www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
AAAJ
22,1 Conceptualising future change in
corporate sustainability reporting
Carol A. Adams
118 La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, and
Glen Whelan
Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualise how future changes in corporate social
disclosure (CSD), aimed at improving accountability for corporate performance to key stakeholder
groups, might be brought about.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on the work of the Austrian economist Ludwig von
Mises with respect to human (and organisational) action and the work of Leon Festinger and Kurt
Lewin with respect to human (and organisational) change, the paper examines how academics and
other corporate stakeholders might effect changes in CSD.
Findings – Managers act in a way which maximises their formal happiness (from von Mises) and
change occurs following the creation of cognitive dissonance (Festinger) which leads to “unfreezing”
(Lewin). Stakeholders can effect change by creating cognitive dissonance. With specific reference to
Anglo-American limited liability and publicly traded corporations, such cognitive dissonance and
unfreezing normally involves a perceived threat to profitability.
Research limitations/implications – Research and theorising in corporate social disclosure
patterns should take as given: that the managers of Anglo-American limited liability and publicly
traded corporations continue to be strongly encouraged, via both legal and remunerative means, to
maximize shareholder wealth; and that this state of affairs significantly influences the information
which management choose to disclose. Future research might instead examine and consider means of
creating sources of dissonance significant enough to result in managerial concern for change within
the constraints imposed on managers of Anglo-American corporations. Such research might be
conducted by engaging with organisations and their stakeholders.
Practical implications – The findings have implications for the manner in which corporate
stakeholders act and interrelate with others in order to effect change towards more complete and
credible sustainability reports which demonstrate accountability for material impacts to key
stakeholder groups.
Originality/value – The paper focuses on how change in corporate behaviour might be brought
about given the personal motivations and institutional constraints imposed on the behaviour of
corporate actors.
Keywords Stakeholder analysis, Disclosure, Organizational change, Financial reporting
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Parker (2005) has described the scholarly literature concerned with corporate social
disclosure (CSD) as “voluminous, disparate, eclectic”, and as existing “without
Accounting, Auditing & commonly agreed philosophies or standpoints” (p. 844) (see also Deegan, 2000, 2002;
Accountability Journal Gray, 2002; Gray et al., 1995, 1996; Mathews, 1993, 1997; Parker, 2005). While diversity
Vol. 22 No. 1, 2009
pp. 118-143
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and to Lee Parker for their comments on
DOI 10.1108/09513570910923033 this paper.
in these regards is often valuable, it can sometimes conceal both theoretical overlap Future change in
and, where one standpoint is promoted, the explanatory power of other perspectives. corporate
For example, the failure to recognise that stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory
cover similar ground can result in the corresponding failure to realise that they are reporting
complementary rather than opposed (e.g. Deegan and Blomquist, 2006; Gray et al.,
1995, p. 5; Gray et al., 1996, p. 52).
In addition to the complexities surrounding the proliferation of theoretical 119
perspectives, scholars of corporate social disclosure are also confronted with complex
social, political and economic contexts that differ from Nation-State to Nation-State.
Failure to acknowledge these differing contexts can mask the complexity of drivers for
both disclosure and corporate silence (see Adams and Harte, 1998; Adams and
McPhail, 2004; Burchell et al., 1980; Guthrie and Parker, 1989a, b; Tinker and Neimark,
1987). And, further to this “macro” or “political economic’ level of complexity, scholars
of corporate social disclosure also face complexity at the more “meso” or
“organisational” level: for internal reporting processes, corporate cultures, power
structures, and institutional influences, also impact on our ability to understand how
change might occur (see Adams, 2002; Adams and Larrinaga-González, 2007; Adams
and McNicholas, 2007; Albelda-Pérez et al., 2007; Belal and Owen, 2007; Dey, 2007;
O’Dwyer and Unerman, 2007 for insights into the change process).
In light of the previously mentioned complexities – and in light of Parker’s (2005,
p. 849) suggestion that “pluralism in theoretical lenses and methodologies applied to
common research problems can yield incremental and accumulating insights that are
enriched by both commonality and difference” – the present paper draws on a number
of scholarly traditions that have yet to be utilised within the corporate social disclosure
literature, and provides a theoretical perspective that can further interrelate, and more
clearly orientate, at least some of the field’s multitude of interests and perspectives.
