Search

SUMMARY The offshoring of external audit work to so-called low-cost countries is prevalent among the Big 4 professional services firms. Despite this, our understanding of how this form of offshoring influences audit practitioners and the audit process is limited. This study examines how and why offshoring emerged as an organizational matter that changed the way audit work is organized in a Big 4 firm context. Our findings demonstrate how changes in the design of offshoring processes influence interactions between onshore and offshore auditors. We uncover how individual “boundary spanners” struggle to coordinate audit work across the multiple boundaries that separate onshore and offshore auditors. Furthermore, we show how the institutionalization of “boundary spanning” functions in organizational structures and processes can have the unintended consequence of widening the boundaries between onshore and offshore auditors. Finally, we offer evidence of the effect of offshoring on the learning process of onshore and offshore auditors.

In our call for papers for this special issue we sought to advance our understanding of auditing and the context in which it operates from a broad perspective. We also emphasized the role in-depth qualitative methods could play in this regard. The five special issue papers do not disappoint in addressing these aims. They tackle several themes underlying different levels of transformation in audit practice and the environment in which it operates. The papers offer in-depth, rich insights into real-world issues which draw on ‘sense-making’ theories to significantly advance our understanding of these transformations. The transformations addressed encompass: the concept of audit; new audit technologies; professional associations; and inclusiveness and diversity in audit teams. The papers’ focus on audit-related transformations is timely given that, in several European contexts, audit practice and the accounting profession are yet again being scrutinized and subjected to suggestions for regulatory reform. This forms part of a cycle whereby auditing, auditors and the accounting profession continually confront calls for changes seen as essential to securing stability and the protection of the public. We hope that the papers’ findings, interpretations and future-oriented focus will stimulate significant debate and inform future research. We review the four transformation-oriented themes pervading the papers below and draw on them to suggest a future research agenda.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to offer a retrospective and prospective analysis of the themes explored in the 2006Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journalspecial issue on non-governmental organisation (NGO) accountability.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is a reflective review essay.FindingsThe paper outlines how a number of themes in the 2006 special issue addressing downward accountability, hierarchical accountability and management control have been subsequently developed in a selection of papers from the accounting literature. The development of these themes leads to several suggestions for future research in NGO accountability.Originality/valueThe paper offers a systematic, original perspective on recent developments in certain areas of the field of NGO accountability.

This handbook showcases the broad spectrum of diverse approaches to environmental accounting which have developed during the last 30 years across the globe. The volume covers a range of physical issues such as water, carbon and biodiversity, as well as specific accounting matters such as management control, finance and audit. Moreover, seven chapters present environmental accounting issues that arise in the regions of Africa, Asia, Europe, MENA, North America, the Pacific and South America. The handbook also highlights future challenges in all the topic areas addressed as well as introducing new topics, such as links between environmental accounting and the circular economy, and the issues associated with animal rights. Edited by leading scholars in the area and with key contributions from across the discipline, and covering a diverse range of perspectives and locations, the volume is divided into five key parts: Part 1: Framing the issues Part 2: Financial accounting and reporting Part 3: Management accounting Part 4: Global and local perspectives Part 5: Thematic topics in environmental accounting This handbook will act as a significant publication in drawing together the history of the field and important reference points in its future development, and will serve as a vital resource for students and scholars of environmental accounting and environmental economics.

Advocacy movements play an increasingly prominent role in shaping corporate social responsibility (CSR) management and reporting practices. Prior research mainly studies advocacy movements who form and operate on the periphery of the organizational field(s) they seek to alter. We know comparatively little about how these movements materialize within fields and use established field networks, resources and power structures to transform CSR and CSR reporting norms. This paper examines how an advocacy movement formed and evolved within the Dutch investment field to embed a suite of social and environmental accountability mechanisms therein. We examine the evolution of VBDO, a membership association which promotes and polices corporate accountability among Dutch listed companies and investment institutions. We depict how a movement of diverse actors materialized in and around VBDO to stimulate responsible investment and sophisticated CSR reporting in the investment field. Insights from social movement theory and institutional work are integrated with Stark’s (2009) concept of organizing dissonance to theorise the conditions underpinning the movement’s emergence and influence. We uncover how rankings work - the co-creation, dissemination and policing of CSR benchmarks - and (institutional) work censorship - the strategic self-censoring of institutional work - coalesced to cultivate constructive collaborations among movement actors. We show how this enabled the creation of accountability mechanisms that facilitated VBDO’s transition into an influential and unique boundary organization. Our analysis extends prior research by revealing the role of institutional work in cultivating cooperation between advocacy movements and the targets of their reforms. By illustrating how actors’ opposing value frames co-existed peacefully as VBDO’s accountability mechanisms evolved, we offer a counterpoint to studies suggesting that compromise underpins the organization of dissonance among actors constructing corporate accounts.

