The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate, analyse and critique contemporary research in social and environmental accounting. Design/methodology/approach: An analysis and critique of the social and environmental accountability (SEA) research field since the late 1980s. The study revisits two key prior seminal papers on the field, examines the remit for SEA researchers' focus on practice and policy and offers an empirical analysis of the profile of SEA publication. Findings: Theories are identified in two groups: augmentation and heartland theories. These have been more deductively than inductively generated, evidencing limited attention to field‐based engagement. An alternative to the elusive all‐embracing unitary SEA theory is presented. Researchers' concerns with capture of the SEA field is critiqued and an alternative researcher engagement orientation is offered. Environmental research dominates more recent SEA published output, the dominant methodological approach is literature‐based theorising, and national practices/comparisons and regulations are leading topic areas occupying researchers. Research limitations/implications: Analysis of publishing patterns including the balance between social and environmental accountability research, research methodologies employed and SEA topics addressed is largely confined to four leading interdisciplinary accounting research journals. Practical implications: The paper argues for greater SEA researcher engagement with SEA practice and involvement in SEA policy contributions. Originality/value: The paper offers a contemporary assemblage and critique of the multiple theoretical perspectives applied to the SEA field and offers insights into the range and predominance of research methods and topics within the published SEA field.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975) · The Pacific Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/1388226 · Cited by 3,876
Deegan, C. (2002) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570210435852 · Cited by 3,829
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513579510146996 · Cited by 3,321
Ullmann, A. A. (1985) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258135 · Cited by 2,645
Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory
Roberts, R. W. (1992) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(92)90015-k · Cited by 2,322
Corporate Social Reporting: A Rebuttal of Legitimacy Theory
Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1989) · Accounting and Business Research · doi:10.1080/00014788.1989.9728863 · Cited by 1,469
Self-citationO’Donovan, G. (2002) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570210435870 · Cited by 1,450
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570210435861 · Cited by 1,332
Adams, C. A. (2002) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570210418905 · Cited by 1,096
The implications of Organizational Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and Disclosure
Lindblom, C. K. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,042
Cited by
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005 · Cited by 1,775
Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003 · Cited by 1,066
Reflections and projections: A decade of Intellectual Capital Accounting Research
Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Dumay, J. (2012) · The British Accounting Review · doi:10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004 · Cited by 698
Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration
Bebbington, J., & Larrinaga, C. (2014) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2014.01.003 · Cited by 622
Integrated Reporting and internal mechanisms of change
Stubbs, W., & Higgins, C. (2014) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-03-2013-1279 · Cited by 503
Metadata
- Authors
- Parker, L. D.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 842-860
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1514201478
- Cited by
- 698
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 52.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513570510627739
- The paper
- Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570510627739
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.