Search results

The primary objective of this paper is to explore how space organizations can incorporate children and imagination in their accountability-based accounting and decision-making processes.

This study centers on stakeholder engagement with children, specifically examining the drawing competition associated with the CHaracterising ExOPlanet Satellite (CHEOPS) space exploration mission. We employ a multidimensional research design consisting of both an interpretive approach to the 2,748 space-related drawings submitted by children across Europe to the CHEOPS drawing competition in 2015 and a content analysis of 46 media releases published by ESA and the University of Bern, the key partners of the CHEOPS mission.

Our analysis of the children’s drawings and the CHEOPS media releases indicates that the related organizations account for some of the children’s visions and imaginations, but shortcomings exist in addressing the ethical and space environmental concerns related to space exploration. We explore implications for the space accounting agenda by applying the critical dialogic accountability framework proposed by Dillard and Vinnari (2019), which allows for a discussion on an outline for action by incorporating intergenerational equity (Thomson et al., 2018) and moral imagination (Werhane, 1999).

This study offers a novel exploration of a largely overlooked yet crucial stakeholder group: children. By focusing on their unique perspectives and imaginative capabilities, the paper brings forth the voices of those who will inherit the future of space exploration. Employing children’s drawings as a medium of symbolic communication, this research study offers fresh insights into their perceptions, particularly relevant to space accounting. This innovative approach not only enriches the literature on stakeholder engagement and accountability but also provides space organizations with valuable guidance on fostering inclusivity and ensuring that the interests of future generations are considered in decision-making processes.

This study takes the position that the concept of fraud is socially constructed. Moreover, it asks why and how different understandings of fraud have emerged. Insights from the work of Lakoff and Johnson (1999, 2003; Lakoff, 2002, 2004, 2009) are used to analyze language revealing dominant worldviews and metaphors regarding fraud. The research method is a case study (Yin, 2014), and the analytical approach used parallels the one described in O’Dwyer (2004). The research setting is a report issued by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which provides a context to study different understandings of fraud due to the report’s divided nature. The analysis reveals three alternative worldviews, representing different assumptions about reality, that are at the root of the different understandings of fraud. These worldviews also lead to the usage of different conceptual metaphors which allow the commissioners to interpret facts in a manner that supports each worldview’s assumptions. The paper also concludes by providing a nuanced and critical examination of the results of the commission concerning its understanding of fraud.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure is receiving increased attention from the mainstream accounting research community. In general, this recently published research has failed to engage significantly with prior CSR-themed studies. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it examines whether more recent CSR reporting differs from that of the 1970s. Second, it investigates whether one of the major findings of prior CSR research – that disclosure appears to be largely a function of exposure to legitimacy factors – continues to hold in more recent reporting. Third, it examines whether, as argued within the more recent CSR-themed studies, disclosure is valued by market participants.

Using Fortune 500 data from the late 1970s (from Ernst & Ernst, 1978) and a more recent sample (2010), the authors identify differences in CSR disclosure by computing adequate measures in terms of disclosure breadth and comparing them for any potential changes in the influence of legitimacy factors between 1977 and 2010. In the second stage of the analysis, the authors use a standard valuation model to compare the association between CSR and firm value between the two time periods.

The authors first find that the breadth of CSR disclosure increased significantly, with respect to both environmental and social information provision. Second, the authors find that the relationship among legitimacy factors and CSR disclosure does not differ across the two time periods. However, the analysis focusing on environmental disclosure provides evidence that industry membership is less powerfully related to differences in reporting, but only for the weighted disclosure score. Finally, the results indicate that CSR disclosure, in apparent contrast to the arguments of the more recent mainstream investigations, is not positively valued by investors.

The authors explore changes in CSR disclosure only for industrial firms and as such the authors cannot generalize findings to companies in other industries. Similarly, the authors focus only on companies in the USA while different relationships may hold in other countries. Further, the disclosure metrics are limited by the availability of firm-specific information provided by Ernst & Ernst. Limitations aside, however, the findings appear to suggest that the failure of the new wave of CSR research in the mainstream accounting community to acknowledge and consider prior research into social and environmental accounting is potentially troublesome. Specifically, recent CSR disclosure research published in mainstream journals often lends credence to voluntary disclosure arguments that ignore previous contradictory findings and well-established alternative explanations for observed empirical relationships.

This paper provides supporting evidence that the unquestioned acceptance by the new wave of CSR researchers that the disclosure is about informing investors as opposed to being a tool of legitimation and image enhancement makes it less likely that such disclosure will ever move meaningfully toward transparent accountability.

The study suggests that CSR disclosure, while used more extensively today than three decades ago, may still largely be driven by concerns with corporate legitimacy, and still fails to provide information that is relevant for assessing firm value. As such, the failure of the mainstream accounting community to acknowledge this possibility can only hinder the ultimate development of better accountability for all of the impacts of business.