Approaches and Perspectives in Social

and Environmental Accounting: an

Overview of the Conceptual Landscape

Judy Brown* and Michael Fraser

Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

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. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP
Environment.
Received 29 March 2004; revised 10 October 2004; accepted 1 December 2004
Keywords: corporate social responsibility; environmental accounting; government; social

Introduction

In recent years there has been a marked renewal of interest in the areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social
and environmental accounting (SEA). Growing numbers of companies have begun to publish ‘triple bottom
line’ and ‘sustainable development’ reports. Governments, public policymakers, private sector organizations
and professional bodies have set up working groups on various aspects of SEA and have issued a number of
discussion papers and best practice guidelines (see, e.g., Commission of the EC, 2002; FEE, 2003; GRI, 2002;
AccountAbility, 2003). Groups such as socially responsible investors, trade unions and environmentalists have
also expressed an active interest in the field (see, e.g., O’Rourke, 2003; ETUC and TUTB, 2002; Gray and
Bebbington, 2001).

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
104 J. Brown and M. Fraser

*Correspondence to: Associate Professor Judy Brown, School of Accounting and Commercial Law, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600,
Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
While at one level there appears to be widespread agreement that CSR and SEA are worthy topics of
attention, it does not take more than a surface review of the literature to realize that different groups have very
different starting points. This article seeks to provide an overview of the conceptual landscape and to explore
some of these differences by comparing three broad approaches to SEA: the business case, stakeholder-
accountability and critical theory approaches. These approaches are based on fundamentally different
understandings of the business–society interface, which, in turn, lead to quite different views about why and
how (if at all) the field should be developed. They have a lengthy historical legacy (see, e.g., Wells, 2002;
Gray et al., 1996; Gray, 2002) and help to explain why the ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘to whom’ of SEA is –
and is likely to remain – such a contested terrain (Maltby, 1997, p. 84; Bragd et al., 1998). In writing this
article, we are also responding to concerns a number of commentators have expressed regarding the current
dominance of ‘business case’ perspectives (Welford, 1998; Gray et al., 1997; Owen et al., 2000; Ball et al.,
2000; O’Dwyer, 2003). While not seeking to impose on readers a ‘correct’ way of viewing SEA and CSR,
exposure to competing approaches in this type of analysis is viewed as one way of challenging us to think
more reflectively about the frames available to us. As is now widely recognized, perspectives matter and have
profound implications for the social realities we construct, embed or seek to change.

Business Case Approach

Business case proponents – as the label implies – view CSR and SEA initiatives primarily from the perspective
of ‘what’s in it for business and shareholders?’. ‘Significant financial payback’ is the response from growing
numbers of corporate managers and business consultants. Groups such as the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) and Business in the
Community (BITC) have helped to spread this message internationally.
Business case proponents tend to ignore, deny or gloss over conflicts of interest in business–society
relationships (O’Dwyer, 2003). The focus is on identifying and pursuing forms of CSR and SEA that result in
‘win–wins’ for both business and wider stakeholders. CSR and SEA are primarily viewed as extensions of
management’s existing toolkit for enhancing shareholder wealth: offering ‘a new generation of business
opportunity’ (Hedstrom et al., 1998). The WBCSD (2003, p. 15), for example, identifies the following
business benefits from sustainable development reporting:

• creating financial value

• attracting long-term capital and favorable financing conditions
• raising awareness, motivating and aligning staff, and attracting talent
• improving management systems
• risk awareness
• encouraging innovation
• continuous improvement
• enhancing reputation
• transparency to stakeholders • maintaining license to operate.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Social and Environmental Accounting 105

BITC (2003) outline a similar list of benefits for CSR and conclude that the rewards that can be gained from
‘an effective business-led approach’ (p. 1) make the ‘business case . . . compelling’ (p. 9). Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu (2002, p. 2), typical of the large accounting firms promoting SEA, advise that; Business
leaders are increasingly acting upon this responsibility [to report] because it makes good business sense. It
helps companies to mitigate risk, protect corporate brand, and gain competitive advantage. . . .

SEA is also widely recognized as a way of managing threats to organizational legitimacy, for example, as ‘key
stakeholders perceive significant discrepancies between their own and the company’s values’ (Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu, 2002). Companies can use it to demonstrate ‘their positive impact on society’ (BITC, 2003,
p. 1) and to head off campaigns from NGOs and activists, which have the potential to threaten business
interests (Litvin, 2003). While SEA may not convince the ‘radicals’, it is likely to assist in controlling the
perceptions of those groups most likely to identify with the organization (Neu et al., 1998). Indeed, legitimacy
theory is one of the most widely used frameworks in explaining why organizations voluntarily engage in SEA
(see Deegan, 2002, for an overview of this literature).
Organizational legitimacy concerns are typically framed in terms of perceived rather than real conflicts of
interest between business and stakeholders. 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). He also found a general resistance among
managers in their capacity as managers to move beyond ‘business as usual’, although this was not necessarily
consistent with their personal (‘weekend’) positions.
Rather than seeing CSR and SEA as a managerial distraction or as a trade-off against profits, business case
proponents promote the idea of corporations managing their social environment as part of their core business
activity. Factoring social considerations into business decisions and playing a leadership role on social issues
is also viewed as a way of promoting a ‘light-handed’ approach to regulation. Von Tunzelmann and Cullwick
(1996), for example, note that CSR can ‘minimize the prospects of future regulation’ (p. 91) and be regarded
as ‘an alternative to regulation of business activity’ (p. 103).
CSR in this frame of reference is thus primarily situated in the traditional context of ‘creating value for the
business (owners)’, through a focus on the potential for ‘win–win’ relationships. Understanding, managing
and responding to stakeholder expectations is promoted as ‘enlightened self-interest’.
Business case proponents often back up their case by citing research that points to positive correlations
between CSR activity, profits and shareholder returns (WBCSD, 1997; CIS, 2002). Closer analysis of the
literature suggests a more complex picture.* Gray and Bebbington (2001, p. 212) observe that much depends
on how one defines ‘ethical investment’, and that the stronger the criteria applied the more likely ethical funds
are to ‘underperform’ relative to ‘non-ethical’ portfolios. Managers of ethical funds have also complained
about the lack of information available to adequately assess CSR performance (Rockness and Williams, 1988).
Not everyone in the business community is convinced that the business case for CSR stacks up. Henderson
(2001), in a paper published by the NZ Business Roundtable, acknowledges that the ‘doctrine’ of CSR is
gaining support but argues that the ideas associated with it (e.g. corporate citizenship, stakeholders and
sustainable development) have ‘the potential to do real harm’ and that its ‘adoption by businesses generally .
. . would reduce community well-being and undermine the market economy’ (p. viii). Sternberg (1999, p. 33)
observes that ‘corporate mission statements and political rhetoric promoting stakeholder theory may seem
innocuous, but they are expressions of a deeply dangerous doctrine’ that undermines private property. Fears
have been expressed that managers who promote their