PurposeThis paper problematizes TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures) reporting in a way that demonstrates areas where academic research can contribute towards realizing the transformative potential of this unique form of sustainability accounting in its early stages of development.Design/methodology/approachThe paper proposes a number of research agendas for impactful interdisciplinary research into new forms of corporate reporting of sustainability risks, opportunities and dependencies.FindingsThere are several major challenges that both reporting corporations and investors need to address in realizing the potential of TCFD style risks, opportunities and dependencies reporting. Key among these is developing new practices of climate-related scenario analysis and reporting.Practical implicationsThere is potential for many different academic research studies to provide solid evidence in helping improve the practical impact of TCFD style sustainability reporting. These impacts may assist in moving corporate policies and actions towards zero carbon.Originality/valueThis is the first agenda-setting paper that addresses the need for, and opportunities of, academic research into TCFD reporting and its potential to transform corporate accounting and reporting of sustainability.

This paper examines how advocacy organisations organise engagements to advance corporate social and environmental accountability. We present an in-depth case study examining how an influential Dutch advocacy organisation enacted its engagement with companies to promote the adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and management practices. Drawing on the construct of strategic framing, we unpack the characteristics that supported the development of a resonant engagement frame that set the boundaries and expectations around the organisation’s engagement with companies. We unveil how several internal organisational deficiencies impeded the quality of these engagements, thereby threatening this frame resonance. The paper extends our understanding of the nature and role of strategic framing in the construction of CSR reporting and advances our limited knowledge of how CSR advocacy organisations’ internal operations impact on their engagement efforts. This allows us to better comprehend how these organisations can set engagement agendas and mobilise support for collaborative CSR change initiatives.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to ascertain how upward accountability processes can be enabling in, or constraining to, the effective deployment of development aid funding. Design/methodology/approach The paper derives its primary insights from in-depth interviews and focus groups with non-governmental organization (NGO) fieldworkers working and delivering development aid in Northern Ghana. It analyses inductively the perspectives of fieldworkers to explain their experiences of upward accountability. Findings The fieldworkers’ perception of upward accountability was mainly one of external control, in response to which they enacted a skilful form of compliance accountability. This perception of control failed to stifle their initiative and intrinsic commitment to beneficiaries. The fieldworkers craved “conversations for accountability”, in which they had a voice in the development of upward accountability metrics, thereby enabling them to fulfil their sense of felt responsibility to beneficiaries. While aspects of “conversations for accountability” were emerging in fieldworker-funder interactions, it was unclear to what extent funders were committed to further advancing them. Overall, the analysis unveils how felt responsibility mediates for, and partly diminishes, the perceived negative impacts on aid effectiveness of upward accountability processes informed by a focus on control. Originality/value The authors examine the potential of upward accountability processes using in-depth analyses of the actual experiences of those involved in delivering NGO services at the grassroots level. The authors contribute to emerging work in this vein by enriching the authors’ understanding of local constituencies’ experiences of accountability processes more generally, especially the impact these mechanisms have on NGO operational activities. The authors also unveil the mediating role fieldworkers’ “felt responsibility” to beneficiaries’ plays in moderating the perceived negative impacts on aid effectiveness of upward accountability processes.

This paper studies the emergence of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and its attempts to institutionalize integrated reporting as a practice that is critical to the relevance and value of corporate reporting. Informed by Suddaby and Viale’s [(2011). Professionals and field-level change: institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59, 423–442] theorization of how professionals reconfigure organizational fields, the paper delineates the strategies and mechanisms through which the IIRC has sought to enroll the support of a wide range of stakeholder groups for the idea of integrated reporting in order to deliver a fundamental reconfiguration of the corporate reporting field. The paper’s analysis reinforces the significance to any such field reconfiguration of the reciprocal and mutual arrangements between influential professionals and other powerful actors but does so in a way that (a) refines Suddaby and Viale’s theorization of processes of field-level change and (b) pinpoints the fundamental policy challenges facing the IIRC. Gieryn’s [(1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781–795] notion of boundary work is operationalized to capture some of the complexity and dynamism of the change process that is not sufficiently represented by Suddaby and Viale’s more sequentialist theorization. From a policy perspective, the paper demonstrates just how much the IIRC’s prospects for success in reconfiguring the corporate reporting field depend on its ability to reconfigure the mainstream investment field. Ultimately, this serves to question whether the IIRC’s conceptualization of ‘enlightened’ corporate reporting is sufficiently powerful and persuasive to stimulate ‘enlightened’ investment behavior focused on the medium and long term–and, more generally stresses the theoretical significance of considering connections across related organizational fields in institutional analyses of field reconfiguration efforts. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This study examines how financial audit-styled concepts such as materiality are transferred to non-financial audit arenas. Drawing on a case study of assurors working within a Big 4 professional services firm, we uncover a number of interrelated features of the materiality determination and assessment process within sustainability assurance (assurance on sustainability reports). We illustrate how assuror flexibility, underpinned by assuror intuition, is central to uncovering assurance technologies deemed capable of addressing the materiality of ambiguous sustainability data. Assurors with no financial audit background retrospectively rationalise their intuition using the assumed authority of structured financial audit methodologies. This facilitates the tentative translation of financial audit knowledge to the sustainability assurance domain. Collaborative, holistic decision-making processes inform the assurors’ continual construction of materiality and are characterised by alliances of (accountant and non-accountant) ‘expert’ assurors merging formal and tacit knowledge. These alliances seek social cohesion within sustainability assurance teams in order to establish a social consensus among assurors around the materiality determination and assessment process. Our analysis develops and extends Power’s theorisation of how new areas are made auditable and advances our understanding of the more practical aspects of non-financial assurance services offered by Big 4 professional services firms.

This paper mobilises a governmentality framing drawing on Miller and Rose (1990) and Rose and Miller (1992) to examine how fluctuating rationalities and programmes of government shaped the construction of accountability over several decades in the relationship between Dutch development NGOs and their governmental funder. It unveils a dynamic, mutually constitutive interrelationship between an assortment of NGO accountability technologies and the shifting rationalities and programmes that underpinned their emergence and adoption. We show how a rationale idealising improved NGO accountability through quality improvement underwent constant modification in a context where programmes seeking to facilitate this ideal were congenitally failing and continually altered. Within these efforts to shape the conduct of NGOs we call attention to the constitutive role of NGO ‘counter-conduct’ – conduct by NGOs motivated by a desire to be governed differently (Foucault, 2007). We uncover what Foucault (2007) refers to as the “correlation between conduct and counter-conduct” (p. 196) in the process through which accountability technologies were mutually moulded in the interactions between NGOs and their governmental funder; a correlation frequently overlooked in analyses of governmentality. We unearth five interrelated forms of NGO counter-conduct - associating self-governance with good governance; concentrating engagement at the programmatic level; pre-emption; ‘working around’ core programmatic aims; and aligning the ‘rules of competition’ with existing expertise. We illustrate how this counter-conduct was initially, albeit not ultimately, constitutive of governmentality as it stimulated shifts towards programmatic aims of cost consciousness, increased professionalisation, and enhanced NGO cooperation. Within this process, the creation of competition for funding among NGOs emerged as an objective of accountability thereby offering a counterpoint to prior research which frequently perceives competition for funding as an explanation for increased attention to NGO accountability.

This paper illuminates how a journal and its editor can initiate and foster a stream of high quality and influential research in a novel area. It does this by analysing Accounting, Organizations and Society's (AOS's) and Anthony Hopwood's nurturing of research into key aspects of accounting for social sustainability for several decades before this research area became established. Our discussion unveils how the initiation of unique research areas may initially involve the publication of risky papers driven primarily by passion. Through the steering of a journal editor, subsequent work can proceed to combine this passion with academic rigour and produce research insights that can benefit society by positively influencing policy and practice. It is this attention to rigour that we argue needs to be central to future research in accounting for social sustainability (and accounting for sustainability more broadly) if it is to continue producing purposeful knowledge. We offer several substantive directions for future research aimed at producing such knowledge. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.

This paper presents a longitudinal case study examining why and how commercial banks sought to integrate sustainability issues into their project finance operations between 2003 and 2008. We study the evolution of a set of influential environmental and social risk management guidelines for project finance - the Equator Principles (EP) - and the simultaneous structuration of a field around these guidelines focused on the issue of socially accountable project finance. The case is theoretically framed using Hoffman’s (1999) concept of an issue-based field and associated conceptualisations of the role of internal and external (social) movements in the structuration of these fields. The structuration of the issue-based field studied is shown to encompass a dynamic, contested process involving extensive interactions between a non-governmental organization (NGO) movement and a commercial bank movement. We unveil how the conflicting, collective rationales and actions of both movements fuelled the structuration process and facilitated an evolution in the social accountability of commercial banks. While prior work sees little potential for civil society actors to engage with and move corporate social responsibility and reporting in a more challenging direction, we reveal how the NGO movement evoked a progression in social responsibility and reporting in a sector that had previously shown little inclination to address its wider social accountability. Drawing on our case analysis, we theorize how issue-based fields cohere and crystallise, particularly how they build an institutional infrastructure based upon the infrastructure of the mature field which they straddle and which the relevant issue impacts upon.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to deepen and advance the understanding of the construction of accountability within the relationship between government funders and development non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents a case study examining the process through which an influential Dutch development NGO, Oxfam Novib, constructed its own accountability while simultaneously seeking to influence shifts in government funder accountability requirements. It enrols a combination of comprehensive archival data on the Dutch government’s financing scheme for NGOs from 1965 to 2012 and in-depth interviews with Oxfam Novib managers and Dutch government officials. The co-evolution in accountability within Oxfam Novib and the government funding scheme is conceptualised using the notions of imposed, felt and adaptive accountability Findings – The case unveils the dynamics through which accountability within a major government funding scheme for NGOs was co-constructed by Oxfam Novib and the Dutch government’s development aid department. In particular, it reveals how this process was influenced by an internal evolution in Oxfam Novib’s organisational approach to accountability and an institutional context characterised by consensus-based economic and social policy making. The case also unveils the process through which Oxfam Novib’s influence declined as more demanding, narrowly focused government accountability requirements emerged in a setting that was increasingly critical of NGOs. Originality/value – The paper presents a rare example of a context where development NGOs have proactively sought and secured influence over the accountability demands of a key donor. It is unique in combining consideration of the internal evolution of accountability within an individual NGO (conceptualised as an evolution from felt to adaptive accountability) with a progression in the form of accountability required by governmental funders. The paper unveils the conditions under which NGO-preferred conceptions of accountability may gain (and lose) influence among key funders.

