Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the accountability practices of the directors in New Zealand and Australian dairy co-operatives. An interpretation of their practices, which focus on the relationship between directors and their farmer-shareholders, is informed by Roberts’ (2001a) understandings of a socializing accountability.

The fieldwork consists of interviews with 23 directors, including all chief executive officers and chairmen, of six dairy co-operatives together with observations and document analysis. These co-operatives together comprise a significant portion of the regional dairy industry. The methodology draws from Eisenhardt’s (1989) qualitative approach to theory formation.

The authors find that these directors engage in a discourse-based, community-grounded and egalitarian form of socializing accountability. As such, their practices adhere generally to Roberts (2001a) hopes for a more considerate and humble relationship between an accountor and an accountee.

Findings add to the small pool of research on the lived experiences of co-operative boards and to a parsimonious literature in socializing accountability practices. The contributions of the study are in advancing real understandings of alternative forms of accountability, in evaluating the conditions in which these alternatives may be likely to arise and in anticipating the challenges and opportunities that arise therefrom.

The originality of the project arises from accessing the views of these industry leaders and, through their frank expressions, coming to understand how they achieve a form of a socializing accountability in their relationships with farmer-shareholders.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether the expectations and requirements contained within the corporate governance code have an impact on how accountability is perceived, understood and practiced by company board members in an emerging economy (Mauritius).

The paper relies on 24 semi‐structured interviews of board members in listed and non‐listed companies and also analyses the accountability implications present in the local code of corporate governance and relevant reports. The analysis is informed by the typologies of board accountability and process developed by Roberts in 2001 (socialising, individualising, sovereign and complementary) and is complemented by Pettigrew and McNulty's 1995 notions of minimalist and maximalist boards.

From a state which can largely be associated to the notion of sovereign governance and a minimalist board, the findings reveal a substantive change in the type of board accountability but it is one which privileges an individualising form of board interactions. A move to a more empowered “maximalist” board is also noted. Notwithstanding, the paper uncovers specific issues with the INED as an accountability mechanism in that there is much fuzziness on his/her role and motivations and whether INEDs can conceivably contribute to a socialising form of board accountability.

The paper responds to calls for more qualitative research on how boards actually operate in emerging economies, at a time when an increasing number of countries have adopted corporate governance requirements drawn primarily from the Anglo‐American model. This paper contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on corporate board processes and dynamics in non‐Western contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how hierarchical accountability can be enacted and accounting control systems mobilized in a way that promotes a sense of felt responsibility.

The paper draws on interviews, shadowing and observations to explore the implementation of a strategy for “increasing accountability” in a Norwegian Oil Company. The case provided an opportunity to explore the dynamics of hierarchical accountability and felt responsibility, and in particular Roberts (2009) concept of “intelligent accountability”, in an empirical context.

The case study explores how the strategy of increasing accountability at OilCo was enacted around three operational issues; the control of costs, roles and relationships in the complex matrix structure, and the operation of the management system. It traces how the long history of Beyond Budgeting practices and philosophy in OilCo resulted both in an explicit recognition of the incompleteness of accounting numbers, and trust-based practices which avoided many of the dysfunctional individual and organizational effects typically associated with the exercise of hierarchical control.

The paper explores empirically how OilCo’s embrace of Beyond Budgeting practices and philosophy had created the conditions under which a more intelligent form of accountability could emerge. As a European case study, it calls into question the Anglo-American tradition of accounting research which suggests that externally imposed accountability within a hierarchy mitigates against employees’ felt responsibility.

The purpose of this study is to examine how accountability is constructed for blockchain systems. With the aim of increasing knowledge on accountability across three different types of blockchains (public, private and consortium), the researchers ask: how do blockchain systems construct accountability?

This study draws on theorising in the accountability literature to study how blockchains relate to our construction and understanding of accountability. A qualitative field study of the Australian blockchain technology landscape is conducted, with insights garnered from 18 blockchain experts.

Findings reveal that different types of blockchains employ different forms and mechanisms of accountability and in novel ways previously less acknowledged in the literature. Importantly, this study finds that accountability does not require a principal–agent relation and can still manifest in less pure applications of blockchain technology across a wide range of stakeholders, contrary to that espoused in earlier exhortations of blockchain use in interdisciplinary literature. This study also finds that similar subtypes of accountability operate very differently across public, private and consortium blockchains and there exists an inverse relation between trust and consensus building through transparency as blockchains progress from public to private types. Overall, this study offers novel explanations for the relevance of greater accountability in blockchains, especially when the assumptions of public blockchains are softened and applied as private and consortium blockchains.

This study contributes to the accountability literature by addressing how different blockchain systems reshape the understanding of traditional accounting and accountability practices. This study questions the very need for a principal–agent relation to facilitate accountability and offers an additional perspective to how trust and transparency operate as key mechanisms of accountability.

The question of whether the words “American Dream” point to something of substance is at the heart of the authors' inquiry. James Truslow Adams coined the term in his 1933 book The Epic of America as a way to re‐establish a sense of optimism decimated by the Great Depression. Adams' contribution was to move the public discourse from that of individual effort to a sense of a collective identity. The American Dream is an element of the “cultural stuff” whose singularity (“dream”) rapidly breaks down into a variety of interpretations about the American nation (“dreams”). The popular press suggests that the Dream proposes to balance collective membership in a national identity with the individual freedom to achieve prosperity and success. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Dream and the construction of an American identity by examining the accounts of men who surely represent the American Dream: US Presidential candidates.

In order to analyze the candidates' accounts of themselves as committed to their American identity and to the American Dream, the authors view the tax returns and speeches of Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney through the lens of the psychoanalytic theories of Jacques Lacan and locate the American Dream as a construct of the imaginary and symbolic orders, as they are defined by Jacques Lacan. The inspirations for the authors' analysis are twofold. One is a 1953 report in which Lacan said, “The unconscious of the subject is the discourse of the other”. The authors argue that the American Dream is the “discourse of the other” and suggest that the American identity is decentered: i.e. a signifying construct (the American Dream) substitutes for identity. The second inspiration is a 2009 paper titled “No one is perfect” by John Roberts, who argues, “The ideal of a transparency pretends to a mere making visible […] [But] transparency works to advertise an ideal against which we will always fail”.

It was found that the candidates' efforts to be transparent advertise an ideal: in this study, the ideal is the ideal of a “perfect‐able” American who lives the American Dream. It is an ideal against which the candidates fail because it is the “discourse of the other”.

This study has limitations. The subjects are two American citizens and the authors' interpretation might not be appropriate to other American citizens and residents.

The authors are aware of no other study that uses Lacanian psychoanalytic views to examine the American Dream.

The paper examines the content moderation practices and related public disclosures of the World's most popular social media organizations (SMOs). It seeks to understand how content moderation operates as a process of accountability to shape and inform how users (inter)act on social media and how SMOs account for these practices.

Content analysis of the content moderation practices for selected SMOs was conducted using a range of publicly available data. Drawing on seminal accountability studies and the concepts of hierarchical and holistic accountability, the authors investigate the design and appearance of the systems of accountability that seek to guide how users create and share content on social media.

The paper unpacks the four-stage process of content moderation enacted by the World's largest SMOs. The findings suggest that while social media accountability may allow SMOs to control the content shared on their platforms, it may struggle to condition user behavior. This argument is built around the limitations the authors found in the way performance expectations are communicated to users, the nature of the dialogue that manifests between SMOs and users who are “held to account”, and the metrics drawn upon to determine the effectiveness of SMOs content moderation activities.

This is the first paper to examine the content moderation practices of the World's largest SMOs. Doing so extends understanding of the forms of accountability that function in the digital space. Crucial future research opportunities are highlighted to provoke and guide debate in this research area of escalating importance.

Based on the principles of stakeholder theory, the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between the information reported to stakeholders in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and companies’ CSR reputation (CSRR).

The paper implements two regression models to test how reporting to stakeholders influences the CSRR of 84 companies included in the Spanish “MercoEmpresas Responsables” reputation index.

