Search results

The aim of the paper is to describe and explain, using a combination of interviews and content analysis, the social and environmental reporting practices of a major garment export organisation within a developing country.

Senior executives from a major organisation in Bangladesh are interviewed to determine the pressures being exerted on them in terms of their social and environmental performance. The perceptions of pressures are then used to explain – via content analysis – changing social and environmental disclosure practices.

The results show that particular stakeholder groups have, since the early 1990s, placed pressure on the Bangladeshi clothing industry in terms of its social performance. This pressure, which is also directly related to the expectations of the global community, in turn drives the industry's social policies and related disclosure practices.

The findings show that, within the context of a developing country, unless we consider the managers' perceptions about the social and environmental expectations being imposed upon them by powerful stakeholder groups then we will be unable to understand organisational disclosure practices.

This paper is the first known paper to interview managers from a large organisation in a developing country about changing stakeholder expectations and then link these changing expectations to annual report disclosures across an extended period of analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to document a study of European and UK triple bottom line (TBL) report assurance statements.

In undertaking the research, an international database was constructed from which all known European and UK third‐party assurance statements that accompanied the release of TBL reports were selected for review.

The results of the analysis indicate that there is much variability and ambiguity inherent within the contents of the third‐party statements.

The UK and European reports included within the database compiled by the researchers provide the basis of the information used to develop this paper. In selecting assurance statements to include within the database, the latest TBL report from each reporting organization was obtained (and it should be appreciated that many organizations do not produce TBL reports on an annual basis). Of the 170 reports available internationally at the time the research was undertaken, 8 are from 2000, 86 from 2001, 65 from 2002, and 11 from 2003. Whilst the database is the most extensive one of its type, given the finite nature of resources available, it is stressed that the database is not exhaustive.

Taken together, the results of this analysis lead us to question the value that such assurance statements provide to the TBL reporting process.

Assesses the ambiguity and questions the value of assurance work on TBL statements as currently being undertaken.

A growing concern for environmental issues has resulted in calls for improvement in corporate environmental performance. In Australia, as elsewhere, this has involved the discussion as to the role of accounting and accountants in environmental management (Burritt and Gibson, 1993; Hrisak, 1995). This paper reports on the adoption of environmental accounting practices by Australian companies. Using a survey instrument, information was collected on the existence and development of environmental accounting processes within Top 500 Australian companies. The results indicate that many companies are utilising internal systems for the generation of environmental accounting data; however there appears to be a limited translation of the internal accounting information into external environmental reporting, despite a belief by many respondents that such information is useful to users of the annual report.

The purpose of this paper is to provide comment on the contribution of the Environmental performance accountability special issue of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal published 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.

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.

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.

Subjective assessment is overtly recognized rather than subsumed in the research methods adopted.

The embedding of articles in special issues within a broader communications portfolio for practitioner understanding is suggested.

The nature of the personal reflection means that thoughts recorded are novel and unique.

The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the understanding of environmental reporting differences in the case of Romanian entities. In order to achieve this purpose, we analyze environmental reporting differences for Romanian listed companies using legitimacy theory as a theoretical background.

We conduct a quantitative research on the Romanian entities listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE).

The quality and quantity of environmental information reported by Romanian company still suffer from irrelevancy and incompleteness. The factors explaining the variation of environmental reporting in the case of Romanian listed companies are the export sales percentage, the BSE category, and size of the company, which demonstrate that larger companies tend to disclose more environmental information to respond to the pressure and to maintain their legitimacy.

The present study uses the content analysis as a research technique of 64 annual reports of Romania listed entities on the BSE. In this regard, a limitation of the study can be the sample size that can be extended and also the content analysis that can be considered subjective.

The chapter is of interest to anyone involved in the process of environmental disclosure, either as entity or other stakeholders.

The chapter supplements previous studies regarding environmental disclosure and the theories or factors that can explain environmental reporting differences.

The primary aim of this paper is to illustrate how goodwill impairment loss should be accounted for when measuring non‐controlling interest in subsidiaries.

The paper uses two scenarios to illustrate how non‐controlling interest in subsidiaries should be measured in the presence of goodwill impairment loss.

The way the management of a reporting entity values the non‐controlling interest in a subsidiary will result in different amounts being disclosed in financial statements for non‐controlling interest in earnings, non‐controlling interest, retained earnings and total equity.

The paper uses two scenarios to illustrate a simple consolidation with a parent entity, a subsidiary and a sub‐subsidiary.

Practical guidance on how goodwill impairment losses under International Accounting Standard 36 Impairment of Assets when measuring non‐controlling interest under International Financial Reporting Standard 3 Business Combination, is provided.

The paper corrects any misunderstanding that may exist on the impact goodwill impairment losses have on closing equity when non‐controlling interest is calculated under the different methods of valuing non‐controlling interest.

The purpose of this paper is to present a critical review of the development and current state‐of‐the‐art of social and environmental accounting (SEA) research, with particular reference to the role and contribution of the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, while also offering some pointers as to how the field may develop in the future.

