Pub Date : 2022-02-01DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2022.2032239
Diane-Laure Arjaliès, Pierre Chollet, Patricia Crifo, Nicolas Mottis
ABSTRACT This research note elaborates on the impact assessment practices of the French Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) industry. The research was conducted by the Scientific Committee of the French public SRI label based on interviews, participative observation, a survey, and documentary evidence. SRI is usually distinguished from impact investing in terms of investors’ different intentions (contributing to sustainable development in a financially savvy way for SRI vs. demonstrating a societal impact for impact investing). We show that, beyond this distinction, the meanings and motivations behind impact assessment in the SRI community are broadly different from impact assessment practices in impact investing, creating a distance between the two communities. In fact, little is known about impact assessment practices in SRI, despite the market power of this asset class. We address this shortcoming by investigating 1) who is interested in impact assessment in the SRI industry, 2) why SRI investors want impact assessment, and 3) what impact assessment looks like in the SRI industry. We develop this analysis to suggest areas of concern and opportunities for the SRI, impact investing, and accounting communities. SRI investors’ recent appropriation of impact assessment indicates that the three communities’ interests and success will increasingly be linked to one another. The topic therefore warrants investigation.
{"title":"The Motivations and Practices of Impact Assessment in Socially Responsible Investing: The French Case and its Implications for the Accounting and Impact Investing Communities","authors":"Diane-Laure Arjaliès, Pierre Chollet, Patricia Crifo, Nicolas Mottis","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2022.2032239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2022.2032239","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This research note elaborates on the impact assessment practices of the French Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) industry. The research was conducted by the Scientific Committee of the French public SRI label based on interviews, participative observation, a survey, and documentary evidence. SRI is usually distinguished from impact investing in terms of investors’ different intentions (contributing to sustainable development in a financially savvy way for SRI vs. demonstrating a societal impact for impact investing). We show that, beyond this distinction, the meanings and motivations behind impact assessment in the SRI community are broadly different from impact assessment practices in impact investing, creating a distance between the two communities. In fact, little is known about impact assessment practices in SRI, despite the market power of this asset class. We address this shortcoming by investigating 1) who is interested in impact assessment in the SRI industry, 2) why SRI investors want impact assessment, and 3) what impact assessment looks like in the SRI industry. We develop this analysis to suggest areas of concern and opportunities for the SRI, impact investing, and accounting communities. SRI investors’ recent appropriation of impact assessment indicates that the three communities’ interests and success will increasingly be linked to one another. The topic therefore warrants investigation.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"43 1","pages":"1 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45441131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-27DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2022.2028736
Xinwu He
Sustainability reporting has become a universal practice and continues to grow worldwide. According to KPMG (2020), 80% of the N100 and 96% of the G250 2 now report on sustainability. However, research in this field shows that the growth of sustainability reporting still encounters various challenges. This article reviews four recent publications which reveal challenges in sustainability reporting from the perspective of sustainability reporting managers (SRMs). The following piece discusses the key findings and research implications. Based on 35 semi-structured interviews with SRMs in Australia and New Zealand, Farooq and De Villiers (2019) explore how sustainability reporting is institutionalised within organisations. They summarise four phases where SRMs approach sustainability reporting differently: (1) ‘getting the sustainability reporting process started’ by ‘educating inexperienced managers’, (2) ‘decentralising the sustainability reporting process’ by ‘encouraging greater participation and commitment in sustainability reporting’, (3) ‘transitioning to focussed materiality driven sustainability reports’ by ‘establishing a formal and sophisticated materiality assessment process’, and (4) ‘promoting the internal use