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
106 J. Brown and M. Fraser

*For a recent review, see Orlitzky et al. (2003).

ethical image fuel public expectations, reinforcing ‘the feeling that companies have a case to answer’ (The
Economist, 2002). Some of the managers O’Dwyer (2002a) interviewed reported that legitimating strategies
were difficult, and possibly counter-productive, in the face of an increasingly cynical public.
These managers felt that SEA;

had exposed them to even greater demands and increased scepticism. Apparent quests for legitimacy
effectively backfired due to these disclosures being used in many instances as a stick with which to beat
them . . . As the disclosures, which were positive in their nature and not overly comprehensive, were not
perceived as reflecting actual performance (suggesting symbolic as opposed to substantive disclosure),
the perceived legitimacy gap actually widened (p. 424).

Increased SEA as a response to criticism also implicitly grants legitimacy to stakeholder claims, ‘something
the organization does not want to do’ (Neu et al., 1998, p. 272). This could lead, in the longer run, to a
redistribution of wealth and power to non-shareholder constituencies. In this sense, even weak versions of
sustainable development can be seen as ‘the tip of the iceberg’ (Springett, 2003, p. 83).
Considerations such as these lead some commentators to urge full consideration of the likely costs and
benefits of CSR and SEA to finance capital in any business case assessment. Continuing debates within the
business community seem likely given observations that there is increasing evidence suggesting that win–win
opportunities – the ‘low hanging fruit’ – are becoming progressively less apparent for many firms (Hussain,
1999, p. 203).

Stakeholder-Accountability Approach

Stakeholder-accountability theorists view large corporations as quasi-public institutions and seek to promote
a more open, transparent and democratic society (Gray et al., 1996; Gray, 2002). While stakeholders share
common interests, there is also considerable potential for conflicts of interest. Briloff (1966), one of the earlier
accounting commentators in this area, characterizes the responsibilities of accountants for ‘fair corporate
accountability’ in terms of the duality of power and property:

on the one hand we have those who sit in the seats of Power controlling the day-to-day usage of the asset
complex of the corporation, and on the other hand we have Property, i.e., those who have an important
stake in the way in which these assets and related power are utilized. This Property group comprises the
direct shareholders, of course, but also to be included are labor, consumers, the participants in the pension
plan or insurance or bank fund which may have an investment in the corporation, and government
generally – in fact in our inextricably interdependent existence it might fairly be said that all of us are
involved in every major corporate enterprise (pp. 51–52).

Chen (1975) argues that management’s primary stewardship responsibility is to society and that managerial
performance ‘should be evaluated in terms of both profit and the accomplishment of social objectives’ (p.
542), and that this aspect has been long neglected by the accounting profession. The widely publicized United

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Social and Environmental Accounting 107

Kingdom discussion paper The Corporate Report also gives strong backing to the idea that stakeholders have
‘rights’ to information (Accounting Standards Steering Committee, 1975).
Gray (1998), writing some 25 years later, still seeks to encourage a ‘democratic evolution’ by designing
accounting so as to increase transparency and accountability, particularly of powerful institutions and
organizations:
Such a view is predicated upon the rights to information of the polity in a democracy . . . and argues, in
an increasingly secretive and complex world, for a commensurate increase in the transparency of the
organisations which control and determine our futures (p. 209).

Accountability in its core sense means ‘being called to account for one’s actions’ (Mulgan, 2000, p. 555).
Accounting helps to make things account-able and provides an important mechanism of social control. From
a stakeholder perspective, responsiveness to the multiplicity of constituencies interested in corporate
performance requires a form of plural accountability. Groups such as employees, consumers and local
communities have a ‘right to know’ (Swift, 2001) and to then apply rewards and sanctions through ‘exit’,
‘voice’ or ‘loyalty’ options. The capability for stakeholders to both reward and impose sanctions is a key
component in the accountability process. Given the pluralist nature of the relationships, it cannot be assumed
that all groups will agree on what the relevant dimensions of performance are or, indeed, on what constitutes
‘good’ or ‘bad’ performance.
Stakeholder accountability is also increasingly viewed as a process ‘in which people and records must
interact to achieve accountability’ (Yakel, 2001, p. 234). Roberts (1991) shows how ‘individualizing’ and
‘socializing’ forms of accountability contribute to different understandings of the self and our relationships to
others. He urges a search for more integrative models of accountability that reflect both our separateness and
our interdependence. Lehman (1999) advocates adoption of a communitarian framework. He urges that in an
era of supranational corporations, increased attention needs to be paid to expanding the public sphere and
using SEA to facilitate informed public dialogue and debate through civic institutions. New ways are required
to govern the ‘global commons’. Rather than relying on corporations as agents of change, he calls for a
repoliticization of ‘not only society but also its basic institutions – one of which is accounting’ (p. 237). His
concern is for SEA to be developed ‘as part of a public sphere committed to exposing and explaining corporate
effects on ‘the world’ and to reflecting on what is ‘significant’ for communities’ (Lehman, 2002, p. 220).
Stakeholder accountability proponents argue that it is debatable how much is new in the business case
approach to CSR and SEA. ‘Strategic SEA’ is pretty much ‘business as usual’. It rests on a neoclassical
economic understanding of management’s ‘right to manage’ and of the corporation as primarily a vehicle for
shareholder wealth maximization. The focus is still on what is value adding for companies. Business still sets
the agenda, with any stakeholder engagement occurring primarily on management’s terms. As Owen et al.
(2000) put it;

management take control of the whole process (including the degree of stakeholder inclusion) by
strategically collecting and disseminating only the information it deems appropriate to advance the
corporate image, rather than being truly transparent and accountable . . . (p. 85).

