Theological perspectives on accounting: worldviews don’t change overnight

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the 2004 AAAJ special issue (SI): “Accounting and theology, an introduction: Initiating a dialogue between immediacy and eternity,” the relative immediate impact of the call for papers and the relevance of the theme to address issues in accounting today and in the future. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is a reflection and is framed around three different modes of engagement with new perspectives as identified by Orlikowski (2015). These are religion as phenomenon, as perspective and as a worldview. The authors draw on Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) framework in order to explore the ontological and epistemological blinkers that have limited the attempts to explore accounting from a theological perspective. Findings: The paper argues that historical and current structures can limit the manner in which accounting research uses theological perspectives. Indeed, the concerns of the initial SI remain – that the contemporary economic and knowledge system is in crisis and alternative ways of questioning are required to understand and respond to this system. Research limitations/implications: As a reflection, this paper is subject to limitations of author bias relating to our beliefs, ethnicities and culture. The authors have sought to reduce these by drawing on a wide range of sources, critical analysis and the input of feedback from other scholars. Nevertheless, the narrative of impact remains a continuing story. Originality/value: In drawing on both an original SI guest editor and a scholar for whom the 2004 SI has become a touchstone and springboard, this paper provides multiple viewpoints on the issue of accounting and theology

Human rights disasters, corporate accountability and the state: Lessons learned from Rana Plaza

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the state-business nexus in responses to human rights violations in businesses and questions the efficacy of the UN guiding principles on human rights in businesses, in particular in the ready-made garments (RMG) industry in Bangladesh. Drawing on Cohen’s notion of “denial” and Black’s (2008) legitimacy and accountability relationships of state and non-state actors, the study seeks to explain why such “soft” global regulations remain inadequate. Design/methodology/approach – The empirical work for this paper is based on the authors’ participation in two multiple-stakeholder advisory consultation meetings for the RMG sector in Bangladesh and 11 follow-up interviews. This is supplemented by documentary evidence on human rights disasters, responses of the state and non-state actors and human rights reports published in national and international newspapers. Findings – The paper provides clear evidence that the state-business nexus perpetuates human rights disasters. The study also shows that the Bangladeshi state, ruled by family-led political parties, is more inclined to protect businesses that cause human rights disasters than to ensure human rights in businesses. The economic conditions of the RMG industry and accountability and legitimacy relationships between state and non-state actors have provided the necessary background for RMG owners to continue to violate the safety and security of the workplace and maintain inhumane working conditions. Research limitations/implications – Complex state politics, including family, kinship and wealthy supporters, and economic circumstances have serious implications for the efficacy of the UN guiding principle on human rights for business. This paper calls for broader political and economic changes, nationally and internationally. Originality/value – The study highlights the perpetuation of corporate human rights abuses by the state-business nexus, and indicates that human rights issues continue to be ignored through a discourse of denial. This is explained in terms of legitimacy and accountability relationships between state and non-state actors, bounded by complex political and economic conditions

The past, the present and the future of accounting for human rights

Purpose – This paper discusses a number of important recent developments in the area of business and human rights and considers the impact of these developments for accounting, assurance and reporting. Following the UN endorsement of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the Guiding Principles) in June 2011, initiatives related to their implementation have advanced at a rapid pace. Despite the centrality of accounting, assurance and reporting to some of the key initiates – accounting research has, hitherto, lagged behind this growing momentum. In order to address this lacunae, this paper develops an agenda for future research in the area of accounting and human rights. In doing so, the paper provides an overview of the important contributions advanced by the other papers in this special issue of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ). Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws together and identifies key issues and themes related to the rapidly evolving research and policy domain of business and human rights and considers the relevance of these issues to accounting research. Findings – The paper highlights the wide-ranging impact the Guiding Principles and other developments in business and human rights have for accounting practice and draws attention to potential areas of research for accounting scholars. In particular, the paper highlights the emergence of business and human rights due diligence requirements, including their management and reporting. Further, the paper draws attention to the development of business and human rights reporting and assurance practice – which, while still in its infancy, has gathered considerable momentum and support. Research limitations/implications – The paper provides important insights into emerging issues and developments in business and human rights that have clear relevance to accounting research and practice. Originality/value – This paper, and the other contributions to this special issue of AAAJ, provide a basis and a research agenda for accounting scholars seeking to undertake research in this significant and emerging field.PostprintPeer reviewe

Should the International Accounting Standards Board have responsibility for human rights?

Purpose – In this paper begin to explore the basis for, and ramifications of, applying relevant human rights norms—such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights—to the International Accounting Sstandards Board (IASB). In doing so, the paper seeks to contribute to scholarship on the political legitimization of the IASB’s structure and activities under prevailing global governance conditions Design/methodology/approach – The paper explores three distinct argumentative logics regarding responsibilities for justice and human rights vis-à-vis the IASB. First, we explore the basis for applying human rights responsibilities to the IASB through reasoning based on the analysis of ‘public power’ (Macdonald, 2008) and public authorization. Second, we develop our reasoning with reference to recent attempts by legal scholars and practitioners to apply human rights obligations to other nonstate and transnational institutions. Finally, we develop reasoning based on Thomas Pogge’s (1992b) ideas about institutional harms and corresponding responsibilities. Findings – The three distinct argumentative logic rest on differing assumptions - our goal is not to reconcile or synthesise these approaches, but to propose that these approaches offer alternative and in some ways complementary insights, each of which contributes to answering questions about how human rights obligations of the IASB should be defined, and how such a responsibility could be “actually proceduralised.” Originality/value – The analysis provides an important starting point for beginning to think about how responsibilities for human rights might be applied to the operation of the IASB.PostprintPeer reviewe

Reimagining business and management as a force for good

The literature has called on business and management scholars to help understand the global challenges we face and to find solutions. The prevailing narratives that have implicitly informed our understanding of business and management knowledge and practice as good need to be reimagined. We question whether our existing theoretical lenses, along with fundamental underlying assumptions about what constitutes labour, value and its creation, and the nature of assets, liabilities and materiality, act as a barrier to advancing business and management practice as a force for good and explore whether we need to go beyond applying existing theory to new research questions. Both Agency Theory and Stakeholder Theory have proven ineffective in aligning social and economic interests, while our disciplinary and publishing customs constrain our imagination and impede conceptions of fundamentally new ways of practising business. We explore why we need to reimagine business and management; what we mean by reimagining business and management and what it means to be a force for good. We conclude that if the purpose of business needs to be reimagined, business schools will also need to change to be major catalysts in this process

A stepped-wedge randomised-controlled trial assessing the implementation, impact and costs of a prospective feedback loop to promote appropriate care and treatment for older patients in acute hospitals at the end of life: study protocol

BACKGROUND: Hospitalisation rates for the older population have been increasing with end-of-life care becoming a more medicalised and costly experience. There is evidence that some of these patients received non-beneficial treatment during their final hospitalisation with a third of the non-beneficial treatment duration spent in intensive care units. This study aims to increase appropriate care and treatment decisions and pathways for older patients at the end of life in Australia. This study will implement and evaluate a prospective feedback loop and tailored clinical response intervention at three hospitals in Queensland, Australia.METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted with up to 21 clinical teams in three acute hospitals over 70 weeks. The study involves clinical teams providing care to patients aged 75 years or older, who are prospectively identified to be at risk of non-beneficial treatment using two validated tools for detecting death and deterioration risks. The intervention's feedback loop will provide the teams with a summary of these patients' risk profiles as a stimulus for a tailored clinical response in the intervention phase. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will be used to inform the intervention's implementation and process evaluation. The study will determine the impact of the intervention on patient outcomes related to appropriate care and treatment at the end of life in hospitals, as well as the associated healthcare resource use and costs. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who are admitted to intensive care units. A process evaluation will be carried out to assess the implementation, mechanisms of impact, and contextual barriers and enablers of the intervention.DISCUSSION: This intervention is expected to have a positive impact on the care of older patients near the end of life, specifically to improve clinical decision-making about treatment pathways and what constitutes appropriate care for these patients. These will reduce the incidence of non-beneficial treatment, and improve the efficiency of hospital resources and quality of care. The process evaluation results will be useful to inform subsequent intervention implementation at other hospitals.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12619000675123p (approved 6 May 2019).</p

Putting our money where their mouth is: alignment of charitable aims with charity investments - tensions in policy and practice

Given the values-driven nature of the mission of most charities, it might be expected that investment behaviour would be similarly values-driven. This paper documents the ethical investment policies and practices of the largest UK charities and explores how these are aligned with the charitable aims, drawing upon accountability, behavioural and managerial perspectives as theoretical lenses. The study employs two distinct research methods: responses to a postal questionnaire and follow-up semi-structured interviews with selected charities. The evidence indicates that a significant minority of large charities do not have a written ethical investment policy. Charities with larger investments, fundraising charities and religious charities were more likely to have a written ethical policy. We suggest that there is a pressing need for improved alignment between charities' aims and their investment practices and better monitoring of investment policies