profession and the international
financial architecture: understanding regulatory relationships at a time of financial crisis”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 Nos 6/7, pp. 810-25.
Humphrey, C., Miller, P. and Scapens, R. (1993), “Accountability and accountable management in
the UK public sector”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 7-29.
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
323
Jupe, R. (2009a), “A ‘fresh start’ or the ‘worst of all worlds’? A critical financial analysis of the
performance and regulation of Network Rail in Britain’s privatised railway system”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 175-204.
Jupe, R. (2009b), “New Labour, Network Rail and the third way”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 709-35.
Kurunma¨ki, L. and Miller, P. (2011a), “Regulatory hybrids: partnerships, budgeting and
modernising government”,Management Accounting Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 220-41.
Kurunma¨ki, L. and Miller, P. (2011b), “The failure of a failure regime: from insolvency to
de-authorisation for NHS Foundation Trusts”, CARR Discussion Paper, No. 67, Centre for
Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London, pp. 1-35.
Kurunma¨ki, L., Lapsley, I. and Melia, K. (2003), “Accountingization v. legitimation: a comparative
study of the use of accounting information in intensive care”,Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 112-39.
Lapsley, I. (2008), “The NPM agenda: back to the future”, Financial Accountability
& Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 77-96.
Lapsley, I. (2009), “New public management: cruellest invention of the human spirit?”,Abacus,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Lapsley, I., Mussari, R. and Paulsson, G. (2009), “On the adoption of accrual accounting in the
public sector: a self-evident and problematic reform”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 719-24.
Laughlin, R. and Pallot, J. (1998), “Trends, patterns and influencing factors: some reflections”,
in Olson, O., Guthrie, J. and Humphrey, C. (Eds), Global Warning: Debating International
Developments in New Public Financial Management, Cappelan Akademisk Forlag, Oslo.
Laughlin, R., Broadbent, J., Shearn, D. and Willig-Atherton, H. (1993), “Absorbing LMS:
the coping mechanism of a small group”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 59-85.
Loft, A., Humphrey, C. and Turley, S. (2006), “In pursuit of global regulation: changing
governance and accountability structures at the International Federation of Accountants
(IFAC)”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 428-51.
McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. and Ferlie, E. (Eds) (2002),The New Public Management: Current
Trends and Future Prospects, Routledge, London.
Mackintosh, M. (1993), “Economic behaviour and the contracting outcome under the NHS
reforms: theory and the example of community nursing”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 133-55.
Marsilio, M., Cappellaro, G. and Cuccurullo, C. (2011), “The intellectual structure of research into
PPPs”,Public Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 763-82.
Mayston, D. (1985), “Non-profit performance indicators in the public sector”,Financial
Accountability and Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-74.
Mayston, D. (1993), “Principals, agents and the economics of accountability in the new public
sector”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 68-96.
Mellemvik, F. and Pettersen, I.J. (1998), “Norway – a hesistant reformer”, in Olson, O., Guthrie, J.
and Humphrey, C. (Eds),Global Warning: Debating International Developments in New
Public Financial Management, Cappelan Akademisk Forlag, Oslo, pp. 185-218.
Mellett, H. (2002), “The consequences and causes of resource accounting”,Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 231-54.
Messner, M. (2009), “The limits of accountability”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34
No. 8, pp. 918-38.
AAAJ
25,2
324
Miller, P. (1996), “Dilemmas of accountability: the limits of accounting”, in Hirst, P. and Khilnani,
S. (Eds),Reinventing Democracy, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 57-69.
Miller, P. (2008), “Calculating economic life”,Journal of Cultural Economy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-64.
Miller, P. (2009), “When markets and models fail: rethinking risk, regulation and the state”,Risk
& Regulation, January, pp. 6-7, Financial Crisis Special.
Miller, P. (forthcoming), “Accounting for the calculating self”, in Thrift, N., Tickell, A. and
Woolgar, S. (Eds),Globalisation in Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Miller, P. and Rose, N. (1990a), “Governing economic life”,Economy and Society, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 1-31.
Miller, P. and Rose, N. (1990b), “Political rationalities and technologies of government”,
in Hanninen, S. and Palonen, K. (Eds), Texts, Contexts, Concepts: Studies in Politics and
Power in Language, Finnish Political Science Association, Helsinki, pp. 171-83.
Miller, P. and Rose, N. (1991), “Programming the poor: poverty, calculation and expertise”,
in Lehto, J. (Ed.), Deprivation, Social Welfare and Expertise, Research Reports 7, National
Agency for Welfare and Health, Finland, pp. 117-40.
Miller, P. and Rose, N. (2008),Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and
Personal Life, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Newberry, S. and Guthrie, J. (2006), “A tribute to June Pallot”, paper presented at the
4th International Conference on Accounting, Auditing and Management in Public Sector
Reforms, EIASM, Siena, Italy, 7-9 September.
Newberry, S. and Pallot, J. (2005), “A wolf in sheep’s clothing? Wider consequences of the
financial management system of the New Zealand central government”, Financial
Accountability and Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 263-77.
Olson, O., Guthrie, J. and Humphrey, C. (Eds) (1998),Global Warning: Debating International
Developments in New Public Financial Management, Cappelan Akademisk Forlag, Oslo.
Olson, O., Humphrey, C. and Guthrie, J. (2001), “Caught in an evaluatory trap: a dilemma for
public services under NPFM”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 505-22.
Osborne, S. (2006), “Editorial: the new public governance?”,Public Management Review, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 377-87.
Osborne, S. (Ed.) (2010),The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and
Practice Of Public Governance, Routledge, London.
Pettersen, I.J. (2001), “Hesitation and rapid action: the new public management reforms in the
Norwegian hospital sector”,Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 19-39.
Pollitt, C. (1995), “Justification by works or by faith? Evaluating the new public management”,
Evaluation, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 133-54.
Pollitt, C. (2002), “Clarifying convergence: striking similarities and durable differences in public
management reform”,Public Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 471-92.
Pollitt, C. (2007), “The new public management: an overview of its current status”,Administratie
si Management Public, August, pp. 110-5.
Pollitt, C. (2008),Time, Policy, Management: Governing with the Past, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Pollitt, C. (2011), “30 years of public management reforms: has there been a pattern?”,
background paper for the World Bank consultation exercise, available at: http://blogs.
worldbank.org/30-years-of-public-management-reforms-has-there-been-a-pattern
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000),Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
325
Pollitt, C. and Summa, H. (1997), “Reflexive watchdogs: how supreme audit institutions account
for themselves”,Public Administration, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 313-36.
Pollitt, C., Girre, X., Lonsdale, J., Mul, R., Summa, H. and Waerness, M. (1999),Performance or
Compliance? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Power, M. (1994),The Audit Explosion, Demos, London.
Power, M. (1997),The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rea, D. (1993), “Better informed judgements: resource management in the NHS”,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 86-110.
Roberts, J. (1991), “The possibilities of accountability”,Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 355-68.
Roberts, J. (2009), “No one is perfect: the limits of transparency and an ethic for intelligent
accountability”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 957-70.
Rose, N. and Miller, P. (1992), “Political power beyond the state: problematics of government”,
British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 173-205.
Savoie, D. (1995), “What is wrong with the new public management?”, Canadian Public
Administration, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 112-21.
Shaoul, J., Stafford, A., Stapleton, P. and MacDonald, P. (2008),Financial Black Holes: Accounting
for Privately Financed Roads in the UK, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
(ICAS), Edinburgh.
Stoker, G. (2006), “Public value management: a new narrative for networked governance?”,
American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 41-57.
Strathern, M. (Ed.) (2000),Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and
the Academy, Routledge, London.
ter Bogt, H., Budding, T., Groot, T. and van Helden, J. (2010), “Current NPM research: digging
deeper and looking further”,Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 242-5.
Torres, L. and Pina, V. (2004), “Reshaping public administration: the Spanish experience
compared to the UK”,Public Administration, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 445-64.
van Helden, J. (2005), “Researching public sector transformation: the role of management
accounting”,Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 99-133.
van Helden, J. and Northcott, D. (2010), “Examining the practical relevance of public sector
management accounting research”,Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 213-40.
West, B. and Carnegie, G. (2010), “Accounting’s chaotic margins: financial reporting of the
library collections of Australia’s public universities, 2002-2006”, Accounting Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-69.
Wildavsky, A. (1964),The Politics of the Budgetary Process, Little Brown, Boston, MA.
Wildavsky, A. (1975),Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes, Little Brown,
Boston, MA.
Further reading
Chow, D.S.L., Humphrey, C. and Miller, P. (2005), “Financial management in the UK public sector:
historical development, current issues and controversies”, in Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C.,
Jones, L. and Olson, O. (Eds),International Public Financial Management Reform: Progress,
Contradictions, and Challenges, Information Age Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 283-322.
AAAJ
25,2
326
Cothran, D.A. (1993), ““Entrepreneurial budgeting: an emerging reform”,Public Administration
Review, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 445-54.
Dunleavy, P. and Hood, C. (1994), “From old public administration to new public management”,
Public Money and Manugement, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 9-16.
Goodall, A.H. (2009),Socrates in the Boardroom: Why Research Universities Should be Led by Top
Scholars, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Gray, A., Jenkins, W.I. and Segsworth, R.V. (Eds) (1993),Budgeting, Auditing and Evaluation,
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.
Gray, A., Jenkins, W.I., Flynn, A.C. and Rutherford, B.A. (1991), “The management of change in
Whitehall: the experience of the FMI”,Public Administration, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 41-59.
Hood, C. (1991), “A public management for all seasons?”,Public Administration, Vol. 69 No. 1,
pp. 3-19.
Hopwood, A. and Tompkins, C. (Eds) (1984),Issues in Public Sector Accounting, Philip Allen,
London.
Jackson, P.M. (1982),The Political Economy of Bureaucracy, Philip Allen, Oxford.
Schick, A. (1990), “Budgeting for results: recent developments in five industrialized countries”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 26-34.
Corresponding author
Christopher Humphrey ican be contacted at: chris.humphrey@ mbs.ac.uk
Rethinking
impact and
responsibility
327
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Accounting’s past, present
and future: the unifying power
of history
Garry D. Carnegie
School of Accounting, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, and
Christopher J. Napier
School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK
Abstract
Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to revisit the special issue of Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journalpublished in 1996 on the theme “Accounting history into the twenty-first
century”, in order to identify and assess the impact of the special issue in shaping developments in the
accounting history literature, and to consider issues for future historical research in accounting.
Design/methodology/approach– A retrospective and prospective essay focusing on
developments in the historical accounting literature.
Findings– The special issue’s advocacy of critical and interpretive histories of accounting’s past has
influenced subsequent research, particularly within the various research themes identified in the issue.
The most significant aspect of this influence has been the engagement of increasing numbers of
accounting historians with theoretical perspectives and analytical frameworks.
Research limitations/implications– The present study examines the content and impact of a
single journal issue. It explores future research possibilities, which inevitably involves speculation.
Originality/value– In addressing recent developments in the literature through the lens of the
special issue, the paper emphasises the unifying power of history and offers ideas, insights and
reflections that may assist in stimulating originality in future studies of accounting’s past.
KeywordsJournals, Accounting, History, Accounting history, Critical and interpretive histories,
Archives, Research taxonomy, Research projects
Paper typeResearch paper
Introduction
In 1996, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal(AAAJ) published a special
issue under the title “Accounting history into the twenty-first century”. Our view of the
significance of historical accounting research is expressed in the Editorial that opened
the special issue (Napier and Carnegie, 1996, p. 4):
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 34th Annual Congress of the European
Accounting Association, Rome, April 2011, and at the Annual Conference of the Accounting and
Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, Darwin, July 2011, as well as at seminars
held at Universita` degli Studi “G. d’Annunzio”, Pescara, Universita` degli Studi di Perugia,
Universita`degli Studi di Verona, and University of South Australia. The authors are grateful for
the comments of participants at these presentations, and also to Jayne Bisman, Roberto Di Pietra,
Delfina Gomes, Jane Hronsky, Vassili Joannide`s, Laura Maran, Massimo Sargiacomo, Stephen
Walker, Brian West, Graeme Wines and two anonymous referees. The authors also thank Leona
Campitelli and Luca Ianni for help with data collection and analysis.
AAAJ
25,2
328
Received 25 February 2011
Revised 12 September 2011
Accepted 26 September
2011
Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2012
pp. 328-369
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
DOI 10.1108/09513571211198782
[T]he historical study of accounting has been motivated by a quest for understanding, a belief
that accounting is more than a repertoire of timeless techniques for measurement, calculation
and control of economic phenomena. While accounting history studies the residues of the
past, it speaks to the present and the future.
Accounting is, above all, a human practice, and like all human practices it is based on
human interaction. Such interaction is grounded in what went before – both
individuals and organisations may be regarded as “learners”, whose current thoughts
and actions are to a large extent the effect of their own past and the past of the societies
and settings in which they live and interact. This is true of all human behaviour, and
accounting is no exception. The intuitions that shape the decisions of preparers, users
and auditors, and the financial and management information that they use, are the
product of experience. Whenever the cry goes up “This time is different”, it is likely
that society is forgetting that even new paradigms operate in settings determined by
past beliefs and practices[1].
The importance of historical understanding applies to accounting as much as to
other fields of human endeavour. History can inform our appreciation of contemporary
accounting thought and practice through its power of unifying past, present and
future. Our current activities, when viewed through the lens of history, appear neither
eternal nor ephemeral, but are grounded in their past. At the same time, the historical
perspective allows society to assess the future of accounting and its artefacts and
manifestations. Accounting is both valued and criticised as a human activity, and
history provides a framework for evaluating accounting’s impacts on individuals,
organisations and society not just in the past but also today.
This evaluation can be undertaken in different ways, and poses many possible
questions. How have we arrived at today’s accounting ideas, practices and institutions?
What made certain developments possible and ruled others out? What tacit
assumptions based on accounting’s past are shaping current thinking, and in what
ways does the past cast a long shadow over the present? What are the forces that
explain why, when and how accounting changes, or perhaps stagnates? What is the
best “metahistory” for accounting, one of progress, one of decline from a “golden age”,
or some other overarching narrative – indeed, are grand narratives, such as appeals to
a metaphor of evolution, particularly helpful (Napier, 2001)? These questions, and
others, firmly define the historical study of accounting as something that can and
should inform current accounting thought and practice. Other questions are more the
domain of the historian, but are still important in encouraging particular research
practices and directions. What is the role of theory for the accounting historian? Is
accounting history basically “historical social science”[2], or does it straddle other
fundamental bodies of research method? What is the nature and role of evidence
(Napier, 2002)? Do accounting historians make a fetish of the “archive”, or is their view
of what constitutes the archive a narrow one (Gaffikin, 2011)?
A particular feature of the collective effort of accounting historians is their
willingness to reflect on their discipline, with a long series of books and papers
addressing the question posed some 20 years ago by Miller and Napier (1990): “How
and why should we do the history of accounting?” The present paper adds to this
reflective literature, looking back to theAAAJspecial issue on accounting history and
its impact, and forward to future possibilities for historical accounting research. The
objectives of the paper are:
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
329
.
to narrate the background to the special issue, including its origins and process
of development;
.
to examine, mainly through citation analysis, the impact of the papers in the
special issue;
.
to consider subsequent research within the eight research themes that we
highlighted in our paper in the special issue (Carnegie and Napier, 1996); and
.
to provide a summary assessment of the effect of the special issue; and to reflect
on the future of historical accounting research.
Development of the special issue
Historical studies in accounting have been undertaken for as long as accounting has
been an academic discipline, and even before[3]. In our paper in the special issue
(Carnegie and Napier, 1996 – henceforth “C&N”), we discussed how history was
mobilised by accountants (both academics and practitioners) to help construct
“institutional myths” of the ancient roots of accountancy as a human activity.
Moreover, some accountants saw the past as a potential storehouse of ideas and
practices that could be plundered to solve the accounting problems of the present,
while academics sympathetic to accounting history believed that students who
received instruction that acknowledged accounting’s past would have a firmer
understanding that accounting was not immutable, but rather was subject to change.
The catalyst for the growth in historical accounting research since the 1980s was
the emergence of the “interdisciplinary” movement in accounting. Researchers whose
background was in one of a range of disciplines, such as sociology, political and
organisational theory, education, law, and of course history, saw accounting as an area
to which they could apply their own disciplines, and as a result accounting research
became subject to new theories and methods, taking the study of accounting beyond
work that had hitherto been dominated by economics. Some of this research was
historical in nature, and the umbrella term “new accounting history” came to be
applied (Milleret al., 1991). The emergence of this research has been discussed in detail
by Napier (2006) and Walker (2008), but the important aspect of the new accounting
history was that it provided a sense of innovation and challenge to accounting
researchers out of sympathy with the increasing dominance of econometric accounting
research (Baker, 2011). The new accounting historians saw themselves as theoretically
based, whereas “traditional” accounting historians were “partial, uncritical,
atheoretical and intellectually isolated”, to use the epithets applied, not altogether
fairly, by Hopwood (1985, p. 366).
Challenge and debate were to be hallmarks of the new accounting history, from the
first issue ofAAAJ, where Tinker and Neimark (1988) contrasted what they called
“conservative” and “critical” historiographies of accounting, along the way probably
coining the expression “new accounting history”. The journal Accounting,
Organizations and Society had already gained a reputation for publishing
controversial papers addressing aspects of accounting history, in particular
examining accounting’s impact on people and organisations – what Napier (1989)
referred to as “contextualising accounting”. This journal had published two special
sections of papers on historical themes, in 1991 and 1993, the later including the
anti-traditional polemic of Miller and Napier (1993), calling for a more
AAAJ
25,2
330
sociologically-informed approach to accounting history, and advocating the methods
of the French theorist Michel Foucault without actually citing him.
ForAAAJ, a special issue on accounting history could tap into this period of
ferment, described so aptly by Fleischman and Radcliffe (2005) as “the Roaring
Nineties”, when, in their view, accounting history “came of age”. Historical studies had
been regular features ofAAAJsince its early years (Walker, 2008), and some of the
themes that were to be addressed in the special issue were already foreshadowed in
early issues. For example, attempts to explain connections between accounting and
management in the 19th century were debated by Tyson (1993), on the one hand, and
by Hoskin and Macve (1994) on the other, while Stewart (1992) provided an overview of
the influence of Foucault’s thinking on accounting history. Collins and Bloom (1991)
stressed the role of oral history in accounting, while Allen (1991) showed that history
need not be restricted to the far distant past by examining accounting’s
professionalisation project in Australia from 1953 to 1985. Bergeva¨rn and Olson
(1989) foreshadowed the interest in the history of accounting in the public sector with
their study of municipal accounting in Sweden. Mills (1989, 1990) reminded researchers
of the need to attend carefully to what historical evidence actually shows, and criticised
earlier work from within an agency theory perspective (for example, Watts and
Zimmerman, 1983) for using such evidence simplistically. Hooper et al. (1993)
discussed the extent to which accounting and auditing failures contributed to corporate
collapses in late-19th century New Zealand. These and other contributions
demonstrate that historical accounting research was already recognised byAAAJas
falling clearly within the journal’s scope.
The initial impetus for a special issue focusing on accounting history came from
Garry Carnegie (then at Deakin University), who was about to complete his PhD under
the supervision of Lee Parker. The dissertation[4], on pastoral accounting in colonial
Australia, aimed to follow the famous injunction of Hopwood (1983) to study
accounting in the contexts in which it operates, and hence involved extensive use of
archives. As it was normal AAAJpolicy for special issues to have at least two
co-editors, Carnegie suggested that the inclusion of a co-editor who was connected to
the new accounting historians but was also respected by more traditional historians of
accounting would enhance the likely interest in the special issue. Carnegie proposed
Christopher Napier (then at the London School of Economics), whom he had met in
1992, and this was accepted byAAAJ’s editors. Napier already had a connection with
AAAJ, having reviewed A History of Financial Accounting(Edwards, 1989) for the
journal (Napier, 1990). We began work on the special issue in late 1993 with a call for
papers, and the special issue was published in mid-1996.
The call for papers[5] emphasised theoretical and methodological concerns, with
potential authors being encouraged to reflect on wider theoretical approaches, including
the relationship between theory and empirical content, broadening of research into areas
such as the public sector, new methods of writing, the importance of interdisciplinarity,
the critical use of history to challenge the accounting establishment, and the pedagogic
value of accounting history. These topics reflected to some extent the conflict between
“traditional” and “new” accounting history, which we were coming to believe was
unhelpful for the development of historical accounting research into the twenty-first
century. On the other hand, we were convinced that the continued success of historical
accounting research depended on enhancing quality, which we considered would flow
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
331
from theoretically-grounded reflection applied to archival material carefully collected
from a broader range of contexts and sources. Accounting was to be seen as a social,
institutional and organisational phenomenon, with accounting history therefore being
much more than description of past accounting techniques.
We were fortunate in securing submissions from some of the leading researchers in
the field, and two of the papers (Boyns and Edwards, 1996; Fleischman and Tyson,
1996) represent important contributions to the ongoing “conversation” regarding the
roles of accounting in nineteenth century Anglo-American industrial concerns. These
papers combined the use of archival evidence drawn from the business records of a
specific company with a critical discussion of theoretical perspectives. Another paper
with a focus on managerial uses of accounting information came from Walker and
Mitchell (1996), although this did not examine specific accounting records,
concentrating instead on how principles of uniform costing were mobilised within a
particular industry to advance a mission of modernisation. The researchers gave less
emphasis to practical methods of accounting, focusing rather on how ideas of
accounting can be used to change attitudes. For this purpose, the technical qualities of
the accounting methods being advocated are less important than the processes by
which accounting procedures are promoted and defended. Young and Mouck (1996)
raised an important question about the relevance of accounting history when they
asked “What role could history play in the development and review of accounting
standards?” They saw history as a way of making explicit the conflict of interests
inherent in financial reporting, something that standard setters prefer to deny through
claims to “objectivity”. Finally, Hammond and Sikka (1996) discussed oral history as a
method giving voice to those previously silent, those on whom accounting acts rather
than those who give shape to accounting. Hammond and Sikka proposed a new agenda
for taking our understanding of accounting’s past to a different and more inclusive
level through capturing the personal experiences of those who would normally not be
part of any story about accounting development.
The special issue therefore covered a range of research approaches and fields,
though the bias towards managerial accounting was a reflection of the fact that many
of the theoretical and methodological debates in historical accounting research during
the 1980s and 1990s took the emergence and development of accounting in the
industrial firm as their battleground. Looking back, Walker (2008, p. 300) has
suggested that the general tendency of the special issue (notwithstanding Hammond
and Sikka’s more radical contribution) was to advocate “searches for commonality and
plurality in accounting historiography” rather than encouraging controversy and
conflict within the field. It is certainly the case that all the authors represented in the
special issue valued research “grounded firmly in the archive while being elucidated by
theoretical perspectives” (Carnegie and Napier, 1996, p. 31), and hence had fairly
conventional notions of the capabilities of history for accounting. However, even within
these conceptions of accounting history, there was a clear acceptance of the usefulness
of history, as Young and Mouck (1996, p. 128) put it:
.
to pluralise the past in the sense of recognising other voices and other concerns
than those which have been served by accounting regulation;
. to problematise the present; and
.
to facilitate a revision of the accounting agenda for the future.
AAAJ
25,2
332
Impact of the special issue
A commonly accepted means of assessing the impact of any published work is to
examine the citations of that work at a particular point in time. Such quantitative
approaches to assessing impacts, however, do not necessarily reflect the quality of
published works. We used Google Scholar to obtain citation data, as at 7 February
2011, for the six substantive articles appearing in the special issue. Any citation
database is open to criticism for omissions and errors, but Google Scholar is
increasingly recognised as achieving broad coverage (Meho and Yang, 2007; Harzing,
2008). The results are summarised in Table I.
The broad scope of C&N assists in explaining the large number of citations of this
article in comparison with the others. The innovative nature of the methodological
article by Hammond and Sikka (henceforth “H&S”), as a guide to oral history in
accounting, and possibly its provocative title, may go some way to explaining its
position as the paper with the next highest number of citations. In effect, C&N and
H&S were providing guidance to authors, including students and emerging scholars,
on how to carry out historical accounting research. The other works by prominent
authors in the field were, on the other hand, addressing ongoing conversations on
themes and topics that continue to attract regular contributions as part of the everyday
fabric of historical accounting research[6].
In addition to an overall review of all citations to papers in the special issue, further
analysis was undertaken of the citations of C&N in English language sources[7]. This
revealed the existence of items that were included twice in the Google Scholar list,
items that mentioned C&N only in their references (or as “further reading”) but not
within the body of the published works, items that actually did not contain any
mention of C&N, and conference papers no longer available on the internet. We also
noticed that some works citing C&N were omitted from Google Scholar’s list of
citations, though we did not attempt to include these in our overall analysis[8]. After
making the adjustments necessary todelete these anomalies, a total of
132 contributions that substantively cited C&N remained. About 30 per cent of
these were published inAccounting History, and a further eight per cent appeared in
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
We found 205 different references to C&N across these 132 contributions, at an
average rate of 1.55 citations per contribution: these are summarised in Table II. The
most frequent reference to C&N was as a “general contribution to historiography in
accounting”: the authors of these 28 contributions typically listed C&N as one of
several reference points for accounting historiography. Table II shows that certain
Names of authors Total citations Non-English Total English citations
Carnegie and Napier 155 9 146
Hammond and Sikka 47 1 46
Fleischman and Tyson 19 2 17
Boyns and Edwards 19 4 15
Walker and Mitchell 13 1 12
Young and Mouck 5 – 5
Total 258 17 241
Source:Based on Google Scholar as at 7 February 2011
Table I.
Citations of special issue
articles
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
333
subjects dealt with by C&N gained more attention than others. Specifically, eight
subjects generated citations from the authors of between 10 and 17 contributions, four
of which related generally to “methodology” while the other four came from the eight
thematic areas proposed by C&N for developing our understanding of accounting’s
past (Carnegie and Napier, 1996, pp. 17-29)[9].
The most common “methodological” reference to C&N related to the contrast we
drew between traditional and new accounting history research, particularly our
caricatures of traditional and new accounting historians (pp. 7-8). Seventeen
contributions drew on this contrast, normally without criticism, to identify the key
differences between these two major schools of thought. This use of the distinction
reveals the tensions that had emerged in the literature at the time between accounting
historians with a primary concern for the “technical” dimensions of accounting and
those who focused on the “social” practice dimensions of accounting. The authors of
seven of these 17 contributions specifically referred to one or both of the caricatures of
the traditional and new accounting historian.
A central aim of C&N was to advocate critical and interpretive historical research,
and 13 contributions referred to this in various terms, for example: “enriched
theoretical perspectives”, “inter-disciplinary methodology”, “alternative perspectives”
and “a cross-disciplinary perspective”. Several contributions acknowledged C&N as
setting a “research agenda”. Two particular methodological directions that C&N had
General contribution to historiography in accounting 28
Contrast between traditional and new accounting history/historians 17
Agenda for/advocacy of critical and interpretative historical research 13
Comparative international accounting history 13
Public sector accounting 13
Institutional history 12
Oral history 12
Studying accounting in its contexts – local in both space and time 12
Setting research firmly in the archive/expanding range of source materials 11
Warning against viewing the past as a shadow or simulacrum of present 8
Conceiving accounting as an instrument of power and domination/control 7
Identified research directions/approaches/themes (i.e. taxonomy) 6
Recognition of many plausible histories of the same events 6
Biography 5
Prosopography 5
Applied the taxonomy of themes in undertaking research 4
Growth in accounting history research and publication 4
Justification for accounting history – intellectual and utilitarian 4
Presented surveys/reviews of recent works 4
Relationship between accounting history and status/legitimacy the profession 4
Influence/views of Littleton on accounting history 3
Citations/reproductions in anthologies 2
Emphasis on studying accounting in specific countries or regions 2
Emphasis on the oldest/earliest/strangest 2
Historians have long recognised the international dimensions of accounting 2
Other (all single citations) 6
Total 205
Source:Based on Google Scholar as at 7 February 2011
Table II.
