CORPORATE SOCIAL REPORTING

A COOKS TOUR

By Matt Tilling

School of Commerce

Flinders University

South Australia

School of Commerce
Research Paper Series: 01-9
ISSN: 1441-3906

the worship of money (the ultimate external reward) has

become our secular religion... we do live in an age where
money talks and where many people listen. We must resist
this kind of commoditisation of human subjectivity to
realise virtue in all our human practices, not just
accounting. Accounting is more than a mere conduit for
economic reward. Accounting, if it is to be virtuous, must
celebrate itself as the unique creation of human labour
and moral agency that it is (Francis, 1990, p. 15).

POWER AND THE DISCOURSE OF ACCOUNTING

The act of accounting, that is the production of reports
purporting to represent the activities undertaken by an organisation,
is a human practice that holds itself out as providing authoritative
information upon which a variety of people can make decisions. Thus
it has the ability to arbitrate the way people view the world, to affect
their understanding, and influence their decision-making (Hines,
1988). This conveys to the practice of accounting a certain power. In a

1
moral society this power must be carefully considered and moderated
and used with responsibility. This gives light to an important role for
academics, to continually question the domain of accounting practice,
and how its power is exercised. Careful consideration must be given
to the effects that accounting information has on society and, perhaps
more importantly, empowering society to interpret accounting for the
tool it is.
Francis (1990) has pointed out that accounting as a practice is
so much more than a mere reporting of the facts. Accounting is a
discourse, where the accountant chooses what to say, who to say it to,
and how to say it. The accountant is empowered to highlight or
emphasise certain issues, minimise or eliminate others, and in the
process, affect peoples decisions and behaviour. Explicit recognition
of accounting's status as a discursive practice (as opposed to the view
that accountants just report the facts) is profoundly important
because it forces accountants to acknowledge their own personal
involvement, their own moral agency and rhetorical role, in the
production and creation of accounting reports (Francis, 1990, p. 5).
At the same time, however, just as accountants make choices
about reports, so society as a whole makes choices about which
discourses it will acknowledge. Lehman and Tinker (1987, p. 509)
discuss the fact that the amplitude of an accounting theme depends
on its capacity to enlist, echo, harmonize with, and resonate with
other themes prevailing in the discursive environment. In other
words, accounting can influence the decisions that people in society
make, but it cannot necessarily set the social agenda. Within society
there is a growing awareness that the bottom line and other purely
economic issues, so favoured historically by accounting, may not be
enough upon which to judge a firms performance, or base a decision.
Issues associated with quality of life are also an important
consideration (Harte, Lewis and Owen, 1991).

2
 There must be a continual dialogue between accounting
researchers, accounting practitioners and society. In this way the
practice of accounting can be moderated between the desires of
various groups. Unfortunately there is strong evidence of a large
divide between each of these three participants (Bricker, 1990),
particularly in their understanding and expectations of accounting
information. There are however, researchers in a few areas of
accounting research that do seem to be making an effort to work at
the interface, at least with society, at this point in time. One of the
movements in this direction has been labelled Corporate Social
Reporting (CSR) (also sometimes known as Corporate Social
Disclosure). It should be noted that in this paper CSR is deemed to
include disclosures of an environmental nature.

INCIDENCE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL REPORTING

CSR is an area of accounting research that covers both
voluntary and mandatory disclosures made by firms regarding issues
considered important to the community at large and of more than just
an economic nature. CSR has been considered off and on in the
accounting literature since the early 1970s but always on the fringe of
accounting academic research (see for example, Seidler and Seidler,
1975). Corporate social reporting has been defined (Parker 1986, p.
72) as having the following roles:
1. Assessing the social (and environmental) impact of
corporate activities;
2. Measuring effectiveness of corporate social (and
environmental) programmes;
3. Reporting upon a corporations discharging of its social
(and environmental) responsibilities; and