This paper presents an in-depth longitudinal case study examining the processes through which practitioners in two Big 4 professional services firms have attempted to construct sustainability assurance (independent assurance on sustainability reports). Power’s (1996, 1997, 1999, 2003) theorization of the way in which new subject areas are made auditable is used to frame the findings. The case analysis reveals the fragile nature of efforts to innovate with sustainability assurance and render sustainability reporting auditable. It suggests that innovation in new assurance practices may be constrained by an over-reliance on traditional financial audit training and techniques and certain internal professional services firm control procedures. Practitioners are shown to have experienced considerable discomfort in their attempts to construct a stable and legitimate knowledge base for assurance practice. Tacit knowledge embedded in highly subjective assessments of evidence has been frequently enrolled to make assurance possible in the presence of vague guidance from assurance standards. In light of ongoing practitioner struggles, both firms have publicly acknowledged the limitations of traditional financial audit practice operating alone in the conduct of sustainability assurance. In order to offset these limitations, they have proposed a coupling of ‘‘expert’’ stakeholder assessments of reporting completeness with traditional audit assessments of data reliability. This assigns part of the responsibility for delivering on a key assurance objective (reporting completeness) to what many practitioners perceive as questionable stakeholder expertise. The findings extend prior research highlighting the trial and error nature of the processes through which accountants seek to develop their presence in new markets for their expertise. They also question the extent to which the core aims being espoused for sustainability assurance can be substantively aligned with the operational capabilities available within Big 4 professional services firms.

Based on the development of a more refined conception of legitimacy than has been used in prior audit/assurance and sustainability accounting research, this paper analyses how the legitimation processes adopted by sustainability assurance practitioners in a large professional services firm have co-evolved with and impacted upon their attempts to develop this form of assurance practice – particularly the construction of assurance statements. The analysis reveals a complex and interdependent interplay between attempts at securing pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy with three key constituencies – clients who commission the sustainability assurance services; (socially constructed) non-client users of the assurance statements; and the firm’s internal Risk Department that approves the wording of assurance statements. Securing these types of legitimacy is shown to require the adoption and alignment of varying legitimation strategies according to the constituency practitioners seek to influence. Developing pragmatic legitimacy with clients depends on establishing moral legitimacy with non-client users of assurance statements while securing moral legitimacy with non-client users is contingent on acquiring pragmatic legitimacy with the firm’s internal Risk Department. The practitioners’ legitimation strategies are underpinned by a commitment to opening up dialogue within the assurance process which is evident in their engagement with potential users of assurance and their efforts to expand assurance statement content and encourage user influence over what is assured. This provides a counterpoint to Power’s (1994, 1999 ) concerns about the tendency for new assurance forms to restrict debate and dialogue and reveals a rare empirical domain where Power’s (2003b) call for more customised and informative narratives in assurance reporting is being heeded.

This paper reflects on the nature of ‘interesting’ research in the context of the contributions Professor David Owen has made to the social and environmental accounting and auditing (SEAA) research field over his academic career. The paper reviews some of Professor Owen's key research themes and research papers related to the topic of (corporate) social accountability as examples of ‘interesting’ and important research in order to celebrate the outstanding contribution he has made to the development of this research area. The paper also acknowledges the extensive contributions Professor Owen has made to the SEAA research community outside his academic work.

This paper identifies and assesses the extent to which downward accountability mechanisms in nongovernmental development organisations (NGDOs) have had the potential in practice to contribute to the effectiveness of rights‐based approaches to development. The paper draws on evidence gathered from a detailed documentary analysis and a series of in‐depth interviews undertaken with senior individuals working in the Irish NGDO sector. The analysis indicates variations in practice with regard to the substantive implementation of key downward accountability mechanisms. The accountability‐in‐practice revealed suggests that challenges to substantive implementation have arisen due to: insufficient Irish NGDO attention to oversight of downward accountability within locally based partner NGDOs; a reluctance and/or inability to transfer influence to locally based partner NGDOs by allowing them some influence on Irish NGDO governance and strategy; the perceived control of locally based partner NGDOs by local elites who may be distant from, and unrepresentative of, local communities; and a perception that locally based partner NGDOs may not require downward accountability. Drawing on these findings, the paper makes some suggestions aimed at helping to transform the rhetorical NGDO commitment to downward accountability into real practices that can contribute substantively to the realisation of the key elements of the rights‐based approach to development.

