Social accounting as stakeholder knowledge appropriation
- 911 Downloads
Heeding the call for socio-political explorations of the social accounting project, we use the analytical lens of knowledge appropriation to explore power and contest in social auditing. We develop a knowledge appropriation model comprising three stages: knowledge creation, knowledge generation and outcome distribution, which we then use to analyze an exemplar case. We argue that, despite asymmetries of power and managerial prerogative, deficient stakeholder involvement in the creation and distribution stages renders social auditing ineffective for governance as either a stakeholder account or a strategic management system. We conclude that embedded stakeholder involvement in knowledge creation processes is essential for social auditing to be effective as corporate governance.
KeywordsKnowledge appropriation Stakeholders Social accounting Governance Management control The Body Shop
- AccountAbility. (1999). AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000) framework: Standards, guidelines and professional qualification (Exposure draft). London: AccountAbility.Google Scholar
- AccountAbility (2008). AA1000 series. http://www.accountability21.net/default.aspx?id=228. Accessed 7 Oct 2008.
- Adams, C. A., & Evans, R. (2004). Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectations gap. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14(Spring), 87–115.Google Scholar
- ASX (2007). Principles of good corporate governance and best practice recommendations. http://www.asx.com.au/about/corporate_governance/revised_corporate_governance_principles_recommendations.htm.
- Baker, M. (2008) Re-conceiving managerial capture. In R. Burritt (Ed.), 7th Australasian Conference on Social and Environmental Accounting Research (A-CSEAR 2008), Adelaide, Australia, 2008 (pp. 61-78).Google Scholar
- Boele, R., & Kemp, D. (2005). Social auditors: Illegitimate offspring of the audit family? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17(Spring), 109–119.Google Scholar
- Clark, V. L. P., & Creswell, J. W. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.Google Scholar
- Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics, a European perspective: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
- Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting & accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Greenwood, M. (2001). Community as a stakeholder: Focusing on corporate social and environmental reporting. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1(4), 31–45.Google Scholar
- Greenwood, M., & De Cieri, H. (2007). Stakeholder theory and the ethics of human resource management. In A. Pinnington, R. Macklin, & T. Campbell (Eds.), Human resource management ethics and employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- GRI (2006). G3 Sustainability reporting guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative.Google Scholar
- Kamoche, K., & Mueller, F. (1998). Human resource management and the appropriation-learning perspective. Human Relations, 51(8), 1033.Google Scholar
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
- Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
- Peccei, R., & Guest, D. (2002). Trust, exchange and virtuous circles of co-operation: A theoretical and empirical analysis of partnerships at work (Research Paper 011) (Vol. Research Paper 011). London: The Management Centre, King’s College.Google Scholar
- Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191.Google Scholar
- Power, M. (1991). Auditing and environmental expertise: Between protest and professionalisation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 4(3). 30–42Google Scholar
- Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88–102.Google Scholar
- Shah, R. (2004). The auditor has no clothes. In R. A. Shah, D. F. Murphy, & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Something to believe in. Creating trust and hope in organisations: Stories of transparency, accountability and governance (pp. 166–179). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
- SustainAbility. (2007). SustainAbility FAQs. http://www.sustainability.com/news-media/news-resource.asp?id=209. Accessed 25 Nov 2007.
- Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 27–43.Google Scholar
- TBS (2000). The new bottom line 2000. Melbourne: The Body Shop Australia.Google Scholar
- TBS. (2006). Social performance report: Paving the way forward. Mulgrave, Australia: The Adidem Group.Google Scholar
- TBS. (2008). The Body Shop. http://www.thebodyshop.com.au.
- UNEP. (2000). Engaging stakeholders: The global reporters (p. 10). London: SustainAbility and the United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
- Westpac (2008). Stakeholder impact report. http://www.westpac.com.au/internet/publish.nsf/Content/WICRSR+2008+Stakeholder+Impact+Report.