3
 4. External and internal information systems allowing
comprehensive assessment of all corporate resources and
impacts (social, environmental and economic).
A series of studies have shown that CSR by companies is
increasing. Deegan and Gordon (1996), focussing on environmental
disclosure practices, have conducted one of the most detailed studies
in Australia. They concluded that the amount of voluntary
environmental disclosures in Australia is typically low but that a
general increase in environmental disclosures occurred (p. 198)
over the 11 year period 1980 to 1991. In a UK based study, Gray et al.
(1995) found that for various categories of social disclosure (including
Environmental, Community and Health and Safety) the average
amount of disclosure had steadily increased from 1979 to 1991.
However they note The rise in social disclosure from a little over one
page to nearly four-and-a-half pages, it could be argued, may not be
something we should get too excited about (Gray et al., 1995, p. 68).
They do go on to argue that although CSR may be considered a
marginal activity, it is one that is worth studying, both in its own right,
and because it provides opportunities to consider the underlying
theory of accounting.
There has been a growing amount of research into CSR outside
of Australia, the UK and US. In recent literature, particular attention
has been paid to CSR in Europe and South East Asia. One study
conducted by Gamble et al. (1996) of 276 companies from 27
countries (and again limited to environmental disclosures) concluded
that over the relatively short period of 1989 to 1990 there was a
significant increase in individual and overall disclosures across all
countries (see also: Tsang, 1998 (Singapore); Andrew et al., 1989
(Malaysia and Singapore); Adams et al., 1998 (six Western European
countries)). It can be concluded that CSR is a global phenomenon, and
that increases reported in the UK, US and Australia are indicative of

4
the increasing importance of these issues to accounting
internationally.
Two interesting points that have important ramifications for
those considering the CSR of companies have been noted by a number
of researchers. First, there is almost a total absence of any negative
information, and second, some of the information reported may in fact
be misleading.
In a study of 71 Australian firms, who were identified as
voluntarily producing environmental information, Deegan and Gordon
(1996) found that only 14 companies provided information that could
be classed as negative, and even then this disclosure was minimal.
They conclude that The environmental disclosures are typically self-
laudatory, with little or no negative disclosures being made by all
firms in the study (p. 198). This study supported earlier findings by
Guthrie and Parker (1990), who found in a study of Australian, UK and
US firms that absolutely no bad news was disclosed. In another study
Deegan and Rankin (1996) went as far as looking at firms who were
subject to successful prosecution by the Environmental Protection
Agency. These firms presumably had some bad news to disclose, yet it
was found that firms elected to promote positive environmental
attributes In most cases they failed to disclose any negative
environmental information (p. 6). This contrasts markedly with
research conducted within the mainstream (that is traditional,
economically focussed) financial accounting literature. Skinner (1994)
indicates that although companies face an asymmetric response to
negative disclosures (that is a disproportionately large drop in share
price), they are still likely to disclose to avoid legal suites. He also
notes that negative disclosures are much more likely to be made
qualitatively. It has been argued that this biasing of CSR should come
as no surprise. As has already been identified, accounting disclosure
is about control, and positive CSR disclosure may be just a deliberate

5
effort to influence decision making. Just like other ideological
materials (party political statements, advertising, public relations
fluff, religious dogma) it is the repetition of the mundane and
particularly the censoring of other points of view that make these
reports most effective (Tinker et al., 1991, p. 39).
Some authors have gone even further. Not just suggesting that
the information provided by CSR is biased, but that it may in fact
misrepresent the actual situation. Harte and Owen (1991, p. 59)
indicate that social information provided within annual reports tends
not to be directly related to quality of actual performance and can
indeed be positively misleading. This concern was echoed by
Wiseman (1982) who concluded that voluntary environmental
disclosures could misrepresent a companys environmental
performance (also see Ingram and Frazier, 1980).
This situation may have significant ramifications for the long-
term viability of CSR. If questions of validity are raised often enough
it would seem logical to conclude that users may become reticent in
their use of such information. Such concerns have led to calls for
improving reporting and enhancing credibility via the introduction of
specific auditable information in the spirit of promoting public
accountability (Harte and Owen, 1991, p. 59).

THE THEORY OF CORPORATE SOCIAL REPORTING

Academics are not content to just sit back and measure the
incidence of CSR. Having established that it is a growing
phenomenon, attention has been turned to the underlying driving
factors. At its simplest, to disclose additional information in the
Annual Report costs additional money. The firm will not incur this
extra cost unless it reasonably expects some kind of return. The role
of theory is to place these expectations in some kind of reasonable
framework and then assess them.

