No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to report the outcome of an interdisciplinary discussion on the concepts of profit and profitability and various ways in which we could potentially problematize these concepts. It is our hope that a much greater attention or reconsideration of the problematization of profit and related accounting numbers will be fostered in part by the exchanges we include here.Design/methodology/approachThis paper adopts an interdisciplinary discussion approach and brings into conversation ideas and views of several scholars on problematizing profit and profitability in various contexts and explores potential implications of such problematization.FindingsProfit and profitability measures make invisible the collective endeavour of people who work hard (backstage) to achieve a desired profit level for a division and/or an organization. Profit tends to preclude the social process of debate around contradictions among the ends and means of collective activity. An inherent message that we can discern from our contributors is the typical failure of managers to appreciate the value of critical theory and interpretive research for them. Practitioners and positivist researchers seem to be so influenced by neo-liberal economic ideas that organizations are distrusted and at times reviled in their attachment to profit.Research limitations/implicationsProblematizing opens-up the potential for interesting and significant theoretical insights. A much greater pragmatic and theoretical reconsideration of profit and profitability will be fostered by the exchanges we include here.Originality/valueIn setting out a future research agenda, this paper fosters theoretical and methodological pluralism in the research community focussing on problematizing profit and profitability in various settings. The discussion perspectives offered in this paper provides not only a basis for further research in this critical area of discourse and regulation on the role and status of profit and profitability but also emancipatory potential for practitioners (to be reflective of their practices and their undesired consequences of such practices) whose overarching focus is on these accounting numbers.

Purpose -Since the late 1970s, research in accounting has been colonized by positive accounting theory (PAT) despite strong claims that it is fundamentally flawed in terms of epistemology and methodology. This paper aims to offer new insights to PAT by critically examining its basic tenets. Design/methodology/approach -The paper subjects the language of the Rochester School to a deconstruction that is a transformational reading. This uncovers rhetorical operations and unveils hidden associations with other texts and ideas. Findings -A new interpretation of the Rochester School discourse is provided. To afford scientific credibility to deregulation within the accounting field, Watts and Zimmerman used supplements and missing links to enhance the authority of PAT. They placed supplements inside their texts to provide a misleading image of PAT. These supplements rest on von Hayek's long-term shaping blueprint to defeat apostles of the welfare state. Yet, to set PAT apart from normative theories that Watts and Zimmerman claimed were contaminated by value judgments, they made no reference in their text to the tight links between the Rochester School and the libertarian project initiated by von Hayek. Research limitations/implications -Any reading of PAT cannot present the infinite play of meaning that is possible within a text. Deconstruction involves a commitment to on-going, eternal questioning. Originality/value -The paper provides evidence of the relation between PAT and the neoliberal (libertarian) project of von Hayek. PAT is viewed as part of the institutional infrastructure and ideological apparatus that legitimates the hegemony of markets.

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to propose a model of integrity to help assess corporate responsiveness to this new wave of pressure in the backdrop of the prevailing Shareholder Value Maximization doctrine. In a context of ecological crisis, sustainability is considered in an intergenerational perspective on well-being. Nations are required to maintain the productive base, composed of manufactured, natural and human capitals, to continue producing future generations’ well-being. Such macroeconomic challenges require businesses to contribute to human and natural capitals’ conservation. Design/methodology/approach – This paper applies the integrity model to the historical case of the New Lanark mills from Owen’s (1991/1813-1816) new view of society. Owen’s deeds are compared to his promises in light of community expectations in that time to assess Owen’s commitment to social responsibility through “his honoring his word”. Findings – The findings show the importance of the concept of “workability” for a business to create an opportunity set for “performance”. Such workability is determined by the business being a person of integrity. Research limitations/implications – Future researches are invited to use this model to build empirical evidence of corporate irresponsibility in dealing with the new challenges. Practical implications – This paper’s contribution resides in the capacity to uncover any attempt by businesses to subsume their corporate social responsibility and sustainability commitment to the doxic shareholder value maximization (SVM) ideology. Social implications – The findings recall the importance for corporate activities to be re-embedded in their social and ecological contexts. This requires an overhaul of the business logic. Originality/value – The originality of the model of integrity resides in its simplicity and practicality.

No abstract