Purpose – The purpose of this paper is threefold. To clarify what is meant by “pragmatism” as a philosophy for social and environmental accountability (SEA) research, to survey its use within this research field and to explore how a further pursuit of pragmatism may extend this research field. Design/methodology/approach – An extensive review of the SEA literature was conducted in order to determine what aspects of the philosophy of pragmatism have been used within the research. The authors organised the discussion of the literature around the pragmatist ideas of “truth” and “sensemaking”. Findings – SEA research is a heterogeneous space in which various ideas are commonly attributed to the philosophical notion of pragmatism. However, there is a tension in the literature between seeing accounting as a medium for representing social and environmental organisational activities and a pragmatist view of accountings as a way of allowing managers and stakeholder to make sense of these same activities. Research limitations/implications – A clearer development of the ideas of pragmatism may be used to redirect the focus of SEA research in a number of useful ways. Seeing accounting as a medium of sensemaking between organisations and their stakeholders allows the authors to widen the exploration of accounting not only to the production of reports but also their interpretation by users. The ideas of pragmatism also allow the authors to explore the ways stakeholders might affect change within organisations and how accounting may support this process rather than capture or limit it. Practical implications – This paper concludes by providing a set of methodological prescriptions for conducting future SEA research in a way that is inspired by pragmatism. It outlines an approach to research that focuses on users and their sensemaking and encourages an exploration of the possible ways accounting may create positive change in organisations. Originality/value – Overall, this paper refines what it means to follow pragmatism within SEA research. It will promote a clearer understanding of how we, as a research community, may engage with practice in more positive ways in order to facilitate corporate social responsibility.

PurposeThis paper explores how neoliberalism restrains the ability of governments to respond to crises through budgetary action. It examines the immediate budgetary responses to the COVID-19 pandemic by the Australian government and explores how the conditions created by prior neoliberal policies have limited these responses.Design/methodology/approachA review and examination of the prior literature on public budgeting and new public management are provided. The idea of a “neoliberal straitjacket” is used to frame the current budgetary and economic situation in Australia.FindingsThe paper examines the chronology of Australia's budgetary responses to the economic and health crisis created by COVID-19. These responses have taken the form of tax breaks and a temporary payment scheme for individuals made unemployed by the pandemic.Practical implicationsThe insights gained from this paper may help with future policy developments and promote future research on similar crises.Originality/valueThe analysis of Australia's policies in dealing with the pandemic may offer insights for other countries struggling to cope with the fiscal consequences of COVID-19.

No abstract

No abstract

The volume of work published by accounting scholars on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting is impressive. As a community we have explored ongoing developments in the field, including the accuracy of the accounts and their economic impact for various actors. We have also asked broader questions about the effect of CSR reporting on corporate accountability and responsibility. However, as it currently stands, our interests are separated because of specific epistemological approaches, and these have divided our efforts. Drawing inspiration from Donaldson and Preston (1995), we identify three streams of CSR reporting research, that is, descriptive, instrumental, and normative. Descriptive research asks: what is CSR reporting? It explores the content of reports and the effect of various contexts on the practice and quality of reporting. Instrumental research asks whether CSR pays, and explores the commercial and economic benefits of CSR for firms and the information value of disclosures for investors. Normative research examines the significance of CSR reporting at a societal level, asking whether these practices have improved organizations’ accountability to their stakeholders. While the main purpose of our paper is to review the CSR reporting literature (245 articles), we also map some of the positive impacts that may result from greater epistemological engagement between streams. We identify specific aspects of each stream that might benefit a cross‐pollination of ideas, findings, and insights. We argue that future CSR reporting will be enriched by conversations that extend beyond epistemological divides, which are more likely to mirror the complex reality of CSR in practice.