Browsing by Author "Brown, Judy"

Now showing 1 - 20 of 21

Restricted
ACCY314: Accounting: Sustainability and Accountability
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2024) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY320: Accounting: Special Topic: Accounting Theory
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2007) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY320: Accounting: Special Topic: Accounting Theory
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2006) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY413: Accounting: Accounting, Organisations and Society
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2008) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY413: Accounting: Accounting, Organisations and Society
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY413: Accounting: Accounting, Organisations and Society
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2010) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2016) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2017) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2007) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2013) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2009) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2014) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2010) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(2018) Brown, Judy
Restricted
ACCY421: Accounting: Accounting Research Methodology
(Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Brown, Judy
Open Access
Competing Discourses in Social and Environmental Accounting: an Overview of the Conceptual Landscape
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2004) Brown, Judy; Fraser, Michael
In recent years there has been a marked resurgence of interest in the areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social and environmental accounting (SEA) among business, Governments, public policymakers, investors, unions, environmentalists and others. While at one level there appears to be widespread agreement that CSR and SEA are worthy topics of attention, different groups have very different understandings of these fields. This article provides a meta-analysis of these differences by comparing three broad approaches to SEA: the business case, stakeholder-accountability and critical theory approaches. It also responds to concerns a number of commentators have expressed regarding the current dominance of 'business case' discourses. While not seeking to impose on readers a 'correct' way of viewing SEA and CSR, exposure to competing perspectives is viewed as one way of challenging us to think more reflectively about the frames available to us and their implications for the social realities we construct, embed or seek to change.
Restricted
Democratising accounting and accountability: An exploration of social movement counter-accounting practices and engagement strategies
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2015) George, Sendirella; Brown, Judy; Dillard, Jesse
While normative rationales for social and environmental accounting (SEA) are well established in the accounting literature, a number of academics argue that the focus on corporate “self-governance” of SEA practice and research has led to a dominant “business case” approach that significantly delimits what is accounted for, how it is accounted for, and on whose terms. Current voluntarist approaches to corporate-based social and environmental accounting (CSEA) practices are argued to be highly selective and largely designed to cast corporations in a favourable light, rather than seriously address social and environmental responsibility and performance. Against the backdrop of growing criticisms of CSEA, many researchers have called for the development of an effective accounting counterpoint. Accordingly, a number of critical accounting researchers have redirected their focus to social movement (SM) counter-accounting practices. Counter-accounts are broadly defined as all forms of reporting and information tools and practices employed by actors external to accountable organisations (e.g., corporations) and/or institutions to promote their causes; to counter powerful and hegemonic discourses; and, ultimately, to act as catalysts for social change and intervention. While SM actors are increasingly being acknowledged in the SEA literature for their role in promoting corporate accountability, very few studies have directly engaged with them in an attempt to understand their corporate social change processes, and how they themselves conceive of their counter-accounting practices and broader strategic engagement choices. This study seeks to address this gap through a series of interviews with SM actors, and SM and accounting academics. This study’s research objectives and empirical analysis are informed by critical dialogic accounting (CDA). CDA theory seeks to investigate how accounting might be “democratised” by outlining a theoretical approach to SEA – informed by an agonistic model of democracy – that takes divergent sociopolitical perspectives seriously. It focuses on learning more about the perspectives of different citizens and stakeholder groups so as to enable them to develop accountings that accord with their own philosophical and political standpoints. Thus, this study seeks to contribute to the development of SEA by exploring how CDA might both learn from and contribute to SM corporate social change processes – specifically, their production of counter-accounts.
Open Access
Democratizing Accounting Technologies: the Potential of the Sustainability Assessment Model (SAM)
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2005) Brown, Judy; Frame, Bob
There is widespread recognition both in and outside of the accounting discipline of the need for 'accountings' that facilitate more participatory forms of decision-making and accountability. This is particularly evident in the social and environmental accounting literature, which has long sought to take pluralism seriously. Theoretically, these calls are embedded in the democratic rather than capitalist traditions of neo-liberal Western societies. This article draws on the work of ecological economist Peter Söderbaum to argue the case for a 'positional' approach to decision-modelling. It also builds on Baxter, Bebbington, Cutteridge & Harvey (2003) to illustrate how this approach could be operationalised through development of the sustainability assessment model (SAM).
