Purpose: To provide theoretical and empirical insights into the effective use of external accounts by social activists in conflict arenas in order to bring about change.Design/methodology/approach: This article presents a longitudinal case study of Action on Smoking and Health UK (ASH) and their use of external accounts and other activist practices during the period 1999 -2010. We explore these practices from the perspective of one organisation engaged in conflict arenas concerning the (un)acceptability of tobacco production, consumption and governance. We conduct our exploration based upon a dynamic conflict arena framework that attends to the range of external accounting and activist practices, tactical intentions and states of conflict used by ASH to confront the tobacco industry and bring about change in tobacco governance. Findings:Our study identifies the use of a diverse range of external accounts and other activist practices. This assemblage of practices was used to confront, counter-act and to co-operate with actors engaged in tobacco-related conflicts. Our evidence suggests that the deployment of different types of external accounts by ASH was aligned to the context of the particular conflict arena involved, and was influenced by the strategy and engagement tactics of the activists and other actors, as well as power dynamics and acceptability of the tobacco governance in the conflict arena. Whilst ASH used different external accounts in specific episodes of activism, these individual accounts also contributed to an emerging holistic account of the unacceptable consequences of tobacco production, consumption and governance.Originality/value: This study provides new theoretical and empirical insights into how external accounts can contribute to the problematisation of governance and development of social and environmental change agendas. The dynamic conflict arena framework developed in this paper creates new visibilities and possibilities for developing external accounting practices and for researching this fast-developing area of social and environmental accounting.

This paper outlines the merits of two approaches to social impact measurement that are currently the subject of debate within the third sector: Social Accounting & Audit (SAA) and Social Return On Investment (SROI). Although there are significant similarities between the methods, a number of important differences remain. In particular, while SAA involves a more "conventional" mix of narrative and quantitative disclosures, SROI outcomes are more explicitly quantitative and reductive. This is most evident in the production of the "SROI ratio", which calculates a monetised "return" on a notional £1 of investment. In the UK, with available resources becoming increasingly scarce, the third sector is facing demands for increased accountability as well as being encouraged to "scale up" in preparation for assuming greater responsibility for public service delivery. In this context, it is easy to see why the simplicity and clarity of SROI is attractive to policy-makers, fundraisers and investors, who are keen to quantify and express social value creation and thus make comparative assessments of social value. However, this apparent simplicity also risks reducing the measurement of social impact to a potentially meaningless, or even misleading headline figure, and should therefore be treated with caution. This is especially so where exact measures are unobtainable, and approximations, or so-called "financial proxies" are used. The use of such proxies is highly subjective, especially when dealing with "softer" outcomes. There is nothing to prevent SROI being used within an SAA framework: indeed a greater emphasis on quantitative data could improve many social accounts. Nevertheless, we conclude that current efforts to promote SROI adoption, to the likely detriment of SAA, may ultimately promote a onedimensional funder and investor-driven approach to social impact measurement in the third sector.Word count: 4938

No abstract

Abstract

Purpose: This paper reviews and synthesises academic research in environmental accounting and demonstrates its shortcomings. It provokes scholars to rethink their conceptions of 'accounts' and 'nature', and alongside others in this AAAJ special issue, provides the basis for an agenda for theoretical and empirical research that begins to 'ecologise' accounting.Design/methodology/approach: Utilising a wide range of thought from accounting, geography, sociology, political ecology, nature writing and social activism, the paper provides an analysis and critique of key themes associated with 40 years research in environmental accounting. It then considers how that broad base of work in social science, particularly pragmatic sociology (e.g. Latour, Boltanksi and Thévenot), could contribute to reimagining an ecologically informed accounting.Findings: Environmental accounting research overwhelmingly focuses on economic entities and their inputs and outputs. Conceptually, an 'information throughput' model dominates. There is little or no environment in environmental accounting, and certainly no ecology. The papers in this AAAJ special issue contribute to these themes, and alongside social science literature, indicate significant opportunities for research to begin to overcome them.Research Implications: This paper outlines and encourages the advancement of ecological accounts and accountabilities drawing on conceptual resources across social sciences, arts and humanities. It identifies areas for research to develop its interdisciplinary potential to contribute to ecological sustainability and social justice.Originality: How to 'ecologise' accounting and conceptualise human and non-human entities has received little attention in accounting research. This paper and AAAJ special issue provides empirical, practical and theoretical material to advance further work.

No abstract

Purpose -This paper seeks to consider the impact and potential impact of social accounting at the macro level. It aims to explore the potential for "silent" or "shadow" social accounting to hold Anglo-American capitalism to account for its social outcomes relative to other "varieties of capitalism".Design/methodology/approach -The role of accounting in spreading Anglo-American capitalist values is outlined. This is followed by a discussion of macro social indicators and their potential to problematise social outcomes. In particular the paper reports on, and updates, an investigation of comparative child mortality figures in wealthy countries that appeared in the medical literature. This evidence is used both as an exemplar and as a substantive issue in its own right.Findings -The specific empirical evidence reported, based on a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of child mortality and its relationship to income inequality, exemplifies the consistently poor and relatively worsening performance of the AngloAmerican capitalist model. A rationale, and evidence, is also presented for the potential of such social reporting to act as an accountability mechanism.Originality/value -The paper introduces to the accounting literature specific evidence of poor social outcomes associated with Anglo-American capitalism. It considers the wider potential role of social indicators, as a component of silent and shadow reporting at a macro-level, in problematising dominant forms of economic and social organisation.

Article impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem‐based information systems.