Citations of Carnegie and
Napier paper: subjects of
interest
AAAJ
25,2
334
pointed to were studying accounting in the contexts in which it operated (here we were
reinforcing a message advanced by other scholars, including Hopwood, 1983), and
ensuring that historical research was firmly grounded in the archive, while what
constituted the archive should be understood broadly. These comments attracted
12 and 11 citations respectively. Authors appear to have used the references to C&N to
add authority to their approaches.
C&N examined a number of “innovative research methods in accounting history”,
including oral history. The authors of 12 contributions cited C&N in highlighting the
role and advantages of oral history. Ten of these studies actually used oral history[10].
Authors referred to the advantages and potential of oral history, noted its
under-utilisation in accounting history, and observed that “critical testimony is
silenced forever” (p. 29) with the passing of time. The authors of ten of these
12 contributions also cited H&S in addressing oral history and its use in accounting
history. The two articles were typically cited in the same paragraph, thus confirming
the complementary nature of these works.
The notion of CIAH was introduced in C&N (pp. 27-28), and was later developed as
the “CIAH approach... to bring together the insights of comparative international
accounting and those of historical accounting research” (Carnegie and Napier, 2002,
p. 690). Of the 13 contributions identified as making some reference to CIAH, only
Carnegie and Napier (2002) actually provided an international historical comparison.
The authors of the remaining 12 contributions mainly called for research of the kind
they had undertaken to be replicated in other countries or regions to assist in
developing a CIAH literature.
Noting accounting historians’ traditional focus on the private sector, C&N located
the emerging interest in historical studies of public sector accounting as a part of wider
investigations in various countries into the adequacy of public sector accounting and
financial management. The authors of eight of the 13 contributions that cited C&N on
the subject of public sector accounting commented on the “historical imbalance” (p. 26)
of private and public sector accounting research or on the under-researched state of
accounting’s past in the public sector. Several authors referred to the availability of
primary archive materials in the public sector, where policies for preserving records
tend to be more formal than in the private sector.
The authors of five of the 12 contributions on institutional history cited C&N on the
concept of professionalisation in writing histories of accounting associations, studying
the founders of professional bodies, and investigating how such bodies seek to develop
or control accounting knowledge. The authors of three other contributions referred to
the call by C&N for historical studies into the development of conceptual frameworks
for financial reporting, with emphasis on reforming public sector accounting,
particularly the adoption of full accrual accounting from the early to mid 1980s[11].
Two contributions referred to the pitfalls of histories of accounting firms written “from
the inside” (p. 24).
Generally, then, citations to C&N present the paper as a point of reference that
provided justification for a particular methodological stance or choice of research topic.
In the minds of authors, C&N appears to have been a source of validation for their
work, lending credibility to their research. Few of the citations were overtly critical,
although Walker (2008) hinted that the paper (indeed the whole special issue) was
insufficiently controversial. In a paper published after we undertook our citation
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
335
analysis, Gaffikin (2011) has implicitly criticised our emphasis on archival research,
linking this to “naı ¨ve empiricism” and even “arch conservative historians”.
Of the subjects identified in Table II, the use of the eight themes addressed in C&N
as a taxonomy in conducting literature-based studies is of particular interest in
considering impacts and occurred in four contributions (Carnegie and Potter, 2000;
Carmona, 2006; Williams and Wines, 2006; Faria, 2008). The authors involved used the
themes for classifying components of the accounting history literature in their studies
of publication patterns, which tended to focus on the quantitative distribution of
publications across the various themes. In the next section, we follow up each of the
eight themes by identifying and briefly commenting on some significant contributions
to the historical accounting literature since the mid-1990s. In reviewing publications
within the eight themes, we have not restricted ourselves to those that cited papers in
the special issue, but have surveyed the literature more broadly. We also acknowledge
that the historical accounting literature of the last 15 years or so has ranged more
widely than the eight themes that we identified in C&N.
Themes proposed in the special issue
Studies of surviving business records of firms
Surviving business records of the past are found in both public and private archives
and repositories of documents and other artefacts. Archival research often involves the
identification, examination and evaluation of such records. According to Fleischman
and Tyson (2003, p. 32), accounting history scholars who do not choose to set their
investigations in the business archive “require a philosophical bent and a glib writing
style with which most of us are not gifted”. The authors added: “the majority of us...
deploy archival investigation to bring new knowledge to the light of day” (Fleischman
and Tyson, 2003, p. 32). As was the situation in 1996, there exists in business archives
around the globe “an absolute wealth of archival material to be examined and
evaluated” (Fleischman and Tyson, 2003, p. 44).
While historical accounting research involving the study of surviving business
records remains an important dimension within the field, the last 15 years or so have
witnessed the emergence of a range of published historical research on the nature,
roles, uses and impacts of accounting in everyday settings involving various social,
religious and other not-for-profit institutions (Hopwood, 1994; Jeacle, 2009). Carnegie
and Napier (1996, p. 30) had noted that the archive should be “understood in a wide
sense as comprehending not just records of profit-oriented businesses but also those of
individuals, not for-profit organizations, the public sector and other entities”, but we
did not anticipate the extent of the growth in studies of the surviving records of such a
wide range of entities. The archive material available for accounting historians who
wish to investigate accounting’s past in the context of social organisations is immense.
This has permitted extending the study of surviving accounting records into a
diversity of social settings, such as the family home, the place of worship, the school,
the prison and the asylum. Accounting history research no longer privileges the realm
of business: it now embraces a wider range of everyday settings where accounting is
enlisted, consistent with the view that accounting in both contemporary and historical
contexts is not just a technical practice but is also a social practice (Miller, 1994; Gomes,
2008). Such research is increasingly using accounting records prepared in languages
other than English, and augments the publications in leading English-language
AAAJ
25,2
336
journals by scholars whose first language is not English[12]. Fleischman and Radcliffe
(2005, p. 64) have described this as “non-Anglo-American history” in accounting.
Historical accounting research by Europeans into surviving business records has
examined managerial uses of accounting before the end of the eighteenth century to
contribute to challenging the view that modern management accounting practices
emerged from the beginning of the nineteenth century (see, for example, Edwards and
Newell, 1991; Fleischman and Parker, 1991, 1997). The investigations by Zan (2004,
2005) and Zambon and Zan (2007) of early cost calculations in the Venice Arsenal’s
records assisted in shifting the focus of investigations to “proto-industrial settings”
during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In Spain, other key projects set in the
eighteenth century involved the Spanish Royal Tobacco Factory (Carmona, Ezzamel
and Gutie´rrez, 1997, 1998, 2002), a sample of 13 large and medium-sized Spanish
companies (Gutie´rrez et al., 2005), and the Royal Textile Factory of Ezcaray
(Prieto-Moreno and Larrinaga-Gonza ´les, 2001). In Portugal, Carvalho et al. (2007)
examined the mid-eighteenth century early cost accounting practices of the Portuguese
Silk Factory Company.
Researchers were reminded by Arnold and McCartney (2003) of the need to take
care in examining surviving business records. In the context of nineteenth century
British railway accounting, they referred to the pitfalls that may face researchers who
do not examine primary records themselves but rely uncritically on the work of others.
The authors even suggested that “in some cases” accounting history scholarship
“provides little more than plausible anecdotes” (Arnold and McCartney, 2003, p. 228).
Funnell (2007), however, believed that the errors identified by these authors did not
undermine the value of the corpus of accounting history scholarship across all
industrial and other settings. Funnell (2007, p. 298) suggested that “the wider
accusations” of Arnold and McCartney (2003) “directed at the realms of accounting
history beyond 19th century railway accounting should be treated as unsubstantiated”.
The examination of business records has continued to be a mainstay of historical
accounting research, with researchers investigating both external financial reporting
and the internal use of accounting for costing and managerial decisions. There has
been some degree of “confluence” in the application of theoretical explanations to
costing methods (see for example Fleischman and Macve, 2002), with researchers
realising that theories (such as neoclassical economics and Marxist or Foucauldian
perspectives) often emphasise different features of the historical phenomena rather
than offering rival explanations. Research in this area has demonstrated the need to
tolerate theoretical diversity, in order to avoid closing down areas of debate
prematurely.
Using accounting records in business history
Some business and accounting historians are conscious of the synergy that exists
between business history and accounting history (see, for example, Marriner, 1980;
Parker, 1991; Mathias, 1993; Carnegie and Potter, 2000; Ville and Fleming, 1999/2000;
Fridenson, 2007), although calls for greater collaboration are not uncommon. Indeed,
Ville and Fleming (1999/2000) entitled their contribution “Desperately seeking
synergy: interdisciplinary research in accounting and business history”, suggesting
that “powerful synergies” exist between accounting and business history and pointing
to the use of historical evidence in furthering an “understanding of how management
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
337
accounting systems... develop in our leading contemporary corporations” (Ville and
Fleming, 1999/2000, p. 173). The authors argued, however, that the interdisciplinary
literature of the genre was too heavily located in the manufacturing sector[13]. In
addition, earlier key contributions in the field by Chandler (1977) and Edwards and
Newell (1991) have been criticised for being too “progressivist” in concentrating on
efficiency-based explanations for management accounting innovation (Ville and
Fleming, 1999/2000, p. 174; also see Luft, 1997).
More recently, Fridenson (2007, p. 375) took a French perspective in issuing “a plea
for a warm and close relationship between business history and accounting history”.
Advocating a “bilateral relationship” between accounting history and business history,
Fridenson (2007, p. 375) argued “business history is not a luxury merely for accounting
historians, but a necessity” and further stated “that business historians will benefit
from closer contacts with the work and researches of accounting historians”. As well as
identifying accounting documents as “key sources” for business history, Fridenson
(2007, p. 377) referred to accounting renovation or renewal as “key elements for a much
broader dimension of change” while noting that “attention has been drawn by business
historians to how sometimes accounting instruments and accounting methods last too
long”, with implications for inhibiting organisational and social change.
The relationship between accounting history and business history is a two-way
process. Analysing citations appearing in 546 articles published from 1996 to 2008 in
the three specialised accounting history journals published in the English language
(Accounting History, Accounting Historians Journaland Accounting, Business and
Financial History), Bisman (2011, p. 169) reported on the “relatively small overall”
number of citations to a range of leading business and economic history journals. Of
the three accounting history journals, Accounting, Business and Financial History
contributed 51 per cent of these citations, reflecting its more diverse orientation.
Bisman’s findings tend to confirm the views of Walker (2005a, p. 233), who has argued
that accounting history is a “myopic and introspective discipline” that would benefit
from “greater inclusivity”, and has suggested that accounting historians “are similarly
distant from the sister discipline of history” (Walker, 2008, p. 312). Bisman (2011,
pp. 174-175) concluded that the “well acknowledged desideratum for accounting
historians to collaborate with, and draw on the work” of business and economic
historians essentially “remains an unanswered challenge”. Bisman (2011) also showed
that accounting historians are engaging with other accounting research literature and
are particularly drawing on broader perspectives offered by sociological, interpretive
and critical frameworks, especially given the extent of citations of articles published in
journals such as Accounting, Organizations and SocietyandAccounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journaland, to a lesser extent,Critical Perspectives on Accounting.
Although there is still considerable scope for developing the interface with business
history, Parker (1999a, b), Parker and Lewis (1995) and Parker and Ritson (2005, 2011)
have been contributing to the emerging literature on management history, a field that
has been growing since the foundation ofThe Journal of Management Historyin 1995
(Carson and Carson, 1998; also see Wren, 1987). Interdisciplinary research on classical
management writers, notably Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol and Lyndall Urwick[14],
enables us “to reflect upon the contemporary accounting conventions and practices
that have been contributed to by the classical management school of thought” (Parker
and Ritson, 2011, p. 235) and, therefore, acts against the inheritance of “an
AAAJ
25,2
338
impoverished understanding of the historical influences on contemporary accounting
practice” (Parker and Ritson, 2011, p. 235). Moreover, accounting history, stimulated in
particular by the work of Walker (1998; see also Walker and Llewellyn, 2000) on
accounting in the home, has been interfacing with financial, social and gender history,
for example through the studies of Rutterford and Maltby (2007) on British women’s
investment practices, Licini (2011) on Italian women’s wealth, and Walker and
Carnegie (2007) on how Australian household budgeting was used to control the
“extravagant woman”.
Biography
Biographical research in accounting continues to be motivated in different ways. Some
research recognises accounting as a human construction and hence the need to
understand accounting developments through the contributions of accountants.
Increasingly, biographies of “great men” associated with the development of
accounting are being complemented with, if not supplanted by, concerns with more
“humble” accountants. The development of any occupational category, whether or not
it is widely regarded as a “profession”, is the sum total of the contributions of all
participants, including the famous and infamous. While Flesher and Flesher (2003)
believed that biography “focuses on the ‘movers and shakers’ of a profession”, a wider
perspective of individual contribution is essential in enhancing an understanding of the
lives, careers and impacts of historical actors in accounting in everyday settings within
organisations, in particular, and society, in general.
Among the most prominent contributions in this area in the past 15 years or so is
the in-depth work by Zeff (2001) on Henry Rand Hatfield, a historian of accounting and
bookkeeping and the first full-time professor of accounting in a US university (also see
Parker, 2002). Zeff (2000) has also studied the contribution of John B. Canning to the
history of accounting thought. Complementing such work, recent biographical
research has tended to focus more attention than hitherto known on the lives, careers
and previously little-known contributions to accounting and book-keeping by women,
such as Mary Addison Hamilton in Australia (Cooper, 2008), Jennie M. Palen in the
USA (Spruill and Wootton, 1995) and Minna Canth in Finland (Virtanen, 2009).
Accounting researchers who have examined the lives and careers of prominent
accountants (particularly men) in accounting’s past include Lee (1996), whose subjects
were pioneering Scottish accountants during the second half of the nineteenth century
(Richard Brown, George Auldjo Jamieson and Alexander Sloan). Carnegie, Parker and
Wigg (2000), on the other hand, examined the life and largely undistinguished career of
a Scottish accountant, John Spence Ogilvy, who was, as far as can be ascertained, the
first Chartered Accountant to emigrate from Britain to Australia. Lee (2006a, p. x)
presented a “series of researched biographies” of 161 Scottish chartered accountants,
all men, who immigrated to the USA in the period 1875 to 1914 and who influenced the
development of the accounting profession in that country. Clarke (2005) provided a
biographical account of Bernard F. Shields – the first professor of accounting in the
UK – in a further contribution to the literature on the “first” or “earliest”. In a similar
vein, Flesher (2010) described Gerhard G. Mueller as the “Father of International
Accounting Education” in his biographical account. Other recent biographical works
include Romeo and Rigsby (2008) and Romeo and Kyj (2000), who have examined the
influence of Seldon Hopkins and Anson O. Kittredge, respectively, on the US
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
339
accounting profession, and Richardson’s (2000) study on George Edwards, a pioneering
Canadian chartered accountant.
Accounting history researchers have yet to explore the potential of comparative
biography, which involves the study of the lives and careers of more than one
individual on a comparative basis. The comparative biography approach, sometimes
referred to as biographical case studies, has been employed for studying the lives of
politicians, particularly dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, and civil servants (see, for
example, Bullock, 1998; Seward, 1989; Theakston, 2002; Wolk, 1983). Comparative
biography is undertaken for the purpose of “enhancing the connection between
individuals and the illumination of the larger patterns of the past” (Brinkley, 1984, p. 9).
Based on what is already known of certain individuals in accounting’s past (the brief
biographies of leading accounting scholars collected by Edwards (1994) and more
recently by Colasse (2005) may provide a starting point) and on further in-depth
biographical research, comparative biography could, for instance, be undertaken on
accounting practitioners, such as Leonard Spacek and George O. May in the USA or on
accounting scholars, such as Raymond J. Chambers and Louis Goldberg in
Australia[15]. Such studies would augment our understanding of accounting’s past
and may even assist in advancing CIAH.
Published autobiographical accounts in accounting remain rare, but are capable of
providing insight into the development of accounting thought and practice. The
autobiography of Lord Benson (1989) reveals considerable detail about the work of a
senior partner in a leading accountancy firm, as well as providing inside information
about the establishment of the International Accounting Standards Committee. More
recent examples include Lightbody (2009) and Edey (2009). The potentially rich
experience of accounting scholars tends to become hidden in retirement, and may
largely be lost following their deaths[16]. Although autobiography exhibits an inherent
bias, the availability of such personalised views of the past augments the literature and
may facilitate further biographical research, including comparative biography.
Prosopography
Prosopographical studies of accounting development remain in short supply.
Prosopography involves examinations of the common background characteristics of
a group of historical actors by means of a collective study of their lives and careers.
Otherwise known as “collective biography”, such research is intended to enrich our
understanding of the beliefs, preferences and ambitions which influenced or governed
group behaviour in specific occupational or organisational settings. The method,
therefore, is concerned with examining developments in accounting institutions,
thought and practice from a communal perspective.
Since the mid 1990s, the prosopographical method has attracted the interest of some
accounting historians. The investigations undertaken by Lee (2006a) into the influence
of early Scottish chartered accountants on the early American public accounting
profession represent a prosopographical approach, although Lee did not use this term
specifically. In addition to a collection of individual biographies, Lee’s book contains an
analysis of the common background characteristics of the 161 immigrants under the
title “overview of the Scottish chartered accountancy migrants” (Lee, 2006a,
pp. 18-29)[17]. In Australia, prosopography was explicitly applied in examining the
professionalisation of accounting through the lives and careers of the 45 founders of
AAAJ
25,2
340
the Incorporated Institute of Accountants, Victoria (1886) (Edwards et al., 1997;
Carnegie and Edwards, 2001; Carnegie, Edwards and West, 2003). According to
Carnegieet al. (2003, p. 790), “institutional deeds and outcomes derive from the
behaviour of individual actors, particularly those key players who drive the creation,
policy development and outlook of practitioner associations”, thus providing the basis
for the use of prosopography in their investigations. The study of social origins, an
important aspect of prosopography, has been undertaken for the early members of the
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales by Anderson and Walker
(2009).
Considerable potential for further prosopographical research in accounting is
readily apparent in respect to various groups of actors in accounting’s past, such as
professors of accounting (for example, foundation professors), professional and
refereed accounting journal editors, accounting historians, accounting regulators and
standard setters, Council/Board members of professional associations, advocates of
mergers of professional accounting bodies, and the members of “epistemic
communities” who contribute to cross-national accounting development. The scope
for prosopography and its rich explanatory potential is under-recognised in historical
accounting research, possibly because the successful application of the method
requires the availability of, and affordable access to, considerable archival sources in
developing an understanding of the mix of considerations that shaped the behaviour
and value systems of the historical actors under investigation.
Institutional history
During the past 15 years or so there has been a strong focus in historical accounting
research on the professionalisation of accounting. Researchers in Anglo-American
countries have continued to examine the professional accounting project in historical
contexts, while the formation and early development of the modern accounting
profession in Scotland and the export of pioneering Scottish accountants continue to
attract considerable scholarly enquiry (see, for example, Lee, 2000, 2006a, b; Walker,
1995, 1996, 2003a)[18]. More noticeably, however, a number of accounting historians
since the late 1990s have examined the professional project in the non-Anglo-American
world, in countries such as Brunei Darussalam (Yapa, 1999), China (Hao, 1999; Xu and
Xu, 2003, Yee, 2009), India (Verma and Gray, 2006; Sidhu, 2010), Jamaica (Bakre, 2005,
2006), Kenya (Sian, 2006, 2007), Malaysia (Susela, 1999), Nigeria (Uche, 2002; Okike,
2004), the Philippines (Dyball and Valcarcel, 1999; Dyballet al., 2007), Sri Lanka (Yapa,
2006) and Trinidad and Tobago (Annisette, 1999, 2000, 2003)[19]. Many of these
studies have examined the professional-state engagement with Britain (also see
Poullaos, 2009). Some studies have examined race as a determinant of
professionalisation in certain countries in the context of British colonisation (see, for
example, Annisette, 1999, 2000, 2003; Bakre, 2005, 2006; and Sian, 2006, 2007), while
Sidhu (2010) investigated caste as a determinant of professionalisation of accounting in
India. A recent volume entitled Accountancy and Empire: The British Legacy of
Professional Organization (Poullaos and Sian, 2010) has explored the
professionalisation of accountancy in key constituent territories of the British
Empire (also see Parker, 2005). While recognising the growing number of studies
concerned with race as a determinant of the professionalisation of accounting, Walker
(2008, p. 304) referred to a “disturbing tendency in the non Anglo-American” histories
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
341
of professionalisation as being “not as indigenously sensitised as they might be” (also
see Poullaos, 1999)[20].
Apart from referring to the growing number of accounting history studies adopting
race as an orientation, Walker (2008) also addressed the other two elements of the
“trinity” of bases of exclusion and oppression, namely gender and class. The gender
research agenda in accounting history is seen as underdeveloped, with scholarship in
the field remaining “in the ‘pioneer’ and ‘recovery’ phases of feminist and gender
history” (Walker, 2008, p. 307). Recent investigations focusing on gender include
Cooper (2010), on the campaign by women in Australia to gain admission to
professional accounting bodies, and Emoryet al.(2002) and Devonport (2008), on the
development of the status of women within the New Zealand profession[21]. With
reference to the northern hemisphere, McKeen and Richardson (1998) reported on the
entry of women into the Canadian accounting profession, while Shackleton (1999)
examined gender segregation in Scottish chartered accountancy. Walker (2003b)
himself considered how bookkeeping in Britain had been regarded as a mainly female
occupation. Turning to research on accounting and class, Walker (2008, p. 307) noted
that class “merits attention by accounting historians”, but observed that accounting
historians “have had even less to say” on class than on gender. Hammondet al.(2009)
have included class as a factor in their examination of South Africa’s transition from
apartheid during the last quarter of the twentieth century, when the professional
project excluded the majority of the population from the ranks of the profession on the
basis of race and class. Lifestyle, status and occupational differentiation have been
explored in the context of Victorian accountancy in Britain (Edwards and Walker,
2010).
Brian West of the University of Ballarat was awarded the 2008 Notable
Contributions to Accounting Literature Award, sponsored by the American
Accounting Association and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,
for his bookProfessionalism and Accounting Rules(West, 2003)[22]. Taking a historical
perspective and embedding his investigation in the literature of the “sociology of the
professions”, West argued that the accounting profession struggles to administer its
occupational authority and, in the absence of a solid cognitive foundation, has instead
turned to the regulatory fiat of “accounting standards”, thus leading to the
institutionalisation of deficient technical practices. Accounting rules become the goal
rather than a means to an end. Sterling (2004, p. 76) described West (2003) as “the best
book on accounting I have ever read”, while Staubus (2004, p. 156) stated that West
“has made a masterful analysis of a problem of great importance to the accounting
profession”. The development of international accounting standards themselves has
been subject to in-depth investigation, especially by Camfferman and Zeff (2007) in a
history of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), and also by
Bocqueraz and Walton (2006) who examined the roles of Henry Benson, Douglas
Morpeth and Wally Olsen in the creation of the IASC. Rutherford (2007) has provided a
similar in-depth history of the UK’s Accounting Standards Committee.
Official histories continue to be published to celebrate anniversaries or milestones
within the accounting profession (see, for example, Linn, 1996; Schneider and Westoll,
2004 in the case of Australia and South Africa, respectively), but it has been uncommon
for such historical accounts to be subject to critical comment or challenge. Hammond
et al.(2007) provided an example of critical historiography in interrogating the official
AAAJ
25,2
342
history of a major South African public accounting firm, entitledExperiences in
Transformation: Work in Progress, by Schneider and Westoll (2004). The silences in
the firm’s own history were seen as underscoring the need for a critical investigation,
involving oral history, “that not only aims to give voice to the perspectives of the less
powerful, but also to reveal the social and economic conditions that produce and
perpetuate unequal relations of power and social injustice” (Hammondet al., 2007, p.
275). The “history of the Australian accounting profession” by Linn (1996) emphasised
the initiatives and interests of the publisher, the Australian Society of Certified
Practising Accountants (now CPA Australia), one of the two major professional
accounting bodies in Australia at the time of Linn’s publication. Parker (1997, p. 118)
saw merit in Linn’s work as “mercifully free of sociological jargon”, but added that
“more use could have been made of the insights of the literature on the sociology of
professions”.
Histories of educational developments in accounting are adding to our
understanding of the role of educational institutions such as universities and
colleges of advanced education or polytechnics. In Australia, for instance, Juchau
(2005) provided a general historical narrative of accounting in universities during the
period 1955-2002, Evans and Juchau (2009) examined the role of colleges of advanced
education in accounting education between 1965 and 1989, and Birkett and Evans
(2005) studied the interplay between Australian universities and technical colleges in
the period 1944-1951. Burrows (2006), a University of Melbourne insider, rendered an
entertaining account of the history of accounting education at Victoria’s earliest
university, while Clarkeet al.(2010) discussed the early years of accounting at the
University of Sydney under Raymond Chambers. Such histories, however, are
typically of a descriptive nature, thus rendering apt Parker’s comment on making more
use of the sociology of professions literature in analysing developments in accounting
education.
C&N had included studies of the regulatory process for accounting, including the
development of specific accounting standards, under the heading of “institutional
history”, but this is an area where research has been only piecemeal. In the special
issue, the contribution of Young and Mouck (1996) addressed the importance of
historical understanding in the standard-setting process. Young has continued to
incorporate historical perspectives in her studies of accounting regulation (see for
example Young and Williams, 2010), and other research that takes account of the
historical trajectory of the standard-setting process includes the critical analysis of
accounting for employee stock options undertaken by Ravenscroft and Williams (2009)
and the study of the development of accounting for retirement benefits of Napier
(2009a).
Institutional history, particularly historical studies of accounting’s
professionalisation project, has offered researchers extensive opportunities to draw
on theoretical perspectives from a wide range of disciplines. Researchers need to be
aware of developments in these disciplines, rather than relying on the theoretical
borrowings of earlier accounting historians. However, research into the
professionalisation of accounting has been valuable in stressing the importance of
such factors as race and gender, as well as class, in understanding the process in
different locations, as well as broadening our knowledge of the process beyond
“anglophone” countries.
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
343
Public sector accounting
Interest in the history of public sector accounting and accountability has grown during
the past two decades as researchers make more use of key archives often containing
extensive public records. Such research has evolved into a broader “accounting and the
state”[23] theme, increasingly concerned with “the on-going invocation of accounting in
the everyday business of governing” (Graves and Radcliffe, 2001, p. 93). Recent
published research has examined the adoption of double entry bookkeeping within
European central governments, such as in France (Lemarchand, 1999; Nikitin,
2001)[24] and in Portugal (Gomeset al., 2008), as well as the adoption of “mercantile”
bookkeeping in Britain (Edwardset al., 2002; Edwards and Greener, 2003). Studies on
accounting and the military have also contributed to the recent public sector
accounting history literature (see, for example, Funnell, 2003, 2006, 2008, as well as the
contributions on the theme that appeared in a special issue ofAccounting History–
Funnell and Chwastiak, 2010). Some scholars have studied the transfer of accounting
technology (accounting techniques, institutions and concepts) from the military to
other sectors of government or to the private sector, such as Lemarchand (2002), in the
case of the French management accounting model, and Scorgie and Reiss (1997), in
colonial Australia from 1788 to 1792. Cobbin (2009), on the other hand, explored the
appointment of chartered accountants to an army accountancy advisory panel in
Australia during the Second World War, thus illuminating how transfers of accounting
technology to (rather than from) the military may arise.
The adoption of full accrual accounting in the public sector in many countries
during the past two decades has stimulated research into public sector accounting
more generally. The development has generated contributions to the historical
accounting literature with a more contemporary historical focus and a concern with the
interplay of accounting and public policy. In Australia, for instance, Potter (1999, 2002),
Christensen (2002) and Davis (2010) have conducted in-depth examinations of the
adoption of accrual accounting within the Australian public sector since the mid to late
1980s. Considerable scope exists for similar studies to be undertaken in other countries
at different levels of government (for example, national or federal, state and local
government). Identifying and assessing the impacts of such accounting reforms on
individuals, organisations and communities would illuminate the contemporary
relevance of such investigations. Buhr (2010), for instance, outlined worldwide
developments in public sector accounting standard setting between 1980 and 2010.
