1-s2.0-S104523540300131X-main

Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16 (2005) 507533

Social and environmental reporting in the UK:a pedagogic evaluation

Ian Thomson a, Jan Bebbington b,a University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

b Department of Accounting, University of Aberdeen, Edward Wright Building,Dunbar Street, Aberdeen AB24 3QY, UK

Received 7 February 2002; received in revised form 12 June 2003; accepted 23 August 2003

Abstract

This paper argues that the provision of accounts of and by organisations can be viewed as being aprocess of education and is thus amenable to a pedagogic assessment. In providing accounts abouttheir activities, organisations are educating those internal and external to their organisation aboutevents which have previously been unknown or incompletely known to account audiences. Asa result, a changed perception of the organisation, the events described or some other change inunderstanding may emerge. Taking this premise as a starting point, this paper seeks to explore howsocial and environmental reporting (hereafter SER) may be evaluated from a pedagogic perspective.In undertaking this task, the paper draws extensively (but not exclusively) on the work of Paulo Freire(primarily [Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Pelican, London, 1996]). We argue that Freires work isrelevant to the evaluation of SER because Freire focuses on the critical and emancipatory possibilitiesof education. In a similar vein, proponents of SER suggest that it provides some possibilities foremancipatory change (see, for example, [Acc. Aud. Accountability J. 10 (3) (1997) 365; Accounts ofand accounting for sustainable development, University of Dundee, Dundee, 1999; Acc. OrganisationsSociety 17 (5) (1992) 399; Asia-Pacific J. Acc. 4 (2) (1997) 175; Environmental Law and EcologicalResponsibility: The Concept and Practice of Ecological Self-Organization, Wiley, London, 1994]).Evaluating SER through the lens of Freires work sheds light on the robustness of these claims. Inaddition, we use Freires conception of what constitutes an emancipatory pedagogy to evaluate theprocesses by which organisations create social, environmental and sustainable development reportsand the reports themselves. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: SER; Education; Critical theory

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1224-273590; fax: +44-1224-272214.E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Bebbington).

1045-2354/$ see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2003.06.003

508 I. Thomson, J. Bebbington / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16 (2005) 507533

1. Introduction

This paper draws from the critical education and pedagogy1 literature to evaluate socialand environmental reporting (SER). In order to achieve this task, several aspects shall bebrought together. In the first instance, we outline the two main elements of the paper:the nature of education and the practice of SER. In particular, we shall outline why criticaltheory is concerned with education and discuss the ideas of Paulo Freire. Freires distinctionbetween banking and dialogic education will be used as a heuristic for understandingand reflecting upon the processes which generate social, environmental and sustainabledevelopment reports and on the reports themselves. We conclude from our review that,at present, SER has significant weaknesses when viewed as a process of education. Inaddition, we suggest how the principles within Freires work could be used to addressthe weaknesses identified. In summary, the paper attempts to introduce a new pedagogicvoice or dimension which has resonance with both the social, environmental and the criticalaccounting projects. Furthermore, we believe that this paper will contribute to the on-goingdebate over the efficacy of SER (for a sample of the literature which argues for and againstvarious forms of corporate social accounting, see Bebbington, 1997; Cooper, 1992; Everettand Neu, 2000; Gallhofer, 1992; Gallhofer and Haslam, 1997; Gray, 1992; Maunders andBurritt, 1991; Newton and Harte, 1997; Owen et al., 1997; Power, 1994; Puxty, 1986, 1991;Tinker et al., 1991).

2. Education and critical theory

Several related ideas are developed in this section. First, the role of education withincritical social science is outlined. Second, the type of education which is assumed to begood within that literature is introduced. This aspect of the discussion covers two elements;what constitutes the right sort of education is outlined and what the right sort of educationenables an individual to do. Following from this, education is linked to ideas about howhuman subjects are conceived of, with this material being linked to ontological assumptionsregarding the nature of human subjects. Thus, we aim to outline both the outcomes to whicha critically orientated education is directed as well as the possibility that the human conditionwould enable such an outcome to be realised. Underpinning those arguments is the notionof a hidden curriculum and how individuals are covertly educated by society.

Interest in the nature of education, along with a concern to develop the right sort ofeducation, has endured over the centuries (Chambliss, 1987). We would argue that educationis not merely concerned with the transfer of knowledge from an accredited teacher tostudent in a school, university or other formal institution. Rather, education is also concernedwith the way in which people understand the world and how they then choose to conductthemselves within that world (see, for example, Arrington and Francis, 1993; Meyer, 1986;Roberts, 1991; Schweiker, 1993 who consider the provision of accounts in this context). As

1 The New Oxford dictionary defines pedagogy as the art or science of teaching. Thus, the difference betweeneducation and pedagogy is that the latter is the underlying rational for educational practices which form the basisof teaching activities. A good analogy for the relationship between these concepts is that pedagogy is to educationwhat research methodology is to research methods.

I. Thomson, J. Bebbington / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16 (2005) 507533 509

a result, we would argue that education has three roles: a constitutive role (that is, educationtells us what we know about the world), an oppressive role (if it functions to maintainexisting power differentials) and a transformative role (if education enables us to take ourview of the world and to change the world as a result).

Dillard (1991) reflects this belief in the multiple roles of education when he asserts thatone of the four elements of critical social science is a theory of education (p. 16) where an

understanding is gained as to what people believe and how these shared beliefs need tobe changed. A theory of education attempts to specify both the conditions needed forthis emancipatory enlightenment to be realised and the mechanisms useful in bringingit about. This requires the specification of necessary and sufficient conditions, giventhe society members capacities for rational reflection. A theory of education must alsospecify the conditions under which people would most probably be responsive to criticalanalysis, and provide criteria for determining if and when these conditions are present.While many writers have elucidated their beliefs on the nature of education, Illich and

Freire are specifically used in this paper because they engage with the tensions at the core ofthe debate surrounding the emancipatory potential of education. Namely, they explore themanner in which a homogenous mind set is created and sustained via education and howeducation can also be used to simultaneously break into that mind set and raise questionsregarding the assumptions made within it.

Illich (1971) suggests that society is always educating its participants, often in ways whichare not obvious to either those doing the educating or those being educated. In particular,Illich writes about how taken-for-granted assumptions about the way in which society canand should be structured are instilled in human subjects. He termed this process, and theinformation imparted by this means, as the hidden curriculum which he considers to be aritual that can be considered the official initiation into modern society; institutionally estab-lished through the school (Illich, 1971, p. 74).2 Illich proposes that the hidden curriculumis pervasive and that it (for example) initiates the citizen to the myth that bureaucraciesguided by scientific knowledge are efficient and benevolent . . . [and] that increased pro-duction will provide a better life (Illich, 1971, p. 74). These sentiments reflect a socialconstructivist perspective, with institutionalised education forming a mechanism by whichpeople can be inculcated into the dominant mind set. While the hidden curriculum isimmensely powerful it is not totally successful in its indoctrination. What it does ensure,however, is that many people are unable to identify the problematic nature of the assump-tions which underlie their beliefs about the nature of the world and the circumstances theyfind themselves in.3

2 This occurs not only in school, but also more broadly in society (for example, via television programmes,newspapers and magazines). The possibility of biases being present in the media is usually/sometimes explicitlyrecognised, whereas there is (for many people) an implicit belief that schooling contains no (or at least significantlyless) biases (but see Klein, 2001 for a discussion of this). The lack of recognition of the possibility of biases atschool strengthens the power of the hidden curriculum. Further, we would suggest that accounting reports alsoform part of the process of reinforcing the hidden curriculum.

3 That anyone is able to identify and then break apart the hidden curriculum suggests that while it exertssignificant control, that control is never complete. Indeed, the need to continually recreate the hidden curriculumsuggests that the message it contains is not self evident. Gramsci (1971) uses the idea of hegemony to refer to thisprocess. See also Cooper (1995) who explores hegemony within an accounting context.