6
 From the outset it needs to be appreciated that there is not a
single accepted approach to research in accounting (Chua, 1986). One
of the major problems for accounting theorists is the sheer complexity
of dealing with so many users who want an almost infinite variety of
data from accountants with which to undertake a variety of tasks. This
point has been highlighted by Aitken (1990, p. 224) who notes:
It is quite conceivable that thousands of events are likely
to be significant to different users and equally conceivable
that information needs are likely to be contradictory given
the fact that users are permitted (by a conscious policy of
the researcher not to become involved) to favour
particular information sets which condition events in a
way which is favourable to them (the users).

The accounting researcher is left in a position where they must

favour certain claims and ignore others. This is the basis upon which
accounting research is undertaken, and theories of accounting are
based. Gray et al. (1988) argue that traditional accounting has
suppressed this conflict of needs by taking on a passive role and
implicitly preferencing the rights of investors. However, CSR by its
very nature addresses the question: for whom should we be
accounting and how best should we account for them? It opens up
dialogue with a far broader range of users than just the investor.
Gray et al. (1988, p. 7) go further and point out that, when the
traditional intellectual baggage of accounting is hauled across to try
and articulate the issues of CSR, it is exposed for the flaccid
paraphernalia that it is.
The choice and explanation of a theoretical perspective can be a
very difficult task, particularly in the relatively young area of CSR
where no dominant theory has yet been established. Having spent
many years examining the area Gray et al (1995, p. 67) comment that

7
CSR practice is a complex activity that cannot fully be explained by a
single theoretical perspective or from a single level of resolution.
Gray et al. (1995, p. 67) go on to note however, with regard to
research based on specific theories, that:
if such observations augment the attention given to an
increasingly widespread and complex activity and thereby
recognize the legitimacy of a wider range of voices in
corporate activity, then positive and worthy steps have
been taken to attempt to challenge the current corporate
hegemony and to expand the perspective of conventional
accounting.

Tinker (1988, p. 174) also comments on the difficulty in the area

of theory as 'facts' have a meaning, credibility and significance that
depends on their linguistic and theoretical context. If facts are 'theory
relative' in the sense that the same fact takes on different meanings
within different theoretical frames, then 'facts' cannot be an
independent source for adjudicating the validity of theories. He also
notes however, that the fact that accounting theories have implicit
biases is not in itself bad, but that we must make clear the
assumptions hidden in theorizing, and re-evaluate whether they
accord with a conceptualization of our aims for research (p. 184).
There is perhaps cause for concern when it comes to
consideration of the theoretical perspectives of CSR. Mathews (1997,
p. 487) comments with regard to CSR in the early years (the 1970s)
that there seems to have been relatively little curiosity expressed
about the motivation of those making disclosures. Of the later years
he concludes that there has not been a lot of improvement, and
though there has been increased interest, there has been little
consensus. Zeghal and Ahmed (1990) are even more damning,
concluding that in spite of many years of experience, corporate social

8
accounting has no unifying paradigm and a framework for adequate
disclosure is still not developed (p. 38). They go further to state that
Social accounting has suffered, therefore, from a lack of progress
and little consensus exists with regard to objectives, measurement
method and reporting framework (Zeghal and Ahmed, 1990, p. 38).
This view is perhaps a little pessimistic.
Tilt (1994) has outlined three broad positions for research in
CSR: the functionalist or neo-classical economic paradigm; the
interpretive or middle of the road paradigm; and, the radical,
critical or socio-political paradigm. It should be noted that these three
groupings really represent somewhat arbitrary divisions on a
continuum. However there does exist some degree of delineation. It is
interesting to note these three perspectives match very closely the
three broad arguments presented by Mathews (1993, p.9) as to the
importance of CSR. Firstly, market-related arguments, which hold that
additional disclosures are to be encouraged on the basis that
shareholders and creditors will benefit from a more responsive
market. Secondly, socially-related arguments which hold that
additional disclosures establish the moral nature of the corporation,
and therefore satisfy the implicit social contract between business and
society and to legitimate the organisation in the eyes of society.
Finally, radical-related arguments, which posit a whole new role for
accounting. It is not within the scope of this paper to adequately
explore these three paradigms, only acknowledge their existence. But
as a final note it is important to remember the point made by Deegan
(1997, p. 71), that all theories are simplifications of reality.

