The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm

Accountability
Accountability through activism: through activism
learning from Bourdieu
Mark Shenkin and Andrea B. Coulson
Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK 297
Received January 2004
Abstract Revised 17 November 2005
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reflect on how the social-theoretical work of Accepted 22 March 2006
Pierre Bourdieu (1931-2001) could contribute to knowledge production on accountability.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of social
practice in terms of a field/habitus relation, and uses this relation as a framing mechanism to explore
the possibilities of accountability in corporate-stakeholder relations.
Findings – The authors argue that Bourdieu’s work holds significant implications for academics
operating in the political space relating to accountability because it informs a basis for academic
intervention.
Research limitations/implications – Included in the paper are a critique of the dominant “liberal”
position on accountability and a defence of the development of a “post-liberal” alternative.
Practical implications – It is argued that this alternative requires moving away from the dominant
procedural approach to practice and recognising the value of informal communication and
non-institutional action as equally valid routes towards accountability.
Originality/value – Reflecting on Bourdieu’s position reminds us of the explicit link between
political and methodological change, and highlights the necessity for these to be inextricably linked.
Keywords Management accountability, Accounting theory
Paper type Conceptual paper

The definition and defence of the public interest will never be produced from the accountant’s
view of the world, which the new belief system presents as the supreme form of human
achievement (Pierre Bourdieu, 1998a, pp. 104-5).

A general review of contemporary research on accountability reveals a wide spectrum

of applied definitions. One particular debate concerns the extent to which
accountability can be defined as a formal and administered relation or set of
practices. When formalised, the communicative practices associated with
accountability tend to be described in procedural terms (see, for example, Watts and
Zimmerman, 1990; Power, 1991; and Gray et al., 1997). In contrast, other strands of
contemporary research have shown that accountability and its construction resembles
a more intuitive, organic, or “reflexive” practice (see, for example, Roberts, 1991;
Munro, 1991; Lehman, 2001). In this case, it is assumed that accountability continually
evolves in line with (and with the intention of reflecting) extant systems of social,
political and cultural communication. In this paper, we will argue that any attempt to Accounting, Auditing &
find consensus in this pivotal debate needs to recognise that accountability is a floating Accountability Journal
Vol. 20 No. 2, 2007
pp. 297-317
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The authors are grateful for the helpful comments of Professor Cheryl Lehman, Dr Penny 0951-3574
Ciancanelli, and two anonymous referees during the development of this paper. DOI 10.1108/09513570710741037
AAAJ and transcendental concept. As such, its meaning can only be appropriated in the
20,2 context of a cross-disciplinary discursive arena and a multi-dimensional political
space[1].
Notably, a variety of discourses on accountability are evident not only in
business-related studies, but also throughout the domains of sociology, anthropology,
organisational theory, political science, and cultural or media studies. This paper
298 intends neither to condense this range and provide an overarching theory nor to
append yet another transitory definition to a growing intra- and cross-disciplinary set.
Instead, the purpose of the investigation is to introduce and discuss how and why
accountability has become such a central issue in those elements of business-related
studies that seek to reconstruct the form of relations between corporations and society.
In doing so, we will consider the degree of politicisation that affects this area of study,
and show how references to accountability and its ostensible enhancement serve either
to legitimate, defend or challenge the status quo.
Providing a backdrop to this investigation, we will consider the interdependent
development of social, environmental, and critical strands of accounting research, and
discuss their implicit links to policy developments on corporate social responsibility
(see, DFID, 2003; FOE, 2002, 2003; ICHRP, 2002; Macleod and Lewis, 2004; Pendleton,
2004; UNRISD, 2004). Particular attention will be given to how certain political
standpoints, dynamics and abstractions dominate discourses relating to
accountability. We will argue that these impart a form of disciplinary capture in
this particular area of research, stifle the development of new practices, and inhibit the
cross-fertilisation of ideas between experts, policy makers and social change
movements.
The paper consists of three consecutive discussions, which together traverse the
ground of critique, theory development, and practice. The opening discussion focuses
on emerging debates on the enhancement of accountability, including the discernible
criticism of the “social and environmental accounting” (henceforth SEA) project. It is
argued that existing critiques of SEA research expose both the theoretical and practical
failings of the associated project, noting that researchers tend to embrace a procedural
approach to accountability. As several critics have argued, this approach represents a
problematic route towards building social responsibility into corporate affairs (see,
Everett, 2003a; Lehman, 2001; Mouck, 1995; Gray, 2002; Gray and Milne, 2004). It may
indeed make matters worse by providing a means to legitimate socially irresponsible
behaviour at an institutional level. Notably, this paper distinguishes itself from
previous critiques by adopting a particular focus on the “liberal” politics that underpin
procedural boundaries – themselves the restricting factor in the radical development
of an alternative accounting project.
The second discussion builds a basis for theory development by drawing attention
to the theoretical work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1931-2001). The intention
is to consider the core components of his general theory of social practice and apply
them in the area of accountability research and practice. We will argue that Bourdieu’s
core meta-theoretical interest – the relation between a discursive field and a political
habitus in terms of the distribution of capital – can be used to address the problems
noted with procedural forms of accountability. Bourdieu’s theoretical framework
considers the relation between social theory and practice, and reveals that while theory
is merely a reflection of the strength of certain discourses, practice resembles a highly Accountability
politicised force that is often somewhat detached from meta-theoretical arguments. through activism
The third and concluding discussion draws on several emergent strands of thought
that have arisen in recent years in the accounting and organisational theory literature
on accountability. These include the suggestion of an alternative approach to
accountability, the effect of which would be the production of informal,
non-institutional and non-administered forms of practice. Of consideration in this 299
discussion is the extent to which new thinking on accountability correlates with how
Bourdieu understands social activism; including his strategies for political intervention
and their methodological defence. Drawing on Bourdieu’s work, references are made to
issues not always located in discourses on accountability, but nevertheless crucial to
the emergence of alternative practices. These issues include potential academic
intervention in the political space; the nature of the information disseminated through
academic work; and the potential correlation between social and critical accounting
practice and the activities of social change movements.

Liberal rhetoric and critique

It is in some ways unsurprising that accounting and other business-related research
has traditionally taken corporations and their shareholders as the focal point for
accountability systems, relations and practices. The primary concern of mainstream
research has been the discharge of accountability between an economic entity (i.e. a
corporation) and its owners. The theories of agency commonly applied in this research
tend to contain one core supposition. They suppose that formal communicative
systems (such as standard accounting systems) are created in and by economic
markets; and that the information disseminated through them satisfies demands for
visibility in the relations between agents. As Power (1991) notes, “positivist”
accounting research (for example, Jensen and Smith, 2000; Watts and Zimmerman,
1990) tends to accept such conditions as focal elements of accountability.
A growing school of accounting researchers and organisational theorists has sought
to develop a more ethical position on accountability, which takes into account economic
externalities as they come into play in wider stakeholder relations (see Ahrens, 1996;
Bebbington and Gray, 1993; Bebbington et al., 2001; Gray et al., 1988, 1991, 1996; Gray
and Bebbington, 1994, 2000; Zadek et al., 1997; Benston, 1982). However, despite their
merits, this has apparently not prevented the practices commonly associated with
these theories from suffering from “corpora-centrism” and thus succumbing to capture.
