Editorial

Citation

Kumba Jallow, D. (2009), "Editorial", Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/jaar.2009.37510caa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Volume 10, Issue 3

As both the Founding Editor of the Journal of Applied Accounting Research and an active researcher in the area of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability, I have an interest in seeing new studies being developed and published which allow the practice of CSR to be made more explicit. I have followed the trends in the academic field over the past 20 years and it is clear that there is still much to be done. There have emerged the following broad strands of research in the accounting for CSR:

• •

  The development of theoretical frameworks in which to position studies.

• •

  The split between radicalism and reformism in studies – the arguments for and against a managerialist approach to accounting and accountability.

• •

  Within the radical sphere, a body of work which seeks to remove accountants and accounting from the arena and preventing any further influence on practice.

• •

  An emerging engagement with business to formulate a joint response to find new ways forward.

• •

  Comparative studies both in one country and across countries. These are often focused on organisations in developed economies, but there are an increasing number of studies emerging from the majority world.

This has meant that the body of research encompasses many styles of research, differing in their research strategy and their outcomes. As these researches are progressing, business organisations are also moving ahead with their CSR agenda, together with their business associations who work on practical strategies to help them deliver sustainable activities. My concern has always been that, whilst we researchers are seeking answers to some of the biggest questions we have faced in recent years – the sustainability of our planet for us and for the future – we have failed to notice that the world has developed solutions of their own, which we may not agree with and which may not be “suitable” for such a big question, but that are being implemented nevertheless. Researchers worry that by engaging with business too deeply, their efforts are somehow co-opted by the organisation and the effects are diluted into another “business as usual” scenario. However what may actually happen is that, whilst we ponder what ought to be happening, business is moving on with what it believes should be happening, and the debate only takes place after the event. I think that there is place for all types of research approaches and many areas, which have not yet been properly addressed. My plea would be for all research in this area to be given equal consideration; there is always a place for good, rigorous, reliable research whether it is trying to provide better theorising, practical solutions or discussions of the most pressing issues.

The Journal of Applied Accounting Research has always sought to publish papers which have some engagement with practice and which attempt to analyse the implications of research to business and other organisations. In this respect it seeks to promote active engagement with practice and encourage research, which demonstrates that the problems that people have in running their organisations can be researched in such a way that outcomes valuable to the organisation are achieved. It is in this way it has developed as a journal, which is recognised as one, which is attempting to bridge the gap between the academy and business and other organisations operating in the wider world.

This themed issue has arisen because there has been an increase in the number of submissions to the Journal relating to CSR. The four papers were chosen to represent some of the research being carried out in Europe, and, as such, provide an insight into activities, which are perhaps specific to that geographical area. However the results of the research echo those found in other parts of the globe; indeed the Journal has received similar research papers from Brazil, Lebanon and India, which may appear in later issues.

The first paper, by Day and Woodward, examines the guidance available to the financial services sector in the UK. Often when we think of CSR activities in large organisations, we think of the so-called “dirty industries” such as oil and chemicals. These were often the organisations chosen for initial studies in the 1990s. However, all organisations create social and environmental impacts; it is not the type of impacts, which differ but the size and scale. Indeed, different organisations may create some impacts on a huge scale – think of universities and their paper usage – and it is important to examine what strategies other industries are adopting in their CSR reporting. The financial services sector has a set of guidelines to work with, and Day and Woodward examine how this guidance is used to create accountability in banks and insurance companies. They find that, despite detailed guidance, which should provide a reporting framework allowing comparability and consistency, there is varied compliance – more so with larger companies – and once again the question of the efficacy of voluntary reporting is raised. The paper also calls for further research into the motivational aspects of reporting in this sector.

The second paper, by Kotonen, examines CSR reporting in Finland. A country with a vast amount of exploitable natural resources, it is nevertheless not as well recognised in the CSR literature for studies carried out in its business organisations. The study is confined to large listed companies and so again the author suggests further research is called for in the rest of the economy, but this is a very important first step. The author herself describes her study as a “snapshot” and finds that there are very similar results to other international studies in terms of lack of completeness and comparability (as is reported in the first paper). Despite the availability of the Global Reporting initiative’s guidelines, voluntary reporting procedures produce reports which are lacking in detail and are selective in their information provision. There was also an indication that companies are moving away from separate reports back to the annual report. Once again, the issue of where a company reports and how important this choice may be is raised. Some of our largest companies produce reports which are 200+ pages long and it is questionable whether this is extensively read by stakeholders. Are we to see the return of the all-inclusive annual report, which subsumes its social and environmental information within its financial emphasis?

The third paper, by David and Gallego, concerns itself with the relationship between taxation and CSR. For some years campaigning NGOs have pushed for greater awareness of the need for companies to pay the appropriate taxation payments, and that actually it is impossible to discuss CSR without discussing fair tax assessments. Whilst David and Gallego’s paper does not proceed along these lines, it does argue that, within the European Union, there should be greater harmonisation of taxation rules which will in turn allow for greater accountability and transparency in organisational CSR transactions. The role of corporate citizenship is invoked in this paper. The morality of corporations as taxpayer is also raised, so that tax payments become as much a part of an organisation’s ethical code of conduct as other social and environmental behaviour. The paper therefore addresses the structure and meaning of a company’s code of conduct which is then linked to CSR. I am pleased to include this paper in this collection, as we do not often receive or publish papers on the subject of taxation. By juxtaposing this issue with accounting and reporting it is hoped to stimulate a wider debate of the role of taxation in CSR.

The final paper, by Gebauer and Hoffmann, is an interesting one because its authors are part of a research establishment based in Germany very much at the interface between research and practice. Their work has a much more practical application, concentrating as it does on the ranking system devised by the institute and applied to reporting companies in Germany. It was chosen for inclusion because of its position as this interface and helps the Journal live up to its brief of “bridging the gap”. The ranking system is a dialogue and feedback process with the aim of encouraging progress in reporting practice, and emphasises communication and accountability. The paper gives us a step-by-step guide to the ranking process through the development and application of the criteria, which themselves become a framework both for reporting and for assessing the quality of that reporting. The system has been in place for some years and has recently undergone rigorous improvement and it is a pleasure to see the paper here, whilst being less “academic” that the previous three, it nevertheless adds to our understanding of current practice and brings us full circle back to the debate about methods of engagement. The paper is therefore an important addition to the collection.

Hence there are four very practical papers adding to our knowledge and also providing us with further questions and further research ideas to be followed up. I urge you to seek out the research agenda offered here and, if these issues excite, propound or worry you at all, grasp it and get writing. We look forward to receiving your papers!

Dr Kumba JallowDe Montfort University, Leicester, UK