Search results

Reviews 25 years of social and environmental accounting literature in an attempt to evaluate the position and answer the question posed in the title, as well as to provide a structure or classification for others to use. In order to structure the task, uses three time periods: 1971‐1980; 1981‐1990; and 1991‐1995, and classifies the literature into several sub‐groups including empirical studies, normative statements, philosophical discussion, non‐accounting literature, teaching programmes and textbooks, regulatory frameworks, and other reviews. Attempts, after the classification, to synthesize an overall chronological position. Concludes that there is something to celebrate after 25 years. However, the continued success of this field is dependent on a relatively small number of researchers, writers, and specialized journals without which there would be the danger of a collapse of interest and a loss of what has been gained so far. Consequently, the provision of a place in the advanced undergraduate and graduate curriculum is a major task for the next decade. Argues that appropriately qualified and motivated professionals are needed to contribute to environmental policy and management in both the public and private sectors. However, appropriate educational programmes have not been evident to date.

Believes that green accounting should be rendered open and accountable and be properly subject to a democratic process to avoid shrouding it in a mystifying expertise. Offers a timely and substantive contribution to the debate about how green accounting might be regulated. Believes the accounting profession will stop some distance short of recommending a substantive interventionist regulation. Feels that a voluntarist and market‐based stance is likely to be advocated or preferred. Makes out the case for a substantive interventionist form of regulation and points to the need in practice for something better than the status quo. Seeks to justify an interventionist stance in terms consistent with critical theory.

The purpose of this paper is to unify the expression of fractional grey accumulating generation operator and the reducing generation operator, and build the FDGM(1,1) model with the unified fractional grey generation operator.

By systematically studying the properties of the fractional accumulating operator and the reducing operator, and analyzing the sensitivity of the order value, a unified expression of the fractional operators is given. The FDGM(1,1) model with the unified fractional grey generation operator is established. The relationship between the order value and the modeling error distribution is studied.

The expression of the fractional accumulating generation operator and the reducing generation operator can be unified to a simple expression. For −1<r < 1, the fractional grey generation operator satisfies the principle of new information priority. The DGM(1,1) model is a special case of the FDGM(1,1) model with r = 1.

The sensitivity of the unified operator is verified through random numerical simulation method, and the theoretical proof was not yet possible.

The FDGM(1,1) model has a higher modeling accuracy and modeling adaptability than the DGM(1,1) by optimizing the order.

The expression of the fractional accumulating generation operator and the reducing generation operator is firstly unified. The FDGM(1,1) model with the unified fractional grey generation operator is firstly established. The unification of the fractional accumulating operator and the reducing operator improved the theoretical basis of grey generation operator.

Takes as its departure point the criticism of Guthrie and Parker by Arnold and the Tinker et al. critique of Gray et al. Following an extensive review of the corporate social reporting literature, its major theoretical preoccupations and empirical conclusions, attempts to re‐examine the theoretical tensions that exist between “classical” political economy interpretations of social disclosure and those from more “bourgeois” perspectives. Argues that political economy, legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory need not be competitor theories but may, if analysed appropriately, be seen as alternative and mutually enriching theories from alternative levels of resolution. Offers evidence from 13 years of social disclosure by UK companies and attempts to interpret this from different levels of resolution. There is little doubt that social disclosure practice has changed dramatically in the period. The theoretical perspectives prove to offer different, but mutually enhancing, interpretations of these phenomena.

Addresses three related, though not entirely congruent, aims. Seeks, first, to initiate moves towards a “normative theory” ‐ a conceptual framework ‐ for the developing of social accounting by organizations. Second, aims inductively to draw out best practice from a range of social accounting experiments, illustrated, in particular, by reference to two short cases from Traidcraft plc and Traidcraft Exchange. Third, draws from the conclusions reached in the exploration of the first two aims and attempts to identify any clear “social accounting standards” or “generally acceptable social accounting principles” which can be used to guide the new and emerging social accounting practice. Presents a number of subtexts which attempt to link back to the accounting literature’s more trenchant critiques of social accounting; to address the tension between academic theorizing and engaging with practice; to synthesize different approaches to social accounting practice; and to respond to the urgency that the recent upsurge in interest in social accounting places on the newly formed Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability. An ambitious paper which means that coverage of issues must be thinner than might typically be expected ‐ exploratory, rather than providing answer, offers a collective view from experience and encourage engagement with the rapidly evolving social accounting agenda.