The prominence and persistence of corpora-centrism in this area can be understood
in light of its general appeal to modern liberal thinking. In one respect, this position on
accountability provides a response to demands for greater transparency and
information sharing while retaining a focus on the formal visibility of corporate action.
In another respect, possibly more problematic, this emergent liberal position on
accountability contains the assumption that visibility (and thus transparency) is a
product of communicative rules and procedures. Both factors combine to create
problems for accountability by privileging new practices that are developed and
administered using formal, rule-based, and procedural methods.
Exemplifying this effect, the SEA project has sought to develop, refine, and then
coax into practice new rules and procedures for corporate reporting and mandatory
corporate disclosure[2]. Often, these procedures go so far as to attempt to make visible
AAAJ the proceedings of corporate engagement with their stakeholders. However, while the
20,2 effect of such practices has been the production of increasing volumes of information, it
is now widely conceded that this production has not resulted in greater levels of
accountability (see Adams, 2004; Gray and Milne, 2004; Gray et al., 1995; Owen et al.,
1997; Owen and O’Dwyer, 2004; Roberts, 2003; Zadek and McIntosh, 2002)
It is common for critics of this particular tenet of liberalism to problematise the
300 concept of synchrony and to demonstrate how the use-value of information is
contingent on what its production comes to symbolise in the broader political space
(see Cooper, 1988; Lehman, 2003; Mouck, 1994). For example, the SEA project, despite
emerging from a marginal political position, now tends to focus on incremental
institutional change where emergent positions on accountability tend to be gradually
appropriated as extensions of existing practices. Hence, the practices most commonly
associated with the SEA project have been branded by critical accountants as
politically-centrist (see Tinker et al., 1991; and Tinker and Gray, 2003).
This does not mean that an incremental approach is without its benefits. We would
argue that it is both valid and important to search for solutions to the problems of
corporate activity in the transformation of institutional arrangements and the broad
provision of ethical choices. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to note that even when such
solutions are actualised, critical investigations more-often-than-not demonstrate their
failure to facilitate radical social change (see, for example, Beder, 1997; Cooper and
Sherer, 1994; Cooper, 1988; Mouck, 1995; Neu et al., 2001; Shearer, 2002; Welford, 1997).
Evidence of the problematic boundaries applied to accountability by liberal
theorists can be found in the divergence between SEA practice and the activities of the
modern anti-corporate movement. This movement, which exists for the sole purpose of
constructing and disseminating a critique of corporate practice, has seen little input
from accountants, critical or otherwise. Accounting theorists tend to go no further than
producing critiques of corporate practice (including “shadow” critiques of social and
environmental reporting practice) as interventions either to be published in academic
journals or submitted to policy-related inquiries. The modern anti-corporate movement
has chosen, in contrast, a distinctly different mode of engagement (see, for example,
Bakan, 2004; Klein, 2000) Their critical interventions are maintained through the
participation of various communities of activists: investigative journalists and
columnists, writers and broadcasters, documentary filmmakers, humanitarian
pressure groups, independent corporate watchdogs, and local resistance movements[3].
The idea that we have to challenge the very meaning of accountability to enhance
its form gestures towards not only a political but also a methodological challenge. We
argue that implicit to this challenge is one core idea: that effective reactions to growing
demands for accountability are unlikely to be found through research deferring to a
procedural methodology. This is because enhanced systems of accountability are
unlikely to be produced through refining existing procedures for reporting. In
response, we argue that for a constructive element to emerge from the existing critique,
it must be constituted by practices that challenge the very meaning of information. The
question thus becomes how can the emergent forms of critical engagement (utilised to
great effect by the modern anti-corporate movement) be considered as integral parts to
any theory of accountability? Furthermore, how would this constitute a real alternative
for critical theorists currently engaged through the SEA project?
 The charge by its critics is that the SEA project, its theories and associated Accountability
practices, succumb more to libertarian views that they do real concepts of liberty. That through activism
is, they are more concerned with the freedom to act out social preferences in economic
markets that they are with the freedom to engage in the political space. The problem,
as several critics have noted, is the false alignment that this creates between freedom in
markets (laissez-faire) and real democratic power (see Puxty, 1991; Tinker et al., 1991).
This leads us and many other theorists to the assertion that the “anticonsequentialism” 301
of the liberal position on the enhancement of accountability is what enables enhanced
reporting practices to become captured by corporations (see Milne and Patten, 2001;
Neu et al., 1998). Perhaps most worrying is that this process of capture, despite being
substantially exposed in the academic literature, has gone largely unnoticed in policy
debates (see Welford, 1997). As Welford argues, corporations often set the terms of
accountability to be subsequently recognised by government institutions and included
in policy-related developments.
The central problem with liberal positions on accountability is not their liberalism
per se, but the fact that they are often associated with a relatively weak reading of the
idea of participative democracy. Several leading advocates in this domain defend a
“stronger” democratic approach, arguing that recent changes in the political space
have drawn attention away from a policy-led practice and towards a form of
accountability that reflects the new radicalism of the political space (Tinker and Gray,
2003). These authors accept that procedural methodologies prejudge the abilities of
policy-makers to change corporate practice with procedures and rules enforced
through institutional bodies. They also accept that these ideas may belong to a
foregone era, in which the state had power to intervene in the economy, and to
ameliorate social conflict by expanding regulation (see Lehman and Tinker, 1987).
This recent shift in thinking can be observed amongst the leading advocates of the
SEA project and will be addressed in the remainder of the paper. Through importing
the work of Bourdieu, our intention is to construct a sociological basis from which to
question the role of academics engaged in this domain and evaluate the potential for
their work to act as a catalyst for real social and political change.

Reflecting on Bourdieu
Any inquiry into the form of social activism and political change can be illuminated by
looking at certain branches of contemporary sociology, and in particular the work of
Pierre Bourdieu (1931-2001). In general, Bourdieu’s sociological work traverses the
ground between an anthropology of everyday life and a social critique of politics,
political dynamics, and the possibilities for social change. In fitting with the French
sociological tradition, Bourdieu and Bourdieusian theorists have drawn attention to
how language becomes used, controlled, reformed, and reconstituted by the political
elite for the purposes of exercising symbolic power (see Bourdieu, 1999). Thus, the
guiding principle of Bourdieusian theory is the idea that social communication is
seldom an impartial process of information sharing and use. Instead, communication is
seen to reflect an asymmetrical relationship between social agents who constantly
manoeuvre and struggle over limited resources (see, Bourdieu, 1977, 1984, 1991;
Bourdieu and Passerson, 1977).
More specifically, Bourdieu’s overall contribution to modern social theory is most
apparent in his formulation of the now widely applied framing concepts of field and
AAAJ habitus (see Bourdieu, 1990a). In much of his “meta-theoretical”[4] work, Bourdieu uses
20,2 these terms to outline a methodological framework for exploring communicative acts
and gestures as reflections of actual and potential power relations. For example,
Bourdieu (1990a) defines fields as systems of social positions, structured internally in
terms of power relationships. Methodologically, this definition contrasts strongly with
the Marxist view that societies can be analysed in terms of social classes and
302 ideologies. Instead, Bourdieu described society as an arena within which complex
“communities” of agents engage. All forms of social engagement (visible in the arena)
could be analysed, he argued, as action geared towards practical functions, and
understood, as per his framework, in terms of a particular logic of practice.
