Search results

Addresses the lack of any coherent intellectual perspective for establishing a theory of corporate accountability that is neither extreme right‐wing nor anti‐liberal. Insights derived from Rorty′s Contingency, Irony and Solidarity are employed to develop a new perspective on the relationship between corporate activities and the public interest. This perspective is then joined with Dewey′s view of social intelligence and Barber′s notion of Strong Democracy to argue for an expansion of corporate social accountability.

This study aims to ascertain the magnitude to which real corporate responsibility (CR), ethics and accountability practices exist in Kenyan corporations.

The insights of qualitative and quantitative approaches are investigated through descriptive and exploratory study carried out on 193 Kenyan companies in the corporate sector and 5 focus groups discussions comprising 9 members each.

The paper divulged that current practices on CR, ethics and accountability are relatively low, as only senior managers underwent training on ethics; accountability was broadly perceived as resources accounting instead of actual accountability; and responsibility is highly skewed toward senior management at the expense of stakeholders and society in which they thrive.

The concept of sustainability has not been emphasized as a dimension of CR, ethics and accountability. Fresh opportunities of inquiry are extended considering this aspect.

This study affirms practices that have a positive effect on corporate stakeholders, communities and environment.

This study strives to develop approaches of managing and controlling, ensuring that the welfare of stakeholders and society as a whole is uplifted and sustained.

The conception of CR, ethics and accountability practices signifies a theoretical innovation.

The International Integrated Reporting Council claims that integrated reporting (IR) can enhance corporate accountability, yet critical and interpretative studies have contested this outcome. Insufficient empirical research details how preparers experience accountability while constructing IR; to fill this gap, the purpose of this paper is to analyse how the preparers’ mode of cognition influences the patterns of accountability associated with IR.

A functionalist approach to narratives helps elucidate the role that the IR preparers’ narrative mode of cognition plays on accountability towards stakeholders. The empirical analysis particularly benefits from in-depth interviews with the IR preparers of a global insurer that has used IR since 2013.

The preparers’ narrative mode of cognition facilitates dialogue with IR users. It addresses accountability tensions by revealing the company’s value creation process. Preparers’ efforts to establish a meaningful dialogue with a growing variety of stakeholders through broader and plainer messages reveals the potential of IR as a narrative source of a socializing form of accountability. However, financial stakeholders remain the primary addressees of the reports.

This paper focusses on preparers’ views; further research should integrate users’ accountability expectations.

This paper offers new insights for dealing with corporate reporting and accountability in a novel IR setting.

This study aims to investigate disclosure of asbestos-related liabilities in corporate accounts and counter-accounts to examine whether and how accounting contributes to corporate accountability for asbestos-contaminated products.

This study uses the Goffmanesque perspective on impression management to examine instances of concealed asbestos-related liabilities in corporate accounts vis-à-vis the revealing of such liabilities in counter-accounts.

The findings show counter-accounts provide significant information on liabilities originating from the exposure of employees and consumers to asbestos. By contrast, the malleability of accounting tools enables companies to eschew accounting disclosures. While the frontstage positive performance of companies served an impression management role, their backstage concealing actions enabled companies to cover up asbestos-related liabilities. These companies used three categories of mechanisms to avoid disclosure of asbestos-related liabilities: concealing via a “cloak of competence”, impression management via epistemic work and a silent strategy of concealment frontstage with strategic reorganisation backstage.

This study has policy relevance as regulators need to consider the limits of corporate disclosures as an accountability tool. The findings may also initiate academic and practitioner conversations about accounting standards for long-term liabilities.

This study highlights the strategies companies use both frontstage and backstage to avoid disclosing asbestos-related liabilities. Through analysis of accounts and counter-accounts, this study identifies the limits of accounting as an accountability tool regarding asbestos-induced diseases and deaths.

What remains uncertain with corporate universities is the contribution they provide to their organizations, particularly when considered from the perspective of managers. Managers are important stakeholders, as they may participate in carrying out the mission and policies that govern the corporate university and participate in the programs offered. Organizations would benefit from knowing more about the perceptions of managers. The purpose of this paper is to study managers’ perceptions of the accountability of two corporate university programs in China and its relationship with the managers’ overall involvement in corporate university programs and their commitment to the organization.

