Organisational dynamics of environmental/sustainability reportinga case for structure and agency of collective actors

  1. Carmen Correa Ruiz 1
  1. 1 Universidad Pablo de Olavide
    info

    Universidad Pablo de Olavide

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z749649

Revista:
Revista española de financiación y contabilidad

ISSN: 0210-2412

Ano de publicación: 2019

Volume: 48

Número: 4

Páxinas: 406-429

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.1080/02102412.2019.1632019 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Outras publicacións en: Revista española de financiación y contabilidad

Resumo

This paper reports a research engagement with a Spanish electricity organisation to analyse a dynamic process of structuration within the firm. Structuration for the development of environmental/sustainability reporting, as part of a wider undertaking by the firm towards environmental/sustainability management. The study therefore responds to recent calls to advance structuration theory and for an in-depth, contextual and interventionist exploration of accounting. It does so by underlining legitimation, signification and domination structures developed to respond to institutional pressures, as well as the agency of collective actors, the accounting department and the environmental/sustainability management department.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

The author would like to thank the reviewers, Carlos Larrinaga and Jesse Dillard for their helpful comments. I am also grateful for the financial support received from Ministry of Industry and Competitiveness, FEDER and Junta de Castilla y Le?n (ECO2015-65782-P and BU058P17) and Junta de Andaluc?a (SEJ-111).

Financiadores

    • SEJ-111
    • ECO2015-65782-P

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adams, C., & Larrinaga. (2007). Introduction: Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(3), 333–355.
  • Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P., (2007). Making a difference Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382–402.
  • Adhikari, P., & Jayasinghe, K., (2017). “Agents-in-focus” and “Agents-in-context”: The strong structuration analysis of central government accounting practices and reforms in Nepal. Accounting Forum, 41(2), 96–115.
  • Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S., (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 819–841.
  • Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S., (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.
  • Bebbington, J., (2007). Changing organisational attitudes and culture through sustainability accounting. In J., Unerman, J., Bebbington, & B., O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability, accounting and accountability (pp. 226–242). London: Routledge.
  • Belal, A., & Owen, D. L., (2015). The rise and fall of stand-alone social reporting in a multinational subsidiary in Bangladesh: A case study. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 28(7), 1160–1192.
  • Buhr, N., (2002). A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(1), 17–38.
  • Busco, C., (2009). Giddens’ structuration theory and its implications for management accounting research. Journal of Management and Governance, 13, 249–260.
  • Coad, A., Jack, L., & Kholeif, A., (2016). Strong structuration theory in accounting research. Accounting. Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1138–1144.
  • Coad, A. F., & Glyptis, L. G., (2014). Structuration: A position-practice perspective and an illustrative study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(2), 142–161.
  • Conrad, L., (2005). A structuration analysis of accounting systems and systems of accountability in the privatised gas industry. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16, 1–26.
  • Correa, C., & Larrinaga, C., (2015). Engagement research in social and environmental accounting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(1), 5–28.
  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S., (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K., Denzin & Y. S., Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R., (2010). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Blue Ridge Summit: AltaMira Press.
  • Dey, C., (2007). Social accounting at Traidcraft Plc: A strugle for the meaning of fair trade. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 423–445.
  • Dillard, J. F., Rigsby, J. T., & Goodman, C., (2004). The making and remaking of organization context: Duality and the institutionalization process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(4), 506–542.
  • DiMaggio, J., (1995). Comments on “what theory is not”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391–397.
  • DIMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W., (1991). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. In W. W., Powell & P. J., DiMaggio (Eds.), pp. 63-82, The new institutionalism in organisational analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Englund, H., & Gerdin, J., (2014). Structuration theory in accounting research: Applications and applicability. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(2), 162–180.
  • Englund, H., Gerdin, J., & Burns, J., (2011). 25 Years of Giddens in accounting research: Achievements, limitations and the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(8), 494–513.
  • Feeney, O., & Pierce, B., (2016). Strong structuration theory and accounting information: An empirical study. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1152–1176.
  • Frostenson, M., & Helin, S., (2017). Ideas in conflict: A case study on tensions in the process of preparing sustainability reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(2), 166–190.
  • Gibassier, D., Rodrigue, M., & Arjaliès, D.-L., (2018). Integrated reporting is like God: No one has met Him, but everybody talks about Him: The power of myths in the adoption of management innovations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 31(5), 1349–1380.
  • Giddens, A., (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Giddens, A., (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Gold, R. L., (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217–223.
  • Gray, R. H., (2002). The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society: Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique. Accounting Organizations and Society, 27(7), 687–708.
  • Hopwood, A. G., (1983). On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 8(2/3), 287–305.
  • Hopwood, A. G., (2009). Editorial: Reflections and projections–And many, many thanks. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8), 887–894.
  • Jack, L., & Kholeif, A., (2007). Introducing strong structuration theory for informing qualitative case studies in organization, management and accounting research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: an International Journal, 2(3), 208–225.
  • Johnson, A., & Sackett, R., (1998). Direct systematic observation of behavior. In H., Russell Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 301–332). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
  • Jorgensen, D. L., (2015). Participant observation. In R. A., Scott & S. M., Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1–15). Wiley: New York.
  • Kaur, A., & Lodhia, S., (2018). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting and reporting: A study of Australian local councils. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 31(1), 338–368.
  • Kawulich, B., (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.466
  • Larrinaga, C., Carrasco, F., Correa, C., Llena, F., & Moneva, J., (2002). Accountability and accounting regulation: The case of the Spanish environmental disclosure standard. The European Accounting Review, 11(4), 723–740.
  • Macintosh, N. B., & Scapens, R. W., (1990). Structuration theory in management accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society, 15(5), 455–477.
  • Massa, L., Farneti, F., & Scappini, B., (2015). Developing a sustainability report in a small to medium enterprise: Process and consequences. Meditari Accountancy Research, 23(1), 62–91.
  • Mitchell, M., Curtis, A., & Davidson, P., (2012). Can triple bottom line reporting become a cycle for “double loop” learning and radical change? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(6), 1048–1068.
  • Moore, D. R. J., (2013). Sustainability, institutionalization and the duality of structure: Contradiction and unintended consequences in the political context of an Australian water business. Management Accounting Research, 24(4), 366–386.
  • Moore, D. R. J., & McPhail, K., (2016). Strong structuration and carbon accounting: A position practice perspective of policy development at the macro, industry and organizational levels. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1204–1233.
  • Parker, L. D., (2005). Social and environmental accountability research. A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842–860.
  • Parker, L. D., & Northcott, D., (2016). Qualitative generalizing in accounting research: Concepts and strategies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(6), 1100–1131.
  • Pullman, M., & Dillard, J., (2010). Values based supply chain management and emergent organizational structures. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(7), 744–771.
  • Roberts, J., & Scapens, R. W., (1985). Accounting systems and systems of accountability: Understanding accounting practices in their organisational contexts. Accounting Organizations and Society, 10, 443–456.
  • Scapens, R. W., (1990). Researching management accounting practice: The role of case study methods. The British Accounting Review, 22(3), 259–281.
  • Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D., (1999). Essential ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires (Book 2 in Ethnographer’s Toolkit). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
  • Sewell, W. H., Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
  • Stones, R., (2005). Structuration theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Stones, R., & Jack, L., (2016). The bridge between ontological concepts and empirical evidence: An interview with Rob Stones. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1145–1151.
  • Yin, R., (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet