Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting

Abstract

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.

Just Look at the Numbers: A Case Study on Quantification in Corporate Environmental Disclosures

“…By framing the conversation around quantified information, an organisation can limit the opportunities of weaker stakeholder groups to participate in a conversation, as those with limited resources are not necessarily able to come up with convincing numbers. Thereby, we argue that the use of quantified information has potential implications for accountability relationships as well as power relations between diverse stakeholders in given social settings (see Dillard and Vinnari 2019). As such, we maintain in this paper that the ethical dimension of quantification deserves closer consideration than it is generally granted both in social settings and in scholarly work.…”

“…This leads us to consider the implications that quantification has on accountability. It has been noted that accountability relations are not something set in stone; instead, these become shaped in social structures and interactions between various actors (see Dillard and Vinnari 2019). That is, not only are accountability relationships fluid in terms of who an organisation would primarily be accountable to, but also in regard to how this accountability should be discharged.…”

From monologic to dialogic

“…However, traditional accounting attempts to depoliticise accounting through denying the political (Brown, 2009). In re-politicising accounting, researchers have drawn upon an agonistic approach to democracy (Brown, 2009(Brown, , 2017Dillard and Yuthas, 2013;Dillard, Yuthas and Baudot, 2016;Dillard and Vinnari, 2018;Vinnari and Dillard, 2016). An agonistic approach to democracy "recognizes the complexity of prevailing power dynamics and that competing perspectives and interests cannot be resolved through logic or reason" (Dillard and Yuthas, 2013, p. 114).…”

Exclusion of Human Resource Accounting in Statement of Financial Position and its Effects on Performance: Empirical Evidence of Ghana

“…In the present society, the words like 'data economy', 'information-based economy' and so forth has turned out to be exceptionally normal. Despite the fact that the matter of human knowledge is given so much significance nowadays, it is seen that the capital market still depends on budgetary data (Johanson, Martensson andSkoog, 2001, (Dillard andVinnari 2018)). The purpose for this can be said that as a profitable asset, the human resources does not demonstrate that much physical proof.…”

“…With this, Kenneth and Srinivas (2004) as cited in (Dainienė and Dagilienė 2014), proposed that higher capital value is linked with individuals with high skills than those with low skills. (Dillard and Vinnari 2018) also opined that young employees possess greater value that older people in respect to that fact that, other factors are held continual with the younger person having a longevity expected working life. Therefore, human resources create output rather than input intention ( Tollington and ElTawy -(2010).…”