Actor-Network Theory: A Briefing Note and Possibilities for Social and Environmental Accounting Research

Abstract

Actor-network theory (ANT) has been increasingly utilised within the accounting and management literature (Justesen and Mouritsen, 2011) and is argued to be useful because it includes both the human and the non-human in its analytical frame. ANT bypasses a nature/society dualism and, as such, it may help to develop organisational theories that can promote ecologically and socially sustainable development (Gladwin et al., 1995). This article outlines the central commitments of ANT, its language, how it has been applied and its critiques. The article then discusses how ANT may contribute to social and environmental accounting research and the examination of what is social and what is environment. As such, this paper is an ANT ‘primer’ which aims to support social and environmental accountants in the exploration of new directions and the enabling of more ecologically and socially sustainable practices to come forward.

Notes

An imbroglio can be defined as ‘a confused heap’ or ‘a state of great confusion; a complicated or difficult (esp. political or dramatic) situation; a confused misunderstanding’ (Oxford Dictionary, 2007, p. 1329).

The term ‘theory’ has been put into inverted commas as ANT has been argued by ANT's key protagonists not to be a theory in a conventional sense; rather ‘with ANT we push theory one step further into abstraction’ (Latour, 2005, p. 221). Furthermore, because ANT emphasises work, movement and flow and thus does not assume a solid fixed base, it has ‘never been able to coalesce into a theory in a modernist sense’ (Calas and Smircich, 1999, p. 663).

This argument could also be made about social and environmental accountants, whereby a social and environmental accountant is not somebody in and of themselves; rather a social and environmental account is a pattern of relationships (both human and non-human); for example, the courses they teach, the authors they cite, the department they are part of, the company they keep, the conferences they attend, the journals their articles are published in, how they seek to incorporate society and environmental considerations into their work, etc.

A key aspect when taking an ANT analytical stance is that both the sociologist and the journal act on each other: a joint action that impacts on the sociologist's goals and also to a degree the goals of the journal, so that a translation occurs. Another way of considering how ANT informs is to consider the process of pasteurisation and Latour's studies into this process. With regard to the ferment of the lactic acid, the realist might claim ‘you grant too much to the constructivists by admitting you did it all yourself!….[while] the social constructivists are similarly outraged: How can you claim the lactic acid ferment exists on its own, without you, when you yourself are pulling the strings!’ (Latour, 2010, p. 17). With ANT the rationale is not to retreat to either perspective (realist or constructivist); rather this dualism should be bypassed and the focus placed on the action.

However, it should be noted that Latour (2005) pulls back from his rejection of the terms ‘actor’, ‘network’ and ‘theory’ and the acronym ANT in his later work and accepts the terms and acronym given they have been widely adopted.

These arguments offered by Whittle and Spicer (2008) are coherent within a context in so much as that, if an ontology and epistemology that splits the world into two collective categories is accepted, then a critical account would probably have a commitment to the three components they outline. However, ANT does not have this commitment within it; rather it aims to bypass any attempts to split the world into society and nature as collective categories. Thus a commitment to de-naturalisation cannot be within ANT, as ANT is not committed to nature or de-nature, it wants the analyst to move past these conceptions and go with the flow. Second, regarding a reflexive epistemology, within the argument as portrayed by Whittle and Spicer (2008), there is no reason why multiple ANT accounts of the same phenomena could not be produced. Thus in many regards this challenge to ANT is potentially a red herring in so much as any analysis using any framework or theory suffers from the singularity that is the voice of the author(s) of a particular account. Third, regarding a commitment to anti-performative politics, we believe that Whittle and Spicer (2008) have missed how any critique is the result of a relationship between that which is to be analysed and the analyser (analyst).

Justesen and Mouritsen's (2011) paper is focused primarily on explicating the later writings of Latour and is thus a useful paper to read as an adjunct to this briefing note. Justesen and Mouritsen (2011) reviewed papers from between 1988 and 2008 that cite Latour from the following four journals: Accounting, Organisations and Society, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Management Accounting Research and Critical Perspectives on Accounting. They highlighted that in 1988 one paper from these four journals cited Latour, a figure which has steadily increased to 25 papers from the journals citing Latour in 2008.

Justesen and Mouritsen's (2011) review also indicates that ANT is being used by scholars to reinforce the role of calculations rather than just human actors.

Given this focus on practice, data for potential capture might also include flip charts, the use of post-it notes, computer software, the spatial context, i.e. a room and its make-up, and even the CEO pacing up and down and more generally the role of the body and body movement (Rasche and Chia, 2009). These kinds of data also arguably require an expanded form of data capture that involves not just the text or audio-recordings but also visual capture via photograph or video (Johnson et al., 2007; Rasche and Chia, 2009). Further to audio and video, Strati (2010) discusses how when doing research at a site the researcher entering the site should use all five of their senses, since a reliance on visual and auditory media may be limiting and so perhaps researchers could also consider the use of smell, touch and even taste (should it be appropriate). However, in expanding the mode of data capture there may also be a requirement for an ANT account of a study to perhaps move away from a reliance on a written textual narrative in the form of a conventional journal article towards an account that incorporates not only text but also images and video. Thus the account may be delivered electronically and both read and viewed.

As Table 2 highlights, at the time of writing only one study, the Caron and Turcotte (2009) study of sustainability reports of ten Canadian companies and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) calculations, has been identified as using ANT and also being a study that could be argued as sitting broadly within the area of concern of the readership of this journal. Caron and Turcotte (2009) used ANT to bring forward the role of GRI calculations and also debate whether sustainability reports were a form of path dependence (i.e. suffering with corporate capture) or path creation (a new route for organisations). Caron and Turcotte (2009) summarised that sustainability reporting realised a mix of path dependency and creation for the organisations' reports that they studied.