ABSTRACT

 Article history: Received 13 June 2006 Received in revised form 4 October 2006 Accepted 28 October 2006 Available online 22 December 2006 Keywords: Full cost accounting Sustainable development Sustainability assessment models Cost–benefit analysis Dialogic accounting Within ecological economics there is recognition of the need for new approaches to decision- making to support sustainable development initiatives. There is an increasing acknowledgement of the limitations of cost–benefit analysis approaches as a measure of the (un)sustainability of organizational activities. These are viewed as particularly inappropriate within the participatory settings that sustainable development proponents seek to foster. They also fail to deal with the highly contested nature of sustainable development discourse in contemporary pluralist democracies. While advances have been made in the field of multi- criteria decision-making, there is still a relative dearth of versatile models that accommodate monetization in a way that recognizes the limits of calculative technologies. This article introduces readers to developments within the accounting discipline designed to support sustainable development decision-making and evaluation. In particular, it proposes sustainability assessment models as a viable alternative to cost–benefit analysis. Sustainability assessment models are based on an inter-disciplinary approach that recognizes the need for “accountings” that facilitate more participatory forms of decision-making and accountability. As such, they address many of the weaknesses in current approaches to cost– benefit analysis. The authors’ first experiences with sustainability assessment models were with BP and the United Kingdom oil and gas sector, where models were developed as a means of making previously external costs more central to organizational decision-making. Later work has included exploration of a range of decision-making situations in private and public sector organizations in both the United Kingdom and New Zealand. This has involved more explicit attention to plural values and issues of participation, dialogue and democracy.

2

Materiality in an integrated reporting setting: Insights using an institutional logics framework

Author links open overlay panelDannielleCerboneWarrenMaroun

Abstract

Using institutional logics as a theoretical framework and interviews with 20 preparers from 14 large organisations listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), this paper focuses on examining differences in integrated reporting practices. The results reveal how a finance-centric market and professional logic interact with a stakeholder logic, leading to differences in the materiality determination process. Market-dominated firms have an internally focused approach to setting materiality which emphasises value-relevance for financial capital providers. Where logics are contested, materiality becomes an amalgamation of the factors which are important for shareholders and other stakeholders and essential for demonstrating compliance with codes of best practice. Organisations with market, professional and stakeholder logics aligned have the most sophisticated materiality determination processes. The emphasis shifts from lengthy reporting and compliance to providing a comprehensive account of the value creation process and how the business ensures long-term sustainability. In this way, how logics are instantiated may explain the considerable variation being observed in integrated reports. There are also implications for the propensity of firms either to view integrated reporting as a hegemonic challenge or to internalise it as part of a process of positive organisational change.

METHODS Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models Jan Bebbingtona, Judy Brownb, Bob Framec,⁎ aCentre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9SS, Scotland, UK bSchool of Accounting and Commercial Law, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand c Sustainability and Society, Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand ARTICLEINFO

question

1. from the above 2 articles which is normative and which is positive accounting theory?

2. why is article 1 critical theory?