Designing accounting information systems for social and environmental accounting (AIS-SEA): An Exploration of AIS-SEA Designers' Perspectives and Practice

Abstract

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).