The primary concern ‘is with society’s impact on business rather than business’s impact on society’ (O’Dwyer,
2003, p. 527). Organizations decide ‘whom they perceive to be a party to a social contract’ (Swift, 2001, p.
17). Employees, consumers and community groups are to be ‘looked after’ and ‘reported to’ to the extent that
it benefits corporate profits and ultimately the ‘owners’ of the firm. Managers, as the agents of equity capital,

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
108 J. Brown and M. Fraser

remain accountable solely to shareholders for their decision-making. The business case approach thus leads
at best to;

a ‘soft’ form of accountability, whereby organisations engage in stakeholder dialogue for the purpose of
voluntary self-reporting on their trustworthiness as part of a reputation building process (Owen et al.,
2001, p. 275).
Powerless stakeholders can safely be ignored. Fundamentally, there appears to be little debate between
Friedmanites and business case proponents. As management consultants MHC International put it, ‘properly
defined’ CSR is profit maximizing (MHC International, 2004, emphasis added). Far from reflecting a genuine
social advance, such initiatives appear decidedly manipulative to those who favour a stakeholder-
accountability rather than stakeholder-management view of the firm.
A number of business case proponents concede that economic self-interest is the clear motivation for
companies trying to demonstrate ‘social leadership’. It is tempting to take the attitude that ‘if everyone wins’,
so what? For stakeholder-accountability proponents, to the extent that the business case approach highlights
the interdependent nature of business–society relationships, this work is to be encouraged. Where ‘double
wins’ are possible, it provides managers and others who wish to take account of the broader effects of corporate
activity and make more ‘socially efficient’ decisions with a commercially acceptable rationalization.
Translating issues into terms monolingual ‘profit-speak’ colleagues understand may help to expand the set of
‘legitimate options’.† This may provide a strategy for managers who report personal experiences of openly
ethical reasoning impeding a successful business career (Nielsen, 1987).
Stakeholder-accountability advocates have no quarrel with the idea that stakeholder–business relationships
can be mutually beneficial. A firm that treats its employees decently may well reap benefits through increased
productivity. Similarly, business must have regard for evolving social attitudes and expectations if it is to
maintain its ‘social licence’. However, stakeholder theorists note that the business case typically proceeds as
if there is a self-evident harmony of interests between managers, shareholders and other stakeholders. Business
case proponents are silent about what should be done once the gains from the ‘low hanging fruit’ of win–wins
have been realized (Prakash, 2002). Where conflicts of interest are recognized, the priority of shareholder
claims is taken for granted. Stakeholder-accountability advocates struggle with both of these propositions. For
them, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that many companies are more concerned with the image rather
than the substance of ‘corporate citizenship’ and ‘sustainable development’.
The stakeholder-accountability framework recognizes the significant economic, social and political power
that major corporates wield in contemporary society. It is based on the idea that, in the final analysis,
corporations exist because the polity allows them to, that corporates are accountable for the use of the vast
financial, human and community resources entrusted to them and that affected parties need safeguards against
potential abuses of corporate power (e.g. through various forms of stakeholder legislation). Information is
viewed as providing an important monitoring role in this process. This has long been recognized for the
shareholder constituency (Ijiri, 1975); stakeholder-accountability theorists seek an extension to help protect
the interests of other stakeholder groups.
Greater access to SEA information is viewed as an essential part of increasing transparency surrounding
corporate activity and its consequences for stakeholders. It thus becomes a way of determining whether firms
are playing according to the ‘rules of the game’ and a basis for questioning the terms of a firm’s ‘social
contract’ (which will change over time). As with the business case approach, there is recognition of the
behavioural potential of reporting requirements but the focus is now on managerial behaviour:

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Social and Environmental Accounting 109

power corrupts less when accounted for – because if decision-makers know they may be called upon to
explain and justify the use of their powers, they are far more likely to make more considered and equitable
decisions than they otherwise might . . . Business power is not – or should not be – exempt

approach has its limitations. Michalos (1995, pp. 54–59) argues that the idea that managers ought to be socially responsible ‘because there is
†This

money in it’ is the worst argument for CSR. See also BT (2003).

from all this. It is . . . comparable to the power exercised by other major organisations – for example, for
its effects on employees, consumers, the physical environment; and on local, regional and national
priorities and development . . . (Medawar, 1978, p. 473).

This is similar to the ‘sunlight is the best of disinfectants’ philosophy that has underpinned much capital
market disclosure (Langevoort, 2001). The monitoring of social and environmental performance is arguably
particularly important in a commercial environment where organizational incentives and socialization
processes have traditionally emphasized the ‘shareholder primacy’ norm. Regulation is usually also supported
on the basis that it secures information rights for stakeholders and is likely to lead to more balanced reporting
(e.g. ‘bad’ as well as ‘good’ news disclosures).
Stakeholder-accountability literature is also frequently associated with calls for more participatory
institutions and forms of corporate governance, where stakeholders have more voice in the decisions that affect
them (Kelly, 2001). Information disclosure is viewed as a vital pre-requisite for informed participation
(Brown, 2000, pp. 54–55). More traditional channels of accountability such as annual reports need to be
supplemented with access to ‘raw’ forms of data (more typically associated with management accounting
systems) that allow for active engagement by stakeholders. The central aim is to encourage more democratic
dialogue. From this perspective;

any form of social and environmental accounting (and much financial accounting) will produce outputs
which are contestable and open to debate. The utility of such accounting is not in its representation of
‘infallible truth’ but in its creation of a range of environmental and social visibilities and exposure of
values and priorities that become inputs to wider democratic processes of discourse and decision making
(Boyce, 2000, p. 53).

