Search results

Seeks to extend debates about the emancipatory potential of the internet by commenting on Sikka's reflections (in this issue) on the papers also in this issue by Gallhofer et al. and by Paisey and Paisey.

Discusses the location of the internet within the politics of neoliberalism, with particular reference to the pensions crisis.

Accepts that the internet's use depends upon its social context and agrees that the internet is a communicative device that has the potential to facilitate change. However, the example of pension accounts shows that the internet has been more effectively harnessed by groups wishing to endorse the status quo rather than to counter it.

While the development of counter accounts and critiques of contemporary social problems is encouraged, education must play a role in exposing alternative views and encouraging debate.

Extends debates surrounding the role of the internet in promoting more emancipatory accountings.

This paper aims to argue that enterprise culture is producing negative effects. Companies and major accountancy firms are increasingly willing to increase their profits through indulgence in price fixing, tax avoidance/evasion, bribery, corruption, money laundering and practices that show scant regard for social norms and even laws.

The paper locates business behaviour within the broader dynamics of capitalism to argue that hunger for higher profits at almost any cost is not constrained by rules, laws and even periodic regulatory action.

The paper uses publicly available evidence to show that accountancy firms are engaged in anti‐social behaviour. Evidence is provided to show that in pursuit of higher profits firms have operated cartels, engaged in tax avoidance/evasion, bribery, corruption and money laundering.

The paper seeks to bring the anti‐social activities of accountancy firms under scrutiny and thus extend possibilities of research in social responsibility, ethics, accountability, claims of professionalism, social disorder and crime.

It is rare for accounting scholars to examine predatory practices of accounting firms. It shows that predatory practices affect a variety of arenas and stakeholders.

The purpose of this paper is to encourage the academic community to disseminate and communicate information and knowledge beyond the academy and engage wider audiences.

To use new mediums of communication to inform, galvanise and infuriate audiences and possibly try to render the familiar unfamiliar or show that even the technical and complex issues have social relevance and consequences.

The two blogs reproduced in this paper sought to communicate some aspects of accounting to a wider audience. In trying to reach a wider audience and communicate inconvenient facts some purity of ideas may be diluted, but the alternative is silence and vacation of public spaces to organised interests.

The article reproduces real life newspaper blogs to show that communication with a wider audience is possible.

The purpose of this paper is to seek to illuminate some of the dynamics of globalization that enable capital to advance its interests.

The paper uses theories of globalization focusing upon the “race‐to‐the‐bottom”. Such theories draw attention to the way major businesses are using their power to secure advantages, often by playing‐off one nation state against another. Increasingly, offshore financial centres (OFCs) are becoming key players in this race. The paper uses a case study relating to the enactment of limited liability partnership (LLP) in Jersey, a UK Crown Dependency. The legislation was financed and developed by the UK firms, Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young in collaboration with a network of advisers.

The paper sheds light on the resources deployed by major accountancy firms to secure conditions necessary for the smooth accumulation of private wealth and power. Accountancy firms used OFCs or microstates to reposition the state‐capital relationship in globalization and reconfigure the UK auditor liability laws. The paper also highlights the importance of the state to capital and globalization.

In common with major capitalist enterprises, accountancy firms rarely provide background material to explain how they advance their interests. Inevitably, this limits the analysis. Nevertheless, the case study shows some trajectories that have enabled accountancy firms to advance their economic interests.

The paper shows that accountancy firms are able to use novel tactics to advance their interests and that national regulation cannot easily be understood without consideration of the wider international context.

Accounting researchers have rarely focused upon the use of offshore financial centres by major accountancy firms to advance their interests. It also shows that the local and the global are intertwined.

In the UK and elsewhere, accounting vocabularies and practices have come to permeate everyday life through their involvement in the management of hospitals, schools, universities, charities, trade unions, etc. This has been accompanied by an increase in the power of accountancy and the institutions of accountancy which increasingly function as quasi‐legislators. Such developments call for a (re)consideration of the role of accounting academics/intellectuals. Argues that, in a world where major business and professional interests are organized to advance sectional interests, to promote stereotyped images and to limit public debates, accounting academics/intellectuals have a responsibility to give visibility to such issues and thereby mobilize potentialities for gaining a fuller understanding of, and encouraging more democratic participation in, the design and operation of major social institutions. Suggests that, despite the constraints on academics, there are considerable opportunities to create, develop or become active in public policy debates through networks that comprise politicians, journalists, disaffected practitioners and concerned citizens – all of whom are potential allies in furthering a process in which accounting and its institutions are problematized and accounting professionals are rendered more accountable.

