Search

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to provide an account of the period prior to the creation of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): a body that was critical to the institutionalization of sustainability reporting (SR). By examining this “pre-history,” we bring to light the actors, activities and ways of thinking that made SR more likely to be institutionalized once the GRI entrepreneurship came to the fore.Design/methodology/approachThe paper revisits a time period (the 1990s) that has yet to be formally written about in any depth and traces the early development of what became SR. This material is examined using a constructivist understanding of regulation.FindingsThe authors contend that a convergence of actors and structural conditions were pivotal to the development of SR. Specifically, this paper demonstrates that a combination of actors (such as epistemic communities, carriers, regulators and reporters) as well as the presence of certain conditions (such as the societal context, analogies with financial reporting, environmental reporting and reporting design issues) contributed to the development of SR which was consolidated (as well as extended) in 1999 with the advent of the GRI.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper theorizes (through a historical analysis) how SR is sustained by a network of institutional actors and conditions which can assist reflection on future SR development.Originality/valueThis paper brings together empirical material from a time that (sadly) is passing from living memory. The paper also extends the use of a conceptual frame that is starting to influence scholarship in accounting that seeks to understand how norms develop.

Purpose– This paper seeks to create the context within which research into how higher education institutions (HEIs) might engage with the goal of sustainable development. In particular, the paper outlines the context in which papers in a special section on this topic might be understood as well as developing propositions for how a research focus might emerge in this area. The paper, therefore, seeks to contribute to discussions about whether, under which circumstances and how social accountability and engagement processes focusing on sustainable development might trigger, frame and/or promote change processes in HEIs. The papers that compose this special section are also introduced and future research avenues offered.Design/methodology/approach– Literature reviewFindings– Despite a dearth of literature in the area of HEI responsiveness to sustainable development (and leaving side education/learning and research for sustainable development), numerous points of intersection exist. Foremost among these is the role of HEIs as shapers of the values of society (and a place for debates about these values). In addition, HEIs are substantive organisations with sustainable development impacts. The paper suggests, however, that understanding HEIs and self-consciously seeking change in their activities has to seriously engage with the characterisation of these organisations as loosely coupled systems.Originality/value– The paper discusses the distinctive characteristics of HEIs and considers the higher education context as a challenging case to explore the capacity of social accountability and stakeholder engagement to foster change towards the goal of sustainable development.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to document organizations' self descriptions of why they initiated sustainable development (SD) reporting and explore these explanations using an institutional theory framework.Design/methodology/approachConstructs organizational narratives from semi‐structured in‐depth interviews with reporting champions who participated in an SD reporting workshop series. The narratives are analysed using institutional theory to explore how regulatory, normative and cognitive institutions combine with organizational dynamics to influence SD reporting activity.FindingsFor these particular organizations, choosing to engage in reporting appears not to be a rational choice. Rather reporting is initiated because it has come to be an accepted part of pursuing a differentiation strategy, it offers some contribution to existing business challenges, and organizations value the rewards it offers. This rationale constitutes a cognitive mechanism within institutional theory.Originality/valueThe paper provides useful information on initiating sustainable development reporting based on organizations' self descriptions.

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to respond to commentaries on Bebbington, Larrinaga‐Gonzales and Moneva, by Unerman and by Adams, published in Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviews and discusses the points suggested/contested by the commentary papers.FindingsThat given the current state of our understanding of corporate social responsibility reporting in stand alone (and other) formats, openness to a multitude of theoretical perspectives is appropriate. Further, that concepts of legitimacy and reputation can and should be distinguished from one another.Originality/valueThe authors put forward their views, beliefs and reservations.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the proposition that corporate social responsibility reporting could be viewed as both an outcome of, and part of reputation risk management processes.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws heavily on management research. In addition, an image restoration framework is introduced.FindingsThe concept of reputation risk management could assist in the understanding of corporate social responsibility reporting practice.Originality/valueThis paper explores the link between reputation risk management and existing theorising in social accounting.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to contribute to discussions about engagement in social and environmental accounting, drawing on dialogic theory and philosophy. A dialogic approach, building on existing critical inquiries, is introduced to derive principles to inform “on the ground” engagements. Applying dialogic thinking to social and environmental accounting encourages the development of dialogic forms of accountability, more authentic engagements and is more likely to contribute to sustainable social and environmental change.Design/methodology/approachContains a synthesis of literature from within and beyond social and environmental accounting to shed light on the issues addressed by the special issue.FindingsResearch engagements in social and environmental accounting need not be taken in a haphazard manner uninformed by theory. In particular, the “learning turn” in social sciences has generated a large body of theorizing (informed by concrete engagement activities) that can be used to shape, guide and support engagement.Practical implicationsThe principles developed can be used to inform future research design, with the aim of increasing the likelihood that such engagements will yield outcomes of “value” usually defined as emancipatory changes.Originality/valueThis paper develops a new (to accounting) theoretical perspective.

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to seek to understand and explain the non‐governmental organisation (NGO) and its location in civil society in order to provide a basis for future research work. The paper aims to explore and develop understandings of accountability specifically in the context of the NGO and then extend these insights to the accountability of all organisations.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is framed within a theoretical conception of accountability and is primarily literature‐based. In addition secondary data relating to the issues of concern are collated and synthesised.FindingsThe research finds that the essence of accountability lies in the relationships between the organisation and the society and/or stakeholder groups of interest. The nature of this relationship allows us to infer much about the necessary formality and the channels of accountability. In turn, this casts a light upon taken‐for‐granted assumptions in the corporate accountability and reminds us that the essence and basis of success of the corporate world lies in its withdrawal from any form of human relationship and the consequential colonisation and oppression of civil society.Research limitations/implicationsThe principal implications relate to: our need to improve the analytical incisiveness of our applications of accountability theory; and the possibility of the accounting literature offering more developed insights to the NGO literature. The primary limitations lie in the paper in being: exploratory of a more developed understanding of accountability; and a novel excursion into the world of the NGO and civil society – neither of which feature greatly in the accounting literature.Practical implicationsThese lie in the current political struggles between civil society and capital over appropriate forms of accountability. Corporations continue to avoid allowing themselves to be held accountable whilst civil society organisations are often accountable in many different and informal ways. Ill‐considered calls from capital for more oppressive NGO accountability are typically, therefore, hypocritical and inappropriate.Originality/valueNGOs are introduced in a detailed and accessible way to the accounting literature. The concept of accountability is further developed by examination of relationships and channels in the context of the NGO and, through Rawls' notion of “closeness”, is further enriched.

Social and environmental issues have become a central part of the academic accounting subject field. Examines the range of papers in this area at the APIRA conference. Indicates some of the pitfalls – empiricism, theoretical awareness, relevance to practice, communication between academics – which need dealing with if the subject area is to grow with real strength.

Develops a case for the enabling potential of environmental accounting (EA). Investigates three areas to support this case. The first concerns the manner in which EA actively and critically engages with practice in an attempt to change practice along lines that are more socially and environmentally sound; EA’s desire to do this is not without problems. Examines the critical school’s reservations concerning the ability of EA to engage with practice in a manner which allows the latter to act as an enabling force. The second theme focuses on the extent to which accounting education, and particularly EA education, can be used to empower future generations of accountants. Third, examines a new area of concern to EA, that of sustainable development, and considers the likelihood that EA can contribute in an enabling manner to this debate.