This article, based on a plenary lecture given at the First International Conference on Sustainable Management of Public and Not for Profit Organizations held at the University of Bologna, Forli Campus, Italy in July 2009, provides an overview of issues in non-governmental organization (NGO) accountability that are of particular relevance in the current changing global context – in particular, a context combining economic slowdown and global warming.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present an in‐depth, context rich, and stakeholder‐focused perspective on the legitimation dynamics surrounding the initiation and evolution of one of the key financial sector environmental and social responsibility initiatives in recent years, the Equator Principles.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on a combination of in‐depth interviews with non‐governmental organization (NGO) leaders, extensive documentary analysis and participant observation in order to understand and explain, from an NGO perspective, the use of the Equator Principles as a central element in an attempt to legitimise financial institutions' project finance activities. Key aspects of legitimacy theory are used to theoretically frame the analysis.FindingsThe paper reveals and analyses the process through which campaigning NGOs conferred a nominal level of legitimacy on financial institutions' project finance activities. It proceeds to unveil how and why this attained legitimacy unravelled. A perceived lack of accountability at an institutional, organisational and individual project level is identified as a central reason for this reduction in legitimacy.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper primarily focuses on one side of the story of the dynamics of the legitimation process underpinning the evolution of the Equator Principles until 2006. Future research could focus on obtaining and theorising financial institution perspectives on the Equator Principles' development, implementation, and progression as well as analysing developments beyond 2006.Originality/valueThe paper advances our understanding of the dynamics of legitimation processes. These dynamics are studied from the perspective of a key “relevant public” thereby prioritising perceptions that are largely absent from corporate social accountability research seeking to empirically inform legitimacy theory.

The focus group method has been used extensively in social science research in order to gain a deep understanding of participant perceptions of specific topics of interest. However, the method has rarely been used in the social accounting and accountability literature. This paper reviews and critically reflects on the key characteristics of the method drawing on a research project examining NGO (non‐governmental organisation) beneficiary perspectives on the accountability processes employed by NGOs in Ghana. It offers insights and future research suggestions that might encourage greater use of the method by social accounting and accountability researchers.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the operation of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland's (ICAI) complaint process from the complainant's perspective. The findings are interpreted drawing on key elements of Parker's private interest model of professional accounting ethics, particularly the private interest roles of professional authority and professional insulation.Design/methodology/approachThe primary evidence used is drawn from numerous sources. These include: extensive “private” documentation comprising original correspondence between the complainant in the case examined (or his advisors) and various representatives of the ICAI spanning a five‐year period; detailed supporting documentation included with this correspondence; Independent Experts' Reports on the complaints submitted; and in‐depth interviews with the complainant prior to, during, and post the examination of the documentary evidence.FindingsThe paper reveals how high levels of professional authority and professional insulation worked in tandem to prevent complaints entering the complaint process and deny the complainant reasons for decisions taken. It demonstrates how a key structural barrier in the complaint process, the screening role of the professional accounting body's secretary, created a complainant impression of a process concerned primarily with protecting members' interests. Subsequent to complaint process changes, an erosion of professional insulation is unveiled. However, this proves fleeting and, in response to persistent complainant challenges to heightened demonstrations of professional authority, the degree of professional insulation intensifies further.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper focuses on a specific case where the complainant was dissatisfied with the ICAI's procedures. It reveals the extent to which complainants using professional body complaints procedures may, often by virtue of the structures in place, feel that profession protection motives are overriding purported concerns for society protection.Originality/valueThe paper extends and advances the literature examining professional accounting body disciplinary and complaint procedures. Prior research investigating the operation of these procedures has neglected to examine complaint processes in depth to inform their evaluations, particularly from the perspective of potential users of these processes.

Independent oversight bodies such as the PCAOB in the U.S. and the POB in the U.K. pervade the international accounting regulatory environment. Their existence has been hailed as marking an end to self-regulation of the accounting profession. This paper examines how, and with what effect, individuals within one such oversight body attempted to reconfigure the regulatory field of accounting in Ireland. We mobilise the concept of institutional work to theorise the interrelated nature of the forms of institutional work these individuals engaged in as they sought to realise regulatory change. The paper advances prior theorisations of the recursive relationship between different forms of institutional work and patterns of institutional change and stability. We unveil a more refined, nuanced categorisation of institutional work within efforts to instigate regulatory change. We show how specific forms of institutional work interact and mutually reinforce or displace one another as regulators seek to establish power and legitimacy in a regulatory field. The role and nature of work rejection – whereby regulators initially reject certain forms of work but later embrace them – is unveiled within a change process where shifting regulatory logics both shape and are shaped by the forms of institutional work undertaken. The paper provides a counterpoint to prior research by illustrating how socio-political factors enabled more than constrained the impact of the institutional work undertaken by individuals within an independent oversight body. It concludes with a call for research focusing on how targets of regulation in accounting engage in institutional work as they respond to efforts to restrict their autonomy.

This paper develops an alternative (or supplementary) theoretical justification for the regulation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social and environmental accounting and reporting (SE...