Accounting thereby helps to create new visibilities and facilitate discussion and debate among interested
parties. It promotes dialogic rather than monologic conceptions of reason and thus facilitates the ‘layers’ of
talk required in a multi-perspectival environment (Morgan, 1988). The aim is to open up conversations, not
close them down with ‘incontrovertible bottom lines’ (Boyce, 2000, p. 55). ‘Accounts’ are explicitly
understood as interpretations that recipients are free to accept or contest.
The role of SEA under the stakeholder-accountability approach has elements in common with traditional
accounting – to provide information for accountability purposes (assessing managerial performance and
monitoring compliance with legislative, regulatory and contractual arrangements) and assisting users to make
informed decisions. However, stakeholder-accountability proponents firmly reject the dominance of
shareholders and capital markets that has been the conventional focus of accounting. In line with its
stakeholder orientation, this approach is underpinned by a far broader understanding of user constituencies
and the performance under scrutiny.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
110 J. Brown and M. Fraser

For this group sustainable development is unlikely to be compatible with the neoclassical economic
paradigm. There is concern for ‘eco-/social justice’ as well as ‘eco-/social efficiency’ aspects of sustainability
along with a questioning of the rhetoric that ‘economic growth benefits everyone’ (Lehman, 2002,
p. 220). There is concern that the managerialist agenda of SEA has defined out the more ‘explicitly political’
areas such as ‘poverty, fair trade, propaganda etc. etc.’ (Bebbington et al., 1999, p. 51). There is strong interest
in more democratic approaches to corporate governance (Millon, 1993; Kelly, 2001), a more participatory
political culture generally (Boyce, 2000; Grolin, 1998) and in linking micro and macro levels of reporting
(see, e.g., Bebbington et al., 2001, on measures to promote the internalization of ‘externalities’ and Bartelmus,
1999, on ‘greening’ the national accounts). This will require more explicit attention to the surfacing and
institutionalization of competing perspectives and interests.
Stakeholder-accountability theorists are dismissive of much current SEA practice. It is criticized for its poor
quality (e.g. in terms of its incompleteness, selective nature and inadequate audit) and managerialist focus,
offering little, if anything, in the way of real accountability (see, e.g., Ball et al., 2000; Gray et al., 1997;
Owen et al., 2000, 2001; O’Dwyer, 2003). Adams (2001), in her study of ICI’s reporting, highlights the
performative contradictions between management’s rhetoric in annual reports and evidence available from
external sources:

The ICI reports portray the company as one which is doing very well, trying very hard and seeking to do
better. In contrast, the impression one gets of ICI’s impacts and efforts to curtail them from external
sources is very different from the impression one is left with from reading the ICI reports alone (p. 17).

O’Dwyer et al. (2003), in a study of stakeholder perspectives, found that current practice was widely viewed
‘as little more than an untrustworthy symbolic stakeholder management exercise with little concern for ‘true’
accountability’ (p. 1). NGOs also reported feeling powerless in terms of their potential influence on SEA
practice. Reporting is viewed as a ‘banking’ rather than a ‘dialogic’ practice:

reports are there to tell a more or less passive audience that ‘everything’ is fine and to discourage further
questioning of the organisation . . . [The business case approach], focused around reputation management
. . . retains the model of the company as being the all powerful, all knowing teacher and the report
audiences being ‘ignorant’ and needing to be filled up with relevant knowledge so they will be docile in
the face of organisational activities (Thomson and Bebbington, in press, p. 15).

Many commentators argue that this uneven playing field has been exacerbated by the absence of effective
legislation (Owen et al., 2001; Swift, 2001). As Gray (cited by Dey 2003, p. 6) puts it, ‘accountability
should hurt’, and it seems unlikely that self-regulation will deliver on this score.

Critical Theory Approach

The critical theory or ‘radical’ approach is essentially a critique of the stakeholder-accountability approach to
CSR and SEA. Advocates of this position are skeptical about the potential for ‘real accountability’ in the
absence of radical change in capitalist society. They warn of the dangers of acting ‘as if’ we live in a pluralist
society. While concepts like ‘stakeholders’, ‘democratic dialogue’ and ‘triple bottom lines’ sound nice in
theory, imbalances of power and resources mean that most efforts in this area will ‘do nothing but prop up

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Social and Environmental Accounting 111

inequitable and alienating societal structures’ (Burritt and Welch, 1997, p. 3). Global capitalism has led to a
narrowing of democratic debate and the rolling back of the State, promoting a ‘democracy of elites’ (Lehman,
2002, p. 223). While communitarian approaches to accountability may be an advance over narrow liberal
models, there is still the difficulty that communities may simply ‘reflect and reproduce the power imbalances
that are a part of current systems’ (Walker, 2002, p. 71).
For critical theorists, the dominance of capital-oriented values and perspectives is such that CSR and SEA
are likely to fall victim to business capture and lead to mystification rather than liberation. Springett (2003),
for example, points to the way that the sustainable development agenda has been appropriated by business
interests, charging that the approach led by groups such as the WBCSD has;

largely sought to tame the concept to mean no more than a level of social and environmental engagement
that corporations can easily accommodate – even use to burnish their brand . . . [This] ecomodernist
paradigm comfortably appropriates aspects of the shift to sustainable development – those that concern
business risk and ‘eco-efficient’ use of resources that cut business costs – deflecting demands for more
radical change and subsuming into the traditional business model the rhetoric of greener business as usual
. . . (p. 74).