Restricted
Designing accounting information systems for social and environmental accounting (AIS-SEA): An Exploration of AIS-SEA Designers' Perspectives and Practice
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2016) Blackburn, Nivea; Brown, Judy; Hooper, Val
Rather than a single, relatively well-defined user with one main objective, organisations are increasingly expected to address the needs of multiple users with different social, political and cultural perspectives. This is particularly the case in areas like social and environmental accounting (SEA) which attempt to grapple with relatively new ideas around sustainability reporting, ethical investment, participatory development studies, indigenous resource management and the like. This study explores the perspectives and practice of designers of accounting information systems for social and environmental accounting (AIS-SEA). Specifically, it examines how they frame SEA and stakeholder engagement and whether, and if so how, they encourage participation in design. In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the idea of “stakeholder engagement” to help ensure high quality and relevant SEA that meets the needs of a wide range of actual and/or potential stakeholders/users. Prior research has highlighted a theory/practice schism in this area. There is widespread agreement that stakeholder engagement in SEA is a “good thing” and it is promoted in both academic and professional literature, e.g., by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), AccountAbility and sustainability consultancies. However, it has proved controversial in terms of both its conceptualisation and operationalisation. SEA researchers report that stakeholders are often not “engaged” in practice or, when they are, “stakeholders” are defined narrowly and/or their input is not taken seriously. Earlier studies have considered the perspectives of managers and, to a lesser extent, stakeholders on these matters. However, very little is known about how designers go about designing AIS-SEA and how (if at all) they incorporate ideas about stakeholder engagement in their practice. This study aims to address this gap. Previous literature has proposed dialogic accounting as a means whereby AIS can support competing, and potentially incompatible, information needs of various interested constituencies. This study extends that work by focusing on the perspectives and practices of designers in the field of SEA. Employing an interpretivist and critical dialogic lens to analyse 24 semi-structured interviews with designers and 46 SEA reports, this study contributes to: (a) a better understanding of the reported theory/practice schism; and (b) the development of AIS-SEA that better meets the needs of those working in pluralistic environments. In particular, this study found that designers working with corporate organisations were constrained to conform with institutionalised “best practice” frameworks and ideals, which increasingly limit understanding of sustainability and stakeholder issues when applied through a business case frame. The main consequence of operationalising a business case frame is to privilege shareholder wealth maximisation over alternative perspectives that emphasise the importance of accountability to stakeholders and ecological sustainability. SEA and stakeholder engagement took place where/when it was good for business and the design of the supporting AIS-SEA was to assist organisations with their profit-making endeavours. Despite stakeholder engagement being seen as “best practice”, the underlying reasons for engagement were to manage risks associated with the availability of natural resources and stakeholder relations. Engagement with stakeholders was motivated by the potential to derive shareholder value and perceived as a mechanism to realise the business case for SEA. This study is interdisciplinary in approach. It is situated in the context of accounting, specifically SEA, and incorporates theories and ideas from critical and interpretive IS studies to develop dialogic forms of AIS-SEA. In particular, methods identified in IS participatory design literature to include stakeholders/users are recognised as helpful to widen the scope of participation/engagement in the design of AIS-SEA. The findings in this study and recommendations made for dialogic approaches can also be applied to the design of IS more generally. Critical dialogics that draws on agonistic democracy as promoted by SEA researchers can contribute to discussions in IS regarding democratic IS design. It theorises and addresses conflict more realistically and democratically by emphasising the need to explore alternative avenues, particularly for those seeking to reveal issues of accountability to stakeholders and ecological sustainability, in an effort to bring about change (e.g., greater organisational accountability through counter-accounts in accounting).