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyse the evolving nature of the accountability relationship between a group of Irish non‐governmental development organisations (NGDOs) and their primary governmental funder.Design/methodology/approachThe examination is undertaken in the context of a unique funder‐led initiative to instil a broad social accountability focus among NGDOs while re‐orienting the NGDO‐funder accountability dynamic towards a partnership‐based approach – whereby the accountability entity would effectively be a supra‐organisation comprising the funder and the NGDOs. The empirical content of the paper is derived from a series of in‐depth interviews with senior individuals working within the Irish NGDO sector, along with a comprehensive analysis of documentary sources.FindingsThe partnership rhetoric central to promoting the enhanced focus on social accountability across the “virtual” accountability supra‐organisation has not been transformed into reality, and the NGDO‐funder accountability relationship within the supra‐organisation remains centred on control and justification. A lack of resources, organisational commitment, guidance, and expertise from the governmental funder has contributed to an attitude of scepticism among many NGDOs towards both the partnership rhetoric and the accompanying adoption of the central tenets of social accountability, particularly downward accountability to beneficiaries.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is based on a detailed analysis in a specific context which may limit its wider applicability. Nevertheless, it adds insights to the developing academic literature on NGO accountability, with particular reference to their broader social accountabilities.Practical implicationsAlthough highly context‐specific, the findings of the study will be useful to researchers and policy makers interested in understanding how NGDO‐funder accountability relationships can move towards mutual accountability and genuine partnerships focused on promoting social accountability.Originality/valueVery few in‐depth academic examinations of the evolving nature of NGDO‐funder accountability relationships in specific NGO contexts have emerged in the accountability literature. Many of the insights in this paper are derived from individuals inside organisations in the NGDO sector who are regularly addressing issues of accountability, both social and otherwise. This provides in‐depth, highly‐informed insider perspectives on the evolving nature of these relationships, especially in the context of attempts to promote more partnership‐based approaches to the delivery of development aid.

This paper reports on an investigation of issues surrounding the use of ethical codes/codes of conduct in Irish based companies. Using a comprehensive questionnaire survey, the paper examines the incidence, content and enforcement of codes of conduct among a sample of the top 1000 companies based in Ireland. The main findings indicate that the overall usage of codes of conduct amongst indigenous Irish companies has increased significantly from 1995 to 2000. However, in line with prior research, these codes focus primarily on issues surrounding company and employee protection as opposed to society protection. Almost half of all codes are written by company personnel or provided by head office. Revisions of codes are common but formal ongoing methods of instructing new staff about codes are not prevalent. Less than one-third of companies with codes have formal channels for reporting violations but a high percentage have formal disciplinary procedures in place for breaches of codes.

PurposeThis paper aims to advance understanding of the disciplinary decision‐making process underpinning the professional ethics machinery employed by professional accounting organisations, using elements of francophone organisational analysis to examine the influence of the key formal organisational components established by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) to administer its disciplinary decision‐making process up to December 1999.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses evidence gathered from a series of in‐depth interviews with members of the ICAI disciplinary and investigation committees.FindingsIlluminates the internal tensions and conflicts permeating the disciplinary decision‐making process of the ICAI and the influence key organisational components have on resolving these conflicts through their encouragement of decision making driven by a preferred reasoning or logic of action.Research limitations/implicationsThe evidence presented questions the public interest proclamations of the ICAI with respect to its disciplinary procedures pre‐December 1999. It further exposes the tensions between profession protection and society protection motives in the disciplinary decision making of accounting bodies.Originality/valueThis paper represents a first attempt at getting inside the disciplinary decision‐making process of a professional accounting body to examine the process using the voices of process participants.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to set out key issues in the academic study of non‐governmental organisation (NGO) accountability, and to introduce papers appearing in this special issue on NGO accountability.Design/methodology/approachThis is a discussion paper exploring key issues theoretically.FindingsThe paper finds that there are many aspects of NGO accountability which should be explored in greater depth in future studies. Several other issues have been examined in the papers in this special issue of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.Research limitations/implicationsThere is a possibility that the issues explored in this paper, and the other papers in this special issue, will lead to a considerable growth in academic studies in this area.Practical implicationsThe paper is a contribution to the growing debate on NGO accountability.Originality/valueThe paper sets an agenda for research into NGO accountability.

This paper presents a case study examining the evolution of a social accounting process in an Irish overseas aid agency, the Agency for Personal Service Overseas. Much of the corporate rhetoric surrounding social accounting processes simplifies their complex nature and tends to downplay many concerns as to how they can effect `real' organisational change and empower stakeholders. The case exposes this complexity by illuminating the contradictions, tensions and obstacles that permeated one such process. The paper contributes to the recent increase in field work in the social accounting literature, called for by Gray [Account. Orga. Soc. 27 (2002) 687], which seeks a richer, more in-depth understanding of how and why social accounting evolves within organisations.

