A theoretical framework of external accounting communication

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical framework of external accounting communication in the form of a typology based on perspectives, traditions, and theories from the discipline of communication studies. The focus is accounting communication with external audiences via public written documents outside the audited financial statements, i.e., annual reports, press releases, CSR reports, websites, conference calls, etc. Design/methodology/approach The theoretical framework is based on two broad research perspectives on accounting communication: (A) a functionalist-behavioural transmission perspective and (B) a symbolic-interpretive narrative perspective. Eight traditions of communication research are introduced which provide alternative ways of conceptualising accounting communication, namely (1) mathematical tradition, (2) socio-psychological tradition, (3) cybernetic/systems-oriented tradition, (4) semiotic tradition, (5) rhetorical tradition, (6) phenomenological tradition, (7) socio-cultural tradition, and (8) critical tradition. Exemplars of each tradition from prior accounting research, to the extent they have been adopted, are discussed. Finally, a typology is developed, which serves as a heuristic device for viewing similarities and differences between research traditions. Findings Prior accounting studies predominantly focus on the role of discretionary disclosures in accounting communication in the functioning of the relationship between organisations and their audiences. Research is predominantly located in the mathematical, the socio-psychological, and the cybernetic/systems-oriented tradition. Accounting communication is primarily viewed as the transmission of messages about financial, environmental, and social information to external audiences. Prior research is mainly concerned with the communicator (e.g. CEO personality) and the message (e.g. intentions and effects of accounting communication). Research from alternative traditions is encouraged, which explores how organisations and their audiences engage in a dialogue and interactively create, sustain, and manage meaning concerning accounting and accountability issues. Originality/value The paper identifies, organises, and synthesises research perspectives, traditions, and associated theories from the communication studies literature in the form of a typology. The paper concludes with an extensive agenda for future research on accounting communication.

Impression management in annual report narratives: the case of the UK private finance initiative

“…The profits and returns earned by private-sector companies from PFI projects were a source of intense policy criticism (see Section 2). In their discussion of silence as a form of communication, Merkl-Davies and Brennan (2017) observe that what organisations do not say is an under-researched question. We examine whether PFI private-sector companies exhibit selectivity by refraining from reporting on PFI profits and returns in PFI-related narratives compared to non-PFI profits and returns in the non-PFI-related narratives.…”

Communication and customer retention: A case of an accounting organisation

“…It was found that communication helped XY to better understand their clients, thus tailoring the services for each individual. Merkl-Davies and Brennan (2017) stated that in accounting, users of the financial statements had different skills and expertise, so it was important to be able to communicate with a range of clients.…”

Determinants of Conflict Minerals Disclosure Under the Dodd–Frank Act

“…Legitimacy theory rests on the concept that organizations have implicit ‘license to operate’ contracts with society, and fulfilling these contracts legitimates the organizations and their operations (Cormier et al ., ; Cormier and Magnan, ). The rationale behind mandatory schemes of ESG information is to influence managers in their disclosure decisions, which is a phenomenon well known in accounting as the ‘information inductance’ principle (Prakash and Rappaport, ; Merkl‐Davies and Brennan, ). Previous studies have shown that managers tend to adjust the quality and quantity of ESG disclosures as an anticipated reaction to stakeholder groups, and they actively shape the perceived legitimacy of the company (Sinclair‐Desgagné and Gozlan, ; Brammer and Pavelin, ; Chan et al ., ).…”