In completing this task, we utilise a specific conception of human (and
organisational) action, and a specific conception of human (and organisational)
change. The conception of human (and organisational) action draws on the work of the
“Austrian” economist Ludwig von Mises, and is outlined in section 2. Section 3 then
outlines the conception of human (and organisational) change with reference to
Festinger’s idea of cognitive dissonance, and Lewin’s three step model of change.
Following this, and in building on the discussions of the sections 2 and 3, section 4
clarifies the importance of identifying the personal motivations and political-economic
structures that tend to limit the ways in which patterns of CSD might be changed. In
specific regard to Anglo-American countries, section 4 emphasises:
.
that the managers of corporations continue to be strongly encouraged, via both
legal and remunerative means, to try to maximize shareholder wealth; and
.
that this state of affairs significantly influences the information management
decide to disclose.
Section 5 then identifies five corporate stakeholders – i.e. governments, academia,
non-government organisations (NGOs), the media, and the corporate social
responsibility (CSR) industry – and the sources of corporate cognitive dissonance,
which they can create. We argue that these five sources of dissonance can potentially
lead to the managers of Anglo-American corporations feeling motivated to initiate a
change in patterns of CSD. In doing so, section 5 highlights how the theoretical
AAAJ discussions of sections 2 and 3 combine to suggest that scholars of CSD need to
22,1 acknowledge the institutional realities that encourage managers of Anglo-American
limited liability and publicly traded corporations to try to maximise shareholder
wealth (as outlined in section 4). Furthermore, section 5 highlights that these
institutional realities result in their being limited means by which to encourage
managers to change patterns of CSD and improve accountability.
120 In concluding, we suggest that future research into changing patterns of CSD needs to:
.
be more concerned with the interrelationship of multiple factors that could
potentially give rise to change;
.
identify and understand the ways in which different managerial attitudes and
cultures will result in different factors being more likely to give rise to a felt need
for change;
.
identify how corporate actors go about changing patterns of CSD on realising a
felt need for change;
.
identify and understand the attitudes, institutions and priorities of non-corporate
actors concerned to give rise to change in patterns of CSD, and how they impact
on their choice of strategies; and
.
be more nuanced and sophisticated in regard to understanding the political
realities that potentially limit change.
This future research could be conducted using methods which engage with
organisations and organisational stakeholders, and, by utilising theories that allow
change at the individual, organisational and institutional level, to be examined (see
Adams and Larrinaga-González, 2007).
Governments
Those countries previously described as Anglo-American can be considered liberal
democracies. As the descriptor suggests, such countries tend to be governed in the
name of the people, and tend to operate along lines that are more or less consistent with
some form of liberalism. For the present purpose, there are two fundamental points
that need to be made in regard to such societies. First, it must be noted that such
societies have systems of government in which the citizens of that society determine,
via periodical voting and majority rule, which people or which political party will be
responsible for governing them over a given period of time. In this way, it is thought
that politicians can be held accountable to the citizens in whose name they are meant to
govern (see Held, 1993, 1995 more generally).
Second, it must be noted that such societies have, while championing liberty and
freedom to some extent, never fully recognized the deontological arguments of
libertarians (e.g. Nozick, 1974; Rothbard, 1978). In regard to the commercial sphere for
instance, such societies have, while protecting the right of business people to profit,
simultaneously taxed, controlled and directed their activities in the name of certain
AAAJ equalities and the “social good”. In doing so, such societies have similarly refused to
22,1 fully accept the various utilitarian arguments commonly made in favour of free
markets, e.g. that free markets tend to maximize overall social welfare by linking the
capacity to personally prosper with the satisfaction of the wants and desires of others,
or, that free markets tend not to misallocate productive resources in the same way as
governments – and which, are often associated with Adam Smith’s The Wealth of
130 Nations (1986). The reasons why Anglo-American countries have not fully accepted the
various utilitarian arguments that can be made for free markets are commonly related
to the belief that free markets fail to provide various public goods, and, that free
markets commonly result in excessively high levels of negative externalities being
produced.
