Search results

To catalyse the impact economy, we need a common language which unites the various disciplines covered by the universe of impact investing, including environmental science, sociology, anthropology, human capital, childhood education and development, workforce development, criminal justice, diversity equity and inclusion and more and which translates those into monetary estimates to enable decision-making, and to catalyse more sustainable and just outcomes. Impact accounting seeks to do just that by uniting the statements of an organisation's financial health and performance with monetised impact accounts that reflect the organisation's positive and negative impacts on employees, customers, the environment and the broader society. This chapter provides an argument for impact accounting, an implementation roadmap, and grapples with principles and ethics-based challenges for impact accounting.

Collectively, we can use impact accounting to demand accountability from the businesses from which we purchase or of which we are equity owners, either through from investment managers and our retirement accounts. We must demand that they start showing the impact-weighted earnings of their profits or the ‘true’ price of the product they produce.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a public policy solution to updating mainstream financial accounting from its nineteenth century roots and make it more relevant and consistent with public policy, individual investor motivations and global needs as exemplified in the sustainability development goals. Many approaches to integrating social and environmental accounts with financial accounts are additive; the two types of accounting information sit alongside each other. The opportunity to revise the basic building block of financial accounting, information to help investors make economic decisions relating to investments to increase integration and recognition that this is a public policy decision and not an accounting profession decision, is rarely considered.

The approach is a viewpoint on the opportunities for and benefits of integration of financial, social and environmental accounting.

The current basis of financial accounting does not reflect private investors’ motivations, and changing the basis of accounting is a public policy issue.

This is a viewpoint paper. The pros and cons of current approaches to valuation of social and environmental outcomes are not explored.

Changing policy would require support from asset managers and owners, accounting bodies, civil society and politicians and would need a plan for transitioning from the existing approach.

This is a possible starting point for formal research that could support policy changes that could result in resource allocation decisions taking account of social and environmental impacts.

There are several approaches for integrating social environmental and financial accounting; however, the proposal that integration would result from a change in public policy specifically clarifying and updating investor motivation provides a possible solution to many of the challenges of integration.

The rapid development in the circular economy phenomenon raises the prospects of potential tension between the existing accounting practices and the principles of circular economy. This study, therefore, aims to investigate the barriers to adapting the current accounting practices to circular economy implementation.

The study uses exploratory qualitative study design, and semi-structured interviews were conducted among professional accountants in Ghana. Purposive sampling technique was used to recruit respondents, and data saturation was achieved with 45 respondents. Data collection and analysis were undertaken concurrently and emerging themes were investigated as the study progressed.

The results indicate that there are several barriers to adapting the current accounting practices to circular economy implementation. The specific barriers as revealed in the data analysis are: accounting reporting barriers, financial/economic barriers, technological barriers, managerial/behavioral barriers, organizational barriers and institutional barriers.

The study responded to a global call by coalition circular accounting to identify and potentially over accounting related challenges that impedes the transition to circular economy. The study’s originality stems from the fact that it explores the issue from a developing country perspective, which has received limited attention in the extant literature.

Social return on investment (SROI) has received increasing attention, both academically and professionally, since it was initially developed by the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund in the USA in the mid-1990s. Based on a systematic review of the literature that highlights the potential and limitations related to the academic and professional development of the SROI model, the purpose of this study is to systematize the academic debate and contribute to the future research agenda of blended value accounting.

Relying on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses approach, this study endeavors to provide reliable academic insights into the factors driving the usage of the SROI model and its further development.

A systematic literature review produced a final data set of 284 studies. The results reveal that despite the procedural accuracy characterizing the description of the model, bias-driven methodological implications, availability of resources and sector specificities can influence the type of approach taken by scholars and practitioners.

To dispel the conceptual and practical haze, this study discusses the results found, especially regarding the potential solutions offered to overcome the SROI limitations presented, as well as offers suggestions for future research.

This study aims to fill a gap in the literature and enhance a conceptual debate on the future of accounting when it concerns a blended value proposition.

The paper uses theoretical conceptions of power and orchestration to analyse the role of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue on the global standardisation of sustainability reporting.

The paper adopts an interpretive approach and draws on a qualitative dataset derived from interviews, documentary analysis and observation.

The paper traces how the Corporate Reporting Dialogue was orchestrated by the International Integrated Reporting Council, with the objective of aligning sustainability reporting standards, but moved to become a vehicle for orchestrating standards consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure. Collaboration between the Dialogue's five most active bodies forged the blueprint adopted by the International Sustainability Standards Board's vision of sustainability reporting that prioritised reporting only on those socio-ecological issues deemed to materially affect future enterprise value.

The paper explicates the role of collaborative initiatives in the standardisation of sustainability reporting and shows how these initiatives act as vehicles to subtly undermine the GRI position (presented as one standardiser amongst many whose vision appears as an outlier, despite its position as the dominant sustainability reporting standardiser), and establish the prioritisation of a sustainability reporting worldview based on investor-oriented enterprise value creation. The case also draws attention to the specific orchestrators involved in establishing this prioritisation, and reveals the influence of philanthropic foundations. In doing so, it extends our understanding of legitimacy generation in standard-setting by showing how collaborative initiatives offer private standardisers another means to generate input legitimacy for what, in this case, represented a vision of reporting at odds with most sustainability reporting practice. Finally, the paper extends the sites of power to collaborative initiatives and details the mechanisms through which covert power is exercised but also masked where orchestrators use convening power, funding and membership choices to define the boundaries of discussion by influencing who participates, what is on the agenda and what activity is undertaken. Rather than viewing standardisation as a simple pursuit of conquest between individual standardisers, the paper considers how collaboration provides the opportunity for assimilation.

This paper aims to focus on impact integrity in investment decision-making – an under-researched yet important topic – as a means for optimising investor contributions to sustainable development outcomes, including achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs).

This conceptual paper adopts a two-step approach. First, this paper reviews existing “responsible” investment strategies and products used in practice and highlight their shortcomings in terms of optimising sustainable development outcomes. Second, drawing from the minimal standards theory, this study explores how emerging impact management practices may strengthen impact integrity in investment decision-making and mitigate shortcomings in existing “responsible” investment approaches to increase their contribution to sustainable development outcomes.

Current “responsible” investment approaches often do not optimise sustainable development outcomes and may facilitate “impact washing”. The theoretically grounded framework demonstrates standardised impact management practices based on a bounded flexibility approach – adaptable to different contexts within limits and assessed by skilled analysts – along with incorporating shared language and conventions supported by appropriate accountability mechanisms that can be used to mitigate shortcomings in current “responsible” investment approaches. The authors further propose accountability mechanisms to systematically involve stakeholders (including rightsholders) in decisions that impact them with effective grievance and reparation mechanisms. Such an approach, the authors argue will strengthen impact integrity and the capacity of investments to optimise contributions to sustainable development outcomes.

The findings have implications for the ability of investment markets to optimise their contributions to sustainable development and the SDGs.

By highlighting shortcomings in current “responsible” investment approaches and focussing on strengthening impact integrity in investment decision-making through standardised impact management practices, the findings enhance the capacity of investment markets to contribute positively to sustainable development and the SDGs.

Despite its importance, impact integrity in investment decision-making is severely under-researched with little academic attention. This paper fills this void.

The “most economically advantageous tender,” as defined in the EUʼs public procurement directives, allows public purchasers to combine environmental aspects, price and other award criteria in decision making. The directives do not, however, determine how the environmental criteria should be built. Indeed, there could be different means to assess the “greenness” of competing tenders, and these various measurements of environmental impacts may lead to different assessments of the most economically advantageous tender. In this article, the determination of environmental award criteria is examined through a case study on a purchase of a goods transportation service, where the most economically advantageous tender is calculated by life cycle assessment and the environmental cost calculation method suggested by the EU, and compared to the results gained by the purchaserʼs equation. Also the contribution of the weighting for the “green” purchasing decision is discussed.

Business, management and accounting (BMA) papers published from The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, account for less than 1 per cent of the total papers published. As nations in MENA try and compete on the national competitive index, there is a tendency to adopt performance appraisal criteria from more established research nations. MENA accounts for 6 per cent of world population, and has one of the world's highest growth rates at 3 per cent. Since over one‐third of the population is under 15, if factors that hider and encourage research are identified, the research output can be increased. As it is clear that research on this region and from researchers in MENA is low, the purpose of this paper is to focus on how to increase research on this region.

Since there is very little information from this region, the research was exploratory in nature. Interviews with academics, officers in charge or research grants, publishers and senior managers from industry using and conducting research were used as a basis to identify research barriers and methods to overcome barriers. This was triangulated with secondary data from existing academic research, industry and NGO reports and research seminars and discussions.

The barriers and strategies to overcome research can be classified into three categories based on key stakeholders: the government (or policy makers); the industry or market conditions; and the institutions. Strategies at the individual academic level are also identified, which may overcome more macro environmental limitations.

This paper is the first of its kind in this region that consolidates many aspects and helps new researchers manage and improve research productivity. The paper is of value to any researcher but especially to policy makers, academics, promotion boards and universities that have doctoral programs.