{"title":"Social impact reporting in the public interest: the case of accounting standardisation","authors":"S. Adams, D. Tweedie, Kristy Muir","doi":"10.1108/QRAM-02-2019-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to investigate the extent to which accounting standards for social impact reporting are in the public interest. This study aims to explore what the public interest means for social impact reporting by charities; and assess the extent to which the accounting standardisation of social impact reporting supports the public interest so defined.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study conducts a case study of how stakeholders in Australian charities conceptualise the public interest when discussing accounting standardisation. This paper distinguishes three concepts of the public interest from prior research, namely, aggregative, processual and common good. For each, this paper analyses the implications for accounting and how accountants serve the public interest, and how they align with stakeholder views.\n\n\nFindings\nStakeholder views align with the aggregative and processual concepts of public interest, however this was contested and partial. Accounting standards for social impact reporting will only serve the public interest if they also capture and implement the common good approach.\n\n\nPractical implications\nClarifying how key stakeholders interpret the public interest can help standard-setters and governments design (or withhold) accounting standards on social impact reporting. This paper also distinguishes different practical roles for accountants in this domain – information merchants, umpires or advocates, which each public interest concept implies.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper extends prior research on accounting for the public interest to social impact reporting. The paper empirically demonstrates the salience of the common good concept of public interest and demonstrates the diversity of views on the standardisation of social impact reporting by charities.\n","PeriodicalId":46537,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-02-2019-0026","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to investigate the extent to which accounting standards for social impact reporting are in the public interest. This study aims to explore what the public interest means for social impact reporting by charities; and assess the extent to which the accounting standardisation of social impact reporting supports the public interest so defined.
Design/methodology/approach
This study conducts a case study of how stakeholders in Australian charities conceptualise the public interest when discussing accounting standardisation. This paper distinguishes three concepts of the public interest from prior research, namely, aggregative, processual and common good. For each, this paper analyses the implications for accounting and how accountants serve the public interest, and how they align with stakeholder views.
Findings
Stakeholder views align with the aggregative and processual concepts of public interest, however this was contested and partial. Accounting standards for social impact reporting will only serve the public interest if they also capture and implement the common good approach.
Practical implications
Clarifying how key stakeholders interpret the public interest can help standard-setters and governments design (or withhold) accounting standards on social impact reporting. This paper also distinguishes different practical roles for accountants in this domain – information merchants, umpires or advocates, which each public interest concept implies.
Originality/value
This paper extends prior research on accounting for the public interest to social impact reporting. The paper empirically demonstrates the salience of the common good concept of public interest and demonstrates the diversity of views on the standardisation of social impact reporting by charities.
期刊介绍:
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management is an international journal that promotes qualitative research at the interface of accounting and management. The journal encourages the assessment of practices in the accounting field through a variety of theoretical lenses, and seeks to further our knowledge of the accounting-management nexus in its broadest (e.g., organisational, social and political) contexts. QRAM welcomes submissions of original research papers, conceptual pieces, substantive review articles, and shorter papers such as comments or research notes. The following is intended to indicate potential topics, but is by no means prescriptive. These topics can be overlapping rather than discrete subject areas, and researchers should not feel restricted by the scope of the topics listed below. • Management accounting and control • Accountability, transition and organisational change • Performance management and accounting metrics • Accounting for strategic management • The use and behavioural effects of accounting information in organisational decision-making • Public and third sector accounting and management • Accounting and management controls for sustainability and the environment • Historical perspectives on the accounting-management interface • Methods and methodologies for research at the interface of accounting and management • Accounting and management in developing countries and emerging economies • Technology effects on accounting-management dynamics