The importance of making the previous two points is that liberally-democratic
governments already have significant regulatory control over existing patterns of CSD
and corporate behaviour more generally. Furthermore, the recognition of such is
important because, should politicians consider a potential change in the regulatory
framework as being politically popular and feasible, then they will likely be concerned
to try to change the regulatory frameworks accordingly. Whenever this occurs, and
whenever financial costs are associated with the failure of corporate compliance, then
managers are likely to be concerned to change patterns of CSD.
Many academics, NGOs, and people more generally, have argued in favour of
making corporate reporting of social and environmental impacts mandatory (Hess and
Dunfee, 2007; O’Dwyer et al., 2005). However, legislation, while being an important
catalyst for change, will not necessarily diminish the corporate concern to maximize
shareholder wealth so long as the institutional pressures and remunerative
mechanisms mentioned previously remain intact (CORE, 2003; Owen et al., 2000;
2001; Owen 2005a, b) and/or, legislated reporting requirements are not enforced
(Adams et al., 1995). Furthermore, it must also be noted that governments are often
considered somewhat restricted when it comes to issuing regulations that will result in,
or are perceived as potentially resulting in, decreased returns on invested monies due
to the possibility of “capital flight” and the purported existence of a “race to the
bottom”.
The importance of mentioning the idea of “capital flight”, and the idea of a “race to
the bottom”, is that the supposed existence thereof is commonly considered to diminish
the extent to which governments can regulate capital in a globalised world. This
assumption is one that is commonly made by both populist writers (e.g. Friedman,
1999) and academics (e.g. Detomasi, 2007; Matten and Crane, 2005; Scherer et al., 2006;
Scherer and Smid, 2000; van Oosterhout, forthcoming). Thus – and given that this
sub-section of the paper is concerned to argue that government legislation and
regulation is an important source of potential cognitive dissonance for managers – it
must be noted that it is increasingly recognized that, at worst, such ideas are a fiction,
and that at best, the importance of such phenomena are significantly overstated. The
likes of Görg et al. (2007) and Jensen (2006) for example, have convincingly argued that,
rather than being attracted to countries with minimal regulative and fiscal regimes,
multinational corporations are actually attracted to countries characterized by
democratic institutions with redistributive social welfare policies (among other things).
The point to note then, is that governments can still regulate the activities of
corporations in our presently “globalized” world.
Academia Future change in
Academics are, through their research and teaching, a potential source of cognitive corporate
dissonance for managers concerned with CSD. Cooper (2005) makes a strong case for a
greater role for academics in the promotion of the public interest though involvement reporting
in social movements. Bebbington et al. (2007) consider a variety of modes of
engagement, which might lead to an improvement in the sustainability performance of
organisations, and Adams and Larrinaga-González (2007) advocate direct engagement 131
with companies and other organisations aimed (directly or indirectly) at improving
organisational sustainability performance and/or accountability for it. Adams (2002),
Adams and McNicholas (2007), Albelda-Pérez et al. (2007), Belal and Owen (2007), Dey
(2007) Larrinaga-Gonzalez et al. (2001); O’Dwyer (2002, 2003), and O’Dwyer and
Unerman (2007) are examples of this type of research which gives insights into
organisational (change) processes.
Research and teaching that is critical of CSD patterns could give rise to a perceived
need to change patterns of CSD. Adams (2004), for example, details the manner in
which one company’s patterns of disclosure regarding ethical, social and
environmental impacts were at best inconsistent with a great deal of other
information available in the public domain, and, at worst, deliberately misleading
resulting in a reporting-performance portrayal gap which would not be tolerated in
financial reporting. In much the same fashion, Beder (1997), Bruno (2007), Dey (2004)
and Laufer (2003) have noted that a great deal of information released by corporations
is, more or less, disinformation. Such research could potentially encourage a more
honest corporate concern with issues of CSD and accountability for fear of corporate
reputations being tarnished. Furthermore, such research could be used to bolster
arguments suggesting the need for mandatory reporting, and the policing of reporting
practices, something corporate managers at least occasionally resist.
