SAE Exam preparation

Section A: One question (10 marks)

Section B: Answer three of four questions (3 x 20 marks)
Each question will specifically examine one of the following course topics:
(1)Sustainability reporting and integrated reporting
(weeks 3-4)
(2)Sustainability assurance (weeks 5-6)
(3)Accounting, accountability and ethics (weeks 7-8)
(4)Social accountability and the finance sector (weeks 910)
(5)NGO accountability (weeks 11-12)
What do I need to know?
Motivation sufficient understanding
Research Question/Objective sufficient understanding
Theory basic understanding; how it helped inform findings
Case Setting basic understanding
Findings detailed understanding
Contribution detailed understanding
What is accountability?
Is considered as the duty to provide an account (by no means necessarily
a financial account) or reckoning of those actions for which one is held
responsible The question remains, however, to whom is the account
made? Benston (1982, p. 88) identifies shareholders, stakeholders and
society in general as three possi- ble recipient groups .
- Accountabilitythe duty to provide an account or reckoning of those
actions for which one is held responsible
- Benston Free market viewShareholders, stakeholders and society
are 3 recipient groups. The free market (together with monitoring services)
will serve shareholders and other contractual stakeholders well. a
- Habermans ideal speech situationThis situation would enhance
accountability by providing all the stakeholders with the right to enter the

discourse and present their views and challenge the views of others. This
would lead to a democratic consensus about the responsibilities of the
firms.
- Roberts Discussion and dialogueIn discussion, decisions are made.
Dialogue is used to get a better understanding of complex issues. Dialogue
has therefore the potential to restore the balance of accountability. Three
conditions for the dialogue to be successful: Participants must suspend
their assumption and regard each others as collegues + there must be a
facilitator who holds the context of dialogue.
- Roberts: Dialogue is impossible in the presence of hierarchical power.

Bryman, A. (2008), Social Research Methods

Reliability and validity qualitative research
Trustworthiness and authenticity
Respondent validation
Triangulation
Action research
Trustworthiness
1. Credibility - good research design & practice
2. Transferability you could expect to see similar (if not exact) processes
under similar circumstances
3. Dependability you are advised to keep a complete record of the
research process so it can be audited.
4. Confirmability - researcher must account for the fact that their own
biases may influence the results, sometimes this is also referred to as
reflexivity

Authenticity
Concerns political impact of research
Criteria:
Fairness: different viewpoints
Ontological authenticity: improve understanding of members social milieu
Educative authenticity: improve understanding of others perspectives
Catalytic authenticity: impetus to act
Tactical authenticity: empowerment
Criteria have not been influential and stress on wider impact of social
research controversial

Some affinity with action research which is different from most social
research in stressing practical outcomes
Action research involves collaboration in diagnosing and working toward
solving a problem in a social setting
AR data collection likely in the formulation of the diagnosis and in
developing a solution. Can be quantitative and qualitative data collection
An important issue for qualitative research is that of authenticity. In
establishing authenticity, researchers seek reassurance that both the
conduct and evaluation of research are genuine and credible not only in
terms of participants lived experiences but also with respect to the wider
political and social implications of research. Authenticity involves shifting
away from concerns about the reliability and validity of research to
concerns about research that is worthwhile and thinking about its impact
on members of the culture or community being researched. Authenticity,
then, is seen as an important component of establishing trustworthiness in
qualitative research

Triangulation refers to the use of more than one approach to the

investigation of a research question in order to enhance confidence in the
ensuing findings.
1. Data triangulation, which entails gathering data through several
sampling strategies so that slices of data at different times and in different
social situations, as well as on a variety of people, are gathered
2. Investigator triangulation, which refers to the use of more than one
researcher in the field to gather and interpret data
3.Theoretical triangulation, which refers to the use of more than one
theoretical position in interpreting data
4. Methodological triangulation, which refers to the use of more than one
method for gathering data
Trailangulation ->Lead to a higher creditablity.