Eco-efficiency thus serves to embed existing structures. Rather than occupying centre stage, social and
environmental issues remain ‘appendages which drop off when the going gets tough’ (Welford, 1998, p. 3).
According to this view, voluntarist CSR and SEA initiatives are most realistically viewed as forms of
disinformation and ‘greenwash’, which camouflage more sinister corporate agendas:

Behind the green PR is a deeper corporate political strategy: to get the world’s governments to allow
corporations to police themselves through voluntary codes of conduct, win–win partnerships and best
practices learning models, rather than binding legislation and regulation. We call the corporate strategy
of weakening national and international environmental agreements while promoting voluntary measures
Deep Greenwash. Deep Greenwash may occur behind the scenes or in coordination with public forms of
greenwash such as environmental image advertising (CorpWatch, 2001).

Not surprisingly then, there is considerable criticism of SEA proponents who seek to occupy and engage with
the so-called ‘middle ground’ (which, for critical theorists, is subject to ongoing social struggles and thus will
inevitably be in a state of constant transformation). By emphasizing pragmatism and moderation, middle-of-
the-road thinkers implicitly promote conservative agendas. At best, they are likely to contribute to little more
than ‘rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic’ (Puxty, 1986, p. 107). To pretend otherwise is ‘to misread the
nature of capitalist social relations’ (Trotter, 2000). Being ‘eager to do something’ is not enough (Lehman,
2002, p. 220, emphasis in original).
If CSR and SEA are best viewed as ideological weapons, can they be used to promote counter-hegemonies
aimed at transforming the status quo? Critical theorists believe they can, but that this is best done by
highlighting rather than downplaying social conflicts and struggles. SEA in the form of adversarial accounting
and externally prepared ‘anti-reports’ can be used to expose the basic contradictions and exploitative aspects
of the capitalist system and thereby challenge the status quo:

The radical accounting rubric incorporates several streams of research. Some studies examine the
conflictual underpinnings of taken-for-granted concepts (profit, wealth, net present value, and efficiency),
and the neo-classical foundations on which they rest . . . Others review the genealogies of accounting

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
112 J. Brown and M. Fraser

discourses and their mutability in different social and organisational contexts . . . And still other radical
research explores accounting’s role as an ideological weapon in social conflict over social wealth . . .
(Tinker et al., 1991, p. 37).

Arnold and Hammond (1994, p. 111) seek to have social accounting constructed ‘as a site where subordinate
groups and social movements can challenge dominant economic interests’. They examine the South African
divestment debates of the 1970s and 1980s to demonstrate how accounting ‘can serve contradictory political
interests’. By giving voice to alternative worldviews, social accounting has ‘considerable disruptive and
counter-hegemonic power’ (Bebbington et al., 1999, p. 49).
More recently, Dey (2003) has recommended the use of ‘shadow’ reports whereby commentators use
alternative sources of information (e.g. media, anti-corporate websites) to help expose gaps between what
companies choose to report about their activities and what they conceal. This practice has its roots in the
external social audits of the 1970s (Medawar, 1976; Harte and Owen, 1987). Dey (2003, pp. 8–9) observes
that the growth of the internet has provided access to far more ‘counter-information’ sources and that shadow
reports might help to provide the conditions for real dialogue between corporates and stakeholders.
Noting the high degree of social interdependence in capitalist societies, and the public disapprobation that
firms such as Nike, Shell Oil and Exxon have faced in recent years, Tinker and Carter (2002) observe that;

if corporations disclose accounting income achieved as a result [of] environmental degradation, harmful
products, or abusive labor practices, these practices may come back to haunt investors in the form of
litigation, consumer boycotts, union action, or even (for WTO-connected multinationals) public disorder
(p. 114).

The advent of the internet has not only provided better access to information but also facilitated the increase
of public pressure on multinationals. As Hastings (1999, p. 270) puts it, ‘a criticized company can be affected
financially more readily and more globally than in the past’.
Short of attempts at counter-narratives, SEA is more likely to strengthen rather than weaken inequitable
power distributions. Critical theorists are thus extremely wary of so-called ‘partnership’ approaches between
business and ‘stakeholders’ and attempts to engage with firms in social accounting experiments (although, as
will be seen below, some do see these as offering opportunities for the development of democratic
consciousness). They point out that social accountants themselves admit they have had a low level of
‘emancipatory success’ (see, e.g., Owen et al., 2000; Dey, 2000; O’Dwyer, 2002b). Furthermore, powerful
groups can point to the existence of SEA ‘as evidence of their openness in listening to criticism’, leading to
the legitimization and extension of their power (Puxty, 1991, p. 37). Dialogue in such situations is a farce:

True dialogue takes place only among equals. There is no dialogue across the boundary between masters
and servants, for the master will listen only as long as his power remains intact, and the servant will limit
his communication to utterances for which he cannot be punished. In fact, to recommend dialogue in a
situation of inequality of power is a deceptive ideology of the powerful, who wish to persuade the
powerless that harmony and mutual understanding are possible in society without any change in the status
quo of power (Baum, 1977, pp. 43–44, cited by Swift, 2001, p. 23).

There is a fear that most current efforts are more likely to reinforce the ‘eco-modernist’ path (Welford, 1998)
than facilitate much-needed social change. Engagement – if it is to have any chance – needs to be informed

