Sustainability accounting education, regulation, reporting and stakeholders

ADVANCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING& MANAGEMENT VOLUME 6 ADVANCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING & MANAGEMENT: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING IN FÁTIMA DE SOUZA FREIRE University of B

ADVANCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING & MANAGEMENT: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

ACCOUNTING IN BRAZIL

ADVANCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING & MANAGEMENT

Series Editors: Ataur Belal and Stuart Cooper

Recent Volumes:

Volume 5: Accounting for the Environment: More Talk and Little Progress, 2014

Volume 4: Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosures, 2010

Volume 3: Environmental Accounting: Commitment or Propaganda, 2006

Volume 2: Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 2003

Volume 1: Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 2000

ADVANCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING

& MANAGEMENT VOLUME 6

ADVANCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING & MANAGEMENT: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING IN

FÁTIMA DE SOUZA FREIRE

University of Brasília, Brazil

United Kingdom – North America – Japan

India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Publishing Limited

Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2017

Copyright © 2017 Emerald Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-78635-376-4 (Print)

ISBN: 978-1-78635-375-7 (Online)

ISBN: 978-1-78714-629-7 (Epub)

ISSN: 1479-3598 (Series)

REFLECTIONS ON EDITING ADVANCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL

ACCOUNTING & MANAGEMENT

Martin Freedman and Bikki Jaggi

GUEST EDITORIAL: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE

Fátima de Souza Freire

HEGEMONIES, POLITICS, AND THE BRAZILIAN ACADEMY IN SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING: A POST-

STRUCTURAL NOTE

Barbara de Lima Voss, David Bernard Carter and Bruno Meirelles Salotti

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ADHERENCE TO GRI FOR DISCLOSING INFORMATION ON SOCIAL ACTION AND SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS

Vicente Lima Crisóstomo, Priscila de Azevedo Prudêncio and Hyane Correia Forte

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF STOCKS OF COMPANIES

PARTICIPATING IN THE CARBON EFFICIENT INDEX (ICO2)

Patrícia Lacerda de Carvalho and Aldo Leonardo Cunha Callado

PERFORMANCE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND NEGOTIABILITY INDEXES IN THE BRAZILIAN STOCK MARKET

Patrícia Lacerda de Carvalho and Orleans Silva Martins

DO ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS IMPACT ON THE VOLUME

OF SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT AND DISCLOSURE

OF BRAZILIAN COMPANIES?

José Venâncio Ferreira Neto, Sônia Maria da Silva Gomes, Adriano Leal

Bruni and José Maria Dias Filho

INDEX

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Professor David Campbell

Newcastle University, UK

Professor Charles Cho

ESSEC Business School, France

Professor Aracéli Cristina de S Ferreira

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Professor Maisa de Souza Ribeiro

University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

Professor Charl de Villiers

University of Auckland, New Zealand

Professor Martin Freedman

Towson University, USA

Dr Suzana Grubnic

Loughborough University, UK

Professor Christian Herzig

University of Kassel, Germany

Professor Mike Jones

University of Bristol, UK

Dr Matias Laine

University of Tampere, Finland

Professor Carlos Larrinaga-Gonzalez

Universidad de Burgos, Spain

Professor Glen Lehman

University of South Australia, Australia

Professor Collins Ntim

University of Sothampton, UK

Professor Carlos Noronha

University of Macau, Macau

Professor Brendan O’Dwyer

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Professor Lee D Parker

RMIT University, Australia

Professor Dennis Patten

Illinois State University, USA

Professor Robin Roberts

University of Central Florida, USA

Professor Stefan Schaltegger

Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany

Dr Javed Siddiqui

University of Manchester, UK

Professor Chris van Staden

Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Aldo Leonardo Cunha Callado Federal University of Paraíba, Paraíba, Brazil

David Bernard Carter Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

Patrícia Lacerda de Carvalho Federal University of Pernambuco, Pernambuco, Brazil

Vicente Lima Crisóstomo Department of Accounting, Federal University of Ceará, Ceará, Brazil; University of Valladolid,

Valladolid, Spain

Sônia Maria da Silva Gomes Federal University of Bahia, Bahia, Brazil; Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

José Maria Dias Filho Federal University of Bahia, Bahia, Brazil; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

José Venâncio Ferreira Neto Federal University of Bahia, Bahia, Brazil

Hyane Correia Forte Federal University of Ceará, Ceará, Brazil

Martin Freedman Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

Fátima de Souza Freire Departamento de Ciências Contábeis e Atuárias, Faculdade de Administração, Contabilidade e Economia,

Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

Bikki Jaggi Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

Adriano Leal Bruni Federal University of Bahia, Bahia, Brazil; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Orleans Silva Martins Federal University of Paraíba, Paraíba, Brazil

Priscila de Azevedo Prudêncio Federal University of Ceará, Ceará, Brazil

Bruno Meirelles Salotti School of Economics, Business and Accounting, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Barbara de Lima Voss School of Economics, Business and Accounting, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

LIST OF REVIEWERS

Aracéli Cristina de S Ferreira

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro – UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

André Luiz Bufoni

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro – UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Maisa de Souza Ribeiro

University of São Paulo – USP, São Paulo, Brazil

We would like to acknowledge the support and help extended to us in the compilation of the specialissue Thanks are due to colleagues Maisa Sousa Ribeiro, Araceli Cristina de Sousa Ferreira, AndréLuiz Bufoni, and Sônia Maria da Silva Gomes for their excellent organization of the South AmericanCSEAR Conference 2015 at Bahia, Brazil

REFLECTIONS ON EDITING ADVANCES IN

ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING &

of these contributions.

Almost certainly more than any other single factor, the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto) inDecember 1997 triggered increased discussion on the possibility for a sustainable future for ourplanet Considered a watershed event in recognizing the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions, Kyoto provided a strong impetus for research, not only with respect to GHG reductions,but also for accounting issues associated with environmental measurements and disclosures Thus, agrowing number of accounting scholars, many of them new to the field, started producing studiesconcerned with environmental accounting and disclosure Unfortunately, because the major NorthAmerican mainstream accounting journals had largely ignored the social and environmental realmover the last part of the twentieth century (see, e.g., Cho & Patten, 2010; Deegan & Soltys, 2007;

Patten, 2013), publication outlets for this expanding body of work were limited to a few key journals

including Accounting, Organizations and Society, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,

Critical Perspectives on Accounting, and a handful of others (many of which published

environmental-themed articles only sporadically) Although our original intent was to publish a book

on environmental accounting, a publisher’s representative instead suggested we start a journal

Thanks to the JAI publishers agreeing in 1998 to its launch, Advances in Environmental Accounting

and Management (AEAM) now provided another quality outlet for environmental accounting

research

We published the first issue of AEAM in 2000 and, as would be the case throughout our tenure aseditors of the journal, topical coverage across the contributions was wide The volume includedtheoretical articles dealing with accounting, ethics, environment, and the role of business in dealingwith environmental issues Reflecting a debate that continues to this day, the inaugural AEAM alsoincluded empirical pieces providing support for environmental disclosure being explained bylegitimacy theory (Patten, 2000) and alternatively, by voluntary disclosure theory (Bewley & Li,

2000)

By the time the second volume was published in 2002 (by Elsevier which acquired JAI), Kyotowas closer to ratification and climate change continued to be much debated The relatively youngEuropean Union (EU) was committed to the Kyoto Protocol and was in the process of developing asystem of cap-and-trade to reduce GHG emissions.1 But the importance of Kyoto was overshadowed

by the turmoil in the financial markets in the United States at the turn of the twenty-first century as, forexample, several large corporations including Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International wereinvolved in major financial scandals Many considered accountants culpable in these scandals, andEnron’s financial manipulations ultimately led to the downfall of its auditor, the Big 8 accountingfirm, Arthur Andersen These developments provided a strong impetus for passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act at the end of July 2002

In general, the papers appearing in the second volume largely expressed concerns about corporateenvironmental (and sometimes social) reporting For example, one of the articles (Epstein, 2004)provided a history of social accounting and indicated that, while the level of social disclosure hadincreased, its quality had not, thus making a case for integrating social accounting and managementdecision-making Another article (Hunt & Grinnell, 2004) echoed findings of an earlier study(Schmidheiny & Zorraquin, 1998) by documenting that financial analysts do not find environmentaldisclosures made in annual reports particularly useful In some respects, the largest theme within thesecond volume was that environmental disclosures, which are mostly voluntary, are motivated bysomething other than the reflection of what actually occurred Finally, the issue also included what webelieve to be the first accounting article discussing disclosures within a cap-and-trade system as itfocused on the U.S electric utilities and cap-and-trade for sulfur dioxide emissions (Freedman, Jaggi,

& Stagliano, 2004)

By 2006, when the third volume was published, the EU already had begun its cap-and-tradesystem for GHG emissions, although it was only a practice round for the real system that would begintwo years later In the United States, the Bush administration continued to deny human culpability forglobal warming On a more positive note, substantially more firms across the world were producingsocial/environmental sustainability reports and many of them were following the Global ReportingInitiative guidelines

While the third volume of AEAM included articles providing at least some degree of optimism interms of environmental disclosures and performance, these were tempered by concerns with theprogress that was really being made The overall story from this volume seems to be that ifcompanies make a real commitment to improve environmental performance, it can be achieved.However, there is a difference between real commitment and paying lip service to environmentalconcerns, and unfortunately, the latter seems to be the norm

Emerald purchased AEAM from Elsevier and the fourth volume was published by Emerald in

2010 By this time, the EU’s real cap-and-trade system was up and running, but in spite of this, and

other efforts worldwide, global GHG emissions continued to grow Positively, the push for utilizingrenewable energy sources including wind, solar, and geo-thermal continued to grow The title of thefourth volume was “Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosures,” partly to reflectthat sustainability had become a hot topic in academia The American Accounting Association had aplenary session in its annual meeting devoted to sustainability and it was also the theme of the annualAcademy of Management meeting.

As was true of most of the other volumes in this series, the fourth volume contained considerablevariety with respect to the issues examined One article (Gray, Owen, & Adams, 2010) provided thebasis for a theory of social accounting (specifically noting environmental accounting as a subset of thetheory), while another discussed the limitations with respect to publishing in the social andenvironmental accounting domain (Cho & Patten, 2010) A third article (Brown, Guidry, & Patten,

2010) documented that the quality of stand-alone sustainability reports appears to matter with respect

to impacts on corporate reputation Consistent with one of the articles from the prior issue, one of thepapers (Weisnner, Epstein, & Bagozzi, 2010) showed that firms making a true commitment toimprove their environmental performance by integrating the environment into their managerialdecisions do the best environmentally Finally, the volume contained a study (Freedman & Jaggi,

2010) of disclosures concerning Kyoto and GHG emissions that found companies headquartered inthe EU disclosed less than Canadian or Japanese companies (and that environmental disclosureswithin the EU companies differed with regard to quantity as well as quality)

Our last volume was published in 2014 and it included papers concerning Chinese socialaccounting, corporate governance and environmental performance, measuring environmentalperformance, developing a framework linking management controls to sustainability and the impact

on companies of the SEC mandated climate change regulation Although the papers seemed tocontinue the trend of both good and bad news about business and sustainability, we cannot helpfeeling that the small incremental steps toward a cleaner and healthier future for the planet are notleading to successful results

We began this journey as editors with hopes for the environment and the role that the accountingprofession might play in helping to protect it, but more than a decade and a half in, they still remain ashopes Though several countries of the world are still discussing ways to reduce their impacts onclimate change, GHG emissions continue to increase Kyoto had a success in that the EU did decreaseits overall GHG emissions by 8 percent compared to 1990s emissions, but Australia, which hadbecome a belated participant in Kyoto, instituted and then rescinded a carbon tax Canada droppedout of the agreement altogether More positively, the United States and China have orally agreed toreduce their GHG emissions while the EU agreed to a 40 percent reduction Of course, it is onlythrough execution that such statements become more meaningful and we will see what actuallytranspires

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicated that the effects of climatechange are already upon us Forests are dying, land ice is melting throughout the world, seas arerising resulting in coastal flooding, and heat waves are killing crops and people (Gillis, 2014).Drastic action is needed and the accounting profession has not been at the forefront of thesocial/environmental/sustainability movement While many firms have produced stand-aloneenvironmental/sustainability reports and some of these have been audited, these companies represent

a small fraction of the world’s business organizations Furthermore, given the limited regulations

regarding environmental (and other sustainability) disclosure (and the findings that even those that aremandated seem to lack meaningful compliance – see, e.g., Cho, Freedman, & Patten, 2012), it appearsthat most of the corporate sustainability reporting is more about image than transparent accountability.Without greater accountability for the consequences of industrialization and modernity, the future ofthe planet and its inhabitants, as documented by the IPCC, will face ever increasing trouble.

We really believe that accounting can play a positive role in addressing the environmentalconcerns facing the world, but we must admit a degree of pessimism in that regard As we stated in

the introduction to our last volume of AEAM, accounting educators, at least in the United States, rarely

teach the issues of sustainable/environmental accounting And while AEAM has been joined by atleast a few other academic outlets for sustainability-themed research, the major mainstream NorthAmerican accounting research journals, in spite of publishing a few articles purportedly dealing withsocial or environmental connections, do not seem to understand the real nature of the problem (see,e.g., Patten, 2013) Accordingly, we see the role of journals such as this one as immeasurablyimportant

Our reflection would not be complete without some acknowledgment of those who helped to makeour journal the success that we believe it has been First and foremost amongst this group are theresearchers who considered AEAM as an outlet for their studies We appreciate not only the choice

to submit to the journal, but also that so many of the authors were willing to endure the process ofrevising and resubmitting their articles (some for a number of rounds) As editors, our work was alsomade easier by our supportive editorial board One of the critical activities in creating AEAM wasthe formation of the editorial board Its creation was important because the body both providesfeedback to the editors about strategic planning for the journal and also serves as a source forchoosing the right people to review the submitted papers (not to mention the members doing reviewsthemselves) Since we were not sure what specific environmental topics would be covered bysubmissions, we decided to create a board whose expertise spanned many potential areas.Accordingly, our choice of the board members was influenced by our expectation of submissions onthe broad themes related to environmental accounting, management, and economics, and we believe

we did a good job of bringing in recognized scholars across all of these areas

Particularly in the process of producing the first two volumes, we discovered that there weresome reviewers who were dependable and provided excellent and timely reviews This was true forboth editorial board members and ad hoc reviewers Like all peer-reviewed publication outlets,reliance on ad hoc reviewers is a crucial factor in running the journal, and we chose these reviewersbased on their expertise with respect to the topic covered by the submission (e.g., a particular ad hocreviewer might have been cited by authors in their articles or he or she may have had a reputation inthe area) It is amazing that, almost without exception, when asked, these people would readily agree

to review a paper for the journal, and most of the reviews were excellent

Over the years, we received much help, advice, and encouragement from our colleagues withrespect to the journal And while we cannot name everyone, we would like to especially thank DenPatten and A J Stagliano, who served as associate editors for a number of the volumes, and NolaBuhr, for their contributions, cooperation, and excellent and timely reviews We enjoyed editing these

five volumes of AEAM.

1 The United States, however, was moving in the opposite direction Bill Clinton, U.S President at the time of Kyoto’s adoption, chose not to ask the Senate to ratify the agreement, based largely on substantial opposition to the treaty amongst legislators The next President, George W Bush, did not support Kyoto and did not believe that global warming was even a problem, and obviously never called for passage of Kyoto in the United States And although Barack Obama, who came to office in 2009, was far more liberal on environmental issues, he, too, has never pressured for ratification of the treaty Thus, the United States has never been a formal participant in the Kyoto Protocol.

REFERENCES

Bewley, K., & Li, Y (2000) Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure

perspective Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 1, 201–226.

Brown, D L., Guidry, R P., & Patten, D M (2010) Sustainability reporting and perceptions of corporate reputation: An analysis using

Fortune most admired scores Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 4, 83–104.

Cho, C H., Freedman, M., & Patten, D M (2012) Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures: A test of alternative

theories Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(3), 486–507.

Cho, C H., & Patten, D M (2010) Social and environmental accounting in North America: Who? Where? Whither? Advances in

Environmental Accounting and Management, 4, 161–177.

Deegan, C., & Soltys, S (2007) Social accounting research: An Australian perspective Accounting Forum, 31(1), 73–89.

Epstein, M J (2004) The identification, measurement and reporting of corporate social impacts: Past, present and future Advances in

Environmental Accounting and Management, 2, 1–30.

Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B (2010) Global warming and corporate disclosures: A comparative analysis of companies from the European

Union, Japan and Canada Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 4, 129–160.

Freedman, M., Jaggi, B., & Stagliano, A J (2004) Pollution disclosures by electric utilities: An evaluation of the first phase of the 1990

Clean Air Act Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 2.

Gillis, J (2014) U.N panel issues its starkest warning on global warming The New York Times, November 3, p A6.

Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C (2010) Some theories for social accounting? A review essay and tentative pedagogic categorization

of theorisations around social accounting Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 4, 1–54.

Hunt, H G., & Grinnell, J (2004) Financial analysts’ views of the value of environmental information Advances in Environmental

Accounting and Management, 2, 101–120.

Patten, D M (2000) Changing superfund disclosure and its relation to the provision of other environmental information Advances in

Environmental Accounting and Management, 1, 101–122.

Patten, D M (2013) Lessons from the third wave: A reflection on the rediscovery of corporate social responsibility by the mainstream

accounting research community Financial Reporting, 2(1), 9–26.