Legitimacy theory
Legitimacy theory asserts that organizations continually seek to ensure
that they are perceived as operating within the bounds and norms of their
respective societies, that is, they attempt to ensure that their activities are
perceived by outside parties as being legitimate. If the company is
legitimate, it will get support of the society.
Lingblom: Legitimacy is a condition or status which exists when an
entitys value system is congruent with the value system of the larger
social system of which the entity is part. When a disparity, actual or
potential, exists between the two value systems, there is a threat to the
entitys legitimacy.
Legitimacy theory relies upon the notion of a social contract, which is an
implied contract representing the norms and expectations of the
community in which an organization operates. An organization is deemed
to be legitimate to the extent that it complies with the terms of the social
contract. As social expectations of the relevant publics change the
corporation must make changes or the legitimacy gap will grow as the
level of conflict increases and the levels of positive and passive support of
the society decreases.
Strategies of legitimacy
Dowling and Pfeffer outline the means by which an organization may
legitimate its activities (legitimacy strategies of communication):

- The organization can adapt its output, goals and methods of

operation to conform to prevailing definitions of legitimacy.

- The organization can attempt, through communication, to alter the

definition of social legitimacy so that it conforms to the organizations
present practices, output and values.

- The organization can attempt, through communication, to become

identified with symbols, values or institutions that have a strong base
of legitimacy.

Lingblom (1994) defined 4 strategies. The organisation can seek to:

- 1 Educate & inform its relevant publics about (actual) changes in the
organisations performance & activities, bringing them more in line with
societal values & expectations
- 2 Change relevant publics perceptions of organisational performance &
activities but not actually change them, while using corporate disclosures
to falsely indicate change
- 3 Manipulate perceptions by deflecting attention from the issue of
concern onto other related issues e.g. through emotive symbols showing
how the organisation has addressed societal expectations in other
activities
- 4 Change external expectations of its performance e.g. by demonstrating
that specific societal expectations are unreasonable

Accounting is and accounting reports can be used by an organization to

implement each of the above strategies. The annual report disclosure
practices can be used in a strategic manner to manage an organizations
relations with the community in which it operates. Legitimacy and the right
to operate are considered to go hand in hand. Accounting disclosures are
considered to represent one way in which an organization can legitimize
its ongoing operations. Where legitimacy is threatened, disclosures are
one strategy to restore legitimacy.
The view within legitimacy theory that organizations will be penalized if
they do not operate in a manner consistent with community expectations
(that is, in accordance with the social contract) is a view being embraced
publicly by corporate managers in many European and other nations. In
practice, policies to maintain or restore corporate legitimacy are
sometimes articulated in terms of reputation risk management.
Deegan and Gordon (1996) study indicated:

- Increases in corporate environmental disclosures over time were

positively associated with increases in the levels of environmental
group membership;

- Corporate environmental disclosures were overwhelmingly selflaudatory

- There was a positive correlation between the environmental

sensitivity of the industry to which the corporation belonged and the
level of corporate environmental disclosure. These results were
deemed to be consistent with legitimacy theory.

Three types of legitimacy:

- Moral The more ethical type of legitimacy (society perspective)
evaluation:
o Consequential = what are the consequences of the behavior of the
company?
o Procedural = good or bad for the society?
o Personal = what is the experience of the people?
o Structural = does it have benefits for the society?
Rests on judgements not about whether a given activity benefits the
evaluator, but rather on judgements about whether the activity is the
right thing to do.
- Pragmatic Personal perspective = its about personal interest:
o Exchange: what is in it for me?
o Influence: how can I influence this practice?
o Dispositional: what is my interest?
Rests on the self-interested calculations of an organisations most
immediate audiences.
- Cognitive the highest one to obtain of the three types of legitimacy:
o Based on comprehensibility & taken-for-grantedness rather than
interest or evaluation as in the other two forms.

From the slides:

Legitimacy is:
- ..a condition or status which exists when an entitys value system is
congruent with the value system of the larger social system of which the
entity is part.
- ..a measure of societal perceptions of the adequacy of corporate
behaviour.

Legitimacy theory assumes that: organizations attempt to ensure that

their activities are perceived by outside parties as being legitimate
Organisations need to gain a social licence to operate
Based on the notion of a social contract
Failure to comply with the contract = societal sanctions
Legitimacy is necessary for organisational survival
Dowling and Pfeffer (1975):
Adapt output, goals & methods of operation to conform to social
contract
Alter the definition of social legitimacy (change societal
expectations)
Become identified with symbols, values or institutions that have
strong base of legitimacy
Lindblom (1994):
Educate and inform relevant publics about (actual) changes in
performance/activities
Change perceptions of relevant publics about performance/activities
Manipulate perceptions by deflecting attention from the issue of
concern
Change external expectations of performance

Stakeholder theory (ethical + managerial)