There is also a need to examine the full dimensions of accounting and accountability
in the local government sector, as confirmed by Sargiacomo and Gomes (2011). Recent
investigations have included studies set in the USA (Moussalli, 2008)[25], the UK
(Brackenborough, 2003; Thick, 1999) and Italy (Sargiacomo, 2006). Sargiacomo (2006)
used accounting records of the Commune of Penne from the late seventeenth century to
enhance an understanding of the life and times of such feudal communities. In
particular, Sargiacomo showed ways in which monies were spent within the
community, thereby “elucidating the adopted social priorities and concerns of the time”
(Sargiacomo, 2006, p. 475).
Public archives are more likely to survive, and may cover more extensive periods,
than those of private organisations. We would therefore expect public sector
accounting to continue to grow as a popular focus for historical research. Researchers
need to consider the extent to which our understanding of accounting in general terms
AAAJ
25,2
344
is adequately based on surviving records that relate in the main to the public sector.
Much of the more recent research in this area tends to suggest that sharp distinctions
between public sector and private sector accounting are diminishing. However, some of
the theoretical perspectives used to provide a framework for research in the history of
public sector accounting do not provide differential theorisations for entities in the
public and the private sectors. This may lead researchers to look for similarities rather
than differences, but well-grounded research into public sector accounting should
continue to provide insights for historical understandings of accounting more
generally.
Comparative international accounting history
Carnegie and Napier (2002, p. 694) defined CIAH in broad terms as “the transnational
study of the advent, development and influence of accounting bodies, conventions,
ideas, practices and rules”[26]. Comparative research was explained as typically
involving the examination of “some aspect of accounting in different countries” with
the mode of comparison taking a number of forms, notably synchronic, parallel and
diffusion (Carnegie and Napier, 2002, p. 695). As a means of applying CIAH, seven
factors or dimensions were proposed as a framework for structuring the comparative
analysis: period, places, people, practices, propagation, products and profession
(Carnegie and Napier, 2002, pp. 700-701). These factors were employed in an
exploratory case study of agrarian accounting in Britain and Australia in the
nineteenth century. The factors were presented as a heuristic for the particular case
study, and this may explain why subsequent researchers have not, as far as we can
ascertain, specifically employed them as a framework for analysis in other comparative
historical accounting studies.
Accounting historians, however, have long appreciated the international scope of
accounting history research (see, for example, Brown, 1905; Parker, 1971; Samuels and
Piper, 1985). More recently, Carmonaet al. (2010, p. 270), in studying the interface of
accounting and international relations in the context of Anglo-Spanish relations,
reiterated “the importance of identifying differences when exploring international
accounting phenomena in historical contexts”. Nowadays, the international dimensions
of accounting are increasingly prominent with the wide adoption of International
Financial Reporting Standards, and they are subject to considerable investigation by
contemporary accounting researchers and copious comment in the financial and
business media. Such recent developments are firmly grounded in a tradition, across
centuries, of the transfer of accounting technology between communities, nation states
and geographical regions.
Comparative historical research in accounting may involve a range of frameworks
or perspectives. In studying the cross-national diffusion of accounting technology, for
example, some accounting historians have applied a framework based on a series of
questions developed by Jeremy (1991, pp. 3-5) in examining international technology
transfer (see, for example, Carnegie and Parker, 1996; Foreman, 2001; Carnegie et al.,
2006; and Samkin, 2010). These authors were concerned with the transfer of accounting
technology by means of the work of particular individuals with accounting knowledge
and experience, including early accounting authors in colonial contexts. Comparative
research projects may also examine broad developments in particular forms of
accounting between different countries, as illustrated by Boynset al. (1997, p. x). Based
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
345
on their independent prior research on industrial accounting in Britain and France,
these researchers presented a parallel study comparing the birth and early
development of industrial accounting in those countries in order to gain “an insight
into the similarities and differences in respect to accounting integration” (Boyns et al.,
1997). At a more general level, Auyeung (2002) sought to examine why “western
accounting” was adopted in Japan but not in China in a comparative study of the two
Asian countries in the nineteenth century. Comparative research does not just involve
parallel studies of developments in different locations. It may also involve
investigations of particular aspects of accounting, such as educational
developments, in comparison with developments in other professions (Paisey and
Paisey, 2010).
CIAH research faces several challenges. First, research across national boundaries
almost certainly requires the creation of international teams of researchers,
particularly where the research involves the interpretation of archival material in
more than one language. Second, CIAH research is likely to be more expensive than
research in one location (although international collaborative research may appeal to
certain research funders). Third, effective comparative research must be based on
meaningful comparisons, and this requires considerable advance thought and a sound
theoretical justification for the comparison being attempted, rather than a simple
choice of two or more countries almost at random. The barriers to CIAH research have
meant that the extant studies in this area have tended to be limited to countries closely
located in geographical or cultural terms.
Innovative research methods in accounting history
Following calls made by various authors, including most notably Theresa Hammond
(see, for example, Hammond and Streeter, 1994; Hammond and Sikka, 1996; Hammond,
2003), in recent years some accounting historians have investigated accounting’s past
from the perspective of under-represented groups, including repressed peoples. Such
studies have been described as “histories outside the mainstream” (Hammond, 2003,
p. 81). They typically involve the collection and use of oral history sources, notably the
personal accounts of actors whose stories may otherwise be regarded as insufficiently
significant for narrations of episodes of “progress”, where attention is often placed on
individuals such as leaders or pioneers (the “first” or “earliest”). Oral evidence not only
broadens the archive; it can also represent the experiences of “voices from below” and
thus can provide perspective in explications of accounting development[27]. Recent
contributions also include Hammond (2002) and Kim (2004a, b). Hammond (2002)
chronicled the stories of several of the pioneering African men and women who were
required to surmount various obstacles in becoming and remaining a Certified Public
Accountant in the US accounting profession. Kim (2004a, b) examined the experiences
of Chinese accountants in New Zealand. Oral history is not reserved only for studies
concerned with exclusion and oppression – it may be of considerable importance in
conducting accounting history research in general. For instance, Walker (2005b) has
collected four interviews with eminent members of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of Scotland, while Miley (2006) has documented the previously
unrecorded experiences of the users of Australian Army accounting procedures for
supplying soldiers and support staff during the Second World War.
AAAJ
25,2
346
Oral history is not the only area for innovative research methods. Examinations of
discursive media such as novels and short stories may also contribute to enlivening the
social history of accounting. Examples are Maltby (1997), looking at the nineteenth
century German novelSoll und Haben(“Debit and Credit”) by Gustav Freytag, and
West (2001) in an examination of Bruce Marshall’s 1958 bookThe Bank Audit. The
archive in historical accounting research may take many different forms and will
undoubtedly extend, in future, to social communication media such as Facebook and
Twitter, as well as to e-mail, assuming that communications using such channels are
preserved. Moreover, as archives themselves are digitised, it becomes possible for
researchers to use records that were previously hard to access, as well as employing
sophisticated techniques for searching on-line sources (Rosenzweig, 2011). As a
by-product, digitisation may make international collaboration, and approaches such as
CIAH, more practical.
One aspect of historical accounting research that has been significantly
underdeveloped is quantitative analysis. Over two decades ago, Napier (1989)
identified research using quantitative methods, including but not restricted to
statistical analysis of large databases, as potentially interesting for accounting
historians, following the emergence of “cliometrics” (also known as econometric
history) within the economic history discipline. There have been relatively few studies
within accounting history using complex statistical analysis (a recent example is the
study of early twentieth century US railroad accounts by Sivakumar and Waymire,
2003). This may reflect the difficulties of collecting data not normally included in the
databases commonly used for so-called “archival-empirical” accounting research[28].
More recently, Waymire and Basu (2007) have seen quantitative research approaches
as potentially attractive to junior researchers in the USA whose doctoral training is
heavily econometric in approach. As Napier (1989) pointed out, research using data
from relatively unregulated periods could be used to test hypotheses about the use of
accounting information by capital market participants and the factors underlying
accounting policy choice. However, such research needs to be firmly grounded in an
understanding of the institutional and social environment of the period being studied,
rather than simply being an application of “new” methods to “old” data. In focusing on
the use of informational resources for managerial purposes, the relationship between,
and integration of, accounting and statistics was specifically explored by Chandar and
Miranti (2009) in an examination of forecasting, budgeting and production planning at
the American Telephone and Telegraph Company during the 1920s.
Assessing the effect of the special issue
In our initial call for papers, we emphasised the importance of theory and rigorous
method for historical accounting research. Our own paper (C&N) called for “critical”
and “interpretive” histories, stressing that researchers should not take for granted that
accounting was merely a neutral technique. Rather, they should identify, assess and
critique the ways in which accounting was potentially implicated in complex
relationships of power and control, not just within the business setting but much more
widely. Moreover, accounting history is not only the history of accounting techniques
and ideas, alongside the history of accountants, but also involves a study of the impact
of accounting on individuals, organisations and society, and an interpretive
understanding of the meanings that have been attributed to accounting at different
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
347
times. We wanted researchers to examine the “dark” as well as the “bright” sides of
accounting, to challenge conventional narratives of accounting progress, to accept that
accounting is more than simple counting and calculation. We also wanted researchers
to appreciate that accounting’s past needed to be studied within its social, political,
economic and environmental contexts, and that researchers should consider how
accounting in the past, even if it appeared strange on the surface, might embody
activities and uses with counterparts in the present day.
The review of the eight themes has therefore stressed the variety of areas that
researchers have explored and the range of methods and theoretical frameworks
adopted. We are, frankly, less interested in identifying “stylized facts” (Kaldor, 1961)
that can be presented as the “findings” of the large body of historical accounting
research that we have reviewed in the preceding section of this paper, than in the fact
that, increasingly, historical accounting research around the world has embraced the
need for rigorous method and theoretically informed analysis. Historical accounting
researchers have declared their adoption of the theoretical ideas of Marx, Foucault,
Latour, Bourdieu, Weber and other eminent scholars, as well as institutional theory, the
sociology of the professions, legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, imperialism,
agency theory and positive accounting theory. Even papers that do not attach a name
to their theoretical approach usually embed their archivally based findings in an
analytical or explanatory framework rather than simply presenting the findings as a
“factual” narrative.
Having said this, however, we would make the following general observations with
respect to the eight themes identified in the original C&N paper:
(1) Surviving records of business firms: the significant development of the past
15 years is that researchers have been moving beyond the business, even
though long-running debates, such as the roles of accounting in measuring
costs and managing people, remain a central focus of research.
(2) Accounting records in business history: opportunities for greater collaboration
between accounting and business historians have not been taken up to the
extent that we had hoped, but there have been interesting developments in the
interfaces between accounting history and management, financial and social
history.
(3) Biography: the contribution of H&S to the special issue particularly encouraged
studies of how accounting impacted on the lives of individuals “from below”.
(4) Prosopography: this approach remains under-developed in historical
accounting research.
(5) Institutional history: research into accounting as an occupational category has
been more critical of the “traditional” professional project, emphasising class,
race and gender as important factors, and escaping from the narrow focus on
the USA and the British Empire.
(6) Public sector accounting: this has been an increasingly important area of
historical accounting research, using a wide range of theoretical lenses. Some
researchers are beginning to question the usefulness of the public/private
distinction in the historical context.
AAAJ
25,2
348
(7) Comparative international accounting history: this is another approach that
remains under-developed, although the emergence of accounting historians
from a broader cross-section of countries may enhance the likelihood of
international collaboration.
(8) Innovative methods in accounting history: oral history is now well established,
and a challenge for historical accounting researchers will be to engage fully
with the digitisation of archives. Opportunities for quantitative historical
research remain under-explored.
In the final substantive section of the paper, we consider some issues relating to the
future of historical accounting research. Unlike our earlier paper (Carnegie and Napier,
1996), we do not identify specific themes. Instead, we look at some of the factors that
may influence different approaches to research in accounting history over the next
decade.
What is the future for accounting history?
Accounting historians face a fundamental tension: do they see themselves primarily as
accounting researchers or, more particularly, as historians? This is of practical
importance because historical accounting research is almost entirely a venture
undertaken in universities, and the location of a researcher in terms of institution and
discipline has a significant influence on that researcher’s views as to what the subject
matter and process of research should be. Walker (2009, p. 25) has suggested that
“Accounting history is best understood as an expanding and maturing sub-discipline
of accounting.” However, it is also possible to view accounting history in more
methodological terms, as an approach to understanding accounting issues through a
historical lens. Hence historical accounting research cuts across boundaries between
financial accounting, management accounting, auditing, governance, social
accounting, taxation and other traditional disciplinary classifications[29].
Although some accounting researchers working within the historical area have had a
rigorous training as historians, many, perhaps most, have acquired their knowledge of
historical method and theory more informally through experience. Where disciplinary
divisions are strongly enforced in an institution, historical accounting researchers may
have little contact with “mainstream” historians, and PhD students undertaking
historical research in accounting may receive only minimal research training that is
specifically oriented towards the study of history. Although Napier (2009b, p. 45) claimed
optimistically that “accounting historians have a more rigorous conception of
historiographical issues, such as evidence, the role of theory, the nature of historical
explanation, and the significance of narrative to the communication of history” than they
did 40 years ago, it is more likely that new accounting historians are trained in qualitative
social science methods rather than specifically in the methods of historical research.
Does this matter? In one sense, it does not, if accounting history has grown
sufficiently to be self-sustaining within the academy. Some accounting historians will
keep an eye on developments in “mainstream” history and hence will be aware of
current theoretical, methodological and substantive debates that could potentially
impinge on historical research within accounting. Most accounting historians,
however, will assess the quality of their work by reference to the standards of the
accounting discipline more generally. So long as diverse research approaches are
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
349
valued within accounting scholarship, historical research will have an important place.
The fear of some is that diversity in accounting research is no longer appreciated, at
least in the USA, leading to apprehensions of “the quiet but discernable death of
accounting history in the U.S.” (Fleischman and Radcliffe, 2005, p. 86). Future research
lacking a strong grounding in history, rather than just the social sciences, may be
considered irrelevant by hegemonic interests within accounting research at the same
time as historians in history departments regards it as lacking in rigour.
And yet accounting is a means of recording economic and more generally
quantifiable human activity and is a manifestation of the myriad social and
organisational systems that, as Foucault notes, “quietly order us about” (quoted in
Simon, 1971, p. 200). Hence accounting is clearly of interest to historians, sociologists,
anthropologists and others outside the accounting discipline. Walker (2005a) has
pointed out the many ways in which historians are using accounts as their archival
materials, and, increasingly, other disciplines are aware of the importance of accounting
as a recording and information processing system. Two examples of this are the
discussion by James Aho (2005), a sociologist of religion, of the influence of the medieval
Roman Catholic confessional on modern accounting, and the examination of seventeenth
century French governmental information processing, centred on the figure of
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, undertaken by the historian of ideas Jacob Soll (2009)[30].
Both these authors are based in the USA, suggesting that there may currently be
more interest in historical accounting research outside accounting departments in US
universities than within such departments. Possibly US academic accountants think
that historical research in the field is too interesting (compare Whittington, 1995)?
Outside the USA, historical accounting research tends to be valued in those
departments that do not slavishly model themselves on prominent US accounting
research groups. The growth of theoretically-informed historical research, especially
among younger researchers in countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal and France, is
spreading to other parts of Europe, particularly countries with a strong accounting
history tradition such as Turkey. There are still large areas of the world into which
historical accounting research has hardly penetrated, such as Latin America, Africa,
the Middle East and South Asia, but even here we are beginning to see work emerging.
Sy and Tinker (2005, 2006) have called forcefully for an abandonment of what they see
as the “Euro-centric” dominance of accounting history, and call for more research in the
ways of accounting in mainly oral African cultures. Napier (2009c) has reviewed
historical research into accounting in the Middle East, and his call for more research
into accounting in Muslim-majority countries overlaps Sy and Tinker’s own call in that
much of North Africa falls within the “Islamic world” in which Napier is interested.
Historical accounting research is also likely to follow trends in more general
research in accounting, particularly of the more qualitative and interpretive type. For
example, Walker (2008, p. 311) studied how a growing interest in corporate social and
environmental disclosures, and more generally in corporate social responsibility, has
stimulated some historical studies. A significant area of growth in recent years is the
notion of accountability, perhaps always implicit in studies of accounting but
increasingly being discussed as a separate topic. Accountability as a “chameleon”
(Sinclair, 1995) is often coupled with corporate governance, and in the legal governance
literature an awareness of the possible value of a historical perspective has been
promoted by various writers, including Blair (2004)[31].
AAAJ
25,2
350
An important motivation of historical work in corporate governance is the idea that
studying the historical development of a concept or practice can provide useful insights
into current thought and practices, and that this will be of value in helping to advance
policy debates. Such policy-relevant research should, we believe, be encouraged more
generally, because historical accounting research often focuses on processes of change
in organisations and society. An understanding of the factors implicated in past
change events may allow historians to evaluate current proposals for accounting
reform and even to advance their own recommendations (Gomes et al., 2011). For
example, recent debates over such notions as fair value would undoubtedly have been
more informed had participants had a clearer idea of the origins and development of
fair value as a term and as a concept. Historians can, therefore, help us recall
knowledge of the past, including local, time-specific understandings of key concepts,
that the present generation has forgotten. Unfortunately, historical reviews may
emerge too late to have much impact on debate, as for example the review of inflation
accounting ideas and methods by Tweedie and Whittington (1984) – a valuable study
by two scholars who were later to play a significant role in international accounting
standard setting, but one that emerged as the debate on inflation accounting was
running out of steam. However, if published historical accounting research can have an
impact on current debates, such as the question of how far accounting methods are
implicated in specific business collapses (Jones, 2011) and general financial crises
(Waymire and Basu, 2007), then it will have a clearer role within the discipline and
benefit from increased demand for its insights.
The issues that future accounting historians are likely to have to grapple with,
beyond the general acceptability of historical research in the discipline, are precisely
those historiographical matters that Napier (2009b) alluded to: evidence, theory,
explanation and narrative[32]. The broadening of the evidence base for historical
accounting research has already been mentioned, and the paper by Hammond and
Sikka (1996) in the special issue helped to extend the “archive” from written to oral
materials. Carnegie and Napier (2010, p. 364) have noted the many different media that
have been used by researchers to gain an understanding of popular perceptions of
accountants, and all of these are of potential interest to the accounting historian. How
far does historical research rely on the survival of artefacts – can the call of Sy and
Tinker (2005) to reduce our fixation on the archive in order to research an apparently
non-literate African accounting be responded to?
Linked with the role of evidence is the problem so often identified by editors and
reviewers when examining research papers (see, for example, Walker, 2008, p. 308,
reinforcing inter alia Napier, 2006): “Where is the accounting?” The issue of what
“counts” as accounting in its various contexts, and hence is the legitimate object of
(historical) accounting research, is one that cannot, indeed should not, be resolved once
and for all – we should not, through trying to delimit accounting research, construct
barriers that could exclude useful future contributions. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to
challenge such contributions to demonstrate how they constitute knowledge about
accounting, and its implications for organisational and social functioning, rather than
more generic calculations or administrative procedures.
As most historical accounting research is undertaken within accounting
departments where the overarching disciplinary tradition is that of the social
sciences, historical accounting researchers cannot avoid grappling with the question of
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
351
how theory informs and affects their work. This may be a potential constraint on the
growth of accounting history, since it seems to minimise the value of more traditional
historical tasks such as the patient location and transcription of accounting records. On
the other hand, accounting historians are likely to reflect on broader issues such as
causation, agency and structure that more “mainstream” historians often seem to take
for granted. A well-articulated theoretical position can help researchers to abstract
from the particular data with which they are presented or which they uncover, to posit
the key variables or factors that may be relevant to understanding and explaining the
specific phenomena of interest, and to suggest relationships among those variables or
factors that may be investigated. Theory is both prior to and posterior to archival
work, as it indicates propositions or hypotheses that may be considered in locating,
accessing and extracting material, and gives shape and generality to specific findings
in increasingly broader organisational settings. Perhaps one of the most important
contributions of the special issue was its emphatic endorsement of the calls for
theoretically-informed accounting history research that were emerging in the early
1990s, to which many subsequent researchers in the field have responded positively.
Much explanation in history adopts a naive causal and chronological structure:
event X happened because event Y happened first, or circumstances Z obtained before
event X. Perhaps as a counter-weight to the dominance of causal explanation, some of
the “new accounting historians” advocated a different approach to explanation, often
summed up as “conditions of possibility” (Miller et al., 1991, p. 395). Here, the
explanation takes the form: event X would not have happened (when it did, or perhaps
at all) unless conditions A, B, C, etc. were in existence. The search for explanation
modulates into a search for the required conditions of possibility, and these can often
be found in temporary conjunctions of apparently disparate factors (see, for example,
the seminal paper by Burchellet al., 1985). Because of their social science backgrounds,
many accounting historians have accepted the need for explanation in history to be
general: particular historical events are thus seen as specific cases of some more
general phenomenon. Terms and concepts that were originally offered as ways of
understanding individual situations, such as “programme”, “problematisation”,
“arena” and “constellation”, become explanatory frameworks that are often fruitful,
but are sometimes applied unsubtly in new and possibly inappropriate contexts.
One of the main issues in understanding explanation in “mainstream” history is the
extent to which the way in which history is written – the “narrative” – itself provides
explanatory power. Munslow (2000, p. 121) noted how traditional historians saw their
role as telling stories about what “actually happened”, the explanatory force of their
stories coming from their correspondence to “reality”. Munslow (2000, p. 123) referred
to Hayden White’s challenge to this view from the perspective of linguistic theory
(White, 1973; see also Funnell, 1998, and Napier, 2001), and concluded that “historical
explanation is not yet a settled matter.” However, the issue of narrative emerges in how
accounting history is written. Historical papers often take the form of qualitative case
studies, with a general introduction, a theoretical discussion (possibly referring to prior
literature), a narrative (annotated to a greater or lesser extent with comments arising
from the theoretical perspective chosen by the author), and a final discussion drawing
out broader theoretical implications. In accordance with dominant social science
methodologies, the history is used to illustrate, refine and even extend the theory. As
Llewellyn (2003, p. 697) observes, accounting historians operate at all five of her
AAAJ
25,2
352
proposed levels of theorising (metaphor theories, differentiation theories, concepts
theories, theorising settings and theorising structures), with “the appropriate level of
theorization [being left] open and dependent on the problem under consideration.”
In some cases, authors explicitly espouse what Llewellyn (2003) refers to as a
“grand theory” (one that theorises structures) – these are often associated with specific
individuals, such as Foucault, Marx, Weber or Latour. In other cases, theory operates
more as an analytical or conceptual framework that stimulates the development of
research questions, and guides the ways in which historical evidence is identified and
structured into a coherent narrative. For example, as already noted, some research into
the transfer of accounting ideas and technologies was stimulated by a series of
questions posed by Jeremy (1991). These questions did not in themselves posit a
particular structure for international technology transfer, but they presented an
analytical framework for investigating the issue. In Llewellyn’s terms, this could still
be regarded as a theory, albeit at a lower level than the grand theories of Marx or
Foucault. A reader of a study that has been shaped by such an analytical framework
may find it more difficult to attribute a specific theory or theories to the study, but this
is not to say that the study is “atheoretical” (Hopwood, 1985, p. 366).
Conclusion
These issues of evidence, theory, explanation and narrative were demonstrated in the
special issue. Boyns and Edwards, and Fleischman and Tyson, were engaged in
evidence-based challenges to various theoretical models of the roles of managerial
accounting, which sought to provide explanations of the forms taken by costing
methods and how they were used in practice. Their papers use historical evidence, but
they are not “story-telling”. Walker and Mitchell, on the other hand, have more of a
story-telling narrative thread to their paper, with a beginning, middle and outcome.
Theory provides a framework whereby the particular practices and activities are
brought under more general categories. Young and Mouck, and Hammond and Sikka,
address more forcefully the potentials of accounting history, the former by calling for a
greater historical understanding on the part of financial reporting standard setters, the
latter by opening up the nature of evidence and widening its scope. Overall, though, the
authors in the special issue had a sense that an awareness of accounting history would
help modern-day practitioners, regulators and academics to remain “grounded”, by
illuminating the often humble roots of modern practice. At the same time, the special
issue demonstrated that apparently contemporary problems and issues often have past
precursors.
We summed up the mission of the special issue in the following words:
While the contexts within which measurement, calculation and control are manifested will
change, explanations adopting a historical perspective will help us to understand the nature
of accounting change and its impacts on organisational and social functioning, as well as
enabling us to appreciate better, and thereby effectively critique, the accounting of today
(Napier and Carnegie, 1996, p. 6).
Although we would perhaps be less confident now that “accounting change” manifests
itself in a universal form, we still see a consciousness of change and difference as the
main contribution of historical studies in accounting, now and in the future. If we
ignore the historical perspective, current accounting practice and ideas appear rootless,
evanescent and arbitrary. Accounting also appears purely technical, the arena of
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
353
accountants rather than of policy-makers or indeed of society more generally.
Accounting history can provide a unifying power in two senses. First, by presenting
accounting through the perspective of its past, accounting history can help in making
the members of society aware of the ways in which accounting impacts on them today
and constrains their futures. Second, without knowledge of accounting’s past, we have
only a limited point of reference from which to critique contemporary practice and
thought. In other words, historical knowledge of accounting’s past furnishes the
unifying power that permits fuller understanding not just of accounting’s but also of
society’s present and provides constructive input into developing and assessing our
possible futures.
Notes
1. Details of financial crises may change, but the main features are remarkably constant across
the centuries (Reinhart and Rogoff, 2009; see also Soros, 2008).
2. Mills (1993, p. 802) warns against the limitations that a social science approach can impose
on historical accounting research, “whenever the researcher permits a ‘grand’ theory, method
or ideology – whether it be positivist, Marxist, or Foucaultian – to dominate their work, to
bind their research with a predetermined framework.” Tosh (2010) provides a discussion of
the interfaces between history and social theory from the perspective of the historiographer.
3. Mattessich (2003) has noted how pioneering researchers writing in German or Italian were
not always academics – some were antiquarians and collectors with a fascination for early
accounting records and texts.
4. Subsequently published as Carnegie (1997). Some results from the research were published
in AAAJ in Carnegie (1995).
5. The call for papers, which had been distributed at conferences in 1994 and 1995, and
circulated among prospective contributors, was reproduced in Vol. 8 No. 1 ofAccounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal(1995, p. 7).
6. This may explain why nearly all citations of the papers in the special issue lie within the
accounting literature: an interesting exception is the citation of H&S in an oral history study
of radiographers (Decker and Iphofen, 2005). We have not undertaken a detailed quantitative
analysis of how papers other than C&N were cited in subsequent literature, given the
relatively fewer number of citations to the other papers. Citations of H&S occurred most
commonly in papers discussing research methods and in applications of oral history in an
accounting context, while the other papers were cited in further discussions on the topics
that they had addressed.
7. Bisman (2011, p. 170) has recently identified C&N as the most influential paper in the
English-language accounting history literature over the past 15 years. She also notes
(Bisman , 2011, p. 171) that the annual rate of citations to this paper has been increasing
steadily over this period.
8. For example, Napier (2006) cited C&N but was not listed in the database as doing so even
though this later published work itself appears in Google Scholar.
9. This has been described as “the taxonomy offered by Carnegie and Napier (1996)” (Carmona,
2006, p. 249), although the eight areas were intended only as a selection of potentially fruitful
areas and topics, not as an exhaustive classification or taxonomy.
10. Five of these works were written by Mark Christensen, based on his PhD research and
including the dissertation (Christensen, 2009).
11. Each of these investigations related to public sector accounting developments in Australia.
AAAJ
25,2
354
12. Certain European scholars, often from France, Italy, Portugal or Spain, are becoming
increasingly prominent in the English-language accounting history literature (see, for
example, Carmona, 2007).
13. Ville and Fleming (1999/2000, p. 178) warned of the dangers of applying the conclusions of
integrated accounting and business history studies conducted outside Australasia because
of the distinctive aspects of local experience in this Southern hemisphere region. The authors
referred to “the importance of primary industries, high levels of concentration, a close
state-big business relationship and the influence of multinationals” as factors that combine
to differentiate Australasian experience from that in other Western contexts.
14. The contributions of Fayol and Urwick have also been studied by Boyns (Boyns and Smith,
2003; Matthews and Boyns, 2001).
