“…As in the accounting and industrial relations arena, managerial perspectives are underpinned by a unitarist perspective that is reluctant to admit conflict (Brown, 2000). O'Dwyer (2003, p. 534), for example, found a general unwillingness among managers to accept the existence of situations where their economic and social responsibilities could conflict (although, when pressed, interviewees conceded that economic objectives would reign).…”
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.
“…As in the accounting and industrial relations arena, managerial perspectives are underpinned by a unitarist perspective that is reluctant to admit conflict (Brown, 2000). O'Dwyer (2003, p. 534), for example, found a general unwillingness among managers to accept the existence of situations where their economic and social responsibilities could conflict (although, when pressed, interviewees conceded that economic objectives would reign).…”
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.
“…Jackson and Carter, 2000); ways of broadening accounting practices are being discussed (e.g. Brown, 2000); CSR, for instance, has become a fi eld of study of its own and non-business organizations are part of the research agenda.…”
Section: Neoclassical Economics and Business Theory In Relation To Sdmentioning
“…A degree of pluralism is present, and the criticism of management theories and practices is often respected (Ferraro 2005). Organization theory, as an example, focuses on many kinds of organizations rather than narrowly limiting interest to business organizations, and may even take power relationships and ideology into account (Jackson 2000, Brown 2000.…”
Section: Principles Related To Paradigms In Economics and Business Mamentioning
theory of science, neoclassical economics, institutional economics, Political Economic Person, ideological orientation, Political Economic Organization, democracy, actor dialogue, B52, DO2, D60, Q56, Q57,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.