The ethical branch (moral and normative perspective)
All stakeholders have the right to be treated fairly by an organization and
issues as stakeholder power are not directly relevant the impact of
the organization must be determined by the organizations responsibilities
to that stakeholder and not about the stakeholders economic power over
the organization. Management must give equal consideration to the
interests of all stakeholders.
Stakeholders have intrinsic rights (safe working conditions, fair pay etc.)
and these rights should not be violated. It is about an ethical treatment of
stakeholders which may require that the economic motive of the
organization (profit) is tempered to take account of the moral role of the
organization and their social effects on peoples lives.
Stakeholder = any identifiable group or individual who can affect or is
affected by the achievement of an organizations objectives. Stakeholders
are divided into primary and secondary stakeholders:
Primary = one without whose continuing participation the corporation
cannot survive as a going concern.
Secondary = those who influence / affect, or are influenced / affected by,
the corporation, but not engaging in transactions with the corporation and
are not essential for the survival.
According to the ethical branch, the organization must consider both the
primary and secondary stakeholders. According to the managerial branch,
primary stakeholders are the definition of stakeholders.
The ethical branch gives all stakeholders minimum rights and that means
the right to be provided with information about certain facets of the
organizations operations. Accountability = the duty to provide an account
(financial and non-financial) of those actions for which one is held
responsible it is the responsibility to undertake certain actions and to
provide an account of those actions.
Linking accountability to corporate social reporting the role of a
corporate report is to inform society about the extent to which actions for
which an organization is deemed to be responsible have been fulfilled. The
growth of corporations in size, market power, and impact on society has
naturally brought with it, a growth in responsibility.

The term social contract can theorize the responsibilities of business

the law can provide explicit terms of the social contract, while other
societal expectations embody the implicit terms (legitimacy theory).
The normative perspective, ethical branch, is about how researchers
believe the organization should act and not about how they actually do
act. It attempts to interpret and offer guidance on a basis of underlying
moral principles. Therefore empirical observation is not possible.
The managerial branch (positive and descriptive perspective)
This approach is about when corporate management is willing to attend to
the expectations of particular powerful stakeholders (primary). The more
important the stakeholder is, the more effort will be exerted in managing
the relationship. Managing can be done true financial accounting
information and information about the social performance of the
organization (gain support, distract opposition etc.).
The organization is considered to be part of the wider social system
(legitimacy theory), but considers different stakeholder groups within
society and how they should best be managed. The expectations of
stakeholder groups have impact on the operating and disclosure policies of
the organization. The organization will only respond to the powerful
stakeholders power is the stakeholders degree of control over
resources. Power is firm specific, but for example includes: command of
limited resources, access to media etc. The behavior of stakeholders is a
constraint of the strategy, to best match corporate resources with its
environment.
Major role of corporate management is to assess the importance of
meeting stakeholder demands in order to achieve the strategic objectives
of the firm. The expectations and power of stakeholder groups can change
organizations must continually adapt their operating and disclosure
policies.
As the stakeholder power increases, the importance of meeting the
stakeholders demands increases. Some of the demands are related to the
provision of information about the activities. Various activities undertaken
by organizations, including public reporting, will be directly related to the
expectations of particular stakeholder groups. Organizations want to
disclose information about their activities to show that they conform with
the expectations of the stakeholders (legitimacy theory). Social
responsibility activities are useful in developing and maintaining
satisfactory relationships with stakeholders. Building a corporate
reputation as being social responsible through performing and disclosing
social responsibility activities is part of a strategy for managing
stakeholder relationships.

From the slides:

Highly interrelated with legitimacy theory
Stakeholder theory: focuses on the existence of, & interactions with, different
stakeholder groups
Possibility of many social contracts
Distinction between managerial and ethical branch
Managerial branch:
Organization-centred
Organisations respond to most powerful stakeholders
Successful organisation = one that satisfies the demands (sometimes conflicting)
of its various powerful stakeholders
Public reporting will be directly related to expectations of particular stakeholder
groups (demand driven)
Ethical branch:
Moral & normative
Argues all stakeholders should be treated fairly
Organisational impact on all stakeholders should determine organisational
responsibilities
Reporting should be responsibility driven not demand driven
Identify stakeholders:
How to identify key relevant stakeholders?