15. More recently, Richardson and Young (2011, p. 135) pointed to the “need to better understand
the effect of personalities and social networks on the development of programs of accounting
research”.
16. This may be mitigated if the scholar has left extensive personal archives, for example
Chambers (Deanet al., 2006) or Goldberg (Parker, 1994).
17. This comprehensive study followed earlier works by the author (for example, Lee, 2001,
2002) on the migration of UK accountants to the USA.
18. Walker (2008, p. 304) referred to the “continuing fascination” with the formation of the
modern accounting profession in Scotland in the middle of the nineteenth century and noted
the counter-factual investigation by Lee (2006a).
19. Also see Rahaman (2010) for an overview of the published critical research on the advent and
development of the accounting profession that has been conducted in Africa.
20. Walker (2008) indicated, for instance, that certain researchers are prone to comment on the
lack of development of the profession in certain non Anglo-American countries against the
implicit progress of the profession in western countries (see, for example, Dyball and
Valcarcel, 1999, Sakagamiet al., 1999, Yapa, 1999).
21. In another recent New Zealand study concerned more particularly with women and
accounting education, Lord and Robb (2010) reported upon the experiences of women in their
roles as accountancy students and staff at the University of Canterbury.
22. This volume is based on West’s PhD research which was undertaken at Deakin University
under the supervision of Peter Wolnizer and Raymond Chambers.
23. This theme underpinned the sixth Accounting History International Conference held in
Wellington in August 2010 with the call for papers highlighting the diversity of research
projects which may fall under the theme (http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/6ahic/call-papers.
aspx: accessed 16 December 2010).
24. Nikitin (2001) also examined developments in public sector accounting in Britain given the
“mutual French-British influence” of the time.
25. Moussalli (2008) also reviewed the literature relating to State government accounting.
26. Richardson and MacDonald (2002) also addressed the comparative dimensions of accounting
history research by linking international business history to accounting history.
27. Further elaboration of oral history as a narrative research methodology is found in Haynes
(2010), James (2010) and Kim (2008).
28. See Napier (2006, p. 450) for a brief discussion of the emergence of this term to describe
accounting research using data about the past stored in computer records.
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
355
29. For example, since 2009, the Annual Congresses of the European Accounting Association
have not included a separate category for Accounting History, but rather have encouraged
historical researchers to present their work within what they consider to be the most
appropriate research track.
30. Aho’s study was stimulated in part by an accounting academic, Kerry Jacobs (Aho, 2005, p.
xix), while the subject matter of Soll’s study had been anticipated in the accounting literature
twenty years earlier by Peter Miller (1990).
31. Although one recent attempt to survey the history of corporate governance (Morck, 2007)
does not include any form of the word “accounting” in its index.
32. Recently, Gaffikin (2011) has revisited the work of various theorists of history, from classical
pioneers such as Herodotus and Thucydides to more modern contributors,such as E. H. Carr,
and contemporary historiographers such as Dominick LaCapra and Alun Munslow. Gaffikin
is sceptical regarding the historiographical rigour of much current historical accounting
research.
References
Aho, J. (2005),Confession and Bookkeeping: The Religious, Moral, and Rhetorical Roots of
Modern Accounting, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Allen, K. (1991), “In pursuit of professional dominance: Australian accounting 1953-1985”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Anderson, M. and Walker, S.P. (2009), “‘All sorts and conditions of men’: the social origins of the
founders of the ICAEW”,The British Accounting Review, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 31-45.
Annisette, M. (1999), “Importing accounting: the case of Trinidad and Tobago”,Accounting,
Business and Financial History, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 103-33.
Annisette, M. (2000), “Imperialism and the professions: the education and certification of
accountants in Trinidad and Tobago”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 25
No. 7, pp. 631-59.
Annisette, M. (2003), “The colour of accountancy: examining the salience of race in a
professionalisation project”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28 Nos 7/8,
pp. 639-74.
Arnold, A.J. and McCartney, S. (2003), “‘It may be easier than you think’: evidence, myths and
informed debate in accounting history”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 227-53.
Auyeung, P.K. (2002), “A comparative study of accounting adaptation: China and Japan during
the nineteenth century”,Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 1-30.
Baker, C.R. (2011), “A genealogical history of positivist and critical accounting research”,
Accounting History, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 207-21.
Bakre, O.M. (2005), “First attempt at localizing imperial accountancy: the case of the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of Jamaica (ICAJ) (1950-1970s)”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 995-1018.
Bakre, O.M. (2006), “Second attempt at localizing imperial accountancy: the case of the Institute
of Chartered Accountants of Jamaica (ICAJ) (1970s-1980s)”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Benson, H.A. (1989),Accounting for Life, Kogan Page, London.
Bergeva¨rn, L.-E. and Olson, O. (1989), “Reforms and myths – a history of Swedish municipal
accounting”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 22-39.
AAAJ
25,2
356
Birkett, W.P. and Evans, W. (2005), “Control of accounting education within Australia
universities and technical colleges 1944-1951: a uni-dimensional consideration of
professionalism”,Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 121-43.
Bisman, J. (2011), “Cite and seek: exploring accounting history through citation analysis of the
specialist accounting history journals, 1996 to 2008”,Accounting History, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 161-83.
Blair, M.M. (2004), “Reforming corporate governance: what history can teach us”,Berkeley
Business Law Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-44.
Bocqueraz, C. and Walton, P. (2006), “Creating a supranational institution: the role of the
individual and the mood of the times”, Accounting History, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 271-88.
Boyns, T. and Edwards, J.R. (1996), “The development of accounting in mid-nineteenth century
Britain: a non-disciplinary view”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 40-60.
Boyns, T. and Smith, I.G. (2003), “Fayol et son influence sur la pense´e et les pratiques
manage´riales en Grande-Bretagne”, in Peaucelle, J.-L. (Ed.), Henri Fayol, inventeur des
outils digestion: Textes originaux et recherches actuelles, Economica, Paris, pp. 237-55.
Boyns, T., Edwards, J.R. and Nikitin, M. (1997),The Birth of Industrial Accounting in France and
Britain, New Works in Accounting History, Garland Publishing, New York, NY and
London.
Brackenborough, S. (2003), “‘Pound foolish penny wise’ system: the role of accounting in the
improvement of the River Tyne, 1800-1850”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 45-72.
Brinkley, A. (1984), “Comparative biography as political history: Huey Long and Father
Coughlin”,The History Teacher, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 9-16.
Brown, R. (Ed.) (1905),A History of Accounting and Accountants, T.C. & E.C. Jack, Edinburgh.
Buhr, N. (2010), “From cash to accrual and domestic to international: government accounting
standard setting in the last 30 years”, plenary paper presented at The sixth Accounting
History International Conference, Wellington, August.
Bullock, A. (1998),Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, 2nd ed., Fontana, London.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C. and Hopwood, A. (1985), “Accounting in its social context: towards a
history of value added in the United Kingdom”,Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 381-413.
Burrows, G. (2006),Promise Fulfilled: The History of the Accounting Discipline at the University of
Melbourne 1924-2004, Melbourne University Publishing, Melbourne.
Camfferman, K. and Zeff, S. (2007),Financial Reporting and Global Capital Markets: A History of
the International Accounting Standards Committee, 1973-2000, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Carmona, S. (2006), “Performance reviews, the impact of accounting research, and the role of
publication forms”,Advances in Accounting, Vol. 22, June, pp. 241-67.
Carmona, S. (2007), “The history of management accounting in France, Italy, Portugal and
Spain”, in Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G. and Shields, M.D. (Eds), Handbook of
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 2, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 905-22.
Carmona, S., Donoso, R. and Walker, S.P. (2010), “Accounting and international relations: Britain,
Spain and the Asiento treaty”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 252-73.
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
357
Carmona, S., Ezzamel, M. and Gutie´rrez, F. (1997), “Cost and cost accounting practices in the
Spanish Royal Tobacco Factory”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 411-46.
Carmona, S., Ezzamel, M. and Gutie´rrez, F. (1998), “Towards an institutional analysis of
accounting change in the Royal Tobacco Factory of Seville”, Accounting Historians
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 115-47.
Carmona, S., Ezzamel, M. and Gutie´rrez, F. (2002), “The relationship between accounting and
spatial practices in the factory”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 239-74.
Carnegie, G.D. (1995), “Pastoral accounting in pre-Federation Victoria: a contextual analysis of
surviving business records”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 3-33.
Carnegie, G.D. (1997),Pastoral Accounting in Colonial Australia: A Case Study of Unregulated
Accounting, Garland, New York, NY and London.
Carnegie, G.D. and Edwards, J.R. (2001), “The construction of the professional accountant:
the case of the Incorporated Institute of Accountants, Victoria (1886)”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 26 Nos 4/5, pp. 301-25.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (1996), “Critical and interpretive histories: insights into
accounting’s present and future through its past”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 7-39.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (2002), “Exploring comparative international accounting history”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 689-718.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (2010), “Traditional accountants and business professionals:
portraying the accounting profession after Enron”,Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 360-76.
Carnegie, G.D. and Parker, R.H. (1996), “The transfer of accounting technology to the southern
hemisphere: the case of William Butler Yaldwyn”,Accounting, Business and Financial
History, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23-49.
Carnegie, G.D. and Potter, B.N. (2000), “Accounting history in Australia: a survey of published
works, 1975-1999”,Australian Economic History Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 287-313.
Carnegie, G.D., Edwards, J.R. and West, B.P. (2003), “Understanding the dynamics of the
Australian accounting profession: a prosopographical study of the founding members of
the Incorporated Institute of Accountants, Victoria, 1886 to 1908”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 790-820.
Carnegie, G.D., Foreman, P. and West, B.P. (2006), “F.E. Vigars’ Station Book-keeping: a specialist
Australian text enabling the adaptation and transfer of accounting technology”,
Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 103-30.
Carnegie, G.D., Parker, R.H. and Wigg, R. (2000), “The life and career of John Spence Ogilvy
(1805-71), the first chartered accountant to emigrate to Australia”, Accounting, Business
and Financial History, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 371-83.
Carson, P.P. and Carson, K.D. (1998), “Theoretically grounding management history as a relevant
and valuable form of knowledge”,Journal of Management History, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Carvalho, J.M., Rodrigues, L.L. and Craig, R. (2007), “Early cost accounting practices and private
ownership: the Silk Factory Company of Portugal, 1745-1747”,Accounting Historians
Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 57-89.
AAAJ
25,2
358
Chandar, N. and Miranti, P.J. (2009), “Integrating accounting and statistics: forecasting,
budgeting and production planning at the American Telephone and Telegraph Company
during the 1920s”,Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 373-95.
Chandler, A.D. Jr (1977),Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business,
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and London.
Christensen, M. (2002), “Accrual accounting in the public sector: the case of the New South Wales
government”,Accounting History, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 93-124.
Christensen, M. (2009), “NSW public sector accrual accounting: why did it happen and has it
mattered?”, PhD dissertation, University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Clarke, F., Dean, G. and Wells, M. (2010),The Sydney School of Accounting: The Chambers Years,
University of Sydney, Sydney.
Clarke, P. (2005), “The story of Bernard F. Shields: the first professor of accountancy in the UK”,
Accounting History, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 103-23.
Cobbin, P. (2009), “The best brains of the public accounting world: the restricted membership of
the Army Accountancy Panel 1942-1945”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 1-29.
Colasse, B. (Ed.) (2005), “Les grands auteurs de la comptabilite´”, EMS, Paris.
Collins, M. and Bloom, R. (1991), “The role of oral history in accounting”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 23-31.
Cooper, K. (2008), “Mary Addison Hamilton, Australia’s first lady of numbers”,Accounting
History, Vol. 143 No. 2, pp. 135-61.
Cooper, K. (2010), “Accounting by women: fear favour and the path to professional recognition
for Australian women accountants”, Accounting History, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 309-36.
Davis, N. (2010), “Accrual accounting and the Australian public sector – a legitimation
explanation”, Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 61-78.
Dean, G., Clarke, F.L. and Wolnizer, P.W. (2006), “The R.J. Chambers Collection – An archivist’s
revelations of 20th century accounting thought and practice”, Accounting Historians
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 145-66.
Decker, S. and Iphofen, R. (2005), “Developing the profession of radiography: making use of oral
history”,Radiography, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 262-71.
Devonport, B.F. (2008), “The participation of women in the New Zealand Institute of Chartered
Accountants: 100 years of social stereotyping”,Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 269-81.
Dyball, M.C. and Valcarcel, L.J. (1999), “The ‘rational’ and ‘traditional’: the regulation of
accounting in the Philippines”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 303-27.
Dyball, M.C., Poullaos, C. and Chua, W.F. (2007), “Accounting and empire:
professionalization-as-resistance the case of Philippines”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 415-49.
Edey, H.C. (2009), “A memoir”, in Bailey, N. (Ed.),Harold Cecil Edey: 20th Century Accounting
Reformer, Books on Demand, Peterborough, pp. 1-93.
Edwards, J.R. (1989),A History of Financial Accounting, Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Edwards, J.R. (Ed.) (1994),Twentieth-Century Accounting Thinkers, Routledge, London and
New York, NY.
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
359
Edwards, J.R. and Greener, H.T. (2003), “Introducing ‘mercantile’ bookkeeping into British
central government, 1828-1844”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 51-64.
Edwards, J.R. and Newell, E. (1991), “The development of industrial cost and management
accounting before 1850: a survey of the evidence”,Business History, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Edwards, J.R. and Walker, S.P. (2010), “Lifestyle, status and occupational differentiation in
Victorian accountancy”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 2-22.
Edwards, J.R., Carnegie, G.D. and Cauberg, J.H. (1997), “The Incorporated Institute of
Accountants, Victoria (1886): a study of founders’ backgrounds”, in Cooke, T.E. and
Nobes, C.W. (Eds),The Development of Accounting in an International Context:
A Festschrift in Honour of R.H. Parker, Routledge, London and New York, NY, pp. 49-67.
Edwards, J.R., Coombs, H.M. and Greener, H.T. (2002), “British central government and the
mercantile system of double entry bookkeeping: a study of ideological conflict”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 637-58.
Emory, M., Hooks, J. and Stewart, R. (2002), “Born at the wrong time? An oral history of women
professional accountants in New Zealand”,Accounting History, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 7-34.
Evans, E. and Juchau, R. (2009),Colleges of Advanced Education in Australia – A Lasting Legacy:
A History of Accounting Education in Australian Colleges of Advanced Education, VDM
Verlag Dr. Mu¨ller, Saarbru ¨cken.
Faria, A.R. (2008), “An analysis of accounting history research in Portugal: 1990-2004”,
Accounting History, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 353-82.
Fleischman, R.K. and Macve, R.H. (2002), “Coals from Newcastle: an evaluation of alternative
frameworks for interpreting the development of cost and management accounting in
Northeast coal mining during the British Industrial Revolution”,Accounting and Business
Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 133-52.
Fleischman, R.K. and Parker, L.D. (1991), “British entrepreneurs and pre-industrial revolution
evidence of cost management”,The Accounting Review, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 361-75.
Fleischman, R.K. and Parker, L.D. (1997),What is Past is Prologue: Cost Accounting in the British
Industrial Revolution 1760-1850, New Works in Accounting History, Garland Publishing,
New York, NY and London.
Fleischman, R.K. and Radcliffe, V.S. (2005), “The roaring nineties: accounting history comes of
age”,Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 61-109.
Fleischman, R.K. and Tyson, T.N. (1996), “Inside contracting at the Waltham Watch Company:
reassessing the economic rationalist and labour process perspectives”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 61-78.
Fleischman, R.K. and Tyson, T.N. (2003), “Archival research methodology”, in Fleischman, R.K.,
Radcliffe, V.S. and Shoemaker, P.A. (Eds),Doing Accounting History: Contributions to the
Development of Accounting Thought, Studies in the Development of Accounting Thought,
Vol. 6, JAI Press, Oxford, pp. 31-47.
Flesher, D.L. (2010),Gerhard G. Mueller: Father of International Accounting Education, Studies
in the Development of Accounting Thought, Vol. 13, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
Flesher, D.L. and Flesher, T.K. (2003), “Biographical research in accounting”, in Fleischman, R.K.,
Radcliffe, V.S. and Shoemaker, P.A. (Eds),Doing Accounting History: Contributions to the
Development of Accounting Thought, Studies in the Development of Accounting Thought,
Vol. 6, JAI Press, Oxford, pp. 97-120.
Foreman, P. (2001), “The transfer of accounting technology: a study of the Commonwealth of
Australia government factories, 1910-1916”,Accounting History, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 31-59.
AAAJ
25,2
360
Fridenson, P. (2007), “The bilateral relationship between accounting history and business
history: a French perspective”,Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 375-80.
Funnell, W. (1998), “The narrative and its place in the new accounting history: the rise of the
counternarrative”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 142-62.
Funnell, W.N. (2003),Accounting for War: Financial Control of the British Army 1846-1899,
Accounting and Finance Academic Press, New South Wales.
Funnell, W.N. (2006), “National efficiency, military accounting and the business of war”,Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 719-51.
Funnell, W.N. (2007), “Evidence, myths and informed debate in accounting history: a response to
Arnold and McCartney”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 297-8.
Funnell, W.N. (2008), “The ‘Proper Trust of Liberty’: economical reform, the English constitution
and the protections of accounting during the American War of Independence”,Accounting
History, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
Funnell, W.H. and Chwastiak, M. (2010), “Editorial: accounting and the military”,Accounting
History, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 147-52.
Gaffikin, M. (2011), “What is (accounting) history?”,Accounting History, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 235-51.
Gomes, D. (2008), “The interplay of conceptions of accounting and schools of thought in
accounting history”,Accounting History, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 479-509.
Gomes, D., Carnegie, G.D. and Rodrigues, L.L. (2008), “Accounting change in central government:
the adoption of double entry bookkeeping at the Portuguese Royal Treasury (1761)”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 1144-84.
Gomes, D., Carnegie, G.D., Napier, C.J., Parker, L.D. and West, B. (2011), “Does accounting history
matter?”,Accounting History, Vol. 16 No. 4, forthcoming.
Graves, O.F. and Radcliffe, V.S. (2001), “A call for papers: histories of accounting and public
policy”,Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 92-6.
Gutie´rrez, F., Larrinaga, C. and Nun ˜ez, M. (2005), “Cost and management accounting in
pre-industrial revolution Spain”,Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 111-48.
Hammond, T. (2002),A White-collar Profession: African-American CPAs since 1921, University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Hammond, T. (2003), “Histories outside the mainstream: oral history and non-traditional
approaches”, in Fleischman, R.K., Radcliffe, V.S. and Shoemaker, P.A. (Eds), Doing
Accounting History: Contributions to the Development of Accounting Thought, Studies in
the Development of Accounting Thought, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Oxford, pp. 81-96.
Hammond, T. and Sikka, P. (1996), “Radicalizing accounting history; the potential of oral
history”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 79-97.
Hammond, T. and Streeter, S. (1994), “Overcoming barriers: early African-American certified
public accountants”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 271-88.
Hammond, T., Arnold, P.J. and Clayton, B.M. (2007), “Recounting a difficult past: a South African
accounting firm’s ‘experiences in transformation’”,Accounting History, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 253-81.
Hammond, T., Clayton, B.M. and Arnold, P.J. (2009), “South Africa’s transition from apartheid:
the role of professional closure in the experiences of black chartered accountants”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 Nos 6/7, pp. 703-21.
Hao, Z.P. (1999), “Regulation and organization of accountants in China”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 286-302.
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
361
Harzing, A.-W. (2008), Google Scholar – a new data source for citation analysis, available at:
www.harzing.com/pop_gs.htm (accessed 17 August 2011).
Haynes, K. (2010), “Other lives in accounting: critical reflections on oral history methodology in
action”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 221-31.
Hooper, K.C., Pratt, M.J. and Kearins, K.N. (1993), “Accounting, auditing and the business
establishment in colonial Auckland 1880-1895”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 79-98.
Hopwood, A.G. (1983), “On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3, pp. 287-305.
Hopwood, A.G. (1985), “The tale of a committee that never reported: disagreements on
intertwining accounting with the social”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 361-77.
Hopwood, A.G. (1994), “Accounting and everyday life: an introduction”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 299-301.
Hoskin, K. and Macve, R. (1994), “Reappraising the genesis of managerialism: a re-examination
of the role of accounting at the Springfield Armory, 1815-1845”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 4-29.
James, K. (2010), “‘Who am I? Where are we? Where do we go from here?’ Marxism, voice,
representation, and synthesis”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 696-710.
Jeacle, I. (2009), “Accounting and everyday life: towards a cultural context for accounting
research”,Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 120-36.
Jeremy, D.J. (Ed.) (1991), International Technology Transfer: Europe, Japan and the USA,
1700-1914, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
Jones, M. (Ed.) (2011), Creative Accounting, Fraud and International Accounting Scandals,
John Wiley, Chichester.
Juchau, R. (2005),Advance Accounting Fair, Pearson Education Australia, Sydney.
Kaldor, N. (1961), “Capital accumulation and economic growth”, in Lutz, F.A. and Hague, D.C.
(Eds), The Theory of Capital, Macmillan, London, pp. 177-222.
Kim, S.N. (2004a), “Imperialism without empire: silence in contemporary accounting on
race/ethnicity”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-133.
Kim, S. (2004b), “Racialized gendering of the accountancy profession: toward an understanding
of Chinese women’s experiences in accountancy in New Zealand”,Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 400-27.
Kim, S.N. (2008), “Whose voice is it anyway? Rethinking the oral history method in accounting
research on race, ethnicity and gender”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 8,
pp. 1346-69.
Lee, T.A. (Ed.) (1996),Shaping the Accountancy Profession: The Story of Three Scottish Pioneers,
New Works in Accounting History, Garland Publishing, New York, NY and London.
Lee, T.A. (2000), “A social network analysis of the founders of institutionalised public
accountancy”,Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 1-48.
Lee, T.A. (2001), “US public accountancy firms and the recruitment of UK immigrants:
1850-1914”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 537-64.
Lee, T.A. (2002), “UK immigrants and the foundation of the US public accountancy profession”,
Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 73-95.
AAAJ
25,2
362
Lee, T.A. (2006a),The Development of the American Public Accountancy Profession: Scottish
Chartered Accountants and the Early American Public Accountancy Profession, New Works
in Accounting History, Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Lee, T.A. (2006b), “Going where no accounting historian has gone before: a counterfactual
history of the early institutionalisation of modern public accountancy”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 918-44.
Lemarchand, Y. (1999), “Introducing double-entry bookkeeping in public finance: a French
experiment at the beginning of the eighteenth century”, Accounting, Business and
Financial History, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 225-54.
Lemarchand, Y. (2002), “The military origins of the French management accounting model: a
return to the mechanisms of accounting change”, Accounting History, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 23-57.
Licini, S. (2011), “Assessing female wealth in nineteenth century Milan, Italy”,Accounting
History, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 35-54.
Lightbody, M. (2009), “Turnover decisions of women accountants: using personal histories to
understand the relative influence of domestic obligations”,Accounting History, Vol. 14
Nos 1/2, pp. 55-78.
Linn, R. (1996),Power, Progress and Profit: A History of the Australian Accounting Profession,
Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants, Melbourne.
Llewellyn, S. (2003), “What counts as ‘theory’ in qualitative management and accounting
research? Introducing five levels of theorizing”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 662-708.
Lord, B. and Robb, A. (2010), “Women students and staff in accountancy: the Canterbury tales”,
Accounting History, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 529-58.
Luft, J. (1997), “Long term change in management accounting: perspectives from historical
research”,Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 9, pp. 163-97.
Maltby, J. (1997), “Accounting and the soul of the middle class: Gustav Freytag’s Soll und
Haben”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 69-87.
Marriner, S. (1980), “Company financial statements as source material for business historians”,
Business History, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 203-35.
Mathias, P. (1993), “Business history and accounting history: a neighbourly relationship”,
Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 253-73.
Mattessich, R. (2003), “Accounting research and researchers of the nineteenth century and the
beginning of the twentieth century: an international survey of authors, ideas and
publications”,Accounting, Business & Financial History, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 220-36.
Matthews, M.D. and Boyns, T. (2001),A Schedule of the Lyndall Fownes Urwick Archive,
The Management College, Henley.
McKeen, C.A. and Richardson, A.J. (1998), “Education, employment and certification: an oral
history of the entry of women into the Canadian accounting profession”,Business and
Economic History, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 500-21.
Meho, L.I. and Yang, K. (2007), “Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS
faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar”, Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58 No. 13, pp. 2105-25.
Miley, F. (2006), “Using oral history to (re)write the account: supplying the Australian Army
during the Second World War”, Frederick Watson Fellowship paper, National Archives of
Australia, public lecture presented in Canberra, 18 May, available at: www.naa.gov.au/
images/miley_tcm2-4997.pdf (accessed 19 August 2011).
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
363
Miller, P. (1990), “On the interrelations between accounting and the state”,Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 315-40.
Miller, P. (1994), “Accounting as social and institutional practice: an introduction”,
in Hopwood, A.G. and Miller, P. (Eds), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Miller, P. and Napier, C. (1993), “Genealogies of calculation”,Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 631-47.
Miller, P., Hopper, T. and Laughlin, R. (1991), “The new accounting history: an introduction”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 395-403.
Miller, P.B. and Napier, C.J. (1990), “How and why should we do the history of accounting?” paper
presented at the History of the Accounting Present Conference, Denton, Texas, November.
Mills, P.A. (1989), “Words and the study of accounting history”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 21-35.
Mills, P.A. (1990), “Agency, auditing and the unregulated environment: some further historical
evidence”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 54-66.
Mills, P.A. (1993), “Accounting history as social science: a cautionary note”,Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 801-3.
Morck, R.K. (Ed.) (2007),A History of Corporate Governance Around the World: Family Business
Groups to Professional Managers, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL and London.
Moussalli, S.D. (2008), “State and local government accounting in 19th century America: a review
of the literature”,Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 167-95.
Munslow, A. (2000),The Routledge Companion to Historical Studies, Routledge, Abingdon.
Napier, C.J. (1989), “Research directions in accounting history”,The British Accounting Review,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 237-54.
Napier, C.J. (1990), “Book review: A History of Financial Accounting by J.R. Edwards”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 69-72.
Napier, C.J. (2001), “Accounting history and accounting progress”,Accounting History, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 7-31.
Napier, C.J. (2002), “The historian as auditor: facts, judgments and evidence”,Accounting
Historians Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 131-55.
Napier, C.J. (2006), “Accounts of change: 30 years of historical accounting research”,Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 Nos 4/5, pp. 445-507.
Napier, C.J. (2009a), “The logic of pension accounting”,Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 231-49.
Napier, C.J. (2009b), “Historiography”, in Edwards, J.R. and Walker, S.P. (Eds),The Routledge
Companion to Accounting History, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 30-49.
Napier, C.J. (2009c), “Defining Islamic accounting: current issues, past roots”,Accounting History,
Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 121-44.
Napier, C.J. and Carnegie, G.D. (1996), “Editorial”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 4-6.
Nikitin, M. (2001), “The birth of a modern public sector accounting system in France and Britain
and the influence of Count Mollien”,Accounting History, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 75-101.
Okike, E. (2004), “Management of crisis: the response of the auditing profession in Nigeria to the
challenge to its legitimacy”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 705-30.
AAAJ
25,2
364
Paisey, C. and Paisey, N.J. (2010), “Comparative research: an opportunity for accounting
researchers to learn from other professions”, Journal of Accounting & Organisational
Change, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 180-99.
Parker, L.D. (1994), “Impressions of a scholarly gentleman: Professor Louis Goldberg”,
Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 1-40.
Parker, L.D. (1999a), “Fads, stereotypes and management gurus: Fayol and Follett today”,
Accounting, Accountability & Performance, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 41-67.
Parker, L.D. (1999b), “Historiography for the new millennium: adventures in accounting and
management”,Accounting History, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 11-42.
Parker, L.D. and Lewis, N.R. (1995), “Classical management control in contemporary
management and accounting: the persistence of Taylor and Fayol’s world”,Accounting,
Business and Financial History, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 211-36.
Parker, L.D. and Ritson, P.A. (2005), “Revisiting Fayol: anticipating contemporary management”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 175-94.
Parker, L.D. and Ritson, P.A. (2011), “Accounting’s latent classicism: revisiting classical
management origins”,Abacus, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 234-65.
