Accounting for non-financial matters: technologies of humility as a means for developing critical dialogic accounting and accountability

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present an expanded introduction of Jasanoff’s (2003, 2007) work on “technologies of humility” to the accounting literature and to show how it can be useful in developing critical dialogic accountings for non-financial matters. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on Jasanoff’s (2003, 2007) distinction between “technologies of hubris” and “technologies of humility”, this study extends prior research on critical dialogic accounting and accountability (CDAA) that seeks to “take pluralism seriously” (Brown, 2009; Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). This study shows how Jasanoff’s work facilitates constructing critical, reflexive approaches to accounting for non-financial matters consistent with agonistics-based CDAA. Findings Jasanoff’s four proposed focal points for developing new analytical tools for accounting for non-financial matters and promoting participatory governance – framing, vulnerability, distribution and learning – are argued to be useful in conceptualising possible CDAA technologies. These aspects are all currently ignored or downplayed in conventional approaches to accounting for non-financial matters, limiting accounting’s ability to promote more socially just and ecologically sustainable societies. Originality/value The authors introduce Jasanoff’s work on technologies of humility to show how CDAA, informed by Jasanoff’s proposed focal points, can help to expose controversial issues that powerful interests prefer to obscure, to surface the normative foundations of technocratic analytic methods, to address the need for plural perspectives and social learning and to bring all these aspects “into the dynamics of democratic debate” (Jasanoff, 2003, p. 240). As such, they provide criteria for constructing accounting technology consistent with agonistics-based CDAA.

Public sector audit and the state's responsibility to “leave no‐one behind”: The role of integrated democratic accountability

“…Collectively, literature calls for accountability extending beyond merely procedural solutions to greater dialogic democracy in achieving SDGs and bringing about social change which "LNOB" (Brown, 2009;Brown & Dillard, 2020).…”

“…Collectively, literature calls for accountability extending beyond merely procedural solutions to greater dialogic democracy in achieving SDGs and bringing about social change which “LNOB” (Brown, 2009; Brown & Dillard, 2020). These include calls for critical reflection and humility from leaders; to extend beyond technocratic mention, monitoring, measuring, reporting, and reinforcing capitalism, to more participatory, democratic and inclusive approaches (Partners for Review, 2020), which preference cooperative communication and action.…”

Creating value: sustainability and accounting for non-financial matters in the pre- and post-corona environment

“…The papers in this special issue indicate that non-financial reporting matters are increasingly being given attention by companies to enhance business practices on sustainability through different perspectives. For instance, Brown and Dillard (2021) suggest that pluralistic non-financial accounting, which is accompanied by democratic participation and strengthened accountability institutions will have much to contribute in arenas such as sustainability. Kaur and Qian's (2021) study highlights the indigenous perspective and how a reconciliation dimension can provide a useful benchmarking tool to identify gaps in sustainability engagement commitment and practices.…”

“…Partnerships for the goals Partnerships are essential for the post-Corona paradigm such as those between Governments and Non-Governmental Organisations on one hand, and the private sector and industry bodies on the other, partnerships between countries are needed to address this goal successfully disclosure, public sector accounting, value creation-dialogic accounting, carbon accounting, sustainability accounting education and ethics. Brown and Dillard (2021) present an expanded introduction of Jasanoff's (2003Jasanoff's ( , 2007) work on "technologies of humility" to the accounting literature and to show how it can be useful in developing critical dialogic accountings for non-financial matters. They show how critical dialogic accounting and accountability informed by Jasanoff's proposed focal points can help to expose controversial issues.…”

Extractive sector governance: does a nexus of accountability render local extractive industries transparency initiatives ineffective?

“…This means the tensions and asymmetrical power relationships surrounding complex issues, like poverty reduction and sustainable development (Moses and Hopper, 2022), are overlooked in an effort to address all interests as if they were the same. Building on Dillard and Vinnari (2019) and drawing from Jasanof's (2003) work in social science, Brown and Dillard (2020) draw attention to this issue in distinguishing between technologies of hubris and humility in accounting. Technologies of hubris pursue a technocratic rationality where objective truths can be determined to satisfy a monologic, or unitary, sense of accountability, for example, revenue disclosures being used to address the accountability needs of non-financial interests via market mechanisms.…”