The purpose of this paper is to stimulate debates about contemporary auditing practices.

The paper builds a generalised theory of auditing to pose some questions about the basic auditing model, notions of audit quality and the possibility that some transactions cannot be audited in the traditional way.

It is argued that the basic auditing model is flawed since it makes auditors financially dependent on companies. The conventional approach to “audit quality” is also incomplete as it pays little attention to the organisational and social context of auditing. It also argues that as companies have diversified into new forms of investment and complex financial instruments, some transactions may be not be capable of being audited in the traditional way.

The paper does not offer a comprehensive critique of contemporary auditing issues. Rather it is a focus on some selected issues.

The paper encourages reflections on contemporary practices and offers some suggestions for reforms.

The paper is a combination of theory, evidence and speculation on contemporary issues.

To stimulate debates about the creation of corporate governance mechanisms and processes which would help to secure an equitable distribution of income and wealth for workers.

The paper builds on a political economy of income and wealth inequalities. It argues that corporate governance mechanisms and processes are rooted in particular politics and histories. The state is a key actor. It provides a brief history of the UK corporate governance debates relating to income distribution, industrial democracy and disclosures. It provides social data about the extent of income inequalities.

The paper shows that the UK lacks institutional structures and processes and mechanisms to enable workers to secure a higher share of the firm's income.

The study primarily focuses on some aspects of the corporate governance structures, practices and income/wealth inequalities in the UK. Its implications could also be relevant to market‐oriented liberal states with “consensus” or “majoritarian” electoral systems.

To encourage debates, the paper puts forward a number of suggestions for changing electoral and corporate governance practices together with disclosures that could give visibility to income and wealth inequalities.

The paper links corporate governance debates to broader political choices.

The purpose of this paper is to extend the debate about the emancipatory potential of the internet by commenting on the papers in this issue by Gallhofer et al. and by Paisey and Paisey.

The paper locates the internet within the politics of neoliberalism.

The internet is just another technology and its use and influence depend on the social and political contexts. The internet is not seen as a panacea but rather as a communicative device which has the potential to facilitate change. Whether that is realised depends upon how the counter accounts and critiques disseminated through it connect with the common sense of the people.

The paper encourages engagement with technology and also persuades readers to develop counter accounts and critiques of contemporary social problems.

The article is the response to a reply to the authors′ earlier article (in this journal) criticising the UK audit standard‐setting process. The reply claimed the article failed to prevent a balanced review of the “due process”, was not clear as to what constitutes “public interest”, and contained misrepresentations and errors. This response counter‐claims the errors and misrepresentations and accuses their critic of unwillingness to discuss the politics of accountancy regulation (compounded by his previous position as an official of the Auditing Practices Committee). These issues are discussed: clarifying the original article and dealing with the criticism point by point.

The paper aims to examine the involvement of global accountancy firms in devising and selling tax avoidance schemes euphemistically marketed as “tax planning”.

The study draws upon a range of secondary sources, including legal cases and government reports, to demonstrate how “tax planning” involves “wilful blindness” to complicity in dubious and sometimes fraudulent activity.

The study reveals in detail the construction and promotion of elaborate tax avoidance schemes by big accounting firms. It casts doubt upon the “business culture” that has become established in these firms.

The study relies upon secondary sources. Subject to gaining adequate access to the big accounting firms, research based upon close-up investigation of “tax planning” would further illuminate such practices.

The study shows how normalised and institutionalised “tax planning” schemes have become in the big four accounting firms. It suggests that such schemes require closer scrutiny if payments of tax are to be made as intended, and thereby provide the revenues required to maintain public services such as education, health and pensions.

The study informs a debate about the payment of taxes and the role of big accounting firms in creating aggressive tax avoidance schemes. It questions the appropriateness and adequacy of private regulation of these firms and so contributes to a public debate on the tax contribution of comparatively powerful and privileged parties.

The study “blows the whistle” on the role of big accounting firms in devising schemes that reduce the “tax take” on business and thereby reduces the revenues required to provide and maintain public services.