By using the term field Bourdieu differentiated the social arena from the spaces
characterised by traditional class systems. Bourdieu argued that fields, as opposed to
classes, were a potentially more useful framing concept for appreciating the complexity
of the social world. In one respect, several semi-autonomous fields take effect in any
one instance of social interaction. Since these fields find different degrees of autonomy
from one another, they offer what can be seen as specific solutions to social problems.
Bourdieu (1990a) noted that a particular problem (for example, social inequality) could
be presented with various solutions (e.g. political, economic, cultural, or pedagogic),
each embracing a particular logic of practice. Likewise, increasingly complex societies
come to have increasing numbers of fields, thereby increasing the degree of
interrelationships in play in the broader social arena (see also Bourdieu, 1990b;
Bourdieu, 1991). Of interest in the remainder of the paper is what we will refer to as the
“academic” field. This includes its boundaries, properties, and its unique relationship
to other fields operating in the area of accountability[5].
Bourdieu argued that analysing an academic field involves interpreting the field as
a discursive space (lit. trans. l’espace de discours). Such spaces hold two correlatory
properties. Firstly, they are delimited (bounded) spaces in which cultural and
informational products are produced and disseminated to the social world (lit. trans.
l’espace social ). Secondly, the boundaries of these spaces reflect multidimensionality;
each dimension represents an established discursive position from which the social
world has been analysed and discussed (see Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992[6]).
While Bourdieu refers to academic fields as primarily theoretical spaces constructed
through discourse, he talks of the habitus as a real political space constituted by
actions geared towards certain ends. In Bourdieu’s methodology, the habitus is both a
conceptual and empirical construct; that is, the habitus contains and reflects the
“politics” that influence agents’ interpretations of and manner of acting on the social
world. As a framing concept, this view of the political space creates an interesting
dynamic, which appeals to several methodological perspectives. As various
Bourdieusian theorists have argued, the habitus represents a methodological
construct which contains elements of both “structuration” and “social
constructivism” (see Coulon, 1995; Fowler, 1997). Thus, it simultaneously represents
agents’ capacities to act on – and be acted upon by – social and institutional structures
and relations.
Bourdieu’s use of the term habitus reflects a methodological framework that applies
to a society in which social agents gear their actions towards practical functions, and
subsequently set about achieving certain benefits within the confines of a structured
space. Simultaneously, the methodological tenets underpinning the concept of habitus
are such that its application recognises that social agents do not generally act in an Accountability
“instrumental” manner. Bourdieu argues that agents are able, given particular social through activism
conditions, to act “reflexively” to change the form of social relations (see Bourdieu,
1990b)[7].
We argue that Bourdieu’s concept terms of field and habitus provide significant
insights when applied to the study of accountability. Primarily, the practices
associated with accountability can be conceived and described in terms of a 303
multi-dimensional space in which various semi-autonomous fields operate. Within this
space, the academic field displays a variety of discursive positions, each of which
draws links between academic work and the production of accountability. Secondly,
the practices associated with this production can be interpreted as forms of practical
and politicised activity, and thus beyond their categorisation in a certain academic
discourse. In the realm of practice, politics come into play to determine the degree of
success experienced by discursive projects. This would explain what previously has
been referred to as the politicisation of those projects related to the enhancement of
accountability.
Previously, we have argued that the diversity of accountability as broadly
discussed within the accounting literature has failed to recognise the scope of the
political space and has restricted development to mainstream (procedural) positions.
Consequently, the academic field as a discursive space relating to accountability is
“out-of-sync” with the habitus as experienced at the level of individual agents or social
communities. For example, existing research on accountability and its enhancement
has devoted much attention to redefining the boundaries for communicative practices.
Several attempts have been made to define the “who” and the “how”; i.e. the agents
involved and the rules and procedures pertaining to the discharge of information.
Thereby, the discursive space displays multiple solutions, where several established
discourses compete for authority. While there has been several attempts to tinker with
the terms-of-reference of established discursive positions, considerably less attention
has been given to a discussion of the emergence of alternative politics. Thus, little is
known about the effects that such politics have had on the nature of power relations
within the habitus.
While the nature of field and habitus are both important elements of critical theory,
the constructive element of Bourdieu’s sociology grants particular attention to the
relation between the field and the habitus. On the one hand, he proposes the
field-habitus relation to operate as a procedural relation based on a process of
conditioning. Here, the discourses and positions gaining authority in the field
determine the boundary conditions for action played out in the habitus (Bourdieu,
1990a, p. 127). Consequently, the academic field becomes analysable as the locus of
administered practices, each being explicable in frameworks of relations, procedures,
and capacities for action on accountability. On the other hand, from a constructivist
perspective, the field-habitus relation operates as a relation of knowledge construction,
where the habitus gives meaning to the existing and potential discourses of the
academic field.
Bourdieu implies that communicative practices legitimate active discursive
positions (i.e. defend them as reasoned approaches to analysis). This would explain
why it is that the development of the SEA project has come to legitimate a procedural
discourse on accountability. However, Bourdieu also notes that despite the effects of
AAAJ conditioning, it does not follow that agents always act in the manner dictated by
20,2 procedure. Central to his methodology is the idea that the habitus reflects agents’
capacities for innovation (see Bourdieu, 1990b). Thus, the reflexive element of
Bourdieu’s sociology consists of the idea that the recognition of non-procedural action
is essential for the actualisation of peripheral discourses and the empowerment of
marginalised communities. This would explain why the current focus on procedural
304 accountability has inhibited the development of effective community-led solutions.
Borrowing from Bourdieu, any discussion of the academic field relating to
accountability should be conducted with reference to a centre and a periphery. For
example, accounting research on accountability has at the centre a traditional liberal
debate that focuses on the respective merits of economic markets and social
institutions. This debate reveals two prominent political positions, the former of which
privileges a “neo-liberal” alignment of corporations and financial shareholders in
which accountability is essentially a traditional agency relationship. The latter
position reflects the search for a “liberal-democratic” solution based on broader
stakeholder relationships, in which the rules and procedures of accountability (i.e. the
terms of engagement) are realigned to serve rights to information in a participatory
democracy. Notably, the development of the latter position relates to the ethical shift
brought about by the SEA project. Within this project, it is assumed that the
production of new forms of information facilitates the emergence of new forms of
engagement in the social world, and that this process is institutionalised to a certain
degree outwith market forces.
Outwith the boundaries of liberal positions on accountability, critical accounting
researchers have referred to alternative ways of theorising corporate-stakeholder
power relationships. Their research has brought to light the existence of marginal
politics and their relation to accountability, and has focussed on the forms of political
intervention that are incited by social activists and perpetuated in various social
movements. Despite this, the idea of a “post-liberal” brand of critical accounting (see
Neu et al., 2001) has yet to be recognised as an alternative to the central discourse on
accountability. Indeed, while the increasing marginalisation of this and other forms of
intervention needs addressing by accounting researchers, it needs more than a mere
refinement of the terms-of-reference of the various internal debates on accountability.
