Re‐conceiving managerial capture

Emerald - Tập 23 Số 7 - Trang 847-867 - 2010
Max Baker1
1University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Tóm tắt

Purpose

This paper aims to respond to recent calls to rethink the concept of managerial capture as it has been used to date to explore and explain the limited impacts of new forms of stakeholder engagement.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper explores the grounding of views of managerial capture in the Habermasian ideal of participative democracy. It then attempts to re‐conceive the understanding of capture by drawing on Foucault's account of disciplinary power and its constitutive effects on subjectivity.

Findings

Capture appears as a managerial mindset constituted by the pervasive demand for shareholder value. When stakeholder issues are considered within this frame they must be recast in ways that pose no moral or emotional challenge to the dominant logic of shareholder maximisation. This moral distancing or amoralisation can be traced to the accounting practices that make management visible to their superiors (board of directors or more senior levels of management) in terms of their utility. In seeking the recognition of their superiors, individual managers make themselves subjects of this deeper form of capture.

Practical implications

A less restricted lens for conducting future research in managerial capture is offered. While in practice stakeholder engagement fails to live up to the Habermasian ideal, it still holds some promise for delivering management accountability.

Originality/value

The paper shows that ideas of power and subjectivity are key to an understanding of environmental accountability and open the social and environmental accountability literature to a new set of interesting problematics.


Tài liệu tham khảo

Adams, C.A. and Larrinaga‐Gonzalez, C. (2007), “Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 333‐55. Armstrong, P. (1994), “The influence of Michel Foucault on accounting research”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 25‐55. Arrington, C.E. and Watkins, A.L. (2002), “Maintaining ‘critical intent’ within a postmodern theoretical perspective on accounting research”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 139‐57. Ball, A., Owen, D.L. and Gray, R. (2000), “External transparency or internal capture? The role of third‐party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1‐23. Bate, P. (1984), “The impact of organizational culture on approaches to organizational problem solving”, Organization Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43‐66. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Anchor Books, Garden City, NY. Butler, J. (2005), Giving an Account of Oneself, Fordham University Press, Bronx, NY. Collins, E., Kearins, K. and Roper, J. (2005), “The risks of relying on stakeholder engagement for the achievement of sustainability”, Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1‐20. Cooper, C. (1997), “Against postmodernism: class oriented questions for critical accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 8 Nos 1‐2, pp. 15‐41. Cooper, S.M. and Owen, D.L. (2007), “Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: the missing link”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 649‐67. Crane, A. (2000), “Corporate greening as amoralization”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 673‐96. Ebrahim, A. and Weisband, E. (2007), Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fineman, S. (1996), “Emotional subtexts in corporate greening”, Organization Studies, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 479‐500. Fineman, S. (1997), “Constructing the green manager”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 31‐8. Fleming, P. and Spicer, A. (2003), “Working at a cynical distance: implications for subjectivity, power and resistance”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 157‐79. Foucault, M. (1979), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Penguin, London. Foucault, M. (1982), “The subject and power”, in Dreyfus, H.L. and Rabinow, P. (Eds), Michel Foucault, Harvester, Brighton, pp. 208‐26. Foucault, M. and Gordon, C. (1980), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972‐1977, Harvester Press, Brighton. Gephart, R.P. (1984), “Making sense of organizationally based environmental disasters”, Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 205‐25. Gephart, R.P. (1988), “Managing the meaning of a sour gas well blowout: the public culture of organizational disasters”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17‐32. Gephart, R.P. (1993), “The textual approach: risk and blame in disaster sensemaking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1465‐514. Gephart, R.P. (1996), “Simulacral environments: reflexivity and the natural ecology of organizations”, in Boje, D.M., Gephart, R.P. and Thatchenkery, T.J. (Eds), Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 203‐22. Gouldson, A. and Bebbington, J. (2007), “Corporations and the governance of environmental risk”, Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 4‐20. Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., 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. Grey, C. (1994), “Debating Foucault: a critical reply to Neimark”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5‐24. Habermas, J. (1989), “Towards a communication‐concept of rational collective will‐formation. A thought‐experiment”, Ratio Juris, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 144‐54. Habermas, J. (1992), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Habermas, J. (1998), “Three normative models of democracy”, in Cronin, C.P. and Pablo, D.G. (Eds), The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 239‐52. Hoskin, K. (1994), “Boxing clever: for, against and beyond Foucault in the battle for accounting theory”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 57‐85. Hoskin, K.W. and Macve, R.H. (1986), “Accounting and the examination: a genealogy of disciplinary power”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 105‐36. Ibarra‐Colado, E., Clegg, S.R., Rhodes, C. and Kornberger, M. (2006), “The ethics of managerial subjectivity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 45‐55. Jackall, R, (1988), Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1989), “Power and subjectivity at work: from degradation to subjugation in social relations”, Sociology, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 535‐58. Laughlin, R.C. (1987), “Accounting systems in organisational contexts: a case for critical theory”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 479‐502. Miller, P. (1987), Domination and Power, Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York, NY. Miller, P. and O'Leary, T. (1987), “Accounting and the construction of the governable person”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 235‐65. Miller, P. and Rose, N. (1990), “Governing economic life”, Economy and Society, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1‐31. Munro, L. (2000), “Non‐disciplinary power and the network society”, Organization, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 679‐95. Neimark, M. (1990), “The king is dead. Long live the king”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 103‐14. Neimark, M. (1994), “Regicide revisited: Marx, Foucault and accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 87‐108. O'Dwyer, B. (2003), “Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 523‐57. O'Dwyer, B. (2005), “Stakeholder democracy: challenges and contributions from social accounting”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 28‐41. Owen, D.L., Swift, T. and Hunt, K. (2001), “Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 25, pp. 264‐82. 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. Parker, L.D. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the commentary box”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842‐60. 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. 41‐61. Roberts, J. (2003), “The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: constructing corporate sensibility”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 249‐65. Russell, S.L. and Thomson, I. (2009), “Analysing the role of sustainable development indicators in accounting for and constructing a sustainable Scotland”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 33, pp. 225‐44. Scherer, A.G. and Palazzo, G. (2007), “Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1096‐120. Shenkin, M. and Coulson, A.B. (2007), “Accountability through activism: learning from Bourdieu”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 297‐317. Spence, C. (2009), “Social and environmental reporting and corporate ego”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp. 254‐65. 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. and Gray, R. (2003), “Beyond a critique of pure reason”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 727‐61. Townley, B. (1995), “Managing by numbers: accounting, personnel management and the creation of a mathesis”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 555‐75. Unerman, J. and Bennett, M. (2004), “Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony?”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 685‐707. Welford, R., Starkey, R. and Elkington, J. (2001), “The ‘triple bottom line’ for twenty‐first century business”, The Earthscan Reader in Business and Sustainable Development, Earthscan, London. Zadek, S. (2007), The Civil Corporation, Earthscan, London.