[雙語翻譯]外文翻譯--社會和環境會計研究框架（英文）

1、Contents lists available at ScienceDirectAccounting Forumjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/accforA framework for social and environmental accounting researchGlen Lehmana, Sanjaya Chinthana Kuruppub,?a School of C

2、ommerce, University of South Australia, Australia b School of Commerce, University of South Australia, AustraliaA R T I C L E I N F OKeywords:Social and Environmental AccountingInterpretationCritical TheoryPragmatismEval

3、uative FrameworkA B S T R A C TThis essay explores recent trends in social and environmental accounting research (SEAR). Weoffer a basic SEAR typology to examine the limitations and possibilities within the current dis-c

4、ourse. SEAR has taken a corporate approach in liberal democratic social space. Our typologyexamines the opportunities for SEAR to interpret and create change in social practice.1. IntroductionAccounting has traditionally

5、 been depicted as an essentially historical practice, but recent global dilemmas open social andenvironmental accounting research (SEAR) to issues of: 1) the increasing protectionism, dissatisfaction with political proce

6、sses andpossible tensions with globalisation in the post-Brexit and Trump era, 2) climate change policy, practice and reporting in a worldmarked by commodified news and duplicitious capitalism, and 3) the growing neo-lib

7、eralisation of NGOs and public sector in-stitutions amidst the deepening refugee crisis and fracturing of nation-states (see, for example, Arnold and Sikka, 2001; Sikka andLehman, 2015).This essay is intended as a guide

8、for those approaching the area for the first time to explore what SEAR is. Recent SEAR has takena managerial turn which (arguably) does not fully explore the dilemmas that the natural environment poses for all citizens a

9、ndnation-states. We agree with Professor Ray Chambers that what “accounting needs is its own Copernican Revolution” (Chambers,1999, p. 250–251). We believe SEAR must contribute solutions to these global dilemmas to funda

10、mentally reflect on itself, itstheoretical and philosophical foundations, and consider its purpose in creating meaningful (and positive) change.SEAR can contribute to these issues when it examines Gray’s (2016, p. 156) o

11、bservation that “with the rise and rise of neo-liberalism, those with the power and the money have systematically and very effectively ensured that they have more of both at theexpense of wider society”. Through the lite

12、rature, our aim is to determine how SEAR can contribute to improving our relationshipswith the natural environment. Our paper offers a tentative classification developed from four ideal types: procedural ethics, critical

13、theory, postmodernism and interpretivism. In SEAR, these have metamorphosed into the business case, critical theory, radical theoryand critical realism/interpretivism. Recent research, as outlined in Table 2, shows how t

14、hese strands of thought no longer operateaccording to the grand narratives outlined below in Table 1.Our new classification for SEAR is developed from an analysis of the theme, argument and purpose of some recent article

15、s inleading journals. Table 2 provides a fresh examination of trends in SEAR, illuminating the role that other strands of research mightplay. The Table reveals a fragmentation in the various approaches between critical,

16、interpretivist, radical and realist. We observe thatthe business case now dominates SEAR theory and practice. It relies on the existing social structures of liberal-democracies anddovetails with accounting research that

17、deals with positivism. This fragmentation reveals a problem for modern communitieshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2017.07.001Received 15 November 2016; Received in revised form 8 July 2017; Accepted 8 July 2017? Corre

18、sponding author.E-mail address: sanjaya.kuruppu@unisa.edu.au (S.C. Kuruppu).Accounting Forum 41 (2017) 139–146Available online 27 July 20170155-9982/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.MARKaccounting reports.

19、Thus, SEAR combined with interpretivism reveals the impacts of technologies such as accounting. Through inter-pretation, the accountant can open up particular phenomena, guiding SEAR research to provide different meaning

20、s and reveal (perhaps)hidden insights for change. Through this evaluative process, the interpretivist framework provides richer accounts, narratives, reports andstories about the relationship between humanity and nature.

21、 This evaluative reflection is guided by the desire to connect us to new sensesof ourselves and our relationship with nature. In large measure, interpretivism maintains that accounting not only masks exploitativerelation

22、s but closes our thinking to values outside of our current systems. For example, the political norm invoked by Milne and Gray,(2013) and Gray and Milne (in press) call for explanations and interpretations about actual in

23、teractions in, and with, the natural world. Inmany respects, this line of research is interpretivist/critical realist and can be used to enquire the role of SEAR.3. Recent themes in SEAR3.1. The business case: managerial

24、ism and SEARThe business case approach advocates for an unregulated role for corporations to guide SEAR. Proponents of the business caseclaim that environmental and social values are not incompatible with business logic.