This chapter utilizes a network perspective to show how the totality of one’s social connections impacts well-being by providing access to resources (e.g., information, feedback, and support) and placing limits on autonomy. We provide a brief review of basic network concepts and explain the importance of understanding how the networks in which leaders are embedded may enhance or diminish their well-being. Further, with this greater understanding, we describe how leaders can help promote the well-being of their employees. In particular, we focus on four key aspects of workplace networks that are likely to impact well-being: centrality, structural holes, embeddedness, and negative ties. We not only discuss practical implications for leaders’ well-being and the well-being of their employees, but also suggest directions for future research.

Three reporting models — Traditional, Western‐narrow and Western‐broad — are scrutinised to delineate the basis of accounting practices for the Pacific Island Countries' (PIC) entities for the years ending 1997–1999. Evidence is obtained about the filing of reports; timeliness of reports; and disclosure patterns. Patterns are measured via examination of twenty Aggregated Accounting Disclosures (AAD) items and sub‐indices. A significant number of entities completely fail to generate annual reports, or are several years behind the reporting cycle or are unwilling to disseminate their reports. The reporting patterns for PIC entities showed an overall AAD disclosure trend of 52% with specific patterns being 76% of Core Statement Accounting (CSA), 42% Financial Related Accounting (FRA) and 40% Non‐financial Related Accounting (NRA) over the three years. The lack of current annual reports and timely reports (at least 50%) fits much more with the Traditional model than with either Western model.

Frames play a central role in how parties to a conflict make sense of their situation and how they interact. How they interact in turn affects possible outcomes. This article addresses a set of challenges to teaching about frames, framing, and their link to conflict assessment, and offers a web‐based solution that addresses some of these challenges. The training material incorporates aspects of simulation exercises and case stud‐ies to create a realistic environment in which students conduct assessments of conflict dynamics and frames. This free, publicly‐available product can be integrated into in‐class training modules, assigned as an out‐of‐class project, or explored through individual study. The materials allow for self‐pacing, backtracking, review, and repeated tries, made possible by the web medium.

This chapter is a speculative examination of the way in which theory is used in the social accounting literature. It is intended as an initial guide for those approaching the area for the first time; it is intended as a map for those in the field who would like to adopt a bigger picture for their work and it is intended as a wake-up call to those of us stuck in unconscious ruts. The chapter's departure point is the recognition that social accounting requires a reasonably sophisticated awareness of theory – not least because the subject matter itself is so contentious and conditional. The chapter's ambitions are to encourage a more evaluative and policy-based approach to the subject matter of social accounting; to offer a pedagogic basis to help others make some sense of theory in social accounting and to seek to empower and liberate social accounting scholars by assisting the range of their theorising. Social accounting scholars tend to approach the area with concerns and desires for liberation and possibility. Theory can help articulate those concerns and can support and encourage that desire. Above all, the chapter is explicitly partial, speculative and tentative, and it is not a formal or informed attempt to produce a theory of theories in social accounting. To articulate a range of the possible theories, we offer a simple heuristic through which we may navigate our way through the soup of concepts and perceptions that can blend into a potential infinity of ways of looking and seeing. We hope to encourage diversity and speculation rather than narrowness and alleged certainty.

This paper aims to respond to increasing interest in the intersection between accounting and human rights and to explore whether access to information might itself constitute a human right. As human rights have “moral force”, establishing access to information as a human right may act as a catalyst for policy change. The paper also aims to focus on environmental information, and specifically the case of corporate water‐related disclosures.

This paper follows Griffin and Sen, who suggest that a candidate human right might be recognised when it is consistent with “founding” human rights, it is important and it may be influenced by societal action. The specific case for access to corporate water‐related information to constitute a human right is evaluated against these principles.

Access to corporate water‐related disclosures may indeed constitute a human right. Political participation is a founding human right, water is a critical subject of political debate, water‐related information is required in order for political participation and the state is in a position to facilitate provision of such information. Corporate water disclosures may not necessarily be in the form of annual sustainability reports, however, but may include reporting by government agencies via public databases and product labelling. A countervailing corporate right to privacy is considered and found to be relevant but not necessarily incompatible with heightened disclosure obligations.

This paper seeks to make both a theoretical and a practical contribution. Theoretically, the paper explores how reporting might be conceived from a rights‐based perspective and provides a method for determining which disclosures might constitute a human right. Practically, the paper may assist those calling for improved disclosure regulation by showing how such calls might be embedded within human rights discourse.