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Social and Environmental Accounting 113

by critical perspectives on meso- and macro-level social change (Dey, 2002). This requires an emphasis on
reflection, the exploration of unexamined assumptions, ideological strategies and dialectical awareness of
tensions and contradictions that can lead to radical transformations (Tinker and Gray, 2003; Carr, 2000).
Academics need to act as ‘confronters of orthodoxy’ and to unsettle established ‘regimes of truth’ (Sikka et
al., 1995, pp. 115). For some, the dangers of incorporation are such that ‘it is better to retire to a leftist couch
and allow capitalism to self-destruct of its own internal volition’ (Tinker and Gray, 2003, p. 749).
Critical theorists also urge caution in terms of theorizing the role of regulation; pluralist conceptualizations
of the State as ‘a neutral marketplace where aggregate social preference is expressed’ are rejected as naive
(Arnold, 1990, p. 179). While agreeing that legislation is important in securing information rights, they are
ever watchful for attempts to emasculate the regulatory process (e.g. through the structuring of agendas,
restricting participation and conservative judicial interpretations).
Some more ‘pluralist’ radicals (or ‘radical’ pluralists, depending on how one views their placement on the
continuum of perspectives outlined in this paper) favour ‘engaging’ in a less confrontational way and are more
optimistic about the possibilities of engaging with practice in an attempt to achieve change (see, e.g.,
Bebbington, 1997; Bebbington et al., 1999; Gray, 2002). They accept that there is evidence of capture in the
SEA project, but observe that it is not complete. Some managers do recognize the need for substantial change.
SEA has opened up opportunities for them to question current practice and allowed ‘new forms of discourse
both within the organization and between the organization and external participants’ (Bebbington, 1997, p.
369, citing Gray et al. 1995). Exposure to alternative accounts may encourage others to reflect on their
understandings of CSR and thus ‘make a difference’ to ‘how managers think and act’ (Friedman and Miles,
2002, p. 2). Attention to technical detail, for example developing methods to internalize externalities, helps to
avert excuses made in the 1970s: ‘it is a good idea but cannot be done’ (Tinker and Gray, 2003, p. 748).
From this perspective, SEA helps to create and encourage different situational logics and contributes to
sowing the seeds for structural change. Alliances with philosophically sympathetic groups such as NGOs and
trade unions may also help to increase external pressure for change. Growing attention is also being paid to
the ‘enabling potential’ of SEA education through its consciousness-raising capacity (Humphrey et al., 1996;
Bebbington, 1997; Tinker and Gray, 2003). This includes improving the literacy of SEA academics by
exposing them to the theoretical critique of social accounting. Gray (2002) argues that while theorization of
the processes of social change may be under-specified, to accept capture as a reason for dis-engagement is
similar to ‘fiddling while Rome burns’:

Such developments will be captured to some degree – how could they not be? But the degree to which
they are captured depends (at least in part) on the extent of engagement by those with concerns in the
field – the willingness of social (and alternative/critical?) accountants to refuse to yield the field to
corporate autonomy without a fight . . . To bleat about engagement and the purity of the alternative/critical
soul is fiddling while Rome burns, and ‘Rome’ is certainly burning (pp. 700–701, emphasis in original).

Whether a more confrontational or collaborative praxis is favoured, critical theorists agree that SEA
protagonists ‘inevitably take sides in social conflict and . . . ‘responsible’ [actors] . . . strive to ensure that their
choice is a socially well-informed one’ (Tinker et al., 1991, p. 29). They also agree that ‘the over turn – or at
least a massive reinvention – of capitalism’ is needed to make real societal progress (Tinker and Gray, 2003,
p. 750).
Table 1 summarizes and compares the key features of the three broad approaches to SEA and CSR.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
114 J. Brown and M. Fraser

Conclusions

This article has considered how SEA is perceived and constructed within three very different frames of
reference. It has highlighted the tensions and contradictions among the various social actors that have an
interest in this field. In doing so we hope that we have provided a more complete picture than accounts that
focus on a single frame of reference. SEA is an interpretively complex field. These competing perspectives –
business case, stakeholder accountability and critical theory – have important implications for the social
realities we construct, embed or seek to change. Their visibilities (and silences) are evident in a number of
arenas including, inter alia, business, research, education and public policy settings.
Business case Stakeholder accountability Critical theory

Purpose CSR/SEA is viewed as an CSR/SEA should increase CSR/SEA should expose

extension of management’s the accountability and the basic contradictions

existing toolkit for transparency of and exploitative aspects of

enhancing shareholder organizations. This may the capitalist system.

value. CSR/SEA should involve additional costs to Environmental

result in ‘win–wins’. If organizations. degradation and social

(and only if) reputation, Accountability and inequities should be

social marketing, good transparency are central highlighted.

employee relations etc. components of a

provide additional ‘wealth’ democratic society.

will CSR/SEA proceed.
Key assumptions Shareholder primacy is Various stakeholders have Sceptical about the
assumed above all other ‘information rights’ which potential for ‘real

stakeholders. Focus on must be acknowledged for accountability’ in the

stakeholder management decision-making purposes absence of radical change

rather than stakeholder and to protect against in capitalist society.

accountability. potential abuses of corporate Dangers in acting ‘as if’ we

power. Shareholder primacy live in a pluralist society.

is not assumed.
Regulation Generally favour a Regulation is necessary to Legislation is important in

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Social and Environmental Accounting 115

‘voluntarist’ approach. ensure balanced reporting securing information

Regulation raises for accountability, monitoring rights. However, need to

compliance costs, is too and decision-making purposes. be wary of opportunities

inflexible and could Otherwise, risk of ‘greenwash’ elites have to emasculate

impose ‘costly’ CSR on is too high. regulatory processes (e.g.

business. throughagenda setting and

pseudo-participation).
Role of stakeholders CSR/SEA will involve Stakeholders must Meaningful ‘engagement’
‘consulting’ with ‘meaningfully participate’ is unlikely within current

stakeholders. in organizational decisions/reporting. governance structures.

Future of CSR/SEA CSR/SEA requires more Operationalization of Current economic system

focus on ‘technical’ CSR/SEA is inevitably requires radical change.

activities such as the political. Intervention by Dominance of capital-

development of regulatory bodies (with oriented values and

performance measures and stakeholder participation) perspectives means

benchmarking techniques. is required to develop CSR/SEA likely to fall

meaningful accountability victim to business capture.

measures. Stakeholders may do

better to rely on externally
prepared ‘anti-reports’.
Table 1. Approaches to SEA and CSR

It is not our intention to impose on readers a ‘correct’ way of viewing SEA and CSR. However, like many
other commentators, we are concerned about the current dominance of the business case perspective, which
appears to be a case of powerful elites steering society ‘in a direction which solidifies their own dominance’
(Welford, 1998, p. 9; see also Gray et al., 1997; Owen et al., 2000; Ball et al., 2000; O’Dwyer, 2003). Too
often the business case approach is presented as ‘the only discourse in town’, claiming a misplaced neutrality
and objectivity. Exposure to competing perspectives provides one form of antidote:

If it is true that [objectivity] is grounded in the apparent perspectivelessness of the dominant discourse,
then the introduction of competing perspectives can destabilize this apparent objectivity. More
importantly, creating space for competing perspectives can loosen the constraints upon those who have
been forced to adopt a perspective which is often at odds with their reality (Crenshaw, 1994, p. 48).