Parker, R.H. (1971), “Some international aspects of accounting”,Journal of Business Finance,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 29-36.
Parker, R.H. (1991), “Misleading accounts? Pitfalls for historians”,Business History, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 1-18.
Parker, R.H. (1997), “Book review: Power, Progress and Profit: A History of the Australian
Accounting Profession”,Accounting History, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 115-8.
Parker, R.H. (2002), “Henry Rand Hatfield (1866-1945): the triumphs and travails of an academic
accounting pioneer”,Accounting History, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 125-35.
Parker, R.H. (2005), “Naming and branding: accountants and accountancy bodies in the British
Empire and Commonwealth, 1853-2003”,Accounting History, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-46.
Potter, B.N. (1999), “The power of words: explaining recent accounting reforms in the Australian
public sector”,Accounting History, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 43-73.
Potter, B.N. (2002), “Financial accounting reforms in the Australian public sector: an episode of
institutional thinking”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 69-93.
Poullaos, C. (1999), “Introduction. From the East – stories about accountants in Asia”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 274-85.
Poullaos, C. (2009), “Profession, race and empire: keeping the centre pure, 1921-1927”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 429-68.
Poullaos, C. and Sian, S. (Eds) (2010), Accountancy and Empire: The British Legacy of
Professional Organization, New Works in Accounting History, Routledge, London and New
York, NY.
Prieto-Moreno, M.B. and Larrinaga-Gonza´les, C. (2001), “Cost accounting in eighteenth century
Spain: The Royal Textile Factory of Ezcaray”,Accounting History, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 59-90.
Rahaman, A.S. (2010), “Critical accounting research in Africa: whence and whither”,Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 420-7.
Ravenscroft, S. and Williams, P.F. (2009), “Making imaginary worlds real: the case of expensing
employee stock options”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 Nos 6/7,
pp. 770-86.
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
365
Reinhart, C.M. and Rogoff, K.S. (2009),This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Richardson, A.J. (2000), “Building the Canadian chartered accountancy profession; a biography
of George Edwards, FCA, CBE, LLD, 1861-1947”,Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 87-116.
Richardson, A.J. and MacDonald, L.D. (2002), “Linking international business theory to
accounting history: implications of the international evolution of the state and the firm for
accounting history research”,Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 67-77.
Richardson, A.J. and Young, J.J. (2011), “Histories of accounting research: an introduction”,
Accounting History, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 133-7.
Romeo, G.C. and Kyj, L.S. (2000), “Anson O. Kittredge: early accounting pioneer”,Accounting
Historians Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 117-43.
Romeo, G.C. and Rigsby, J.T. (2008), “Disseminating professionalism: the influence of Seldon
Hopkins on the US accounting profession”,Accounting History, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 415-50.
Rosenzweig, R. (2011),Clio Wired: The Future of the Past in the Digital Age, Columbia University
Press, New York, NY.
Rutherford, B.A. (2007),Financial Reporting in the UK: A History of the Accounting Standards
Committee, 1969-1990, Routledge, Abingdon.
Rutterford, J. and Maltby, J. (2007), “‘The nesting instinct’: women and investment risk in a
historical context”,Accounting History, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 305-27.
Sakagami, M., Yoshimi, H. and Okano, H. (1999), “Japanese accounting profession in transition”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 340-57.
Samkin, G. (2010), “Trader sailor spy: the case of John Pringle and the transfer of accounting
technology to the Cape of Good Hope”,Accounting History, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 505-28.
Samuels, J.M. and Piper, A.G. (1985),International Accounting: A Survey, St Martin’s Press,
New York, NY.
Sargiacomo, M. (2006), “Using accounting records to enhance an understanding of a
seventeenth-century Italian feudal community: the case of the Commune of Penne
(1664-90)”, Accounting History, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 475-502.
Sargiacomo, M. and Gomes, D. (2011), “Accounting and accountability in local government:
contributions from accounting history research”, Accounting History, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 253-90.
Scorgie, M.E. and Reiss, J.A. (1997), “The impact of naval experience on accounting in colonial
Australia from 1788 to 1792”,Accounting History, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 53-76.
Schneider, D. and Westoll, H. (2004),Experiences in Transformation: Work in Process, Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu, Johannesburg.
Seward, D. (1989),Napoleon and Hitler: A Comparative Biography, Viking, New York, NY.
Shackleton, K. (1999), “Gender segregation in Scottish chartered accountancy: the deployment of
male concerns about the admission of women, 1900-25”,Accounting, Business and
Financial History, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 135-56.
Sian, S. (2006), “Inclusion, exclusion and control: the case of the Kenyan accounting
professionalisation project”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 295-322.
Sian, S. (2007), “Reversing exclusion: the Africanisation of accountancy in Kenya, 1963-1970”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 831-72.
AAAJ
25,2
366
Sidhu, J. (2010), “The interplay of caste and the accounting profession in India”, paper presented
at The Sixth Accounting History International Conference, Wellington, August.
Simon, J.K. (1971), “A conversation with Michel Foucault”,Partisan Review, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 192-201.
Sinclair, A. (1995), “The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2/3, pp. 219-37.
Sivakumar, K. and Waymire, G. (2003), “Enforceable accounting rules and income measurement
by early 20th century railroads”,Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 397-432.
Soll, J. (2009),The Information Master: Jean-Baptiste Colbert’s Secret State Intelligence System,
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Soros, G. (2008),The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it
Means, Public Affairs, New York, NY.
Spruill, W.G. and Wootton, C.W. (1995), “The struggle of women in accounting: the case of Jennie
Palen, pioneer accountant, historian and poet”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 6
No. 4, pp. 371-89.
Staubus, G.J. (2004), “On Brian P. West’s Professionalism and Accounting Rules”,Abacus, Vol. 40
No. 2, pp. 139-56.
Sterling, R.R. (2004), “Book review: Professionalism and Accounting Rules”,Accounting and
Business Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 76-7.
Stewart, R.E. (1992), “Pluralizing our past: Foucault in accounting history”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 57-73.
Susela, S.D. (1999), “‘Interests’ and accounting standard setting in Malaysia”,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 358-87.
Sy, A. and Tinker, T. (2005), “Archival research and the lost worlds of accounting”,Accounting
History, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-69.
Sy, A. and Tinker, T. (2006), “Bury Pacioli in Africa: a bookkeeper’s reification of accountancy”,
Abacus, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 105-27.
Theakston, K. (2002), “Comparative biography and leadership in Whitehall”, Public
Administration, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 651-67.
Thick, A. (1999), “Accounting in the late medieval town: the account books of the stewards of
Southampton in the fifteenth century”,Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 265-90.
Tinker, T. and Neimark, M. (1988), “The struggle over meaning in accounting and corporate
research: a comparative evaluation of conservative and critical historiography”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Tosh, J. (2010),The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern
History, 5th ed., Longman, Harlow.
Tweedie, D. and Whittington, G. (1984),The Debate on Inflation Accounting, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Tyson, T. (1993), “Keeping the record straight: Foucauldian revisionism and nineteenth century
US cost accounting”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 4-16.
Uche, C.U. (2002), “Professional accounting development in Nigeria: threats from the inside and
outside”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 Nos 4/5, pp. 471-96.
Verma, S. and Gray, S.J. (2006), “The creation of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India:
the first steps in the development of an indigenous accounting profession
post-independence”,Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 131-56.
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
367
Ville, S. and Fleming, G. (1999/2000), “Desperately seeking synergy: interdisciplinary research in
accounting and business history”,Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 11 Nos 1/2, pp. 173-80.
Virtanen, A. (2009), “Accounting, gender and history: the life of Minna Canth”,Accounting
History, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 79-100.
Walker, S.P. (1995), “The genesis of professionalization in Scotland: a conceptual analysis”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 285-312.
Walker, S.P. (1996), “The criminal upperworld and the emergence of a disciplinary code in the
early chartered accountancy profession”,Accounting History, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 7-36.
Walker, S.P. (1998), “How to secure your husband’s esteem. Accounting and private patriarchy in
the British middle class household during the nineteenth century”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 23 Nos 5/6, pp. 485-514.
Walker, S.P. (2003a), “Agents of dispossession and acculturation, Edinburgh accountants and the
highland clearances”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 813-58.
Walker, S.P. (2003b), “Identifying the woman behind the ‘railed in desk’, The proto-feminisation
of bookkeeping in Britain”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 606-39.
Walker, S.P. (2005a), “Accounting in history”,Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 233-59.
Walker, S.P. (Ed.) (2005b),Giving an Account: Life Histories of Four CAs, Institute of Chartered
Accountants of Scotland, Edinburgh.
Walker, S.P. (2008), “Innovation, convergence and argument without end in accounting history”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 296-322.
Walker, S.P. (2009), “Structures, territories and tribes”, in Edwards, J.R. and Walker, S.P. (Eds),
The Routledge Companion to Accounting History, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 11-29.
Walker, S.P. and Carnegie, G.D. (2007), “Budgetary earmarking and the control of the
extravagant woman in Australia, 1850-1920”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 233-61.
Walker, S.P. and Llewellyn, S. (2000), “Accounting at home: some interdisciplinary perspectives”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 425-49.
Walker, S.P. and Mitchell, F. (1996), “Propaganda, attitude change and uniform costing in the
British printing industry, 1913-1939”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 98-126.
Watts, R.L. and Zimmerman, J.L. (1983), “Agency problems, auditing, and the theory of the firm:
some evidence”,Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 613-33.
Waymire, G.B. and Basu, S. (2007), “Accounting is an evolved economic institution”,Foundations
and Trends in Accounting, Vol. 2 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-174.
West, B. (2001), “On the social history of accounting: The Bank Audit by Bruce Marshall”,
Accounting History, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 11-30.
West, B.P. (2003),Professionalism and Accounting Rules, New Works in Accounting History,
Routledge, London and New York, NY.
White, H. (1973),Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe,
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Whittington, G. (19952007), “Sir Julian Hodge Lecture, The University College of Wales,
Aberystwyth, ‘Is accounting becoming too interesting?’”, in Whittington, G. (Ed.),
Profitability, Accounting Theory and Methodology: The Selected Essays of Geoffrey
Whittington, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 427-50.
AAAJ
25,2
368
Williams, B. and Wines, G. (2006), “The first ten years ofAccounting Historyas an international
referred journal: 1996-2005”,Accounting History, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 419-45.
Wolk, K. (1983), “Use of comparative biography in the teaching of world history”, paper
presented at the Missouri Conference on History, Kirksville, Missouri, April.
Wren, D.A. (1987), “Management history: issues and ideas for teaching and research”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 339-50.
Xu, Y. and Xu, X. (2003), “Becoming professional: Chinese accountants in early 20th century
Shanghai”,Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 129-53.
Yapa, P.W.S. (1999), “Professional accounting environment in Brunei Darussalam”,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 328-39.
Yapa, P.W.S. (2006), “Cross-border competition and the professionalisation of accounting:
the case of Sri Lanka”,Accounting History, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 447-73.
Yee, H. (2009), “The re-emergence of the public accounting profession in China: a hegemonic
analysis”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Young, J.J. and Mouck, T. (1996), “Objectivity and the role of history in the development and
review of accounting standards”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 127-47.
Young, J.J. and Williams, P.F. (2010), “Sorting and comparing: standard-setting and ‘ethical’
categories”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 509-21.
Zambon, S. and Zan, L. (2007), “Controlling expenditure, or the slow emergence of costing at the
Venice Arsenal, 1586-1633”,Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 105-28.
Zan, L. (2004), “Accounting and management discourse in proto-industrial settings: the Venice
Arsenal at the turn of the 16th century”,Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 145-75.
Zan, L. (2005), “Future direction from the past: management and accounting discourse in
historical perspective”, in Baum, J. (Ed.), Strategy Process (Advances in Strategic
Management, Vol. 22, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 457-89.
Zeff, S.A. (2000), “John B. Canning: a view of his academic career”,Abacus, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 4-39.
Zeff, S.A. (2001),Henry Rand Hatfield; Humanist, Scholar, and Accounting Educator, Studies in
the Development of Accounting Thought, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Stamford, CT.
Corresponding author
Garry Carnegie can be contacted at: garry.carnegie@rmit.edu.au
Accounting’s
past, present
and future
369
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Environmental performance
accountability: planet, people,
profits
Roger L. Burritt
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability,
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
Abstract
Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to provide comment on the contribution of the Environmental
performance accountability special issue ofAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalpublished
in 1997 towards the innovation through a personal reflection developed from the perceived need to
move academics and practitioners into the same space on environmental improvement by
organisations. In addition, the paper will offer future directions for environmental performance
accountability research, including the potential for tools such as integrated reporting, the need for
theoretical pragmatism and importance of a transdisciplinary approach to research.
Design/methodology/approach– The diegetic method used for this article allowed for the
provision of a narrative about actions, characters and events of interest to an audience. This method
facilitated the intersection between the biographical and the historical content and context, and a
hypodiegesis provided the ability for an embedded story within the larger history. The approach
allowed for a hypodiegetic as the story within the story of developing the relationships between
academic accountants and practitioners.
Findings– Contained in the special issue is a set of articles marking the extremes of academic and
practitioner perspectives on what is broadly termed environmental performance and accountability.
Review of the content of the special issue reveals that the bias is towards academic rather than
practitioner appreciation. Review of the context providing the setting for the special issue shows the
need for publishers to engage in the social media mechanisms needed to commence dialogue and
convey the messages of academics to practitioners.
Research limitations/implications– Subjective assessment is overtly recognized rather than
subsumed in the research methods adopted.
Practical implications– The embedding of articles in special issues within a broader
communications portfolio for practitioner understanding is suggested.
Originality/value– The nature of the personal reflection means that thoughts recorded are novel
and unique.
KeywordsOrganizational culture, Corporate governance, Accountability,
Environmental performance accountability, Diegesis, Personal reflection, Papers, Planet, People profits,
Progress
Paper typeResearch paper
1. Environmental performance accountability – a review
The aims of this review are twofold; through a diegesis, to bring out developments in
relation to the content of a special issue of theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
The author would like to provide thanks to two anonymous reviewers who coaxed the paper
from the edge of oblivion to the written words contained herein. Special thanks are also given to
Joanne Tingey-Holyoak for research assistance and encouragement provided throughout.
AAAJ
25,2
370
Received 14 February 2011
Revised 30 May 2011
31 August 2011
Accepted 2 September 2011
Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2012
pp. 370-405
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
DOI 10.1108/09513571211198791
Journal; and in a hypodiegesis to reflect on the relationship between academic
outpourings and practitioners in the context of environmental performance and
accountability – the subject of the 1997 special issue of which the author was editor.
A diegesis involves the provision of a narrative about actions, characters and events of
interest to an audience (Abbott, 2002), or in this case, the readers of the special issue:
“AAAJand research innovation”.
To provide a diegesis through a diegetic narration is a luxury activity in modern
academic accounting research where the “other” approach to research, mimesis, or the
revelation of what is, through scientific discovery, is usuallyf consideredde rigueurby
the keepers of academic standards – journal editors. The opportunity to present a
diegesis is much appreciated and great heart is taken when assessing the contribution
of “The special issue:AAAJand research innovation” to an assessment of the role of
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalin innovation by noting that the
publisher and joint editors have recently visited the relationship between academic
accounting research and professional practice, albeit not specifically in the
contemporary milieu of environmental performance accountability (Parkeret al., 2011).
To put the content in context of the special on environmental performance
accountability is important and is also reviewed here at the hypodiegetic level. The
hypodiegetic narrates the surreptitious, the hidden persuader (Packard, 1957), the
invisible (Thorne and Kouzmin, 2008) and unspoken which cannot be gleaned from the
articles in the special issue (Stigler and Becker, 1977). The potential innovation
contained in both the content and context of the special Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journalissue relates to the tendency or habit (Hodgson, 2003) of
academic researchers and practitioners of the accounting art (Boettinger, 1975;
Singleton-Green, 2010) not to engage with each other and the desire to make this
transparent with a view to improving the situation.
The special issue was the end product of an attempt at engaging academics and
practitioner accountants in the mid-1990s and brought them together to discuss the
need for a new habit, a re-conditioning (Maunders and Burritt, 1991, p. 13) through
which engagement between academic and practitioner about mainstream
environmental concerns becomes the norm. In short, the content and its context
have a twinning relationship and coexist as rationales for assessing the innovative
capacity of the special issue of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalon
environmental performance of organisations and related accountability.
The subject matter of this review is loosely termed environmental performance
accountability which was a short form title adopted for the special issue ofAccounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journalpublished in 1997, which followed on a Symposium
organised the previous year to bring academics, practitioners and policy makers
together for presentations and discussions. The content of the special issue largely
related to environmental accounting as this was the focus chosen by the authors who
submitted their articles to the symposium and journal. The contribution of the
hypodiegesis to this self-assessment is recognition that the contextual setting of the
development of the special issue is as important for assessing its contribution as the
content itself. Writing about work on a special issue undertaken some 15 years ago is a
challenge. So much changes in such a short time period, that it is difficult to assess the
contribution of the earlier special issue to the theme of this issue, “AAAJand research
innovation”, in any objective way. Such a self-assessment is by its nature subjective.
Environmental
performance
accountability
371
With this caveat in mind, the paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 provides
comment on the method adopted: diegesis and hypodiegesis. Section 3 considers
developments in relation to the content of the special issue. Section 4 examines the
people, planet and profit contextual elements behind the Symposium behind the
submissions made to the special issue. Section 5 provides a narrative about the links
between academic thought and writings and practitioners in environmental
performance and accountability. Section 6 speculates on the future of environmental
performance accountability research. Section 7 concludes the paper.
2. The method: personal reflection through a diegesis and hypodiegesis
Many academic researchers have the cognitive capacity for abstract and reflective
thinking that enables the development of ideas and creation and communication of
meanings. In times past reflection based on this capacity was the norm. For example,
early editions of a top accounting research journal, The Accounting Review, were
replete with personal reflections at a time when the accountancy profession was
struggling to understand issues and encourage journal publication of the thoughts of
leaders about critical issues of the day, rather than reductionist revelations
(Turnburke, 1939; Littleton, 1936; Nissley, 1947; Chambers, 1966). However, this
kind of thinking has become a luxury in academic accounting research where
researchers are entangled in methods that allow the individual to learn without directly
engaging on a cognitive level with the things being learned. The accounting discipline
has been overwhelmed by a plethora of demands that mean little time can be spent on
reflective thinking and the self-study that is required to make assumptions about
knowledge (Bullough and Pinnegar, 2001). The diegetic method adopted in this paper
allows for self-study and reflective thinking in order for the researcher to study the
world away from their own immediate involvement in the discipline (Lincoln and
Denzin, 1994).
A researcher can be personally and profoundly connected to one’s own research
agenda, as highlighted over half a century ago by Mooney (1957) in the seminal text
“The Researcher Himself” (sic) which describes the “inner drama” of research as
having the benefit of added self-realization. The diegetic method allows for
assessment of self-realization, as witnessed internationally, mostly in the humanities
rather than the social sciences (Bullough and Pinnegar, 2001). Van Manen (1980)
demonstrates the growing interest in Europe of phenomenology and the nature of
experience and Clandinin and Connelly (2000, p. 18) heighten awareness of the
narrative nature of “knowing” and the place of storytelling in the understanding of
practice. In an education setting Mills (1959) went so far as to suggest that for public
theory development to influence practice, the theory must be translated through the
personal.
The diegesis as a form of self-study allows for connection of the personal to the
current literature through the joining of biography and history in the context of time
(Mills, 1959). Personal, historical and reflective thinking methods can provide insight
and solutions for public issues and troubles. The diegesis does not solely focus on the
self, but on the space between self and the literature on academic research practice. Yet,
this type of analysis should not tip too far to either side so as to appear confessional on
one hand or a simple literature review on the other (Mooney, 1957). Ultimately, the aim
of a diegesis is to make the intersection between the biographical and the historical
AAAJ
25,2
372
educative for those currently in the practice of research in the discipline. To undertake
a diegesis does not exclude engagement with rigour; however, the subjectivity required
is acknowledged and the challenge of any self-study method is the form in which the
study is organised and the skill with which an argument is made and a story told
(Bullough and Pinnegar, 2001).
In a diegesis the narrator tells the story within the primary narrative however
stories within stories and characters and events referred to elsewhere create a
hypodiegetic situation (Rimmon-Kenan, 1983). A hypodiegetic narrative allows for an
embedded story told by an actor within the larger story in which the author was one of
the actors (Doherty, 1992). The characters reside within their institutional and political
frameworks in which their story exists within the main diegesis to which they
contribute meaning. In this sense, the method used here to review context is also
hypodiegetic as the story within or behind the story is about developing the
relationships between academic accountants and practitioners.
The paper moves next to the diegetic review of the relationship between the content
of the special issue ofAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalon environmental
performance accountability and its potential contribution to innovation in accounting.
3. Papers: the content of the special issue
Authors of contributions in special issues of theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal focus their articles on a theme which is considered by the editors to be
important to bring to the attention of readers. As such the ideas represented are
thought to be innovative, novel, with the potential to awaken readers to the current and
future paths of research and practice, and enliven debate. An opportunity of working
towards publication of a special issue arose in 1995 and did eventually led to
publication of five articles in volume 10, number 4, of Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journalon the abbreviated but notionally encompassing topic of
“Environmental performance accountability”. The issue was published late in 1997
edited by the current writer under the watchful gaze of Professor James Guthrie as the
editor of Special Issues. However, unlike the common situation today it was not the
special issue that led to the development of articles for publication, rather the special
issue was an outgrowth of an early-held Symposium of people with an interest in
environmental performance accountability. Presentations were made following prior
review of articles submitted, discussion was engaged in and then the opportunity for
publication inAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalemerged. Compare this
situation with a recent special issue on sustainability accounting and reporting,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability JournalVolume 23, Number 7, co-edited by
Professor Roger Burritt and Professor Dr Stefan Schaltegger (Burritt and Schaltegger,
2010) where a conference was organised prior to the special issue but with the specific
intent of articles being submitted to Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,to
be considered for publication after being reworked following the conference. In the case
of the recent special issue (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010), theAccounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journalwas an instrument for marketing the credibility of the
Australasian Conference on Social and Environmental Accounting Research, 2008;a
possible temptation for high quality international and domestic academics to seek
instrumental rewards at a Conference, rather than a Symposium for like-minded people
to gather and engage in debate.
Environmental
performance
accountability
373
Five articles were published in the special issue on “Environmental performance
accountability”. These were distilled from 16 articles presented at an Environmental
Accountability Symposium held on 16-17 February 1996 with seven of the authors
encouraged to submit their articles previously reviewed and presented at the
Symposium to the journal for a second review and potential publication. Each article
submitted was reviewed by two independent reviewers from the editorial board of
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. Once these articles were accepted the
editor of the special issue and Professor James Guthrie agreed the order and final
presentation of articles which was based on a progression from academic to
practitioner related perspectives on the general topic area.
The content of the Symposium rested squarely on the topics associated with
environmental performance accountability. The notion of environmental performance
depends on the perspective taken about the relative importance of social and
environmental issues. In the 1990s a movement towards recognition of degradation of
the physical environment by accounting academics was becoming stronger and
organisations were beginning to increase their transparency about such matters (for
empirical evidence on the public sector see Burritt and Welch (1997); and on private
sector companies, Grayet al.(1995). The environmental turn was much to the chagrin
of those concerned about social accounting which seemed to lose its luster for a while
but returned to greater prominence in the 2000s (Parker, 2011). It is sometimes an
unspoken assumption that the environment is of greater concern than society, and that
society is of greater concern that the economy. No environment, no society, no society
no economy, but the argument does not hold in reverse. Such was the unspoken ethos
behind the Symposium held in 1996. The Commonwealth of Australia had just
published its second national report on the state of the Australian environment which
included a clear statement of the dominant environmental perspective and the
predominant importance of environmental capital (Commonwealth of Australia, 1996;
Beeton, 2006). Thus, the subject “environmental performance accountability”
subsumed the social within the environmental notion adopted and contained the
growing focus on environmental accounting, as revealed in the published articles.
The five articles, the last two of which were more in the nature of notes rather than
full research articles, eventually published in theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journalspecial issue were, in order:
(1) A synthesis and review by M.R. (Reg) Mathews “Twenty-five years of social
and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate?”
(Mathews, 1997).
(2) A conceptual article by Roger L. Burritt and Stephen Welch “Accountability for
environmental performance of the Australian Commonwealth public sector”
(Burritt and Welch, 1997).
(3) A research article by Craig Deegan and Michaela Rankin “The materiality of
environmental information to users of annual reports” (Deegan and Rankin,
1997).
(4) A note providing a general review by an academic Kathy Gibson “Notes:
Courses on environmental accounting” (Gibson, 1997).
(5) A general review by a practitioner, Patrick Medley, “Environmental accounting
– what does it mean to professional accountants?” (Medley, 1997).
AAAJ
25,2
374
At the Symposium, an opening speech offering support from Professor Deane Terell,
Vice Chancellor of The Australian National University, provided the rather incisive
observation that “I suspect that environmental accounting is seen by governments and
companies of all persuasions as something of largely academic interest only...But
environmental accounting, as I understand the term, would have a major impact on
government and company decision making.” (Burritt, 1997, p. 475). The articles
selected for the special issue were designed to canvass the need for a merging of minds,
such that environmental issues of concern and environmental accounting and
accountability were brought together in the mindset of readers. Within this diegesis
observations on each article are briefly provided along with a discussion of recent
developments in relation to the content and contribution of each to accounting
development, commencing with Mathews (1997).
Article 1. Mathews
The attempt to secure the potential confluence of views between academics and
practitioners commenced with an article written by Professor Reg Mathews who
delivered an invited review article addressing the prior 25 years of research in social
and environmental accounting research (Mathews, 1997). A synthesis of existing
literature was provided, classified according to periods and sub-groups of research, an
approach at which Mathews excelled. The article was widely cited within later articles
written by members of the academic community (for example, a rudimentary measure
of citations is indicated by the 256 cites on Google Scholar at 23 January 2011).
Mathews commenced his classification scheme some 13 years earlier with his view of
social accounting research (Mathews, 1984; Gray and Guthrie, 2007).
A detailed review of Mathews’ contribution is to some extent unnecessary because
of the Festschrift of Gray and Guthrie (2007) and in Parker’s (2011) where he
summarises Mathews’ ideas about the classification of literature since the 1997 special
issue. Parker (2011, p. 2) observes that: “Mathews has published two further reviews of
the SEA field. Mathews (2003) updates his 1997 article’s SEA literature coverage
through to 2001, and Mathews (2004) develops his 1997 article’s framework for the
SEA research literature”. Parker provides a clear indication of the innovative nature of
Mathews work and conviction that the synthesis and summary of developments in the
academic literature merited ongoing attention. Parker’s ongoing work (Parker, 2005,
2011) also supports such a stance. Indeed, Parker (2011) highlights there a set of senior
and emerging people concerned about the social and environmental accounting
problematic, although his list is indicative rather than not comprehensive. Four
seminal reviews are examined by Parker (2011, p. 2) in addition to Mathews (1997)
which appeared in theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalspecial issue.
These include review articles by Professor Jan Bebbington in her review essay on
environmental accounting also published in 1997 in Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, by Professor Rob Gray (2002) covering Accounting
Organizations and Society’s (AOS)role in the social accounting project, by Professors
Deegan and Soltys (2007) in theirAccounting Forumarticle reviewing social
accounting research undertaken in Australasia, and also by Professor Owen (2008) in
his reflections on the state and future of social and environmental accounting research
in his Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting (APIRA) conference
plenary published inAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Environmental
performance
accountability
375
There is little point in further rehearsing the arguments of these authors (as Owen
(2008) also concludes when undertaking his work). In his summary, Parker (2011)
makes several observations. He claims that theory and engagement with practice
remain outstanding issues for the social and environmental accounting research
community. For the editor, Burritt, and editor of special issues, Guthrie, this was a
central concern and theme behind the special 1997 Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journalissue. Parker (2011) observes that the debate between radicals
and the business case continues albeit with a “sharing of territory” becoming a
possibility, something identified by Owen (2008) and strongly encouraged by Burritt
and Schaltegger (2010). A third observation is that other countries are beginning to
develop their own social and environmental accounting research agendas – especially,
Spain (Moneva and Llena, 2000; Criado-Jimenezet al., 2008), The Netherlands (Frost,
2007, p. 191) and Finland (Laine, 2005) – an observation equally applicable in the
context of the special issue article by Deegan and Rankin (1997). Parker concludes that
the social and environmental accounting community is alive and well, but he
downplays the question of whether it is effective; a necessary question when assessing
the contribution of a special issue of theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
to innovation. Other countries in which an interest in social and environmental
accounting research is emerging include the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and
China, and Africa, as Parker (2011) acknowledges. However, in spite of the increased
number of conference options, available journals and research networks (for example,
see the sustainability groups available on the social media group Linkedin[1]), it cannot
be concluded that “the future of researchand practicein this field [emphasis added]” is
assured (Parker, 2011, p. 9), a matter examined further in sections 4 and 5 below as the
hypodiegeseis.