25、 Business case researchers explore ways SEARaugment existing business operations (e.g. achieve greater efficiency and profitability simultaneously). Business case theorists en-courage a pragmatic engagement with business

26、 (managerialist perspectives) as a better strategy than relying on critical processes oftransformation in SEA (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010). They claim to be able to create ‘win-win’ solutions where business objectives

27、can result in improved environmental outcomes.Typical of the business narrative in SEAR is the work of Baker and Schaltegger (2015a, 2015b) to whom ‘our environment, ourorganisations and our social relations exist becaus

28、e of the choices and meanings that we, as individuals and collectives, ascribe tothem over time’ (p. 270). As such, the value of nature emanates from human thoughts associated with mind-dependent re-presentations of exte

29、rnal phenomena. This approach to connection with nature occurs without critical reflection on the suppositionthat nature itself contains meaning and intrinsic value. Baker and Schaltegger (2015a, 2015b) argue that it is

30、pragmatic to shadowcorporate financial reporting through SEA (social and environmental accounting) reporting issues.2Implicit in much of the recent SEA reporting literature is the supposition that the existing framework

31、is a pragmatic justificationfor implementing these new reporting technologies (Gray, 2013). A rationale which sits more easily in the laps of practitionerswithout “rocking the boat” (see, for example, Thornton, 2013, p.

32、439). Again, this reflects the view that social and environmentalinformation in external reports will drive change. However, the focus remains on procedural performance, itself a reflection ofneoliberal ideological assum

33、ptions and viewpoints. This strand of the literature relies on assumptions of individualism and marketcompetition. Neoliberal assumptions of competition and voluntarism under-theorise the common bonds that hold societies

34、 together.Without a fully worked out holistic framework, the role of business will remain under-theorised. The sections that follow examinepolitical and social theorising which enable a greater appreciation of the connec

35、tions between nature and society.3.2. Evolutionary theoryBoth evolutionary and critical approaches to CSR exist within SEAR. Evolutionary approaches have taken the form of dialogicaccounts which aim to create social and

36、environmental change within the current social structures.3 Contrafatto, Thomson, and Monk(2015) and Thomson (2015) call for synergistic relationships between business and governmental institutions such as local councils

37、.These institutions possess the potential to inform the people in the public sphere to whom the natural environment is a significantsource of the self. Current research merely endorses liberal-democratic structures and d

38、o not consider the implications that languageand discourses have on communities (Arrington Arrington Lehman, 2013, 2017b). Theseare pressing issues given the rise of neoliberal conceptions about what is the role of bus

39、iness in community and society (see, forexample, Walker, 2016).Critical approaches to CSR establish a vision of what is now and should be; a salient feature of any change process. Our evo-lutionary approach is predicated

40、 on Thomson (2014) who advocates for Gray, Brennan, and Malpas's (2014) approch which “goesbeyond critique, presents a normative analysis of alternative ‘voyages of exploration’ for social accounting research and pro

41、vides avision of what social accounting should be” (p. 274). His vision includes “different scenarios where social accounting and ac-countability practices (appropriately reconstituted) could be effectively integrated in

42、to sustainable transformation programmes” (p.274). Guided by Thomson (2014), we believe that what differentiates critical approaches from evolutionary approaches is the desireto transform the social system which causes t

43、he environmental and social crises confronting modern communities. Evolutionistssearch to find break points in the system.In this vein, drawing on Wright's theoretical positioning, Gray et al. (2014) provide new evol

44、utionary insights. They propose anagenda for future social accounting and accountability research based on interstitial accounts which search for cracks in the socialfabric. In particular, interstitial accounts would off

45、er not only a critical perspective, but also an evolutionary SEAR focus whichconstructs a “responsible social accounting academic community aligned with the normative objective of sustainable transformation”2 Representat

46、ive of the business case literature are: George, Siti-Nabiha, Jalaludin, and Abdalla (2016), Montecchia, Giordano, and Grieco (2016). Morioka andCarvalho (2016a, 2016b), and Thijssens, Bollen, and Hassink (2016). 3 Persp