Search results

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the contribution of the Mike Power’s Audit Society and associated papers from the 1990s to the (then) emerging field of environmental accounting. The paper also looks forward to how these seminal ideas are influenced by accounting in the Anthropocene, as examined in more recent sustainability accounting literature.

This is a reflective essay, drawing from the broad sweep of social, environmental and sustainability accounting literature.

The performativity of accounting and audit, as it pertains to the practices of environmental audit and sustainability reporting, is clearly evident, with Power’s work contributing significantly to this conceptualisation. At the same time, there is also a material dimension to this process. Indeed, distinguishing first and second-order risk (drawing from Power and others) is a critical and ongoing task for sustainability accounting.

We suggest that the Anthropocene offers challenges to the notion of the performativity of audit and reporting.

This paper argues that extractivist logic creates the environmental conditions that produce “natural” hazards and also the human conditions that produce vulnerability, which combined create disasters. Disaster Risk Creation is then built into the current global socio-economic system, as an integral component not accidental by-product.

As part of the movement to liberate disasters as discipline, practice and field of enquiry, this paper does not talk disasters per se, but rather its focus is on “extractivism” as a fundamental explanator for the anthropogenic disaster landscape that now confronts us.

Applying a gender lens to extractivism as it relates to disaster, further highlights that Disaster Risk Management rather than alleviating, creates the problems it seeks to solve, suggesting the need to liberate gender from Disaster Risk Management, and the need to liberate us all from the notion of managing disasters. Since to ‘manage’ disaster risk is to accept uncritically the structures and systems that create that risk, then if we truly want to address disasters, our focus needs to be on the extractive practices, not the disastrous outcomes.

The fundamental argument is that through privileging the notion of “disaster” we create it, bring it into existence, as something that exists in and of itself, apart from wider socio-economic structures and systems of extraction and exploitation, rather than recognising it for what it is, an outcome/end product of those wider structures and systems. Our focus on disaster is then misplaced, and perhaps what disaster studies needs to be liberated from, is itself.

This largely conceptual study aims to draw from the author’s experience of conversations with Svalbard’s educators, lessons for international higher education institutions’ engagement with climate change education and thinking for non-specialists.

In situ discussions with Svalbard’s educators informed the theoretical work of the author towards the development of conceptual conclusions. The theoretical frame used – “Red Biocentrism” – draws on both radical left and green thought to posit an emplaced, materialist understanding of author’s, participants’ and place’s intra-related contributions.

That, insofar as universities represent nodes in an ethical ecology, they have a capacity to realise that which is obvious in Svalbard – their role as embassies for their learning places, generative of spokespeople or ambassadors.

There is sparse published research into the work of Svalbard’s climate educators, as a pedagogical project undertaken under such extreme and rapidly changing environmental conditions. This study represents the first to reflect on what can be learnt from the educators of Svalbard by Universities elsewhere.

The present paper aims to focus on the role which German controllers play so far in the process of sustainable transformation in for-profit organizations, the current obstacles to a wider engagement here and ways to overcome these obstacles.

The analysis combines two qualitative study designs. Empirical data is generated via a job advertisement analysis and an explorative survey with 107 subjects from management accounting/controlling and sustainability management. The generated data is interpreted against the background of the theory of institutional logics and Abbott’s (1988) theory of professional jurisdiction.

We find that controllers are in a state of tension. On the one hand, the pressure to integrate sustainability into companies is increasing. On the other hand, they seem to be rather reluctant to get involved. The institutional logics that shape their profession play an important role here, as does an unclear relationship with the sustainability department, which has its own claims here. Based on these observations, we identify the core obstacles to the transformation of the controllers’ profession and discuss solutions which can guide the transformation of this profession.

The present paper provides insights from a unique combination of different quantitative study designs and different perspectives on the possible role that controllers can play in advancing sustainable transformation in companies.

This chapter addresses the question of what normatively binding claims can be associated with the principle of sustainability. It proposes a theoretical reading of justice that requires a new level of morality, namely a global (spatial), intergenerational (temporal) and ecological (material) extension of the scope of responsibility. This makes it plausible that responsibility for those who are distant in space and time, as well as for nature, becomes a matter of conscience. At the same time, it is shown how the binding claims resulting from the principle of sustainability can be internalised in the course of a conscience formation and how the gap between knowledge and action in questions of sustainable development can be closed by means of an emotional underpinning. Finally, it is proposed to transfer the question of conscience to spatial units and tourism through the model of ‘Destination Conscience’ and to institutionalise the idea of ‘inner commitment’ or self-commitment. One suggestion is the creation of committees that could be a collective ethical conscience for the future issues.

Ethnography produces accounts; the critical reflection of accounts produces accountability. Ethnography requires accountability if meaningful conclusions and/or observations are to be made. Accountability requires ethnography if is to address lived experiences. Virno argues that the principles of “languaging” make ethnographies and accountability possible. This papers aims to describe an instance of the circularity of accountability and use this to explore Virno’s insights. Doing this helps us to see the connections between accountability and ethnography, and reflect on the nature of these interconnections.

Inspired by Paulo Virno’s philosophy, the authors assert that an ethnographer typically produces an account of a chosen “Other” in which this “Other” is held to account. But at the same time, the ethnographer needs to be held to account by the very same “Other” and by the “Other” of the (research) community. Furthermore, ethnographers are accountable to themselves. All these moments of accountability can endlessly circle, as responsibilization of the researchers by their Other(s) continues. For ethnography to function, this must be tamed as a (research) account ultimately has to be produced for an academic project to be considered complete. Drawing on Virno’s principle of the “negation of the negation” by the “katechon,” by the “katechon,” the authors propose a potentially valuable intervention that would enable ethnography – and by extension, ethnographers – to prosper.

The authors apply Virno’s philosophical reflections to propose a positive feedback cycle between ethnography and accountability. Virno’s ideation centers on two key concepts: (i) the multitude of social relatedness and (ii) the ontology of the languaging of individuation. Hereby, a positive circle of causality between ethnography and accountability can be realized, whereby the authors can respect but also break the causal circle(s) of ethnography and accountability. This might be achieved via a reflection on Virno’s concept of the “katechon.”

The authors illuminate the accountability–ethnography dynamic, providing an illustration of the circularity of ethnography and accountability and showing how Virno provides us with tools to help us deal with it. Hence, ultimately, the paper focuses on the accountability as ethnographers.