In reference to the potential impact academics might have on patterns of CSD, it is
necessary to make brief reference to the system of constraints and incentives that has
come to guide much of academia. For example, and as Parker et al. (1998) and Parker
and Guthrie (2005) have noted, academics who wish to succeed (through promotion to
professorial positions for example), are increasingly having to concern themselves with
publication in “leading” journals. However, many of the “leading” journals in the
spheres of accounting and management research are not necessarily interested in
publishing work that is “excessively” critical of corporate practices. Getting published
in leading journals often necessitates that academics pursue more short term, and
“neat” research (Parker and Guthrie, 2005, p. 7).
Further, there is the potential for academics who concentrate on publication in
leading journals neglecting, or “having” to neglect, other roles that have traditionally
been considered important. For example, publications in professional journals – which
might be considered an important site of academic communication with the world more
generally – are of little or no value in the current academic market place (Parker et al.,
1998, pp. 387-9). The need to generate multiple revenue streams has also resulted in
universities increasingly having to increase student numbers and look to the
commercial sector for funding (Parker and Guthrie, 2005). This can serve to decrease
the time which academics have to devote to research and advocacy, particularly in
disciplines where suitably qualified staff are in short supply.
AAAJ As all this suggests, there are certain institutional forces – which importantly,
22,1 academics often help to create – that place limits on the potential of academics to
engage in long term critical projects, and which, place a limit on the extent to which
academics might communicate their critical perspectives with society more generally.
Nevertheless, academic research and teaching can:
.
influence students who then become employees and who, in most instances, are
132 already voting citizens;
.
influence the media;
.
influence NGOs;
.
influence governments and their policies; and
.
influence corporations more directly (though consulting for example).
Each of these actions can potentially create cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and
unfreezing (Lewin, 1947) within the managerial mindset, and, as a result, potentially
give rise to the belief that patterns of CSD need to change (whether for reasons of
“profitability”, or, in an effort to comply with the “general rules of society”).
NGOs
While NGOs are difficult to define (see, for example, Gray et al., 2006, pp. 324-7;
Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2006, pp. 307-9), it will suffice for our purposes to mention that
they often engage in campaigning and/or advocacy activities:, e.g. NGOs often
campaign in the name of the environment and human rights (Unerman and O’Dwyer,
2006, p. 312). In other words, NGOs are often concerned to shape both the formal and
informal rules that govern one aspect of social life or another, and thus, can be
considered civil society actors (Scholte, 2002, p. 283).
In their campaigning and/or advocacy activities, NGOs often try to:
.
indirectly impact on the activities of corporations through encouraging
governments and multi-lateral organisations around the world to change their
regulative and legislative structures; and
.
directly impact on corporate activities.
As has already been noted previously, CORE, 2003) have been concerned to get the
regulations surrounding corporate governance changed so as to ensure that the
management of corporations manage in the name of all stakeholders. The World
Wildlife Fund, on the other hand, have engaged with the Australian mining industry
and managed to give rise to at least some change in patterns of CSD (Deegan and
Blomquist, 2006). More generally in this second regard, it is difficult to imagine that the
activities of groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (2007)
and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) have not been the source of at least some
cognitive dissonance within the fast food industry. For example, the Kentucky Fried
Cruelty campaign of PETA – www.kfccruelty.com/ – will have probably played at
least some minimal role in KFC’s (2007) decision to publish information about their
Animal Welfare Program on the internet: www.kfc.com/about/animalwelfare.asp.
Further to these activities, campaigning and/or advocacy NGOs are also commonly
involved in Global Public Policy Networks (GPPN). Such networks come into being
when corporations, NGOs and governments are, more or less simultaneously and
equally, involved in the formation of various institutions (Detomasi, 2007). The Global Future change in
Reporting Initiative (GRI) is one illustration of a GPPN that has recently emerged and corporate
which is specifically concerned with patterns of CSD (e.g. Detomasi, 2007, p. 330; Hess
and Dunfee, 2007, pp. 24-8; Willis, 2003). reporting
As all these examples highlight, NGOs often play a role in unfreezing, though the
funder-led social accountability initiative studied by O’Dwyer and Unerman (2007)
aimed at embedding a social accountability focus in the Irish (development NGO 133
(NGDO) sector itself failed. O’Dwyer and Unerman (2007) found that the initiative’s
adoption was seen as superficial and unsatisfactory by the primary funder and was
viewed by the NGDOs as “just another funding mechanism”.