The approach combines a literature review and critique, with particular emphasis on SEA papers published in AAAJ (1988‐2007) together with other papers published in a range of leading‐edge journals (2004‐2007).

While published SEA research covers a wide range of topics, particular emphasis has been placed on polemical debate and studies investigating the organisational determinants and managerial motivations underpinning reporting initiatives. Some evidence is produced of a rapprochement between mainstream SEA scholars and critical theorists, with the moral foundation, and interventionist stance, of the former being combined with the historically and theoretically informed perspective of the latter. Evidence is also offered of field‐based studies achieving greater prominence in the literature in recent years.

While a “broad brush” analysis of the historical development of SEA research is offered, detailed investigation is largely confined to the contribution of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal and that of contemporary research studies.

Agreement is expressed with the conclusions emanating from previous authoritative reviews of the field concerning the need for engagement with practice on the part of researchers. However, a managerial perspective is eschewed in favour of recommending articulation of research to social movements and working directly with stakeholder groups.

The paper provides a detailed analysis of the contribution made by one particular leading edge journal, while further drawing on recently published work in a range of journals in order to develop pointers for future effective interventions by SEA researchers in matters of public policy and praxis.

Expanding upon the special issue entitled “The special issue: AAAJ and research innovation”, published in 2012, this introduction to the second special issue of the genre is concerned with selected thematic special issues of AAAJ appearing during the second decade of publication from 1998 to 2007. The paper explores research innovation by means of the thematic issues addressed from this decade.

This paper provides a background to this special issue and an outline of the articles included. The issue features seven retrospective/prospective articles written by the guest editors of special thematic issues published during 1998 to 2007, supplemented where appropriate by other co-authors or, in one instance, by a new author team.

The guest editors and other contributing authors sought to identify and discuss the progression of each field since the AAAJ special issue was published, and to assess the impacts of the special issues to this progression, and to propose future research developments in the designated fields.

This commentary on articles published is no substitute for carefully reading these contributions. The papers provide a comprehensive review of key developments in the literature until most recently and explore the opportunities for further innovative interdisciplinary accounting research.

This AAAJ special issue, and the earlier 2012 prototype, constitute a different approach to producing special issues, where the original special issues are revisited with a view to assessing research trends and impacts and to identifying research developments which are ripe for pursuing in each of these interdisciplinary accounting fields.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the propensity of some researchers within the accounting research community (and elsewhere) to ignore potentially rich insights available from other paradigms, and the implications this has for the advancement of knowledge both from an educational and a social perspective.

The analysis is based on a review of a paper published in the Australian Journal of Management by Benson et al. (2015) together with a synthesis of other work which cautions against dismissing conflicting “world views”.

The analysis suggests that the propensity of some accounting researchers to dismiss, or ignore, research undertaken by researchers outside of their paradigm is still apparently “alive and well” within today’s accounting research community. The implications associated with ignoring or dismissing rich interdisciplinary insights are highlighted.

The implications of the research are that many rich insights are apparently being ignored by a segment of the accounting research community and this has implications for the advancement of knowledge, education and society. The limitations of this commentary are that the views are based on personal opinion which by its very nature is biased and based on the political views of the author.

The practical implications are that in highlighting a propensity to ignore potentially valuable research from alternative paradigms the commentary encourages researchers to consider other world views, as well as the political foundations inherent in their own work. This can have positive implications for the advancement of knowledge, and of society.

By highlighting the propensity of some researchers to potentially dismiss entire areas of research as not being “notable” it is hoped that there will be a revision of this tendency and this will have possible implications for the advancement of knowledge.

The commentary highlights how certain elements of the accounting research community continue to appear to have a propensity to forget/ignore that potentially useful insights are available from people who undertake research beyond the confines of their research paradigm.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the highly cited articles published in Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), since its inception, to answer three research questions: first, how have scholarly articles published in AAAJ developed? second, what are the focus areas and characteristics of articles in AAAJ, and who are the influential authors? third, who are the emerging next generation scholars and what are the emerging research themes in AAAJ?

A structured literature review (SLR) was used to analyse 126 most cited classic AAAJ articles and 21 additional emerging articles published between 1988 and 2016. Traditional literature reviews can have varied results because of a lack of rigour. The SLR method allows for an examination in detail of the articles, authors, focus areas and pattern of AAAJ publishing over three decades.

The findings show increased diversity in more recent years in theories, methods, origins, focus areas, and where AAAJ articles are cited, which highlights that the interdisciplinary accounting research project is maturing and remaining true to the ideal of being inclusive.

Within this diversity, the analyses show that AAAJ remains focussed on and presents opportunities for impactful accounting research related to social issues, including non-financial corporate reporting/disclosure, public sector accounting, corporate governance and alternative forms of accounting, audit and accountability. Additionally, there is a need for more practice-based research to address the “wicked” problems at the intersection between accounting and society.

This paper presents accounting researchers with an opportunity to develop insightful and publishable studies. Also, it serves as a basis for developing future research agendas in the interdisciplinary accounting field.