 Economically powerful stakeholders will vary from organisation to organisation &

over time
Social & environmental impacts will be larger on some stakeholder groups
than others
Need to negotiate consensus among competing stakeholder needs &
expectations, which also change over time
Primary Stakeholder:One without whose continuing participation the corporation
cannot survive (Clarkson, 1995, p.106)
Secondary Stakeholder: Those who influence or affect, or are influenced or affected
by, the corporation, but they are not engaged in transactions with the corporation and are
not essential for its survival (p.107)

REAL PAPERS
Week 2 Sustainability, Accountabilty and Ethics
(intro)
(not so important)
Week 2
Cooper, S. M., & Owen, D. L. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder
accountability: The missing link, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 32, pp. 649667.
Case study that evaluates the degree of institutional reform designed to empower
stakeholder and thereby enhance corporate accountability accompanying
voluntary reporting initiatives in the UK.
Two separate investigations; review of leading edge reports and the process of civil
regulation in the UK
Provides important definitions of accountability

 Main conclusions include:

Reports failed to show progress towards accountability and Government
regulation is needed
Regulation reforms failed as they did not provide stakeholders with
necessary power
Hierarchical power prevents ideals of accountability in institutional
frameworks

Weeks 3-4: Sustainability reporting and

integrated reporting
Week 3 Lecture
Rinaldi, L. et al., (2014), The role of stakeholder engagement and dialogue within
the sustainability accounting and reporting process, in Sustainability, Accounting
and Accountability. Routledge, London, Chapter 6. pp. 86-107.

 Deegan, C. and Unerman, J. (2006), Financial Accounting Theory: European

edition, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead: Chapter 8: Unregulated corporate reporting
decisions: Considerations of systems oriented theories.

Rinaldi, L. et al (2014) Book chapter

Uitwerken 3 of 4 punten bij de volgende punten
1. The role of stakeholder engagement and dialogue in sustainability reporting.
- The why stage: understanding organizational motives for stakeholder engagement and
dialogue
(relates to managers philosophical motivations to release SER information, because it is
not mandatory, economically focused aim at one end, wholly ethically motivation at the
other hand, Motives -> strategic or holistic)
- The to who stage: linking stakeholder identification to motives for reporting
(who are the stakeholders, to whom is the company responsible)
- The what stage: moving from stakeholder identification to stakeholder engagement and
dialogue
(what information and what issues)
-How should the report be complied
2. Stakeholder expectations for social, environmental and sustainability accounting
- Shareholders, investors (want social report), insurers, banks (ESG), customers, suppliers,
employees, trade unions, NGOs, the media
Equal and transparent way employ informal as well as formal engagement strategies
Activist groups mobilize thousands of people (through social media) to name, blame, and
shame companies. The reputational costs are often immense, since customers are
increasingly sensitive towards these issues and demand greener products and supply
chains. Companies might also face regulatory risks that often come with high
implementation costs.
Not having the finger on the pulse of current stakeholder issues might lead to (costly)
surprises. Some stakeholder groups, such as As you Sow focus on shareholder resolutions
and attack companies.
Seeing ones company making headlines for not respecting human rights or
environmental standards can lead to lower employee morale and difficulties recruiting
new employees.
3. Current issues in stakeholder engagement and dialogue
Identifying the range of stakeholders to be considered
Impossibility of direct dialogue and engagement with some stakeholders
Addressing heterogeneous stakeholder views and expectations
Prioritizing stakeholder needs on the basis of maximum negative consequences
Negotiating a consensus among mutually exclusive stakeholder views through discourse
ethics

Deegan, C. and Unerman, J. (2006), Lecture

Legitimacy theory and the social contract
-You need to supplement this definition with the concepts of pragmatic,
morale and cognitive legitimacy from ODwyer et al. (2011).

Stakeholder theory
-Differences between the ethical branch and managerial branch

Week 4 Seminar

Deegan, C. and Blomquist, C. (2005), Stakeholder Influence on

Corporate Reporting: An Exploration of the interaction between
WWF-Australia and the Australian Minerals Industry, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 31, pp. 343-372.
-Case study of WWF in Australia
-Investigates if WWF concerns are reflected in the disclosure policies of
sample companies and a related industry body
-Provides important insights into legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory
and how they differ
Main conclusions include:
Shows the importance of groups such as WWF in terms of monitoring
corporate activities. Organisations were shown to listen and modify
behavior but questions remain.
Highlights important discussions surrounding collaboration efforts by
NGOs and how it legitimizes current practices with limited change
occurring as a result

Week 5-6: Sustainability assurance and nonfinancial assurance

Week 5 Lecture

Cooper, S. and Owen, C. (2014), Independent assurance of sustainability reports in

Sustainability, Accounting and Accountability. Routledge, London, Chapter 5. pp. 72-85.