Media
In their paper on the CSD patterns of BHP, Deegan et al. (2002) have suggested
that the media has a more or less clear and direct impact on what corporations do
and do not disclose in regard to their activities. More particularly, they suggest
that corporations will often try to defend the legitimacy of their activities in light
of such legitimacy being called into question via various means. In other words,
Deegan et al. (2002) suggest that corporations will often change their patterns of
CSD in light of media reports, which might potentially damage their corporate
reputation. One particularly clear example of a corporation changing their patterns
of CSD in light of media attention is McDonald’s. McDonald’s (2007a) corporate
reputation has been under attack for quite some time. Given both the size of the
business and the business they are in, it is, among other things, unsurprising that
they have been a figure of hate for those championing animal rights (e.g. PETA,
ALF). Recently this more general hatred has manifested itself in a number of films
of moderate success.
In the McLibel film– which was originally released in 1998 and subsequently
re-released in 2005 – the story is told of two anarchist activists who take on the legal
might of McDonald’s and, for all intents and purposes, win. Basically, the film tells the
story of the two activists and the manner in which they were taken to court for handing
out some leaflets in front of one of McDonald’s stores in London. Among other things,
the leaflets suggested that McDonald’s were not really being nice to animals; that they
were producing food that was not necessarily that nutritious; and, that they were
responsible for some considerable amount of environmental destruction. McDonald’s
objected to this information being distributed in front of one of their London stores and
took the “The McLibel Two” to court (with little or no success). The story is a classic
David vs Goliath battle in which McDonald’s and its corporate executives are painted
in a poor light. The case itself, and the release of the two films, have received massive
media attention over the years, and have generated a similarly large anti-McDonald’s
web-presence (e.g. www.mcspotlight.org).
The other film of recent date to specifically target McDonald’s is Super Size Me
(2004). In this film, the filmmaker Morgan Spurlock embarks on an experiment that
requires him to eat three meals a day at McDonald’s for a month. In the process,
Spurlock has periodic health check-ups that suggest the food he is eating is having a
significant negative impact on his overall health, e.g. he gets fatter, his blood pressure
goes up, and so on. McDonald’s in the UK have countered the claims of Super Size Me
with a web site (McDonald’s, 2007b). And, given more general concerns about their
AAAJ activities, McDonald’s in the UK are currently maintaining another web site with the
22,1 following URL: www.makeupyourownmind.co.uk/ As both URLs suggest, McDonald’s
patterns of CSD have been influenced to at least a minimal extent by much of the
negative sentiments about the company one can find in the media. Much like NGOs
then, these filmmakers, producers and directors can be considered civil society actors
in that their aim is to impact on both the formal and informal rules governing social life
134 and the actions required by McDonald’s to maximise shareholder wealth.
Note
1. This is not the real name of the company. It was not named by Adams (2004).
References
AccountAbility (1999), AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000) Framework. Standards, Guidelines and
Professional Qualification, The Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility, London.
AccountAbility and Utopies (2007), Critical Friends: The Emerging Role of Stakeholder Panels in
Corporate Governance, Reporting and Assurance, The Institute of Social and Ethical
AccountAbility and Utopies, London.
Adams, C.A. (2002), “Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical
reporting: beyond current theorising”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 223-50.
Adams, C. (2004), “The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 731-57.
Adams, C.A. and Harte, G. (1998), “The changing portrayal of the employment of women in
British banks’ and retail companies’ corporate annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 781-812.
Adams, C.A. and Larrinaga-González, C. (2007), “Engaging with organisations in pursuit of
improved sustainability accounting and performance”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 333-55.
Adams, C.A. and McNicholas, P. (2007), “Making a difference: sustainability reporting,
accountability and organisational change”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 382-402.
Adams, C.A. and McPhail, K.J. (2004), “Reporting and the politics of difference: (non)disclosure
on ethnic minorities”, Abacus, Vol. 40 No. 3, p. 405.
Adams, C.A., Coutts, A. and Harte, G. (1995), “Corporate equal opportunities (non)disclosure”,
British Accounting Review, Vol. 27, pp. 87-108.
Albelda-Pérez, E., Correa-Ruı́z, C. and Carrasco-Fenech, F. (2007), “Environmental management
systems and management accounting practices as engagement tools for Spanish
companies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 403-22.
AAAJ Bebbington, J., Larrinaga-González, C. and Moneva, J. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility
reporting and reputation risk management”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
22,1 Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 337-61.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B. and Thomson, I. (2007), “Theorizing engagement: the
potential of a critical dialogic approach”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 356-81.
138 Beder, S. (1997), Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, Chelsea Green, White
River Junction, VT.
Beerworth, B. (2004/2005), “A modest proposal: recognise the existence of stakeholders”,
Company Director, Vol. 20 No. 11, pp. 13-15.
Belal, A.R. and Owen, D.L. (2007), “The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and
future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh: an engagement based study”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 472-94.
Bostock, T. (2004/2005), “Is Beerworth’s proposal really so modest?”, Company Director, Vol. 20
No. 11, pp. 15-18.
Bragdon, J.H. Jr and Marlin, J.A.T. (1972), “Is pollution profitable?”, Risk Management, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 9-18.
Bruno, K. (2007), “The world of Greenwash”, CorpWatch, January 1, available at: www.
corpwatch.org/article.php?id ¼ 244 (accessed 19 March, 2007).
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J. and Nahapiet, J. (1980), “The roles of accounting
in organizations and society”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Burnes, B. (2004), “Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future?”, Journal of Change
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-25.
CORE (2003), With Rights Come Responsibilities, The Corporate Responsibility Coalition,
available at: www.amnesty.org.uk/images/ul/core_brochure.pdf (accessed 19 March 2007).
Coffee, J.C. Jr (2004), “What caused Enron? a casual social and economic history of the 1990s”, in
Clarke, T. (Ed.), Theories of Corporate Governance, Routledge, London, pp. 333-58.
Collison, D.J. (2003), “Corporate propaganda: its implications for accounting and accountability”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 853-86.
Cooper, C. (2005), “Accounting for the public interest: public ineffectuals or public intellectuals?”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 592-607.
Cormier, D., Magnan, M. and van Velthoven, B. (2005), “Environmental disclosure quality in
large German companies: economic incentives, public pressures or institutional
conditions?”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-39.
Cragg, W. (2002), “Business ethics and stakeholder theory”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 113-42.
Deakin, S. (2005), “The coming transformation of shareholder value”, Corporate Governance,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 11-18.
Deegan, C. (2000), Financial Accounting Theory, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Sydney.
Deegan, C. (2002), “Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures –
a theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 282-311.
Deegan, C. and Blomquist, C. (2006), “Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: an
exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals
industry”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 Nos 4-5, pp. 343-72.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Tobin, J. (2002), “An examination of the corporate social and Future change in
environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 312-43.
corporate
Detomasi, D.A. (2007), “The multinational corporation and global governance: modelling global reporting
public policy networks”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 71, pp. 321-34.
Dey, C. (2004), “Reviving the external social audits? Corporate ‘silent’ and ‘shadow’ social
accounting”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Accounting 139
Association, University of York, York, 14-16 April.
Dey, C. (2007), “Social accounting at Traidcraft PLC: a struggle for the meaning of fair trade”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 423-45.
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CT.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman/Ballinger, Boston,
MA.
Friedman, M. (1982), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Friedman, M. (1997), “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”,
in Beauchamp, T.L. and Bowie, N.E. (Eds), Ethical Theory and Business, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Friedman, T. (1999), The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, New York, NY.
Georgakopoulos, G. and Thomson, I. (n.d.), “Social reporting, engagements, controversies and
conflict in an arena context”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, forthcoming.
Görg, H., Molana, H. and Montagna, C. (2007), “Foreign direct investment, tax competition and
social expenditure”, Globalization, Productivity and Technology, Research Paper
No. 03-2007, Leverhulme Centre for Research on Globalisation and Economic Policy,
The University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
Gray, R. (2002), “The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society,
privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27, pp. 687-708.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting: a
review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 45-77.
Gray, R., Bebbington, J. and Collison, D. (2006), “NGOs, civil society and accountability: making
the people accountable to capital”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 319-48.
Gray, R., Owen, D. and Adams, C. (1996), Accounting & Accountability: Change and Challenges in
Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Prentice-Hall, London.
