Information vs knowledge

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a new and more elaborate view of the relationship between information and knowledge in accountability settings. Design/methodology/approach The study investigates how knowledge is accomplished when accountability is demanded. The “knowing-in-practice” perspective (Lave, 1988; Orlikowski, 2002; Pentland, 1992) is introduced to theorise knowledge as the ability to purposefully go on with practice and information as a resource that may contribute to this knowledge. Empirically, the study investigates Nordic investors’ engagement with companies addressing environmental, social, and governance issues. Findings The findings illustrate how information may contribute to knowledge in an accountability setting. Whether or not the information contributes to knowledge in the accountability setting depends on the information’s origin, convergence with other accounts, and use in contradicting and disproving executives’ information. The analysis also shows how knowledge in accountability settings may be achieved without information – for example, by enacting theories. Research limitations/implications The study suggests that research should more carefully distinguish between knowledge and information. According to the perspective used here, knowledge is the ability to purposefully go on with practice. Information is one of many resources that can contribute to knowledge. Practical implications This study provides insight into the relationship between accounting systems and the practice of demanding accountability. Such understanding is valuable when designing accounts-based governance and civil regulation, such as for addressing sustainability issues, as in this study. Originality/value The study challenges the view of knowledge as a representation or factual commodity, and provides a new and more elaborate view of the relationship between information and knowledge in accountability settings by introducing the knowing-in-practice perspective to the accounting literature.

Impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance Information on Economic Performance: Evidence of a Corporate ‘Sustainability Advantage’ from Europe

“…From this perspective, companies cannot overlook all environmental, social and governance information if their purpose is to implement suitable strategic policies that can deal with future scenarios and achieve enduring economic results that can be 'shared' with all stakeholders [67]. Therefore, Du Rietz [68] emphasised the relationship between information and knowledge in corporate accountability in environmental, social, and governance settings, investigating (Nordic) investors' engagement with companies addressing ESG issues (considering the information's origin, convergence with other accounts, and use in contradicting and disproving executives' information).…”

Non-Financial Reporting—Standardization Options for SME Sector

“…It has the potential to encourage change at the social, organizational and individual levels. Accounting systems, and the information they produce, are thus assumed to facilitate accountability, the giving and demanding of reasons for conduct (Du Rietz 2018). Accountants need to know that any accounting information is flawed, it highlights certain issues and conceals others, it does not question that information facilitates the demand for accountability and enables control.…”

Suspicious activity reporting in the United Kingdom and the United States: statutory obligations of auditors and optimal harvesting of information

“…A diminution of reporting in one sector relative to others draws the attention of FIUs; questions will be asked of the relevant professional body as to why the decline has occurred and what measures, for example, enhanced compulsory training, will be put in place in response. As Du Rietz (2018, p. 588) observed, the fact that others may know your performance induces self-discipline. Law and accountancy practices are routinely audited for the robustness of anti-money laundering safeguards, and wider regulatory compliance (Windsor and Warming-Rasmussen, 2009).…”

“…Du Rietz (2018) proposed that a distinction should be drawn between knowledge and information in accountability settings, based upon a body of work that has treated information as knowledge (the power to act), and information as control. The strength of information in its ability to contribute to knowledge depends in part on its origin, convergence with other accounts and use in contradicting and disproving alternative sources.…”