Cooper (2014) Book Chapter (not the best part of the book)
1. Towards the standardization of assurance practice
(currently no clear standards or standards, currently two ways accounting based,
and other one core principles of inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness viewed
from a stakeholder perspective
2. A critical overview of sustainability assurance practices
3. Perspectives of key actors in the assurance process
(managerial control of the process, limited levels of stakeholder engagement,
unwillingness of inability to provide higher level of assurance
4. Future development of sustainability assurance practices

 Week 6 Seminar
Andon, P., Free, V., and Sivabalan, P. (2014) The legitimacy of new assurance
providers: Making the cap fit, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 39,
Issue 2, pp. 75-96.
Case study of new assurance providers in Canada and Australia
Investigates efforts by auditors to establish jurisdiction in a new audit space and
how audit technologies travel into new fields
Main conclusions include:
(1)Important reflections for the possibility of accounting professionals as
demand for assurance services continues to expand. Specifically, the
importance of refreshing audit logics and practices to fit the field in which
they are applied.
How non-traditionally trained financial auditors can overcome knowledge
barriers when entering new audit spaces
(1)As functioning of audit and assurance spreads to other societal domains,
it may be that audit firms draw more on detective style role than the
production of comfort in traditional financial audit.
O Dwyer, B., Owen, D. and Unerman, J. (2011), Seeking legitimacy for new
assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.31-52.
Case study of the development of an assurance practices within a big 4
accounting firm
Investigates how legitimation processes evolve and impact upon practitioners
attempts to develop assurance practice
Important extension of legitimacy theory provided
Main conclusions include:
How different audiences impact on the development of the assurance
practices of a big 4 firm (client, non-client, internal world)
Unveils characteristics of risk management practices which can stifle
assurors efforts to expand and legitimate assurance practice
Nuances academic literature that questions the ability of new audit forms
to deliver on ideals of transparency and accountability

Weeks 7-8: Accounting, Accountability and Ethics

Week 7 Lecture
Lewis, L. and Unerman, J. (1999), Ethical relativism: A reason for differences in
corporate social reporting?, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 10, pp.
521-547.
Introduces the concepts of ethical absolutism, ethical relativism and Universal
Prescriptivism
Argue that: that it is not possible to know any objective meaning of the terms
right & wrong. Ethical absolutism is invalid & ethics must be, to some extent,
relative
Ethical relativism implies that no ethical rules apply universally & each individual
may live by their own moral code. However, arguing that any behaviour is morally
acceptable to maintain a particular society is not always ethical.
Conclude by promoting Universal Prescriptivism: Universal prescriptivism tends
to view extreme antisocial behaviour as universally immoral, while admitting the
possibility that many forms of behaviour will be validly regarded as morally right in
some societies, or to some individuals, while being regarded as morally wrong in
other societies or to other individuals.
Ethical Absolutism
Moral values = absolute
because the opposite position (ethical relativism) means any behaviour is morally
acceptable e.g. genocide
Some opinion formers/politicians believe ethical values are absolute & ethical
relativism is wrong
This implies that moral values are objective & many people are socialised into
believing in absolute values
Thus, their moral codes are deemed universal
Ethical Relativism
Implies no ethical rules apply universally & each individual may live by their own
moral code
Rightness: contingent on individual & cultural beliefs

 Differs between, & within, individuals & societies; none better than the other
However, arguing that any behaviour is morally acceptable to maintain a particular
society is not always ethical e.g. apartheid in South Africa
Ethical Absolutism V Relativism
Can we argue that beliefs that certain moral values in other societies are
wrong?
Lewis & Unerman (1999) argue it is not possible to know any objective meaning of the
terms right & wrong
In their opinion, ethical absolutism is invalid & ethics must be, to some extent,
relative
Universal Prescriptivism:
1. Identifies behaviour which can never be morally right in any society: Universal values
2. Identifies behaviour that can validly be regarded as morally right by one society or
individual, and morally wrong by another society or individual: Relative values
- Individuals arriving at acceptable moral values through a reasoned process of
universal prescriptivism:
- Universal moral values: False confessions through torture
- Relative moral values: Only social responsibility of a firm to maximise profits? CSR
morally right?

