Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Importance of Stakeholder Thinking in Financial Accounting and
Reporting Analysis of the Reasons of Shortcomings in this
Relationship
Braham SOLTANI Maître de Conférences HDR,
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, PRISM-Sorbonne
CR-15-04
PRISM-Sorbonne
Pôle de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Sciences du Management
UFR de Gestion et Economie d’Entreprise – Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
17, rue de la Sorbonne - 75231 Paris Cedex 05 http://prism.univ-paris1.fr/
Ca
hie
rs
de R
ech
erch
e P
RIS
M-S
orb
on
ne
Pô
le d
e R
ec
he
rc
he
In
terd
isc
ipli
na
ire
en
Sc
ien
ce
s d
u M
an
ag
em
en
t
Importance of Stakeholder Thinking in Financial Accounting and
Reporting –Analysis of the Reasons of Shortcomings in this
Relationship
Bahram Soltani*
Associate Professor and Director of Research
*Preliminary Version (Please do not Quote)
Prism (Research Center-Pôle de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Sciences du Management)
School of Management Studies
University of Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the European
Accounting Association (EAA) in May 2015
1
Importance of stakeholder thinking in financial accounting and reporting –
Analysis of the reasons of shortcomings in this relationship
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the importance of stakeholder thinking in financial accounting and reporting
by analyzing the theoretical literature, the statements of basic accounting theory, as well as the
conceptual framework, principles and standards which serve as the basis of accounting practices.
By formulating three research questions, we have mapped out the central issues that
undermine the importance of stakeholder thinking in financial accounting, both in theory and
practice. The study sets out to highlight the conceptual confusion and a number of shortcomings
that have continued to limit the well-shaped relationship between accountants and the potential
users of accounting information.
This paper contributes to the academic literature as it attempts to refocus and re-centre the
discussion around certain key issues regarding accounting-stakeholder interaction. In outlining
the key sources of concerns, both from stakeholder thinking and accounting perspectives, the
study also seeks to promote the debate on the expectation gap in accounting.
KEY WORDS: Accounting Theoretical Framework, Financial Reporting, Stakeholder
Thinking, ASOBAT, Expectation Gap
2
INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of the financial scandals and corporate deviances that began to surface from late
2001 to 2003, and following the recent financial crises, there have been calls for enhanced quality
of accounting information, as well as increasing quality and scrutiny in governance and control
mechanisms. The demand for immediate actions in these areas is mainly expressed by regulatory
bodies which are in charge of protecting the public interest in the capital market economy. There
has been a raft of laws, regulations, listings requirements and reporting standards in the areas of
accounting and finance in recent years.
There are a number of issues which need consideration in the discussion on the
relationship between accounting and stakeholders. Given the diversity of objectives among the
stakeholder groups, how would it be possible to satisfy their demands by providing the same sets
of financial statements and accounting information? Can the inclusion of the concept of
stakeholder in accounting conceptual framework and standards, which are considered as the
influential references in this field, be sufficient, taking into account that the framework and
standards are basically defined in a general manner and are not particularly established for
specific sectors of activity or groups of interest? Has the evolution of accounting and financial
reporting, in theory and practice, been affected by changes in organizational structure and the
demand of interested parties? What are the major problems, if any, regarding the effective role of
accounting in society in response to the demand of various interested parties?
3
The paper seeks to analyze the the importance of stakeholder thinking in financial
accounting and reporting, the interaction between these two and the possible constraints affecting
the favorable outcome for stakeholders as the major interested parties of accounting information.
The paper discusses three research questions including the analysis of theoretical foundations of
accounting from stakeholders’ perspective (RQ1), the content analysis of the accounting
conceptual framework and standards from the viewpoint of the interests of various groups of
stakeholder (RQ2), and the analysis of the expectation gap as the possible constraint regarding
the favorable interrelationship between financial accounting and stakeholder thinking (RQ3).
We approach this interaction from different angles – theoretical, practical and regulatory
frameworks. Overall, the paper aims to provide a broad theoretical discussion in accounting
discipline from the stakeholder perspective. Our aim is to also analyze the effect of several
central topics on this interaction, including ethical climate, control environment, accountability
mechanisms, earnings management and market pressure, and management compensation
packages. Specifically, this paper focuses on the examination of theoretical foundation,
conceptual framework, and standards and practices of financial accounting and reporting from the
stakeholder perspective. Although the importance and possible contribution of stakeholder
thinking in accounting will be debated in several parts of the paper, an in-depth discussion of this
issue around the topics such as social justice theory, legitimacy, theory of ethics, and moral
doctrine go beyond the scope of the paper and are not specifically debated.
In line with this goal, the present paper aims to respond, in two specific ways, to the need
for further research highlighted in previous studies. First, we extend the analysis of stakeholder
thinking in accounting discipline and financial reporting as one of the important fields of
4
knowledge and a means of communication and control of information in which the stakeholders
should naturally have particular interest, a topic which has not been sufficiently discussed in
academic literature. Second, the paper provides an insight into accounting and stakeholder
interaction by highlighting a number of problems which may be determinants in this relationship.
In outlining the key sources of concerns, both from stakeholder thinking and accounting
perspectives, the present research seeks to promote the debate on the expectation gap and the
reasons for such a difference between what the users of accounting and financial information
expect and need and what accountants could and should reasonably expect to accomplish.
In this regard, this research study may have several academic and practical contributions,
particularly because of its wide scope with respect to theoretical analyses and the discussion on
accounting standards, conceptual framework and reporting practices. The topics may be of
interest to market regulatory bodies, accounting standard setters, corporate management and
various groups of stakeholders.
The paper is organized as follows. After discussing the research motivation and the study’s
contributions, we shall begin with an introduction to our theoretical framework for the study.
This includes the theoretical discussions on stakeholder thinking, accounting as an applied
science and interaction between both these fields. The third section presents the research
questions and the discussions. Concluding remarks of the study will be provided in the final
section.
5
RESEARCH MOTIVATION and CONTRIBUTION
The research topic of accounting for stakeholders may be one of the ‘big unanswered questions in
accounting’ since discussion on this issue provides insights into the fundamental objectives of
accounting information and its scope. This discussion naturally raises other relevant questions:
what is the major role of accounting information and financial reporting? Should we investigate
the shortcomings of accounting and financial reporting from the viewpoint of stakeholder
interests, if any, by searching into the scientific background of accounting or should we attribute
the possible problems to accounting and corporate reporting practices? What is the potential of the
stakeholder perspective in improving financial decisions? Does the problem reside in the scope of
accounting and finance which is more oriented towards the needs of the capital market economy
and profit maximization? Do management, who are in command, and the accountants, as the
providers of accounting information, have any fiduciary duties, in mandatory and voluntary
financial reporting, towards stakeholders? Who are the stakeholders and whose interest
accounting should serve? Considering the use and interpretation of accounting information as one
of the most vexed and ill-resolved accounting problems, Lee argued that the problem is “not only
what is to be accounted and reported, but also for whom the resultant financial reports are to be
produced” (1979, p. 22).
This paper aims to discuss the above interrelated questions in the context of financial
accounting and stakeholders’ relationship. Although the discussion may indirectly contribute to a
better understanding of the importance of the stakeholder view of organizations in other related
areas such as management accounting and auditing, it specifically deals with financial accounting
6
and reporting. In this regard, accounting and financial reporting are separate but interrelated
fields since the accounting rules and standards do not fully determine corporate disclosure
policies and financial reporting practices. The latter is strongly influenced by the manager’s
perception and judgment as well as by environmental factors and the pressure exercised by
potential users on disclosure policies of corporations.
There are also a number of issues which need consideration in discussing this
relationship. Given that the stakeholders are not homogeneous groups in terms of interests and
objectives, as well as the power of negotiation and influence in the accounting standard-setting
and corporate decision-making processes (for instance major shareholders [such as institutional
as opposed to minority stockholders], creditors, auditors, regulators are all actively involved and
have a strong position in these areas), what do we mean by including the stakeholder concept in
accounting? Does part of the problem regarding the interaction between accounting and
stakeholder thinking come from the ambiguity of the latter as highlighted by Parmar et al. (2010,
p. 406)?
This paper aims to discuss the above questions by analyzing the notable theoretical
literature and conceptual framework which are used as the main sources in standard-setting,
interpretations of concepts, practices, and disclosure policies in accounting and financial
reporting. The main goal of the paper is to give some insight into accounting and financial
reporting from the perspective of the stakeholders’ interests. Accounting is an applied science
with a great many practical implications for society. For this reason, our research analyses
include both theoretical (Research Question 1) and practical (Research Question 2) dimensions
from the stakeholder-thinking perspective. Accounting as a field of knowledge is also
7
substantially influenced by environmental factors (economic, laws and regulations, socio-
political). For this reason, our research analysis needs to be made by taking into account the
evolution of accounting from a theoretical perspective as well as the significant changes in the
capital market economy.
The above discussion is followed with a final question which deals with the possible reasons
and shortcomings regarding the absence of stakeholder thinking in the conceptual framework and
standards which underline accounting practices. The objective of this research question is to
discuss the factors which go beyond accounting theory and practice, notably the ethics and tone
the top, the bubble economy and financial market pressure, earnings management and its link
with management compensation packages, accountability and control mechanisms.
The aforementioned specific characteristics of the present study provide potential
contributions towards a better understanding of the root causes of the expectation gap between
what the public expects or needs and what accounting can and should reasonably be expected to
do. In summary, the contribution of the paper is threefold. First, the paper tries to provide an in-
depth theoretical discussion of accounting discipline from the stakeholder perspective. Second,
the paper provides an insight into the accounting conceptual framework and standards by
conducting a content analysis from the stakeholder perspective. Both these issues should have
practical implications for regulatory bodies and accounting standard-setters seeking to respond to
increasing public demand for high-quality accounting information and effective financial
reporting policies. The third contribution of the paper is to raise a number of ambiguities or
confusions which may exist both in accounting and stakeholder thinking. Part of these may relate
to the nature of the capital market economy and capitalist society which are essentially directed
8
towards profit and wealth maximizations. The shortcomings may also relate to over-reliance upon
theoretical generalizations of stakeholder ideas in practical fields such as accounting. Above all,
as the present study covers a large number of literature reviews regarding the above topics, it
contributes to the academic literature in social accounting, stakeholder thinking and their
interaction.
THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: STAKEHOLDER THEORY AND
ACCOUNTING DISCIPLINE
Our theoretical framework for the analysis of stakeholder and accounting interaction is based
upon a review of a wide range of published literature in both fields. Due to the much longer
historical background and wider scope and development of accounting discipline compared to
stakeholder theory, particular emphasis is placed upon the theoretical foundations of accounting
and its conceptual framework and principles from the stakeholder perspective. This framework
should provide a clear illustration of our arguments and serves as a useful instrument for defining
the relationship between accounting and stakeholder thinking. In addition, this analysis
contributes to shedding light on several significant shortcomings which, in our opinion, have a
tremendous impact on the smooth running of this relationship in a harmonized manner within a
capital market economy. We believe that this approach contributes to further research and debate
in this area, provides some understanding of the complexities of this relationship, and reinforces
the constructive dialogue between accountants and stakeholders.
We present in the following sections an overview of the stakeholder theory and the related
issues, the evolution of accounting theory from the stakeholder perspective.
9
Stakeholder theory and related issues
The discussion on the concept of ‘stakeholder’ dates back to several decades ago and has its
origins in theories of organization and management. Since its emergence in the 1960s, it has
become a highly debated and controversial idea. The term was popularized by Freeman (1984)
who later widened the stakeholder definition to include “any group or individual who can affect
or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (1984, p. 46). It concerns the
individuals or groups of interest (financiers [stockholders, bondholders, bankers, etc.]
management, employees, customers, suppliers, auditors, regulatory bodies, etc.) who are directly
or indirectly involved or associated with the objectives and survival of a particular organization.
Donaldson and Preston (1995) believe that “stakeholders are identified through the actual
or potential harms and benefits that they experience or anticipate experiencing as a result of the
firms’ actions or interactions” (1995, p. 85). In line with this statement, Kaufman and Englander
(2011) argue that “the firm’s economic purpose designates legitimacy to core stakeholders, to
those who add value, assume unique risk, and can incur them” (2011, p. 422). Parmar et al.
(2010, p. 405) stated that stakeholder theory is based on the premise that if we adopt as a unit of
analysis the relationship between a business corporation and these individuals and groups who
can affect or are affected by it, this would contribute to resolving problems associated with
capital market economy and managerial ethical conduct.
This section does not aim to present a review of the evolution of stakeholder thinking nor
its theoretical arguments. This has been done by the pioneer scholars in this field in several
studies including Freeman (1984, 1994, Freeman et al. (2007, 2010), Parmar et al (2010), 10
Donaldson and Preston (1995), Jones and Wicks (1999). The merit of these scholars and their
research work is to highlight the importance of the ‘stakeholder thinking’ as an alternative or
complementary management approaches. It would be hard to say to what extent these attempts
were successful, taking into account the dominant position of the theory of the firm particularly
its economic branch in the capital market economy. However, in our opinion, the good side of the
story is that the attempts of the scholars in this field at least contribute to bringing the concept of
stakeholder thinking to the centre of academic debate. The negative side is that despite all these
attempts, there is no consensus either on the definition of stakeholders, or on the validity of its
theoretical foundations and associated concepts as along with its practicability. For instance,
Jones and Wicks (1999) advocate the use of term such as ‘convergent stakeholder theory’, and
‘theory of relationships’ by stating that “managerially relevant stakeholder theory should be both
morally and instrumentally sound (i.e., have both normative and empirical components) whereas
Trevino and Weaver (1999) question the very viability of stakeholder theory as a social science
theory. Trevino and Weaver suggest “the phrase stakeholder research tradition in part because
[they] find the myriad ways in which the term theory gets used in stakeholder writings potentially
confusing” (1999, p. 623).
The stakeholder theory and its concepts have been subject to several criticisms notably
with regard to the ambiguity in the definition of the term ‘stakeholder’ and its theoretical content.
By examining the stakeholder literature and central criticisms of this field from both the neo-
liberal and Marxist/radical perspectives, Stoney and Winstanley (2001) have tried to illustrate the
conceptual confusion that has, in their opinion, continued to limit the impact of stakeholding in
organizations and society as a whole. They concluded that “current arguments for stakeholding
suffer from an over-reliance upon theoretical generalizations, a high degree of emotion and some 11
less than convincing empirical data. In short the concept of stakeholding remains under-theorized
and under-researched and unless both these deficiencies are confronted the stakeholder debate is
in danger of becoming increasingly marginalized” (2001, p. 623). Similarly, by referring to more
than several hundred definitions and types of academic discussions around the term ‘stakeholder’,
Miles (2012) explores whether the lack of consensus on the definition is conceptual confusion or
whether the stakeholder concept is essentially contested. Drawing upon the work of a renowned
philosopher W. B. Gallie, who initially defined the ‘essentially contested concept (ECC)’ and on
the basis of whether a concept is “vague, ambiguous, general, complex and normative” (2012, p.
286), Miles believes that “the stakeholder concept is essentially contested rather than radically
confused” (2012, p. 294). With respect to the lack of clarity on the term of stakeholder, Miles
suggests that “whilst a universal definition is not necessary, there is a need to refine the common
core that ensures arguments do not become over aggregated (2012, p. 296).
The place and importance of stakeholder thinking in current economic environment and
organizations need several considerations. The first and most important element, in our opinion,
is related to the analyses of the structure and the environmental characteristics of capitalism and
market economy. “Does stakeholder theory offer an alternative to capitalism and contest the
shareholder model? Or does it offer a narrative on how capitalism might work better?” (Sonpar
2011, p.1). Although the discussion on this question goes beyond the scope of this paper, it is one
of the key issues. Indeed, most influential accounting theories which have been introduced over
the last three decades, as well as the conceptual framework and generally accepted accounting
principles and standards have been developed for the benefit of the capital market economy and
oriented towards the needs of financiers (shareholders, bondholders, bankers) and intermediary
agents (auditors and financial analysts).. It may be argued that “Stakeholder theorists see the 12
separation of moral good and business success as artificial and unhelpful” (Sonpar 2011, p.1).
Freeman et al. (2010), in the first chapter of their book compare and contrast the compatibility of
stakeholder theory with other leading economic theories which support value creation and wealth
maximization. They believe that these two are not incompatible because the market financial
targets can only be attained if the interests of various stakeholders are met. This argument is
interesting from the viewpoint of society’s welfare but is not supported by empirical findings.
Above all, the same authors in another research paper (Parmar et al. 2010) acknowledge the
limitations and boundary conditions of stakeholder theory. Indeed, the notion of stakeholder
thinking can be understood from a conditional-normative point of view but its practical
implications depend on a different way of thinking of capitalism, more in line with a welfare
society, a range of equality factors, and with justice and ethics as an imperative.
Our second observation is that the stakeholder theory, and particularly its practical
implications, requires certain changes in the laws and regulatory framework. This has also been
pointed out by Parmar et al. (2010, p. 408). There are several controversies on this issue and the
authors (Marens and Wicks 1999; Hendry, 2001a, 2001b) do not have consensus regarding the
impact of laws on the effectiveness of stakeholder thinking within enterprises. We would prefer
to discuss this issue differently. Although we strongly believe that the laws and regulatory
framework tremendously contribute to stakeholder dialogue within corporations, it does not
assure the respect of principles from the stakeholder perspective. In our opinion, the success of
corporate issues and practices cannot only reside in laws and regulations since the organizational
functioning, to a great extent, depends on behavioral factors and the perceptions of decision-
makers and market participants. Finally, as pointed out by Soltani (2013), particular attention
should be paid to the core issues such as ethical climate and ethical leadership, as well as control 13
environment, effective accountability and corporate governance mechanisms. Some of these core
values are used and discussed in Research Question 3.
Evolution of accounting theory from the stakeholder perspective
In a series of essays published over 80 years ago, Professor Theodore Limperg set forth a
dynamic theory called the theory of rational expectations (or the theory of ‘inspired confidence’,
Limperg 1926- see Limperg Institute 1985) that connects a society’s need for reliable financial
information to the ability of auditing methods to meet that need. Limperg explained how changes
in the needs of society and changes in auditing methods interact to bring about changes in the
auditor’s function. “Limperg based his theory on the science of business economics and viewed
the development of the audit function from an economic perspective” (Carmichael 2004, p. 128).
The ideas of Professor Limperg were partially followed by two other scholars Mautz and Sharaf
who published The Philosophy of Auditing (1961) - a project whose origins can be traced back to
the 1930s.
The seminal work of Limperg is characterized by several important elements relevant to
our discussion with respect to accounting from the stakeholder perspective because auditing is the
process of providing assurance about the reliability of the information gathered in accounting
process notably the financial statements.
Despite the attempts made on socially-oriented theoretical research in accounting and
auditing at the beginning of 20th century, the field of accounting was practically dominated by a
stewardship view of management and the concept of economic income until the mid-1960s.
Under this approach, management can be viewed as an agent to whom capital suppliers (i.e.,
shareholders and creditors) have entrusted control over a portion of their financial resources. This
14
‘stewardship’ view implies that management has a responsibility to act in the interests of the
financiers in performing different roles including productive agent, risk bearer, and supplier of
information. By providing financial statements to financiers, management facilitates also their
evalutaion of its stewardship role.
In line with this argument, the accounting scholars mainly emphasize the economic role of
financial reporting and do not advocate that the field of financial reporting is socially oriented
and has a responsibility to various interested parties. Beaver (1989), one of the accounting
scholars, supports the informational role of accounting defined on the basis of the stewardship
concept by stating that the two main objectives of accounting is to help investors in their
investment decision-making process and to facilitate contracting between management and
investors particularly in terms of management incentives.
Ball (2008) considers that “financial reporting is an important economic activity” (2008.
p. 428) and believes that the main issue which should be discussed is “the actual economic role of
financial reporting” (p. 427). This discussion has initially been raised by Watts and Zimmerman
(1986), and throughout the last two decades it has been followed by numerous empirical research
papers on topics closely linked with financial market such as the value relevance of financial
information, the effect of earnings variables on stock prices and investors’ decisions.
Several research papers are interested in the place and importance of stakeholder thinking
in accounting. Roberts and Mahoney (2004) present a review of 125 accounting studies that
utilize stakeholder language and which are based on three levels of analysis (managerial agency,
organizational and societal). The authors state that the literature on stakeholder-based accounting
“differs significantly in its use of stakeholder theory depending on the level of analysis that was
chosen” (2004, p. 410). Although, the authors raise the question of the importance of stakeholder 15
thinking in accounting and how can accounting researchers participate in the development of
stakeholder theory, they do not provide the solid arguments for the absence or shortcomings
regarding accounting-stakeholder relationship. They suggest the need for more focus on “ethical
considerations in the design of accounting information systems, performance measurement
criteria, and financial reporting models” (2004, p. 399).
Parmar et al. (2010) provides an overview of some of the studies on the interaction between
accounting and stakeholder theory. They emphasized the importance of accounting as a control
instrument and financial reporting system from the view-point of various interested parties as
well as the influence of stakeholder thinking particularly in the areas of reporting on corporate
social responsibility, disclosure practices, auditing and corporate governance.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on the objectives outlined in our research motivation and theoretical framework, we
examine the following three research questions (RQ). The first two questions (RQ1 and RQ2)
analyze the accounting theories, statements, conceptual framework and principles from the
stakeholder perspective. RQ3 discusses the main reasons of the absence or the shortcomings of
stakeholder views in accounting practices and financial reporting.
16
Research Question 1
To what extent does the analysis of theoretical foundations of accounting provide a clear link
with the stakeholder theory in the area of the objectives accounting?
The efforts in defining the theoretical framework and objectives for accounting dates back to the
1930s. The American Accounting Association (AAA) published, in 1938, the first guideline,
entitled ‘Statement of Accounting Principles’. This document stated that “accounting should
make available all material information of a financial nature relating to (a) the financial condition
or status of the business, (b) its progress in earning income” (AAA 1938, p. 113), and mainly
presents an overview of the accounting principles and general considerations regarding the
components of financial statements, forms and terminology. No particular reference to decision-
making process and the users of accounting information was made in this document. The first
complete statement entitled the ‘Statement of Accounting Principles’ published in 1936 by the
Executive Committee of the AAA is a landmark in the development of accounting theory (AAA,
1966, pp. vii). However, this statement contains no theoretical arguments or framework regarding
accounting issues.
From 1936 through to 1964, the AAA published three other statements and several
documents regarding the development of accounting theories and principles, but none of them
greatly contributed to achieving these objectives. The Statement of Basic Accounting Theory
(AAA, ASOBAT 1966) was the first attempt by the AAA in this respect. The ASOBAT defines
the following objectives of accounting:
17
1. Making decisions concerning the use of limited resources, including the identification of
crucial decision areas, and the determination of objectives and goals.
2. Effectively directing and controlling an organization’s human and material resources.
3. Maintaining and reporting on the custodianship of resources.
4. Facilitating social functions and controls (AAA, ASOBAT 1966, p. 4)1.
Comparing the content of the above statement with those issued either by the AAA or
standard-setters from the 1970s onwards shed light on a drastic change from a public interest
perspective to a market-oriented direction. Although the ASOBAT does not explicitly refer to the
usefulness of accounting for stakeholders, it does not also emphasize the importance of particular
economic agents such as stockholders and creditors who have later been identified as the main
groups of interest in several influential accounting theories and documents. ASOBAT clearly
highlights the importance of the identification of various types of accounting information for the
benefit of the users to which this information may be put. The Statement considers that “almost
all external users of financial information reported by a profit-oriented firm are involved in
efforts to predict the earnings of the firm for some future period” (ASOBAT 1966, p. 23).2 This
remark particularly sheds light on the importance given to all stakeholders, in early accounting
literatures, as the beneficiaries of accounting information regarding the decision-making process.
Taking into account the difficulties associated with the disparity of goals and objectives among
stakeholders, the Statement advocates that “these users are necessarily stated only in general
terms, because the decisions of users cannot be described in terms of fully known and detailed
decision models” (ASOBAT 1966, p. 23). Above all, the ASOBAT makes several interesting
remarks relevant to our discussion, such as “success in decision-making must be judged in terms 18
of the goals of those on whose behalf the decisions are made, subject to legal and moral
constraints imposed by society”, or it refers to the responsibility of management in terms such as
“the function of stewardship or custodianship may be a managerial function … The interests of
society are paramount in defining this function … Providing information relating to compliance
with (these) laws is essentially an accounting function” (ASOBAT 1966, p. 4)3. The Statement
also specifies that “other social functions in which accounting plays important roles including
taxation, the prevention of fraud … The accounting objective is to facilitate the operations of
organized society for the welfare of all” (ASOBAT 1966, p. 4)4. The italicized words and
sentences extracted from the ASOBAT clearly demonstrate the importance given to social
interest and society as a whole, the objective which is also in line with stakeholders’ interests.
The stakeholder view of accounting, clearly expressed in several official AAA documents
published during the 1950s to 1960s, was not fully shared by all academic scholars at that time.
For instance, although Flanders (1959), stated that “accountants are culpable for their apparent
lack of desire and effort to share substantially in the teaching and research of this large and
strategic area of social accounting” (1959, p. 68), he did not present a clear argument on the
association of accounting with social phenomena. Flanders pointed out that “both economics and
accounting attach meaning and value to what can be termed the three elements of social
interaction: namely, motivation, behavior, including action as well as thinking, and the resultants
of behavior” (1959, p. 72). This statement, at first reading, may refer to social values in
accounting. However, his remarks were not specifically related to social values in accounting
because in his following sentence he stated that “economics and accounting have an important
common point of departure because both assume similar pecuniary motivation. This motivation
includes profits and often other goals such as share of the market”5 (1959, p. 72). Furthermore, 19
by referring to the definition of accounting theory provided by another accounting scholar of that
time (A. C. Littleton 1950), Flanders emphasized that “accounting theory is concerned with the
best means of determining and presenting information about economic stocks and flows, in
relation to the purposes for which such data are to be used” (1959, p. 72).
The emphasis of the notion of stakeholder interests in theoretical accounting literature
published in the 1980s was less important than the one outlined above with respect to ASOBAT
(1966). For instance, Devine (1985) in his series of essays published by the AAA emphasized
that “If accounting principles are rules derived from behavioral and social generalizations, then
their usefulness and their consistency must be appraised in the broader context of goal-striving
activities and worthy social ends” (1985, Vol. I, p. 15). The idea of defining accounting based on
achieving social goals is not always shared as a primary objective of this discipline even among
the scholars who have expressed vigorous critical analysis of contemporary accounting.
Mattessich (1995) believes that “the social truth is so general that it reaches beyond the
framework of accounting. The major goals of accounting proper are, on the one hand, the
monitoring of custodial, financial, and managerial accountability; on the other, the supplying of
further information to facilitate various decisions (primarily of investment and resource
allocation)” (Mattessich 1995 p. 81)6. However, the definition provided by Mattessich has a
particular merit in the sense that unlike some other scholars, who support the idea of a single
objective such as the determination of income or equity in conventional accounting, he suggests
multiple goals for accounting. This is also shared by Lev (1988) who rejects the idea of a ‘single’
objective in accounting information and states that “what is highly useful information for some
investors might be irrelevant or even damaging … for others” (1988, pp. 2-3).
20
The accounting discipline has also been dominated by positive theory which is used as the
basis of the significant part of economic-based empirical literature since the 1970s. Jensen (1976)
and Watts and Zimmerman (1986) have charged that most accounting theories are “unscientific”
because they are “normative”. The terminology of positive theory was popularized by Friedman
(1953), but as it was pointed out by Watts and Zimmerman (1986, p. 5), the introduction of the
concept of positive theory came as a result of the developments in finance in the 1960s mainly in
the area of efficient market hypothesis. In their views, economic efficiency is frequently used as
an objective in economics and accounting. Watts and Zimmerman advocate that “positive
accounting theory is important because it can provide those who must make decisions on
accounting policy (corporate managers, public accountants, loan officers, investors, financial
analysts, regulators) with predictions of, and explanations for, the consequences of their
decisions” (1986, p 14)7. This objective clearly excludes all stakeholder groups except
shareholders, creditors and the intermediaries serving their interests. Although the theory is based
on the contracting role of accounting, it is limited in scope as it uses mainly the agency concept
of Jensen and Meckling (1976) in defining the manager/shareholder relationship, debt contracts
and management compensation packages.
The positive theory of accounting has been subject to several criticisms. Watts and
Zimmerman, the authors of the theory, acknowledge themselves the shortcomings of this
approach but advocate that “the lack of a well-developed positive accounting theory results from
the lack of rich economic theories of the firm (including the contracting process) and of the
political process” (1986, p. 357). Christenson (1983) raised a number of questions regarding the
scientific background of this theory and the appropriateness of its methodological concepts.
Mattessich (1995) advocates that one of the major shortcomings of the positive theory of 21
accounting, similar to ‘economic-based accounting’, is “the overriding influence of a single
objective, namely wealth maximization. … A related issue is the neglect of environmental and
social issues” (1995, pp.167)8.
The question of the usefulness of the accounting information for various stakeholders may
be explained in the context of its social role. Miller (1994) has argued that “accounting has come
to be regarded as a social and institutional practice, one that is intrinsic to, and constitutive of
social relations, rather than derivative or secondary” (1994, p. 1). However, his arguments mainly
concern the significant position of accounting as a technology and means of communication in
the functioning of modern industrial societies and corporations, rather than responding to the
expectations of various groups of interest. The point that accounting has policy implications in
society, and affects economic decisions (for instance, in the determination of cost, price and
taxes) does not imply that the current accounting systems include the obligations and
responsibilities towards various interested parties.
In response to Research Question 1, we make three concluding remarks. First, although
there is clear evidence of socially oriented objectives and stakeholder views in several official
accounting statements released in the 1960s (notably the statement of ASOBAT) and earlier
periods, this did not have any practical implications for the users of accounting information,
mainly because of a lack of development in the financial market and insufficient public
awareness at that time. Second, the income and profit maximization have always been the
dominant concepts in the accounting literature in the last few decades. As stated by Beaver (1989),
in the late 1960s the perspective shifted from economic income measurement to an ‘informational’
approach. In the views of Beaver, financial reporting data which are mainly presented on the
22
basis of accounting information play two distinct, but related informational roles. The first main
objective is to help investors in their investment decision-making process and the second is to
facilitate contracting between management and investors, particularly in terms of management
incentives. Both these objectives are essentially related to owner-manager relationship and do not
involve other interested parties (stakeholders). This limitation could also be clearly highlighted
when Beaver referred to the financial reporting environment including various constituencies
such as investors, policymakers, management, auditors, and information intermediaries (1989,
p.160). Our third observation is that providing the useful information to various stakeholders
requires an efficient communication policy and effective control mechanisms which assure the
equal access of all interested parties to information. This will not be an easy task unless
management is willing to do that and is subjected to resolving the problems of information
asymmetry and conflicts of interest resulting from the diverse objectives among stakeholders.
Research Question 2
To what extent does the content of the accounting conceptual framework and standards
include the issues regarding the interests of various groups of stakeholder?
We first consider this research question in the context of ASOBAT, which specifically refers to
accounting information for external users who include present and potential investors, creditors,
employees, stock exchanges, governmental units, customers, regulatory commissions and tax
authorities. Representatives of these users, such as security analysts, trade associations, credit
rating bureaus, and trade union officers are also included (ASOBAT, 1966, pp. 20-21). The
Statement advocates that “accounting information is the chief means of reducing the uncertainty
23
under which external users act as well as a primary means of reporting on stewardship”
(ASOBAT, 1966, p. 19).
The conceptual framework for financial accounting and reporting has been considered as
an important source for users of accounting information as it defines objectives, qualitative
characteristics, elements, recognition, measurement, financial statements, earnings, funds flow,
and liquidity. It is a coherent system of interrelated objectives and fundamentals aimed at
establishing the accounting standards and related issues. This framework is indeed the unique
source of reference in accounting and financial reporting as it has been highlighted in the joint
project between the American (Financial Accounting Standard Board-FASB) and international
(International Accounting Standard Board-IASB) standard-setters.
Institutional efforts to develop a conceptual framework in the accounting discipline can be
traced to the Paton and Littleton monograph (1940) and later to two accounting research studies
by Sprouse and Moonitz (1962) and Moonitz (1961). After several institutional attempts to lay
the foundations of a conceptual framework by the AAA in 1936, and the SEC during 1940-1950,
the publication of the ASOBAT (1966) heralded a new era to accounting by redirecting “attention
away from the inherent virtues of asset valuation models and toward the ‘decision usefulness’ of
financial statements” (Zeff 1999, p. 97)9.
The idea of the decision usefulness approach which was originally supported in ASOBAT
was then carried forward into a major report issued by a special study group entitled Trueblood
Committee in 1973. Considered as an initial attempt by professional bodies in the U.S., the
Trueblood Committee stated that “an objective of financial statements is to provide information
useful to investors and creditors for predicting, comparing, and evaluating potential cash flows to
24
them in terms of amount, timing, and related uncertainty” (1973, p. 20). However, the Committee
added that financial statements should “serve primarily those users who have limited authority,
ability, or resources to obtain information and who rely on financial statements as their principal
source of information about an enterprise’s economic activities” (1973, p. 17)10. The Committee
was not also totally negligent with respect to the social role of accounting as it pointed out that
“an objective of financial statements is to report on those activities of the enterprise affecting
society which can be determined and described or measured and which are important to the role
of the enterprise in its social environment” (1973, p. 55)11.
The striking point is that the relative importance given to stakeholder interests and social
environment in earlier reports, particularly in the ASOBAT Report (1966) and the Trueblood
Committee (1973) lost its support and acceptance in the following reports which were later used
as the basis for implementing the U.S. GAAP and IFRS.
In line with the above efforts, the conceptual framework was implemented in 1976 in the
U.S. and since then, despite some minor changes, the body of this framework remains the same.
A Statement of Financial Accounting Concept No. 1 (SFAC 1-FASB 2010) states that the first
objective of financial reporting is to provide information that is useful in making business and
economic decisions. Although the financial information users are divided into ‘internal’ and
‘external’ with reference to various groups of stakeholders, SFAC 1 focuses on existing and
potential investors and creditors as the primary users of accounting information.
The introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 in the U.S. did not affect the content
of the framework and its objectives because the Act primarily focused on auditing, board
25
responsibilities, internal control over financial reporting, audit committee and corporate
responsibilities for financial reporting.
Similarly, in the context of the IFRS conceptual framework, “the objective of general-
purpose financial reporting is to provide financial information about the reporting entity that is
useful to existing and potential investors, lenders and other creditors in making decisions about
providing resources to the entity” (IFRS 2011, p.1)12.
We have also conducted a content analysis of the conceptual framework and accounting
standards of the U.S. GAAP, and IFRS. We also analyzed these documents to see if the terms
such as ethics, integrity, or social values are included in the standards. We did not find any
particular reference to stakeholder, public interest, society, and social values.
Evidently, the conceptual framework and the accounting standards, whether in the context
of the U.S. GAAP or IFRS, do not consider the potential of the stakeholder perspective in improving
financial decisions. The conceptual framework which is used as the main source for standard setting is
primarily defined from the economic perspective of accounting rather than the social point of
view. In this framework, the emphasis is clearly made on decision-relevant information from the
viewpoint of major shareholders and creditors.
The question which needs to be investigated in-depth is whether the integration, with
insights, of stakeholder thinking into the accounting conceptual framework and standards
reinforces the quality of the accounting information and contributes to the mitigation of the
problems of information asymmetry and the expectation gap? This issue can be examined as a
further research in empirical or behavioral studies. However, there are a number of research
problems which should be resolved before conducting such studies. We try to raise some of these
concerns in the following question. Above all, a central issue is that there is no consensus on the
26
notion of stakeholder. “Accountants are accountable to whom” and “accountable for what”?
(Roberts and Mahoney, 2004, p. 408)13. Who are the legitimate and who are the derivative
stakeholders? Who should determine the criteria that distinguish important and unimportant
stakeholders? (Sundaram and Inkpen 2004).
In the absence of clear answers to the above questions, how would it be possible to
incorporate the interests of stakeholders in the accounting conceptual framework and standards
upon which the accounting practices and financial reporting are conducted? Some authors use
very general criteria to identify the stakeholders. Van der Laan et al. (2008) identify primary and
secondary stakeholders as the two groups of interest depending on the nature of their
relationships with the firm. “Primary stakeholders are those who have a reciprocal and direct
exchange relationship with the corporation, whereas secondary stakeholders try to influence these
exchange relationships much more indirectly” (2008, p. 302). This definition requires some
clarifications because these relationships are not defined in the same way in a public organization
or corporation in which a state has a big stake, compared to a corporation run by a family
ownership or institutional shareholder. Is the timing of such a relationship taken into account?
For instance, in Van der Lann’s classification (2008), where is the place of potential shareholders
or clients who may have substantial interests in the future of a company, and whose perceptions
may also strongly affect the company’s current performance (e.g., current stock price is affected
by future expectations of potential buyers and sellers) although there are not currently associated
to any relationship with the company?
27
Research Question 3
Considering the concept of the expectation gap, what are the main reasons for the absence or
the shortcomings of stakeholder views in accounting practices and reporting?
Accounting is broadly conceived as the measurement and communication of economic
information relevant to decision-makers and users of this information. Does a gap exist between
what the public expects or needs and what accountants can and should reasonably be expected to
do? This is arguably one of the main issues that has confronted the accounting profession in
recent years. Taking into account the shortcomings expressed by regulatory bodies regarding the
usefulness of financial accounting information and reporting, and the increasing criticisms of
users in this regard, there is evidence of a great disparity between what society expects of
accountants and the perception of users’ information about accounting in general and .
In RQ1 and RQ 2, we have discussed the main reasons ―that are inherently related to
accounting discipline―which may explain the shortcomings or the lack of interest of stakeholder
view in accounting (theoretical literature, statements, conceptual framework, principles and
standards). A thorough examination of the reasons underlined the expectation gap shows that
there are other reasons which may explain the absence of stakeholder thinking particularly in the
context of disclosure of accounting information and financial reporting. In this research question,
we attempt to present an overview of some of the most important issues including poor ethical
climate and ineffective control environment, market pressure and bubble economy,
Accountability and control mechanisms, and alignment between executive compensation package
and shareholders financial interests within organizations.
28
Poor ethical climate and ineffective control environment
Given the preponderance of unethical behavior sweeping corporations, there is clear evidence of
poor ethical climate and the lack of commitments to ethical principles within them. Poor ethical
climate and managerial misconduct do not certainly contribute to the fair treatment of
stakeholders and their access to information because under unfavorable conditions, the main
concern of the board members is to protect their own interests and possibly the interests of the
major financiers.
Similarly, the company’s relationship with stakeholder groups greatly depends on
management decisions. All those who are involved in the firm look to the top for guidance
(Schwartz et al., 2005; Schroeder, 2002). According to Hambrick (2007) if we want to
understand why organizations do the things they do, or why they perform the way they do, we
must consider the biases and dispositions of their most powerful actors―their top executives.
Indeed, the commitment to stakeholders is strongly affected by the manner in which the
company’s board of directors, senior management and CEO perceive their responsibilities in
setting the tone of an organization, the topic which is dealt with ‘tone at the top or control
environment’.
Climate in an organization is defined as perceptions of organizational practices and
procedures that are shared among members (Schneider, 1975). The idea of ethical climate has
been driven from the theory of ethical work climate developed by Victor and Cullen (1987,
1988). Martin and Cullen (2006) stated that there are various types of climates in the workplace
and one of them is the ethical climate, which is related to the established normative systems of
organization.
29
The concept of ‘tone the top’ or ‘control environment’ includes the integrity, ethical
values and competence of the entity’s people; management’s philosophy and operating cycle; the
way management assigns authority and responsibility, and organizes and develops its people; and
the attention and direction provided by the board of directors (COSO, 2004, p. 2)14. The
disclosure of accounting information and financial reporting to various interested parties as well
as the quality of internal control over financial reporting are an integral part of the framework of
control environment. For this reason, the corporation’s response to stakeholders’ demands in the
area of financial reporting depends, to great extent, on the personal values of board members and
particularly the CEO who has the ultimate responsibility in decision-making and in defining the
characteristics of control environment.
Market pressure, bubble economy and quality of accounting information
In a disordered and inefficient financial market resulting from the bubble economy, there would
be naturally the strong effect of market pressure tied to the desire of management of some
publicly listed companies to satisfy the unrealistic expectation of investors and analysts at the
expense of the interests of various stakeholders demanding the high quality accounting
information.
In disordered market conditions oriented towards artificially smoothed earnings, not only
the stakeholders’ interests and their access to fair and objective accounting information would be
jeopardized, there should be a significant gap between the reported accounting information and
the real performance of companies. On several occasions, the management of publicly listed
companies appears to have engaged in a number of creative accounting practices that while 30
technically acceptable, are arguably unrealistic or unethical. Soltani (2007) stated that as share
prices soared in the bubble economy, people pointed to the growing gap between the book value
of companies (what appeared in their accounts) and their market capitalization (value on stock
exchanges) as evidence of the irrelevance of accounts (2007, p. 580).
Accountability and control mechanisms
An appropriate response to stakeholders’ expectations can be found in accountability mechanisms
and having the possibility to question the stewardship abilities of management, their willingness
to implement effective control instruments, a high level of transparency and quality of financial
reporting, as well as an effective cooperation with external auditors and corporate governance
structure. An effective coordination and communicative interaction between the parties involved
would contribute to company’s performance.
Accountability in organizations may be defined as the perceived need to justify or defend
a decision or action to some audience which has potential reward and sanction power, and where
such rewards and sanctions are perceived as contingent on accountability conditions (Frink and
Klimoski 1998). Koppell (2005) proposed a five-part typology of accountability conceptions:
transparency, liability, controllability, responsibility, and responsiveness. It also concerns the
individuals’ perceptions and feelings about their own levels of accountability, and the degree to
which they will be required to answer for others (Royle and Hall, 2012). “After all, it is only
accountability that legitimizes the exercise of any power; because it is the only way to ensure that
the power which has been delegated is not abused that any c
31
between those who delegate the power and those who exercise it are properly resolved” (Monks
1993, p. 167).
Alignment between executive compensation package and the shareholders interests
The recent corporate financial failures raises the question of whether the substantial remuneration
of CEOs or board members is based on criteria such as performance, merit, skill and competence
or is a product of ‘give-and-take’ and arm’s length negotiation between management and
financiers at the expense of other stakeholders’ interests. It is argued that “a financial markets-
based compensation seeks to align the interests of managers with those of shareholders and to
reward the former in a way that is commensurate with their performance” (Desai 2012, pp. 126-
127). Evidently, the direct relationship between the dividend policy based on company’s market
performance, and the management incentives and compensation package may harm the interests
of other stakeholder groups. This may also be one of the sources of conflicts between
management-shareholders and the other interested parties.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper examines the importance of stakeholder thinking in financial accounting and reporting
by analyzing the theoretical literature, the statements of basic accounting theory, as well as the
conceptual framework, principles and standards which serve as the basis of accounting practices.
The study sets out to highlight the conceptual confusion and a number of shortcomings that have
continued to limit the well-shaped relationship between accountants and the potential users of
32
accounting information. The paper attempts to show that without resolving these key issues and
bottlenecks - some of which are related to the structural nature of the capital market economy- it
is highly unlikely that the dialogue could progress further than a normative discussion in
academic literature with no concrete practical outlets.
By formulating three research questions, we have mapped out the central issues that
undermine the importance of stakeholder thinking in financial accounting, both in theory and
practice. From the stakeholder’s point of view, the major ambiguities and confusions come from
the clear definition of the term ‘stakeholder’, its theoretical content and scope, as well as the
objectives and expectations of various groups of stakeholders with respect to accounting
information and financial reporting. Due to significant disparities among the stakeholder groups,
it is evident that they cannot be treated in a similar manner in terms of access to accounting
information on the basis of fairness, transparency and objectivity. There are major differences
between employees and minority shareholders and groups such as potential investors, clients or
suppliers with respect to their commitments to organizational goals. Then, the key question is
who should decide on the acceptable level of information asymmetry and the associated costs.
From the expectation gap perspective in accounting, the question is whether accountants
can reasonably respond to the demands of various interested parties. Considering the current legal
and regulatory framework, particularly with respect to ownership structure and the power and
control exercised by majority shareholders in corporate decisions including the nomination of
board of directors and management, as well as their compensations packages, accountants cannot
do much about this. Indeed, although accountants are in charge of the preparation of accounting
and financial information, the ultimate responsibility remains with management in terms of
33
reporting and disclosure policies, control mechanisms and the choice of accounting methods. The
management assertions and judgements are an integral part of the communication and reporting
policies.
Our theoretical analysis of accounting statements provides evidence that, despite the
existence of socially-oriented objectives and stakeholder views in several official statements
released in the 1960s, the field of accounting has been significantly influenced by market-
oriented indicators and economic income for the benefit of financiers for the last several decades.
Indeed, the field of accounting as a social phenomenon is under-researched and seriously
suffers from deficiencies both in terms of scope and objectives as well as the research direction.
This observation is supported by our analysis of the conceptual framework and principles which
are used as the main guidelines in accounting and reporting practices. To create a complementary
discussion with respect to possible ways to close the gap between stakeholders’ demands and
accounting, we raised a number of issues including the ethical climates within organization and
the market economy, the control environment, the bubble economy, market pressure and earnings
management, accountability and financial-markets-based compensation for management.
This paper contributes to the academic literature as it attempts to refocus and re-centre the
discussion around certain key issues regarding accounting and stakeholder interaction. It has
practical implications for regulatory bodies and accounting standard-setters seeking to reinforce
public trust and confidence by responding in a more effective manner to the legitimate demands
of various stakeholder groups for high quality accounting information and reporting
Overall, we believe that the different analyses presented in this study provide potential
contributions to the better understanding of the root causes of the failure of stakeholder-
34
accounting interaction. Although this study examines this relationship in a broader context,
further research can explore other areas of interest such as the institutional and regulatory
frameworks which help to reinforcing this interaction, the problems associated with disparate
goals and objectives among stakeholders and how these may affect their demands for accounting
information, effective means of communication policy and control mechanisms which assure the
fair access of all interested parties to information and the ethical considerations involved in
accounting and stakeholder relationships.
REFERENCES
American Accounting Association. (1966). A Statement of Basic Accounting Theory.
American Accounting Association. (1938). A Statement of Accounting Principles, by Sanders, T.
H., Hatfield, H. R. and Moore, U. (Reprinted).
Ball. R. (2008). ‘What is the actual economic role of financial reporting?’ Accounting Horizons,
22, 427-432.
Beaver, W. H. (1989). Financial Reporting: An Accounting Revolution. Prentice-Hall
International, Inc.
Carmichael, D.R. (2004). ‘The PCAOB and the social responsibility of the independent auditor-
Commentary’. Accounting Horizons, 18 (2), 127-133.
35
Christenson, C. (1983). ‘The methodology of positive accounting’. The Accounting Review,
LVIII (1), 1-22.
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (2004).
Recommendation for the Public Company, chapter 2.
Desai, M. (2012). ‘Restoring U.S. competiveness Context.’ Harvard Business Review, March,
124-133.
Devine, C. T. (1985). Essays in Accounting Theory. American Accounting Association, Vol. I
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts,
evidence, and implications’. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2010). Conceptual Framework for Financial
Reporting. NO. 8.
Flanders, D. P. (1959). ‘Accounting and economics: A note with special reference to “the
teaching of social accounting?’ Accounting Review, 34(1), 68-73.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). ‘The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions’. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409-421.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., and Wicks, A. (2007). Managing for Stakeholder: Business in the
21st Century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., and de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder
Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, M. (1953). ‘The Methodology of positive economics.’ In Freidman, M., Essays in
Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press.
Frink, D. D. and Klimoski, R. J. (1998). ‘Toward a theory of accountability in organizations
and human resource management’. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personal and Human
Resource Management (16, 1-51). Stamford, CT/ JAI Press.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). ‘Upper echelons theory: an update.’ Academy of Management Review,
32(2), 334-343.
Hendry, J. (2001a). ‘Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate
governance debate’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 159-176.
Hendry, J. (2001b). ‘Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for
normative stakeholder theory’. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(3), 223-232.
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). (2011). The Conceptual Framework for
Financial Reporting. .
Jensen, M. C. (1976). Reflections on the state of accounting research and the regulation of
accounting’. Stanford Lectures in Accounting, Stanford University, 11-19.
Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976). ‘Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency
costs and ownership structure’. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
Jones, T. M. and Wicks, A. C. (1999). ‘Convergent stakeholder theory’. Academy of
37
Management Review, 24, 206-221.
Kaplan, A. D. H., Dirlam, J. B. and Lanzillotti, R. F. (1958). Pricing in Big Business.
Brookings Institution, Washington.
Kaufman, A. and Englander, E. (2011). ‘Behavioral economics, federalism, and the triumph of
stakeholder theory’. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 421-438.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. New York: Houghton, Mifflin (Hart,
Schaffner, and Marx; rep. (1965) New York: Harper and Row.
Koppell, J. G. S. (2005). ‘Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of multiple
accountabilities disorder’. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108.
Lee, T. A. (1979). The Contribution of Fisher to cash flow accounting’. Journal of Business &
Accounting, 6(3), 321-330.
Lev, B. (1988). ‘Towards a theory of equitable and efficient accounting policy’. The Accounting
Review, 63, 1-22.
Limperg, Th. (1985). The Social Responsibility of the Auditor; A Basic Theory on the Auditor’s
Function, with some recent comments. Limperg Instituut, Amsterdam. The Netherlands.
Marens, R., and Wicks, A. (1999). ‘Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and
the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owned to shareholders’. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 9(2), 272-293.
Martin, K. D. and Cullen, J. B. (2006). ‘Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: a
38
meta-analysis review’. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 175-194.
Mattessich, R. (1995). Critique of Accounting. Examination of the Foundations and Normative
Structure of an Applied Discipline. Quorum Books.
Mautz, R. K. and Sharaf, H. A. (1961). The Philosophy of Auditing, American Accounting
Association, Monograph 6.
Miles, S. (2012). ‘Stakeholder: Essentially contested or just confused?’ Journal of Business
Ethics, 108, 285-298.
Miller, P. (1994). ‘Accounting as social and institutional practice: an introduction’. In Hopwood,
A. G. and Miller, P. (Eds), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice,
Cambridge University Press.
Monks, R. G. (1993). ‘Growing corporate governance: from George III to George Bush’. In
Sutton, B. (ed) The legitimate Corporation, Blackwell.
Moonitz, M. (1961). The Basic Postulates of Accounting. American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants.
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L. and de Colle, S.
(2010). ‘Stakeholder theory: the state of the art’. The Academy of Management Annals, 4
(1), 403-445.
39
Paton, W. A. and Littleton, A. C. (1940). An Introduction to Corporate Accounting Standards.
American Accounting Association.
Roberts, R. W. and Mahoney, L. (2004). ‘Stakeholder conceptions of the corporation: Their
meaning and influence in accounting research’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(3), 399-
431.
Royle, M. T. and Hall, A. T. (2012). ‘The relationship between McClelland’s theory of needs,
feeling individually accountable, and informal accountability for others’. International
Journal of Management and Marketing Research 5(1), 21-42.
Schneider, B. (1975). ‘Organizational climates: an essay.’ Personnel Psychology, 28, 447-479.
Schroeder, D. (2002). ‘Ethics from the top: top management and ethical business.’ Business
Ethics: A European Review, 11(3), 260-267.
Schwartz, M. S., Dunfee, T. W. and Kline, M. J. (2005). ‘Tone at the top: an ethics code for
directors?’ Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 79-100.
Soltani, B. (2013). ‘The anatomy of corporate fraud: A comparative analysis of high profile
American and European corporate scandals’. Journal of Business Ethics, March, pp. 27.
Soltani, B. (2007). Auditing: an International Approach. Prentice Hall-Pearson Education.
Sonpar, K. (2011). ‘Book review-Stakeholder theory: The state of the art-Freeman et al (2010)’.
Management 3/2011, (14), 210-220.
Sprouse, R. T. Moonitz, M. (1962). (Eds). A Tentative Set of Broad Accounting Principles for 40
Business Enterprises. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
Stoney, C. and Winstanley, D. (2001). ‘Stakeholding: Confusion or utopia? Mapping the
conceptual terrain’. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603-624.
Sundaram, A. K. and Inkpen, A. C. (2004). ‘The corporate objective revisited’. Organization
science, 15, 350-363.
Trevino, L. K. and Weaver, G. R. (1999). ‘The stakeholder research tradition: Converging
theorists–not convergent theory’. Academy of Management Review, 24, 222-227.
Trueblood Committee. (1973). Task Force Appointed to Study Conceptual Framework for
Accounting and Reporting, Status Report. Financial Accounting Standards Board, No. 8
(27).
Truman, D. B. (1951). The Governmental Process. Knopf, New York.
Van der Laan, G., Van Ees, H. and Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2008). ‘Corporate social and
financial performance: an extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting
measures’. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 299-310.
Victor, B. and Cullen, J. B. (1988). ‘The organizational bases of ethical work climates’.
Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 33, 101-125.
Victor, B. and Cullen, J. B. (1987). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations.
In W. C. Frederick (ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy,
41
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 51-71.
Watts, R. L. and Zimmerman, J. L. (1986). Positive Accounting Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Zeff, S. A. (1999). ‘The evolution of the conceptual framework for business enterprises in the
United States’. Accounting Historians Journal, 26(2), 89-131.
1 Emphases are ours.
2 Emphases are ours.
3 Emphases are ours.
4 Emphases are ours.
5 Emphases are ours.
6 Emphases are ours.
7 Emphases are ours.
8 Emphases are ours.
9 The study of Zeff provides an extensive review of the evolution of the conceptual framework until the 1990s.
10 Emphases are ours.
11 Emphases are ours.
12 Emphases are ours.
13 Emphases are ours.
14 Emphases are ours.
42
Liste des cahiers de recherche du PRISM – ANNEE 2015
N° Titre Auteurs
CR-15-01 La culture et la confiance comme déterminants de l’efficacité d’une collaboration : le cas AIR France - KLM
Cindy VAN DEN BERG Anne GRATACAP Alice LE FLANCHEC
CR-15-02 Equity Crowdfunding : Amplificateur de la responsabilité sociale
Marina MILOSEVIC
CR-15-03 Estime de soi du consommateur : vers une clarification du concept et de sa mesure
Anne BONTOUR
CR-15-04 Importance of Stakeholder Thinking in Financial Accounting and Reporting –Analysis of the Reasons of Shortcomings in this Relationship
Braham SOLTANI