Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: an overview of the conceptual landscape

Abstract

In recent years there has been a marked resurgence of interest in the areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social and environmental accounting (SEA) among business, governments, public policymakers, investors, unions, environmentalists and others. While at one level there appears to be widespread agreement that CSR and SEA are worthy topics of attention, different groups have very different understandings of these fields. This article provides an analysis of these differences by comparing three broad approaches to SEA: the business case, stakeholder-accountability and critical theory approaches. It also responds to concerns a number of commentators have expressed regarding the current dominance of 'business case' perspectives. While not seeking to impose on readers a 'correct' way of viewing SEA and CSR, exposure to competing perspectives is viewed as one way of challenging us to think more reflectively about the frames available to us and their implications for the social realities we construct, embed or seek to change.

Discursive constructions of social and environmental accounting in Brazil: the case of Petrobras.

“…In the business case, Brown and Fraser (2006) reflect shareholders are the key stakeholders. In the public media, corporate sustainability reporting is a mode for accountants and others to disclose the business' activities.…”

“…If sustainability mainly serves the shareholders agenda, then poverty and no limits on growth as a result of the primarily focus on the economic development will be ignored (see the Brundtland Report). The principal interest of shareholders is the capital invested (Brown & Fraser, 2006). According to the Brundtland (1987), the capitaloriented decision denies the distribution of wealth and decreasing of poverty.…”

“…Because of that, SEA is primarily associated with business goals using this context 'sustainable development', 'corporate social responsibility' and 'social and environmental reporting' terminologies. These associations place SEA as a toolkit for the business industry that prioritises the maximisation of wealth for the key stakeholder: shareholder (Brown & Fraser, 2006). Nonetheless, SEA should engage in a dialogue with its stakeholders to highlight multidisciplinary issues such as social, justice, politics, environment and human rights (Bebbington, Gray & Owen, 1999;Bebbington, Brown, Frame & Thomson, 2007;O'Dwyer, 2005;Spence, 2009a).…”

“…Hawken claims for a constitution of a restorable agenda for damage and destruction. In this context, this illustrates how concepts such as SEA and sustainability are used by organisations in a political way, instead of advancing substantive political change including the reduction of poverty, wealth re-distribution, quality of life, environmental protection and so on (Lohmann, 2009;Brown & Fraser, 2006). Corporations promote agendas by incorporating CSR and SEA as part of their core business activities (Brown & Fraser, 2006, p. 105).…”

“…Chapter 2 presents the origin of SEA in sustainability, the multidisciplinary application to SEA in diverse fields and some notions constructed in accounting area. Chapter 3 investigates the Brazilian literature of SEA and international studies to demonstrate the status of the academy in sustaining the status quo using three main approaches of a previous framework (Brown & Fraser, 2006): business case, stakeholder-accountability approach and post-structuralist and critical theory.…”