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (1989a), “Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory”,
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 76, pp. 343-52.
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (1989b), “Continuity and discontinuity in corporate social reporting:
a critical case study of BHP reporting 1885-1985”, working paper.
Held, D. (1993), “Democracy: from city-states to a cosmopolitan order?”, in Held, D. (Ed.),
Prospects for Democracy: North, South, East West, Stanford University Press, Stanford,
CT, pp. 13-52.
Held, D. (1995), Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan
Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge.
AAAJ Hess, D. and Dunfee, T.W. (2007), “The Kasky-Nike threat to corporate social reporting:
implementing a standard of optimal truthful disclosure as a solution”, Business Ethics
22,1 Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Hoppe, H.-H. (1997), “On certainty and uncertainty, or: how rational can our expectations be?”,
The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 49-78.
Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976), “Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and
140 ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 305-60.
Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1994), “The nature of man”, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 4-19.
Jensen, N.M. (2006), Nation-States and the Multinational Corporation: A Political Economy of
Foreign Direct Investment, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Kant, I. (1998), Critique of Pure Reason, in Guyer, P. and Wood, A. (Eds), Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
KFC (2007), Animal Welfare Program, available at: www.kfc.com/about/animalwelfare.asp
(accessed 24 November).
Kit-Wye, L.-L. (2004), “Defining corporate social responsibility – a Singapore perspective”,
Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 131-56.
Lachmann, L. (1976), “From von Mises to shackle: an essay on Austrian economics and the
Kaleidic society”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 55-9.
Lachmann, L. (1986), The Market as an Economic Process, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., Carrasco-Fenech, F., Caro-Gonzalez, F.J., Correa-Ruiz, C. and
Paez-Sandubete, J.M. (2001), “The role of environmental accounting in organizational
change: an exploration of Spanish companies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 213-39.
Laufer, W.S. (2003), “Social accountability and corporate greenwashing”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 43, pp. 253-61.
Lewin, K. (1947), “Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method, and reality in social science”,
Human Relations, Vol. 1, pp. 5-42.
Lewin, K. (1959), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, Tavistock
Publications, London.
Lindblom, C.K. (1993), “The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social
performance and disclosure”, paper presented at Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Conference, New York, NY.
McDonald’s (2007a), available at: www.supersizeme-thedebate.co.uk/ (accessed 24 November).
McDonald’s (2007b), available at: www.makeupyourownmind.co.uk/ (accessed 24 November).
Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P. (2003), “Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by
business”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp. 263-5.
Marrow, A.J. (1969), The Practical Theorist: The Life and Works of Kurt Lewin, Basic Books, New
York, NY.
Mathews, M.R. (1993), Socially Responsible Accounting, Chapman and Hall, London.
Mathews, M.R. (1997), “Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: is
there a silver jubilee to celebrate?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 481-531.
Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005), “Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical
conception”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 166-79.
Menger, C. (2004) in Dingwall, J. and Hoselitz, B.F. (Eds), Principles of Economics, Ludwig von Future change in
Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, available at: www.mises.org/etexts/menger/Mengerprinciples.
pdf (accessed 20 October 2006). corporate
Moskowitz, M. (1972), “Choosing socially responsible stocks”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 1, reporting
pp. 71-5.
Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books, Oxford.
O’Dwyer, B. (2002), “Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish story”, 141
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 406-36.
O’Dwyer, B. (2003), “Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial
capture”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 523-57.
O’Dwyer, B. and Unerman, J. (2007), “From functional to social accountability: transforming the
accountability relationship between funders and non-governmental development
organisations”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 446-71.
O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. and Bradley, J. (2005), “Perceptions on the emergence and future
development of corporate social disclosure in Ireland”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 14-43.
Oakley, A. (1993), The Foundations of Austrian Economics from Menger to Mises:
A Critico-Historical Retrospective of Subjectivism, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Oakley, A. (1999), The Revival of Modern Austrian Economics: A Critical Assessment of its
Subjectivist Origins, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Owen, D. (2005a), Corporate Social Reporting and Stakeholder Accountability – The Missing Link,
ICCSR Research Paper No. 32-2005, International Centre for Corporate Social
Responsibility, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham.
Owen, D. (2005b), “CSR after Enron: a role for the academic accounting profession?”, European
Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 393-404.
