Management & dialogic accounting literature – an emphasis on engagement and dialogues
It has been a lasting interest of management scholars to investigate how citizens, groups, and
organizations interact to manage complex social problems and challenges, of which ESG issues
are a key example. This literature focuses on two mechanisms of stakeholder work: 1)
participation spaces that facilitate interactions and dialogues (Callon, 2004); and 2)
collaborative devices that enable problem-solving by multiple stakeholder groups (Selsky and
Parker, 2005)
Management research has focused on the tactics employed during collaboration and
engagement processes, such as videotapes and simulations (Carlson, 1999), social media as a
non-hierarchical open platform (Castelló et al., 2016), and cycles of dialogue between activists
and corporations (Ferraro & Beunza, 2018). General processes of partnership formation and
collaboration design have also been examined by studies such as Austin and Seitanidi (2012)
and Bryson et al. (2006). A processual model has also been used to study micro-practices in
the processes of tackling social challenges (Tello-Rozas et al., 2015).
Tying closely into the idea of effective collaboration and engagement, the dialogic accounting
literature also provides valuable insights. According to Brown (2009) and Brown and Dillard
(2013a), dialogic accounting is distinguished by its potential to recognise diverse ideological
orientations, facilitate wider stakeholder participation, and maintain a sensitivity towards
power relationships through the accounting process. This pluralistic approach to accounting is
argued to provide opportunities to address diverse, competing, or even incompatible
information needs of different stakeholders (Dillard and Yuthas, 2013). For analysing ESGrelated processes, three aspects of dialogic accounting are of particular relevance.
Firstly, built upon an agonistic approach (Brown, 2009), dialogic accounting does not see
consensus as the ultimate goal but acknowledges conflicts and differences between
stakeholders. Instead of an answering machine (Burchell et al., 1980), accounting is
conceptualised as an open space where “heterogeneous groups come together to debate sociotechnical choices” (Godowski, Nègre, and Verdier 2019, p. 1).
Secondly, with the objective of democratising and pluralising accounting, dialogic accounting
facilitates two-way dialogues between stakeholders and the reporting entity, and thus broadens
the accounting narrative through stakeholder participation (Bellucci et al., 2019a). By rejecting
a single dominating narrative, dialogic accounting allows negotiations and constructive
dialogues between different, sometime marginalised stakeholders to take place (Dillard and
Vinnari, 2019).
Thirdly, given the attentiveness to diverse perspectives and stakeholder engagement, dialogic
accounting is therefore also sensitive to power relationships. Vinnari and Dillard (2016) argued
that a wide range of social issues have been “framed through the lens of the business case” (p.
38) by powerful actors under the conventional, shareholder-centric conceptualization of
accounting. Researchers therefore called for the development of dialogic accounting which
explicitly recognises and engages with power dynamics, in order to foster democratic
accountability and critical reflection within the accounting process (Brown & Dillard, 2015).
Existent studies of dialogic accounting focus predominantly on non-financial reporting.
Particularly, social and environmental accounting serves as a prominent case for the kind of
pluralizing and inclusive processes envisioned by dialogic accounting. Previous research has
sought to demonstrat how dialogic accounting can help theorize the contingencies and conflicts
of stakeholder engagement and preserve pluralistic ethos in the field of social and
environmental accounting (Brown & Dillard, 2013b; Dillard & Brown, 2012). Bebbington et
al. (2007a; 2007b) further conceptualised dialogic accounting as a way to assess the efficacy
of social and environmental reporting. Similarly, Dillard and Vinnari (2019) called for a shift
towards accountability-based accounting in the social and environmental accounting field,
grounded upon a form of critical dialogic accountability that recognises multiple interests and
power relationships. In the field of integrated reporting, Vinnari and Dillard (2016) evaluated
the framework of the International Integrated Reporting Council through an agonistic lens.
They concluded that pluralism and dialogues were not truly achieved as the concept of capital
and value creation came to dominate the proposed solutions in the framework.
Focusing on how dialogic accounting can be operationalised in practice, Bellucci et al. (2019a)
conducted a content analysis of sustainability reports, and found that dialogic interactions with
multiple stakeholders can be facilitated through this form of reporting. Similarly, Bellucci et
al. (2019b) studied stakeholder engagement through social media platforms as a form of
dialogic accounting.
Sustainability literature – a stakeholder-centric approach
In the related sustainability literature, several key processes have been critically analysed. The
two most relevant processes to this project are stakeholder engagement process and policymaking process. Boundaries between the two processes are not rigid as stakeholder
engagement is often a key factor in policy making.
Stakeholder engagement processes are particularly important in assessing and addressing ESGrelated issues. Hussain et al. (2019) identified stakeholder disparity as a key barrier of social
sustainability in the context of health-care supply chains. Tricarico (2021) examined the
engagement processes during community energy production initiatives and their impact on the
perceived local value added. Using quantitative modelling, Palmer et al. (2020) also found that
enabling stakeholder participation facilitates cooperative behaviours and positively influences
intrinsic conservation motivation.
Such engagement processes were also examined from a diverse range of angles, reflecting their
multifaceted nature. Solman et al. (2021) categorised the local, collective and virtual modes of
public engagement in wind energy projects as channels to incorporate public concerns into key
ESG-related decision making. Pan and Pan (2020) developed a model of stakeholder
partnership across demand, supply, regulation, institution groups. Lindgren (2020) highlighted
the role of comprehensive educational initiatives in engaging households in order to promote
environmentally positive behavioural changes. Furthermore, Herazo and Lizarralde (2016)
observed that tensions can arise due to diverse definitions and perceptions of stakeholders
around ESG concerns, which can nevertheless be channelled productively to improve project
outcomes.
In terms of ESG-related policy making, Arunachalam et al. (2016) theorised local government
policy formulation around sustainability through the lens of deliberative democracy. They thus
emphasized the importance of taking into account the contradictions, tensions and conflicts
between stakeholders in policy-making processes. Ernst and Fuchs (2022) focused on the
experience of influential actors of the participatory processes in relation to the German energy
transformation project. They found that even when such processes fail to resolve conflicts, they
strengthen a sense of community. Through a community-centric lens, Arunachalam and
Lawrence (2010) examined a communitarian approach to informing strategies and policies for
sustainable development. Similarly, Atkinson (2014) called for post-modern type research into
policy-making processes, with sustainability concerns being experienced often emotionally
and reactively be communities.
Based on the above review, it is clear that processes of collaboration and engagement are
imperative to tackling ESG/sustainability concerns. Such processes go beyond merely
information gathering or dissemination. Consequently, a research methodology that embraces
diverse perspectives on defining ESG issues and approaches to identifying corresponding
solutions is called for.
Reference:
[1] Arunachalam, M. & Lawrence, S. (2010). Constructing strategies for sustainable
development the communitarian way. Sustainability Accounting, Management and
Policy Journal (Print), 1(1), 66–80.
[2] Arunachalam, M., Singh-Ladhar, J., & McLachlan, A. (2016). Advancing
environmental sustainability via deliberative democracy: Analysis of planning and
policy processes for the protection of Lake Taupo. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal , 7(3), 402–427.
[3] Atkinson, L. C. (2014). Public policy processes and the environment: implications for
a sustainable future. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(4),
457–475.
[4] Austin, J. E. and Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). ‘Collaborative value creation: A review of
partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part II. Partnership processes and
outcomes’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 929–68.
[5] Bebbington, J., Brown, J., & Frame, B. (2007a). Accounting technologies and
sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics, 61(2), 224–236.
[6] Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I. (2007b). Theorizing engagement:
the potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability,
20(3), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748544
[7] Bellucci, M., Biagi, S., & Manetti, G. (2019b). Dialogic Accounting and Stakeholder
Engagement Through Social Media: The Case of Top-Ranked Universities. Review of
Higher Education, 42(3), 1145–1184.
[8] Bellucci, M., Simoni, L., Acuti, D., & Manetti, G. (2019a). Stakeholder engagement
and dialogic accounting: Empirical evidence in sustainability reporting. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(5), 1467-1499.
[9] Brown, J. (2009). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies:
Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 313–342.
[10]
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013a). Critical accounting and communicative action:
On the limits of consensual deliberation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(3),
176–190.
[11]
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013b). Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the
“death of environmentalism” debates. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), 1–
18.
[12]
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2015). Dialogic Accountings for Stakeholders: On
Opening Up and Closing Down Participatory Governance. Journal of Management
Studies, 52(7), 961–985.
[13]
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C. and Stone, M. M.(2006). The design and
implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature’. Public
Administration Review, 66, 44–55.
[14]
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J., & Nahapiet, J. (1980). The
roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 5(1), 5–27.
[15]
Callon, M. (2004). ‘The role of hybrid communities and socio-technical
arrangements in the participatory design’. Journal of the Center for Information
Studies, 5, 3–10.
[16]
Carlson, C. (1999). ‘Convening’. In Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and ThomasLarmer, J. (Eds), The Consensus Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 169–
98.
[17]
Castelló, I., Etter, M., & Årup Nielsen, F. (2016). Strategies of Legitimacy
Through Social Media: The Networked Strategy: Strategies of Legitimacy Through
Social Media. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 402–432.
[18]
Dillard, J., & Brown, J. (2012). Agonistic Pluralism and Imagining CSEAR into
the Future. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 32(1), 3–16.
[19]
Dillard, J., & Vinnari, E. (2019). Critical dialogical accountability: From
accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 62, 16–38.
[20]
Dillard, J., & Yuthas, K. (2013). Critical dialogics, agonistic pluralism, and
accounting information systems. International Journal of Accounting Information
Systems, 14(2), 113–119.
[21]
Ernst, A., & Fuchs, D. (2022). Power dynamics, shifting roles, and learning:
Exploring key actors in participation processes in the German energy transformation
(Energiewende). Energy Research & Social Science, 85, 102420
[22]
Ferraro, F. & Beunza, D. (2018). Creating Common Ground: A Communicative
Action Model of Dialogue in Shareholder Engagement. Organization Science
(Providence, R.I.), 29(6), 1187–1207.
[23]
Godowski, C., Nègre, E., & Verdier, M. (2020). Toward dialogic accounting?
Public accountants’ assistance to works councils − A tool between hope and illusion.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 69, Article 102095
[24]
Herazo, B. & Lizarralde, G. (2016). Understanding stakeholders’ approaches to
sustainability in building projects. Sustainable Cities and Society, 26, 240–254.
[25]
Hussain, M., Khan, M., Ajmal, M., Sheikh, K. S., & Ahamat, A. (2019). A
multi-stakeholders view of the barriers of social sustainability in healthcare supply
chains: Analytic hierarchy process approach. Sustainability Accounting, Management
and Policy Journal (Print), 10(2), 290–313.
[26]
Lindgren, S. A. (2020). Clean cooking for all? A critical review of behavior,
stakeholder engagement, and adoption for the global diffusion of improved cookstoves.
Energy Research & Social Science, 68, 101539–
[27]
Palmer, C., Souza, G. I., Laray, E., Viana, V., & Hall, A. (2020). Participatory
policies and intrinsic motivation to conserve forest commons. Nature Sustainability,
3(8), 620–627.
[28]
Pan, W. & Pan, M. (2020). A “demand-supply-regulation-institution”
stakeholder partnership model of delivering zero carbon buildings. Sustainable Cities
and
[29]
Selsky, J. W. and Parker, B. (2005). ‘Cross-sector partnerships to address social
issues: Challenges to theory and practice’. Journal of Management, 31, 849–73.
[30]
Solman, H., Smits, M., van Vliet, B., & Bush, S. (2021). Co-production in the
wind energy sector: A systematic literature review of public engagement beyond
invited stakeholder participation. Energy Research & Social Science, 72, 101876–
[31]
Tello-Rozas, S., Pozzebon, M., & Mailhot, C. (2015). Uncovering MicroPractices and Pathways of Engagement That Scale Up Social-Driven Collaborations:
A Practice View of Power. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8), 1064–1096.
[32]
Tricarico, L. (2021). Is community earning enough? Reflections on engagement
processes and drivers in two Italian energy communities. Energy Research & Social
Science, 72, 101899
[33]
Vinnari, E., & Dillard, J. (2016). (ANT)agonistics: Pluralistic politicization of,
and by, accounting and its technologies. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 39, 25–
44.