Doing so would be akin to what Gray describes as “rearranging deckchairs on the
Titanic” (see Gray, 1992), and what Bourdieu refers to as “institutional stasis” (see
Bourdieu, 1990a).
Given the task of finding a route beyond this impasse, Bourdieu’s work offers
significant guidance. For example, his strategy for social change consists of a
two-staged approach in which critical reflection results in a post-liberal praxis. In the
first stage, Bourdieu advocates the development of alternative discourses in the
academic field. In the second, he advocates that researchers look for means to link these
discourses to acts of political intervention that are geared towards the amelioration of
social and political conflict.
This strategy can also be related to Bourdieu’s categorisation of all relevant types of
knowledge in a framework of species of epistemological capital (see Bourdieu, 1991). In
this framework, each species of capital – “economic”, “social”, “cultural” and
“symbolic” – legitimates a certain ordering of the social space, and informs a particular
relation between knowledge, reflection and action. Bourdieu’s framework of capital
provides a mechanism to explain agents’ perceptions of the social world, and then Accountability
predict how new knowledge could transpire within the discursive space. Likewise, the through activism
idea that different forms of communication are linked to the “augmentation” of
particular species of capital provides a useful way of thinking about practices
commonly associated with accountability. Indeed, Bourdieu’s framework could
potentially be utilised to interpret the normative categories of thought in which
accountability has been theorised, modelled, and critiqued. 305
More specifically, Bourdieu is not the only modern social theorist to propose a
distinction between the economic, the social, and the cultural components of
knowledge. The main differential in his critical theory is his delineation of a fourth, and
symbolic, species of capital[8]. Significantly, Bourdieu supposes this species to be
transcendental to and able to modify epistemological structures. In an attempt to
explain this dynamic, he defines symbolic capital as “the particular form that one or
another of these species takes when it is grasped through categories of perception that
recognize its specific logic” (Bourdieu, 1990a, p. 119). Implicit to this statement is the
idea that the augmentation of symbolic capital produces changes in the given
hierarchy, and facilitates critical self-awareness amongst the agents exposed to its
form. Bourdieu’s work infers that this practice forms a basic component of homology
across fields, and thus is important in co-ordinating the discourses of academics with
those of policy-makers, individuals, and political collectives (see Bourdieu, 1988).
Notably, Bourdieu implies that if the right attention is given to the symbolic
dimension of capital, critical theory can be brought closer to realising its emancipatory
potential. He sheds some more light on what this would entail by noting that the
peripheries of discursive fields are more inclined to produce symbols than information
(see Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Thus, Bourdieu implies that the discourses
produced at the peripheries are incubators for knowledge that changes the way social
agents communicate, appreciate, and act on cultural objects. This idea likewise informs
Bourdieu’s position on political participation, and his implicit suggestion that cultural
discourses can be reconstituted as forms of social wealth arising out of a collective
experience (see Bourdieu et al., 1999)[9]. The remainder of this paper considers what
this suggestion would entail for the development of accountability research and
practice. It seeks to provide a route beyond the current climate of accountability
through reflecting on Bourdieu’s methodology and the inherent link between his work
as an academic and his prominent role as a social activist.

Towards a post-liberal perspective

While Bourdieu does not explicitly address accountability in the manner discussed
above; his various analyses implicitly highlight the nature of the political space
relating to accountability, and, in particular, the tendency for liberalism to be
privileged in this space. Bourdieu was dedicated to speaking out against the false
pretences of liberal politics, and their tendency to defer to instrumental criteria
(Bourdieu, 1998a). Thus, his position problematises the relationship between
information and accountability, in particular the appropriation of a traditional
accounting worldview which creates the impression of a social order that is
manageable through the production of standardised sets and categories of disclosure.
As previously noted, liberal accounting theorists adopt positions on accountability
which suggest that (a semblance of) order can be maintained through a combination of
AAAJ market-based and institutional measures. The centrism of this worldview is such that
20,2 the current social order is reproduced without any appreciation of alternative political
(perhaps “post-capitalist”) perspectives. Thus, Bourdieu’s implicitly post-liberal stance,
when applied to accountability, comes to highlight why solutions must now be sought
from the margins of the political space. Positions existing at the margins would be
categorised as marginal because they relinquish any real reliance on institutionalised
306 rules and procedures as part-and-parcel of their associated mode of praxis.
Some researchers on accountability have recently recognised that a post-liberal
position would not limit communication to standardised, formalised, and rule-based
practices. This recognition entails accountability being seen as more than a reflection
of existing procedures for discharging information on corporate activities (see Boland
and Schultze, 1996; Dey, 2002, Lehman, 1999; Munro, 1991, 1996; Roberts, 1991, 1996,
2003). Exemplifying this post-liberal position, Robert’s (2003) analysis of
accountability builds upon his previous work on organisational interaction and
draws attention to how informal, face-to-face dialogue provides a means to maintain
cohesion within and outwith organisational structures. Such forms of analysis directly
question the justification for procedural approaches to corporate social responsibility
practice.
The various applications of a Marxist critique in and through the critical accounting
project have lent weight to the case for a post-liberal perspective (see, for example,
Cooper, 1980; Tinker, 1980, and Puxty, 1986). Such critiques recognise that while rules
and procedures for disclosure may ostensibly emerge to meet the broad demands of
social recipients, it cannot be assumed these recipients reach consensus on
social-contractual and procedural norms. Exemplifying this, Puxty (1986) proposes
that institutional solutions fail to bring substantive gains because economic measures
remain privileged as principle measurements of value (or capital). This position also
concurs, in methodological terms, with Hopwood’s (1974) behavioural research into
human information processing, the point-of-reference being that more information does
not necessarily result in a more acute understanding of social relations.
In light of Bourdieu’s work, these threads of thinking in the literature suggest two
things. They suggest:
(1) that the communicative practices associated with accountability are often
conducted in a non-procedural manner; and
(2) that this form is the norm when accountability operates outwith institutional
arrangements and at the margins of the political space.

Furthermore, Bourdieu’s actions as well as his theories constitute a new position from
which to look at accountability as a politicised issue (see, for examples of convergence,
Bourdieu, 1962, 1984, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c; Bourdieu, 1999). Indeed, the defining
element of Bourdieu’s academic praxis was his manner of diverging from his role as a
theorist only to engage as an activist. This is best captured in a documentary film
made about Bourdieu’s life and in which he describes the practice of sociology as a
“combat sport” (see Carles, 2001).
Questions surrounding politicisation have already been raised in accountability
research. Indeed, several theorists have referred to the “marginalisation” of certain
forms of communication as a problem for accountability, which is only accentuated
when the dominant liberal discourse remains tied to a discussion of the political centre.
For example, Tinker et al. (1991) note that regulatory technologies directed at Accountability
enhancing accountability continue to develop in a void of “pragmatism” that suffers through activism
from political centrism. The situation entails that it is unlikely that institutional
procedures will prove sufficient, on their own, to align corporate behaviour with the
needs of social communities (see also, Puxty, 1991). This relates to Bourdieu’s position
on liberal politics, which he defines as problematic for their failure to consider the
necessity for institutions to act to (re)integrate marginalised groups within a 307
participatory democracy.