The results demonstrate that greater global reporting intensity to stakeholders does not necessarily mean a better CSRR. Contrarily, the reporting-reputation link depends on the intensity of reporting to specific stakeholders such as investors, regulators and the media. The findings are explained largely by the institutional, political and business characteristics of Spain after the Great Recession of 2007-2008.

The evidence reported in this paper confirms stakeholder theory as an adequate framework to understand corporate reporting to stakeholders and its relationship with CSRR. The findings suggest that stakeholder salience (i.e. power, legitimacy and urgency) is a key concept for understanding the reporting-reputation link better in future research.

In the light of the findings, companies willing to use reporting to stakeholders as a tool to improve CSRR should establish regular mechanisms for monitoring stakeholder power, legitimacy and urgency, provide complete information to investors in their CSR reports and minimize the amount of detail provided to regulators and the media in their CSR reports.

There is still little empirical evidence concerning how the information to stakeholders contained in CSR reports influences the processes by which CSRR is built or destroyed. This paper contributes to the previous literature by describing how the global intensity of reporting to stakeholders and the intensity of reporting to different stakeholder groups relate to CSRR.

In 1990, Salovey and Mayer presented a framework for emotional intelligence (EI). This marked the beginning of 20 years of academic research, development, and debate on the subject of EI. A significant amount of previous research has attempted to draw out the relationship between EI and leadership performance. EI has been a uniquely controversial area of the social sciences. EI is based on three simple yet fundamental premises. This manuscript reviews the definitions and models in the field of EI with special emphasis on the Mayer ability model and the connection between EI and leadership. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper takes the form of a literature review.

EI appears to have a foothold in both our popular vernacular and our academic lexicon. However, it is not entirely clear what future form it will take.

This manuscript explores the current relationship between EI and leadership, discusses the various instruments and scales used to measure the construct, and examines the controversy and criticism surrounding EI. Finally, it illuminates some areas for additional research.

Despite indications of scholarly interest, there are still gaps in the research of the concept of felt accountability, especially the felt accountability of board members. This paper aims to clarify the sources of accountability experienced by board members. Especially those in a non-executive capacity. How these sources can be accessed to enhance felt accountability and thereby governance effectiveness is explored.

Qualitative, exploratory research methods were used. In total, 15 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were completed with non-executive board members of Johannesburg Stock Exchange listed companies in South Africa. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse data.

The findings clarified the formal and informal sources of accountability experienced by non-executive board members. This included relational and structural mechanisms that can be used within corporate governance to enhance both types of accountability. Accessing the identified sources of accountability through appropriate mechanisms could increase the levels of felt accountability experienced by the individual non-executive board member, thereby strengthening accountability inside the boardroom and improving overall board effectiveness. The study also revealed a layer of implicit and explicit accountability.

The study was conducted solely in South Africa, with non-executive board members of Johannesburg Stock Exchange listed companies.

There is limited research that clarifies the sources of accountability experienced by non-executive board members. This study aims to address this gap in the literature by providing techniques on how to enable the clarified sources of accountability to improve governance effectiveness.

Motivated to know more about the internal means through which accountability for sustainability takes shape within organisations (in what ways and by whom), this paper aims to explore how accountability for sustainability is constructed within an organisation during a process of establishing a control system for sustainability.

This paper adopts a qualitative case study approach of a decentralised industrial group, operating mainly in Scandinavia, between 2017 and 2020. Both primary and secondary data are used (e.g. document analyses, semi-structured interviews, informal conversations and site visits) to inform the findings and analysis.

The findings reveal a multi-faceted path towards accountability for sustainability that involves several concerns and priorities at organisational and individual levels, resulting in a separate sustainability control systems within each subsidiary company. Although hierarchical structures for accountability exist, socialising accountability activities are needed to (further) mobilise sustainable accounts.

Successful sustainable control systems require employees making sense of formalised accountability instruments (e.g. policies and procedures) to establish their roles and responsibilities in organisations.

This paper proposes socialisation processes as important for driving forward sustainability solutions.

This study elaborates on the internal accountability dynamic for the construction of sustainable accounts. Its novelty is built upon the interaction of hierarchical and socialising accountability forms as necessary for establishing a control system for sustainability. It furthermore illustrates the relationship between the external and internal pathways of accountability.