Article 2: Burritt and Welch
Accountability in the public sector in the late 1990s was vastly under researched
(Parker and Gould, 2002) and a framework was developed as part of a set of ideas
which also included Welch’s masters research into the content of almost 1,000
Commonwealth Environmental Impact Statements, and longitudinal empirical
evidence about disclosures by 60 Commonwealth budget and non-budget entities
over a ten year period (1984-1993) (Burritt and Welch, 1997). The Burritt and Welch
(1997) accountability framework was novel in including the critical importance of
natural capital (often now referred to as biodiversity), informational uncertainty and
regulatory response based on regulatory mix tools. Citations of the article are limited
(57 on Google Scholar at 23 January 2011), but in terms of the article leading to
innovation it is of interest to note that Parker (2011) finds research into government
regulation to be the most dominant focus in social and environmental accounting
literature in the period between 1988 and 2002. Perhaps the article within the special
issue was just part of a growing trend, rather than an innovator per se. However, the
specific issue is whether there has been further empirical study of environmental
performance accountability in the public sector. On this point, Owen (2008, p. 249)
states:
...with the exception of Burritt and Welch’s (1997) initial exploratory approach to developing
an environmental accountability framework for the Australian Commonwealth public sector
and Ball’s (2005) field based study of the potential of environmental accounting as a change
AAAJ
25,2
376
agent in promoting sustainable development practices within a UK Local Authority, research
outside the private sector domain is somewhat conspicuous by its absence.
Parker (2011) suggests that the need to wrestle with different and new theoretical
perspectives is evident; an expansion of research into the government, non-profit and
non-government organisation sectors to take the debates beyond a narrow focus on
corporate entities.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, along with Financial
Accountability and Management, leads innovation in research in the public sector arena
as demonstrated in the synthesis of recent work across relevant journals by Broadbent
and Guthrie (2008, Table I). Their literature review covers the period 1992 to 2006,
excluding mainstream journals from the USA, and concludes that management
accounting is the most researched function in public sector accounting research,
importantly with studies taking place in different organisational contexts because of
the complexity added by different levels of government.Financial Accountabilityand
ManagementandAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journaldominate academic
publications in this area.
What of environmental performance accountability innovations within this milieu?
Unfortunately environmental and social research are bundled up with financial
accounting and financial reporting (accounting type category C2) in Broadbent and
Guthrie’s (2008, p. 144) research and so an empirical feeling for the volume of journal
publications on public sector environmental performance is a research task remaining
to be completed. But, attention is drawn to Burritt and Welch (1997) and the later work
of Ball (2004, 2005) in local government which correctly terms social and
environmental accounting research in the public sector as offshoots of a wider body
of knowledge for example as applies to the private sector (Broadbent and Guthrie,
2008, p. 154).
Ball (2004, p. 1024) incorrectly views the Burritt and Welch (1997) article as deep
green. Irrespective of this view the article is seen to be meritorious as it provides a
catalyst for thinking about the difference between private and public domains in the
context of environmental matters through juxtaposing the new public management
commercial “target returns on public investment” ethos against the conventional
rationale for the public sector – public service. But this contrast is incremental not
radical in its intent. Burritt and Welch (1997, pp. 535-536) are criticised by Ball (2004)
for being strategically pragmatic in their call for “open, transparent communication
about an organisation’s actions towards and impacts on the environment”. Strategic
pragmatism is not a trait often associated with deep greens or those of a deeply critical
orientation and in the favourable eyes of Ball theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journalspecial issue article tries to bring these forces together for debate, perhaps to
reconcile a contrast in perspectives that persists to this day (see the continuing contrast
outlined by Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010). Little deep green material has appeared in
the context of environmental accounting in the public sector (Gray and Laughlin, 2012).
While considering broad categories of mechanisms for appropriation of
environmental issues, Ball (2005) makes the (misquoted) link to Burritt and Welch
(1997, p. 349) in relation to their suggestion of the importance of sources of funding as a
cause of the apparent engagement of public sector bodies with environmental
disclosures and sustainability (p. 349). She logically champions Larrinaga-Gonzalez
and Bebbington’s (2001) wider array of causes of non-engagement with sustainability
by local governments, although the evidence cited is based on a single case study
Environmental
performance
accountability
377
rather than generalisable statistical evidence of the type examined by Burritt and
Welch (1997). The debate commenced in theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journalspecial issue continues.
Ball and Grubnic’s (2007) article is one of the few to attempt a current review of
sustainability accounting and accountability in the public sector. Referring again to
Burritt and Welch’s (1997) conceptual contribution, Ball and Grubnic (2007, p. 255)
claims that government and accountancy institutions are now beginning to bring
pressure on public sector organisations to disclose important aspects of their
environmental performance – for example policy outcomes and inclusiveness of
stakeholders in policy making as canvassed by Burritt and Welch (1997). Ball and
Grubnic (2007, p. 255) is committed to bringing the researcher into direct engagement
with the powerful institutions of accounting and government - the parties to lend
legitimacy to the type of framework developed by Burritt and Welch and published in
the special issue. The significance of such a commitment is taken up in the
hypodiegesis but reflects a key contextual issue behind the special issue.
Article 3: Deegan and Rankin
In an empirical research article Deegan and Rankin (1997) examine views of 474 users
about the materiality to users of environmental information disclosed in company
annual reports. Potential users include shareholders, stockbrokers and share analysts,
academic accountants, financial institutions and organisations with oversight of the
annual reports of companies. From this financial accounting perspective,
environmental performance information was found to be material to the needs of
most user groups, but conventional financial performance information was seen to be
of greater use. Strong citations of the article, especially in recent years, indicate
ongoing interest in the issue of materiality (Google Scholar 193 cites at 23 January
2011).
Citations cover a broad range of quality journals ranging through: Abacus;
Accounting Forum;Accounting, Organizations and Society;Advances in Environmental
Accounting; Australian Accounting Review; British Accounting Review; Critical
Perspectives on Accounting; European Accounting Review; International Journal of
Accounting; Journal of Business; Journal of Business Ethics; Journal of Accounting and
Organisational Change; Journal of Cleaner Production; and Managerial Auditing
Journal. In addition, articles in a range of cross disciplinary journals have cited Deegan
and Rankin (1997): Business Strategy and the Environment; Industrial Ecology:
An International Journal; International Review of Business Research; Journal of
Business Ethics; Social Responsibility Journal. Finally, the article has been cited in a
range of journals in different languages, for example in Italian and Spanish where
replications of the research have occurred. Space does not allow for these journal
citations to be examined in detail, instead the ongoing contribution of Deegan and
Rankin (1997) is examined.
Deegan and Rankin (1997) stimulated thought about several critical issues, which
maintain ongoing interest: the needs of different users for environmental information;
the uses of environmental information; the relative importance of legitimacy theory as
a justification for reporting environmental information; the importance of auditing of
environmental information; and the criticality of regulation as a way to encourage
reporting of environmental information. Banasik et al. (2010) and Nilsson (2008)
AAAJ
25,2
378
acknowledge the foundational role of Deegan and Rankin (1997) in confirming that,
around the time of writing, bankers and investment analysts were more prone to state
that social or environmental information had little or no importance, but that recent
research shows such importance is recognised especially in the context of socially
responsible investment. Johansen (2010) recognises it is still the case that very few
attempts are being made to obtain feedback about the materiality of environmental
information to intended users of accounting and that seeking non-managerial voices
remains a significant research issue.
User needs in relation to information are of ongoing concern and have been one of
the most heavily researched topics in information user studies where the motivations
for information-seeking behaviour have been subjected to intense scrutiny (Wilson,
1981, p. 11). The need is for research to move beyond the examination of perceptions of
needs stimulated by Deegan and Rankin (1997) and, instead, examine how the
information is actually being used in everyday life. Actual use of social information to
allocate investment funds is pursued by Milne and Chan (1999) to reveal the
importance of narrative social disclosures in investment decision making. Empirical
evidence gathered from accountants and investment analysts in an experimental study
revealed that, in the face of environmental information being provided, switching of
investments is at best found to be relatively minor, at 15 per cent, with social
disclosures largely being ignored (Milne and Chan, 1999, p. 439). Hence, their study
complements and extends Deegan and Rankin’s (1997) results.
Other typical citations of Deegan and Rankin (1997) are replication studies about
disclosure in different countries. The question of whether social and environmental
information fulfils the needs of stakeholders remains an open issue and is being
examined in many countries as, for example, Gunawan (2010) suggests for Indonesia.
He finds that information about environmental performance is not the most important
information for suppliers, shareholders, investors, communities, customers, or
employees.
Deegan and Rankin (1997) find in favour of legitimacy theory. Tilling and Tilt
(2010) highlight the relative importance of measuring the effects of different financial
stakeholder groups on corporate social disclosures in contrast with attempts to
examine resources provided by stakeholders as a measure of legitimacy. While
Chatterjee and Mir (2008) use the article to support their own use of legitimacy theory
to explore environmental disclosures by Indian companies, Amran and Haniffa (2010)
refer to the article’s support for legitimacy theory as context for their own adoption of
an alternative, institutional theory, to examine Malaysian corporate disclosure.
Nevertheless, Deegan and Rankin’s (1997) article is still referenced, attesting to the
foundational role provided by their work.
The veracity of information disclosed and used in everyday settings has also been
stimulated by Deegan and Rankin’s (1997) work and provides a sign ofAccounting,
Auditing & Accountability’s contribution to innovation in environmental information
user studies. In auditing research, Chiang (2010) examines the different isomorphic
pressures on auditors to consider environmental information in their financial audits in
New Zealand. Based on evidence from semi-structured interviews of auditors in private
and public practice, private audits are found to be influenced by mimetic isomorphism
largely based on financial accounting thereby overlooking the materiality of
qualitative disclosures, whereas public audits are influenced by coercive isomorphism,
Environmental
performance
accountability
379
with materiality being based on the users’ perceptions of materiality rather than a set
financial amount.
Discussion of perceptions from various users about mandatory disclosure and
guidelines by Deegan and Rankin (1997) does not touch on useper seand was left to
future research. Moneva and Cuellar (2009) take up the issue. Based on empirical
research, Moneva and Cuellar (2009) corroborate the value relevance of compulsory
environmental information for a sample of listed Spanish companies, but non-financial
disclosure is not found to have a significant effect on market valuation suggesting
compulsory disclosure is less important for this purpose. Catasus (2008) acknowledges
that Deegan and Rankin (1997) propose that disclosures in reports provided by
Australian companies are significantly biased and that the cause of this bias is the
absence of regulations. Hence, Deegan and Rankin (1997) provides a catalyst for the
development of ideas associated with developing understanding of user’s needs, the
need for assurance, and for regulation, all of which were stimulated by theAccounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journalpublication.
These three articles –providing a survey, a public sector and then a listed company
focus - provide a foundation for considering aspects of environmental performance
accountability from an academic research perspective. Two further articles were added
to the mix, both providing general reviews from education and practitioner
perspectives.
Article 4: Gibson
Gibson (1997) provided a note about recent happenings with the development of
courses in, and teaching of, environmental accounting at eight institutions in Australia
and overseas to draw attention to the link between academic research and education of
the future members of the accountancy profession in environmental accounting and
reporting (the research, teaching and practitioner nexus). In an earlier special issue of
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,Bebbington (1997) in a review article
examined the link between education and environmental accounting and its potential
to transform practice over time as graduates are enabled and move into the profession
bringing to bear environmental accounting knowledge and an ethical awareness not
necessarily gained from their technical university education in accounting. Lockhart
and Mathews (2000, p. 59) pointed out that:
Among the reasons Gibson (1997, 585-586) gives for a course in environmental accounting are
the opportunities to remedy the narrowness of accounting education and respond to changes
in society, such as the increasing demands for environmental responsibility coming from
communities and consumers.
Gibson’s (1997) contribution to resolving the environmental problematic is raising
awareness of: the limited number of available courses in environmental accounting;
and the potential benefits of environmental accounting education. Authors following
on Gibson’s (1997) ideas have tended to be critical because of the lack of mainstreaming
(Collison et al., 2000; Boyce, 2004). Gibson (1997, p. 591) considered the benefits
attributable to students, the community and the environment from including the
results of environmental accounting research in courses for students and rather
optimistically and with little evidence claimed general support from governments, the
professions and employers. She provided examples of the courses some universities
had introduced, albeit as elective modules, not mainstream. Fifteen years later
AAAJ
25,2
380
assessment of the extent of the level of support remains under-researched, there still
being little systematic evidence available (but see Tingey-Holyoak and Burritt, 2009).
In spite of Bebbington (1997) and Gibson (1997) highlighting the enabling potential of
environmental accounting education, only Gibson’s (1997) brief review further
addresses this issue. Owen (2008) reminded readers that Gray (2002) pointed to a
similar silence concerning education matters on the part ofAccounting, Organizations
and Society. Recent empirical evidence from one state in Australia indicates that the
response of practice managers to the environmental agenda is affected positively by
pressure from the professional accounting bodies, which in Australia has gradually
been increasing (CPA Australia, 2005; Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia,
2008; Tingey-Holyoak and Burritt, 2009). Total citations of Gibson (1997) could be
reflective of the sporadic attention to this issue with Google Scholar only recording 20
(at 23 January 2011).
Yakhou and Dorweiler (2004, p. 76) draw positively on Gibson’s (1997) information
that courses in environmental accounting do not just target accountants. Professions
from several disciplines are the target – economics and commerce, engineering,
environmental sciences, environmental law and environmental accounting.
Environmental problems are in essence trans-disciplinary and teams of people
from different disciplines, including accountants with their own contribution, can
learn about environmental accounting from their own and the team’s perspective,
without having a conventional financial accounting background. Finally, the field
remains waiting for leadership from the profession, the practitioners and their clients
as academics, such as Hazelton and Haigh (2010), continue to experiment at the
margin.
In another research note, Collison et al.(2000, p. 171) are discouraging about the
likely outcome of some accounting researchers concerned about the need for social
and environmental education in order to hone important critical and ethical skills
in graduates. Lack of student and academic interest were to the fore in their
thinking. Students are looking forward to acquiring their second Porsche while
academics focus on problems of teaching and administering large classes. But of
course neither students nor academics should be stereotyped as being entirely
instrumental in their actions (Collison et al., 2000, p. 183). However, in spite of the
comments made based on references to Gibson’s (1997) work, especially when
combined with the low level of citations, it can only be concluded that the impact
of theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalspecial issue has only been
minor at best in the context of promoting debate about environmental accounting
courses and education.
Article 5: Medley
Medley’s (1997) contribution provided a clear and infrequently seen link between the
environmental accounting concept, practice and practitioners. Medley was employed
by Coopers and Lybrand Consultants at the time of the publication, but was not
unschooled in academic thought and writing as he was already a co-author of an article
on corporate environmental commitment (Zeffaneet al., 1995). His earlier article used
the total quality environmental management framework to develop measurement
standards for environmental performance in operations based on the observation of
environmental mission statements disclosed in corporate annual reports (Banerjee,
Environmental
performance
accountability
381
2002). The contribution of his earlier work was useful because such disclosures are an
important starting point for understanding corporate commitment to the resolution of
environmental issues and has since been taken further by Banerjee (2002, p. 182)
through embedding the notions discussed by Medley into strategic planning.
As environmental accounting was a relatively new topic Medley mapped out the
areas where professional practitioners may find environmental accounting to be of
benefit. Opportunities for improvements in environmental performance and its internal
accountability were not given the strong focus by Medley they would receive today
since the development of a school of thought on environmental management
accounting as an outgrowth of the management accounting aspect of environmental
accounting (see Burrittet al., 2002; Burritt, 2004; Durden, 2008). Medley largely placed
emphasis on environmental costs (management accounting) as well as the importance
to practitioners of non-compliance with legislation leading to potential liabilities
(financial accounting). Hence, a practical view from management and financial
accounting and auditing perspectives was provided. Medley favoured the training of
accountants to understand environmental issues and impacts as well as development
of standardised guidelines for measurement and reporting of environmental risks, an
issue later taken up by Durden (2008). Medley clearly felt that there would be demand
for these services from clients of practitioners and anticipated the focus on
environmental risk management yet to unfold through the early stance taken by
Australia with its standard (Standards Australia, 2000, 2004, 2006). Along with its risk
management standard the environmental risk management focus provided the world
leading foundation for development of the similar standard from the International
Standardisation Organisation.
It might have been expected that Medley’s practitioner based article would receive
considerable attention as academics strive to ensure relevancy of their research to
practice. However, academic citations have been relatively low (Google Scholar quotes
27 cites as at 23 January 2011). Further, there appear to have been no comments made
in the professional journals in Australia about Medley’s (1997) work.
Engagement with the article by academics was always the most likely outcome
from the publication in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, based on the
cross-referencing of journal works endemic to the present system, but there is only
limited evidence of the take up of Medley’s ideas by academics. A clear gap exists
between the expectation that an article from a practitioner will be widely cited and the
actual result leads to the obvious questioning of whether journals such asAccounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journalare the most effective place to publish practitioner
views.
The direct response to Medley’s article is limited to publications in a few accounting
and environmental management journals such as:Advances in Accounting(2000);
Business Ethics: A European Review(2001); Australian Accounting Review(2001);
Managerial Auditing Journal(2003); Business Strategy and the Environment(2004;
2007);Corporate Social Responsibility(2006), Business Strategy and the Environment
(2007); Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal(2008); and Environmental
Management(2008). Also the article has been referenced in a several higher education
theses and conference papers. Yet, although the citations are few the issues raised by
Medley are potentially important.
AAAJ
25,2
382
Medley’s (1997) article provides the stimulus for further research and actual practice
in the following areas: environmental accounting education through the provision of a
source of reference in an undersupplied market; the legitimacy and interest of
practitioners being involved in environmental accounting issues; assurance of
environmental information and the lack of standards; training of auditors of
environmental information; the links between disclosure and policy making in relation
to environmental information; and environmental accounting’s role in continuous
improvement.
Lockhart and Mathews (2000) inAdvances in Accountingused Medley’s (1997)
article as part of their education process, to teach students about the profession’s
potential role in environmental accounting. Students read the article knowing that it
was written by a practitioner, covered the pressures for change, pointed out some
specific areas that the accounting profession needs to address, including those of
measurement and recognition. Lockhart and Mathews (2000, p. 65) concluded that
“...the article has served an important role in helping students understand the
underlying issues of the subject”. From the perspective of the innovative influence of
the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalspecial issue it can be noted how
Medley’s article fed directly into a course at university on environmental accounting
(as discussed by Gibson) and linked back to the first author in the special issue,
Mathews, who included the article for his students to internalise. However, this
microcosm of innovation does not seem to have been replicated and reported elsewhere.
O’Dwyer (2001) supported the legitimacy of practicing accountants being involved
in social accounting and recounted Medley’s enthusiasm for practitioners giving
advice on the collection and dissemination of corporate social accounting information.
The rationale Medley provided was that accounting practitioners act as risk and
stakeholder managers. Considerable debate in the 2000s continued between the critical
theorists and the business case supporters as to whether accountants should be a main
party to assessing corporate environmental performance, unless they change their
basic stance on the importance of environmental matters (Parker, 2011; Gray, 2002), an
issue raised by Medley. Not that accountants apparently wanted to be involved in 1997,
as Medley (1997, p. 594) acknowledged “most accountants today do not consider the
environment relevant to their profession”. In a Malaysian study, which followed
Medley’s comments about the need for engagement of accountants and auditors in the
provision and assurance of environmental information, Zainet al.(2006) revealed that
some of the financial directors interviewed noted that accountants should not be
involved with subjective matters such as CSR and it should be left to the public
relations department within companies. The situation has, however, changed slightly
today with the most recent empirical evidence showing that practitioners view the
welfare of the environment as being important to them and although sustainability
accounting services are in little demand at the moment specific skills, such as
sustainability assurance and emissions accounting, are expected to increase
considerably over the next three years in the Australian setting examined
(Tingey-Holyoak and Burritt, 2009).
Medley’s (1997) identification of the importance of potential liabilities for
non-compliance continues to attract attention. Parker (2000, p. 48) cited Medley in
relation to the need identified for financial accountants to render transparent the
formerly invisible. One of the latest citations of Medley’s work explored the ongoing
Environmental
performance
accountability
383
challenge of auditing environmental contingent liabilities and provisions in corporate
annual reports to add veracity to the reported figures made visible (Chianget al., 2010).
The problem continues to this day with little sign of resolution (Deegan and Ji, 2008; Ji
and Deegan, 2011). The absence of environmental accounting audit standards is an oft
noted aspect of Medley’s contribution to debate and which seems to be the main
reference point on the issue (see Moir, 2001; Parker, 2005; De Moor and De Beelde, 2005;
Durden, 2008).
Nyquist (2003) takes up Medley’s argument that financial accountants do not
always have adequate technical expertise to be able to audit environmental
information and revisits the view that they may need to rely on third party experts and
advisers, such as engineers in environmental management (see also Yakhou and
Dorweiler, 2004). The questionnaire survey of accountants in Sweden indicated that
training was important but that the type of training needed to be established, also
accountants wished to know how disclosing environmental information relates to the
government’s sustainability intentions. Here is another debate in which Medley (1997)
has played a part.
Brown’s (2007) empirical study of environmental disclosures by corporations listed
on the Port Moresby Stock Exchange of Papua New Guinea refers to Medley (1997). In
acknowledging Medley’s (1997) views on the practical implications environmental
accounting for audit and management accounting, Brown (2007) echoes that the role of
an environmental auditor should go beyond that of mere compliance with
environmental legislation and should cover technical issues, legal compliance, due
diligence and management control of compliance costs. Likewise, although there is a
sense ofde´ja ` vuas Medley’s (1997) article continues to be referred to, albeit in broader
literature such as environmental management, where Seetharaman et al. (2010)
consider the reasons why organisations need to adopt environmental accounting as
part of continuous improvement in environmental management.
The limited response from academics and practitioners to Medley’s broad ranging
article raises questions for the ways in which engagement between practitioners and
academic accountants in the context of social and environmental performance of
organisations is best managed. The hypodiegesis (in Sections 4 and 5) address the
issue further by examining the context of the special issue, which is equally important
to understanding the innovations associated with the Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal.
The next section deals with the context leading to the production of this special
issue and the aforementioned articles contained within. For understanding the
development of ideas, as Clarke (1980, p. 80) observes, “Descriptions of the contexts in
which the ideas first arose and of those into which they subsequently have been
transported are essential...”. Several converging contextual matters involving planet,
people and profits combined through accidents of history to bring the special issue
about. The first accident of history was that in the late 1980s and early 1990s there was
a surge of interest in environmental problems and the need for these to be addressed by
business, governments and other stakeholders (Burritt and Welch, 1997). The future of
the planet was becoming a growing concern. The second accident of history was that a
group of academics and practitioners were brought together by the author in Canberra
for a symposium in 1996 designed to discuss environmental accounting and
AAAJ
25,2
384
accountability (Burritt, 1997). The third accident of history related to the funding of the
symposium, as the following section reveals.
4. Context: planet, people and profits
The context behind the publication of the special issue can be linked to a growing focus
on environmental accounting and performance by organisations, by a range of
stakeholders, with the need for a dialogue to be started, in order for academics and
practitioners to share views on the critical environmental matters arising.
A symposium was arranged by the author to open up a channel for dialogue. The
stated purpose of the symposium which later led to the opportunity to develop the
special issue was “...to bring together a small group of Australasian expert academics,
professional accountants, environmental consultants, and representatives from
non-government organizations to discuss the research, teaching and policy
implications of environmental accountability” (Burritt, 1997, p. 474). The primary
contextual issue was growing concern over the impact of organisations on the planet.
Planet
The popularity of corporate environmental performance has waxed and waned as a
topic of interest since the special issue was published. By the mid-1990s, a clamour of
complaint from academics and different stakeholder groups was rising strongly
(Mathews, 1997, p. 496). Companies were responding through additional disclosure
about their environmental performance, in terms of volume, themes and quality.
Environmental assurance was in the academic space as an area of interest for
practitioners who could have become involved from their instrumental perspective
based on payment for service. However, with the rebirth of social issues in accounting
academics began to claw back the focus on environmental issues, but the typical
situation was that practitioners never engaged with either social or environmental
issues. Sustainability and sustainable development became the academic mantra while
practitioners continued with their business as usual.
But most recently there has been a reversion to the importance of environmental
issues through movement towards concerns for a low carbon economy, water
shortages and an ongoing reduction in biodiversity. This turn of events has continued
in spite of relatively unsuccessful Copenhagen and Cancun meetings about climate
change (Hale, 2011). The promise of development of Emissions Trading Schemes can
add to the interest of accountancy firms in environmental issues, as financial gains and
losses are associated with legal compliance and trading of emissions rights. When the
promise of ETS is in the ascendancy it seems that clients of practitioners raise their
interest, when ETS seems to becoming withdrawn, as in the recent case in Australia,
concern is that clients step back from engagement (Williams, 2009). Concern for
environmental issues, then, continue to wax and wane over time.
The term environmental performance accountability begs several questions such as
performance of what or whom, accountability of whom to whom, etc., and actually
disguises one of the main contributions of the special issue, which is the
juxtapositioning of academic and practitioner perspectives about the environment,
usually the localized preserve of separate academic-practitioner meetings. Other
themes of the articles included accounting for environmental degradation by
companies and the public sector, whether and how being held to that account were
Environmental
performance
accountability
385
feasible especially in the face of poor performance, and implications for teaching and
research of environmental accounting.
Reporting about environmental aspects of organisational activities was on the
increase in the early 1990s, spurred on by the Bruntland Report in 1987 (UNWCED,
1987) and the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 with the related production of Agenda 21
(UNDESA, 1992). Agenda 21, among other recommendations, looked for the
engagement of business and the public sector in improving environmental
performance, especially through the sound management of integration of
environmental considerations in decision making as well as the decoupling of
economic growth and development from environmental destruction. Hence, general
environmental concerns were to the fore and internal and external accountability for
impacts and opportunities for avoiding rapacious behaviour widely discussed by a
developing cadre of engineers and environmental managers (but not practicing
accountants) as well as a growing body of academics (including academic
accountants). The problem was that academics and practitioners did not seem to
speak to each other, or engage with each other and so bringing them together for a
Symposium and producing a special issue of key publications looked to be a promising
venture.
People
Several people were directly and indirectly critical to development and production of
the ideas appearing in the special issue, in addition to the authors.
In chronological terms it is appropriate to begin with a person indirectly involved in
the special issue, Professor Keith Maunders, who has been a long time social
accounting academic activist. In 1989 Keith Maunders was invited to visit The
Australian National University (the ANU) to work with me. Keith had been an early
mentor of mine, as a newly emerging academic. Keith and I had known each other since
our academic paths crossed in the 1970s at Lancaster University. At the ANU our
thoughts led to the initial development of an article which was completed following a
visit to London by us both and a hastily convened meeting at the London School of
Economics before submission of a paper to the European Accounting Association held
in Budapest in 1990. Our article was submitted to Accounting, Organizations and
Society, but required revisions seemed too onerous and so it was submitted instead to
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journaland published under the title
“Accounting and ecological crisis” in volume 4, number 3, 1991 in an earlier special
issue. Keith later presented at the Symposium from which the special issue articles
emerged. It was unfortunate, while at the same time reassuring about academic
processes of review for publication in top journals, that the independent reviewers had
insuperable problems with Keith’s ideas about environmental accounting being an
oxymoron.
