IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/aaajpp/v28y2015i2p263-294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pragmatism and new directions in social and environmental accountability research

Author

Listed:
  • Max Baker
  • Stefan Schaltegger

Abstract

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is threefold. To clarify what is meant by “pragmatism” as a philosophy for social and environmental accountability (SEA) research, to survey its use within this research field and to explore how a further pursuit of pragmatism may extend this research field. Design/methodology/approach - – An extensive review of the SEA literature was conducted in order to determine what aspects of the philosophy of pragmatism have been used within the research. The authors organised the discussion of the literature around the pragmatist ideas of “truth” and “sensemaking”. Findings - – SEA research is a heterogeneous space in which various ideas are commonly attributed to the philosophical notion of pragmatism. However, there is a tension in the literature between seeing accounting as a medium for representing social and environmental organisational activities and a pragmatist view of accountings as a way of allowing managers and stakeholder to make sense of these same activities. Research limitations/implications - – A clearer development of the ideas of pragmatism may be used to redirect the focus of SEA research in a number of useful ways. Seeing accounting as a medium of sensemaking between organisations and their stakeholders allows the authors to widen the exploration of accounting not only to the production of reports but also their interpretation by users. The ideas of pragmatism also allow the authors to explore the ways stakeholders might affect change within organisations and how accounting may support this process rather than capture or limit it. Practical implications - – This paper concludes by providing a set of methodological prescriptions for conducting future SEA research in a way that is inspired by pragmatism. It outlines an approach to research that focuses on users and their sensemaking and encourages an exploration of the possible ways accounting may create positive change in organisations. Originality/value - – Overall, this paper refines what it means to follow pragmatism within SEA research. It will promote a clearer understanding of how we, as a research community, may engage with practice in more positive ways in order to facilitate corporate social responsibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Max Baker & Stefan Schaltegger, 2015. "Pragmatism and new directions in social and environmental accountability research," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 28(2), pages 263-294, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:v:28:y:2015:i:2:p:263-294
    DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-08-2012-01079
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2012-01079/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/AAAJ-08-2012-01079/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/AAAJ-08-2012-01079?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. Erik G. Hansen & Stefan Schaltegger, 2018. "Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 937-952, July.
    2. Kumarasiri, Jayanthi & Gunasekarage, Abeyratna, 2017. "Risk regulation, community pressure and the use of management accounting in managing climate change risk: Australian evidence," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 25-38.
    3. Cristian Carini & Laura Rocca & Monica Veneziani & Claudio Teodori, 2018. "Ex-Ante Impact Assessment of Sustainability Information–The Directive 2014/95," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Oliver Laasch & Dirk Moosmayer & Elena Antonacopoulou & Stefan Schaltegger, 2020. "Constellations of Transdisciplinary Practices: A Map and Research Agenda for the Responsible Management Learning Field," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 735-757, April.
    5. Madlen Sobkowiak, 2023. "The making of imperfect indicators for biodiversity: A case study of UK biodiversity performance measurement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 336-352, January.
    6. Cristian Carini & Laura Rocca & Monica Veneziani & Claudio Teodori, 2021. "Sustainability regulation and global corporate citizenship: A lesson (already) learned?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 116-126, January.
    7. Paolo Esposito & Gianluca Antonucci, 2022. "NGOs, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development trajectories in a new reformative spectrum: ‘New wine in old bottles or old wine in new bottles?’," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 609-619, May.
    8. Brown, Judy, 2017. "Democratizing accounting: Reflections on the politics of “old” and “new” pluralisms," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 20-46.
    9. Muhammad Faisal Majid & Muhammad Meraj & Muhammad Shujaat Mubarik, 2022. "In the Pursuit of Environmental Sustainability: The Role of Environmental Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, May.
    10. Tongyu Meng & Jamie Newth & Christine Woods, 2022. "Ethical Sensemaking in Impact Investing: Reasons and Motives in the Chinese Renewable Energy Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(4), pages 1091-1117, September.
    11. Adelaide Martins & Cidália Oliveira & Rui Silva & Manuel Castelo Branco, 2023. "Management Control Practices as Performance Facilitators in a Crisis Context," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, July.
    12. Jacob Hörisch & Isabell Wulfsberg & Stefan Schaltegger, 2020. "The influence of feedback and awareness of consequences on the development of corporate sustainability action over time," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 638-650, February.
    13. Lehman, Glen, 2017. "The language of environmental and social accounting research: The expression of beauty and truth," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 30-41.
    14. Vibha Kaushik & Christine A. Walsh, 2019. "Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Narayanan, Venkateshwaran & Baird, Kevin & Tay, Richard, 2021. "Investment decisions: The trade-off between economic and environmental objectives," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    16. Neruja, S. & A. Anton Arulrajah, 2021. "The Impact of Environmental Knowledge and Awareness on Sustainability Performance of Organizations: The Mediating Role of Employee Green Behaviour," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(9), pages 1-68, September.
    17. Klarissa Lueg & Rainer Lueg, 2021. "Deconstructing corporate sustainability narratives: A taxonomy for critical assessment of integrated reporting types," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1785-1800, November.
    18. Sergiy D. Dmytriyev & R. Edward Freeman & Jacob Hörisch, 2021. "The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1441-1470, September.
    19. 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.

    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:28:y:2015:i:2:p:263-294. 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.