NORMATIVE RESEARCH - THE ROAD BACK TO RELEVANCE

Llewellyn (1996, p. 1, emphasis in original) has noted that
interpretive and critical accounting researchers should now reconnect
with accounting as a practice and be prepared to present theories for

9
practice rather than restricting their research to theories about
practice. This is to be achieved through the consideration of
normative issues. Researching theories for practice would
acknowledge normative issues - in the sense that all theoretical
development would be seen as having potential ethical implications
(Llewellyn, 1996, p.1). One of the most exciting and relevant models
for normative research in CSR is the Conditional - Normative theory.
The hallmark of a conditional - normative theory is the inclusion of
the objective as well as the instrumental hypotheses (i.e. the
empirically determined means-end relations), within the theoretical
framework (Mattessich, 1992, p. 190, emphasis in original). In this
framework conditions are placed upon the application of the
normative conclusion. If certain results are desired, and the
conditions meet certain requirements, then appropriate (normatively
determined) action is taken. The aim is to provide a range of tools for
practitioners to choose from, depending on preconceived and actual
needs (Mattessich, 1992, p. 190). This is an attempt to draw together
theory, practice and society, bridging many of the divides that have
been identified. It is perhaps pertinent to review Mattessichs (1992,
p. 192) final 3 points:
1. The time is ripe to unite accounting theory and societal
norms in a single theoretical framework but,
simultaneously, treat general empirical assumptions
differently from specific purpose - orientated hypotheses;
2. That academic accounting (as a whole) is an applied
science in which conditional - normative reasoning - i.e.,
the search for connecting efficient means with given ends
- ought to be at the very centre; and
3. Reject false pride, which the expression applied science
seems to injure. It is truth not appearance that counts.

10
 Theory is a means to an end; it provides a skeleton, upon which
research must be hung, but at the end of the day, although it supports
the thesis it is not the product.

Accounting, to the extent that it is a choice about how to

effect our lived experience - our ends - is a practice
grounded in moral discernment. Accounting is important
precisely to the extent the accountant can transform the
world, can influence the lived experience of others in ways
which cause that experience to differ from what it would
be in the absence of accounting, or in the presence of an
alternative kind of accounting. Why would an invented
human practice like accounting even exist except as a
choice about how to shape human experience? (Franics,
1990, p. 7).

THE FUTURE OF ACCOUNTING

Accountants in practice are presented with a choice, either to
change or to remain the same. Accounting academics should be
precipitative in any changes that practice needs to make; their role
should be to inform both practitioners and society. [A]ccountants,
whether academic or professional, must redirect their efforts before it
is too late and they find themselves to be experts in a shrinking area
of diminishing importance. One way to prevent this happening is to
broaden the field covered by accounting to include social and
environmental data (Mathews, 1997, p. 506).
CSR research has the potential to change accounting. It has
widened the scope of what counts as accounting information, and it
has begun to consider a wider variety of stakeholders (see for

11
example, Baker and Hayes (1995) who focus on employee concerns).
The potentially broader role that accounting could play through the
identification, measurement, and communication of interactions
between the firm and society is slowly being recognised by
"managers, the media, politicians and the public" (Mathews, 1997, p.
481). In contributing broader information to more people this should
allow them to make better-informed decisions and contribute to a
better society. Yet there is still a long way to go.

REFERENCES

Adams, C., W. Hill and C. Roberts (1998), Corporate Social Reporting Practices in
Western Europe: Legitimating Corporate Behaviour?, British Accounting
Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 1 - 21.

Aitken, M. (1990), A General Theory of Financial Reporting: Is it Possible?, The

International Journal of Accounting, Education and Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.
221 - 233.

Andrew, B., F. Gul, J. Guthrie & H. Teoh (1989), A Note on Corporate Social Disclosure
Practices in Developing Countries: The Case of Malaysia and Singapore, British
Accounting Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 371 - 376.

Baker, C. & R. Hayes (1995), The Negative Effect of an Accounting Standard on

Employee Welfare, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8, No.
3, pp. 12 33.

Bricker, R. (1990), The Sociology of Accountancy: A Study of Academic and Practice

Community Schisms, Accounting Horizons, March, pp. 1 - 14.

12
Chua, W. (1986), Radical Developments in Accounting Thought, Accounting Review,
pp. 601 - 632.

Deegan, C. (1997), Positive Accounting Theory: A Useful Tool for Explanation and
Prediction, or a Body of Vacuous, Insidious and Discredited Thoughts?,
Accounting Forum, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 63 - 72.

Deegan, C. & B. Gordon (1996), A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of

Australian Corporations, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.
187 - 199.

Deegan, C. & M. Rankin (1997), The Materiality of Environmental Information to Users

of Annual Reports, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 10,
No. 4, Internet Edition (http://www.emerald-library.com).

Francis, J. (1990), After Virtue? Accounting as a Moral and Discursive Practice,

Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 5 - 17.

Gamble, G., K. Hsu, C. Jackson & C. Tollerson (1996), Environmental Disclosures in

Annual Reports: An International Perspective, The International Journal of
Accounting, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 293 - 331.

Gray, R., R. Kouhy & S. Lavers (1995), Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting:
A Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 47 - 77.

Gray, R., D. Owen & K. Maunders (1988), Corporate Social Reporting: Emerging
Trends in Accountability and Social Contract, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability, Vol 1, No.1, pp 6 - 20.

13
Guthrie, J. & L. Parker (1990), Corporate Social Disclosure Practice: A Comparative
International Analysis, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3, pp. 159 -
176.

Harte, G., L. Lewis & D. Owen (1991), Ethical Investment and the Corporate Reporting
Function, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, No 2, pp 227 - 253.

Harte, G. & D. Owen (1991), Environmental Disclosure in the Annual Reports of British
Companies: A Research Note, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 51 - 61.

Hines, R., (1988), Financial Accounting: in Communicating Reality we Construct

Reality, Accounting, Organizations and Society Vol. 13, 251-261.

Ingram, R. (1978), Investigation of the Information Content of Certain Social

Responsibility Disclosure, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.
270 - 285.

Lehman, C. & T. Tinker (1987), The Real Cultural Significance of Accounts,

Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp 503 - 522.

Llewellyn, S. (1996), Theories for Theorists or Theories for Practice? Liberating

Academic Accounting Research?, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 4, Internet Edition (http://www.emerald-library.com).

Mathews, M. (1993), Socially Responsible Accounting, Chapman and Hall, UK.

Mathews, M. (1997), Twenty-Five Years of Social and Environmental Accounting

Research, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol, 10, No. 1, pp.
481 - 531.

14
Mattessich, R. (1996), On the History of Normative Accounting Theory: Paradigm Lost,
Paradigm Regained?, Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 2, No. 2,
pp. 181 - 198.

Parker, L. (1986), Polemical Themes in Social Accounting: A Scenario for Standard

Setting, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 1, pp. 67 - 93.

Seidler, L. & L. Seidler (1975), Social Accounting: Theory, Issues, and Cases, Melville
Publishing Company, US.

Skinner, D. (1994), Why Firms Voluntarily Disclose Bad News, Journal of Accounting
Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 38 - 60.

Tilt, C., (1994), The Influence of External Pressure Groups on Corporate Social
Disclosure Some Empirical Evidence, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 47 - 72.

Tinker, T., C. Lehman & M. Neimark (1991), Falling Down the Hole in the Middle of
the Road: Political Quietism in Corporate Social Reporting, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 28 - 54.

Tinker, T. (1988), Panglossian Accounting Theories: The Science of Apologising in

Style, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp 165 - 189.

Tsang, E. (1998), A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Social Reporting in Singapore: The

Case of the Banking, Food and Beverages and Hotel Industries, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 11, No. 5, Internet Issue
(http://www.emerald-library.com).

15
Wiseman, J. (1982), An Evaluation of Environmental Disclosures Made in Corporate
Annual Reports, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 53 -
63.

Zeghal, D. & S. Ahmed (1990), Comparisons of Social Responsibility Information

Disclosure Media Used by Canadian Firms, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 38 - 53.

16