Notably, Bourdieu’s position is distinctly different from the Marxist position
commonly adopted in critical accounting research. For example, a Marxist
understanding of praxis draws attention to the socially-constructed nature of
economic, social and political institutions, and the possibility of changing these
through conflict. This process of change begins with a dialectical exchange between
social classes, and ends with revolutionary redistributions of economic, social and
political capital. Some Marxist sociologists have also revised this to include the idea of
an “intangible” conflict between social classes, in which all sides are informed by the
production and communication of cultural objects and cultural critique (see Goldmann,
1976). Others have revised it to include references to Habermasian theory and the idea
of experts being intellectually engaged in dialogues geared towards the redistribution
of capital (Broadbent and Laughlin, 1997).
Following directly from his critique of social reproduction (see Bourdieu, 1977),
Bourdieu extends the understanding of praxis advanced by neo-Marxists and implicit
in Habermasian theory. At one level, Bourdieu complies with the idea that cultural and
symbolic products (i.e. knowledge communicated through expert and lay media) incite
social change. On the other, his methodological position demands that the associated
systems of communication cannot be left to evolve from what Habermasian theorists
describes as an “ideal speech” situation. Bourdieu understands praxis as the outcome
of academic work being inextricably linked to cultural production, and thus implies
that cultural objects (informal media) must be informed by concrete strategies for
social and political change (see Bourdieu, 1988). Indeed, he argues that only through
the production of cultural objects can knowledge producers begin to incite behavioural
responses in the habitus of agents directly engaged in the social world.
The noted distinctions between the theories of social order and change advanced by
critical theorists from different camps can likewise be modelled with reference to
dominant and emerging political abstractions. Of particular significance is the
distinction between a “pluralist” and a “neo-pluralist” theory of political order, and
their effects when applied to the analysis of accountability. For example, Habermas’s
(1984) critical theory exemplifies a pluralist position where political power is
distributed between various power groups in a democratic society, with each holding
the power to regulate the activities of others through linguistically mediated dialogues.
Alternatively, a neo-plural approach, exemplified by Bourdieu, provides for a broader
theory of political action. They integrate the notion that a plural order is undermined
by a process of “cultural colonisation”, which in turn jeopardises any system of
mediated cultural communication.
Neo-pluralist abstractions and their associated models of change resituate the
catalysts for change outwith the realm of mediated communication. While not an
approach traditionally applied to accountability research, neo-pluralist theory has
AAAJ found many applications in cultural sociology (see, for example, Hall, 1982). It has been
20,2 applied in the closely linked domains of cultural studies and media theory, where it
provides an alternative, post-Habermasian, model of communication. For example,
neo-pluralist theory adopts an interpretivist methodology, and thus recognises that
communication itself contributes to the construction of society. This methodology also
draws attention to how sense-making processes are crucial for translating descriptions
308 into actions (see Dervin, 1999).
Of more significance to critical theory, neo-pluralist systems include both tangible
and intangible modes of power. This recognises that problems with accountability are
often found in markets consisting of large autonomous corporations that are
constructed to avoid the restrictions of institutional regulation, possibly through the
formation of separate, out-sourced agencies as an alternative to subsidiary divisions.
Here, solutions could be found in tangible measures, where institutions enforce new
standards for corporate activity and redefine this activity in substance over form. At
the same time, neo-pluralist systems seek to confront the situation in which large
corporations offset regulatory measures by exercising various forms of intangible
power. This would include the manner in which corporations conceal themselves
behind a wall of professionalism, and come to use expert knowledge to legitimate their
commercial position.
While pluralist political systems assume a system of checks-and-balances involving
the state, civil society, and the independent media, neo-pluralist alternatives seek to
integrate an effective response to the collusion that goes on between powerful elements
in a pluralist system. Bourdieu’s attempt to integrate such a response is reflected in his
engagement with active political communities and in the scholarly critiques that he
transmitted through the national print and broadcast media (see Bourdieu, 1998a and
Carles, 2001).
The emphasis Bourdieu placed on intangible solutions to empower marginalised
communities can be interpreted in light of the links he makes between academic
practice and social activism. Thus, in terms of accountability, Bourdieu’s
understanding of these links provides a basis for considering the possibilities of
emergent discourses in the academic field. These discourses now include the idea
that informal communication and dialogue (even “pedagogic” processes) could be
used to challenge dominant ideologies and actualise (put into practice) political
alternatives (see, for example, Everett, 2003b; Lehman, 2001; and Thomson and
Bebbington, 2005).
This idea is more radical than it first appears. The nature of informal and
non-procedural communication is such that it redirects attention to an
“ethnomethodological” position on accountability, where the constraints of an
institutionalised habitus are substituted for the freedom of engagement within a social
community (see Garfinkel, 1967; Munro, 1996)[10]. From this position, legitimacy is
given to the voice of a social community and removed from the rule-based structures of
institutional control. Thus, ethnomethodologists create a new basis for accountability
to arise in which social norms are initiated at a community level.
With this in mind, there have been some attempts by theorists to integrate these
components into discussions on accountability. Lehman (2001) goes so far as to
introduce a discussion of what is (or could be) meant by community and how in a
post-liberal society public stakeholders would be organised within community
structures. His work, while insightful, does not consider the nature of the information Accountability
that serves to maintain community structures. Neither does he address the capacities of through activism
academics to co-ordinate interventions in the broader political space. As argued
previously, attention to Bourdieu’s position on the relationship between community,
political activism, and academic work provides a suitable basis for extending the idea
of a community-based approach to accountability.
Like Lehman, Dey (2002) explores the basic tenets of critical ethnography and its 309
suitability as a research methodology that could lead to the enhancement of
accountability. In the context of this exploration, he argues that critical narratives on
corporate practice (regardless of where they arise from) give rise to new interpretations
in the discursive space from which accountability research draws meaning. He
proposes that with reference to these narratives, theorists can evaluate, and try to
change, the privileges historically granted to particular forms of knowledge production
on accountability. By doing so they may challenge certain species of capital, and
dispute the merits of formal and administered accountability practice (see also Dey,
2003).
It can be argued that thinking of accountability as an ethnographic practice raises
many questions for researchers engaged in the academic field. The intangible
production of symbolic capital (i.e. as offered through a critical ethnographic practice)
does not merely constitute a new form of information, but operates to enhance the
possibilities for community-led engagement. This would explain some of the problems
currently faced by the “social audit” movement (see Owen et al., 2000), originally
conceived with an emphasis on non-institutionalised groups engaged in the production
of external critique. The common choice to engage with corporations rather than
engage with communities has led to the formalisation and institutionalisation of these
systems of critique, and ultimately their capture within corporate structures.
Nowadays, it seems that the only semblance of an ethnographic practice comes from
investigative journalists producing “undercover” documentaries.
