Accounting for citizenship conceptual paradigm based on critical thinking

Subject Areas : Management Accounting

Shokrollah Khajavi ¹ , Mohammad Mohammadian ²

1 - Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Economics, Management and Social Sciences, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
2 - Ph.D. Candidate in Accounting, Faculty of Economics, Management and Social Sciences, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Received: 2017-10-07 Accepted : 2018-02-09 Published : 2018-06-22

Keywords: Accounting for Citizenship, critical thinking, Corporate Citizenship, Citizenship Theories,

Abstract :

Wise reasoning of somebody’s’ beliefs and whatever they do based on it is called critical thinking. In this area, existing condition is not compatible with whatever accountants are believed in and which they are done to achieve. Using this point of view many accounting interpretation have been considered based on positivism or normative paradigm are criticized. The goal of this research is to present conceptual paradigm and novel preview description toward accounting under the title of accounting for citizenship. To have access to this, the most important layers of objective hermeneutics which have known as critical thinking and library studies which is considered as historical recognition is utilized. Some of basic concepts of this research includes accounting for citizenship and corporate citizenship and according to these concepts and by critical school thoughts using present position of accounting is getting studied and finally the question of “Could accounting be considered as accounting for citizenship?” is answered. Citizenship exploring theories especially political theory as a subset one revealed that accountability toward citizens and society from macro level (government) is shifted to micro level (companies as corporate citizens) and accountants afterwards and finally in order to citizens’ rights preservation (to government support) the accountants have to adhere ethics (fairness and justice) and useful information preparation which results to citizens and society accountability.

References:

*      ارسطو. (1364). سیاست. (ترجمه حمید عنایت)، تهران: انتشارات خوارزمی.

*      حجازی، رضوان و مینا ابوحمزه. (1393). به سوی شهروند شرکتی. پژوهش حسابداری، 31، 20-1.

*      حجازی، رضوان و نهاله حیاتی. (1396). جهان شهروند شرکتی: از مفاهیم تا اقدامات. پژوهش حسابداری، 24، 34-17.

*      حسن­زاده، بابک؛ مجدی، علی اکبر. و علی، یوسفی. (1394). هرمنوتیک به مثابه روش تحقیق: بررسی روش هرمنوتیک عینی در حوزه تحقیقات کیفی. روش­شناسی علوم انسانی، 83، 148-121.

*      رهنمای رودپشتی، فریدون و احمد گودرزی. (1389). حسابداری انتقادی: از تئوری تا عمل، سومین  کنفرانس بین المللی حسابداری و پیشرفت اقتصادی، تهران، آذر ماه.

*      رهنمای رودپشتی، فریدون و احمد گودرزی. (1392). حسابداری مدیریت انتقادی، دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت، 5، 14-1.

*      فالکس، کیث. (1381). شهروندی. (ترجمه محمد تقی دلفروز)، تهران: انتشارات کویر.

*      محمدپور، احمد. (1389). روش در روش. چاپ سوم، تهران: انتشارات جامعه شناسان.

*      نیکو­مرام، هاشم و بهمن بنی­مهد. (1388). مقدمه‌ای بر تئوری­های توصیفی، تهران: علوم و تحقیقات.

*      Abreu, R. (2015). Accounting for Citizenship: The role of Accountant. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 933-941.

*      Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731-757.

*      Alistain, M., & McMillan, I. (1996). The concise Oxford dictionary of politics.

*      Altman, B. W; and Vidaver, C. D. (2000). A framework for understanding corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 105(1): 1-7.

*      Anastasiadis, S. (2014). Toward a View of Citizenship and Lobbying: Corporate Engagement in the Political Process. Business and Society, Vol. 53, No. 2, P: 260-299.

*      Azizul I. M; & Deegan, C. (2008). Motivations for an organization within a developing country to report social responsibility information: Evidence from Bangladesh. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(6), 850-874.

*      Cameron, J. C., & Sosik, J. J. (2016). Corporate Citizenship: Understanding the Character Strength of Citizenship from Corporate Law and Leadership Perspectives. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 17(1), 3.

*      Camilleri, M. A. (2017). Corporate citizenship and social responsibility policies in the United States of America. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(1), 77-93.

*      Carr, W., & Hartnett, A. (1996). Education and the struggle for democracy: The politics of educational ideas. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

*      Cooper, D. J. (2014). On intellectual roots of critical accounting: A personal appreciation of Tony Lowe (1928–2014). Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25 (4/5), 287–292.

*      Dane, M. Ch (2016). Corporate Accountability Reporting and High – Pofile Misconduct. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 377-399.

*      Deegan, C; Rankin, M. & Voght, P. (2000). Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 101-130.

*      Fields, T. D., Lys, T. Z., & Vincent, L. (2001). Empirical research on accounting choice. Journal of accounting and economics, 31(1), 255-307.

*      Haslam, J; and Sikka, P. (2016). Pioneers of Critical Accounting: A Celebration of the Life of Tony Lowe. 1th Ed, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

*      Karam, C. M., & Jamali, D. (2017). A cross-cultural and feminist perspective on CSR in developing countries: uncovering latent power dynamics. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 461-477.

*      Llewellyn, S., & Milne, M. J. (2007). Accounting as codified discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(6), 805-824.

*      Matten, D; and Crane, A. (2005). Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166-179.

*      Matten, D; Crane, A; and Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 109-120.

*      Perignon, C; & Vallee, B. (2017). The political economy of financial innovation: evidence from local governments. The Review of Financial Studies, 30(6), 1903-1934.

*      Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 122-144.

*      Preece, J. (2002). Feminist perspectives on the learning of citizenship and governance. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 32(1), 21-33.

*      Ramanna, K. (2013). A Framework for Research in Corporate Accountability Reporting, Accounting Horizins, 27 (2), 409-432.

*      Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2004). Accounting theory. Cengage Learning EMEA.

*      Segura, L. C., Abreu, R., & Filho, M. A. F. M. (2014). Assessing accounting for citizenship: an empirical analysis of the corporate control and capital structure decisions. International Journal of Auditing Technology, 2(1), 69-94.

*      Smith, M (2015). Research methods in accounting. 3nd Edition, SAGE.

*      Smith, R. M. (2002). Modern citizenship. Handbook of citizenship studies, 105-115.

*      Stefan, M; and Jennifer, S. (2009). Using the Objective Hermeneutics Method in policy Evaluation. Evaluation, 15(4), 445–457.

*      Stolz, I., & Mclean, G. N. (2009). Organizational skills for a corporate citizen: Policy analysis. Human Resource Development Review, 8(2), 174-196.

*      Thomas, L; James, P. N; and Clare, W. (2015). Signalling Through Corporate Accountability Reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(3), 56-72.

*      Valor, C. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business and Society Review, 110(2), 191–212

*      Van Gunsteren, H. R. (1988). Admission to citizenship. Ethics, 98(4), 731-741.

*      Windsor, D. (2001). The future of corporate social responsibility. The international journal of organizational analysis, 9(3), 225-256.