Research into SEA was certainly not a mainstream area of academic pursuit at the time when the inaugural issue of CPA was issued. Indeed, it was accepted in many universities as being somewhat career limiting to undertake such research. According to some researchers applying predominantly ‘North American capital market style’ research, SEA research was apparently only done by people who did not have the necessary quantitative skills to do large scale positivistic research into such apparently important issues as understanding causes of share price movements, the ‘value relevance’ of various disclosures, or the motivations driving particular financial accounting policy choices. Indeed, because of the focus of some of his own research, the author of this commentary was challenged a number of times in the early 1990s with searching questions of the form “what has the environment got to do with accounting?” the view being that some justification for any focus on society or the environment was surely necessary. Obviously people asking such questions (who were accounting academics) did not really understand accounting and its link to notions of accountability − too often they could not comprehend that ‘accounting’ can extend beyond the financial − and I should note that some of these same people a decade or two later, and with various research ‘pay-offs’ in mind, started to investigate various SEA issues, albeit typically investigated by way of large scale quantitative research attempting to link various (dubious) proxies of corporate financial performance to social and environmental reporting quality or social and environmental performance. By contrast to 25 years ago, many people would argue today that SEA research has become “a centre stage research agenda, at least in comparison to its former marginalised state” (Parker, 2014). Reflecting on the locations from where a great deal of the research emanates, Parker (2014, p. 89) states: Our leadership and momentum internationally appear to be coming from scholars in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Nonetheless, the trend towards capital markets researchers moving into the SEA field as a ‘hot topic’ area in which to flex their methodological preferences, presents a spectre on the horizons of which the SEA research community must be aware. Certainly it would probably not surprise many people who are advocates of a more critical analysis of accounting practice that ‘capital markets’ researchers, referred to above by Parker, have moved into the “SEA field”. They would see ‘the environment’ and ‘society’ as ‘new’ variables (opportunities) against which to associate share price movements, corporate profits, accounting based bonuses, or other such measures. This also brings into question whether researchers who really do not care about, or understand societies or the environment, or do not care about extending corporate accountabilities and responsibilities can really do research of any consequence to advancing the interests of society or the planet (something that is addressed by Gray & Milne, 2015 and something that we will return to in the concluding section of this commentary). Research into SEA can and has taken many forms, some which might not obviously be seen as relating to the definition of SEA provided earlier. Whilst not exhaustive, and relying upon past experience about what the accounting research community considers to be ‘SEA research’, SEA research includes (and I note that this list in itself is open to debate):

• descriptions and/or evaluations of social and environmental reporting practice;

• positive research identifying explanations of, or motivations for, social and environmental reporting;

• analyses of stakeholder demands or reactions (including market reactions) to SEA disclosures;

• developments in, critiques of, or refinements to theories to explain why SEA is undertaken, or to explain why it should or should not be undertaken;

• potential roles of accountants/accounting in creating positive social and/or environmental change; • descriptions of alternative approaches or models of accounting for SEA (which we will refer to as ‘new imaginings’);

• critiques of traditional accounting principles in terms of their appropriateness/inappropriateness for advancing social and environmental issues;

• the role of education in advancing awareness of social and environmental impacts as part of business decision making;

• arguments for (or against) legislating aspects of SEA as well as theoretical explanations for the existence, or absence, of legislation pertaining to SEA;

• investigations into environmental management accounting;

• analysis of socially responsible investment and/or CSR ratings agencies;

• accountants attitudes to, or acceptance of, social and environmental accounting

• discussions and evaluations of applicable research methods for undertaking research into various aspects of SEA;

• positive research investigating relationships between economic (or financial) performance and social and/or environmental performance;

• evaluations of government initiatives, such as emission trading schemes (ETS) or carbon taxes, as means of reducing the environmental impacts of business organisations; and

• social audits.

Shortly we will use the above categories to summarise the SEA publications that have appeared in CPA. Considering the history of SEA research generally (and not just that contained within CPA), much of the early SEA research was descriptive in nature and not overly rooted in any theoretical basis. It provided various insights into what many (but not all) people considered to be exciting developments in corporate reporting. A lot of the research then turned to trying to explain the motivations driving disclosure. As the SEA disclosure was − and still is − predominantly voluntary, this provided an ideal subject for much positivistic research. Much of this research was informed by legitimacy theory (typically of the ‘non-critical’, pluralist variety) and attempted to link corporate disclosure (typically using content analysis of company reports) to external factors (such as changing community expectations, particular social and environmental crises, media attention). This research was arguably necessary as it did highlight the typically biased nature of corporate reporting and the perhaps obvious need to be extremely sceptical about such unregulated disclosures. It also acted to provide many warnings about the potentially subversive role of corporate reporting in terms of distracting attention from key social and environmental issues and the need to consider ways of legislating disclosure (with such calls predominantly being ignored). Unfortunately perhaps, this style of research continues and similar results continue to be published without a great deal of additional incremental knowledge clearly being generated. Much of the SEA research has tended to be ‘desk based’ (Owen, 2008), relying upon secondary data and without active engagement, and has tended to explain what is happening rather than evaluating the implications or ethics of what is occurring. When it does come to the issue of engagement, ongoing arguments continue − particularly within the ‘critical literature’ − about whether we should, as accounting academics, engage with business. Many SEA researchers find it hard to understand how they can create change without engagement. CPA has been a particularly valuable source of knowledge about how care must be taken before we simply believe that more ‘accounting’ (albeit of a different ‘variety’) can help to solve many of the problems which, in some way, can actually be traced back to accounting in the first place. The academic debates across the years between scholars such as Rob Gray and Tony Tinker provide valuable insights into perceptions of the dangers and opportunities associated with engagement. As accounting academics we arguably do have some valuable insights to offer, but do we let fears of being ‘captured’ by business stop our engagement? In this regard, Parker (2005, p. 856) notes: The risk for SEA scholars is that preoccupation with avoiding SEA capture may sentence their discourse to be confined to the halls of academe and thereby distance them from any significant influence on whatever institutionalisation of SEA occurs. SEA researchers will continue to be faced with a dilemma about engagement. If we enter the halls of commerce can we be vigilant enough not to be ‘captured’ by ‘business-as-usual’ philosophies? If we ‘stand on the outside’ and do not engage in some way when we see particular problems or inequities then can we really be relevant (Roslender, 2006, Cooper, 2002, Callincos, 1999)? If we believe there are ongoing problems associated with various types of corporate activities then can we create change without engaging corporations or various stakeholders? Would it be irresponsible not to actively engage when we see problems with current practices and structures?

However, unlike some of the research that is being done now and which involves engagement with management (unlike some earlier research in the 70 s and 80 s which engaged with labour groups), greater potential for change may be possible if it involves engagement with broader stakeholder groups/social movements (Cooper, 2002). Getting this balance right seems a key problem for our research community and one that remains seemingly unresolved. Whilst a lot of the SEA research undertaken over the last 25 years has been positivistic in nature (explaining what is) there appears to be a clear need to embrace (or perhaps ‘reactivate’) a normative agenda if we really want to create change. Insights provided in journals such as CPA are crucial to informing such agendas. Studies of existing practice will not do. Clear and compelling argument for change are necessary. As Parker (2005, p. 844) states: Reactivating a normative/policy research agenda arguably hinges on the preparedness of particularly senior researchers to make the leap of faith from the comfortable templates of positivist or theoretical research design and writing, to embrace innovative normatively oriented approaches including case-based experimentation, action research, measurement and reporting design, and policy development In relation to needs to create change through thoughtful, innovative and imaginative research we must also be realistic and consider the pressures on our colleagues within our academic environment. In many countries throughout the world, academics are confronted with expectations, often included within individual work-plans, that identify expected research outputs and outlet targets (ranked journals). This is quite different to the academic environment when the inaugural edition of CPA was released. Publication targets are now set, often on an annual basis − but just as periodic (annual) corporate financial reporting potentially acts to influence managers to be short term in orientation, the same can be said for academics. Effectively, we are now in a time where there is a ‘commodification’ of research where academics must meet targets else suffer issues associated with job insecurity. This is occurring at a time when we arguably need some very novel, thoughtful and imaginative research to be undertaken to address many of the accountability (and other issues) associated with current business practices (Gray & Milne, 2015). Thoughtful, innovative research takes time. Of course this concern relates to academic research generally.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

What is SEA research and how has it evolved over the years What are some of the types of SEA research that have been undertaken and what are some of t... View the full answer