Styles of verification and the pursuit of organisational repair: The case of social impact

IF 3.6 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Sarah Adams , Matthew Hall , Xinning Xiao
{"title":"Styles of verification and the pursuit of organisational repair: The case of social impact","authors":"Sarah Adams ,&nbsp;Matthew Hall ,&nbsp;Xinning Xiao","doi":"10.1016/j.aos.2023.101478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div><span>This paper examines how different varieties of verification can support the pursuit of organisational repair. We present data from a detailed field study<span> of the setting of social impact, drawing on a variety of practitioner perspectives on the purpose, value, and practice of verification. Taking the distinction between a direct and indirect mode of intervention as our starting point, we theorise the differences between a financial audit style of verification and what we label an ‘experiential’ style of verification. We show that an experiential style reconceptualises verification as playing a role in learning about and improving on the delivery of social impact within organisations rather than a primary concern with assuaging external report users. Experiential verification values the </span></span>situated knowledge of those deeply immersed in social impact above the attributes of independence, reputation or credentialled expertise, and is predicated on providing unmediated access to the subject of verification rather than verifying a measurable reality. A focus on verification for organisational repair has implications for whose wisdom counts, and points to the possibility of ‘new verification spaces’ focused on caretaking and delivering the public good rather than compliance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48379,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Organizations and Society","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 101478"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Organizations and Society","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368223000491","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines how different varieties of verification can support the pursuit of organisational repair. We present data from a detailed field study of the setting of social impact, drawing on a variety of practitioner perspectives on the purpose, value, and practice of verification. Taking the distinction between a direct and indirect mode of intervention as our starting point, we theorise the differences between a financial audit style of verification and what we label an ‘experiential’ style of verification. We show that an experiential style reconceptualises verification as playing a role in learning about and improving on the delivery of social impact within organisations rather than a primary concern with assuaging external report users. Experiential verification values the situated knowledge of those deeply immersed in social impact above the attributes of independence, reputation or credentialled expertise, and is predicated on providing unmediated access to the subject of verification rather than verifying a measurable reality. A focus on verification for organisational repair has implications for whose wisdom counts, and points to the possibility of ‘new verification spaces’ focused on caretaking and delivering the public good rather than compliance.
验证风格与组织修复的追求:以社会影响为例
本文探讨了不同种类的验证如何支持组织修复的追求。我们通过对社会影响环境的详细实地研究,借鉴了实践者对核查的目的、价值和实践的各种观点,提供了相关数据。以直接干预和间接干预模式之间的区别为出发点,我们从理论上分析了财务审计式核查与我们称之为 "体验式 "核查之间的区别。我们表明,体验式核查重新认识了核查在学习和改善组织内部社会影响方面所发挥的作用,而不是以满足外部报告使用者的需求为主要关注点。体验式核查重视那些深入社会影响的人的情景知识,而不是独立性、声誉或有证书的专业知识,其前提是提供与核查对象的无中介接触,而不是核查可衡量的现实。将核查重点放在组织修复上,会影响到谁的智慧更重要,并指出 "新核查空间 "的可能性,其重点是照顾和提供公共利益,而不是遵守规定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.40%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Accounting, Organizations & Society is a major international journal concerned with all aspects of the relationship between accounting and human behaviour, organizational structures and processes, and the changing social and political environment of the enterprise.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信