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
116 J. Brown and M. Fraser

In sketching out alternative approaches, we hope to provide those who have uncritically bought into the
business case agenda with something new to think about. We also hope to provide those fresh to the
discussions with an introduction to some of the controversies and the conceptual choices available to them.
For those more familiar with the territory, the aim is to reinforce an appreciation of the complexity of the
theoretical landscape.

References

AccountAbility. 2003. AA1000 Assurance Standard. AccountAbility: London.

Accounting Standards Steering Committee. 1975. The Corporate Report. ICAEW: London.
Adams CA. 2001. A critique of reporting on ethical, social and environmental issues: the case of ICI. Paper presented at the APIRA
Conference, Adelaide, 2001.
Arnold PJ. 1990. The state and political theory in corporate social disclosure research: a response to Guthrie and Parker. Advances in
Public Interest Accounting 3: 177–181.
Arnold P, Hammond T. 1994. The role of accounting in ideological conflict: lessons from the South African divestment movement.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 19(2): 111–126.
Ball A, Owen DL, Gray R. 2000. External transparency or internal capture? The role of third-party statements in adding value to
corporate environmental reports. Business Strategy and the Environment 9: 1–23.
Bartelmus P. 1999. Greening the National Accounts: Approach and Policy Use, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
Discussion Paper No. 3. DESA, United Nations. New York.
Bebbington J. 1997. Engagement, education and sustainability: a review essay on environmental accounting. Accounting, Auditing
and Accountability Journal 10(3): 365–381.
Bebbington J, Gray R, Hibbitt C, Kirk E. 2001. Full Cost Accounting: an Agenda for Action, ACCA Research Report No 73. ACCA:
London.
Bebbington J, Gray R, Owen D. 1999. Seeing the wood for the trees: taking the pulse of social and environmental accounting.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 12(1): 47–51.
Boyce G. 2000. Public discourse and decision making. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal 13(1): 27–64.
Bragd A, Bridge G, den Hond F, Jose PD. 1998. Beyond greening: new dialogue and new approaches for developing sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment 7: 179–192.
Briloff AJ. 1966. The responsibilities of the CPA for fair corporate accountability. Financial Analysts Journal 22(3): 51–55.
British Telecommunications (BT). 2003. Just Values – Beyond the Business Case for Sustainable Development. BT: London.
Brown JA. 2000. Competing ideologies in the accounting and industrial relations environment. British Accounting Review 32: 43–75.
Burritt RL, Welch S. 1997. Australian commonwealth entities: an analysis of their environmental disclosures. Abacus 33(1): 1–19.
Business in the Community (BITC). 2003. The Business Case for Corporate Responsibility. BITC: London.
Carr A. 2000. Critical theory and the management of change in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management 13(3):
208–220.
Chen RS. 1975. Social and financial stewardship. The Accounting Review 50(3): 533–543.
Commission of the European Communities (EC). 2002. Corporate Social Responsibility: a Business Contribution to Sustainable
Development. EC: Brussels.
Co-operative Insurance Society (CIS). 2002. Sustainability Pays. CIS: Manchester.
CorpWatch. 2001. Greenwash Fact Sheet. http://www.corpwatch.org [27 January 2004].
Crenshaw KW. 1994. Toward a race-conscious pedagogy in legal education. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies
4: 33–52.
Deegan C. 2002. The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal 15(3): 282–311.
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (now Deloitte). 2002. Sustainability Reporting and Assurance – Trends, Challenges and Perspectives.
Deloitte and Touche: Denmark.
Dey CR. 2000. Bookkeeping and ethnography at Traidcraft plc: a review of an experiment in social accounting. Social and
Environmental Accounting Journal 20(2): 16–19.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Social and Environmental Accounting 117

