The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Falling down the Hole in the Middle of the Road: Political Quietism in Corporate Social Reporting
Abstract
This article critiques “middle‐of‐the‐road” approaches to corporate social reporting and their cautions against radicalising the subject. The historicity of the concept of middle ground is challenged philosophically, politically and socially, by suggesting that its foundations reside in relativism, quietism and pluralism. A counter‐theory is proposed: that the middle ground is a contested terrain that shifts over time with social struggles and conflicts. This proposition is supported by a periodisation analysis of five theoretical themes or trends in the last 30 years of US social responsibility accounting: the Brilovian Critique, the Caring Society Critique, the Caring Market Critique, the Market Re‐regulation Critique, and the Radical Critique. Even if adherence to the middle ground is deemed desirable, it requires a social analysis of the concrete circumstances of each period – today′s middle ground cannot be extrapolated into the future.
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
Cited by
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
Corporate Environmental Disclosure Strategies: Determinants, Costs and Benefits
Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (1999) · Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance · doi:10.1177/0148558x9901400403 · Cited by 533
Ethos,logos,pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports
Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012) · Accounting Forum · doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Tinker, T., Neimark, M., & Lehman, C.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 1991-06-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2000137275
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.07
- 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
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.
