Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social accounting as stakeholder knowledge appropriation

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. AccountAbility is “an international not-for-profit organisation working with partners in business, the public sector and civil society” which has as its role “developing and promoting new tools and systems which enable people to hold to account those individuals and institutions whose decisions and actions affect their lives” (AccountAbility 2008).

  2. Certain aspects of what would be considered social performance are mandated under various legislation and guidelines (e.g. Affirmative Action, OHS, Corporate Governance) but overall social performance is not mandatory and unlikely to become so in the near future (see conclusions of Australian Government Senate Committee, Chapman, 2006).

References

  • 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. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., & Evans, R. (2004). Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectations gap. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14(Spring), 87–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Process, 82(1), 150–169.

    Article  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).

  • Ball, A., Owen, D., & 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), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046.

    Article  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 

  • Bowman, C., & Swart, J. (2007). Whose human capital? The challenge of value capture when capital is embedded. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 488–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Fraser, M. (2006). Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: An overview of the conceptual landscape. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A., & Levine, D. (2006). Breaking down the wall of codes: Evaluating non-financial performance measurement. California Management Review, 48(2), 29–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, V. L. P., & Creswell, J. W. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coff, R. W., & Lee, P. M. (2003). Insider trading as a vehicle to appropriate rent from R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in Learning Theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S. M., & Owen, D. L. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 649–667.

    Article  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 

  • Cummings, J. F. (2001). Engaging stakeholders in corporate accountability programmes: A cross-sectoral analysis of UK and transnational experience. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G., & Kerrin, M. (2003). Human resource management and knowledge management: Enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 1027–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dando, N., & Swift, T. (2003). Transparency and assurance: Minding the credibility gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clerq, D., & Dimov, D. (2008). Internal knowledge development and external knowledge access in venture capital investment performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3), 585–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effects of social and environmental disclosures—a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, C. (2007). Social accounting at Traidcraft plc: A struggle for the meaning of fair trade. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 423–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Peteraf, M. A. (2007). Managerial activities: A missing link in managerial discretion theory. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2001). Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: What (if anything) have we learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2002). The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(7), 687–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation?: Whose value? Whose creation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819. doi:10.1108/09513570610709872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Accountability Journal, 10(3), 325–364.

    Article  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. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.

    Article  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.

  • Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3), 232–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1), 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamoche, K. (2006). Managing people in turbulent economic times: A knowledge-creation and appropriation perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamoche, K., & Mueller, F. (1998). Human resource management and the appropriation-learning perspective. Human Relations, 51(8), 1033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2004). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 56–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, J. (1995). Foundations of corporate success: How business strategies add value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind, J. P. (1997). Keeping organizational secrets: Protective institutional mechanisms and their costs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(3), 623–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., & Miles, G. (2007). The ideology of innovation. Strategic Organization, 5(4), 423.

    Article  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 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2001). The legitimacy of accountants’ participation in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2005a). The construction of a social account: A case study in an overseas aid agency. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(3), 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2005b). Stakeholder democracy: Challenges and contributions from social accounting. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(1), 28–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. L. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: A critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37(2), 205–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Swanson, D. L. (2002). Value Attunement: Toward a theory of socially responsible executive decision-making. Australian Journal of Management, 27(1_suppl), 119–128. doi:10.1177/031289620202701s12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormond, S., Ferlie, E., Warren, F., & Norton, K. (2007). The appropriation of new organizational forms within networks of practice: Founder and founder-related ideological power. Human Relations, 60(5), 745–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D., & Swift, T. (2001). Social accounting, reporting and auditing: Beyond the rhetoric? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 4–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D., Swift, T. A., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D., 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.

    Article  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 

  • Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1991). Auditing and environmental expertise: Between protest and professionalisation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 4(3). 30–42

  • Power, M. (2004). Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57(6), 765–783.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Saravanamuthu, K., & Tinker, T. (2003). Politics of managing: the dialectic of control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(1), 37–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2005). Building theory from practice. Strategic Organization, 3(3), 337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, U., & Stabell, C. (2004). Knowing what you donít know? Discourses and contradictions in knowledge management research. Journal of Management Studies, 41(4), 549–573.

    Article  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 

  • Sillanpaa, M. (1998). The Body Shop values report: Towards integrated stakeholder auditing. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(13), 1443–1456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C. (2009). Social accounting’s emancipatory potential: A Gramscian critique. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(2), 205–227. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2007.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SustainAbility. (2007). SustainAbility FAQs. http://www.sustainability.com/news-media/news-resource.asp?id=209. Accessed 25 Nov 2007.

  • Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Robertson, M. (2002). The construction of communities of practice’ in the management of innovation. Management Learning, 33(4), 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Thomson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2005). Social and environmental accounting in the UK: A pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(5), 507–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Box 11e, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Michelle Greenwood

  2. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, NG1 4BU, UK

    Ken Kamoche

Authors
  1. Michelle Greenwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Kamoche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Greenwood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greenwood, M., Kamoche, K. Social accounting as stakeholder knowledge appropriation. J Manag Gov 17, 723–743 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9208-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9208-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation