Society is demanding that its institutions be accountable for more than economic performance. However, much research in the social and environmental accounting (SEA) literature suggests that an increased level of reporting has not prompted the anticipated increased levels of accountability. Accountability is limited by what is disclosed, and what is disclosed is limited by the extant accounting system (accounting-based accountability). Most current attempts at improving social and environmental accountability by increasing disclosure reflect, at best, incremental changes to the traditional accounting system, a system that has been explicitly designed to meet the needs of financial capital providers. Alternatively, we propose that accounting systems be designed to address specific requirements of alternative accountability systems (accountability-based accounting), and the accountability system requirements should reflect the salient evaluation criteria of the interested constituencies. We propose critical dialogic accountability as a way to conceptualize accountability systems in a pluralistic society characterized by multiple, and often conflicting, interests. We present a definition of accountability that illustrates its complexity, recognizes the salience of power for operative accountability relationships and can be applied both descriptively and normatively, providing a framework for assisting in the specification of the accountability systems and responsibility networks of various interest groups. We discuss some implications for both researchers and practitioners associated with SEA endeavors, concluding with a call for imagining box-breaking accountings that extend the conventional boundaries of the SEA field.

No abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to critically assess integrated reporting so as to "broaden out" and "open up" dialogue and debate about how accounting and reporting standards might assist or obstruct efforts to foster sustainable business practices. Design/methodology/approach-The authors link current debates about integrated reporting to prior research on the contested politics of social and environmental reporting, and critiques of the dominance of business case framings. The authors introduce research from science and technology studies that seeks to broaden out and open up appraisal methods and engagement processes in ways that highlight divergent framings and politically contentious issues, in an effort to develop empowering designs for sustainability. The authors demonstrate the strong resonance between this work and calls for the development of dialogic/polylogic accountings that take pluralism seriously by addressing constituencies and perspectives currently marginalized in mainstream accounting. The authors draw and build on both literatures to critically reflect on the International Integrated Reporting Council's (IIRC, 2011, 2012a, b, 2013a, b) advocacy of a business case approach to integrated reporting as an innovation that can contribute to sustainability transitions. Findings-The authors argue that integrated reporting, as conceived by the IIRC, provides a very limited and one-sided approach to assessing and reporting on sustainability issues. While the business case framing on which it rests might assist in extending the range of phenomena accounted for in organizational reports, it remains an ideologically closed approach that is more likely to reinforce rather than encourage critical reflection on "business as usual" practices. Recognizing that the meaning and design of integrated reporting are still far from stabilized, the authors also illustrate more enabling possibilities aimed at identifying and engaging diverse socio-political perspectives. Practical implications-Science and technology studies research on the need to broaden out and open up appraisal methods, together with proposals for dialogic/polylogic accountings, facilitates a critical, nuanced discussion of the value of integrated reporting as a change initiative that might foster transitions to more sustainable business practices. Originality/value-The authors link ideas and findings from science and technology studies with literature on dialogic/polylogic accountings to engage current debates around the merits of integrated reporting as a change initiative that can contribute to sustainability. This paper advances understanding of the role of accounting in sustainability transitions in three main ways: first, it takes discussion of accounting change beyond the organizational level, where much professional and academic literature is currently focussed, and extends existing critiques of business case approaches to social and environmental reporting; second, it emphasizes the political and power-laden nature of appraisal process...

Institutional theory is becoming one of the dominant theoretical perspectives in organization theory and is increasingly being applied in accounting research to study the practice of accounting in organizations. However, most institutional theory research has adequately theorized neither the institutionalization process through which change takes place nor the socio‐political context of the institutional formations. We propose a social theory based framework for grounding and expanding institutional theory to more fully articulate institutionalization processes. Specifically, we incorporate institutional theory and structuration theory and draw on the work of Max Weber in developing a framework of the context and the processes associated with creating, adopting and discarding institutional practices. We propose that the expanded framework depicts the socio‐economic and political context better and more directly addresses the dynamics of enacting, embedding and changing organizational features and processes. Expanding the focus of the institutional theory based accounting research can facilitate a more comprehensive representation of accounting as the object of institutional practices as well as provide a better articulation of the role of accounting in the institutionalization process.