Either way, the idea of an external critique of corporate practice draws attention to
the potential for critical researchers to intervene in the policy-making process in such a
way as to change the form of existing systems of accountability. The idea that political
intervention can be premised on the dissemination of these forms of critique has
already been embraced by several “non-institutional” organisations (e.g. FOE,
Greenpeace, CorporateWatch)[11]. Such organisations practice a form of applied
critical ethnography, ensuring that social agents remain informed about the effects of
corporations in their everyday lives and simultaneously defending their position
against corporate capture. Ask any leafleting activist at an anti-McDonalds
demonstration to articulate how accountability operates, and while they may look at
you blankly, they will still hand you a leaflet. The point being made is that by doing so
they engage in a communicative practice, which links the dissemination of critique to
the realisation of sub-political, counter-cultural or ethical movements. It appears that
now may be the time for academics to follow Bourdieu’s example and begin to
recognise their potential to collaborate and co-ordinate with these movements.

Conclusions
The debates outlined in this paper can be used to illustrate the acute philosophical
differences existing between the SEA project (as currently implemented in a procedural
AAAJ manner) and the idea of social activism directed against the corporate hegemony.
20,2 While researchers attached to the SEA project concern themselves with the iterative
refinement and categorised expansion of knowledge, those attached to the latter idea
are more concerned with the production of what Bourdieu would refer to as symbolic
critique. The philosophical basis for symbolic critique is such that it does not assist in
the refinement of existing categories of knowledge, but the co-ordination of processes
310 of social and political intervention. Thus, while the failings of the SEA project can be
easily related to their latent appeals to liberal ideals, the failure to create a radical
alternative in and through a critical accounting practice is harder to understand. We
have proposed here that one of the reasons for its failure could be related to the
currently limited application of academically-grounded anti-corporate critique.
Either way, as has been noted in this paper, the divergence between the SEA and
critical accounting projects has restricted the overall development of a broader
accountability agenda anchored in academic research. For example, the
epistemological restrictions commonly applied to the SEA project reproduce a
political space in which emancipatory theories only seek to change their subject (i.e. the
corporation) by enhancing previously established schemes of thought and action. In
this paper we have argued that through amending our common perceptions of the
nature of the political space we create possibilities for convergence between these two
philosophical positions. Indeed, Bourdieu’s manner of linking academic work to
effective engagement within the political space was used to exemplify the need for
academics to participate in developing and co-ordinating a more reflexive form of
praxis.
The problems associated with a liberal position on accountability are both political
and systemic; they relate to not only the dominant political climate but also the
problematic nature of communication itself. The latter of these problems has been
commonly addressed by sociologists and cultural theorists. As an example, Goldmann
(1976) posits that the fundamental issue with communication is that the “transmission
of an ensemble of knowledge depends not only on the quantity of information emitted
or even on its nature” (Goldmann, 1976, p. 42). He argues that any successful
transmission depends on the cognitive abilities of receivers, including their capacities
for perception, reflection, and action. Like many other contemporary sociologists,
Goldmann renders a solution to this issue in the concept of purposive and directed
action; and in the idea that “all forms of cognitive activity are mediately or immediately
linked to individual and social praxis” (Goldmann, 1976, p. 42).
Other schools of modern French critical theory, including the work of Bourdieu,
concur that any theory of thinking (i.e. cognition) is inextricably linked to a theory of
action. Thus, actions, far from being neutral, are implicitly linked to change agendas.
Indeed, Bourdieu’s work draws heavily on the French sociological tradition that
preceded him and in which Goldmann played an important part. However, Bourdieu
does not so readily accept Goldmann’s theory of society operating as an organism that
brings itself into equilibrium following the progressive refinement of the mechanisms
for cultural critique. Likewise, his dismissal of Frankfurt School sociologists stems
from the links they often implicitly construct between academic research, critique, and
policy reform. Bourdieu argues that a belief in these links is often used to legitimate the
status quo and the given systems of institutional control.
 In several of his works, Bourdieu makes explicit this concern with the Accountability
applicability of other popular strands of critical theory (see Bourdieu, 1991 and through activism
Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). He implies that by deferring to (while not engaging
with) the praxis elements of research, Habermasian theorists and neo-Marxists like
Goldmann legitimate a process of knowledge refinement that delimits the possible
relation between theory and practice. Instead, Bourdieu models this relation in terms
of a theory of reflexivity (see Bourdieu, 1990b), in which engagement involves 311
academics operating at the peripheries of the political space. In this space, it is
possible for academics to recognise the connection between marginalised politics
and emergent social communities, and utilise their knowledge of these connections
to co-ordinate more effective forms of engagement which avoid the effects of
institutional capture.
In conclusions, many of Bourdieu’s engagements in the realm of social theory can be
seen as attempts at creating harmony between diverging perspectives. For example, in
“Homo Academicus”, Bourdieu (1988) discusses how greater synchronisation between
disciplinary areas often strengthens the academic basis for political intervention[12].
He argues that the synchronisation of positions across disparate research domains has
become increasingly important (and in many cases necessary) if academics are to find
means to engage with the public realm. Notably, Bourdieu was well aware of the
obstacles that stand in the way of cross-disciplinary work, but still holds that
“homology” can be found between researchers that are influenced by distinct systems
of dispositions (Bourdieu, 1988, p. 175). This homology apparently occurs when
researchers (operating in different domains) come to occupy positions that are
structurally homologous to the positions that are held by those agents confronted by
social crisis.
Recent contributions in the academic field have drawn on the ideas of
communitarian sociologists and political theorists, noting how these theorists
provide insights into the reinvention of community as it occurs perpetually in late
modernity. Arguably, this has helped to establish a theoretical stage from which
ideas of community and citizenship can inform alternative approaches to
accountability.
A community-centred approach to accountability would not only inform and be
informed by a critical theory, but could be used to direct critical research at points of
engagement between agents in the political space. These agents would include not only
theorists, educators, and corporations themselves, but also individual consumers,
activists, and collective social movements. Critical engagement between these agents
would subsequently restore a base understanding of how accountability operates at a
community level. Following Bourdieu, we have argued that the language of community
could be used to locate and empower certain strands of radical participative
democracy, the radicalism of which stem from their location in a sub-political and
de-institutionalised space. Attention to these strands would inform calls for a
community-led approach to accountability that adopts many of the characteristics of
Bourdieu’s critical ethnography. It would provide a framework for research that seeks
to understand the needs of a particular community and subsequently refocus these
needs as central targets for political action.
AAAJ Notes
20,2 1. The nature of the discursive arena and the political space relating to accountability will be
explored throughout the paper in line with a Bourdieusian framework of “field” and
“habitus”.
2. Gray et al. (1997) argue that accountability tends to operate in a “quasi-legal” space, with
imperatives including not just statue (i.e. Companies Act) legislation but also voluntary
312 codes. These authors ostensibly assume that given adequate pressure from social
institutions, non-compliance is rarely an option for corporations operating in competitive
markets.
3. Critical theory can be academically grounded and also publicly voiced; formulated as an
academic discourse, or sprayed, as graffiti, on the pavement outside McDonalds or the Shell
billboard across the street (see, for example, Beder’s Global Spin (1999), Klein’s No Logo
(2000), Monbiot’s Captive State (2000), Roy’s The Cost of Living (1998) and Welford’s
Hijacking Environmentalism (1997).
