IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/aaajpp/v26y2013i3p449-495.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moral accounting? Employee disclosures from a stakeholder accountability perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah J. Williams
  • Carol A. Adams

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine how disclosure of employee issues by a large UK bank may or may not promote transparency and accountability (as assessed by the completeness of the account) toward the employee stakeholder group, and to shed light on the implications of the organisation‐society relationship for employee accountability. Design/methodology/approach - The intrinsic stakeholder framework forms the basis of the qualitative, longitudinal analysis. It is adopted as the moral ground for the provision of a “complete” account of employee issues. In seeking to shed light on the organisation‐society relationship and its implications for reporting on employee issues the authors build a broader theoretical framework incorporating various social and political theories dealing with legitimacy, political economy, and language and rhetoric. Interpretive and critical approaches are employed. The analysis draws on an extensive review of published materials relating to employment in the UK retail banking industry and NatWest in particular, impacts of workplace changes occurring in the banking sector, and to the economic, social and political environment over the period of the study. Findings - The findings indicate that what and how NatWest reported on employee issues was influenced by considerations other than transparency and employee accountability. The analysis highlights the complexity of the role of disclosures in the organisation‐society relationship and consequently the limitations of the use of a single theoretical framework to interpret disclosures. Research limitations/implications - The longitudinal analysis indicates how reporting practices are issue and context dependent and points to the limitations of theorising in corporate social reporting based on a single time frame and a limited analysis of the reported issues. Practical implications - In highlighting a lack of accountability to employees, the findings have implications for the development of reporting standards on issues relevant to employees. Over time, it is hoped that development of an employee inclusive reporting framework, along with exposure of the contradictory role that reports may play in promoting accountability, will contribute toward improved employee management practices. Originality/value - This study contributes to the corporate social reporting literature by extending the analysis beyond the firm focused stakeholder management perspective to considering disclosures from a moral perspective and the extent to which the complex organisation‐society relationship might work against the promotion of transparency and accountability toward stakeholders (specifically employees). In this way, through an in‐depth longitudinal analysis of disclosures from multiple perspectives, the paper contributes to theorising of the role of social disclosure in the organisation‐society relationship.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah J. Williams & Carol A. Adams, 2013. "Moral accounting? Employee disclosures from a stakeholder accountability perspective," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(3), pages 449-495, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:v:26:y:2013:i:3:p:449-495
    DOI: 10.1108/09513571311311892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09513571311311892/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09513571311311892/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/09513571311311892?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fascia, Michael & fascia, sonny, 2019. "Creativity as a Competitive Entrepreneurial Enabler," OSF Preprints wqtvh, Center for Open Science.
    2. Pamela Kent & Tamara Zunker, 2017. "A stakeholder analysis of employee disclosures in annual reports," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 57(2), pages 533-563, June.
    3. Shane M. Dixon & Cory Searcy & W. Patrick Neumann, 2019. "Reporting within the Corridor of Conformance: Managerial Perspectives on Work Environment Disclosures in Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Stefanos Fotiadis & Konstantinos I. Evangelinos & Foteini Konstantakopoulou & Ioannis E. Nikolaou, 2023. "Assessing CSR Reports of Top UK Construction Companies: The Case of Occupational Health and Safety Disclosures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-32, April.
    5. Diego Monferrer & José Ramón Segarra & Marta Estrada & Miguel Ángel Moliner, 2019. "Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in a Post-Crisis Context. Prediction-Oriented Modeling to Enhance the Particular Importance of a Social and Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-27, September.
    6. Adams, Carol A., 2015. "The International Integrated Reporting Council: A call to action," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 23-28.
    7. Pamela Kent & Robyn McCormack & Tamara Zunker, 2021. "Employee disclosures in the grocery industry before the COVID‐19 pandemic," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(3), pages 4833-4858, September.
    8. Irene M. Herremans & Jamal A. Nazari & Fereshteh Mahmoudian, 2016. "Stakeholder Relationships, Engagement, and Sustainability Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 417-435, October.
    9. Razana Juhaida Johari & Md. Mahmudul Alam & Jamaliah Said, 2020. "Empirical assessment on factors contributing to integrity practices of Malaysian public sector officers," Post-Print hal-03538155, HAL.
    10. Ana Petrina Păun & Codruța Cornelia Dura & Sorin Mihăilescu & Roland Iosif Moraru & Claudia Adriana Isac, 2020. "OHS Disclosures Within Non-Financial Reports: The Romanian Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    11. Konstantinos Evangelinos & Stefanos Fotiadis & Antonis Skouloudis & Nadeem Khan & Foteini Konstandakopoulou & Ioannis Nikolaou & Shaun Lundy, 2018. "Occupational health and safety disclosures in sustainability reports: An overview of trends among corporate leaders," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 961-970, September.
    12. Jane Andrew & Max Baker, 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: The Last 40 Years and a Path to Sharing Future Insights," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 56(1), pages 35-65, March.
    13. Albertina Paula Monteiro & Beatriz Aibar-Guzmán & María Garrido-Ruso & Cristina Aibar-Guzmán, 2021. "Employee-Related Disclosure: A Bibliometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-38, May.
    14. Renata Blanc & Charles H. Cho & Joanne Sopt & Manuel Castelo Branco, 2019. "Disclosure Responses to a Corruption Scandal: The Case of Siemens AG," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 545-561, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:v:26:y:2013:i:3:p:449-495. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.