In contrast, the transformative potential of education requires that educational endeavourdoes not focus solely on reproducing the status quo. In particular, various writers positthat education should lead to a desire and ability to develop praxis4 whereby knowingabout the world and having an emancipatory goal in mind leads to actions which transformindividual and collective lives in a just and equitable manner (see, for example, Chomsky,1971; Galbraith, 1972 and in an accounting context, Lehman, 1988). Clearly, this is ahighly idealised and ambitious goal for education (and SER). Nevertheless, it remains alegitimate aspiration, especially when combined with the basis for academic endeavour. Ifone considers academics to be the critic and conscience of society (Hawke, 1988, p. 91)then education should reflect that goal. The question which arises, however, is how such avision for education can be realised and it is this question that the remainder of this sectionof the paper addresses.

How the promise of education might be achieved, while recognising the institutionalbiases towards thwarting its potential, requires a consideration of the nature of humanagency. This is the point at which differing conceptions of human nature become relevant,with two contrasting positions usually being drawn; an objective or subjective view ofhuman agency. These two positions are intimately linked to beliefs about whether humansare able to transform their own understandings of the world and eventually the world itself.In outline, an objective world view sees human nature and conduct as being determinedby the environment within which the human subject lives. In contrast, under the subjectiveviewpoint this environment is seen as being a creation of the individuals consciousness.

The problem with the end positions of this dichotomy is that neither view recognisesthe possibility of the kind of transformation which the literature on education suggests ispossible because in the

first case, consciousness would be unable to transcend its conditioning by reality [and] inthe second, insofar as it creates reality, it is a priori to reality. In either case man [sic]5is not engaged in transforming reality. (Freire, 1972, p. 53)Hence,

in both conceptions [objective and subjective] there can be no true praxis. Praxis is onlypossible where the objective-subjective dialectic is maintained. (Freire, 1972, p. 54)Indeed, it seems that Dillard (1991) also assumes that human subjects exist at the inter-

section of the objective and subjective worlds when it is suggested that education may leadto transformation. We also site our beliefs about the agency of the human subject at this

4 Freire (1972) defines praxis as the authentic union of action and reflection (p. 78) while the New ShorterOxford dictionary describes praxis as the willed action by which a theory or philosophy become a practical socialactivity (p. 2321). Both definitions point to the same activitythat of linking theory and practice.

5 In much of the early work in the critical education literature the pronoun he is used. When we are usingdirect quotes from this literature we have retained the gender specific language. Such language is reflective ofits time, rather than an explicit gendered view by authors. In particular, Taylor (1993) reports I have discussedthis problem of sexist language in my correspondence with Professor Freire. He had indeed confirmed that it wascertainly not his intention to cause offence by the apparently sexist translations of his work, and he agreed thatsuch old forms of writing should be avoided. (p.v.). At all times where gender specific language is used, we areassuming (unless otherwise stated) that both sexes are covered by the literature.


boundary6 described poetically by Taylor (1993) as the central canopy of everyday lifewhere most people live (p. 54).

Freire (1972) dwells on the above dialectic and notes two moments in its developmentand links this to education. He notes that an individuals

vocation realizes itself in his praxis, which transforms and expresses the world. In its turn,this praxis, which is action and language, turns back upon man and overdetermines him;that is to say, it conditions him and defines the horizon of meanings within which hisfurther action is to take place. Educationlike all other processes of socialisationtendsto reinforce this overdetermination . . . Education can be de-conditioning because man,essentially a conditioned being, is also essentially a being capable of knowing whatconditions him, capable of reflecting on his action and behaviour, and of perceivinghis perceptions. The key to perception of perception, and hence to the recuperationof hidden or mystified reality, is problematization. Problematization, which means bothasking questions and calling into question and is therefore a challenging attitude, is, atone and the same time, the beginning of an authentic act of knowing and the beginningof an act of subversion of overdetermination, that is, subversion of praxis inverted uponman. (Freire, 1972, p. 9)Hence, one may argue that education has an element of being a double-edged sword

(see Galbraith, 1972). It can create the mental constraints which bind individuals and, at thesame time, may also liberate individuals from those constraints. One could conclude fromthis that the process of creating a more enlightened, sustainable society and the develop-ment and maintenance of our humanity (Illich, 1971, pp. 392393) requires an educationalprocess which, recognising the conditioned and socially created nature of our understand-ings, sets about making the hidden commitments of these understandings explicit and thenrequires an examination of whether these commitments are justified. The final step in suchan educative process involves building new practices and understandings of the world whichare somehow better than what went before. A pedagogy to enable this to happen formsthe basis of Freires work.

3. Critical education and Freire

Before we outline Freires conception of education, a brief bibliographic note is necessaryby way of an introduction to the social, cultural and historical background to Freires work(the references following the text include details of some other of Freires publications).In placing Freires work in context, some of the limitations of applying insights from thiswork to contemporary SER will also become apparent (and this is explicitly discussed inthe papers closing remarks).

Freire is not an easy person to categorise. He has, for example, been variously describedas an upper-class Brazilian lawyer (Taylor, 1993, p. 6) and a person who (allegedly)

6 See, Burrell and Morgan (1979) for an in-depth development of these notions and Willmott (1990) and Laughlinand Lowe (1990) who criticise aspects of the Burrell and Morgan framework. These latter authors support theproposition that holding the objective and subjective world views in creative tension yields useful insights intohow the social world functions.


brought Brazil to the verge of revolution (Taylor, 1993, p. 25).7 Freire (19211997)was influential primarily during the 1960s and 1970s when he worked in the area of adultliteracy programmes, principally in South America. Freires interest in literacy was inti-mately linked to the political situation in Brazil in the mid-1960s where, under the legacyof Portuguese colonisation, only those who could read and write were eligible to vote(Taylor, 1993, p. 25). Hence Freires encouragement of adult literacy was closely linkedto creating a situation where disenfranchised people could exercise political choice. In-deed, Taylor (1993) quoting de Kadt (1970) suggests that incitement to revolt was neverFreires objective as an educator, although democratisation was (p. 25). Democratisationand education (and especially a critically orientated education), however, could lead torevolt.

Freires wrote about his experiences in adult literacy education and especially on theunderlying education processes he used in his teaching. In writing about education, Freiredrew extensively on a wide variety of writers such as

Althusser, Fanon, Lukas, Mao, Marcuse and Marx, as much as on Aristotle, Descartes,Hegel and Rousseau. His theology is compiled from Bonhoeffer, Gutierrez, Neiburhr andRahner as well as from Buber, Fromm and the traditions and practices of the ChurchTriumphant. (Taylor, 1993, p. 34)Freire weaves these various influences into his work and it is not possible to unravel

neatly the diverse skeins of influence (Taylor, 1993, p. 35). As a result, it is very difficult tolocate Freire specifically within a particular school of thought, except to say that his workis regarded to have been informed by both Christianity and Marxism.8

Several problems arise in trying to understand Freires work. He wrote extensively overa long period of time, has changed his views on certain elements of his work as timeprogressed and at times contradicts himself. Further, Freires work has been translatedfor English speaking audiences and various translations provide subtly different interpre-tations of his work. As a result, it is not straightforward to read Freire. These prob-lems, however, need not detain us too much herein large part because we proposeto use Freires ideas as heuristics to shed light on the practice of SER. We need notdwell on the detail of all his work to do this. Rather, the broad themes which informhis work are adequate for our purposes. One book in particular (Pedagogy of the Op-pressed) will be used to construct the lens through which SER practice may be observed andevaluated.9

There are three elements within Freires work which specifically relate to the themes de-veloped in this paper. These are: the role of education in creating and sustaining oppression,

7 Indeed, in 1964, after being imprisoned and interrogated, Freire fled Brazil and was given political asylum inBolivia and eventually moved to Chile. Later, however, Freire returned to Brazil. See Taylor (1993, p. 27 onwards).

8 Taylor (1993) quotes Freire as saying God led me to the people and the people led me to Marx . . . . When Imet Marx, I continued to meet Christ on the corners of the streetby meeting the people (Taylor, 1993, p. 56). Itis however worth mentioning that Freire was never converted to Marxist, revolutionary politics. When he makeshis appeal for the creation of those conditions which will combat oppression, his core argument is couched not inthe language of Marxism but in the biblical terms of love, faith, hope and humility (Taylor, 1993, p. 56).