A second critical person was Professor Des Nicholls, a statistician and Dean of the
Faculty of Economics and Commerce at the ANU to whom I directly reported as Head
of the School of Commerce between 1989 and 1993. Based on our symbiotic
relationship, developed at a time when accounting education was in crisis in Australia
for a number of reasons including a shortage of resources being allocated to the area at
a time when student numbers were burgeoning (Mathews, 1990), Des agreed to fund
the Symposium which led to a source of articles for the special issue. A third person of
AAAJ
25,2
386
note was Professor James Guthrie, then at Macquarie University in Sydney, to which
he has recently returned. James, as editor responsible for special issues, attended the
Symposium and acted as the summary speaker to conclude the day, decided that the
subject matter being discussed merited wider dissemination.
Finally, a masters student of the author, Stephen Welch, was vital because, as
happens from time to time, students exude enthusiasm as well as having the ability
and conviction to be involved with new, exciting areas of research and commit their
time to the success of a venture. Stephen was such a student, loved the links between
academic work and practice and is now a successful specialized practitioner of
accounting in London. Stephen helped organise the Symposium from which articles for
the special issue were gleaned, and he co-authored an article with me which was
published in the special issue following the usual review processes.
Profits
Available funds provided a key stimulus for the symposium and, hence the special
issue. The importance of this grubstake cannot be underestimated. Many years ago at
the University of Oxford Professor Henry Bottinger, Head of Human Resources at
AT&T in New York, related the history to me of how he engaged students on a course
in economics which he taught at New York University. Henry (or Hank to his friends)
was inspirational to a new academic such as me and explained that he taught
economics using a book by R.F. Delderfield entitled “God is an Englishman”. The
trilogy of books by Delderfield relate the story of Adam Swann, a soldier turned
tradesman who builds his transport business “Swann on wheels” in the 1857-1866
period in England from the ground up on returning from war in the Crimea and India.
One of Henry’s insights is central to the success of the Symposium. Adam Swann was
not a wealthy person and set up his business using capital that he had
misappropriated. On the battlefield in India he came across a dead person with a
jewel in his turban, stole it and converted it to capital to start his business when he
returned to England. The key message is that an important issue or opportunity might
arise but it can amount to nothing without finance being available, and such was the
case with the contextual development of this special issue.
Why were profits, or funds, needed and from where did they come for the
Symposium? Funding for the Symposium was “appropriated” or “invested” from the
monies that accrued to the Faculty of Economics and Commerce from student
enrolments in the environmental accounting and reporting course the author had been
operating for two years. Professor Des Nicholls had the foresight to see that here was
an important area for future research and scholarship and he willingly contributed
$15,000 of Faculty money from the student fees towards the event. Without his
foresight the author would not have had the opportunity to invite interested parties
from academia and practice to visit Canberra and participate in the Symposium with
all expenses paid, apart from travel to and from the Capital.
Development of articles for a special issue can follow from a general call for papers
distributed to potentially interested parties. An alternative is for individual experts to
be approached to see if they would submit a contribution. Finally, articles may emerge
from conferences or special gatherings as was the current case, financed from residual
student fees. Papers were presented, ideas discussed, enthusiasm welled forth and the
Asia Pacific Centre for Environmental Accountability, which still survives along with
Environmental
performance
accountability
387
its quarterly journal, formed as a result. In addition presenters were invited to submit
their articles for possible publication in the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal special issue, following the usual dual independent review process. The
opportunity cost of time provided by all participants in the Symposium and journal
publication has never been calculated, but would of course be well in excess of the
direct cost and equally as important.
These accidents of history related to planet, people and profits are typically not
reported and their relative significance not appraised in the paper product published
byAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, but they provide the essential oil for
the wheels of knowledge generation and innovation. Indeed, the articles represent the
tip of the iceberg in the academic pursuit of quality and knowledge, the invisible value
added. Furthermore, these accidents themselves fall within a scheme of ideas which are
concerned about the links between academic research and practitioner activities as a
necessary component of overcoming the environmental crisis.
5. Reducing the gap between academic research and practitioners in the
environmental space – the hypodiegesis
The “story within a story” or hypodiegesis in relation to the special issue is that when
assessing the role of “AAAJand research innovation”, the five published articles can be
viewed along a continuum which typifies an ongoing problem about the relationship
between academic accounting and practitioners. The continuum starts with Mathews
(1997) as the typical academic searching for synthesis and sense from a swathe of
literature produced and published by academics in environmental accounting. The
continuum moves through academic concern for conceptual developments in
accountability in the public sector, academic issues in accounting at the public listed
company level through financial accounting, a note from an academic concerned about
the linkage between conceptual developments and practice through education of future
practitioners and, finally, the views of a practitioner about the importance of
environmental accounting, accountability and performance. Academic synthesis lies at
one end, practical importance lies at the other.
The gap between the two extremes and the way to address this gap lies at the core
of the problem with the articles, the relationship between academic research in
environmental accounting and practitioners in relation to an issue that has, hitherto,
been low on the agenda, unspoken, and ignored. The link must be made between
accountants and environmental degradation by the clients they provide accounts for,
and the stakeholders who can hold these clients to account (Ijiri, 1983). Comment on
this problem follows as a hypodiegesis because, as the Google Scholar citations show,
the professional article by Medley and the article about environmental accounting
courses by Gibson were the least cited, perhaps indicating that readers of the journal
were more concerned to learn about academic aspects of environmental performance
accounting than to delve into problems associated with its application, either within
the education of forthcoming accountants, or in professional practice.
Ongoing acknowledgement that environmental issues will affect the future
practices of accountants (Bebbingtonet al., 1994; Medley, 1997) indicates a demand for
relevant and understandable research so that accountants are able to undertake and
implement social and environmental accounting. Since Medley’s debate inAccounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journaladditional literature has emerged confirming a
AAAJ
25,2
388
distinct lack of engagement of members of the accounting profession with social and
environmental issues (Gray and Collison, 2002; Lamberton, 2005; MacKenzie, 2009;
Jones, 2010) despite the growing pressures from society, clients and professional bodies
(Gray and Bebbington, 2001; CPA Australia, 2005; NIA, 2005; NIA, 2009, Lamberton,
2005; Clarke and O’Neill, 2006; Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, 2008).
But it is unfair to consider the innovative capacity ofAccounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journalto be anything like a failure in this context for several reasons.
First, the accidents of history in relation to planet, people and profits were not under
the control of the Journal, even though controls are attempted with greater frequency
today. Second, Llewellyn (2003) and Everett (2004) note that choice of such dual
extremes, or dualisms, for instance the academic and the practitioner, can privilege one
extreme – a situation which post modernists try to avoid (Delanty, 2003). In this case it
could be argued that academic research is privileged over the practitioner because an
academic article commences the special issue and a practitioner note concludes. Why
not publish in reverse order? AlsoAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalis a
prized publication destination for academics with their academic-speak, but not for
practitioners. Hence, it is to be expected that practitioners suffer a double disadvantage
through no fault of a journal which strives to target: accounting and management
researchers; accountants, administrators and management in public and private sector
organisations (i.e. practitioners); accounting and auditing policy makers; and
undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Has there been progress in building relationships between academics and
practitioners in the environmental performance accountability space? In the time that
has elapsed since the special issue was published it is of interest to speculate about
whether any progress has been made with the issues raised and if not why not. The
initial exclusion of accounting practitioners from the now somewhat distant catalyst
encouraging professions to engage in environmental matters as provided by the
Bruntland Report (UNWCED, 1987), which in the context of discussing a sustainable
future for Australia advised:
The integration of economics and ecology is the fundamental message ofOur Common
Future....Each of us will need to assess our responsibility and ability to contribute to a
sustainable future. Professional organizations, for example, especially integrating professions
such as engineers, economists, urban and industrial designers, and landscape planners, could
have a large impact on social values and productive practices” (UNWCED, 1987, p. 25).
Notable is the exclusion of accountants as an integrating profession. Accounting is
commonly described as “the language of business”, which is the ultimate integrator.
Medley (1997) ten years later has been one of the few practitioners arguing for
involvement. Accountancy has not hitherto held itself out to be an integrating
profession but is now being forced to consider the competitive and public interest
aspects of sustainability issues (Burritt, 1995; Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010;
Schaltegger and Burritt, 2010).
Unerman and O’Dwyer (2010), highlight two criticisms both of which are vital in
any assessment of the relationship between environmental performance accountability
research and practice as encouraged by the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journalspecial issue. First, is the suggestion that academic accounting research does
not provide an effective critique or questioning of key assumptions and practices
underpinning prevalent economic and business models. There is the potential for
Environmental
performance
accountability
389
academics to resort to short term thinking thereby squandering their competitive
advantage of long-term focus and theorizing. Second, the curricula of business
education establishments are criticized for failing to inculcate a sense of ethical
responsibility among their graduates, a cause for concern raised by Gibson (1997).
Unerman and O’Dwyer (2010, p. 16) observe the dearth of academic articles published
between 1999 and 2008 in six top-rated peer reviewed international accounting journals
and addressing social, societal and/or ecological impacts of organisational activities,
the professions, and how accounting can help provide information to mitigate negative
externalities where costs of business activity are imposed on others. Figures indicate
that one journal, Accounting, Organizations and Society,published 98 per cent of all
articles addressing issues of society, 72 per cent of all articles addressing social, 63 per
cent of environmental, 50 per cent of sustainability, and 55 per cent of publications in
these journals on professional issues, indicating the narrow focus of the other journals
on technocratic economic issues (Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2010, p. 9).
Unanticipated in the special issue was a new sustainability accounting dialogue
which has emerged internationally as accountants learn to account for carbon given
the growing business concern about growth in emissions trading and the financial
ramifications. The ongoing lack of agreement about how to account for pollution
allowances in practice (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2000; Engels, 2009) highlights the
requirement for relevant sustainability accounting research but the lack of closure for
practitioners. Other developments hinted at in the special issue but not anticipated in
the detail practitioners now require is the need to be accountable for environmental
performance in relation to formalized water accounting, with the recent release in
Australia of Exposure Draft Australian Accounting Water Standard 1 (EDEWAS1),
and biodiversity accounting with the publication of an international manual on how
biodiversity can be managed by corporations (Schaltegger and Bestandig, 2010).
Waste accounting too has become prominent. Material flow cost accounting (MFCA),
where physical flows and stocks of materials in process are traced and assigned costs,
thereby highlighting the cost generated by and/or associated with material losses is
gaining popularity with an ISO standard (ISO 14051) expected to be released in 2011
(Kokubu et al., 2009). These are all environmental issues that have come into
prominence in the 2000s since the special issue was published and for which
practitioners need to be prepared.
Despite some early leaders (Deeganet al., 1995; Guthrie and Parker, 1990), top
academic accounting journals – publication in which is an ultimate prize for academics
but of dubious value for practitioners (Hopwood, 2008) – encourage narrow
technocratic research not messages about the broader societal or environmental impact
or implications of accounting practices (Arnold, 2009). Unerman and O’Dwyer (2010,
p. 16) observe the dearth of academic articles published between 1999 and 2008
addressing social, societal and/or ecological impacts of organisational activities, the
professions, and how accounting can help provide information to mitigate negative
externalities where costs of business activity are imposed on others. On this reading
the setting for the future of environmental performance accountability research and its
impact on practice looks bleak, a topic to which the paper turns next.
AAAJ
25,2
390
6. The future of environmental performance accountability research
Speculation about the future direction of environmental performance accountability is
just that, speculation. However, recent developments suggest that some current
tendencies will be further encouraged in the next few years. These tendencies, as the
safest and most pragmatic speculations to make about environmental performance
accountability, are addressed next.
First, at the theoretical level is growing interest in the concept and practice of
integrated reporting (Eccles and Krzus, 2010). Environmental performance
accountability standards, guidelines and indicators help to fill the gap between
generation of knowledge about organisational performance and application of that
knowledge in practice. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides one foundation
for key performance indicators in which accountants are highly involved in the
challenging activity of obtaining measurement data (Brownet al., 2009). The objective
of the GRI is to have an integrated reporting standard in full effect by 2020. GRI
sustainability accounting and reporting is targeted towards organisations of all sizes in
a range of sectors, private, government and non-government, and has developed
supplementary information where sector differences in indicators are identified.
However, GRI sustainability reports, now in their third version (GRI G3, see Dingweth
and Eichinger, 2010 for explanation and critique), are not well integrated with the
day-to-day operational activities and information requirements of the business related
to such issues as reduction of energy use, waste water and carbon emissions. Such
methodological and practical integration is a necessary component of successful
environmental performance accountability (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2001; Schaltegger
and Burritt, 2006) which, in future, is potentially to be achieved through links with
sustainability accounting and integrated reporting.
Integrated reports are being developed under guidance from the International
Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC), established in August 2010, and are planned to
focus on the needs of managers for performance information as well as on external
investor concern for wealth generation through long term decisions made for the
organisation. An International Integrated Reporting Framework for reporting is
planned to bring together strategic financial, environmental, social and governance
information about corporate performance in a clear, concise, consistent and
comparable format. Extending the notions developed by environmental and social
accounting and reporting, integrated reports are expected to replace annual reports as
the foundation for accountability, as well as link with internal management decision
making about the representation of an organisation’s environmental, social,
governance and economic risks and performance, and future outlook. If integrated
reporting is both required and successfully adopted throughout the world, or at least
the world where stock exchanges form a key component of capital allocation to
companies, environmental performance accountability would, for the first time,
become mainstream. Such accountability would no longer be a subservient supplement
to the main financial accounts and reports in the way that environmental and
sustainability reporting have emerged until now.
The question to be asked is whether the mass implementation of integrated
reporting is likely to eventuate. Past history with social reporting, environmental
accounting and reporting and triple bottom line reporting indicates institutional
resilience to alternatives dominating conventional annual reporting, the intransigence
Environmental
performance
accountability
391
of the practicing arm of the profession being a notion observed long ago by MacNeal
(1939). On this basis the prognosis for integrated reporting is not good. Several
constraints on successful emergence are apparent. Unlike the GRI, it does not address
reporting for many important types of organisations, such as those in the public and
non-government sectors. Excluded also are the vast majority of organisations, there
being a singular concentration on large and listed companies with just the promise of
extension to the small and medium sized once the framework is agreed and
implemented. Furthermore, the quality of voluntary non-financial information
contained in integrated reports is not necessarily assured. Hence, speculation here is
that integrated reporting will rise on the present tide of interest buoyed by its practical
acceptance in South Africa by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and also in China
arguably through legislation and the Chinese Securities Regulatory Commission as
investor interest is very low and by the evolving academic case for accelerating its
adoption (Eccles and Serafeim, 2011, p. 90). Then, based on past experience care would
need to be taken that a fall from grace does not happen. Academics will need to
continue to research the issues whether through a narrow lens, as in the US, or a
broader lens, as in Europe; but in these financially troubled times research could be a
great support to practitioners who might be tempted to avoid voluntary integrated
reporting, unless cost reduction can be demonstrated at the same time as
environmental, social or governance benefits are highlighted. Researchers can
continue to try and help practitioners to move beyond a win-win situation. The
implementation challenge is to research, discover and introduce mechanisms whereby
academics and practitioners develop shared learning about the costs and benefits of
introducing integrated tools and performance measures broadly targeted and revealing
value to the business in which, not just investors, but all can share.
Second, is the ongoing need for researchers to adopt a pragmatic approach to
theorizing (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2000). The emphasis on theory that is useful to
practice has been, and will be, enhanced in the future. For example, Ahrens and
Chapman (2007) use a practice-based theory approach to show accounting can make
significant contributions to the ways in which organisational motivations take shape
and organisations coordinate with each other. The need for conducting theoretical
research that is useful to corporate managers in practice has long been recognised
(Lawler, 1985), as theory based on a pragmatic orientation (Pfeffer, 2008) is necessary if
environmental performance accountability is to demonstrate its fitness for purpose. It
requires a number of factors to be in place: the creation of meaningful indicators and
information using a range of tools; support for meaningful interpretation and relevant
use of these indicators and information; an environmental/sustainability performance
accounting system that is reliable and transparent and, thereby, provides a credible
basis for decision making and accountability; and for many environmental issues
which are relevant for corporate success, a new definition and understanding of
accounting boundaries is necessary, one that pulls relevant information into the
corporate net through value chain information management.
Theoretical foundations desirable for improving environmental performance
accountability and the foundations that actually evolve will depend on pressures being
exerted to bring accounting academics with a penchant for addressing environmental,
social and governance issues, practitioners and policy makers closer together in
collaborative rather than conflicting settings (Roberts et al., 2005; Brennan and
AAAJ
25,2
392
Solomon, 2008). Speculation in this regard favours the view that the emergence of
pragmatism and practice-theory will continue to evolve. Evolution will be aided by a
revived focus on avoiding theoretical foundations associated with notions divorced
from practice, as had been typified by the efficient markets theory strongly criticized
since the global financial crisis as being shockingly weak with its celebratory narrative
for light regulation being a fairy tale (Crotty, 2009). Evolution towards pragmatism will
also be motivated by problems that arise from not basing practice on theory, as Harris
and Raviv (2011) and Larckeret al.(2007) argue is the case with governance. Moves to
continue the development of pragmatic theory have commenced and researchers are
encouraged to engage in this process (Burritt, Evans and Guthrie, 2011).
A third speculation about theory in the years ahead is the need to encourage
development of a transdisciplinary perspective in which environmental performance
accountability is importantly positioned. From the moment in 1987 when sustainable
development received heavy marketing with the appearance of the Bruntland Report
(UNWCED, 1987) it was clear that resolving the ecological crisis would require shared
contributions from different academic disciplines (Maunders and Burritt, 1991) –
ecology, technology, engineering, management, etc. All individual disciplines require
performance metrics to assess progress towards ecological sustainability, but
integrated solutions need integrated metrics and this is where accounting should have
its natural advantage. Yet, the nature of environmental accounting is such that there
has been a general lack of agreement over standardization of measures. The notion
includes attempts to face the challenges of climate change related costs, risks, benefits
and opportunities.
Transdisciplinary academic research is at the core of moving environmental
performance accountability towards environmental sustainability (Scholzet al., 2006;
Avelino and Rotmans, 2011). According to Wicksonet al. (2006) transdisciplinary
research has three particular characteristics: to solve problems that are complex and
multi-dimensional, to use methodologies that are appropriate to the problems under
investigation integrated from different disciplines and, finally, collaboration between
researchers drawn from different disciplines with stakeholders and the community
(Thompson-Klein, 2004) to provide a reality check on research processes and outcomes.
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability implies a rethink of the foundations of
sustainable economic performance of the clients of professional firms and the
integration of strategic and operational decisions in relation to different types of
capital – economic, social, natural (Unermanet al., 2007). Accounting researchers need
to be included in transdisciplinary teams so that the need for different perspectives,
including those from accounting can be a part of research addressing issues of
environmental performance accountability. In the search for sustainable development
over-concentration on any single disciplinary research based solutions, favoured by
the need for functional specialization required for academic success, comes at the
expense of pragmatic solutions for the environmental crisis based on collaborative
multiple perspectives (Maunders and Burritt, 1991). The speculation here is that
transdisciplinary research will emerge to map with practice that has always focused on
the integration of perspectives of different professionals.
In summary, strategies for future researchers in environmental performance
accountability are many and diverse. They include, first, to chose to explore the
opportunities and constraints associated with the various notions of integrated
Environmental
performance
accountability
393
reporting, the underlying accounting required, complexity of responsibilities within
organisations linked with the derivation of integrated information for strategic and
operational decision making and accountabilities. Second, to engage with the
developing machinations about linkages between academic research into social,
environmental and governance issues, practice and policy making, but with the
intention of working in a collaborative and constructive way towards changing
behaviours of key actors, appraising tools, developing measures, demonstrating
whether environmental performance of organisations is improving, and examining the
systems leading to improvement. Third, to become part of a transdisciplinary team
engaged in solving some of the environmental problems associated with the activities
of business, government and the non-profit sector. Such engagement should occur
whether related to incremental but catastrophic environmental impacts once in
aggregate they are writ large across the world by small players, or with addressing
major critical problems associated with resource shortages and the need for
maintenance of natural, social, financial, manufacturing and intellectual capitals. The
contexts range from major oil spills, through the poverty of potable water supplies or
quality water for manufacturing facilities, through to financial mismanagement and
outright fraud associated with non-government organisations that have usurped their
legitimate right to continue their operations.
The overall role of theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalspecial issue
and its success in innovation need to be cautiously assessed within this set of journal
content and contextual considerations and is now addressed in the conclusion.
7. Conclusion
In spite of the growing importance of environmental performance accountability
issues, accountants in academe and accountants in practice still seem not to be
engaging with each other (Mathews, 1997; Medley, 1997; Gray and Bebbington, 2000;
Lamberton, 2005). One major purpose of the Symposium which led to theAccounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journalspecial issue was the need to gather academics and
practitioners together to discuss the importance of environmental issues. Diverse
reasons for such a lack of engagement have recently been summarised by
Singleton-Green (2010). A plethora of issues are examined: from a practitioner
perspective the volume and dispersion of research appears daunting; there are
methodological difficulties as practitioners find many methods used in research
incomprehensible; the non-closure of debates means that academic expert witnesses
are made to look illogical through the use of false arguments and, hence, they lose their
credibility; much research is seen to be irrelevant; because of the nature of rigorous
research academics are mostly unwilling to make policy decisions based on normative
conclusions; politics and power in accounting and its regulation are underplayed; much
academic work is not attention grabbing, but practice relies on marketing headlines
while academics shun public gaze; and finally the incentives for academics to convey
their research results to practitioners are very weak. In the face of the environmental
crisis and need for practitioner engagement alluded to by Medley (1997), these
constraints appear to have been more important than the gathering of likeminded
academics and practitioners to discuss issues of common interest would allow.
The unspoken importance of publication has two dimensions as examined in this
paper. First, the diegesis of actual journal content; and secondly, the contextual
AAAJ
25,2
394
hypodiegesis underlying the publication of a special issue. Within this framework two
aspects of the special issue need brief final consideration. First, how has environmental
performance accountability developed since the special issue was published and what
is the prognosis for its future? Second, how hasAccounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal contributed towards bringing the worlds of academics and practitioners
together and innovation in knowledge development through the publication of its
special issue on environmental performance accountability?
In respect to the first question, then, a brief comment is made about the development
of environmental performance accountability content of the three full articles
published in the special issue. Mathews (1997) provided a strong foundation for a set of
further reviews of environmental accounting occurring at regular intervals. Burritt and
Welch (1997) stimulated limited further research in the under-researched area of public
sector environmental accountability. Deegan and Rankin (1997) set the scene for a still
unfolding movement of academic articles towards establishing the usefulness, uses,
assurance of and training needs for environmental information in the private sector.
Yet, it is not surprising that overall the contribution of theAccounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journalarticles, or their content, to innovation in the environmental
performance accountability area remains and is likely to continue to remain mixed.
Considerable strength has emanated from later academic synthesis and conceptual
developments of issues raised by Mathews, Burritt and Welch and Deegan and Rankin,
but there has been less satisfactory take-up of ideas relating to the education of
students who will be future professionals, and only limited take-up by practitioners
being encouraged by Medley. With the exception of Welch, who established himself as
a practitioner in London, and Mathews, who retired in 2005, the former group
continued as active academics, core to the area, thus raising the possibility that their
work would continue to be cited. Gibson however, has been relatively quiet as a
publisher since 1997 and has since retired, and Medley moved to a new line of activity
thereby reducing the opportunity for ongoing engagement.
New specific lines of environmental performance accountability interest have
emerged and will continue to receive attention with research efforts being synthesised.
For example, a form of new environmental accounting and accountability performance
dialogue has arisen internationally as accountants examine how to account for carbon
emissions. The lack of agreement about how to account for pollution allowances in
practice is and will remain a controversial topic for academics and practitioners
(Schaltegger and Burritt, 2000; Engels, 2009). Strides have been made towards the
development of a comprehensive framework that supports performance assessment
and accountability of environmental and carbon management accounting by and
within corporations (Burrittet al., 2002; Burritt, Zvezdov and Schaltegger, 2011). In the
manner of Mathews, the most enthusiastic researcher would have a considerable task
examining and classifying the voluminous literature addressing carbon accounting
and related issues. These types of review papers are needed and are likely sooner
rather than later, in the context of, for example, research into water, waste, biodiversity
and biofuel.
Environmental performance accountability in the public sector remains and is likely
to continue to remain under researched in spite of a small cadre of dedicated academics
such as James Guthrie and Amanda Ball, pursuing such research at local, state and
federal levels. The public sector can lead the way in environmental performance
Environmental
performance
accountability
395
because in its non-commercial arms there is a natural socio-economic rationality which
does not pervade private sector corporations (Schalteggeret al., 2003). Further research
and an acceleration of interest is merited given the growing diversity in governments
and government settings as new public management comes under scrutiny following
responses to the global financial crisis and the environmental disasters emerging.
Deegan and Rankin’s (1997) article, as mentioned, has stimulated a set of responses
and extensions to the literature which has a focus on the value relevance and assurance
of environmental information. Value relevance continues to be of growing importance
as academics strive to examine corporate environmental performance and has recently
taken a turn towards linkages with internal considerations such as eco-management
control systems (e.g. Henri and Journeault, 2010). However, environmental
performance accountability is now being subsumed and will no doubt receive a new
research impetus from the movement towards integrated reporting, which includes
environmental performance issues as a sub-set (Eccles and Krzus, 2010) and a focus on
the integrated aspects of sustainability. Nevertheless, the barriers from practice and
policy makers to increasing the take up of research into the substance of environmental
performance accountability are significant. Hence, secondly, the academic –
practitioner interface and its future are addressed.
In respect to the second question,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalhas
contributed towards bringing the worlds of academics and practitioners together and
innovation in knowledge development through the publication of its special issue on
environmental performance accountability examined in this paper through analysis of
the content of the special issue. This provides only one springboard for success, the
articles, in relation to the development of academic ideas and their implementation in
practice. But it is argued that adding support to the context of publication, as examined
in the hypodiegesis, is an equally important consideration – encouraging processes
promoting the contemporary relevance of ideas about saving the planet from human
excesses, the positioning of people with a passion for promoting knowledge generation,
the resources available for pursuit of academic agendas, as all play their part.
Those in control of or influencing researchers and practitioners: governments who
establish rules; the professional bodies, the researchers and the practitioners, the
research and the practices, clients, employees, and more broadly, society as a whole all
have a part to play in successful innovation. Top journals also have an important role
in building innovative practices as the review of each of the articles in the special issue
demonstrates. Academics have made limited use of articles in the special issue, they
have extended and used the literature published, locally and internationally, a clear
measure of theAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal’scontribution to
knowledge development. But the deliberate balancing of academic with practitioner
articles and notes, in order to encourage dialogue since the special issue, appears to
have borne little fruit.
Consideration needs to be given to contextual innovations which ensure repetition
or relay of the message for non-academic audiences through, for example, sponsorships
of symposia and workshops, and development of industry publications and social
media – to extend the reach of potentially sterile academic articles to practitioners who
currently may not understand the ideas or find them interesting, or more often, not
wish to wade through academic jargon to get to them. TheAccounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journalcould develop and present a portfolio of communication
AAAJ
25,2
396
mechanisms to help bridge the ongoing gap, especially in areas such as environmental
performance accountability where policy is pre-determined and it is only the
mechanisms for change and understanding, in part through accounting and
accountancy that need to be influenced.
A recent estimate from a professional firm suggests that 45 per cent of businesses
intend to use accountancy firms to account for their carbon footprint (KPMG, 2009)
highlighting a need for relevant research in order to establish whether accounting
practitioners are already responding to calls for sustainability accounting and whether
they consider sustainability accounting education as important for their current and
future operations. The academic accounting research and practitioner mix and need for
collaboration is very much to the fore in these debates which have become well-known
for carbon, but also hold promise for the emerging accounting issues of water,
biodiversity and waste. Encouraging debate between academic accounting research
and professional practice over such key issues continues to be an imperative as a recent
forum revealed when the two were assessed as “worlds together or worlds apart”
(Laughlin, 2011).