PurposeThis study presents an in‐depth investigation of non‐governmental organisations' (NGO) perceptions of CSD (corporate social disclosure) in Ireland. It commences the process of addressing a lacuna in the CSD literature, whereby the perspectives of non‐managerial stakeholders have been largely ignored. In particular, it responds to O'Dwyer call for research to examine the nature and extent of stakeholder demand for CSD in Ireland in order to inform the future development of accountable Irish CSD practices.Design/methodology/approachEvidence is collected from in‐depth interviews with senior representatives of major Irish NGOs. The paper focuses on the nature of NGO demand for administrative reforms encompassing types of CSD and the prospects for supporting institutional reforms aimed at further empowering less powerful stakeholder groups.FindingsA demand for the development of stand‐alone, mandated, externally verified CSD mechanisms predominates the perspectives. This is motivated by a desire to see stakeholder “rights” to information enforced given Irish companies' apparent resistance to engaging in complete and credible CSD. A number of perceived obstacles to the development of institutional mechanisms designed to support any desired CSD developments are exposed. These encompass: active corporate resistance to discursive dialogue, corporate resistance to voluntary information disclosure, a compliant political elite unwilling to confront the corporate sector on social and environmental issues, and a fragmented NGO community which has difficulty in raising public awareness about corporate social and environmental impacts. Evidence of antagonism between certain NGOs and elements within the Irish corporate sector is also illuminated.Practical implicationsThe paper reflects on these perspectives and considers their implications for the development of accountable CSD mechanisms in Ireland.Originality/valueAdds to the literature on CSD.

This paper reports on a detailed critical analysis of assurance statements appearing in environmental, social and ‘sustainability’ reports short-listed for the 2002 Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) UK and European Sustainability Reporting Awards scheme. Drawing on an evaluative framework centrally informed by the recently issued AccountAbility, Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens (FEE) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines on assurance, we assess the extent to which current assurance practice enhances transparency and accountability to organisational stakeholders. Our analysis raises question-marks regarding the independence of the assurance exercise, as well as revealing a large degree of management control over the assurance process. The latter is evidenced by a reluctance to address statements to specific stakeholder constituencies and a general absence of stakeholder participation in assurance processes. Distinct approaches to assurance among accountant and consultant assurors are highlighted, with the former primarily adopting a cautious, limited approach aimed at providing low assurance levels. While consultant assurors take a more evaluative approach, and appear to provide higher level assurance, their focus on aiding corporate strategic direction potentially blurs their independence. We contend that their apparent intertwining of the concepts of ‘accountability’ and ‘value added’ needs careful scrutiny as this may reflect an ultimate accountability to corporate management as opposed to other stakeholders. The paper concludes with some recommendations for future research involving direct engagements with assurance providers.

This paper uses the lens of Anthony Giddens’ theories regarding the mechanisms which sustain late-modernist societies [The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990; Modernity and Self-Identity, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1991] to analyse the 2001 and 2002 accounting and audit failures at Enron, WorldCom and Andersen. Assessments of risk and trust play a central role in Giddens’ model, and this paper traces an escalating withdrawal of trust in systems of audit and accounting, and related increased perceptions of risk in corporate investment instruments. It also analyses regulatory responses aimed at sustaining or regaining public trust, and argues that failure to sustain such trust risks compromising the continued momentum of late modernity and the interests of people who benefit from institutions of late modernity.

Furnishes a narrative reflecting an in‐depth examination of managerial conceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the Irish context. The narrative locates itself within the debate surrounding the extent to which corporate management may capture social accountants’ efforts to promote a broad society‐centred conception of CSR. Three key findings emerge from the narrative. First, there is evidence of a tendency for managers to interpret CSR in a constricted fashion consistent with corporate goals of shareholder wealth maximisation. Second, pockets of robust resistance to and defences of this narrow conception do, however, also emerge in the narrative. Third, the complexity of conceiving of a clear meaning for CSR, particularly for those exposed to the structural pressures encountered by these managers, is apparent. This is evident in the initial, somewhat contradictory, nature of many of the conceptions analysed. Reflects on these findings and considers their broad implications for social accountants’ attempts to promote greater society centred corporate accountability in Ireland.

The primary aim of this study is to examine the descriptive power of the private interest model of professional accounting ethics developed by Parker in 1994. This examination is undertaken over an extended time period in the Irish context. It develops prior research which concluded that the operation of the professional ethics machinery of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (CAI) facilitated private interest motives on the part of the ICAI. The paper draws on evidence regarding three critical events occurring outside the disciplinary process of the ICAI but impacting directly on its operation as well as on perceptions from within the process. The discourse surrounding the disciplinary process from 1994 to 2001 is examined using media coverage and ICAI pronouncements. This is augmented with in‐depth interviews held with members of the ICAI disciplinary committees. The analysis provides evidence of pockets of support for the descriptive power of Parker’s model but also illustrates how the rigid and static nature of the separate roles depicted within the model can often fail to capture the complexity of the various changes occurring over the period examined. The study presents evidence which challenges the proposed interrelationships between the various private interest roles depicted in the model and makes some suggestions for the modification of the model, particularly the interrelationships depicted therein.

