Socializing accounting practices in governing boards: dairy co-operatives down-under

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the accountability practices of the directors in New Zealand and Australian dairy co-operatives. An interpretation of their practices, which focus on the relationship between directors and their farmer-shareholders, is informed by Roberts’ (2001a) understandings of a socializing accountability. Design/methodology/approach – The fieldwork consists of interviews with 23 directors, including all chief executive officers and chairmen, of six dairy co-operatives together with observations and document analysis. These co-operatives together comprise a significant portion of the regional dairy industry. The methodology draws from Eisenhardt’s (1989) qualitative approach to theory formation. Findings – The authors find that these directors engage in a discourse-based, community-grounded and egalitarian form of socializing accountability. As such, their practices adhere generally to Roberts (2001a) hopes for a more considerate and humble relationship between an accountor and an accountee. Social implications – Findings add to the small pool of research on the lived experiences of co-operative boards and to a parsimonious literature in socializing accountability practices. The contributions of the study are in advancing real understandings of alternative forms of accountability, in evaluating the conditions in which these alternatives may be likely to arise and in anticipating the challenges and opportunities that arise therefrom. Originality/value – The originality of the project arises from accessing the views of these industry leaders and, through their frank expressions, coming to understand how they achieve a form of a socializing accountability in their relationships with farmer-shareholders.

Alleviating social and economic inequality? The role of social enterprises in Thailand

“…These SET investments are tax deductible. SEs may find it challenging to manage investors and members (Mamouni Limnios et al, 2016, Van Peursem et al, 2016, however we have not assessed how the SEs receiving these SET investments have balanced the investors' needs and those of their members/beneficiaries. Figure II shows the framework of how SEs can reduce inequality in Thailand.…”

“…SEs seek both social impact/benefits for beneficiaries (similar to not-forprofit organizations) and their own profits to be financially sustainable (similar to for-profit organizations). For example, Quayes and Hasan's (2014) research a not-for-profit microfinance SE providing financial services to low-income earners with limited access to regular finance, which is self-funding rather than relying on donations as would a pure notfor-profit organization, whereas Van Peursem et al (2016) analyse an agricultural cooperative SE developing better farming technology to increase farmers' productivity and profit, rather than exclusively shareholder returns. These SEs must balance the dual missions of financial sustainability and social goals (Ebrahim et al, 2014;Doherty et al, 2014).…”

“…For example, when cooperatives must raise external capital in addition to members' contributions and these external investor's interests do not align with those of the members, the SE may drift from its original social mission/s (Mamouni Limnios et al, 2016). Van Peursem et al (2016) find that investors seek standard reports and indicators, while farmer members prefer face-to-face communication to assist their understanding of the cooperative's performance.…”

Resilience in food processing supply chain networks: empirical evidence from the Indian dairy operations

“…Select studies on dairy supply chains have dealt with themes such as business cycle sustainability (Svensson and Wagner, 2012); the relationship between price satisfaction and performance (Boniface et al , 2012); supply chain orientation in SMEs (Dries et al , 2014); resilience issues across vertical relations (Schulze-Ehlers et al , 2014); quality failures (Enderwick, 2009) and the oligopolistic and oligopsonistic nature of the Chinese dairy industry (Dai and Wang, 2014); supervision environments, warehouse service quality and company growth (Akhtar and Fischer, 2014); and price and behavioural factors affecting business relationship quality (Falkowski, 2015). Other themes include the impact of German regional policy changes and their implications in terms of market income opportunities (Gyau et al , 2015), the competitiveness of Hungarian dairies during the period of the financial crisis (Tálas and Rózsa, 2015), barriers to production in Brazilian dairies (Bonamigo et al , 2016), accountability practices among New Zealand and Australian dairy cooperatives (Peursem and Stuart Locke, 2016), barriers to and facilitators of the adoption of a hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) in Armenia (Galstyan and Harutyunyan, 2016), six sigma and environmental sustainability in Norway (Powell et al , 2017), the technical efficiency of dairy farms (Mareth et al , 2017) and quality certifications in dairies in Greece (Katerina and Vouzas, 2017). Glover (2020) explores unintended consequences of implementing sustainability in the dairy food supply chain and reveals that retailers have strengthened their dominant position through using sustainable supply chains to exert further control over their supplier and economically and socially dividing rural communities.…”

Virtual forums for public accountability: How internet and communication technologies are influencing citizen interactions with a local government

“…Accountability has been widely defined and conceptualized by scholars in diverse research areas. The notion of accountability has been recognized as a significant economic and social factor (VanPeursem et al., 2016). A review of the accountability literature identifies that to be accountable generally means that some parties are under an obligation to explain and justify their conduct to others (Broadbent et al., 1996, 1999; Broadbent & Laughlin, 2003; Messner, 2009; Roberts, 1991, 2001; Roberts & Scapens, 1985).…”