Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Such a situation arises, at least in part, from a failure to examine the social foundations and
assumptions which invest the subject (Tinker, 1984a, 1984b, 1985). For traditional accounting,
academics alike, to a belief in a benignly passive role for accounting in capitalist society and an
acceptance of the dominant rights of investors and financial markets. Furthermore, the traditional
financial reporting function is highly observable and, being enshrined in law, no questioning of its
For CSR, on the other hand, these conditions do not hold – the subject struggles for legitimacy; it
clearly question the unique dominance of investors as the primary (or at least the only) participants
in the organization; it is clearly non-passive in that it must always imply some assumption about
the desirability and direction of social change; and, in exposing the fundamental beliefs of the
protagonists (about society, politics and even the human species itself), CSR naturally increases
the opportunity for basic and profound disagreement. Furthermore, when the traditional
intellectual baggage of accounting is hauled across to try and articulate the issues of CSR, it is
exposed for the flaccid paraphernalia that it is (Gray et al,. 1987, Chapter 4).
It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, to find that CSR has no unifying paradigm. Despite this, this
article attempts to identify some of the major themes which have emerged in the short life of CSR
and to demonstrate that a potentially fruitful framework for CSR would appear to be developing.
This framework, based on exploration of the concepts of accountability and the social contract,
accounting (see for example, Booth and Paterson, 1982; Gaa 1986; Gjesdal 1981; Ijiri 1983;
(see Gray et al., 1987; Perks and Gray, 1978; Mathew, 1984, 1985; Parker, 1986; Puxty, 1986).
be Reported
legitimation
External social
audits
beneficence Legally
required
disclosure
disclosure
Although the figure could, inevitably, be further refined, we believe that it captures the essential
issues that have run though the mainstream CSR literature for the last fifteen years. (We should
perhaps note at this stage that the obvious omission of direct reference to preparers and information
recipients is not significant as they naturally follow from the other elements in the figure.)
Employing a degree of simplification we shall conceptualise discussion about, and research into,
These categories are not discrete and can be further refines (we will examine this possibility
below).
We shall argue that a central core and framework for CSR can be seen to be emerging from the
debates that are taking place within those adopting the second position; that the third position can
frequently be ignored as irrelevant to the development of CSR; and that those occupying the first
and fourth positions must be seen as constant challengers of the status quo – which, of course, has
implications for far more than CSR and provides a healthy debating atmosphere in which
assumption and preconceptions are continually under siege. This can be related to the factors in
Figure 1. The extremes of the political spectrum share a belief in the irrelevance of CSR for other
than strictly instrumentalist aims. For the “Pristine Capitalists” (typically Friedman, 1962;
Benston, 1982. 1984; but see also Den Uyl, 1984; Mathews, 1986; Walton, 1983; Mulligan, 1986;)
any imposed CSR will interfere with liberty and beyond a compliance with legally required
disclosure should only be considered by companies to the extent that it helps the company: though,
for example, legitimation of activities (C.K. Lindblom, 1984) or the forestalling of further
expenditures (Parker, 1976, 1977). For the “left-wing radicals”, CSR must generally be considered
innocuous legitimation and thus a misleading irrelevance which is more likely to strengthen the
present power distribution than achieve any other aim. However, CSR in the form of external
social audits can possibly be used by the sense alone, is to be considered desirable.
We can see (by exclusion) that the vast majority of literature on CSR falls into our second and
third categories – the “middle ground” in which the status quo is accepted (although variously
interpreted) and explicit, and overt ambition is neither to destroy capitalism nor to refine,
deregulate and/or liberate it. It is on this “middle ground” that we wish to concentrate and to which
we now turn.
There are three themes which run through the middle ground of CSR. In terms of the issues shown
1. Who assume that the purpose of CSR is to enhance the corporate image and hold the,
the assumption that a social contract exists between the organization and society. The
3. Who appear to assume that CSR is effectively an extension of traditional financial reporting
and its purpose is to inform investors. (This last theme falls between the other two themes
The first theme, that of the “corporate defenders” is a most peculiar phenomenon. Whilst
commentators might accurately observe that voluntary CSR is almost bound to enhance the
organization, recommending CSR on the basis that it enhances the organization’s image or because
the organization is best place to judge what information should be reported would seem to be very
difficult to justify. Walton attempts such a justification based upon the (unexamined)
assumption/belief that society and organizations are in complete harmony: that they share a
mutuality of interest and thus, what is good for one must therefore be good for the other. Although
such a view is rarely made explicit, its spoor is evident in much influential writing on CSR. Whilst
one may successfully sustain an argument along these lines on the ground of exhorting
organization to experiment with CSR, its stature as a formal framework for the development of the
CSR, its stature as a formal framework for the development of the CSR discipline begs very serious
question. In the first place, one must ask how this theme of CSR might be differentiated from
advertising. We are at a loss to identify any significant difference (other than the fact that
advertising is regulated to some degree in many countries). Secondly, and altogether more
substantively, one must wonder whether commentators who subscribe to such a position also
favour total deregulation of financial reporting. If society does not trust organizations to give a full
ans honest financial account of themselves, we doubt that any society is likely to trust them to
provide a full and honest social account. This theme has few implications for the more procedural
issues of CSR (the fourth and fifth columns of figure 1: the form that the report should take will
presumably be driven by advertising considerations and cost; and the criterion that is applied in
Turning now to the third theme – CSR as an extension of financial reporting to investors – we find
an equally improbable set of implicit assumptions underlying and driving the development of CSR.
Much of the early pioneering work on CSR sought either to explicitly couch CSR within a
appropriate. The reasons for doing this have never been satisfactorily explained. Stated reasons are
typically either:
2. Because users are familiar with this form of presentation as a basis for decisions
Both reasons strike us as ludicrous. The dangers and the probable infeasibility of appropriate
financial values being placed on organizational social activity have been well rehearsed. Thus,
other than in its role as a perfectly legitimate area of pure intellectual enquiry, we cannot see such
an approach as having any direct bearing on the practical development of CSR, particularly as
measuring things solely in terms of their market value. The second reason does not have even this
justification. The only users who can even vaguely be assumed to have a familiarity with financial
statements are management and investors. Even if management could be shown to find financially
quantified statements useful for their decision making, this does not give rise to a justification for
b. CSR information helps improve capital market efficiency and this benefits society.
The first assumption effectively denies any raison d’etre for CSR; the second is highly tendentious
and light in empirical support. Despite this, CSR as information primarily directed at investors,
explicitly or implicitly, has been the major growth industry in CSR publication and, particularly
in CSR empirical research. Research into whether investors say they find CSR useful; fifth, and
whether CSR is related to profitability or correlated with share price movements is so inconclusive
that if the research proves anything, it is that we are probably being led up something of a blind
alley.
It strikes us that, a priori, investors are likely to be almost entirely uninterested in CSR except in
so far as it influences their financial position. Shareholders (as involved owners) may, however,
be a different matter. A particular example of the latter may be considered to be that of the “ethical
investor”. Although early empirical work raised considerable doubts as to the efficacy of such a
group as an agent of change in the development of CSR, there appears to have been a dramatic
upsurge in interest in the concept of ethical investment since the publication of these studies. This
is particularly apparent in the rapid growth of “socially responsible” mutual funds/unit trusts in the
1980.