{"title":"There Should be More Normative Research on How Social and Environmental Accounting Should be Done","authors":"M. Brander","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2022.2066554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I suggest that the SEA research community has not engaged significantly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because our community generally does not offer normative policy-focused advice on how to account for climate change. This raises the question ‘Why not?’. It cannot be because there is no demand for normative accounting guidance, as examples of this need abound everywhere. And it cannot be because normativity is ‘not academic’ as other academic disciplines engage in normative research, notably the fields of economics and life cycle assessment. The SEA research community may be constrained by its social constructivist epistemology, its focus on explanatory theory which drives us towards explanatory rather than normative questions, and our training in social science research methods rather than direct engagement with how to do social and environmental accounting. Notwithstanding the challenges there is a pressing need for better accounting practice, and who better to develop methods for social and environmental accounting than the social and environmental accounting research community? Arguably, there should be more normative research on how social and environmental accounting should be done.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"11 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2022.2066554","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
ABSTRACT I suggest that the SEA research community has not engaged significantly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because our community generally does not offer normative policy-focused advice on how to account for climate change. This raises the question ‘Why not?’. It cannot be because there is no demand for normative accounting guidance, as examples of this need abound everywhere. And it cannot be because normativity is ‘not academic’ as other academic disciplines engage in normative research, notably the fields of economics and life cycle assessment. The SEA research community may be constrained by its social constructivist epistemology, its focus on explanatory theory which drives us towards explanatory rather than normative questions, and our training in social science research methods rather than direct engagement with how to do social and environmental accounting. Notwithstanding the challenges there is a pressing need for better accounting practice, and who better to develop methods for social and environmental accounting than the social and environmental accounting research community? Arguably, there should be more normative research on how social and environmental accounting should be done.
期刊介绍:
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal (SEAJ) is the official Journal of The Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research. It is a predominantly refereed Journal committed to the creation of a new academic literature in the broad field of social, environmental and sustainable development accounting, accountability, reporting and auditing. The Journal provides a forum for a wide range of different forms of academic and academic-related communications whose aim is to balance honesty and scholarly rigour with directness, clarity, policy-relevance and novelty. SEAJ welcomes all contributions that fulfil the criteria of the journal, including empirical papers, review papers and essays, manuscripts reporting or proposing engagement, commentaries and polemics, and reviews of articles or books. A key feature of SEAJ is that papers are shorter than the word length typically anticipated in academic journals in the social sciences. A clearer breakdown of the proposed word length for each type of paper in SEAJ can be found here.