4. Bourdieu’s “meta-theoretical” work consists mainly of The Logic of Practice (Bourdieu,
1990a), Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology (Bourdieu, 1990b), Language and Symbolic
Power (Bourdieu, 1991), and his dialogue with Loic Wacquant in An Invitation to Reflexive
Sociology (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992).
5. While the academic field is only one field of several, it occupies an important position in
Bourdieusian sociology and is privileged alongside the other influential fields of politics,
culture, education, law, and so on. It is noteworthy that Bourdieu does not use the term
academic field to describe, in the traditional sense, a disciplinary area or locus of expertise.
6. Bourdieu, in his dialogue with Wacquant, Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) suggests that
discursive spaces contain references to pre-defined analytical positions, which subsequently
influences the meaning appropriated by floating concepts associated with the field (i.e.
accountability).
7. As distinct from conventional sociologists like Weber, Durkheim, and Parsons, Bourdieu’s
work acknowledges that an awareness of the boundary conditions of their habitus provides
agents with the capacity to transform given, administered, and institutionalised structures.
8. Symbolic capital reflects the mediation of power in and through discursive conflict. It can be
used as a means to influence the way agents think about the discursive space. It differs from
cultural (or informational) capital in that its augmentation does not require information to be
processed, but does signal new interpretations of the possibilities for change. Critical theory,
for example, could be interpreted as a vehicle for such exchanges; that is, a means to
communicate knowledge of other categories of perception, interpretation, action, and so
forth.
9. This draws attention to the “myth” of a constant separation between the individual and the
collective (as the “logic” of capitalist formations), and the fact that institutions, while
structurally pervasive, do not own agents’ collective experience of the social world.
10. Of note is that ethnomethodologists construct inextricable links between accountability and
social cohesion, and do so by defining a cyclical model of the accountability process. The
dynamics of this model are such that accountability adopts both “descriptive” and
“interpretative” moments, and communication is contingent on the manner in which agents
“appreciate” accounts.
11. For example, these organisations provide calls and guidance for individual and collective
agents engaged in “jamming” corporate culture (adbusters.org), “re-thinking” the
corporation (poclad.org), “monitoring” corporate activity (multinationalmonitor.org),
“strengthening” regulation (publiccitizen.org), “making trade fair” (maketradefair.org),
 increasing public awareness (aurora.ca), “tracking” corporate harms (corporatewatch.org), Accountability
and being an active and ethical shareholder (business-humanrights.org).
through activism
12. He makes these points with reference to the political disturbances – widespread strikes,
student revolts etc. – that occurred in France in the summer of 1968.

References 313
Adams, C.A. (2004), “The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance gap”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 731-57.
Ahrens, T. (1996), “Styles of accountability”, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 21
Nos 2/3, pp. 139-74.
Bakan, J. (2004), The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, Constable,
London.
Bebbington, J. and Gray, R. (1993), “Corporate accountability and the physical environment:
social responsibility and accounting beyond profit”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Bebbington, J., Gray, R., Hibbitt, C. and Kirk, E. (2001), “Full cost accounting: an agenda for
action”, ACCA Research Report, No. 73.
Beder, S. (1997), Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, Green Books, Totnes.
Benston, G. (1982), “Accounting and corporate accountability”, Accounting, Organisations and
Society, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 87-105.
Boland, R.J. and Schultze, U. (1996), “Narrating accountability: cognition and the production of
the accountable self”, in Munro, R. and Mouritsen, J. (Eds), Accountability: Power, Ethos
and the Technologies of Managing, International Thompson Business Press, London,
pp. 62-81.
Bourdieu, P. (1962), The Algerians, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, University Press, Cambridge (first published
as Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précédé de trois études d’ethnologie kabyle, 1972,
translation by R. Nice).
Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, UK (first published as La Distinction: Critique social du jugement, 1979,
translation by R. Nice).
Bourdieu, P. (1988), Homo Academicus, Polity Press, Cambridge (first published in 1984,
translation by P. Collier).
Bourdieu, P. (1990a), The Logic of Practice, Polity Press, Cambridge (first published as Le sens
practique, 1980, translation by R. Nice).
Bourdieu, P. (1990b), In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, Polity Press,
Cambridge (translation by M. Adamson).
Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language and Symbolic Power, Polity Press, Cambridge (translation by
G. Raymond and M. Adamson).
Bourdieu, P. (1998a), Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of our Time, Policy Press,
Cambridge (first published as Contre-feux, 1988, various translators).
Bourdieu, P. (1998b), “A reasoned utopia and economic fatalism”, New Left Review, No. 227,
pp. 125-30.
Bourdieu, P. (1998c), “The essence of neo-liberalism: Utopia of endless exploitation”, Le Monde
Diplomatique, December (translation by J. Shapiro).
AAAJ Bourdieu, P. (1999), The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society, Polity
Press, Cambridge (first published as La Misere du Monde, 1993, translation by
20,2 P. Ferguson).
Bourdieu, P. and Passerson, J. (1977), Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, London
(first published as Reproduction, 1970, translation by R. Nice).
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Polity Press,
314 Cambridge.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (1997), “Developing empirical research: an example informed by a
Habermasian approach”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5,
pp. 622-48.
Carles, P. (2001), Pierre Bourdieu: La Sociologie est un Sport de Combat (Sociology is a Combat
Sport), documentary film directed by Pierre Carles, produced by C-P Productions,
Montpellier.
Cooper, D. (1980), “Discussion of towards a political economy of accounting”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 161-6.
Cooper, D. (1988), “A social analysis of corporate pollution disclosures: a comment”, Advances in
Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 2, pp. 179-86.
Cooper, D.J. and Sherer, M.J. (1984), “The value of corporate accounting reports: arguments for a
political economy of accounting accounting”, Organizations and Society, Vol. 9 Nos 3/4,
pp. 207-32.
Coulon, A. (1995), “Ethnomethodology”, Qualitative Research Methods Series, No. 36, Sage,
London (translation by J. Coulon and J. Katz).
Dervin, B. (1999), “On studying information seeking methodologically: the implications of
connecting metatheory to method”, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 35,
pp. 727-50.
Department for International Development (DFID) (2003), DFID and Corporate Social
Responsibility; The Government’s Role in Legislation and Voluntary Initiatives, DFID,
London.
Dey, C. (2002), “Methodological issues: the use of critical ethnography as an active research
methodology”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 106-21.
Dey, C. (2003), “Corporate silent and shadow social accounting”, Social and Environmental
Accounting Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 6-9.
Everett, J. (2003a), “Exploring (false) dualisms for environmental accounting praxis”,
Proceedings of the 7th Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting (IPA) Conference,
April, Madrid.
Everett, J. (2003b), “Globalization and its new spaces for (alternative) accounting research”,
Accounting Forum, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 400-25.
Fowler, B. (1997), Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Introductions, Sage, London.
Friends of the Earth (FOE) (2002), Failing the Challenge: The Other Shell Report, Friends of the
Earth, FOE, London.
Friends of the Earth (FOE) (2003), Towards Binding Corporate Accountability, FOE, London.
Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Goldmann, L. (1976), Cultural Creation in Modern Society, Telos Press, Saint Louis (originally
published as La Creation culturelle dans la société moderne, 1971, translation by B. Grahl).
Gray, R. (1992), “Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of gently Accountability
accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability”, Accounting,
Organisations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 399-426. through activism
Gray, R. (2002), “The social accounting project and accounting, organisations and society:
privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?”,
Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 687-708.
Gray, R. and Bebbington, J. (1994), “Sustainable Development and accounting: incentives and 315
disincentives for the adoption of sustainability by transnational corporations”, Dundee
Discussion Paper in Accounting and Business Finance, ACCA/9414.
Gray, R. and Bebbington, J. (2000), “Environmental accounting, managerialism and
sustainability: is the planet safe in the hands of business and accounting?”, Advances in
Environmental Accounting and Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-44.
Gray, R. and Milne, M. (2004), “Towards reporting on the triple bottom line: mirages, methods
and myths”, in Henriques, A. and Richardson, J. (Eds), The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All
Add Up?, Earthscan, London, pp. 70-80.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate Social and Environmental reporting:
a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure”, Auditing, Accounting
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77.
Gray, R., Owen, D.L. and Adams, C. (1996), Accounting and Accountability: Changes and
Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Prentice-Hall, London.
Gray, R., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K. (1988), “Corporate social reporting: emerging trends in
accountability and the social contract”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 6-20.
Gray, R., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K. (1991), “Accountability, corporate social reporting, and
the external social audits”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 4, pp. 1-24.
Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D.L., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. (1997), “Struggling with the praxis of social
accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 325-64.
Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, Beacon Press, London.
Hall, S. (1982), “The ‘rediscovery’ of ideology”, in Gurevitch, M., Bennett, T., Curran, J. and
Woollacott, J. (Eds), Culture, Society and the Media, Methuen, London.
Hopwood, A.G. (1974), Accounting and Human Behaviour, Haymarket Publishing, London.
International Council on Human Rights Policy, (ICHRP) (2002), “Beyond voluntarism: human
rights and the developing international legal obligations of companies”, commissioned
report, ICHRP, Geneva.
Jensen, M. and Smith, C.W. Jr (2000), “Stockholder, manager, and creditor interests: application of
agency theory”, in Jensen, M.C. (Ed.), A Theory of the Firm: Governance, Residual Claims
and Organizational Forms, pp. 136-67.
Klein, N. (2000), No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, Flamingo, HarperCollins, London.
Lehman, C. and Tinker, T. (1987), “The ‘real’ cultural significance of accounts”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 503-22.
Lehman, G. (1999), “Disclosing new worlds: a new role for social and environmental accounting
and auditing, accounting”, Organisations and Society, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 217-41.
Lehman, G. (2001), “Reclaiming the public sphere: problems and prospects for corporate social
and environmental accounting”, Critical Perspectives in Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 713-33.
AAAJ Lehman, G. (2003), “Perspectives on language, accounting and accountability: the Gadamer and
Habermas debate”, Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting (IPA)
20,2 Conference, July, Madrid.
Macleod, S. and Lewis, D. (2004), “Transnational corporations: power, influence and
responsibility”, Global Social Policy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 77-98.
Milne, M.J. and Patten, D.M. (2001), “Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental
316 decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures”, Proceedings of the
Third APIRA Conference, July, Adelaide.
Mouck, T. (1994), “Corporate accountability and Rorty’s utopian liberalism”, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 6-30.
Mouck, T. (1995), “Financial reporting, democracy and environmentalism: a critique of the
commodification of information”, Critical Perspectives in Accounting, Vol. 6 No. 6,
pp. 535-53.
Munro, R.J.B. (1991), “Managing by ambiguity: management ethos in the absence of control
technologies”, Proceedings of the 3rd Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting (IPA)
Conference, University of Manchester.
Munro, R.J.B. (1996), “Alignment and identity work: the study of accounts and accountability”, in
Munro, R. and Mouritsen, J. (Eds), Accountability: Power, Ethos and The Technologies of
Managing, International Thomson Business Press, London.
Neu, D., Cooper, D.J. and Everett, J. (2001), “Critical accounting interventions”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 735-62.
Neu, D., Warsame, H. and Pedwell, K. (1998), “Managing public impressions: environmental
disclosures in annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 265-82.
Owen, D.L. and O’Dwyer, B. (2004), “Assurance statement quality in environmental, social and
sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation of leading edge practice”, paper presented at
Glasgow Caledonian University, February.
Owen, D.L., Gray, R. and Bebbington, J. (1997), “Green accounting: cosmetic irrelevance or radical
agenda for change?”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 175-98.
Owen, D.L., Swift, T.A., Humphrey, C. and Bowerman, M. (2000), “The new social audits:
accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions?”, European
Accounting Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 81-98.
Pendleton, A. (2004), “Behind the mask: the real face of corporate social responsibility”,
commissioned by Christian Aid, London.
Power, M. (1991), “Auditing and environmental expertise: between protest and
professionalisation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. p30-p42.
Puxty, A.G. (1986), “Social accounting as immanent legislation: a critique of a technicist
ideology”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 1, pp. 95-111.
Puxty, A.G. (1991), “Social accounting and universal pragmatics”, Advances in Public Interest
Accounting, Vol. 4, pp. 35-47.
Roberts, J. (1991), “The possibilities of accountability”, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 355-68.
Roberts, J. (1996), “From discipline to dialogue: individualizing and socializing forms of
accountability”, in Munro, R. and Mouritsen, J. (Eds), Accountability: Power, Ethos and the
Technologies of Managing, International Thompson Business Press, London, pp. 40-61.
Roberts, J. (2003), “The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: constructing corporate Accountability
sensibility”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 249-65.
Shearer, T. (2002), “Accountability: from the for-itself to the for-the-other”, Accounting,
through activism
Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 541-73.
Thomson, I. and Bebbington, J. (2005), “Social and environmental reporting in the UK:
a pedagogic evaluation”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 507-33.
Tinker, T. (1980), “Towards a political economy of accounting: an empirical illustration of 317
Cambridge controversies”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 147-60.
Tinker, T. and Gray, R. (2003), “Beyond a critique of pure reason: from policy to politics to praxis
in environmental and social research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 727-61.
Tinker, T., Lehman, C. and Niemark, M. (1991), “Falling down the hole in the middle of the road:
political quietism in corporate social accounting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 28-54.
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) (2004), “Corporate social
responsibility and development: towards a new agenda”, Report of the UNRISD
Conference, 17 November, Geneva.
Watts, R.L. and Zimmerman, J.L. (1990), “Positive accounting theory: a ten year perspective”,
The Accounting Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 131-56.
Welford, R. (1997), Hijacking Environmentalism, Earthscan, London.
Zadek, S. and McIntosh, M. (2002), “Introduction”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 8,
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Zadek, S., Pruzan, P. and Evans, R. (1997), Building Corporate Accountability: Emerging Practices
in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting, Earthscan, London.

Further reading
Gray, R. and Milne, M. (2002), “Sustainability reporting: who’s kidding whom?”, Chartered
Accountants Journal of New Zealand, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 66-70.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints