Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Chỉ Cần Nhìn Vào Số Liệu: Nghiên Cứu Tình Huống Về Việc Định Lượng Trong Các Công Bố Môi Trường Của Doanh Nghiệp
Tóm tắt
Bài báo này làm sáng tỏ thêm vai trò của việc định lượng trong các công bố môi trường của doanh nghiệp. Định lượng là một thực hành xã hội vốn có, đã thu hút một lượng đáng kể sự quan tâm học thuật trong những năm gần đây. Đồng thời, trong lĩnh vực kế toán xã hội và môi trường, có sự thiếu hụt nghiên cứu về việc định lượng hoặc vai trò của nó đối với các tổ chức, trong giao tiếp tổ chức và trong xã hội một cách rộng rãi hơn. Do vậy, trong bài báo này, chúng tôi sẽ dựa vào một nghiên cứu tình huống định tính để thảo luận về những tác động tiềm tàng có thể phát sinh từ việc sử dụng thông tin định lượng trong các công bố môi trường của doanh nghiệp. Nghiên cứu tình huống của chúng tôi minh họa các tác động đa dạng của việc định lượng được gợi ý trong tài liệu trước đó bằng cách đặt chúng trong bối cảnh của các công bố môi trường doanh nghiệp. Chúng tôi thảo luận về cách thức mà việc định lượng ngụ ý về tính chính xác giả tạo và thúc đẩy việc so sánh những điều không thể so sánh, từ đó hạn chế cuộc thảo luận vào các chủ đề và câu hỏi được công ty quản lý ưa thích. Chúng tôi khẳng định rằng, việc định lượng, mặc dù có vẻ sản xuất ra thông tin trung lập và không có giá trị, thực sự có một chiều kích đạo đức quan trọng thông qua cách mà nó liên quan đến các mối quan hệ trách nhiệm cũng như các mối quan hệ quyền lực tương ứng giữa các bên liên quan khác nhau trong xã hội.
Từ khóa
#định lượng #công bố môi trường #trách nhiệm xã hội #kế toán môi trường #mối quan hệ quyền lựcTài liệu tham khảo
Accounting for Sustainability [A4S]. (2016). Natural and social capital accounting. An introduction for finance teams.
Aerts, W., & Cormier, D. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(1), 1–27.
Åkerman, M., & Peltola, T. (2006). Constituting the space for decision making—Conflicting calculations in a dispute over fuel choice at a local heating plant. Geoforum, 37(5), 779–789.
Al-Tuwaijiri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes, K. E. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5–6), 447–471.
Arrington, C. E., & Francis, J. R. (1989). Letting the chat out of the bag: Deconstruction, privilege and accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(2–3), 107–124.
Arrington, C. E., & Francis, J. R. (1993). Giving economic accounts: Accounting as cultural practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14(1–2), 1–28.
Bebbington, J., Österblom, H., Crona, B., Jouffray, J.-B., Larrinaga, C., Russell, S., et al. (2020). Accounting and accountability in the Anthropocene. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(1), 152–177.
Bebbington, J., Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2014). Sustainability accounting and accountability. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bédard, J., & Gendron, Y. (2004). Qualitative research on accounting: Some thoughts on what occurs behind the scene. In C. HumphreyM & B. Lee (Eds.), The real life guide to accounting research. A behind-the-scenes view of using qualitative research methods. Oxford: Elsevier.
Beelitz, A., & Merkl-Davies, D. (2012). Using discourse to restore organisational legitimacy: ‘CEO-speak’ after an Incident in a German Nuclear Power Plant. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 101–120.
Boiral, O. (2013). “Sustainability reports as simulacra? An external account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal., 26(7), 1036–1071.
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Brotherton, M.-C. (2019). Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: The auditors’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 703–721.
Boltanski, L., & Thevenot, L. (2006). On justification. Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Borgstedt, P., Nienaber, A.-M., Liesenkötter, B., & Schewe, G. (2019). Legitimacy strategies in corporate environmental reporting: A longitudinal analysis of German DAX companies’ disclosed objectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), 177–200.
Braithwaite, J. (2008). Regulatory capitalism: How it works, ideas for making it work better. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J., & Nahapiet, J. (1980). The roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1), 5–27.
Carlsson-Wall, M., Kraus, K., & Messner, M. (2016). Performance measurement systems and the enactment of different institutional logics: Insights from a football organization. Management Accounting Research, 32, 45–61.
Chelli, M., & Gendron, Y. (2013). Sustainability ratings and disciplinary power of the ideology of numbers. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 187–203.
Chenhall, R. H., Hall, M., & Smith, D. (2013). Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(4), 268–287.
Chiapello, E., & Walter, C. (2016). The three ages of financial quantification: A conventionalist approach to the financiers’ metrology. Historical Social Research, 41(2), 155–177.
Cho, C. H., Guidry, R. P., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 14–25.
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40(1), 78–94.
Cooper, C., & Senkl, D. (2016). An(other) truth: A feminist perspective on KPMG’s true value. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(4), 494–516.
Cooper, S. M., & Owen, D. L. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 649–667.
Craig, R., & Amernic, J. (2004). The deployment of accounting-related rhetoric in the prelude to a privatization. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(1), 41–58.
Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252.
Desrosieres, A. (2001). How ‘real’ are statistics? Four possible attitudes. Social Research, 68, 339–355.
Dhaliwal, D. S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759.
Didier, E. (2018). Globalization of quantitative policing: Between management and statactivism. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 515–534.