9 We will be using the 1996 edition of the Pedagogic of the Oppressed, which itself was originally published in1970.


Table 1Attitudes and practices of a banking education

(a) The teacher teaches and the students are taught;(b) The teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;(c) The teacher thinks and the students are thought about;(d) The teacher talks and the students listenmeekly;(e) The teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;(f) The teachers chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply;(g) The teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the actions of the teacher;(h) The teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it;(i) The teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she

or he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students;(j) The teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects.Source: Freire (1996, p. 54).

a description of banking education (as a form of oppressive education) and a descriptionof dialogic education (as the antithesis of an oppressive education). Each of these elementswill be briefly introduced in order to provide a context within which the remainder of thepaper will be developed.

Freire viewed the Brazilian education system as a way of oppressing the working andpeasant classes. While oppression may have a physical character, oppression may also becreated and sustained via cultural factors. In particular, Freire viewed oppression as nothaving a voice and, for him, the education system was complicit in ensuring the workingclasses did not have an electoral voice, remained ignorant of the extent of their oppressionand of any possibility of change. Further, in the preface to Freire (1996), Richard Shaullnotes that there is

no such thing as a neutral education process. Education either functions as an instrumentthat is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of thepresent system and bring about conformity to it [that is, education is a form of oppression],or it becomes the practice of freedom the means by which men and women deal criticallyand creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of theirworld. (Freire, 1996, p. 6)These contrasting outcomes of education were described as banking (oppressive) and

dialogical (transformative) education. In discussing these forms of education, Freire focusedon the relationship between teacher and student and how knowledge is transferred betweenthem.

Banking education is characterised as a process whereby (knowingly or unknowingly)teachers assume that their role is to fill up students with objective/correct knowledgewhich the student can then withdraw from their bank of knowledge to demonstrate under-standing (Freire, 1996, pp. 5253). Students become passive, patient, listening receptacles,filled up by a teacher (who is the active party in the relationship). Students are assumedto lack human agency, therefore, banking education reflects a paternalistic social actionapparatus (Freire, 1996, p. 55). Table 1 outlines Freires characterisation of this socialrelationship. Furthermore, a banking approach to education assumes that knowledge is


motionless, static, compartmentalised and predictable (Freire, 1996, p. 52) and thus itcan be passed from teacher to student via a banking approach.10

Freire contrasts a banking approach to education with a dialogical education process. Inthis form of education, often called problem posing education, the role of the teacher is theposing of problems for human beings in their relations with the world (Freire, 1996, p. 60).As a result, the topic of education becomes that which the student is interested in (that whichis creating a problem in students lives). Through dialogue, the studentteacher relationshipis also transformed. In particular, the teacher is no longer merely the one-who-teaches, butwho is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught alsoteach (Freire, 1996, p. 61).

Freire developed and used a dialogic approach in order to teach adults how to readand write. In brief, Freires approach involves three stages. In the first instance, pictorialrepresentations of scenes from the lives of those seeking literacy are created. These picturesmay, for example, depict someone working, hunting or in conversation with others or mayshow a picture of an object. The second stage of the approach is to generate discussion aboutthe pictures in what Freire calls conversation circles which are co-ordinated by someone whois literate. The images are discussed and generative themes relating to the picture are drawnfrom the discussion. The next stage involves introducing words which describe the situationspictured and which convey the meanings which have emerged from the conversation circles.These words are then presented back into the conversion circle in order to generate moredialogue and the process continues.

The idea behind the above approach was to move the acquisition of literacy away fromthe cat sat on the mat type of approach towards introducing words which are of mostrelevance to the adults acquiring literacy skills. In addition, the words which are to beacquired are more likely to be those which are of importance to those learning becausethey are generated by the conversation circles (see Freire, 1996, especially chapter 3which outlines this process. Taylor, 1993, also describes and evaluates this process onpp. 82132).

There are several outcomes which are perceived to arise from this (dialogical) approachto education. First, issues of relevance to the student are examined, not issues which ateacher assumes/believes are important to the student. Second, the relationship betweenthe parties to an educational process are different from that of banking education. Inparticular, students and teachers are jointly responsible (Freire, 1996, p. 61) for theeducational process. The idea of joint responsibility suggests that there is an active re-lationship between parties and that knowledge and power differentials between parties canbe smaller than they are at presentboth in fact and in perception. Third, a dialogical ed-ucation creates the possibility that previously inconspicuous phenomena (Freire, 1996,p. 63) may be brought to light. As a result, men and women begin to single out elementsfrom their background awareness and to reflect upon them (Freire, 1996, p. 64). Thusa dialogical approach to education provides an opportunity to reflect upon the hiddencurriculum.

10 While addressing education in quite a different context (that of how Benthan proposed education should beorganised), Gallhofer and Haslam (1996) describe another paternalistic educational environment where knowledgeis viewed as factual [and] neutral (p. 18).


To conclude, this section of the paper has sought to briefly outline contrasting pedagogiesas conceived by Freire.11 A banking metaphor is used to describe an approach to educationwhich assumes that students are passive objects and that knowledge is static and unprob-lematic. If one wishes to educate people, therefore, one only needs to deposit in themofficially sanctioned knowledge. In contrast, the dialogical metaphor is used to describe aneducational environment where the power relations between student and teacher are moreeven, where knowledge is not predefined by the teacher and where the potential for anemancipatory education is possible. A dialogical approach is consistent with the perceivedrole of education within critical social science. These contrasting educational practices willbe used to shed light on SER. In particular, we shall seek to argue that dialogical educationcreates the right sort of educational approach to SER. In order to do this, however, a briefbackground to and description of SER is necessary.

4. SER, stakeholder engagement and the empirical base of the paper

In this section, we provide an overview of SER, including stakeholder engagement pro-cesses which often accompany SER. In addition, we outline the empirical base of this paper.The purpose of this section is to provide a basis from which our Freire inspired evaluation ofSER may be undertaken. While this particular paper does not contain a systematic evalua-tion of reports ideas developed within it may provide the basis from which such an exercisecould be conducted.12 Indeed, ODwyer (2002) has sought to build on the themes withinthis paper to explore stakeholder engagement in a more systematic and explicit fashion.

Since the early 1990s, organisations (mostly companies) in the UK have provided infor-mation which purports to describe their interactions with the natural environment. Whilereporting was initially undertaken within the annual reports and accounts package (see,for example, Gray et al., 1995b, 1996), the last decade has seen a growth in stand aloneenvironmental reports (see, for example, SustainAbility & UNEP, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2002).The volume of environmental reporting, as measured by the percentages of the UKs largestcorporations producing some form of accounts, can be observed to be growing. A similarincrease in the scope and sophistication of these reports can be inferred from the range ofissues covered by reports, the complexity of data gathering systems which lie behind thereports and the presentation of data (Table 2 briefly outlines the main components of SERs).

Around the mid-1990s, organisations (again, mostly companies) started to produce ac-counts of their social impacts, and more recently some organisations are producing sustain-able development reports (which purport to describe the economic, social and environmental

11 It is worth noting that Freires ideas have not escaped criticism. Criticisms include that the pictorial represen-tations reinforce gender stereotypes and also contain other ideological commitments and that conversation circlesdo not eliminate power differentials adequately. This has led some to suggest that Dialogical education may onlybe a benign form of banking education (Taylor, 1993, p. 6). While in no way wishing to underplay these criticismswe do not believe that they invalidate the underlying concepts within Freire.12 It has been striking to us in writing this paper that there is relatively little in the way of detailed examination

of reporting practices outside of content analyses, which themselves are usually conducted on annual report andaccount disclosures rather than on other types of accountsbut see Neu et al. (1998) and Bebbington and Gray(2000).


Table 2A summary of SER practices

Generic elements Entity definition for the purposes of reporting Scope of reporting by the entity Accounting/information gathering policies with regard to data for entity for the scope defined Information about the organisation (its corporate context, activities undertaken, geographical location(s) and

summary financial statistics/performance) CEO (or similar) statement which conveys information about vision, values, priorities and strategies with

regard to economic, environmental and/or social performance of the organisation Identification of key impacts and effects which arise from activities and/or which are associated with

products/services of the organisation Policies in place and organisational practices (such as assigning responsibility and management systems) to

manage the issues identified Performance data on issues identified as being important (usually includes absolute, normalised, comparative,

trend and comparison with sector data) Targets and objectives (in terms of compliance with previous and future targets and objectives) Assurance or verification statement by a third party Description of the ways in which the organisation has communicated with report audiences (such as providing

contact names and addresses, tear off reply forms and more formal stakeholder engagement data)Examples of environmental reporting elements Environmental performance data (and indicators) including data on inputs, product/service outputs, leakages

(in terms of wastes and emissions) Consideration of transportation impacts Other aspects, such as land contamination status, biodiversity issues, environmental complaints, breaches of

consents, compliance with standards, prosecutions and fines

Examples of social reporting elements Employee reporting (considering issues such as diversity, job satisfaction, employee consultation, pensions,

fairness of pay levels, training, redundancies) Other employment issues (such as, forced labour, child labour and freedom of association) Health and safety of employees and other individuals (such as customers and contractors) Local (and broader) community interactions Human rights information (such as interactions with indigenous populations and relationships with local

security forces)Source: Drawn from the Global Reporting InitiativeGRI, report award criteria (such as the Association ofChartered Certified Accountants) and reporting practices.Note. The GRI describes itself as a multi-stakeholder, international undertaking whose mission is to develop anddisseminate globally applicable sustainability reporting guidelines (GRI, 2000, p. 1). Whilst the GRI was initiatedby the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (in Boston), many other organisations have becomeinvolved closely in its operationsfor example, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, Council onEconomic Priorities, the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability, Investor Responsibility Research Cen-tre, New Economics Foundation, SustainAbility Ltd., United Nations Environment Programme, World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute.

impact of organisations activities). All of these reports take the form of written accountsof selected impacts, using chosen quantitative and qualitative measures as well as carefullyselected images. We would assert that these reports display constitutive educational charac-teristics that educate readers about the organisation they seek to portray and its interactionwith its substantive environment.


As well as considering the accounts as educational artefacts, it is important from oureducation perspective to consider the process of producing these accounts and in particularthe extent to which those outside the organisation have been involved in report preparation.A significant development in reporting has been the trend towards organisations involvingstakeholders in the SER process. Stakeholders are involved in a number of different waysincluding, identifying what issues are important to report on, how well the company hasperformed on specific issues and how to communicate this performance. In some cases,selected stakeholder voices themselves form part of the report (see, for example, Unermanand Bennett, 2001).

There is also a growing assumption that some form of stakeholder dialogue is required ingood SER (for a discussion of this, see Owen et al., 2000, 2001). The perceived importanceof stakeholder interaction is legitimated and codified by the development of standards suchas AA1000,13 which focuses on the SER processes and states that [e]ngagement withstakeholders is at the heart of AA1000 (AA1000, p. 7). The desirability of stakeholderengagement, however, has not escaped scrutiny. Owen et al. (2001), for example, criticisestakeholder engagements questioning whether it is possible to conduct them in a mannerthat enhances accountability. Instead they suggest that

stakeholder engagement carries such an air of inevitability that further discussion of thepracticalities of process is largely superfluous. (Owen, et al., 2001, p. 267)We are also concerned with the practicalities of whether or not stakeholder engagements

are constructed in such a manner as to enable accountability to be discharged; leaving asideany theoretical concerns which arise with respect to such a framework. What emerges,however, is that there is the (at least implicit) belief that if SER flows from a stakeholderengagement process then the reporting will be good, or at least better than it would havebeen if it hadnt taken place. The quality of the reporting, therefore, is intimately linked to thequality of stakeholder engagement which precedes and is part of the report. Hence, a Freireinspired evaluation of stakeholder engagement is also undertaken. In the first instance,however, it is important to be a little more specific about what stakeholder engagemententails.

Stakeholder engagement describes a range of practices where organisations take a struc-tured approach to consulting with potential stakeholders. There are a number of possiblepractices which achieve this aim including: internet bulletin boards, questionnaire sur-veys mailed to stakeholders, phone surveys, and community based and/or open meetingsdesigned to bring stakeholders and organisational representatives together.14 At a more for-mal level, most contemporary stakeholder engagements are facilitated by a third party em-ployed by the organisation. These third parties can be organisations who have some standingand credibility within the broader non-governmental organisation community (such as The13 AA1000 has been issued by the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability which appears to be positioning

itself as the training and certification body for a professional association of social auditors. In addition, thisorganisation also issues standards in social auditing and reporting.14 There are also ways in which stakeholders may interact with organisations which are not initiated by organ-

isations which could be seen to be stakeholder engagement. For example, boycotts, I hate websites, protestsand ad-busting spring to mind. For the purposes of this paper, we have not included these actions as stakeholderengagement.


Environment Council). Mainstream accounting and consulting firms, however, also pro-vide stakeholder engagements in their portfolio of services.

While individual stakeholder engagements differ from each other, some common char-acteristics exist. Usually members of the organisation are present as well as the third partyfacilitators. Stakeholders are preselected, invited to attend a meeting in a voluntary andunpaid capacity (although their travel costs are usually met). At the meeting participantsare encouraged to get to know each other and to discuss their stance/agenda relative to thecompany and this particular meeting. Further, each engagement is orchestrated to achievea specific purpose selected by the facilitator. This may involve requiring participants togenerate issues they believe to be important in the context of the organisation in question,or the participants discussing a predetermined theme chosen by the facilitator/organisationsuch as specific proposals for action or solutions to perceived problems.

The techniques of managing these meetings are similar to those associated with focusgroups and market research. Different focus group methods are utilised to gather datafrom stakeholders and the level of sophistication of application is patchy. One example ofstakeholders influencing management priorities, was by participants placing sticky labelsagainst issues which they believe should receive attention. The data created from focusgroups is then collated (no standard method appears to be applied) and presented to theclient organisation. Sometimes a record of the day is presented to the meeting participantsand sometimes not. Sometimes initial meetings are part of an on-going series of meetings,with or without the original participants and/or organisers and sometimes the engagementswith a particular stakeholder group is a one off.

Stakeholder engagement can, therefore, be seen to describe a range of diverse, qualita-tive information gathering methods. Given that the way information is gathered, collated,evaluated, reported can affect the message and meaning, making sense of stakeholder en-gagement data requires knowledge of the data gathering processes adopted. Disclosureof these methods within SER themselves, however, is rare with descriptions usually beingvery brief. In addition, it is our experience that these processes are not transparent in manystakeholder engagement processes either. Further, given the lack of information in SERs,it difficult to estimate the extent and quality of stakeholder engagements which are beingundertaken, although one has to suspect that there is more of it than one could identify fromSER practices.15

The final task of this section is to describe the empirical base from which this paper draws.We have not undertaken a systematic empirical investigation within the context of this paper.Rather, our thinking about the themes which are presented have co-evolved with a variety ofinteractions in the area of SER over approximately a 12-year period. We have, for example,been involved in a number of stakeholder engagement meetings or surveys which have beenpart of SER processes. We have read SERs since their inception as interested academics, inthe course of preparing classes in SER as well as a judge for environmental and sustainabledevelopment reporting award schemes. In addition, we have been involved in a variety ofresearch projects, which have entailed more systematic evaluations of reporting practices

15 Documentation of stakeholder engagement processes from an accounting focus can be found in Gray et al.(1997). In addition, descriptions of this process can be found in Wheeler and Sillanpaa (1997), Zadek et al. (1997)and Gonella et al. (1998).


and as expert advisors to organisations as they prepare SER (see, for example, Bebbington,1999; Bebbington and Gray, 2000). Finally, we have been involved in developing environ-mental solutions for single organisations, groups of organisations in a location and com-munity groups in the area of waste and waste management; again over a 12-year period.

The above interactions have left us with a broad appreciation of the content of SER, withsome of the processes which underlie the creation of such reports and with the processesorganisations go through themselves as they seek to address aspects of their impacts (anawareness of the praxis in Freires terms). The various engagements described above werenot part of a formal research programme. Rather, these activities have been undertaken aspart of our (perceived) contribution to situations where some input (expert or otherwise)was requested. Further, and especially in the case of stakeholder engagements, many of thespecific details of these processes were confidential in nature and hence not the proper sub-ject of a specific research project. What is more, at the outset of these various engagementswe did not self consciously reflect on the educative nature of the reports we reviewed orthe situations we encountered. Rather, our interest in the common educative characteristicsof the situations gradually evolved over time. The nature of this paper reflects these varied,but largely unsystematic, data sources. In our concluding comments, however, we sketchwhat a more formally designed evaluation of SER and stakeholder engagement may entail.

In summary, this section has briefly outlined: the type of data potentially disclosed withinreports, the nature of stakeholder engagement processes which often accompany SER aswell as the empirical base of the paper. We propose that SER are educational artefacts whichare produced by relatively powerful members of society (corporations) with the intentionthat they be read by other members of society (who are either internal or external to theorganisation). It is reasonable to assume that the aim of SER is to change perceptions andto, in some manner, educate others about the organisation, its activities and impacts. Theway in which SER may do this is now analysed.

5. Posing problems for SER

5.1. Introduction

To recap, we propose to use Freires distinction between banking and dialogical educationas a device for reflecting upon and posing problems for SER. This section draws upon theprior description of educative process to outline the attributes of a dialogic education processas it may be applied to the practice of SER. This idealised conception of SER then providesa heuristic for considering a number of developments in SER.16

In brief, an idealised vision of SER, drawing on Freires conception of dialogical ed-ucation would have the following characteristics. At the core of the educative endeavour(the creation and giving of accounts about an organisations interaction with its substantiveenvironment) is the relationship between the account giver (the teacher) and the account re-ceiver (the student). While the accountor is ostensibly the more knowledgeable and powerful

16 See also Thomson and Bebbington (2004) which describes what accounting education would entail if it adopteda Freire inspired dialogical approach.


actor, steps need to be taken in order to both: draw out the knowledge the accountee hasabout the organisationenvironment interaction and reduce the power differentials betweenthe two parties. Immediately, it become apparent that some way of linking accountors andaccountees would be required in a dialogically orientated SER. This goes some way toexplaining the enthusiasm for stakeholder engagement practices which Owen et al. (2001)observe. It would appear that the mechanism which links accountors and accountees is acrucial determinant of the nature of the process. We would agree that a good mechanismwould be one where power differentials were explicitly addressed and equalised, similar toFreires conversation circle.

Continuing to apply Freires dialogical concept via an equivalent of the conversationcircle, we could anticipate three outcomes. First, the issues examined in a SER wouldreflect the issues which concern accountees. That is, the perspective of the accountees wouldbe a central element in the narrative. Their perceptions of how the organisation interactswith its environment and the impact which the organisation has on them (as suppliers,employees, shareholders, customers or local communities, for example) would be reflectedin the account. This suggests an explicit accountability framework which places stakeholdersas co-principals in the SERs process, able to enforce accountability relationships. Thiswould require stakeholders to be more powerful than they currently appear to be. It wouldnot, however, make organisations powerless in such relationships: co-principalship entailsmutually reflexive accountability relationships. Thus, the single lens (the interests of theorganisation) SERs would be challenged. This leads us directly to our second point.

As a result of the process described above, the emergent account of the organisationenvironment interactions would reflect a multiple and subjective understanding of what hadoccurred during the reporting period. Crucially one would anticipate that a multi-layered andmulti-faceted account would emerge because these stakeholders are likely to have differentand competing perceptions of what has occurred (see also Gray et al., 1997 and theirexploration of a poly-vocal citizenship perspective in the Traidcraft social audit, accountingand reporting process which is close to the multiple account which we are advocating here).Where our Freire inspired vision differs from that of Gray et al. (1997) is that explicitrecognition of competing versions of realities and interests (from co-principals) wouldemerge. This would seem, to us, to be more valuable than creating a SER which assumesthat there are always a commonality of interests in a single outcome. This outcome leadsdirectly to our final point.

The third feature which we would anticipate from a dialogically derived SER is thatissues with respect to taken-for-granted assumptions (that is, the hidden curriculum) wouldemerge from such a process. This is likely as there is some sort of problem with currentsocietal arrangements with respect to how individuals and organisations interact with naturaland social capitals.17 If accounts of organisationalenvironmental interactions are to lead tochange, the hidden curriculum which sustains current destructive patterns should be broughtto the fore for critical examination in a dialogical educative process.

17 It is often suggested that SERs emerge in the context of a social and ecological crisis (which is itselfmulti-faceted). While we would broadly agree that there is some sort of problem evident we would also sug-gest that the way in which such a crisis is constructed is itself an account making, constitutive process. As such,these crises are themselves amenable to a banking, as opposed to a dialogical, creation.


The above description represents a highly summarised and highly idealised notion of SER,a desirable state in an on-going dialectic process. Given that each possible vision (includingthis one) is subjectively created, this conception represents our idealised position. Thisframework, we believe, does not deny the possibility of other frameworks that are basedon a dialectic or some series of discourses or practical engagements (see also Lehman,1999, which also seeks to derive a common idealised end point for social accounting andreporting). The analysis now moves on to attempt to evaluate current SER against the Freireinspired vision articulated above. In order to do this, we will present three broad themesof analysis. First, we shall explore the nature of SER. Second, we will reflect upon thestakeholder engagement processes underlying some SERs. Lastly, we will consider whathas happened as a result of SERboth in terms of what happens after these reports areproduced and also how SERs appear to function within society.

5.2. The nature of SER

One could expect that SERs would contain elements representing a subjective under-standing of organisationsocietyenvironment interactions. This appears not to be the case.SERs produced (certainly within the UK) tend to reflect an objective view of the reality ofan organisations social and environmental interactions.18 SERs are invariably motionless,static, compartmentalised, impersonal, technical and official versions of an organisationsinteractions with its broader ecological and social environments. Implicit within reportsis a belief that with appropriate assignation of responsibility, the creation of systems ofmeasurement and by the use of objectives and targets, the impact of an organisation canbe managed and controlled. Any doubts about the nature of the reality the reports aredesigned to address rarely (if ever) come through into the accounts.

In a similar vein, the propensity for commentators to emphasise the business case (see,for example, SustainAbility, 2001) for socially and environmentally responsible behaviour(including reporting) suggests an objective world view is being adopted and promulgated.Further, many organisations and SER commentators appear to believe that the ability to pro-duce a SER educates capital markets, lenders and regulators that the organisation has soundmanagement, because the organisation is able to minimise its risks and controls the environ-ment and social groups which could impact upon its business. Implicit in this is a bankingmindsetthe reports are there to tell a more or less passive audience that everything is fineand to discourage further questioning of the organisation. If one is to believe the rhetoric ofthe business case for reporting, focused around reputation management, then the tendencyof SER to constitute a banking approach to educating stakeholders is more evident. Such anapproach retains the model of the company as being the all powerful, all knowing teacherand the report audiences being ignorant and needing to be filled up with relevant knowl-edge so they will be docile in the face of organisational activities. Furthermore, subjectiveunderstandings of the social and ecological environment do not feature in environmentalreporting. For example, one does not get the sense of connection between organisations

18 This paper has a British focus because this is the geographic area in which our knowledge is based. It hasbeen suggested to us that North American environmental reporting is a different beast but this observation is notsubstantiated by systematic study.


and their environment that one finds in Hines (1991) or Birkin (1996). In addition, deepecological views (see, for example, Buhr and Reiter, 2000; Maunders and Burritt, 1991) arerarely presented.

Notably, some reporting examples do attempt to move towards some limited acknowl-edgement of the possibility of a subjective understanding of social, economic and environ-mental interactionsbut only in two specific ways that we have been able to identify. In thereports of campaigning organisations (mainly The Body Shop and the Co-operative Bank)a more subjective interpretation of categories of environment and social are sometimesevident. In addition, at times one can see chinks in the objective world view in personalessays or guest essays contributed to reports. It is also in this context that what Freire callsproblematization (the calling into question underlying assumptions and beliefs) arises inreporting. For example, Bebbington and Gray (2000) identify B&Qs 1995 report as con-taining a personal essay where their Quality and Environmental Controller suggests theB&Q could never be sustainable. Likewise, The Body Shop in their 1995 report questionthe efficacy of economic growth (but this theme is not developed further). These appear,however, to be rare, isolated examples.

We would, therefore, suggest that the possibility for a subjective understanding of organi-sations interactions with social and environmental systems is possiblealbeit, that there isclearly some impediment which prevents organisations articulating such a possibility. Onepossible obstacle to the development of reports which reflect a subjective understanding ofenvironmental and social issues is the way in which consultants have capitalised on businessopportunities which arise from SER. This has led to a tendency, therefore, for SER to besold in an objective manner. Likewise, moves towards professionalisation of reportingpractices and reporting experts (such as the social auditing qualification offered by theInstitute of Social and Ethical Accountability) reinforce these objectifying tendencies.

Another example of professionalisation of reporting practices emerges from recent dis-cussions with reporting organisations as to current trends in report preparation. Four promi-nent and longstanding reporter organisations have recently privately indicated that thereporting function has been reallocated from the environment to the public affair/corporaterelations department within their organisation. It was put to us that the importance of SER aspart of overall corporate affairs management necessitated such a shift. We would suggestthat such a move is likely to further encourage the creation of accounts which tend towardsbanking education.

Certification or assurance statements attached to SERs also appear to reflect a bankingmindset or mentality. In the first instance, the ability to certify SERs presuppose the possi-bility that the data and statements made in the reports can be verified as being in some waytrue. Despite many, but not all, certification statements falling far short of assuring thequality of reporting (see, for example, Owen et al., 2000), they continue to act as totems tothe possibility that such assurance could be offered. Those certification statements whichpurport to assure that the SERs accurately reflect the organisations social and environmen-tal impacts, also assume an objective verifiable world of facts. Such an assumption does notfit with a dialogical conception of the world.

A further example of the banking nature of SERs can be drawn from the limited possibil-ities for dialogue which arise from the reports. While it is fair to say that formal reports donot lend themselves to dialogue there is no reason to suppose that they could not form a part


of a dialogical education process. In order for this to be the case, one would expect that areport would portray itself as a subjective interpretation of a complex reality which eitherhas been or is to be negotiated between preparer and users. Likewise, it could be suggestedthat the reports would recognize the possibilities for transformations and new perspectiveson the pictures created by these reports. As indicated above, such a subjective writing hasnot, to date, emerged within SERs. Rather, the impression conveyed by SERs is that theyare statements of facts, not the start of conversations.

The main mechanism by which organisations appear to hope to generate dialogue on thebasis of the reports themselves is the inclusion of some sort of mechanisms for feedback (typ-ically a tear off feedback form). These forms are usually fairly small, they cover a very smallset of questions or solicit feedback of a very general nature. All the evidence which exists(and companies are sometimes shy to disclose feedback via this source) suggests that veryfew individuals provide feedback on these preprinted, enclosed feedback forms.19 Indeed,from a reading of reports it is notable that virtually no one discloses the number of feedbackforms received, the nature of the comments or any response to the comments responded to.20

One possible inference from this lack of observable feedback is that no one is activelyreading the reports. If SER are to form part of a transformative educative experience a lackof interested readers can be seen as highly problematic. From the perspective of organisa-tions, this lack of readers is an area that has attracted little attention. Indeed, this situationis reminiscent of Trickers (1983) observations about accountability. Having rights to in-formation (that is, being a stakeholder) is different from having needs for information. Itwould appear to us, that stakeholders may require education in order to need (and thus readand react to) SERs. It is thus striking, although perhaps unsurprising, to us that there islittle discussion of whether or not anyone reads SERs. If it were shown that no one readsthe reports written, then consultants would be out of jobs and those within organisationswho are responsible for reporting would most likely be unable to sustain a rationale forcontinued reporting (except perhaps on the basis that reporting is a signalling device aboutthe ability to produce a report). There is also an assumption that any reporting is betterthan none. From the perspective of a transformative educative process, however, a lack ofreflective and active readership is a problem.

A number of possible reasons could be identified to explain the lack of reflective responseto these accounts. Report audiences are either by nature, habit or have been educated to beaccepting of what they read or to read SERs passively and as a result do not feel the needto respond to the reports. This would be problematic if one is seeking a dialogical process.The success, or at least, the passive acceptance of one way communication is seen by Freireas being a sign that stakeholders are oppressed. Furthermore, if, as we suggest, that SERis a style of banking education, then we would expect the limited amount of feedbackobserved regardless of the presence of feedback mechanisms.

19 One exception, of which we are aware, to the pattern of low returns is a small organisation in New Zealandwhich has a very localised operations (they operate a port in a small city). Their activities are highly visible andthey employ a relatively high proportion of the local population. They report an approximate 50% return rate ofquestionnaires from their first triple bottom line report.20 An exception to this is one reporter who promises to donate money to a local environmental charity for each

feedback form received. From disclosures of the amount of money donated, it appears that this reporter receivesmore feedback that the usual low level.


In summary, we suggest that SER generally appears to follow a banking approach. SERdoes not appear to rebalance the power between the givers and receivers of accounts. Theusers of accounts seem to be regarded (and to be) passive, patient, unreflective bankersof information and the information in SERs are motionless, static, compartmentalised andpredictable. Indeed, SER does not seem to recognise or develop our humanity and oureco-systems, nor recognize the inherent subjectivity which is likely to emerge in seekingto understand environmentsocietyorganisation interactions. What is more, SERs do notaddress the culture of silence by giving voice to those currently without a voice. In par-ticular, we would suggest that SERs do not create spaces for individuals and communitiesto deal creatively and critically with their problems or allow them to participate in thetransformation of their world.

If the above is the case, we need to consider how SER conditions and defines the horizonswithin which future action must take place.21 For example, a study by Bebbington andGray (2000), suggests that the type of education offered in early environmental reports wasfocused (consciously or unconsciously) towards reinforcing Western style global capitalism(see also Gray and Bebbington, 2000). The search for the hidden curriculum is difficult (butsee also Buhr, 2001), because it presupposes knowledge of what is missing from reportsand also that individuals external to an organisation would be knowledgeable enough toidentify if something was missing. An interesting development in this context is the silentand shadow accounting project (see the Centre for Social and Environmental AccountingResearch), that builds upon a long tradition of external social audits (for example, Adams,2001; Geddes, 1992; Medawar, 1976). Such approaches explicitly seeks to identify gapsin formal organisational accounts of their actions and to oppose silencing of alternativeperspectives on organisational activities.

The next stage of our evaluation is to further consider the contribution of stakeholderengagement as a solution to the problems of banking SER. Stakeholder engagement offersconsiderable potential in generating dialogue and is often held up as being a good thingin SER debates. To offer further insights into the educative effectiveness of stakeholderengagement, the practices described above will be viewed from the perspective of Freiresdialogical educational practices.

5.3. Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder engagement raises a number of questions from a pedagogic perspective,which relate to who has control of the agenda, the process and the outcomes. For example,questions arise as to how someone becomes a stakeholder and what are the opportunities toengage. It would appear that we are all free to consider ourselves stakeholders to any organi-sation, but that does not entitle everyone to an opportunity to engage. In order to engage oneneeds the organisation (or its agents) to legitimate your voice by inviting you to engage.22

21 A process which Freire calls overdetermination and which Illich would term as constituting the creation andreinforcement of the hidden curriculum.22 In some instances, we have observed organisations placing information on their web sites inviting people who

may believe that they are stakeholders to be in touch for specific consultations. It is not clear if this is an isolatedinstance or a widely used practice.


This in itself does not stop you presenting your case in other formats but the organisationretains the right to choose whether or not to hear your case or to further engage with you.Current stakeholder engagement practices give the power to legitimate stakeholders to thereporting organisation and its agents. The legitimating (and implicit prioritisation) of stake-holder voices becomes critical to the potential transformative effectiveness of stakeholderengagements. If the choice and prioritisation remains with the organisation then, whatevermethods are used subsequently, stakeholder engagement processes may be significantlylimited.

Some of the engagements we have been involved in were puzzling to us in the context ofstakeholder engagement. For example, for some organisations we do not have any clear ideawhy we were chosen23 or why we were considered qualified to be stakeholders. In addition,we were unaware of what our implied expertise was and of what our implied stakeholderrelationship to the organisation was. If, for example, we were proxies for some stakeholderswho were unable to speak then it was not clear to us that this was what the organisationintended, nor who these stakeholders would be. It may well be that we were invited in anacademic expert mould, but again it is not entirely clear what that role would require tobe properly performed.

In addition, within the engagement processes we have been involved in, the scope ofengagement was largely controlled by the organisation. The agenda, purpose of the meetingswere predetermined and directed by facilitators (often in subtle soft ways). Whilst there wasscope for active participation by stakeholders the dialogue was primarily in the directionof stakeholders to the organisation. They appear to be a way for the organisation to learnabout those outside, not for the stakeholders to learn about the organisation. These were notmutual learning exchanges and they did not develop into meaningful dialogic exchanges.In some cases, attending one engagement with no further feedback was the extent of theengagement process.

Even when longitudinal engagements were undertaken it was not clear how previoussessions linked to the next24 and how and why the composition of stakeholders changedfrom one year to the next. Indeed, the invisibility of the underlying process (regardlessof whether such secrecy was deliberate or not) creates a dynamic where the stakeholderis almost entirely powerless to engage meaningfully with the organisation in question. Inengaging with stakeholders the organisation did not commit to any actions/policy followingon from the process. As a result, the power to act (or not act) based on the engagementremains firmly with the company.25

Stakeholder engagement does clearly increase the potential for dialogue between chosenstakeholders and the organisation and it can problematise issues for the organisation (stake-holder dialogue is not always in our experience comfortable for the organisation, even in

23 Personal contacts with organisations did not always precede invitations to stakeholder engagements. Indeed,one invitation was for an organisation which one of the authors had never heard of which operated in a geographicarea in which the author did not live.24 Indeed, in the one engagement where detailed records of the previous meeting were given to participants the

priorities introduced at the start of the second meeting, purportedly from the first meeting, were different fromthose agreed at the end of the first meeting.25 The practice of using expert advisory panels may enable more effective engagement but are themselves

problematic and are not explicitly covered here.


the limited form described here). The stakeholder engagement processes we took part in,however, all fell short of a dialogic process, mainly due to the control over the participantson all aspects of the engagement by the organisation. Such dialogue which emerges in sucha situation tends to be uni-directional in nature, either from the direction of the stakeholderto the organisation (where outside expertise is gathered by the organisation) or from theorganisation to the stakeholder (where outsiders are educated as to what they ought to knowabout the organisation).

If stakeholder engagement is to be characterised as a dialogic educational process thenstakeholder engagement processes would have to change substantially. Freires conceptof praxis implies a knowledgeable human subject who is capable of action and reflec-tion. In our personal experiences, we struggle to see how an individual could achievesuch agency within our experience of stakeholder engagements. Further, within the stake-holder engagement literature little consideration is given to how to achieve this level ofpraxis. As a result, we would suggest that stakeholders are virtually powerless to holdan organisation to account by virtue of the stakeholder engagement practices described(see also Owen et al., 2000). Likewise, as long as the mechanisms by which stakeholdersare engaged are unclear no individual stakeholder can have the confidence to rock theboat and expect to be invited back. Rocking the boat may be a fine activity to under-take but if one is immediately excluded then it is impossible to see how dialogue can beon-going.26

Moreover, it is not clear to us just who is the teacher and who is the student in stake-holder engagement processes. Ostensibly the rhetoric of stakeholder engagement is thata dialogical process is happening and that the organisation teaches stakeholders about itsoperations while simultaneously being taught by stakeholders. This presupposes that powerasymmetries have been adequately dealt withsomething we would suggest is not the case.While stakeholder engagement has the veneer of a dialogical education process it appears tooperate as little more than a more sophisticated banking educational approach whereby theorganisation examines stakeholders in order to, consciously or unconsciously better controlthem.27

These concerns have to be placed within the context of an environment where the qualityof SERs are suggested to rest (at least in part) on the fact that such reports are producedby organisations who also undertake stakeholder engagement. The quality of stakeholderengagement clearly becomes important if it is assumed to enhance report quality and providesome sort of assurance as to the veracity of the report. We would suggest that stakeholder

26 At times, and within stakeholder engagements, we have had furtive discussions with other participants asto what might be going on in the room, how challenging we believe we can be, the consequences of being toochallenging, the basis on which we assume we are there, whether or not be have been invited before and whetheror not we assume we will be invited again. These types of discussions lead us conclude that the terms on whichengagements are taking place are ill defined in the minds of the stakeholders.27 We also note an example where an organisation made a wide call for stakeholder to be involved in a consultation

about a particular decision. While the call engaged some of the usual stakeholders (such as NGOs, academicsand community bodies), it also attracted a number of organisations who had commercial interests in the outcomeof the decision. This was frustrating to the organisation concerned as they viewed the stakeholder engagement asbeing a sense check with a wider public, rather than being an information channel for those who were interestedin the commercial bidding process which would arise from the decision being taken.


engagement is highly problematic and as it currently stands does not accord with a dialogicaleducational process.28

6. Closing remarks

This paper sought to reflect upon SER, which was itself characterised as an educativeprocess. In Dillards (1991) terms, we wished to evaluate whether or not SER practicescould create a situation where preparers and users of SER would be responsive to criticalanalysis which would eventually lead to transformative change. We argue that such anoutcome would be a valid aspiration for SER because the value of this set of practices ispremised on the possibilities which it creates for emancipatory change (see, for example,Bebbington, 1997)albeit that the mechanism by which such change could take place andan evaluation of whether or not it is happening in practice is not well developed in theacademic literature. The aspirations for SER thus mirror of the aspirations which are heldfor education (see, for example, Freire, 1996; Galbraith, 1972; Gramsci, 1971; Illich, 1971).We have sought to specifically link the education and SER literature via the use of Freirescategorisation of pedagogy into banking and dialogical approaches and to consider theeducational possibilities which appear to emerge from SER and from the processes whichsurround this practice.

Further, we argue that in order for SER to be transformative it should assist people tounderstand organisations which operate within their social and ecological spaces. Whilstknowledge of organisations and their impacts are an element in a change process (towhich critical education is orientated), in itself it is not sufficient. For change to occurthen other aspects of transformative education should be built into SER processes. In par-ticular, drawing upon Freire (1972), the SER process should pose problems about realworld situations in order to help stakeholders develop a critical view of their reality. If thiswere to happen, SER would become part of a political act, not a simple communicationconduit.

In addition, we propose that SER should identify and enable others to question thehidden curriculum of oppressive systems of governance (including, if relevant, Westerncapitalismsee, for example, Bebbington, 1999; Bebbington and Thomson, 1996; Grayand Bebbington, 2000). Current SER practices fail to illuminate this hidden curriculum,rather they appear to preserve the elements of the hidden curriculum in order to maintainthe status quo. As such, it may be argued that powerful interests can be seen to be usingSER as one part of a process of educating others about organisations and their relationshipwith environmental impacts, environmental management, ethical practices, social justice28 It is worth noting that we have not here touched on the emerging practice of organisations conducting stake-

holder engagement via the internet. For example, Shell had/has a tell Shell web page where, ostensibly, anyonecould post a message and obtain a response from Shell (see, for example, Unerman and Bennett, 2001 who prob-lematises this process). Likewise, in 2001, BT conducted an internet debate about the digital divide which wasopen to those with the technology and time to participate. These could be characterised as stakeholder engagementprocesses, but one where some of the stakeholder selection biases are avoided (but new biases and problems areintroduced). A detailed evaluation of these processes are outside the scope of the present paper, but would be avaluable extension of the themes developed here.


and equity. Such a characterisation of the situation, however, suggests that a failure toaddress the hidden curriculum is an active strategy undertaken by agents wishing to imposetheir perspective or appropriate the terms of the debate. While noting the possibility ofsuch a strategy, the critical education literature also introduces the notion that a lack ofself-understanding by account preparers may also contribute to the situation noted. Thus,failure to uncover the hidden curriculum may take many forms. Such a notion also introducessome new possibilities praxis opportunities for SER.

For example, using the seemingly unrecognised conflict between the hidden curriculumand sustainable development (for example, as one element of SER), may be the result ofignorance rather than malice. Another situation where mis-education could be inferred iswhere incompatible views are expressed about sustainable development and how to achieveit. For example, sustainability is recognised as a radical concept but it is stated that itcan be achieved by a business as usual approach. Further, silence on questions as tothe compatibility of capitalism, economic and business growth with social and ecologicalreforms may be found. Finally, accounts may contain a more active defence of the hiddencurriculum and assert the impossibility of change without business continuing as usual. Thislast position is most usually developed as a proposition that in order to afford to improvesociety and the ecology we need high levels of economic growth.

We would suggest that each one of the potential explanations offered above for a failure toaddress what we might see to be the hidden curriculum within SER with respect to pursuingsustainable development has a different cause and hence may demand a different response.What we would further suggest is that each form can be addressed or challenged as part of adialogical education process where individuals engage in meaningful educationally derivedengagement episodes.

We have also sought to highlight that control of SER is also relevant in determining ifSER has transformative potential. Current SER processes are almost wholly controlled bythe reporting organisations. Drawing on insights from critical educationalists, we suggestthat there is a need to pay more attention to the users of the reports. Many political andeducational plans have failed because their authors designed them according to their ownpersonal views of reality, never once taking into account the people-in-a-situation towardswhom their programme was ostensibly directed. One cannot expect positive results froman educational or political action programme which fails to respect the particular view ofthe world held by the people with whom one wishes to interact. Such a programme consti-tutes a similar process of cultural invasion or colonisation (see Cooper, 1992; Gray et al.,1995a; Laughlin, 1991; Maunders and Burritt, 1991; Tinker et al., 1991), good intentionsnotwithstanding.

The starting point for SER, therefore, must be the present, existential, concrete situationreflecting the aspirations of a community or stakeholder groups. SER should represent tostakeholders (however defined) their present situation as a problem, which challenges themand requires an intellectual response and an action response. SER should not only tellstakeholders of the reporters view of the situation, but rather should start a dialogue withpeople about their own situation. SER that is not aware of stakeholders particular situationruns the risk of becoming a banking educational process.

We would argue that many SERs provide an account that is not understood by thoseassumed to be stakeholders because it is not attuned to the concrete situation of stakeholders


and as such the report may be regarded as rhetoric which alienates readers. In order tocommunicate effectively, SER must take into account the structural conditions in whichthe thought and language of the stakeholders are dialectically framed with these structuralconditions being important shapers of SER engagement processes. Furthermore, SERsshould form part of a process which seeks to create a climate of confidence and provide thenecessary skills to all involved to attempt to overcome limiting situations.29 Providing factswithout considering if stakeholders have the ability or desire to read them is inadequate.Further, stakeholders need to be able to interpret SERs in different social contexts, relatethem to everyday concerns and link these facts to meaningful action in order for reports tobe part of a transformative process. We would suggest that this potential is far from beingrealised at present.

Concerns about SER also relate to questions of how we may conceive of literacy in aSER context, can SERs be read in a meaningful manner, and how do stakeholders readand understand the underlying relationships which SERs purport to explain. For example,it is unlikely that all stakeholders will be concerned with the same entity and as a resultsite reporting may be more likely to create meaningful dialogue than a single report for amulti-national company.

Moving on from the focus on reports themselves, the paper suggests that if one usesFreire as a frame of reference then stakeholder engagement processes can be observedto have significant shortcomings. We argued that SERs reflected an objective view ofthe world which precludes interaction between report writers and readers. Further, theprofessionalisation of the reporting processes was seen to be part of this banking move-ment. In addition, while stakeholder engagement processes appeared to provide some hopefor dialogical educational practices, as they are presently conducted this potentiality isnot being realised. Rather, stakeholder engagement is a sophisticated banking educationalpractice.

These conclusions suggest a number of avenues for future work. In the first instance,we would suggest that it may be fruitful to move away from a focus on content analysis ofreporting practices and towards a more qualitative understanding of what reports are actuallysaying (both explicitly and implicitly). This suggests that a more careful and sophisticatedreading of accounts is necessary. In addition, more detailed understanding of the specificorganisational mechanisms which underlie report preparation and publication would shedlight on the possibilities of more dialogical forms of reporting. Questions of who is involvedin SER preparation, how and with what aim would also shed light on this robustness of theclaims made in this paper. Further, the type of work which Adams (2001) has undertakenwhich seeks to link the images created from reporting with other information, and thereactions which such activity creates, is potentially a valuable way forward as are silent andshadow social accounts. Moreover, a more focused and sustained examination of stakeholderengagement and the nature of the narratives which emerge from this interaction seems to berequired. All of these suggestions are difficult areas to research. A more sustained, microas well as macro and theoretically informed evaluation of such processes, however, wouldtake us forward in our understanding of the nature of such relationships and would enable a

29 However, as reality is transformed and limit-situations are superseded, new ones will appear, which in turnevoke new limit-acts.


fuller evaluation of the possibilities which such interactions actually offer (see, especiallyODwyer, 2002, for an example of this type of work).

Lastly, it is necessary to consider whether or not Freires work provides an appropriatebasis for analysis. Some may feel that Freires method of teaching literacy in Latin Amer-ica . . . belong[s] to a different world from that in which we find ourselves (Freire, 1996,p. 15). Likewise, Tinker (2000) suggests that a pedagogy developed in a largely agricul-tural, face-to-face, institutionalised community, isas it standsno match for a modernindustrialized society (no page numbers). We would not completely agree with these com-ments. To simply uproot Freires pedagogy, granted, would not be adequate to the task athand (indeed, applications of Freires pedagogy in a variety of countriesfor example,Africahas been adjusted to the situation in which it is being applied). Further, the valueof Freires work is that it can prompt insights into current practices which could then beused in resisting oppression. Indeed, Richard Shaulls forward to Freire (1996) makes itclear that

it would be absurd to claim that . . . [Freires teaching methods] should be copied here.But there are certain parallels in the two situations [then and now] that should not beoverlooked. Our advanced technological society is rapidly making objects of most of usand subtly programming us into conformity to the logic of the system. To the degree thatthis happens, we are also becoming submerged into a new culture of silence. (Freire,1996, p. 15)Freires focus was on literacy as a means to an end, and that end being democratisation.

We would suggest that using these concepts helps us to understand how SER functions as apedagogic practice at present. As such, Freires ideas remain as potent as when they werefirst written. To conclude, this paper has sought to connect two different areas of academicinquiry: that of pedagogic practices and SER. We have argued that SER can be characterisedas an educational practice and as such it is amenable to pedagogic evaluation. CurrentlySER falls short of the emancipatory ideal set for it by various academic writers with boththe outcome of the process (the reports themselves) and the processes which accompanyreport preparation (specifically stakeholder engagement processes) contributing to SER notrealising its potential. The educational metaphor of banking appears to aptly characterisethe practices which have been described in the paper. Freires conception of dialogicaleducation provides, however, an avenue by which SER and related practices could betterbe understood and ultimately provides a tentative vision of how such practices could bereformed.

Acknowledgements

Comments from seminar participants at the 1999 BAA Scottish Area Group confer-ence, the 2000 Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accountancy conference in Manchester,members of Glasgow Caledonian University and University of the West of England aremost gratefully acknowledged. Detailed feedback on earlier versions of this paper fromRussell Craig, Brendan ODwyer, Denis Rice, Clare Roberts and Tony Tinker are alsoacknowledged.


References

Adams C. A critique of reporting on ethical, social and environmental issues: the case of ICI. In: Proceedings ofthe Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting conference, Adelaide; 2001.

Arrington CE, Francis JR. Giving economic accounts: accounting as cultural practice. Acc Organisations Society1993;18(2/3):10724.

Bebbington J. Engagement, education and sustainability: a review essay on environmental accounting. Acc AudAccountability J 1997;10(3):36581.

Bebbington J. Accounts of and accounti

1-s2.0-S104523540300131X-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S104523540300131X-main