Researchers need to engage with the challenges of transdisciplinarity, integrated
reporting and take a pragmatic approach based on close understanding of the demands
on practitioners. Further reflective work which explores both the content and
contextual matters highlighted by the special issue being reviewed could lead to a
revolution in thinking by publishers, academics, practitioners and policy makers alike.
Who will take the lead? Ultimately this question will be answered in retrospect when
and if a review diegesis or hypodiegesis of the current special issue is provided in the
future. But considered critical is that collaboration between functional research areas
and between academics, practitioners and policy makers, as well as the mobilization of
transdisciplinary knowledge founded in such collaboration, is necessary to progress
towards future improved environmental performance accountability.
Note
1. See LinkedIn, an information exchange network for professional people at www.linkedin.
com/
References
Abbott, H.P. (2002),The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative, Cambridge University Press.
Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2007), “Management accounting as practice”,Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-27.
Amran, A. and Haniffa, R. (2010), “Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: a case of
a developing country”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 141-56.
Arnold, P.J. (2009), “Global financial crisis: the challenge to accounting research”,Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 Nos 6/7, pp. 663-85.
Avelino, F. and Rotmans, J. (2011), “A dynamic conceptualization of power for sustainability
research”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 796-804.
Ball, A. (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, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1009-35.
Environmental
performance
accountability
397
Ball, A. (2005), “Environmental accounting and change in UK local government”,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 346-73.
Ball, A. and Grubnic, S. (2007), “Sustainability accounting and accountability in the public
sector”, in Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (Eds),Sustainability Accounting
and Accountability, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 243-65.
Banasik, E., Barut, M. and Kloot, L. (2010), “Socially responsible investment: labour standards
and environmental, social and ethical disclosures within the SRI industry”,Australian
Accounting Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 387-99.
Banerjee, S.B. (2002), “Corporate environmentalism: perspectives from organizational learning”,
Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 147-64.
Bebbington, J. (1997), “Engagement, education and sustainability: a review essay on
environmental accounting”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 365-81.
Bebbington, J., Gray, R.H., Thomson, I. and Walters, D. (1994), “Accountants’ attitudes and
environmentally sensitive accounting”,Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 109-20.
Beeton, R.J.S. (2006), “Society’s forms of capital: a framework for renewing our thinking” paper
prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of the
Environment and Heritage, Canberra, available at: www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/
publications/emerging/capital/index.html
Boettinger, H. (1975), “Is management really an art?”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 53 No. 1,
pp. 54-64.
Boyce, G. (2004), “Critical accounting education: teaching and learning outside the circle”,Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 Nos 4/5, pp. 565-86.
Brennan, N.M. and Solomon, J. (2008), “Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of
accountability: an overview”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 7,
pp. 885-906.
Broadbent, J. and Guthrie, J. (2008), “Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual”
accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 129-69.
Brown, A.M. (2007), “Natural environmental disclosures: strategic responses by Port Moresby
stock exchange entities”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 16, pp. 75-89.
Brown, S.H., de Jong, M. and Levy, D. (2009), “Building institutions based on information
disclosure: lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting”,Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 571-80.
Bullough, R.V. Jr and Pinnegar, S. (2001), “Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of
self-study research”,Educational Researcher, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 13-21.
Burritt, R.L. (1995), “Accounting, accountability and the ‘ozone regime’”,Accounting Forum,
Vol. 19 Nos 2/3, pp. 219-43.
Burritt, R.L. (1997), “Editorial: Accounting for environmental performance: time to suck it and
see”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 474-8.
Burritt, R.L. (2004), “Environmental management accounting: roadblocks on the way to the green
and pleasant land”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 13-32.
Burritt, R.L. and Schaltegger, S. (2001), “Eco-efficiency in corporate budgeting”,Environmental
Management and Health, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 158-74.
Burritt, R.L. and Schaltegger, S. (2010), “Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 829-46.
AAAJ
25,2
398
Burritt, R.L. and Welch, S. (1997), “Accountability for environmental performance of the
Australian Commonwealth public sector”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 481-531.
Burritt, R.L., Evans, E. and Guthrie, J. (2011), “The relationship between academic accounting
research and professional practice”, in Evans, E., Burritt, R. and Guthrie, J. (Eds),Bridging
the Gap between Academic Accounting Research and Professional Practice, CAGS/ICAA,
Adelaide, pp. 9-20.
Burritt, R.L., Hahn, T. and Schaltegger, S. (2002), “Towards a comprehensive framework for
environmental management accounting: links between business actors and environmental
management accounting tools”,Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 9-50.
Burritt, R.L., Zvezdov, D. and Schaltegger, S. (2011), “Carbon management accounting:
explaining practice in leading German companies”,Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 80-98.
Catasus, B. (2008), “In search of accounting absence”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19
No. 7, pp. 1004-19.
Chambers, R.J. (1966), “A matter of principle”,The Accounting Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 443-57.
Chatterjee, B. and Mir, M.Z. (2008), “The current status of environmental reporting by Indian
companies”,Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 609-29.
Chiang, C. (2010), “Insights into current practices in auditing environmental matters”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 912-33.
Chiang, C., Prescott, S. and Northcott, D. (2010), “The challenges of auditing environmental
matters in financial reports”, paper presented at the 6th Sixth Asian Pacific
Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference (APIRA) Sydney, 11-13 July.
Clandinin, D.J. and Connelly, F.M. (2000),Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative
Research, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Clarke, F.L. (1980), “Inflation accounting and the accidents of history”,Abacus, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 79-99.
Clarke, K. and O’Neill, S. (2006), “Is the environmental professional...an accountant?”,Greener
Management International, Vol. 49, pp. 111-24.
Collison, D.J., Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L., Sinclair, D. and Stevenson, L. (2000), “Social and
environmental accounting and student choice: an exploratory research note”,Accounting
Forum, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 170-86.
Commonwealth of Australia (1996),Australia, State of the Environment, 1996, State of the
Environment Advisory Council, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
CPA Australia (2005),Sustainability Reporting: Practices Performance and Potential, CPA
Australia, Melbourne.
Criado-Jimenez, I., Fernandez-Chulian, M., Larrinage-Gonzalez, C. and Husillis-Carques, J. (2008),
“Compliance with mandatory environmental reporting in financial statements: the case of
Spain (2001-2003)”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 245-62.
Crotty, J. (2009), “Structural causes of the global financial crisis: a critical assessment of the ‘new
financial architecture’”,Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 563-80.
Deegan, C. and Ji, S. (2008), “Finding information about contaminated sites in Australia: there has
to be a better way”,Environmental and Planning Law Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 284-97.
Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1997), “The materiality of environmental information to users of
annual reports”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 562-83.
Environmental
performance
accountability
399
Deegan, C. and Soltys, S. (2007), “Social accounting: an Australian perspective”,Accounting
Forum, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
Deegan, C., Geddes, S. and Staunton, J. (1995), “A survey of Australian accountants’ attitudes on
environmental reporting”,Accounting Forum, Vol. 19 Nos 2/3, pp. 143-56.
Delanty, G. (2003), “Michel Foucault”, in Elliott, A. and Ray, L. (Eds),Key Contemporary Social
Theorists, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 123-8.
De Moor, P. and De Beelde, I. (2005), “Environmental auditing and the role of accountancy
profession. A literature review”,Environmental Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 205-19.
Dingweth, K. and Eichinger, M. (2010), “Tamed transparency: how information disclosure under
the global reporting initiative fails to empower”, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 74-96.
Doherty, G. (1992), “Undercover stories: hypodiegetic narration in James Joyce’s Dubliners”,The
Journal of Narrative Technique, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 35-47.
Durden, C. (2008), “Towards a socially responsible management control system”,Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 671-94.
Eccles, R.G. and Krzus, M.P. (2010),One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy,
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Eccles, R.G. and Serafeim, G. (2011), “Accelerating the adoption of integrated reporting”, in de
Leo, F. and Vollbracht, M. (Eds),CSR Index, InnoVatio Publishing, Beirut, Boston,
Pretoria, Tianjin and, Zurich.
Engels, A. (2009), “The European Emissions Trading Scheme: an exploratory study of how
companies learn to account for carbon”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34
Nos 3/4, pp. 488-98.
Everett, J. (2004), “Exploring (false) dualisms for environmental accounting praxis”,Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1061-84.
Frost, G.R. (2007), “The introduction of mandatory environmental reporting guidelines:
Australian evidence”,Abacus, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 190-216.
Gibson, K. (1997), “Notes: Courses on environmental accounting” Accounting”,Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 584-93.
Gray, R. (2002), “The social accounting project and Accounting, Organizations and Society.
Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 687-708.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review
of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77.
Gray, R.H. and Bebbington, J. (2000), “Environmental accounting, managerialism and
sustainability: is the planet safe in the hands of business and accounting?”,Advances in
Environmental Accounting and Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-44.
Gray, R.H. and Bebbington, J. (2001),Accounting for the Environment, Certified Accountants
Educational Projects, London.
Gray, R.H. and 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, Vol. 13 Nos 5/6, pp. 797-836.
Gray, R.H. and Guthrie, J.E. (Eds) (2007),Social Accounting, Mega Accounting and Beyond:
A Festschrift in Honour of M.R. Mathews, CSEAR, St Andrews.
AAAJ
25,2
400
Gray, R.H. and Laughlin, R. (2012), “It was 20 years ago today: Sgt Pepper,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, green accounting and the Blue Meanies”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 228-55.
Gunawan, J. (2010), “Perception of important information in corporate social disclosures:
evidence from Indonesia”,Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 62-71.
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (1990), “Corporate social disclosure practice: a comparative
international analysis”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3, pp. 159-75.
Hale, T. (2011), “A climate coalition of the willing”,The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 89-101.
Harris, M. and Raviv, A. (2011), “Control of corporate decisions: shareholders vs management”,
Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 4115-47.
Hazelton, J. and Haigh, M. (2010), “Incorporating sustainability into accounting curricula: lessons
learnt from an action research study”, Accounting Education, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 159-78.
Henri, J.-F. and Journeault, M. (2010), “Eco-control: the influence of management control systems
on environmental and economic performance”,Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 63-80.
Hodgson, G.M. (2003), “The hidden persuaders: institutions and individuals in economic theory”,
Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 159-75.
Hopwood, A.G. (2008), “Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an
age when curiosity is not enough”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 87-96.
Ijiri, Y. (1983), “On the accountability-based conceptual framework of accounting”, Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 75-81.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (2008), The Benefits of Assuring Carbon
Emission Disclosures, Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, Sydney.
Ji, S. and Deegan, C. (2011), “Accounting for contaminated sites: how transparent are Australian
companies?”,Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 131-53.
Johansen, T.R. (2010), “Employees, non-financial reports and institutional arrangements: a study
of accounts in the workplace”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 97-130.
Jones, M.J. (2010), “Accounting for the environment: towards a theoretical perspective for
environmental accounting and reporting”,Accounting Forum, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 123-38.
Kokubu, K., Kos, M.S.C., Furukawa, Y. and Tachikawa, H. (2009), “Material flow cost accounting
with ISO 14051”,ISO Management System, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 15-18.
KPMG (2009),Gearing Up: Business Readiness for Climate Change, The Australian Industry
Group, North Sydney.
Laine, M. (2005), “Meanings of the term ‘sustainable development’ in Finnish corporate
disclosure”,Accounting Forum, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 395-413.
Lamberton, G. (2005), “Sustainability accounting: a brief history and conceptual framework”,
Accounting Forum, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Larcker, D., Richardson, S. and Tuna, I. (2007), “Corporate governance, accounting outcomes, and
organizational performance”,The Accounting Review, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 963-1008.
Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. and Bebbington, J. (2001), “Accounting change or institutional
appropriation? A case study of the implementation of environmental accounting”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 269-92.
Laughlin, R. (2011), “Accounting research, policy and practice: worlds together or worlds apart?”,
in Evans, E., Burritt, R.L. and Guthrie, J. (Eds), The Relationship Between Academic
Accounting Research and Professional Practice, CAGS/Institute, Sydney.
Environmental
performance
accountability
401
Lawler, E.E. (1985),Doing Research That Is Useful for Theory and Practice, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA and London.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Denzin, N.K. (1994), “The fifth moment”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds),
Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Littleton, A.C. (1936), “The professional college”,The Accounting Review, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 109-16.
Llewellyn, S. (2003), “What counts as ‘theory’ in qualitative management and accounting
research? Introducing five levels of theorizing”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 662-708.
Lockhart, J.A. and Mathews, M.R. (2000), “Teaching environmental accounting: a four part
framework”, in Ketz, J.E. (Ed.), Advances in Accounting Education Teaching and
Curriculum Innovations (Advances in Accounting Education Volume 3), Emerald Group
Publishing, Bingley, pp. 57-84.
MacKenzie, D. (2009), “Making things the same: gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon
markets”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 440-55.
MacNeal, K. (1939),Truth in Accounting, Scholars Book Co, Houston, TX.
Mathews, R.L. (1990),Review of the Accounting Discipline in Higher Education, Dept of
Employment, Education and Training, Australian Govt Pub. Service, Canberra.
Mathews, M.R. (1997), “Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: is
there a silver jubilee to celebrate?”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 481-531.
Mathews, M.R. (1984), “A suggested classification for social accounting research”,Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 199-221.
Mathews, M.R. (2003), “A brief description and preliminary analysis of recent social and
environmental accounting research literature”,Indonesian Management and Accounting
Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 197-264.
Mathews, M.R. (2004), “Developing a matrix approach to categorise the social and environmental
accounting research literature”,Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-45.
Maunders, K.T. and Burritt, R.L. (1991), “Accounting and ecological crisis”,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 9-26.
Medley, P. (1997), “Notes: Environmental accounting: what does it mean to professional
accountants?”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 594-600.
Mills, C.W. (1959),The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Milne, M. and Chan, C.C.C. (1999), “Narrative corporate social disclosures: how much of a
difference do they make to investment decision-making?”,British Accounting Review,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 439-57.
Moir, L. (2001), “What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?”,Corporate Governance,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 16-22.
Moneva, J.M. and Llena, F. (2000), “Environmental disclosure in the annual reports of large
companies in Spain”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-29.
Moneva, J.M. and Cuellar, B. (2009), “The value relevance of financial and non-financial
environmental reporting”, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 44 No. 3,
pp. 441-56.
AAAJ
25,2
402
Mooney, R.L. (1957), “The researcher himself”,Research for Curriculum Improvement, (ASCD
Yearbook), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Washington, DC,
pp. 154-86.
National Institute of Accountants (NIA) (2005),TBL – Triple Bottom Line, National Institute of
Accountants, Melbourne.
National Institute of Accountants (NIA) (2009),Sustainability, Small Business and Climate
Change Focus of Accounting Grants, National Institute of Accountants, Melbourne.
Nilsson, H. (2008), “Exploring the environmental information in sell-side analysts research
reports”,Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 213-35.
Nissley, W.W. (1947), “Recruitment for the profession”,The Accounting Review, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 18-22.
Nyquist, S. (2003), “Environmental information in annual reports: a survey of Swedish
accountants”,Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 682-91.
O’Dwyer, B. (2001), “The legitimacy of accountants: participation in social and ethical
accounting, auditing and reporting”,Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 27-39.
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
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 240-67.
Packard, V. (1957),The Hidden Persuaders, Longmans, Green, London.
Parker, L.D. (2000), “Green strategy costing: early days”,Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 10
No. 20, pp. 46-55.
Parker, L.D. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the
commentary box”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842-60.
Parker, L.D. (2011), “Twenty-one years of social and environmental accountability research:
a coming of age”,Accounting Forum, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Parker, L.D. and Gould, G. (2002), “Changing public sector accountability: critiquing new
directions”,Accounting Forum, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 109-35.
Parker, L.D., Guthrie, J. and Linacre, S. (2011), “The relationship between academic accounting
research and professional practice”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Pfeffer, J. (2008), “Whatever happened to pragmatism?”,Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 57-60.
Roberts, J., McNulty, T. and Stiles, P. (2005), “Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the
non-executive director: creating accountability in the boardroom”,British Journal of
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. S5-S26.
Rimmon-Kenan, S. (1983),Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics, Methuen, London.
Schaltegger, S. and Bestandig, U. (2010), Corporate Biodiversity Management Handbook,
Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Berlin.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R.L. (2000),Contemporary Environmental Accounting, Greenleaf,
Sheffield.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R.L. (2006), “Corporate sustainability accounting: a nightmare or a
dream coming true?”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 293-5.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R.L. (2010), “Sustainability accounting for companies: Catchphrase or
decision support for business leaders?”,Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 375-84.
Environmental
performance
accountability
403
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R.L. and Petersen, H. (2003),An Introduction to Corporate Environmental
Management: Striving for Sustainability, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Scholz, R.W., Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Walter, A.I. and Stauffacher, M. (2006), “Transdisciplinary
case studies as a means of sustainability learning”,International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 226-51.
Seetharaman, A., Ismail, M. and Saravan, A.S. (2010), “Environmental accounting as a tool for
environmental management system”, Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental
Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 137-45.
Singleton-Green, B. (2010), “The communication gap: why doesn’t accounting research make a
greater contribution to debates on accounting policy?”,Accounting in Europe, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 129-45.
Standards Australia (2000),Risk management: Australian/New Zealand Standard, AS/NZS
4360:2004, SAI Global, Sydney.
Standards Australia (2004),Risk management: Australian/New Zealand Standard, AS/NZS
4360:2004, SAI Global, Sydney.
Standards Australia (2006),Risk management: Australian/New Zealand Standard, AS/NZS
4360:2004, SAI Global, Sydney.
Stigler, G.J. and Becker (1977), “De gustibus non est disputandum”,American Economic Review,
Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 76-90.
Thompson-Klein, J. (2004), “Prospects for transdisciplinarity”,Futures, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 515-26.
Thorne, K. and Kouzmin, A. (2008), “Borders in an (in)visible world: colonizing the divergent and
privileging the ‘New World Order’”, in Dar, S. and Cooke, B. (Eds),The New Development
Management: Critiquing the Dual Modernization, Zed Books, London, pp. 129-49.
Tilling, M.V. and Tilt, C.A. (2010), “The edge of legitimacy: voluntary social and environmental
reporting in Rothmans’ 1956-1999 annual reports”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 55-81.
Tingey-Holyoak, J. and Burritt, R.L. (2009), “The sustainability agenda: a preliminary
investigation of accountancy firm managers’ perceptions of support from the professional
bodies”,Journal of the Asia Pacific Centre for Environmental Accountability, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 3-11.
Turnburke, H.M. (1939), “Accountancy: a profession for educated men”,The Accounting Review,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 250-8.
UNDESA (1992), “Agenda 21”, available at: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/
english/agenda21chapter30.htm (accessed 30 August 2011).
Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (2007),Sustainability Accounting and Accountability,
Routledge, London.
Unerman, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (2010),The Relevance and Utility of Leading Accounting Research,
Research Report 120, Certified Accountants Educational Trust, Association of Chartered
Certified Accountants, London.
UNWCED (1987),Our Common Future, United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development and the Commission for the Future, Geneva.
Van Manen, M. (1980), “An interview with a Dutch pedagogue”,Journal of Curriculum
Theorizing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 68-72.
Wickson, F., Carew, A.L. and Russell, A.W. (2006), “Transdisciplinary research: characteristics,
quandaries and quality”,Futures, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 1046-59.
AAAJ
25,2
404
Williams, F.W. (2009), “Blowout worries on ETS”,Herald Sun, 2 December, available at: www.
heraldsun.com.au/businessold/blowout-worries-on-ets/story-e6frfh4f-1225805951734
(accessed 15 May 2011).
Wilson, T.D. (1981), “On user studies and information needs”,Journal of Documentation, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Yakhou, M. and Dorweiler, V.P. (2004), “Environmental accounting: an essential component of
business strategy”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 65-77.
Zain, M.M., Mohammad, R. and Alwi, M.R. (2006), “Malaysian corporate responsibility
disclosure: miscommunication between providers and users of information?”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 96-103.
Zeffane, R.M., Polonsky, M.J. and Medley, P. (1995), “Corporate environmental commitment:
developing the operational concept”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 17-28.
Corresponding author
Roger Burritt can be contacted at: roger.burritt@unisa.edu.au
Environmental
performance
accountability
405
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints



Call for papers
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Special issue on
Social accountability and stakeholder engagement for sustainability: shaping organisational
change in higher education?
Guest Editors: Dr Christian Herzig, Dr Jasmin Godemann and Prof. Jeremy Moon,
University of Nottingham, UK
Prof. Jan Bebbington, University of St Andrews, UK
Higher education institutions are being increasingly called upon to play
a leading role in moving all of us to a more sustainable future. They
create economic, social and environmental impacts as they educate
students, provide research, strengthen communities, operate their
campuses and business, and influence behaviours that form today’s
and future society. It is a somewhat curious omission that higher
education institutions have lagged behind other private and public
organisations in being accountable for their social impacts for a long
time. However, in the last few years there has been considerable
progress in the way higher education institutions approach issues of
social responsibility in education, research and their organisation.
There is also an increasing understanding of public disclosure needs in
relation to sustainability. Much less is known, however, about the
linkages between the processes of social accountability and the level
of organisational change within higher education.
Recent research that has explored initial linkages between
sustainability initiatives of universities and organisational learning has
revealed potential to initiate organisational change, emphasising the
importance of making data available to the public (Albrecht et al., 2007;
Gudz, 2004). Similarly, Gond and Herrbach (2006) argue that social
accountability procedures – seen as a learning rather than an adaptive
process – may lead to individual and organisational dynamic changes
that foster organisational performance. They conclude that an
important prerequisite is the creation of learning processes that involve
a more critically reflexive process, where accepted rules, strategies
and norms are questioned and improved (Argyris and Scho¨n, 1978).
This Call for papers aims to explore how and under what
circumstances social accountability systems intervene in
organisational change and support higher education institutions on
their way towards sustainability. In doing so, it seeks to enrich the
literature on social accountability and organisational learning within the
higher education setting, which is, in many ways, distinctive from
research into other public and private settings (e.g. in terms of tenure,
long-term employees, loosely coupled systems) (Kezar, 2005).
To better understand the effects of specific organisational structure
and the interaction between different groups involved, we also call for
closer examination of the effects of stakeholder engagement through
dialogue within the contexts analysed. There is considerable research
to suggest that stakeholder dialogue plays a vital role in social
accountability mechanisms (Grayet al., 1997; Owen et al., 2001) and
may produce tangible changes in organisations’ practice (Burchell and
Cook, 2006; Godemann and Michelsen, 2011). Less is known,
however, about how stakeholder engagement within social
accountability processes initiate and/or support organisational change.
Bebbingtonet al. (2007) also criticise the absence of agreement on
what types of stakeholder engagement facilitate incremental change in
organisations. They propose that engagements within social
accountability research can only be understood if researchers consider
a number of interrelated contextual factors, such as institutional
frameworks, power dynamics, epistemology, language and discourse
heterogeneity, or community and identity. Following this, we want to
explore how the ability to change through dialogic social accountability
and different forms of stakeholder engagement is viewed at various
levels of higher education institutions.
This special issue calls for contributions that investigate the logic of
higher education institutions for adopting social accountability and
www.emeraldinsight.com/aaaj.htm Research you can use
Call for papers
stakeholder engagement techniques to foster organisational change.
It intends to provide a platform for discussion and research into
organisational and practical barriers to implementation of social
accountability processes within higher education institutions and the
implementation and effectiveness of different forms of stakeholder
engagement. In this way, the special issue is expected to provide new
fruitful insights into the links between ‘‘university social responsibility’’,
social accountability, stakeholder engagement, and organisational
change for sustainability.
Some research questions that might be addressed in this special issue
include, but are not limited to, the following:
. How can organisational change in higher education institutions be
initiated and/or supported through social accountability processes
and stakeholder engagement?
.
What are higher education institutions’ logics for adopting social
accountability and stakeholder engagement techniques to foster
organisational change?
. How can the relationships between the kind of learning process and
the level of organisational change be described?
. What mechanisms promote and enhance social accountability and
stakeholder engagement?
. What are the limits of these mechanisms and how might these
challenges be resolved?
. What constitutes engagement with stakeholders and how do
different forms of stakeholder representation and engagement affect
different aspects of organisational change?
. What are the cultural and organisational barriers to the
communication between stakeholders engaged in the social
accountability process and to the overall change process, and how
might these be resolved?
.
How do individuals interact around and through forms of social
accountability systems?
. Which accountability and engagement frameworks can help to
advance the institutional capacity to sustain progress in the area of
university social responsibility?
This special issue is open to papers from different academic disciplines
that are theoretical, conceptual, or empirical in nature and present new
insights and innovative ideas on the role of social accountability and
stakeholder engagement to foster organisational change in higher
education.
Please note that this is not a call for papers on education for
sustainable development. Our interest is in organisational responses
to the challenge of sustainable transformation and the role of social
accountability and stakeholder engagement processes therein.
Submission instructions
The submission deadline for this special issue is31 July 2012.
Manuscripts should be sent electronically by e-mail (in a word file
format) to the Guest Editor:
Dr Christian Herzig
E-mail:christian.herzig@nottingham.ac.uk
The Editors welcome enquiries and declarations of interest in
submitting as well as earlier submissions. All papers will be reviewed in
accordance withAAAJ’s normal procedures.
References
Albrecht, P., Burandt, S. and Schaltegger, S. (2007), ‘‘Do sustainability
projects stimulate organizational learning in universities?’’,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 403-15.
Argyris, C. and Scho¨n, D.A. (1978),Organizational Learning: A Theory
of Action Perspective, Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co.,
Reading, MA.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B. and Thomson, I. (2007),
‘‘Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical approach’’,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 356-81.
Burchell, J. and Cook, J. (2006), ‘‘It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes
towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement
processes’’,Business Ethics: A European Review, Wiley-Blackwell,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 154-70.
Gond, J.-P. and Herrbach, O. (2006), ‘‘Social reporting as an
organisational learning tool? A theoretical framework’’,Journal of
Business Ethics, Nielson Journals Publishing, Vol. 65, pp. 359-71.
Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. (1997),
‘‘Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: stakeholders,
accountability, audits and procedures’’,Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 325-64.
Gudz, N.A. (2004), ‘‘Implementing the sustainable development policy
at the University of British Columbia: an analysis of the implications of
www.emeraldinsight.com/aaaj.htm Research you can use
Call for papers
organisational learning’’,International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 5, pp. 156-68.
Kezar, A. (2005), ‘‘What campuses need to know about organizational
learning and the learning organization’’, New Directions for Higher
Education, Wiley-Blackwell, Vol. 131, pp. 7-22.
Owen, D. L., Swift, T. and Hunt, K. (2001), ‘‘Questioning the role of
stakeholder engagement in social and ethical accounting, auditing and
reporting’’, Accounting Forum, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 264-82.
Patterson, G. (1999), ‘‘The learning university’’,The Learning
Organization, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 9-17.
White, J. and Weathersby, R. (2005), ‘‘Can universities become true
learning organizations?’’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 292-8.
Further reading
Adomssent, A., Godemann, J. and Michelsen, G. (2007),
‘‘Transferability of approaches to sustainable development at
universities as a challenge’’,International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 385-402.
Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Leicht, A. and Busch, A. (Eds) (2006),
Higher Education for Sustainability. New Challenges from a Global
Perspective, VAS Publishing, Frankfurt am Main.
Ball, A. and Bebbington, J. (2008), ‘‘Accounting and reporting for
sustainable development in public service organizations’’,Public
Money and Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 323-6.
Ball, A. and Grubnic, S. (2007), ‘‘Sustainability accounting and
accountability in the public sector’’, in Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. and
O’Dwyer, B. (Eds),Sustainability Accounting and Accountability,
Routledge, London, pp. 243-65.
Creighton, S.H. (1998),Greening the Ivory Tower. Improving the
Environmental Track Record of Universities, Colleges and Other
Institutions, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Daft, R.L. and Huber, G.P. (1987), ‘‘How organizations learn:
a communication framework’’, in Bacharach, S.B. and
DiTomaso, N. (Eds),Research in the Sociology of Organizations.
A Research Annual, Elsevier, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-36.
Duke, C. (1992),The Learning University. Towards a New Paradigm?
Open University Press, Buckingham.
Godemann, J. and Michelsen, G. (Eds) (2011),Sustainability
Communication: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoretical
Foundations, Springer, Dordrecht.
www.emeraldinsight.com/aaaj.htm Research you can use