Dillard, J., & Vinnari, E. (2019). Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 62, 16–38.
Energiateollisuus. (2017). Suomalaisten Energia-asenteet 2017 [Finns’ attitudes on energy production 2017]. Helsinki: Energiateollisuus.
Espeland, W. (2016). Reverse engineering and emotional attachments as mechanisms mediating the effects of quantification. Historical Social Research, 41(2), 280–304.
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1–40.
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2016). Engines of anxiety. Academic rankings, reputation and accountability. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Espeland, W., & Stevens, M. (1998). Commensuration as social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.
Espeland, W., & Stevens, M. (2008). A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, XLIX(3), 401–436.
Finnish Energy Industries. (2014). Energiavuosi 2014.
Folke, C., Österblom, H., Jouffray, J.-B., et al. (2019). Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3, 1396–4103.
Gendron, Y. (2009). Discussion of ‘The audit committee oversight process’: Advocating openness in accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(1), 123–134.
Gerdin, J., & Englund, H. (2019). Contesting commensuration: Public response tactics to performance evaluation of academia. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(4), 1098–1116.
Gilles, M. (2016). Figures for what purposes? The issues at stake in the struggles to define and control the uses of statistics. In S. Bruno, F. Jany-Catrice, & B. Touchelay (Eds.), The social sciences of quantification (pp. 149–160). Cham: Springer.
Hakkila, P. (2006). Factors driving the development of forest energy in Finland. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30, 281–288.
Hooks, J., & van Staden, C. J. (2011). Evaluating environmental disclosures: The relationship between quality and extent measures. British Accounting Review, 43, 200–213.
Kadous, K., Koonce, L., & Towry, K. L. (2005). Quantification and persuasion in managerial judgement. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(3), 643–686.
Kaspersen, M., & Johansen, T. R. (2016). Changing social and environmental reporting systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 731–749.
Laine, M., Järvinen, J., Hyvönen, T., & Kantola, H. (2017). Ambiguity of financial environmental information: A case study of a Finnish energy company. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(3), 593–619.
Laine, M., Scobie, M., Sorola, M., & Tregidga, H. (2020). Special issue editorial: Social and environmental account/ability 2020 and beyond. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 40(1), 1–23.
Lempinen, H. (2013). “Arvalla heitetty? Tiede ja sen kyseenalaistaminen turve-energian markkinoinnissa. Tieteessä tapahtuu, 31(5), 35–38.
Mau, S. (2019). The metric society. On the role of quantification and the social. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mehrpoya, A., & Samiolo, R. (2016). Performance measurement in global governance: Ranking and the politics of variability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 55, 12–31.
Mennicken, A., & Espeland, W. (2019). What’s new with numbers? Sociological approaches to the study of quantification. Annual Review of Sociology, 45, 223–245.
Merry, S. E. (2016). The seductions of quantification. Measuring human rights gender violence and human trafficking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., Ricceri, F., & Roberts, R. W. (2016). Behind camouflaging: Traditional and innovative theoretical perspectives in social and environmental accounting research. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(1), 2–25.
Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1993). Accounting expertise and the politics of the product: Economic citizenship and modes of corporate governance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(2–3), 187–206.
Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1994). Accounting, “economic citizenship” and the spatial reordering of manufacture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(1), 15–43.
Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (2007). Mediating instruments and making markets: Capital budgeting, science and the economy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 701–734.
O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2016). Fostering rigour in accounting for social sustainability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 49, 32–40.
Peterson, B. (2014). The peat monster. Foreign Policy, October 2014. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from https://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/10/finland_environment_climate_change_peat_vapo_green_koijarvi_fishing_biodiversity.
Porter, T. M. (1992). Quantification and the accounting ideal in science. Social Studies of Science, 22(4), 633–651.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Potter, B. N. (2005). Accounting as a social and institutional practice: Perspectives to enrich our understanding of accounting change. ABACUS, 41(3), 265–289.
Power, M. (2004). Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57(6), 765–783.
Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.
Saxton, G. D., Gomez, L., Ngoh, Z., Lin, Y.-P., & Dietrich, S. (2019). Do CSR messages resonate? Examining public reactions to firms’ CSR efforts on social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 359–377.
Schilstra, A. J. (2001). How sustainable is the use of peat for commercial energy production? Ecological Economics, 39, 285–293.
Syrjämäki, E. (2013). Mikä on oikeaa tietoa? Turvetuotannon diskurssit paikallisen tiedon näkökulmasta Saarijärven reitillä. Master’s Thesis, University of Jyväskylä.
The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation [FANC]. (2014). Suuri suomalainen päästöhuijaus [The great Finnish discharge hoax]. Presentation, 4(4), 2014.
The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation [FANC]. (2012). Turpeenkaivuun vesistöongelmat [Problems peat mining causes to watersheds].
Tinker, T., & Neimark, M. (1987). The role of annual reports in gender and class contradictions at General Motors: 1917–1976. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 12(1), 71–88.
Tuohy, A., Bazilian, M., Doherty, R., Gallachóir, B. Ó., & O’Malley, M., (2009). Burning peat in Ireland: An electricity market dispatch perspective. Energy Policy, 37(8), 3035–3042.
Vaivio, J. (1999). Examining “the quantified customer”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(8), 689–715.
Vesty, G., Telgenkamp, A., & Roscoe, P. (2015). Creating numbers: Carbon and capital investment. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28, 302–324.
Vollmer, H. (2003). Bookkeeping, accounting, calculative practice: The sociological suspense of calculation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14, 353–381.
Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(1), 53–63.