A framework for social and environmental accounting research

Abstract

This essay explores recent trends in social and environmental accounting research (SEAR). We offer a basic SEAR typology to examine the limitations and possibilities within the current discourse. SEAR has taken a corporate approach in liberal democratic social space. Our typology examines the opportunities for SEAR to interpret and create change in social practice.

Keywords:

• Social and Environmental Accounting
• Interpretation
• Critical Theory
• Pragmatism
• Evaluative Framework

Notes

1 Representative of this line of thinking is the work of Thomson (2015) who offers insights into the role of governmental utilities in the UK.

2 Representative of the business case literature are: George, Siti-Nabiha, Jalaludin, and Abdalla (2016), Montecchia, Giordano, and Grieco (2016). Morioka and Carvalho (2016a, 2016b), and Thijssens, Bollen, and Hassink (2016).

3 Perspectives developed by Gray (2010, 2013) expresses concern that the structural and social causes of environmental problems have not been addressed.

4 See also Benson, Clarkson, Smith, and Tutticci (2015) from Asia Pacific perspective, Cho and Patten (2013), Dumay, Frost, and Beck (2015) and Bessire and Onnee (2010). From an Intellectual Capital perspective, see Dumay and Cai (2015).

5 For example our literature review finds that even recent work on governmentality and NGO organisations have become commodified and reshaped in the image of pure profit seeking corporations (see, for example, Conway, O&Keefe, & Hrasky, 2015).

6 Using our interpretivist framework we evaluate the work of Killian and O’Regan (2016) who focus on legitimacy theory and the construction of a corporate reality. They introduce the work of Pierre Bourdieu to explore the debate between legitimacy theory and a political-economy perspective. This leads to their view that power is the variable left unanalyzed within instrumental and economic approaches that search to transform and modernise business, community and society research. We believe that the utility of interpretivism is its ability to evaluate different social accounting proposals. Killian and O’Regan (2016) take a critical dimension, but we also are attempting to develop a positive role for business. This is because our interpretivism does not offer a didactic analysis of social change: after all, can we really uncover the managers’ true beliefs and motivations? For it is the case that some corporations do indeed have little impact on the natural environment and it would be sociologically incorrect to simply caricature all corporations as unsustainable.