Dey C. 2002. Methodological issues: the use of critical ethnography as an active research methodology. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal 15(1): 106–121.
Dey C. 2003. Corporate ‘silent’ and ‘shadow’ social accounting. Social and Environmental Accounting Journal 23(2): 6–9.
The Economist. (2002). The dangers of corporate social responsibility. 21 November: 74.
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), European Trade Union Technical Bureau (TUTB). 2002. European Trade Unions –
Actors for Sustainable Development. TUTB: Brussels.
Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens (FEE). 2003. Benefits of Sustainability Assurance. FEE: Brussels.
Friedman AL, Miles S. 2002. Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies 39(1): 1–21.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2002. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. GRI: Boston.
Gray R. 1998. Imagination, a bowl of petunias and social accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 9: 205–216.
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 27: 687–708.
Gray R, Bebbington J. 2001. Accounting for the Environment (2nd edn). Sage: London.
Gray R, Dey C, Owen D, Evans R, Zadek S. 1997. Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits
and procedures. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10(3): 325–364.
Gray R, Owen D, Adams C. 1996. Accounting and Accountability – Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and
Environmental Reporting. Prentice-Hall: London.
Grolin J. 1998. Corporate legitimacy in risk society: the case of Brent Spar. Business Strategy and the Environment 7: 213–222.
Harte GF, Owen DL. 1987. Fighting de-industrialisation: the role of local government social audits. Accounting, Organisations and
Society 12(2): 123–141.
Hastings M. 1999. A new operational paradigm for oil operations in sensitive environments: an analysis of social pressure, corporate
capabilities and competitive advantage. Business Strategy and the Environment 8: 267–280.
Hedstrom G, Poltorzycki S, Strob P. 1998. Sustainable development: the next generation of business opportunity. Prism 4: 5–19.
Henderson D. 2001. Misguided Virtue. NZ Business Roundtable: Wellington.
Humphrey C, Lewis L, Owen D. 1996. Still too distant voices? Conversations and reflections on the social relevance of accounting
education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 7: 77–99.
Hussain SS. 1999. The ethics of ‘going green’: the corporate social responsibility debate. Business Strategy and the Environment 8:
203–210.
Ijiri Y. 1975. Theory of Accounting Measurement. American Accounting Association. Sarasota.
Kelly M. 2001. The Divine Right of Capital. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco.
Langevoort DC. 2001. Seeking sunlight in Santa Fe’s shadow: the SEC’s pursuit of managerial accountability. Washington University
Law Quarterly 79: 449–490.
Lehman G. 1999. Disclosing new worlds: a role for social and environmental accounting and auditing. Accounting, Organizations and
Society 24: 217–241.
Lehman G. 2002. Global accountability and sustainability: research prospects. Accounting Forum 26(3): 219–232.
Litvin D. 2003. Stealing the NGOs’ thunder. Ethical Corporation Magazine 22: 31–33.
Maltby J. 1997. Setting its own standards and meeting those standards: voluntarism versus regulation in environmental reporting.
Business Strategy and the Environment 6: 83–92.
Medawar C. 1976. The social audit: a political view. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1(4): 389–394.
Medawar C. 1978. What is accountability? Accountant’s Magazine 82(869): 472–474.
MHC International. 2004. Alternative View of Corporate Social Responsibility: a Dialogue with the Financial Times. www.
mhcinternational.com [7 January 2004].
Michalos AC. 1995. A Pragmatic Approach to Business Ethics. Sage: Thousand Oaks: CA.
Millon D. 1993. Communitarians, contractarians, and the crisis in corporate law. Washington and Lee Law Review 50: 1373–1390.
Morgan G. 1988. Accounting as reality construction: towards a new epistemology for accounting practice. Accounting, Organizations
and Society 13(5): 477–485.
Mulgan R. 2000. ‘Accountability’: an ever-expanding concept? Public Administration 78(3): 555–573.
Neu D, Warsame H, Pedwell K. 1998. Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 23(3): 265–282.
Nielsen RP. 1987. What can managers do about unethical management? Journal of Business Ethics 6: 309–320.
O’Dwyer B. 2002a. Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish story, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal 15(3): 406–436.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
118 J. Brown and M. Fraser

O’Dwyer B. 2002b. Constructing a social account in an overseas aid agency: a failed attempt at a dialogic education process. Paper
presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, 2002.
O’Dwyer B. 2003. Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal 16(4): 523–557.
O’Dwyer B, Unerman J, Bradley J. 2003. Stakeholder perceptions of corporate social disclosure in Ireland: a story of antagonism,
powerlessness and poor practice. Paper presented at the 26th annual congress of the European Accounting Association, Seville,
2003.
Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization Studies 24(3):
403–441.
O’Rourke A. 2003. A new politics of engagement: shareholder activism for corporate social responsibility. Business Strategy and the
Environment 12: 227–239.
Owen DL, Swift TA, Humphrey C, Bowerman M. 2000. The new social audits: accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of
social champions? European Accounting Review 9(1): 81–98.
Owen DL, Swift T, Hunt K. 2001. Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in social and ethical accounting, auditing and
reporting. Accounting Forum 25(3): 264–282.
Prakash A. 2002. Green marketing, public policy and managerial strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 11: 285–297.
Puxty AG. 1986. Social accounting as immanent legitimation: a critique of a technicist ideology. Advances in Public Interest
Accounting 1: 95–111.
Puxty AG. 1991. Social accountability and universal pragmatics. Advances in Public Interest Accounting 4: 35–45.
Roberts J. 1991. The possibilities of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16(4): 355–368.
Rockness J, Williams PF. 1988. A descriptive study of social responsibility mutual funds. Accounting, Organizations and Society
13(4): 397–411.
Sikka P, Willmott H, Puxty T. 1995. The mountains are still there: accounting academics and the bearings of intellectuals. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal 8(3): 113–140.
Springett D. 2003. Business conceptions of sustainable development: a perspective from critical theory. Business Strategy and the
Environment 12: 71–86.
Sternberg E. 1999. The Stakeholder Concept: a Mistaken Doctrine. Foundation for Business Responsibilities: London, UK.
Swift T. 2001. Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: a European Review 10(1): 16–26.
Thomson I, Bebbington J. In press. Social and environmental reporting in the UK: a pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting.
Tinker T, Carter C. 2002. Abraham Briloff’s lonely hearts club tribute band. Accounting and the Public Interest 2: 97–117.
Tinker T, Gray R. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: from policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 16(5): 727–761.
Tinker T, Lehman C, Neimark M. 1991. Falling down the hole in the middle of the road: political quietism in corporate social reporting.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 4(2): 28–54.
Trotter C. 2000. When lambs lie down with lions, some will be eaten. The Independent (NZ) 29 March: 19.
Von Tunzelmann A, Cullwick D. 1996. Social Responsibility and the Company: a New Perspective on Governance, Strategy and the
Community. Institute of Policy Studies: Wellington.
Walker P. 2002. Understanding accountability: theoretical models and their implications for social service organizations. Social Policy
and Administration 36(1): 62–75.
Welford RJ. 1998. Corporate environmental management, technology and sustainable development: postmodern perspectives and the
need for a critical research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment 7: 1–12.
Wells CAH. 2002. The cycles of corporate social responsibility: an historical retrospective for the twenty-first century. Kansas Law
Review 51: 77–140.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 1997. Environmental Performance and Shareholder Value.
WBCSD: Geneva.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2003. Sustainable Development Reporting: Striking the Balance.
WBCSD: Geneva.
Yakel E. 2001. The social construction of accountability: radiologists and their record-keeping practices. The Information Society 17:
233–245.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 103–117 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse