The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of corporate processes for developing a sustainability report, the hurdles faced by organisations and the way in which organisational change towards improved accountability occurs and can lead to changes in sustainability performance. Design/methodology/approach: This research involves engagement through an action research approach involving the observation of corporate meetings, the provision of feedback on those meetings by the researchers and review of internet and hard copy sustainability reporting. Findings: The study identified a number of impediments to the development of a sustainability reporting framework and its integration into planning and decision making, as well as forces for change. These were analysed using the organisational literature, particularly Kurt Lewin's integrated model of planned change. Differences were observed between the state‐owned organisation and prior studies of shareholder owned companies in their motivations for achieving sustainability and greater accountability. Practical implications: From the organisation's perspective, the study provided immediate feedback which enhanced reporting practices and the incorporation of sustainability issues into decision making. The study has the potential to improve practice in other organisations through the identification of impediments to and forces for change not considered in prior theorising. Originality/value: The action research approach contributes to knowledge and theorising in a way which could not have been achieved through interviews alone. It assisted change within the organisation in: adopting a sustainability reporting framework; integrating sustainability issues into planning and decision making; and, further embedding sustainability and accountability values. The findings in the state owned organisation contrast recent findings for shareholder‐owned companies.
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
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095101 · Cited by 38,435
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2004) · Advances in Strategic Management · doi:10.1016/s0742-3322(00)17011-1 · Cited by 25,802
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Andrews, A. O., Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393344 · Cited by 8,261
Institutions and organizations
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1848 · Cited by 8,003
(1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 6,226
Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259163 · Cited by 3,214
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. M. (2006) · Cited by 2,381
Handbook of action research : participative inquiry and practice
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. M. (2001) · Cited by 2,359
Qualitative Methods in Management Research.
Toomer, E., Bowen, K., & Gummesson, E. (1993) · The Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.2307/2584051 · Cited by 2,305
Frontiers in Group Dynamics: II. Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research
Lewin, K. (1947) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872674700100201 · Cited by 2,265
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Adams, C.A. (1999), The Nature and Processes of Corporate Reporting on Ethical Issues, CIMA, London, pp. 1‐64.
- Cady, S.H. and Caster, M.A. (2000), “A diet for action research: an integrated problem and appreciative focused approach to organisation development”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 79‐93.
- Cardno, C. and Piggot‐Irvine, E. (1996), “Incorporating action research in school senior management training”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 19‐24. · doi:10.1108/09513549610146105
- Earl‐Slater, A. (2002), “Critical appraisal of clinical trails: the superiority of action research”, British Journal of Clinical Governance, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 132‐5. · doi:10.1108/14664100210427633
- Harris, M. and Harris, J. (2001), “Achieving organizational collaboration in the nonprofit sector: an action research approach”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 28‐35.
- Karmin, K. (2001), “Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of action research”, Nursing Standard, Vol. 15 No. 26, pp. 33‐5. · doi:10.7748/ns2001.03.15.26.33.c2994
- Lewin, K. (1947), “Frontiers in group dynamics”, in Catwright, D. (Ed.), Field Theory in Social Science, Social Science Paperbacks, London, pp. 143‐53.
- McNicholas, P. and Barrett, M. (2005), “Answering the emancipatory call: an emerging research approach ‘on the margins’ of accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 391‐414. · doi:10.1016/s1045-2354(03)00098-4
- McNicholas, P. and Humphries, M. (2005), “Decolonization through critical career research and action: Maori women and accounting”, Australian Journal of Career Development, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 30‐9. · doi:10.1177/103841620501400106
- McNicholas, P., Humphries, M. and Gallhofer, S. (2004), “Maintaining the empire: Maori women's experiences in the accountancy profession”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57‐93. · doi:10.1016/s1045-2354(03)00007-8
- Naslund, D. (2002), “Logistics needs qualitative research – especially action research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 321‐38. · doi:10.1108/09600030210434143
- Sax, C. and Fisher, D. (2001), “Using qualitative action research to effect change: implications for professional education”, Teacher Education Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 71‐80.
Cited by
Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review
Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021) · Review of Accounting Studies · doi:10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5 · Cited by 1,923
The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure
Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2012) · Journal of Management & Governance · doi:10.1007/s10997-010-9160-3 · Cited by 1,084
An Analysis of Indicators Disclosed in Corporate Sustainability Reports
Roca, L. C., & Searcy, C. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.002 · Cited by 670
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
The use of management control systems to manage CSR strategy: A levers of control perspective
Arjaliès, D.-L., & Mundy, J. (2013) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2013.06.003 · Cited by 482
Metadata
- Authors
- Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2007-06-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 382-402
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090949728
- Cited by
- 567
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 43.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Licence
- www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
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: Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513570710748553
- The paper
- Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748553
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.