{"title":"Sustainability Reporting: A Nuanced View of Challenges","authors":"Xinwu He","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2022.2028736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2022.2028736","url":null,"abstract":"Sustainability reporting has become a universal practice and continues to grow worldwide. According to KPMG (2020), 80% of the N100 and 96% of the G250 2 now report on sustainability. However, research in this field shows that the growth of sustainability reporting still encounters various challenges. This article reviews four recent publications which reveal challenges in sustainability reporting from the perspective of sustainability reporting managers (SRMs). The following piece discusses the key findings and research implications. Based on 35 semi-structured interviews with SRMs in Australia and New Zealand, Farooq and De Villiers (2019) explore how sustainability reporting is institutionalised within organisations. They summarise four phases where SRMs approach sustainability reporting differently: (1) ‘getting the sustainability reporting process started’ by ‘educating inexperienced managers’, (2) ‘decentralising the sustainability reporting process’ by ‘encouraging greater participation and commitment in sustainability reporting’, (3) ‘transitioning to focussed materiality driven sustainability reports’ by ‘establishing a formal and sophisticated materiality assessment process’, and (4) ‘promoting the internal use","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"240 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46340488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-21DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2022.2028738
Xinwu He
Accountabilities: A Study of Nonprofit Evaluation Capacities.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 31 (3): 547–569. doi:10.1002/nml.21437. Cazenave, B., and J. Morales. 2021. “NGO Responses to Financial Evaluation: Auditability, Purification and Performance.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. doi:10.1108/AAAJ-01-2020-4397. Chen, J., M. C. Dyball, and G. Harrison. 2019. “Stakeholder Salience and Accountability Mechanisms in Not-forProfit Service Delivery Organizations.” Financial Accountability & Management 36 (1): 50–72. doi:10.1111/ faam.12217. Ebrahim, A. 2003. “Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs.”World Development 31 (5): 813–829. doi:10. 1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7.
{"title":"A Typology of Sustainability Assurance Providers Requiring Further Research","authors":"Xinwu He","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2022.2028738","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2022.2028738","url":null,"abstract":"Accountabilities: A Study of Nonprofit Evaluation Capacities.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 31 (3): 547–569. doi:10.1002/nml.21437. Cazenave, B., and J. Morales. 2021. “NGO Responses to Financial Evaluation: Auditability, Purification and Performance.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. doi:10.1108/AAAJ-01-2020-4397. Chen, J., M. C. Dyball, and G. Harrison. 2019. “Stakeholder Salience and Accountability Mechanisms in Not-forProfit Service Delivery Organizations.” Financial Accountability & Management 36 (1): 50–72. doi:10.1111/ faam.12217. Ebrahim, A. 2003. “Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs.”World Development 31 (5): 813–829. doi:10. 1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"121 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48570660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-24DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2021.2018001
Anis Maaloul, Matt Wegener
ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to examine the effect of GHG emission performance, as disclosed through voluntary versus mandatory channels, on credit risk (credit ratings and cost of debt). Two different channels are examined: voluntary disclosures made through the CDP and mandatory disclosures made through the EPA. Using a sample of US S&P 500 firms that have voluntarily/mandatorily disclosed their GHG emissions from 2010 to 2016, our results show that GHG emissions disclosures made through both channels have a negative effect on S&P credit ratings. These results imply that credit rating agencies incorporate GHG emissions in their credit assessment of a firm. However, our results show that only the GHG emissions mandatorily disclosed have a significant effect on cost of debt. These results imply that US lenders take into account, in their own lending decisions, only mandatory GHG emissions disclosures made through the EPA and not the voluntary ones made through the CDP. Additional analyses shows that these results are driven by firms in carbon intensive sectors and by firms with speculative grade ratings/high cost of debt. Overall, we conclude that credit market participants (credit rating agencies and creditors), as major stakeholders, make firms accountable for their carbon profile.
{"title":"Mandatory Versus Voluntary GHG Emissions Disclosures and Credit Risk","authors":"Anis Maaloul, Matt Wegener","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2021.2018001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2021.2018001","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to examine the effect of GHG emission performance, as disclosed through voluntary versus mandatory channels, on credit risk (credit ratings and cost of debt). Two different channels are examined: voluntary disclosures made through the CDP and mandatory disclosures made through the EPA. Using a sample of US S&P 500 firms that have voluntarily/mandatorily disclosed their GHG emissions from 2010 to 2016, our results show that GHG emissions disclosures made through both channels have a negative effect on S&P credit ratings. These results imply that credit rating agencies incorporate GHG emissions in their credit assessment of a firm. However, our results show that only the GHG emissions mandatorily disclosed have a significant effect on cost of debt. These results imply that US lenders take into account, in their own lending decisions, only mandatory GHG emissions disclosures made through the EPA and not the voluntary ones made through the CDP. Additional analyses shows that these results are driven by firms in carbon intensive sectors and by firms with speculative grade ratings/high cost of debt. Overall, we conclude that credit market participants (credit rating agencies and creditors), as major stakeholders, make firms accountable for their carbon profile.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"63 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43708470","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-16DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2021.2007784
Bastien David, Sophie Giordano-Spring
ABSTRACT In recent years, international institutions have fostered initiatives to consider climate-related issues, and a Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was created as an extension of the Carbon Disclosure Project and Global Reporting Initiative standards. This study examines how the air transport sector complies with the TCFD framework, which is considered to be a vehicle that translates scientific knowledge from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about climate change. Relying on environmental criteria, our sample represents more than 65% of the total emissions of the sector. The disclosures on climate-related issues of twenty-four airlines are analysed within the period 2015–2018. Although climate reporting increased from 2015 to 2018 (before and after the issuance of the framework), our study documents that its compliance with TCFD recommendations is poor, specifically concerning the core element of strategy. Our contribution is twofold. First, we note that the climate change mitigation and adaptation policies disclosed in the reports could help close the information gap as desired by the company's stakeholders, but they are currently insufficient. Second, the normative pressures exerted by the TCFD align with the coercive pressures identified in some regions of the world and are promoting the construction of climate reporting.
{"title":"Climate Reporting Related to the TCFD Framework: An Exploration of the Air Transport Sector","authors":"Bastien David, Sophie Giordano-Spring","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2021.2007784","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2021.2007784","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In recent years, international institutions have fostered initiatives to consider climate-related issues, and a Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was created as an extension of the Carbon Disclosure Project and Global Reporting Initiative standards. This study examines how the air transport sector complies with the TCFD framework, which is considered to be a vehicle that translates scientific knowledge from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about climate change. Relying on environmental criteria, our sample represents more than 65% of the total emissions of the sector. The disclosures on climate-related issues of twenty-four airlines are analysed within the period 2015–2018. Although climate reporting increased from 2015 to 2018 (before and after the issuance of the framework), our study documents that its compliance with TCFD recommendations is poor, specifically concerning the core element of strategy. Our contribution is twofold. First, we note that the climate change mitigation and adaptation policies disclosed in the reports could help close the information gap as desired by the company's stakeholders, but they are currently insufficient. Second, the normative pressures exerted by the TCFD align with the coercive pressures identified in some regions of the world and are promoting the construction of climate reporting.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"18 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41320861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-16DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2021.2012496
Nicolas Garcia-Torea, Sophie Giordano-Spring, Carlos Larrinaga, Géraldine Rivière-Giordano
ABSTRACT This investigation studies the accounting treatment of the carbon emission allowances of EU Emissions Trading System participants to explore whether the auctioning allocation system implemented in 2013 led to changes in accounting practices. This investigation adds to Allini, Giner, and Caldarelli (2018. “Opening the Black Box of Accounting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Different Views of Institutional Bodies and Firms.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 2195–2205.) by performing a comparative study of how emission allowances are recorded in the 2011 and 2016 financial statements of a large sample of the highest emitters in the system that operate in eight different industries. We also update the analysis of the role of local standards in shaping carbon accounting practices in a context characterised by the lack of IFRS prescription. We found that auctioning did not modify accounting practices as they continue to be ‘messy’ and often absent. The high level of non-disclosure and the prevailing use of the ‘net method’ conceal the burden of allowances from users of financial statements. Additionally, we report that firms’ carbon accounting practices are more aligned with their local standard when it allows a limited representation of the financial impact of allowances. Therefore, current accounting practices are far from enabling an adequate assessment of the financial impact and risks resulting from carbon markets.
{"title":"Accounting for Carbon Emission Allowances: An Empirical Analysis in the EU ETS Phase 3","authors":"Nicolas Garcia-Torea, Sophie Giordano-Spring, Carlos Larrinaga, Géraldine Rivière-Giordano","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2021.2012496","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2021.2012496","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This investigation studies the accounting treatment of the carbon emission allowances of EU Emissions Trading System participants to explore whether the auctioning allocation system implemented in 2013 led to changes in accounting practices. This investigation adds to Allini, Giner, and Caldarelli (2018. “Opening the Black Box of Accounting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Different Views of Institutional Bodies and Firms.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 2195–2205.) by performing a comparative study of how emission allowances are recorded in the 2011 and 2016 financial statements of a large sample of the highest emitters in the system that operate in eight different industries. We also update the analysis of the role of local standards in shaping carbon accounting practices in a context characterised by the lack of IFRS prescription. We found that auctioning did not modify accounting practices as they continue to be ‘messy’ and often absent. The high level of non-disclosure and the prevailing use of the ‘net method’ conceal the burden of allowances from users of financial statements. Additionally, we report that firms’ carbon accounting practices are more aligned with their local standard when it allows a limited representation of the financial impact of allowances. Therefore, current accounting practices are far from enabling an adequate assessment of the financial impact and risks resulting from carbon markets.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"93 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47338427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-24DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2021.2006074
H. Maama, K. Appiah, M. Doorasamy
ABSTRACT Previous studies have found incomplete evidence of firms’ social and environmental accounting practices because they did not shed light on how the information needs of minority stakeholders were met. This study examined whether firms provide disclosures on environmental and social issues that are considered material by minority stakeholders. Specifically, the study sampled the views of these stakeholders on the materiality of the firms’ environmental and social disclosures. The study used both the Kruskal–Wallis test and Sample t-test to compare the information needs of these stakeholders with the reporting practices of sampled firms. The content analysis approach was used to extract relevant data from the annual and sustainability reports of thirty-five (35) Ghanaian listed firms from 2017 to 2018. The study further employed questionnaires to sample the views of 300 stakeholders on the environmental and social responsibility information that need to be reported by the firms. The study demonstrated that the stakeholders were interested in the social and environmental activities of firms. The evidence showed a statistically significant difference between the social and environmental information disclosed by the firms and what the stakeholders needed. Whilst the stakeholders needed more environmental and social disclosures, the companies reported less of those. The evidence further suggested that legitimacy theory drives the disclosure of environmental and social information by firms in Ghana. The firms must incorporate the views of the minority stakeholders when determining the materiality of information to disclose. The study demonstrated the extent to which firms were aware of and cared about what is significant to their stakeholders.
{"title":"Materiality of Environmental and Social Reporting: Insights from Minority Stakeholders","authors":"H. Maama, K. Appiah, M. Doorasamy","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2021.2006074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2021.2006074","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Previous studies have found incomplete evidence of firms’ social and environmental accounting practices because they did not shed light on how the information needs of minority stakeholders were met. This study examined whether firms provide disclosures on environmental and social issues that are considered material by minority stakeholders. Specifically, the study sampled the views of these stakeholders on the materiality of the firms’ environmental and social disclosures. The study used both the Kruskal–Wallis test and Sample t-test to compare the information needs of these stakeholders with the reporting practices of sampled firms. The content analysis approach was used to extract relevant data from the annual and sustainability reports of thirty-five (35) Ghanaian listed firms from 2017 to 2018. The study further employed questionnaires to sample the views of 300 stakeholders on the environmental and social responsibility information that need to be reported by the firms. The study demonstrated that the stakeholders were interested in the social and environmental activities of firms. The evidence showed a statistically significant difference between the social and environmental information disclosed by the firms and what the stakeholders needed. Whilst the stakeholders needed more environmental and social disclosures, the companies reported less of those. The evidence further suggested that legitimacy theory drives the disclosure of environmental and social information by firms in Ghana. The firms must incorporate the views of the minority stakeholders when determining the materiality of information to disclose. The study demonstrated the extent to which firms were aware of and cared about what is significant to their stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"184 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44031873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-06DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2021.1978304
Bridget Poiohia, Lee Moerman, Stephanie Perkiss
ABSTRACT Pacific Island Countries (PICs) commonly rely on intergovernmental Official Development Aid (ODA) to assist with social and environmental challenges. Therefore, how national governments are accountable for these commitments is an important issue for donors and recipients. This study investigates the donor side of this relationship by exploring Australia’s ODA relationship with Solomon Islands through its recent Pacific Step-up programme. Given the geographic closeness and history between Australia and Solomon Islands, we adopt critical geopolitics as a framework to inform the analysis. We find that the two common metaphors, family and step-up, are evidence of Australia’s accountability relationship with Solomon Islands; while the concept of tug-of-war explains the background and rising geopolitical anxiety between two regional powers, Australia and China. This study extends our understanding of aid accountability within a novel intergovernmental environment and offers an alternative explanation rooted in a politics of power.
{"title":"Pacific Step-Up: Exploring Geopolitical Accountability for Aid in Solomon Islands","authors":"Bridget Poiohia, Lee Moerman, Stephanie Perkiss","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2021.1978304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2021.1978304","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Pacific Island Countries (PICs) commonly rely on intergovernmental Official Development Aid (ODA) to assist with social and environmental challenges. Therefore, how national governments are accountable for these commitments is an important issue for donors and recipients. This study investigates the donor side of this relationship by exploring Australia’s ODA relationship with Solomon Islands through its recent Pacific Step-up programme. Given the geographic closeness and history between Australia and Solomon Islands, we adopt critical geopolitics as a framework to inform the analysis. We find that the two common metaphors, family and step-up, are evidence of Australia’s accountability relationship with Solomon Islands; while the concept of tug-of-war explains the background and rising geopolitical anxiety between two regional powers, Australia and China. This study extends our understanding of aid accountability within a novel intergovernmental environment and offers an alternative explanation rooted in a politics of power.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"160 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41865045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2021.2003215
R. Boomsma
ABSTRACT This paper highlights the immense contribution of Professor Jeffrey Unerman to the field of sustainability accounting. It reflects on how he, together with his co-authors, initiated and advanced a research stream on non-governmental organisation (NGO) accounting and accountability. The paper reviews some of Jeffrey’s most influential work and explores three aspects that are of particular relevance to current debates on NGO accountability: accounting for the unintended and unforeseen consequences of NGO activities; impediments and resistance to broader NGO accountability; and striving for enhanced downward accountability. Further, the paper highlights how Jeffrey’s research has inspired other accounting scholars to investigate issues of NGO accountability and offers several directions for future research in this area.
{"title":"On Jeffrey Unerman and the Future of NGO Accountability","authors":"R. Boomsma","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2021.2003215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2021.2003215","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 This paper highlights the immense contribution of Professor Jeffrey Unerman to the field of sustainability accounting. It reflects on how he, together with his co-authors, initiated and advanced a research stream on non-governmental organisation (NGO) accounting and accountability. The paper reviews some of Jeffrey’s most influential work and explores three aspects that are of particular relevance to current debates on NGO accountability: accounting for the unintended and unforeseen consequences of NGO activities; impediments and resistance to broader NGO accountability; and striving for enhanced downward accountability. Further, the paper highlights how Jeffrey’s research has inspired other accounting scholars to investigate issues of NGO accountability and offers several directions for future research in this area.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"41 1","pages":"219 - 232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42515104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：