Schmidheiny, S., & Zorraquin, F J L (1998) Financing change The financial community, eco-efficiency, and sustainable

development Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weisnner, P S., Epstein, M J., & Bagozzi, R P (2010) Environmental proactivity and performance Advances in Environmental

Accounting and Management, 4, 105–128.

GUEST EDITORIAL: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE

Fátima de Souza Freire

The papers in this special issue include a selection of articles presented at the 2015, CSEARconference in Brazil This special issue is aimed at celebrating the research that Brazilian social andenvironmental accounting researchers have been undertaking for some time As far as we know this isthe first special issue compiled for this purpose

The first paper in this special issue by Barbara de Lima Voss, David Bernard Carter, and BrunoMeirelles Salotti in “Hegemonies, Politics and the Brazilian Academy in Social and EnvironmentalAccounting: A Post-Structural Note” undertakes a comprehensive review of the Brazilian research onsocial and environmental accounting (SEA) The paper highlights the hegemony of business casethinking and the dominance of the economic imperative in Brazilian SEA research Adopting a post-structural perspective that reflects Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, a total of 352 articles areanalyzed that reflect the Brazilian literature on SEA

In “An Analysis of the Adherence to GRI for Disclosing Information on Social Action andSustainability Concerns,” Vicente Lima Crisóstomo, Priscila de Azevedo Prudêncio, and HyaneCorreia Forte investigate the degree of adherence to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) byorganizations from all over the world, as well as the quality of CSR reports using institutional andlegitimacy theoretical frameworks The sample consists of annual data from all organizations thathave disclosed sustainability reports through GRI since its first year, 1999, until 2013 By means of aset of chi-squared tests, they evaluate whether organizational attributes are associated with the quality

of organizations’ CSR reporting They conclude that the legal and institutional environment,organization size, and type of organization have an influence on the use of GRI as a means to reportorganizations’ CSR These variables have also influenced the quality of information of organizations’GRI reports

Patrícia Lacerda de Carvalho and Aldo Leonardo Cunha Callado compare the financial stockperformance of Brazilian companies that participate in the Carbon Efficient Index with those thatparticipate only in market-wide indices of the São Paulo Stock Exchange (BM&FBovespa) in

“Financial Performance of Stocks of Companies Participating in the Carbon Efficient Index (ICO2).”

To draw up a comprehensive picture of the Brazilian stock market, the sample is comprised of fourBM&FBovespa indices, namely, ICO2, the Bovespa Index (IBOV), Brazil 100 Index (IBrX100), andBrazil 50 Index (IBrX50) The ICO2 is the only sustainability index They reveal that sustainableenterprises consider not only financial results but also intrinsic environmental and social benefits

Complementing the previous study, in “Performance of Sustainability and Negotiability Indexes inthe Brazilian Stock Market,” Patrícia Lacerda de Carvalho and Orleans Silva Martins examine andcompare the stock returns of the sustainability index member companies with the returns of companiesout of these indexes All information from two indexes on sustainability and social responsibility ofthe Brazilian stock market were used in the study The review period was 2005–2014 They infer that

the sustainability indexes do not indicate higher returns although Brazilian companies withsustainable practices appear to be concerned with economic performance and social, cultural, andenvironmental issues.

Finally, José Venâncio Ferreira Neto, Sônia Maria da Silva Gomes, Adriano Leal Bruni and JoséMaria Dias Filho in “Do Environmental Disasters Impact on the Volume of Socio-environmentalInvestment and Disclosure of Brazilian Companies?” investigate the impact of environmentaldisasters on the volume of disclosure and investments of Brazilian companies in the period 1997–

2012 The authors have shown that the companies reported a higher volume of socio-environmentaldisclosure in the two years after the occurrence of the accidents

We hope that the contributions contained within this special issue will stimulate furtherreflections and discussions on the topics presented and discussed by the authors Finally, we wouldlike to thank all authors for submitting their papers and their willingness to engage with the reviewprocess We would also like to thank the reviewers of this special issue for their time and effortsagainst a rather tight time frame

HEGEMONIES, POLITICS, AND THE BRAZILIAN ACADEMY IN SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING: A POST-STRUCTURAL NOTE

Barbara de Lima Voss, David Bernard Carter and Bruno Meirelles

Keywords: Social and environmental accounting; sustainability; discourse theory;

post-structuralism; emerging economies

INTRODUCTION

The politics of social and environmental accounting (SEA) focuses on understanding, interpreting,and enacting notions of sustainability, corporate responsibility, and social participation in a

sustainable world In a complex interplay, sustainability incorporates, interacts with, and articulates

from a range of rhetorical and political influences, including sustainable development, corporatesocial responsibility, and SEA For us, we suggest that this provides opportunities for hegemonicpolitics, rhetoric, and post-structuralism Sustainability derives from “sustain.” While “sustain” couldhave a myriad of meanings, the logic of capitalism was quick in attempts to limit the scope of meaningthat might apply to “sustain,” as economics sought to confine the definition as a form of economicgrowth– sustainable economic growth was defined in 1965 as “economic growth [where] economicstagnation will not set in” (Simpson & Weiner, 1989, p 327) We are interested in this significationprocess whereby economics is attached to sustainable, and in particular, the implications of “growth”and “development.” One issue that we will examine in this paper is the rhetorical politics betweendevelopment in the traditional economic sense and development in the sustainable developmentcontext We argue that sustainability and SEA discourses, and consequently, the tools and techniques

of SEA and sustainability are within the ambit of advanced capitalist societies This, we argue, posessignificant challenges in relation to the employment and adoption of SEA and sustainability intoemerging economies, and especially, in this context, in relation to Brazil A dominant developmentagenda (in the traditional economic growth context), we argue, poses significant challenges for asustainable development agenda, and we argue that the import between these two agendas (they areantagonistic to the other) has special significance for how SEA literatures and practices haveinformed the adoption, employment, and critique of SEA in Brazil Sustainable development receivedsignificant attention in the literature, with much of the debate focused on the oft-cited definition ofsustainable development in the Brundtland report (1987, p 4):

Sustainable development is a familiar concept to people concerned with the environment … we define sustainable development

in simple terms as paths of progress which meet the needs and aspirations of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

The problem for us, though, in a similar vein to Cintra and Carter (2012), is that this definition is

in effect, an empty signifier, as there is little consensus on what is signified by sustainability,sustainable development, or SEA Acting in the “name” of sustainability requires articulation, and weargue that the articulatory practices in Brazil, due to its emerging economic status, renders thedevelopment of “sustainability” and “responsibility” vulnerable to co-option by other politicaleconomy movements, such as economic development Gray (2010, p 48) argues:

…[A]ny simple assessment of the relationship between a single organisation and planetary sustainability is virtually impossible The relationships and interrelationships are simply too complex Furthermore, to assume that the notion of “sustainability” has tangible meaning at the level of organisation is to ignore all we know about sustainability Sustainability is a systems-based concept and, environmentally at least, only begins to make any sense at the level of eco-systems and is probably difficult to really conceptualise at anything below planetary and species levels.

Gray (2010) suggests an inherent lack (at definitional and systemic levels), and consequently, wehold that this “lack” is magnified in the emerging economy context, as sustainability is vulnerable toeconomic development and growth agendas, as users of the capitalist system point to the logic ofwealth creation and upward class mobility through socioeconomic groupings such as lower middleclass as evidence of development One might suggest that this agenda runs contrary to “sustainability”which holds a deeper commitment to the longer term, and this contingency suggests scope for

hegemonic politics.

Despite this, it is clear that significant numbers of Brazilian companies provide sustainabilityreporting, despite a lack of clearly defined boundaries around what constitutes sustainability As

Cintra and Carter (2012, pp 112–113) argue:

For sustainable development, Brazil is intriguing It is an essential player due to its vast natural resources and the Amazonian rainforest draws attention to environmental issues … Economically, Brazil is a developing country, with the potential to be an economic powerhouse … the private corporate sector – multinational and national entities – play an important role in the country’s economic development But this has been the source of some controversy The capitalist, corporate need for growth

is the antithesis, potentially, of sustainability We see evidence of this in critical reports of Brazil’s biofuel industry, the sugar cane industry, and Amazonian deforestation.

Lohmann (2009, pp 511–512) continues a similar line of critique through critiquing carboncredits:

One example of this overflow can be found in the actions of residents of an area of Minas Gerais, Brazil, much of whose land

a local company, Plantar, had been occupying to plant environmentally destructive eucalyptus plantations to produce charcoal

to fuel its pig iron operations … The residents vociferously opposed the accounting procedures involved: “The argument that producing pig iron from charcoal is less bad than producing it from coal is a sinister strategy … [W]e want to prevent these impacts and construct a society with an economic policy that includes every man and woman, preserving and recovering our environment” (FASE, 2003) In a June 2004 letter to the CDM Executive Board, some 143 local groups and individuals, after insisting that “the claim that without carbon credits Plantar…would have switched to coal as an energy source is absurd,” went

on to characterize the accounting procedure as a “threat:” “It is comparable to loggers demanding money, otherwise they will cut down trees…[the CDM] should not be allowed to be used by the tree plantation industry to help finance its unsustainable practices.” (Suptitz et al., 2004)

This suggests the tension between corporate growth, economic development, sustainability, socialdevelopment, and environmental protection For Brazil, despite some economic development, there ismuch work to do with respect to social development: there is a tremendous gap between rich andpoor, and there is much to do to improve quality of life standards For example, approximately ninepercent of the population (16 million people) earn less the $70 Reais per month (approximately $40USD/month) – Minister for Social Development, Tereza Campello (MDS, 2010)

Thus, while the Brundtland report may constitute an attempt to develop a formal, universalunderstanding of what sustainable development might mean, the reality is that that definition raisesmore questions than it answers and even if we were living in a sustainable world, we would not havethe ability to determine if that is the case One reason for this disappointment might be thatsustainability requires a significant shift in democratic and social values, as a form of revolutionagainst the cult of the individual promulgated by the modernist, liberal, contractarian social order Inthis, sustainability may invoke broader democratic, communitarian values, where life chances do notdepend on bargaining positions (Millon, 1993, p 1379), and thus, sustainability invokes an imagery

of a fairer society based on sharing, protecting, and caring at the collective level, where we oweobligations to each other merely by our existence in society In a Rousseauian version of the socialcontract, to maximize liberty, fraternity, equality, and sustainability, we may have to give “somethingup.” In brief, sustainability is an open, antagonistic concept that is systematically under rhetoricalchallenge from development, in the economic growth context; for us, this illustrates that sustainabilityand SEA are subject to changes and attempts to close and constrain its meanings and for us, thisinvokes the political: which in a post-structural sense, is always implicated, as “some sort ofshadowy underside of politics” (Devenney, 2002, p 176)

Sustainability, though, is a social construct This is rendered explicit in the original Brundtland

report, which suggests:

[Sustainable development] contains within it two key concepts:

the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and

future needs ( Brundtland, 1987 )

Invoking poverty, technology and social organization render, rhetorically, sustainability a socialconstruct (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005) However, the integration of society into articulations ofsustainability and SEA has proven more complex, largely because discourses of economic growthand sustainability are not easy to integrate: one discourse may require sacrifice from the otherdiscourse In accounting, Gray (2010, p 53) argues that the contradictions between sustainabledevelopment and the organization result in the debate concerning the notion of sustainability andsustainable development being reconfigured to suit powerful groups This “re-articulation” or

“redescription” of sustainability operates to draw attention away from any internal conflicts of logic,such as the potential sacrifices concerning economic growth We argue that economic growth andsustainability should antagonize each other, but powerful hegemonic politics, mobilizedpredominantly through the emerging economy discourse of development (growth) operates to

“redescribe” and “re-orient” sustainability into a more acceptable discourse (more acceptable as the

discursive threat is rendered weaker) We argue that the social meaning of sustainability, sustainabledevelopment, and SEA changes with changes in social politics In this, as accounting is the language

of capital, its integration into the sustainability space, through SEA and other manifestations, furtherobfuscates these hegemonic processes, as accounting operates to obfuscate conflicts of interest withinsocieties and between organizations and societies Equally, the academy plays a role here, as fewscholars question corporate sustainability and comparatively fewer illustrate corporateunsustainability Gray (2010) and Boyce (2000) contend that accounting should recognize the multiplevoices of accounting for sustainability instead of privileging the narrow narratives of accounting for ahegemonic developmental economic purpose This study constitutes a critical intervention

A critical intervention recognizes that hegemony is embedded in social demands, politicalagendas, and economic interests However, this is not to suggest that critical intervention takes onlyone form, as for example, Spence (2009) argues that emancipation lies in a radical posture thatpursues the exposition of contradictions between society and organizations (Spence, 2009) Incontrast, Bebbington, Brown, Frame, and Thomson (2007, p 356) suggest that a dialogic approachfor SEA would contribute to a “more authentic engagement” for a sustainable world As a post-structural intervention, this paper encourages both dialogic (Bebbington et al., 2007) and antagonistic(Boyce, 2000) positions to examine the implications of a capital agenda that seeks to redescribesustainability and SEA as emerging economic growth for development purposes There are limitedBrazilian studies that adopt a critical lens and acknowledge the function of politics in the construction

of meanings in the SEA academy The resilience of literatures of sustainability, business, anddecision-making favors the economic growth aims, as co-equivalent terms, obscures and dominatessustainability In this tradition, Cintra and Carter (2012) debate the internalization of sustainabledevelopment into management accounting processes, and illustrate a lack of understanding andeducation as to what sustainability means and thus, this delimits the integration of sustainability into

Brazilian business.

The main objective of this study is to understand the politics of SEA in the Brazilian literature,and consequently, it adopts the following approach The following section briefly introducesconstituent theoretical components, including hegemony This is followed by a focus on the question

“what is SEA literature in Brazil?” This section is followed by a critical examination of the role ofBrazilian SEA research This study aims to empower academics by introducing a range of approaches

to SEA (Bebbington et al., 2007; Gray, Owen & Adams, 2009), as we argue that the interactionbetween societies and organizations is multi-faceted and complex However, we argue that this multi-faceted nature is obscured through the functioning of capitalist politics, which is employed in SEA tomaintain hegemonic mechanisms of domination To increase the debate of SEA research, this studycontributes to the examination of SEA research in the Brazilian context (Gray & Bebbington, 2000),and we examine the role of politics in the construction of hegemonies in the Brazilian literaturethrough the antagonism of emerging economies and the logic of development to SEA andsustainability

A POLITICS OF HEGEMONY

Before examining the impact of logics of development and economic growth on the construction of theBrazilian articulation of SEA, we present a short theoretical foundation of hegemony, and inparticular, the radicalization of Gramscian hegemony This draws on the work of Spence (2007,2009) and a close reading of Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001) discourse theory Laclau and Mouffesuggest that discourse is constructed within society and that discourse represents society As Carter(2008, pp 178–179) argues:

Hegemony is the central concept in Gramsci’s work (1971, pp 55–56), and for discourse theory, hegemony is democracy (Laclau, 2001, p 7) It is ‘dialectic’ rather than ‘deterministic; as hegemony attempts to recognise the interdependence and the autonomy of hegemony, culture, and ideology (Fraser & Bartky, 1992, p 175) Hegemony is ‘the discursive face of power’.

In explanation, Fraser and Bartky (1992, p 179) argue that hegemony is:

It is the power to establish the ‘common sense’ or ‘doxa’ of a society, the fund of self-evident descriptions of social reality that normally go without saying This includes the power to establish authoritative definitions of social situations and social needs, the power to define the universe of legitimate disagreement, and the power to shape the political agenda.

Carter (2008, p 180) then suggest the politics of hegemony, as it:

…is a contingent process of readjustment and re-negotiation, as dominant groups attempt to accommodate counter-hegemonic concerns by amending the dominant hegemony Thus, the constitution of hegemony is inherently flexible, capable of taking many forms and positions to counter threats Gramsci notes that accommodation results in a more complete dominant hegemony in quashing threats posed by counter-hegemonic movements.

Laclau and Mouffe (2001) operationalize and radicalize Gramscian hegemony throughantagonism, in that any attempt to fix a nodal point is permeated by “the other,” which posits a form ofpolitics based on contingency or the lack This is crucial to the politics of the SEA and sustainability,

as each articulation is impacted by its “otherness”; in a simple way, the broader social and

environmental justice incorporated within the broader communitarian logics of sustainability (thatwhich is ignored by capitalist controlled discursive constructions of corporate responsibility andannual CSR or sustainability reports) operates as a radical otherness rendering SEA accounts partial,incomplete, and contingent:

Thus, hegemonic practices presuppose a social field criss-crossed by antagonisms, and the presence of elements that can be

articulated by opposed political projects The major aim of hegemonic projects is to construct and stabilise the nodal points

that form the basis of concrete social orders by articulating as many available elements – floating signifiers – as possible ( Howarth & Stavrakakis, 2000 , p 15)

In relation to the politics of SEA and sustainability in Brazil, hegemony is the process madevisible by extending the chains of the equivalence from sustainability and SEA to development andeconomic growth In this sense, hegemony is the core concept within discourse theory, as hegemonicsignifiers construct political frontiers of in, out, and the other What we argue in the Brazilian context

is that the extension of the chains of equivalence to development, adds a social justice imaginary todevelopment growth and thus, places significant systematic change as the radical contingent other:significant systematic change is the other, and thus, sustainability and development, together,simultaneously constitutes a political frontier and exposes its limits In the Brazilian context, thetheorization of hegemony contributes to our understanding of how politics influences the constitution,installation and continuing of hegemonies concerning development, growth, and sustainability

Central to this process is the fundamental lack of consensus as to what constitutes SEA orsustainability, which supports the formation of hegemonies by political forces in order to control thecentral signifier (meaning) The logic of capital seeks to control the threat that is posed by a form ofsustainability that posits radical changes in the economic system and to the status quo Hegemony is acombination of diverse concepts that masks radical contingencies (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001) Spence(2007, p 855) illustrated this with respect to corporate social responsibility, as the hegemoniesconstructed by corporate managers illustrate that SEA was used to “shape and constrain” ideologies.Thus, the linking of development growth to SEA and sustainability is rendered especially problematic

in emerging economies such as Brazil, as such an approach risks significant social, environmental,and communal damage The critical intervention for discourse theory then is to illustrate the rhetoricalimpact of the construction of hegemonies and expose the contingency, which presents an opportunityfor spontaneous change (Carter & Spence, 2011)

In brief, this paper examines the traces of hegemony evidence in extant SEA literature in Brazil,

by understanding its construction and how it operates in the antagonistic politics of the hegemony overSEA and sustainability Hegemony, politically, seeks to sustain the position of the dominant groups insociety Thus, in this study, we identify, understand, and categorize SEA articles in Brazil into threemain approaches: business case, stakeholder–accountability, and critical studies (Brown & Fraser,

2006) Thus, we illustrate, in the next section, the centrality of development and growth to emergingeconomies and apply this to the Brazilian context

EMERGING ECONOMIES AND THE LOGIC OF

DEVELOPMENT

Development and growth are central to political agendas for emerging economies, and, thus, it is acentral agenda for Brazil Post-hyperinflation, Brazil had experienced significant socioeconomicgrowth, until post the global financial crisis Since then, Brazil’s growth rate has slowed During the

golden period, Brazil celebrated an emergent lower middle class, social and educational programs

that focused on keeping children in education and emerging as the fifth largest economy in the world.Development economics, as founded in growth, is a capital agenda that has spin-off socioeconomicbenefits However, the illusion of development obscures the real purpose of economic development

Hardt and Negri (2001, p 282) argue that development has origins in the post-World War II periodand under United States domination, the discourse of development masks economic policies that favorprominent economies In effect, the logic of development renders emerging economies open foradvanced capitalist economies to proffer This “false development” illustrates how they emergingeconomies are constructed: “Developed countries are defined … by their dominant position in theglobal system” (Hardt & Negri, 2001, p 282), where advanced capitalist countries engage a

hegemonic discourse of “development,” while simultaneously growing their own backyard In this, emerging economies are puppets gripped by the ideological presupposition of development: that

everyone can be at the top As an example, Panagariya (2002, p 1229) illustrates the asymmetry ofpower: “Developing countries … have very limited bargaining power due to their much lower share

in the world markets.” The logic of development, similar to Said’s post-colonial conception of theOrient, serves to ensure that emerging economies “remain subordinate in the global system” (Hardt &Negri, 2001, p 283) For example, Brazil, China, and India are “emerging economic superpowers”characterized by their “internal divers[ity]” and “conflicts and incoherence” (Morgan, 2011, p 29)

Hardt and Negri (2004, p 167) suggest that economic development has less to do with opportunitiesfor emerging economies and more to do with the pursuit of the “free markets, the global markets andthe economic system.”

We argue that there is a strong hegemonic project through the logic of development The strugglefor development power is underpinned in political space by regulation, policies, institutions, andideological discourses that result from domination by interested groups, namely, advanced capitaldiscourses In the movement from emerging to advanced nations, this process traverses the logic ofthe capitalist system to guarantee the maximization of investments in globalized, centralized markets

in which cheap wages and environmental degradation constitute the form of exchange from emergingeconomies to advanced economies (Lehman, 1999) Our modest contribution to this debate is

questioning the persistent employment of the trope “fair” development that is supposed to result in

advanced culture, education, life, and health In the imaginary of sustainability and development, wesee a co-option of the sustainability debate to incorporate development and growth, and the ultimatebeneficiary is advanced capital We argue that the role of politics here is to manipulate the hegemonicdiscourse, attached ideologies and to support powerful, advanced economies, and this is under theillusion that “development” will lead to emergence as an advanced economy In light of thesetheoretical foundations, the next section presents the research design of this study by illustrating theimplications of our paradigmatic view, and the impacts on data analysis and data collection

RESEARCH DESIGN

The foundation of this study is in the post-structural discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe (2001) Inparticular, in this study we focus on hegemony and impact of the co-option of sustainability by thelogic of development We conducted the data collection and data analysis employing a hermeneuticapproach based on a post-structural paradigm.1 In essence, we collected as close as possible allarticles published on SEA in the Brazilian academy In searching journal databases and other searchengines, we searched for SEA and as many alternates as possible, including sustainability, corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) and social and environmental disclosures This critical analysiscomprehends a particular view of these articles in which we do not exclude ourselves in the(re)interpretation of the data set In the hermeneutic reading, we focused on the assumptions andapproaches of the articles.

In order to obtain a suitable understanding of the Brazilian SEA research, we collected our dataset in early 2015 We do not hold any statistical significance from the SEA research that wecollected, but we do hold that the search was comprehensive The selection of articles was based onthe presence of certain key words in the title or abstract of Brazilian journals indexed in either Scielo

or the Spell database We collected 650 articles in total, but after more careful reading, 160 werediscarded as duplicates and another 138, we found on closer reflection, did not relate to the subjectsunder study Thus, our final data set comprised 352 articles (see the appendix) We used the Englishabstract of these articles and the complete PDF files for analytical purposes, where possible, butwhere Portuguese versions of papers were used, we translated minor variations of the concepts athand

The classification of the articles constituted a hermeneutic task based on a manual coding of thearticles to capture explicit or implicit messages from the Brazilian CSR studies We did not ignorethat researchers play a significant role in controlling how their studies are perceived and as post-structuralists, we constructed our research through the repeated process of selection that started withthe title, abstract, and then reading the entire document The categorization follows the boundaries inthe study of Brown and Fraser (2006), where they constructed three main understandings (cases) ofSEA literature We see clear linkages between these three cases and the appropriation anddevelopment of SEA literature in the Brazilian academy

The first approach is the business case, and this holds that there is no fundamental conflictbetween business and society, and thus, what is deemed appropriate for business, is good for itsshareholders and thus, consequently, is good for society (Brown & Fraser, 2006, p 104) Thus, thelogic of the business case is that sustainability and SEA are deemed suitable if there is evidence of abusiness-investment return The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (2014) suggeststhat the principal reasons for business, the benefits for organization in adopting sustainability or SEA

in their management practices extend to lower risk for business and shareholders, improved financialresults and consulting opportunities In this, standard business-investment decisions are employed.This is the logic, arguably, behind carbon markets, where there are opportunities afforded throughgood business practice to make money through technological innovation: but this illustrates thebusiness view of the world, where quantification and payback are required to engender a commitment

to environmental action, as it has the potential to increase profits or improve share price In astandard advanced economy, the business case is predictable business politics, as it limits theirobligations and presents opportunities for profiteering and arbitrage, but also allows organizations toclaim the social and consumer benefits attached to the sustainability movement However, we argue

that this is more insidious in an emerging economy, because the development agenda is also asustainability agenda, and thus, economic growth is a form of sustainability, and any action in thename of sustainability that might negatively impact upon growth is problematic Thus, the businesscase approach is effectively business as usual, and ignores and neglects conflicts between social andcorporate interests (O’Dwyer, 2003) The business case reduces the interest of business and society

to a unitary goal of profit maximization

In contrast, Brown and Fraser (2006, p 106) suggest a stakeholder–accountability approachwhich recognizes the multi-faceted interests of multi-faceted stakeholders Such stakeholders includeemployees, communities, non-governmental institutions, and other stakeholders less directly involved

in business decisions, but still impacted by business This approach incorporates two subtle, yetimportant political distinctions in the relationship between business and society: (a) some businessdecisions impact upon stakeholders in different ways; (b) some business decisions impact negativelyupon some stakeholders Consequently, this approach suggests that SEA requires organizations tocommunicate different information in different ways to stakeholders, and this is how organizationsdischarge their social obligation, by demonstrating responsibility to society through dischargingobligations of accountability As Brown and Fraser (2006, p 107) argue: “From a stakeholderperspective, responsiveness to the multiplicity of constituencies interested in corporate performancerequires a form of plural accountability.” Lehman (1999) suggests that SEA requires a project of the

“modern communitarian” in a manner that enables communication in and to the public sphere This is

a criticism of traditional SEA, as Lehman (1999, p 217) argues that SEA needs “to foster debate anddialogue concerning the role of corporations and their impact on nature.” In this, stakeholder–accountability is concerned with two constructs: stakeholders and accountability, which encouragesstakeholders, in the broad sense, to participate and as affected interests from business decisions oractivities ought to engage in a dialogic conversation as a member of an affected community

The third classification relevant to SEA is that of the critical theory approach (Brown & Fraser,

2006, p 110) In short, this approach holds that there is a fundamental conflict between society andbusiness, and that, further still, business is effectively a social function sanctioned by society Thisrecognizes a significant role for politics in defining SEA research, action, and social stories, andtakes the Marxist critique of capitalism as its traditional theorization (although this does notdownplay the significance of the post-structural and post-modern political interventions in SEA)

Brown and Fraser (2006, p 110) argue that “[f]or critical theorists, the dominance of capital-orientedvalues and perspectives is such that CSR and SEA are likely to fall victim to business capture andlead to mystification rather than liberation.” This last approach critically evaluates the “dominance ofcapital-oriented” research in SEA and corporate social responsibility and illustrates a role ofhegemony, as organizations seek to define sustainability in a manner that befits their capital agendas.Thus, the sizable SEA research agenda illustrates the financial impacts or share price responses ofSEA disclosure operate as a regime to maintain the status quo; as it privileges the accumulation ofcapital wealth, and hegemonically reifies that capital and money are the language of the businesssystem Thus, there are challenges in relation to the discourse of sustainable development and Sikka(2010), for example, argues that this is why SEA research fails to expose the reality of the capitalistSEA agenda or instances of greenwashing (see Sikka, 2010 on demonstrating the tax avoidanceschemes by large corporations) In light of these three heuristics, the next section discusses theBrazilian SEA academy, the consequences of the hegemonic process, and the role of the politics of

development in an emerging country with respect to sustainability.

In analyzing the 352 articles that reflect the Brazilian literature on SEA, the majority of articlesreflect and reify the business case approach, which illustrates that SEA research is a reflection ofpolitical and corporate influences More than 72 percent of the studies suggest that in relation to SEAthere is no conflict between business and society and that SEA endeavors should result in financialperformance or payback In essence, 72 percent of the Brazilian academy argues for “business prettymuch as usual.” We discuss the nature of this research in more detail later This is reflected in Figure

1

Fig 1 Brazilian approaches of SEA The appendix shows the list of the classified articles.

There has been significantly less research that reflects a stakeholder–accountability approach toSEA, with 20 percent of Brazilian literature exploring a stakeholder–accountability approach.Seventy-two articles have examined this interface, and it was initially a slow adoption, with singlearticles published in 1989, 1991, and 1993 that examine corporate behavior regarding to CSRadoption, the relationship with sustainable development and management and managers perceptions

of CSR programs This increases by 2009 (6 articles), 2010 (8), 2013 (14), and 2014 (8) The range

of issues examined in the stakeholder–accountability literature in the Brazilian context include

perceptions of students, employees, managers, organizations, professionals, and NGOs; theoreticalinterpretations of organizational practices on sustainability accounting and CSR’s topics; recognizingcommunity voices, as well as the academic perspective of public policies about environment andtaxes Much of this research still places the organization at the center of the analysis and focuses less

on dialogic and more on managing competing interests and understanding manager perception Thereappears significant opportunity for substantive critique of the political and social implications ofmanagers’ decisions in organizations that affect communities and societies

A small percentage of articles adopt a critical theory approach, with no more than 28 articles (8percent) These critical studies started with single papers from 2000 to 2006, 2009, 2014, 2015; withthree papers each in 2007, 2008, and 2012, two articles in 2011, and seven papers in 2013 Thesearticles have criticized the political and social consequences of the controversies of the financialstructure within social and environmental practices, the strategy of capitalism, critiques oforganizational behaviors, the epistemological foundations of SEA research, the politics of CSR, andreflections of CSR language and corruption

In this context, the business case approach is prominent in the Brazilian academy Along thisanalysis, we subdivided the business case approach into three fields: measurement of SEA (43percent), consulting (42 percent), and descriptive research (15 percent) In relation to the firstcategory of measurement, the focus here is on measuring the impact of SEA disclosure on firmfinancial performance or share price However, we problematize this approach because littleresearch in the Brazilian or international SEA context has grappled with what is signified bysustainability In order for sustainability to be measurable, there must be an agreed definition Take

A J Ayer (1936), as an example: in the philosophy of mathematics, there is an inherent mysticismand subjectivity in the concept of “one,” but for pure math purposes, we assume certainty andobjectivity into the concept of “one,” which is a tautology For Laclau and Mouffe (2001), this is thefundamental problem of the systematicity of the system In short, in order to begin measuring SEA,this would require some certainty as to what is being measured and the construct of SEA andsustainability These studies are measuring something, but what that something lacks is precision anddefinition As an example, SEA has been developed to measure carbon emissions, disclosures, andpollution by employing content analysis The impact of approaches to “SEA as measurement”operates to reify a narrow perspective that the social and the environment and social andenvironmental impacts are measurable and manageable This is especially concerning in thedevelopment context, as measurement, in relation to sustainability reifies economic growth as theoverarching metric As Morgan (1988, p 483) argues:

As a result, decision-making is often conducted in away that promotes “cost consciousness,” at the expense of a broader understanding of the implications of a proposed technological change The existence of techniques and data for evaluating projects in a uni-dimensional way tends to encourage uni-dimensional decision-making.

This approach is the antithesis of a stakeholder–accountability approach, as it assumes a unitarycommunication method Lehman (1999, p 218) contends that SEA drives two mechanisms: oneengages the capitalist system – as the business case approach (by illustrating opportunities forinvestment return) – and the other destructs the forces of this system – critical theory approach (thatthere is fundamental conflict between sustainability and capitalism that potentially requiresrevolution) We argue that the Brazilian academies’ focus on measuring of SEA promotes a

“utilitarian motive” (Lehman, 1999, p 218) which functions to sustain a hegemonic focus on

contributions to economic growth (through development) Brazilian studies pursue, in the main, apositivist approach to sustainability that ignores the problematic integration of the social and theenvironment in relation to economic growth mantra of corporations and capital.

Put simply, the Brazilian research on measurement aims to generate a theory of SEA, asobservable patterns concerning SEA would imply a general inductively derived theory that wouldexplain financial returns from SEA The set of studies on measurement reify and test a set ofconstructed models that has the effect of holding the social or the environment and its impacts aremeasurable, especially from a disclosure perspective However, we argue that what is actuallymeasured is a convenient fiction We should note that such convenient fictions are crucial for thepolitics of science Carter (2008, p 118) argues that:

[c]onvenient fictions’ are vital as not all things are observable, parts of the scientific discourse could be unacceptable, such as the theory of gravity Thus, although it is impossible to observe gravity directly, it is possible to observe gravity’s effects Thus, convenient fictions constitute “facts” that are not directly observable (Chalmers, 1982, p 129)

Crucially, though, convenient fictions constitute signifiers that are permeated by uncertainty What

is obvious in the context of these studies is that they have either ignored or misunderstood thecomplexity, ambiguity, and particularities of the logic of SEA or sustainability We suggest that theco-option by development growth of sustainability is responsible for this “ignorance” ormisunderstanding For us, there is no universal “sustainability,” as the social and the environment arelocal constructs that depend on moments, space, or regions For example, we see evidence of thismixed agenda in Brazilian studies, for example, that test the capacity of model or equation to predictthe extent to which financial variables explain a subjective index of disclosures measured throughcontent analysis (Gubiani, Santos, & Beuren, 2012) This is evidence of a focus on growth rather than

on a broader logic of sustainability

The function of a focus on measurement reinforces the materialist dimensions of accounting

Spence, Husillos, and Correa-Ruiz (2010) debate the phenomenon of SEA studies as a mechanism foravoiding deeper discussions concerning politics and accountability, as evidenced by papers instakeholder and legitimacy theories Legitimacy theory is used by Brazilian articles to explain the

“reason” for disclosures or particular managerial behaviors (Ferreira, Silva, & Neto, 2012), but do

so, in a safe manner, that suppresses the political and economic context in how the papers construct

“environmental disclosures,” “positive or negative word counting,” “stable market,” “relevantstakeholders,” and “environmental investment” (Spence et al., 2010) As Spence et al (2010, p 82)

argue: “[l]egitimacy theory derives from a premise that does not see much in the way of antagonism atall.”

While it is clear that there are multi-faceted agendas between society and organizations, thesestudies ignore any complex contradictions by arguing in a simplistic “real” way, without anysubstantive explanation for their key arguments from a politico-economic perspective The relevance

of these studies is to perceive the existence of hegemonic process beyond the constructs The logic ofdevelopment and the dominance of certain powerful groups result in subordination of some, with theresults that capitalist and materialist ideologies are incorporated in everyday Brazilian life (Spence

et al., 2010) In a nutshell, this is encapsulated by the measurement discourse, which is therepresentative of the development growth discourse, as “Brazil must grow and Brazil must develop.”

Of course, this growth discourse suits particular interests, and there is no explicit reason for that

development, which takes for granted a hegemonic discourse of development “for all,” but this is a

fantasy (Hardt & Negri, 2001) Consequently, this defeats discourses of sustainability through ahegemony of development that is founded on contradictions and antagonisms as the foundation ofpolitics in society.

In short, the discourse of measurement emphasizes that sustainability and SEA are tangible,material and economic matters in Brazilian society, and this politically links; measurement to amaterialist society and denies or ignores any conflict with principles of sustainability (Brundtland,

1987) and economic growth of large corporations The functioning of Brazilian SEA measurementresearch is antagonized by the inherent incontestability of social, environmental, economic, political,and cultural effects that are part of sustainability However, the import of a development agenda, and

in particular, where economic growth can sit alongside sustainability or dominate it, operates so as to

silence any potential critique of any organizational decisions, as an articulation in the name of growth

is good and sustainable As Boyce (2000) argues, SEA should be part of a contestable public interestdiscourse to make organizational actions visible and contestable, but measurement and developmentgrowth render this argument futile Spence et al (2010, p 76) implores SEA research to “break freefrom its self-imposed theoretical limitations and embrace a goal beyond accountability.” This isrendered complex by the attachment of development growth to SEA, which drives the agenda towardmeasurable growth and return

The second class of business case articles focuses on consulting activities, by pursuing an agenda

of advice for organizations to improve their management, strategy, and targets, all with a logic ofreturn in mind In short, these articles effectively constitute a form of consultancy hired to provideenhancements to increase productivity, efficiency, and quality For instance, in the Brazilian context,there is a significant research studying the impact of regulation, compliance with laws or norms,models, financial consultation and diagnosis that improve the image of the organization, reduces costs

or complies with norms The objective of such studies is to conduct a study that could be sold tocompanies This situation raises questions of independence of academy, as some articles are

sponsored, and illustrates the power of hegemony that result in consultant researchers working for

companies inside universities This is evidence of the managerialist lens of SEA research in Brazil(Gray & Bebbington, 2000)

The impact of these consulting studies is that it renders the Brazilian academy a servant ofcapital-oriented companies, and in this, it is measured by the persuasive private capital dollar, asorganizations outsource their research needs, often for legitimacy purposes (Suddaby & Greenwood,

2005) Much of this research is presented with a belief that these studies could be integrated asorganizational strategies, and this co-constructs the academy and private capital in a “sustainability,development” partnership In sum, the impact of this consulting research is that this is evidence ofhegemonic creep as the development growth hegemony shifts into the Brazilian academy and the

researcher becomes an employee of private capital to function an agenda.

In consultancy, the power of how organizations affect academic research is evident, as there islittle critical capacity for such research on SEA to take account of a broader social context, as theseresearchers need not take account of hegemony We suggest this is particularly insidious in emergingeconomies, as the aim of this approach is to sustain and support a favorable position in controllingeconomies so as to generate return The impact of this is that emerging economies are effectivelyslaves to developed economies (Hardt & Negri, 2001) Consequently, the measurement agenda ofBrazilian SEA research constitutes an appropriation of the accounting framework based on financial

rules that favors capital-orientated actions, but employs a fallacy concerning development: this isdevelopment for some, not all, and this provides scope for exploitation and destruction Similarly,consulting research in the Brazilian SEA literature presents sustainability for development growth as

an illusion of sustainability in an unsustainable manner, as consultants aim to give organizations the

key for growth and financial returns, while dismissing or ignoring the tricky interplay betweensocietal needs and corporate objectives

This leads to the final element of the business case in Brazil, which takes a more aggressivedescriptive approach, concerning the presence of hegemonic forces Any description of CSR, SEA, orcorporate disclosure aims to deny any conflict or contradiction in the models or structures ofsustainability for development growth, so as to capture the specific character of the financialrepresentation of SEA This creates a distorted rational view, and models of SEA disclosure become

prescriptions, as these models represent the entire configuration required for social and

environmental information However, the scope for this research is being undermined, as theBrazilian social balances3 of IBASE and Ethos have largely been replaced by GRI reporting or theintegrated reporting project The disappearance of the social balance in Brazil is illustrative of thechallenge of social relations underpinned in a hegemonic political battle This fading stage is anoutcome of the short-term, transitory practice which focuses on some beneficiaries

Thus, the Brazilian academy on SEA endorses the self-development of certain powerful groups,while obscuring any space for contestability (Boyce, 2000) through the hegemonic co-option ofsustainability by development and growth This hegemony celebrates powerful agents, and themeasurement studies are an example of the materialist aims of the capitalist system, as these studiesoperate so as to delimit or eradicate a space for SEA contestability in an emergent society thatincorporates serious examples of unsustainability practices.4

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides an in-deep review of the Brazilian academy with respect to SEA andsustainability In part, it is a stocktake exercise to introduce readers to the nature of the Brazilian SEAproject, but more importantly, it provides an opportunity for reflection concerning the hegemonicproject with respect to sustainability, in the emerging economy context, and the influence ofdevelopment and economic growth In particular, as Bebbington et al (2007) recognize, we suggestthat there is the need for more a dialogic approach to SEA research in Brazil, as the currentintellectual debate is dominated by a unitary, monologic language that constrains and co-optssustainability through a rubric of the business case, and in particular a language of economic growththrough a lens for development This study demonstrates the effective monology of the Brazilianacademy with respect to SEA and development We are somewhat skeptical of the developmentagenda, as this itself demonstrates elements of manipulation, particularly by powerful advancedcapitalist nations, which hold that development growth that benefits a few is really developmentgrowth that benefits all In terms of the co-option of SEA and sustainability, we see the predominantinfluence through a positivist lens, which does not question the object of SEA or sustainability, but

reifies the status quo and thus, focuses on measuring the impact of disclosure on financialperformance or share pricing, providing concrete consultancy advice concerning the impact ofregulatory or other policy changes or descriptive research that emphasizes the positivist approach.One of the reasons for the influence of the positivist approach, we argue, is that reinforces thesubordination-logic that follows the development hegemony, as this is language of advanced capital.For example, the measurement of the social and the environment operates to obfuscate anydefinitional or conceptual controversy because of rhetorical manner in which researchers presenttheir measurement research The materialist measurement of the impact of SEA disclosure ondevelopment growth does not measure SEA disclosure, but rather measures growth, and pays noattention to any other facets of the social actions for communities and environmental impacts as theseare outside measurement Thus, the measurement discourse is a convenient fiction: they are measuringsomething, in terms of growth, but they are not measuring SEA or sustainability Obviously, these arehegemonic devices used by powerful groups that construct a development agenda as SEA andsustainability through lens such as “measurement,” “consulting,” and “description” to construct anacceptable monological understanding – that SEA and sustainability should improve developmentgrowth through of financial and economic platforms.

The logic of development in tandem with the impact of the measurement discourse of SEA andsustainability contribute to reinforcing the materialist dimension (Spence et al., 2010) Thisrhetorically legitimates a strategy that links the materialist dimension of SEA to capitalism, whichbetter reflects that hegemonic politics of the Brazilian approach to SEA or sustainability The impact

of this is that researchers reproduce the status quo, emphasizing the self-development of companies,and institutions, while reinforcing a fallacy of sustainability As we discussed, this is the operation ofhegemony in society, as it encloses deeper motives through redescribing and representing positions.This also has the impact that the Brazilian academy appears uncritical of the dominant developmentgrowth agenda that favors a few and advanced capital countries, while also systematically supportingthe articulations of organizations in the name of sustainability and SEA – see the impact of consultingstudies in Brazil

The fallacy of development and the false sensation of well-being promoted by these studies isillustrative of the role of politics, as ideological devices disguise the re-reading of the social impact

of development growth for the advantage of a few The performative political agents undermine anybroader logic of increasing welfare for all, by favoring their own self-interests SEA practices inBrazil are not part of a broader democratic logic of development, as the development growth ispromulgated to favor a few In this study, the politics of hegemony is the misreading of any broadersocial, environmental, or deeper change logic in SEA or sustainability to reinforce the monologic,status quo approach of SEA that supports emerging economies by supporting advanced capitalisteconomies Equally, this political intervention serves to avoid contestability and the visibility ofcontingencies in the complex field of social and environmental sustainability In addition, theBrazilian approach takes on a submissive role by reinforcing the status quo of development growth,

by employing a deceptive development illusion where all will benefit from capital growth, as well as

constituting a complete response to all social and environmental problems.

In conclusion, this study presents an illustration of the impact of the co-option of SEA andsustainability discourses by development growth, and the impact of this deeper development illusion

We illustrate how this reinforces the position of the dominant in society, through ideological and

rhetorical discourses of materialism that protects and reifies capitalist structures through the illusion

of development growth that benefits all Finally, this study retains a political hope, in which a criticalintervention now, in depicting the “state of play” in Brazilian SEA and sustainability invites thepotential for substantive systemic critique In this, we hail to the potential of accounting to engage inemancipatory politics (Spence, 2009), contestability (Boyce, 2000), and dialogic approaches(Bebbington et al., 2007) Such an intervention, we believe, would enable a deep contestationconcerning the role of organizations in Brazilian society, the use of Brazilian social andenvironmental resources and would provide an opportunity to contest both SEA and sustainabilitydiscourses, but the impact of development growth as well In this, there remains the potential forchange, as identifying conflicts, exposing harms and encouraging debate concerning the social andpolitical problems of capital system provides an opportunity for change

NOTES

1 We acknowledge that post-structuralism belong to a school of thoughts of criticism of the positivist and essentialist paradigms ( Howarth & Stavrakakis, 2000 ) which aim to straighten a general theory of analyzed objects in an objective view For this study, we propose to demonstrate some approaches of Brazilian SEA studies following the framework of Brown and Fraser (2006) ’s work This structure is contingent, limited, and incomplete as discourse theory ( Laclau & Mouffe, 2001 ) However, we employ these approaches assuming this limitation We summarize these articles for our readers.

2 There is a need for papers that revisit the SEA literature in Brazil In fact, most Brazilian journals do not have an international comprehensiveness To illustrate how critical is the access of the Brazilian papers in the business area, only in 2012, the Brazilian government sponsored the foundation of the project “Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library” (SPELL) which promotes the democratization of the access of academic papers since 2008 in Portuguese and English versions, but only for some journals Internationally, there are papers which explore the state-of-the-art of the SEA research that principally focus on most international visible journals that do not include the Brazilian journals ( Gray, 2002 ; Parker, 2005 ; Eugénio, Lourenço & Morais, 2010 ) Parker (2005) , as an example, presents the publication of SEA in journals, pages published, methodologies and themes that seek to support the development of future research In this way, we explore SEA from the perspective of Brown and Fraser (2006) and we aim to give a support for development of the Brazilian studies in a critical sphere.

3 Social balance is a guideline to report the dimension of social, environment, and economics that aim to promote companies that act socially responsible However, they can fail to present a complete presentation for its structural dimension that may not reflect a reality ( Moneva, Archel & Correa, 2006 ).

4 In 2013, the largest corporation in Brazil – Petrobras – is accused of being emerged in corruption; this creates doubts of their sustainability in social, political, and economic spheres.

REFERENCES

Ayer, A J (1936) Language, truth and logic London: Gollancz.

Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I (2007) Theorizing engagement: The potential of a critical dialogic approach.

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 356–381 doi:10.1108/09513570710748544

Boyce, G (2000) Public discourse and decision making: Exploring possibilities for financial, social and environmental accounting.

Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(1), 27–64.

Brown, J., & Fraser, M (2006) Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: An overview of the conceptual

landscape Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 103–117 doi:10.1002/bse.452

Brundtland, G H (1987) Presentation of the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development to UNEP’s 14th

Accessed on June 22, 2014.

Carter, D B (2008) Crossing the wires: The interface between law and accounting and the discourse theory potential of

telecommunications regulation Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand Retrieved from

http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1048

Carter, D B., & Spence, C (2011) The dictatorship of love: A response to “A spiritual reflection on emancipation and accounting” by

Pala Molisa Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(5), 485–491 doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.01.005

Chalmers, A F (1982) What is this thing called science? An assessment of the nature and status of science and its methods (2nd

ed.) Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Cintra, Y C., & Carter, D B (2012) Internalising sustainability: Reflections on management control in Brazil International Journal of

Strategic Management, 12(2), 108.

Devenney, M (2002) Critical theory and democracy In A Finlayson (Eds.), Politics and post-structuralism: An introduction (pp.

176–192) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Eugénio, T., Lourenço, I C., & Morais, A I (2010) Recent developments in social and environmental accounting research Social

Responsibility Journal, 6(2), 286–305 doi:10.1108/17471111011051775

FASE et al (2003) Open letter to executives and investors in the Prototype Carbon Fund Espirito Santo, 23 May.

Ferreira, M C., Silva, A H., & Neto, M M (2012) A evidenciação social voluntária e o acidente nuclear de Fukushima: Um estudo de

caso da Eletronuclear Revista Universo Contábil, 8(4), 76–96 doi:10.4270/ruc.2012432

Fraser, N., & Bartky, S (Eds.) (1992) Revaluing French feminism: Critical essays on difference, agency, and culture

Bloomington, IL: Indiana University Press.

Gray, R (2002) The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society: Privileging engagement, imaginings, new

accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 687–708.

Gray, R (2010) Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability and how would we know? An exploration of

narratives of organisations and the planet Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 47–62 doi:10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.006

Gray, R., & Bebbington, J (2000) Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability: Is the planet safe in the hands of business

and accounting? Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, 1, 1–44.

Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C (2009) Some theories for social accounting?: A review essay and a tentative pedagogic categorisation

of theorisations around social accounting Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, 4, 1–54

doi:10.1108/S1479-3598(2010)0000004005

Gubiani, C A., Santos, V d., & Beuren, I M (2012) Disclosure Ambiental das Empresas de Energia Elétrica Listadas no Índice de

Sustentabilidade Empresarial (ISE) Sociedade, Contabilidade e Gestão, 7(2), 7–23.

Hardt, M., & Negri, A (2001) Empire Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hardt, M., & Negri, A (2004) Multitude: War and democracy in the Age of Empire New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Howarth, D., & Stavrakakis, Y (2000) Introducing discourse theory and political analysis In D Howarth, A J Norval, & Y.

Stavrakakis (Eds.), Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies and social change (pp 1–23) Manchester:

Manchester University Press.

International Integrated Reporting Council (2014, June 1) The Need For <IR  >  Integrated Reporting Retrieved from

http://www.theiirc.org/about/aboutwhy-do-we-need-the-iirc

Laclau, E (2001) Democracy and the question of power Constellations, 8(1), 3–14.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C (2001) Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (2nd ed.) London: Verso.

Lehman, G (1999) Disclosing new worlds: A role for social and environmental accounting and auditing Accounting, Organizations

and Society24, 217–241.

Lohmann, L (2009) Toward a different debate in environmental accounting: The cases of carbon and cost–benefit Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 34, 499–534 doi:10.1016/j.aos.2008.03.002

Millon, D K (1993) New directions in corporate law: Communitarians, contractarians, and the crisis in corporate law Washington and

Lee Law Review, 50(4), 1373–1393.

Ministry of Social Development (MSD) (2010) Press release by Brazil’s Minister of Social Development Tereza Campello: Brazil

Program to eradicate extreme poverty to benefit 16.2 million citizens Retrieved from

www.brasil.gov.br/para/press/press-releases/may-1/brazil-program-to-eradicate-extreme-poverty-tobenefit-16.2-million-citizens

Moneva, J M., Archel, P., & Correa, C (2006) GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability Accounting Forum, 30, 121–

137 doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2006.02.001

Morgan, G (1988) Accounting as reality construction: Towards a new epistemology for accounting practice Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 13(5), 477–485 doi:10.1016/0361-3682(88)90018-9

Morgan, G (2011) Comparative capitalisms: A framework for the analysis of emerging and developing economies International

Studies of Management & Organization, 41(1), 12–34 doi:10.2753/IMO0020-8825410101

O’Dwyer, B (2003) Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture Accounting, Auditing and

Accountability Journal, 16(4), 523–557 doi:10.1108/09513570310492290

Panagariya, A (2002) Developing countries at Doha: A political economy analysis The World Economy, 25(9), 1205–1233.

doi:10.1111/1467-9701.00489

Parker, L D (2005) Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box Accounting, Auditing &

Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842–860 doi:10.1108/09513570510627739

Sikka, P (2010) Smoke and mirrors: Corporate social responsibility and tax avoidance Accounting Forum34, 153–168.

doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2010.05.002

Simpson, J., & Weiner, E S (1989) The oxford English dictionary (Vol XVII) Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Spence, C (2007) Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic discourse Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,

20(6), 855–882 doi:10.1108/09513570710830272

Spence, C (2009) Social accounting’s emancipatory potential: A Gramscian critique Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20, 205–

227 doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2007.06.003

Spence, C., Husillos, J., & Correa-Ruiz, C (2010) Cargo cult science and the death of politics: A critical review of social and

environmental accounting research Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(1), 76–89 doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2008.09.008

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R (2005) Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.

doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35

Suptitz, A P., et al (2004) Open letter to the clean development mechanism executive board Minas Gerais, June.

APPENDIX – LIST OF PAPERS CLASSIFIED AND

ANALYZED IN THIS STUDY

Approaches: BC (business case), ST (stakeholders–accountability), and CT (critical theory)