The study was conducted in two state-owned organizations in China, a country in which many organizations have adopted corporate universities. A mixed-method approach was used to carry out the study.

The results showed that there was a moderate relationship between the managers’ perceptions of the accountability of corporate university programs, based on two management development programs and managers’ involvement in corporate university programs and their commitment to the organization. The results also showed a low relationship between managers’ involvement in their corporate university programs and commitment to the organization.

The findings provide implications for managing corporate universities in China and enhancing the accountability of these initiatives. The study serves as a basis for future studies involving corporate universities and on the accountability of and involvement in training.

Socially responsible investment (SRI) engagement currently performs a variety of supportive regulatory functions such as reframing norms, establishing dialogue and providing resources to improve performance, however corporate responses are voluntary. This chapter will examine the potential gains in effectiveness for SRI engagement in a responsive regulatory regime.

Global warming is a pressing environmental, social and governance (ESG) issue. By using the example of climate change the effectiveness of SRI engagement actors and the regulatory context can be considered. This chapter builds the conceptual framework for responsive regulation of climate change.

SRI engagement may face resistance from corporations due to its voluntary nature and conflict with other goals. Legitimacy and accountability limit the effectiveness of SRI engagement functioning as a voluntary regulatory mechanism. This chapter argues that the effectiveness of SRI engagement on climate change could be enhanced if it served as part of a responsive regulation regime.

Engagement is used by SRIs for ESG issues. A comprehensive regulatory regime could enhance corporate adaptation to climate change through increasing compliance with SRI engagement. The implication for SRI practitioners is that lobbying for a supportive regulatory regime has a large potential benefit.

Responsive regulatory policy involves both support and sanctions to improve compliance, enhancing policy efficiency and effectiveness. There are potentially large net social benefits from utilising SRI engagement in a regulatory regime.

In seeking to re-articulate voluntary and legal approaches this research addresses a gap in the literature on climate change regulation.

This paper introduces the special issue “Rebuilding trust: Sustainability and non-financial reporting, and the European Union regulation”. Inspired by the studies published in the special issue, this study aims to examine the concept of accountability within the context of the European Union (EU) Directive on non-financial disclosure (hereafter the EU Directive) to offer a critique and a novel perspective for future research into mandatory non-financial reporting (NFR) and to advance future practice and policy.

The authors review the papers published in this special issue and other contemporary studies on the topic of NFR and the EU Directive.

Accountability is a fundamental concept for building trust in the corporate reporting context and emerges as a common topic linking contemporary studies on the EU Directive. While the EU Directive acknowledges the role of accountability in the reporting practice, this study argues that regulation and practice on NFR needs to move away from an accounting-based conception of accountability to promote accountability-based accounting practices (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). By analysing the links between trust, accountability and accounting and reporting, the authors claim the need to examine and rethink the inscription of interests into non-financial information (NFI) and its materiality. Hence, this study encourages research and practice to broaden mandatory NFR practice over the traditional boundaries of accountability, reporting and formal accounting systems.

Considering the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis, this study calls for further research to investigate the dialogical accountability underpinning NFR in practice to avoid the trap of focusing on accounting changes regardless of accountability. The authors advocate that what is needed is more timely NFI that develops a dialogue between companies, investors, national regulators, the EU and civil society, not more untimely standalone reporting that has most likely lost its relevance and materiality by the time it is issued to users.

By highlighting accountability issues in the context of mandatory NFR and its linkages with trust, this study lays out a case for moving the focus of research and practice from accounting-based regulations towards accountability-driven accounting change.

Despite its envisaged benefits, integrated reporting (IR) has yet to achieve its “breakthrough”, especially among small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This study aims to discern SME leaders’ attitudes toward IR, and thereby to reveal managerial perceptions of both the potential benefits and the challenges that actually prevent them from embarking on IR.

This explorative study is grounded on semi-structured interviews with 16 managers of large German SMEs, which yet do not apply IR but are potential candidates to implement it in the future. The engagement with non-preparers is expected to paint a more representative picture of actual reasons for IR (dis-)engagement compared to prior studies that address the few firms that have adopted IR and overcome its challenges. Applying Brown and Fraser’s (2006) conceptual landscape, results are presented analogous to a business case-, stakeholder accountability- and critical theory dimension.

Contrary to prior studies, which identified stakeholder accountability endeavors as kindling SME managers’ interest in voluntary reporting initiatives, managers regard IR primarily as a business case, serving to achieve legitimacy, improve corporate image, reach out to professional investors and assist in employee recruitment. However, they refrained from actually adopting the novel reporting medium, which suggests that decision-makers might not believe the business case to be as unproblematic as claimed by the proponents of IR. This was traced back to three major impediments that currently inhibit SMEs from reporting in an integrated way, namely, a perceived lack of interest by the relevant publics, infeasibility of the IR concept to meet user needs and preparation costs. These drawbacks resemble those of earlier voluntary reporting experiments, calling into question the “revolutionary” character of IR. The study critically concludes that the future development of IR depends on addressing these barriers.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first explorative study to deliberately engage with IR non-preparers to draw conclusions on impediments to IR. The identification of relevant incentives and disincentives for IR among SME managers at first hand not only adds to the small extant IR research body and provides valuable insights for research, practice and standard setting but also contributes to the contemporary debate about dominant legitimacy-based explanations in the broader domain of social and environmental accounting and reporting.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a new and more elaborate view of the relationship between information and knowledge in accountability settings.

The study investigates how knowledge is accomplished when accountability is demanded. The “knowing-in-practice” perspective (Lave, 1988; Orlikowski, 2002; Pentland, 1992) is introduced to theorise knowledge as the ability to purposefully go on with practice and information as a resource that may contribute to this knowledge. Empirically, the study investigates Nordic investors’ engagement with companies addressing environmental, social, and governance issues.

The findings illustrate how information may contribute to knowledge in an accountability setting. Whether or not the information contributes to knowledge in the accountability setting depends on the information’s origin, convergence with other accounts, and use in contradicting and disproving executives’ information. The analysis also shows how knowledge in accountability settings may be achieved without information – for example, by enacting theories.

The study suggests that research should more carefully distinguish between knowledge and information. According to the perspective used here, knowledge is the ability to purposefully go on with practice. Information is one of many resources that can contribute to knowledge.

This study provides insight into the relationship between accounting systems and the practice of demanding accountability. Such understanding is valuable when designing accounts-based governance and civil regulation, such as for addressing sustainability issues, as in this study.

The study challenges the view of knowledge as a representation or factual commodity, and provides a new and more elaborate view of the relationship between information and knowledge in accountability settings by introducing the knowing-in-practice perspective to the accounting literature.

This paper aims to investigate the extent of shareholder engagement and satisfaction with corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports of a Chinese-owned company compared to an Australian-owned company in the Australian mining industry. The study is motivated by the speed, extent and nature of Chinese foreign direct investment in Australia, the resulting negative social attitudes and the impact on the perceptions of a report’s credibility.

The authors conducted a survey of 202 minority shareholders of two Australian mining companies, one has a Chinese majority shareholder and the other an Australian majority shareholder. The responses highlight users’ comparative perceptions of corporate motivations for reporting, the level of perceived shareholder power over reporting decisions and the resulting propensity to read CSR reports.

The authors found that, contrary to decision-usefulness theory, which posits that users will read CSR reports only if they are deemed to be reliable, that perceptions of poor credibility and poor CSR performance actually result in a higher propensity to read the reports. This suggests that the minority shareholders of the Chinese acquired firm are using reports to monitor the level of corporate accountability.

The findings have implications for firms operating in politically or socially sensitive industries that are likely to use CSR reporting as a legitimising strategy. The paper also provides guidance to regulators in the provision of information, which is meaningful to minority shareholders.