Week 8 Seminar
Neu, D. et al., (2013), Accounting and networks of corruption, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 38, pp. 505-524.
Case study that investigates the role of accounting practices within a network of
corruption.
Prior thinking highlighted how accounting can limit corruption with capitalist
countries (barrier to corruption)
Internal control practices; campaign finance legislation; business focused
policies that prevent illegal influence payments to political actors
Main conclusions include:
Accounting simultaneously limits and facilitates corruption within an
influence market setting.
Highlights the centrality of accounting with organised criminal network.
Accounting made possible the generation, circulation and
repatriation of the proceeds of corrpution among network actors
Network occured because interactions among participants congeal
around the accomplishment of accounting transactions

 Accounting practices become part of the repatoire of key actors in

the field
Gendron, Y. and Spira, L. (2010), Identity narratives under threat: A study of
former members of Arthur Andersen, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 35, pp. 275-300.
Case study that investigated the process by which individuals work their sense of
organisational and professional identity in the aftermath of a professional failure.
Interviewed 25 former partners and employees of Arthur Anderson to investigate
identity work ensuing from the breakdown of the firm
Organisational self identity (AA) & public accountant self-identity
Main conclusions include:
Interviewees engaged extensively in identity work
Disallusion
Resentfulness
Rationalisation
Hopefulness
Raises questions regarding the prevalence of commercialism within public
accounting and partner life in Big 4 Firms

Weeks 9-10: Social accountability and the finance

sector

 Week 9 Lecture (BOOK)

Coulson, A. and OSullivan, N. (2014), Environmental and social assessment in finance,
in Sustainability, Accounting and Accountability. Routledge, London, Chapter 8. pp. 124140.
Book chapter that examines how environmental and social considerations are
being factored into lending and investment decisions and the steps being taken by
lenders and investors to standardise decision processes
Debt:
Loan finance: credit risk assessment and ethical screening.
Project finance: Equator principles
Equity:
Responsible investment: negative and positive screening

Debt - Loan finance: Credit Risk

- Due diligence: Knowing your customer & their credit worthiness
- Borrowers can default on loans e.g. due to cost of environmental clean-ups
- Reputational issues: customer boycotts
Risk to reputation through e.g. association with a polluter; deforestation; human rights
violations etc.
Direct financial risk due to e.g. project failures:
-Late payments, write-off, default of loans
-Devaluation of borrowers assets; collateral etc.
(looks like negative screening)
Debt Project finance: Equator principles
Pressure from NGOs to be socially accountable for their financing
EP = environmental and social performance guide lines for project finance
Led to more responsible project finance, major impact, engagement with a broad range of
stakeholders

Equity: Ownership & Asset Management

- Due diligence: Knowing your portfolio & its real value
- Unethical investment decisions: e.g. cluster bombs, tobacco, gambling, corrupt
regimes
- Materiality of ESG issues for investment activities
- Pension fund managers: Fiduciary duty to beneficiaries
- 2000 Law: UK occupational funds disclosure of Social Responsible Investment (SRI)
policies

 Week 10 Seminar
Neu, D., Silva, L., & Gomez, E. O. (2008). Diffusing financial practices in Latin
American higher education: understanding the intersection between global
influence and the local context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal,21(1), 49-77.
Case study that investigates how financial practices are diffused across countries
and why the nature of adoption varies across countries
Macro-study documents how World Bank loans have encouraged the adoption of
particular configurations of accounting and accountability practices
Micro-study illustrates the way in which the institutional players, capitals and
habitus within Mexico and Guatamala influenced the adoption of Bank
recommended financial practices
Main conclusions include:
Important to move between the Global and the Local if we are to
understand the spread and of accounting practices. More specifically:
World Bank acts as an agent of diffusion via direct contact and
indirect modelling
Diffusion not an automatic process. Influenced by dispositions of
Government, historical circumstances and capital.

Solomon, J., et al., (2013), Impression management, myth creation and

fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving
Goffman, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 38, pp. 195-213.
The paper investigated if private SER represents a powerful mechanism for
enhancing stakeholder accountability and whether of not this is being realized.
Case study based on 20 interviews with UK institutional investors
Findings suggest that two frames exist
Implies back stage private SER is deemed necessary but purely cosmetic
Some limited evidence of investors shifting the front stage to become a
genuine accountability mechanisms
Main conclusions include:

 Private SER does not generally appear to enhance accountability

Embarressment is the primary emotion driving interaction