Ireland's recent rapid economic growth has exacerbated pressure on the environment, leading to increased scrutiny of corporate environmental impacts. In order to assess whether external corporate environmental reporting (CER) has evolved in conjunction with this increased scrutiny, this paper reports on the results of a comprehensive analysis of CER practice among all Irish listed companies. The findings are interpreted using the lens of legitimacy theory. The results indicate that, apart from companies whose core activities have an easily observable environmental impact, there is little extensive CER undertaken, in terms of either its quantity or quality. Despite evidence of increasing trends in disclosure, in most instances disclosing companies remain at the very early stages in their consideration of CER. It is argued that this negligible disclosure potentially represents a minimalistic response to pressure from stakeholders whose power to threaten organizations' legitimacy is limited. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. and ERP Environment

This paper interprets managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure (CSD) presence and absence through the lens of organisational legitimacy theory. Evidence from in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with 29 senior managers in 27 Irish public limited companies is presented. It is one of the few studies to use interview‐based evidence in attempts to understand the motivations for CSD and responds to calls for more empirical work of this nature in the CSD literature. The paper extends and interrogates the use of legitimacy theory to infer motivations for CSD by presenting a narrative which contemplates conceptions of legitimacy as both a process and a state while endeavouring to understand the motives for CSD. In this manner, the paper furnishes a more complex, complete, and critical story of the motives for CSD. The perspectives suggest that while CSD may occasionally form part of a legitimacy process, ultimately this is misguided as it is widely perceived as being incapable of supporting the achievement of a legitimacy state. Consequently, for many managers, the continued practice of CSD is deemed somewhat perplexing. The paper reflects on the implications of these findings for future CSD research and practice.

Foreword. Preface. Part I: Introduction and Context 1. Accountability, Governance and Performance Management in Nonprofit Organizations: an Overview Zahirul Hoque and Lee D. Parker 2. Politics, Development and NGO Accountability Zahir Ahmed and Trevor Hopper 3. Terrorists and Tax-Cheats: Transforming Accountability in United States Nonprofits Leslie Oakes 4. Social Reporting for Italian Social Enterprises: Did the Italian Legislator Miss an Opportunity? Ericka Costa Part II: Issues in Financial Reporting and Regulation 5. An Unrelated Income Tax for Australia? Evelyn Brody, Oonagh Breen, Myles McGregor-Lowndes and Matthew Turnour 6. Financial Reserves: A Necessary Condition for Not-for-Profit Sustainability? Michael Booth, Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Christine Ryan and Helen Irvine 7. Regulations and Financial Reporting Practices of Micro-finance Institutions in Bangladesh Rakib Khan and Kamran Ahmed 8. UK Charity Accounting: Developments, Issues and Recent Research Ciaran Connolly, Noel Hyndman and Danielle McConville Part III: Issues in Accountability Process and Governance 9. Nonprofit Service Delivery for Government: Accountability Relationships and Mechanisms Craig Furneaux and Neal Ryan 10. What Costs Accountability? Financial Accountability, Mission and Fundraising in Nonprofits Benjamin Pawson and Vassili Joannides 11. Patterns of Board Room Discussions around the Accountability Process in a Nonprofit Organization Vassili Joannides, Stephane Jaumier and Zahirul Hoque 12. Boardroom Governance: Interrogating Strategizing, Control and Accountability Processes Lee Parker and Zahirul Hoque 13. Australian Charity Reporting Reforms: Serving Private or Public Interests? Phil Saj Part IV: Issues in Performance Management and Risk 14. Conceptualizing Performance in the Not-for-Profit Sector: A Tale of Two Theories Basil Tucker 15. Board Monitoring and the Balanced Scorecard: Challenges in Realizing Potential Alan Hough, Myles McGregor-Lowndes and Christine Ryan 16. Government Grants - an Abrogation or Management of Financial Risks? Debra Morris, Myles McGregor-Lowndes and Julie-Ann Tarr 17. Performing Civil Society Chandana Alawattage, Danture Wickramasinghe and Anula Tennakoon

The increased international popularity of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and decreasing satisfaction of the general public with conventional politics has led to NGOs moving from being ‘ladles in the soup kitchen to a force for transformation in global politics’ (Doh and Teegen, 2002 ; Edwards and Fowler, 2002 , p. 1). The rise of NGOs as important actors in international business in particular can be traced back to the 1980s when international companies were pressured to divest from South Africa, resulting in the withdrawal of a large amount of US and British companies. In this period, NGOs gained credence as legitimate actors in international business due to their involvement in negotiations over the development of conditions surrounding trade and investment rules (Doh and Teegen, 2002 ). Since then, NGO numbers have grown exponentially and their infl uence in arenas such as international business, development aid and corporate governance has escalated (Doh and Teegen, 2002 ; Lehman, 2007 ). Commenting in the early 1990s, one analyst suggested that this ‘quiet revolution’ in the role and infl uence of NGOs could ‘prove to be as significant to the latter twentieth century as the rise of the nation state was to the latter nineteenth century’ (Salamon, 1994 , p. 109, cited in Fisher, 1997 , p. 440). Najam ( 1996 , p. 339) claims that at this time ‘most NGO scholars also happen[ed] to be NGO believers’ who had implicit faith in NGOs’ work, be it as advocates of specifi c causes such as human rights and social justice, providers of relief and humanitarian assistance, or as facilitators of development. This enabled the emergence of a myth of NGO infallibility and a concomitant reluctance to closely scrutinize the presumed ‘magic’ of NGOs’ work (Lloyd, 2005 ; Najam, 1996 ).