Owen, D., Swift, T. and Hunt, K. (2001), “Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in
social and ethical accounting”, Auditing and Reporting, Accounting Forum, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 264-82.
Owen, D., Swift, T., Humphrey, C. and Bowerman, M. (2000), “The new social audits:
accountability, managerial capture or the social champions?”, European Accounting
Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 81-98.
Paine, L.S. (2000), “Does ethics pay?”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 319-30.
Parker, L.D. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the
commentary box”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842-60.
Parker, L. and Guthrie, J. (2005), “Editorial – welcome to ‘the rough and tumble’: managing
accounting research in a corporatised world”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-13.
Parker, L., Guthrie, J. and Gray, R. (1998), “Accounting and management research: passwords
from the gatekeepers”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 371-402.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2007), Kentucky Fried Cruelty, PETA, available at:
www.kfccruelty.com/ (accessed 24 November 2007).
Rothbard, M. (1957), “In defense of ‘extreme apriorism’”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 314-20, available at: www.mises.org/rothbard/extreme.pdf (accessed 1 October
2006).
AAAJ Rothbard, M. (1978), For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, rev ed., University Press of
America, Lanham, MD.
22,1
Rothbard, M. (1992), “The present state of Austrian economics”, working paper, Ludwig von
Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, November, available at: www.mises.org/etexts/presentstate.
pdf (accessed 2 November 2006).
Sayer, A. (2000), Realism and Social Science, Routledge, London.
142 Schein, E.H. (1961), Coercive Persuasion: A Socio-Psychological Analysis of the “Brainwashing” of
American Civilian Prisoners by the Chinese Communists, W.W. Norton & Company, New
York, NY.
Schein, E.H. (1999), “Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes toward a
model of managed learning”, Reflections, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Schein, E.H. (2002), “Models and tools for stability and change in human systems”, Reflections,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 34-46.
Scherer, A.G. and Smid, M. (2000), “The downward spiral and the US model business principles:
why MNEs should take responsibility for the improvement of world-wide social and
environmental conditions”, Management International Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 351-71.
Scherer, A.G., Palazzo, G. and Baumann, D. (2006), “Global rules and private actors: toward a
new role of the transnational corporation in global governance”, Business Ethics Quarterly,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 505-32.
Scholte, J.A. (2002), “Civil society and democracy in global governance”, Global Governance,
Vol. 8, pp. 281-304.
Selgin, G.A. (1988), “Praxeology and understanding: an analysis of the controversy in Austrian
economics”, The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 19-58.
Smith, A. (1986), The Wealth of Nations – Books I – III, Penguin Classics, London.
Smith, B. (1996), Austrian Philosophy: The Legacy of Franz Brentano, Open Court Publishing
Company, Chicago and LaSalle, IL.
Spurgin, E.W. (2004), “Looking for answers in all the wrong places”, Business Ethics Quarterly,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 293-313.
Strawson, P. (1966), The Bounds of Sense, Methuen, London.
Tetlock, P.E. (2000), “Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: do both disease and cure
depend on the politics of the beholder?”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45,
pp. 293-326.
Tinker, T. and Neimark, M. (1987), “The role of annual reports in gender and class contradictions
at General Motors 1917-1976”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12, pp. 71-88.
Toenjes, R.H. (2002), “Why be moral in business? A Rawlsian approach to moral motivation”,
Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Unerman, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (2006), “On James Bond and the importance of NGO accountability”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 305-18.
Walsh, J.P. (2005), “Book review essay: taking stock of stakeholder management”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 426-52.
Willis, A.C.A. (2003), “The role of the global reporting initiative’s sustainability reporting
guidelines in the social screening of investments”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43,
pp. 233-7.
van Oosterhout, J. (n.d.), “Transcending the confines of economic and political organization?
The misguided metaphor of corporate citizenship”, Business Ethics Quarterly,
forthcoming.
von Mises, L. (1962), The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method, Future change in
D. Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, NJ.
von Mises, L. (1963), Human Action, 3rd rev. ed., Yale University Press, Chicago, IL.
corporate
von Mises, L. (1969), Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution,
reporting
Arlington House, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Carol A. Adams can be contacted at: c.adams@latrobe.edu.au