It is with both sadness and gratitude that we present the first of a series of AAAJ virtual exceptional issues, dedicated to the work of the late Professor Jeffrey Unerman.
The idea of this series is to provide an additional entry point into the rich back catalogue of AAAJ scholarship, mediated by people rather than search algorithms. We will present publications grouped around broad themes, which will hopefully be useful for emerging and interdisciplinary researchers (and which may also resurface some lesser-known gems for old hands).
From the outset, we acknowledge that drawing boundaries around research is subjective and controversial, and we, therefore, welcome your feedback as the series progresses and seek your forgiveness if your favourite paper is omitted! Instead of providing a detailed discussion on each paper as is the custom for an AAAJ special issue, each exceptional virtual issue will have a brief overview of the overarching themes of the collection. This is intended to further whet the appetite for the prospective reader for the feast of research on offer.
With this intention in mind, we present the papers of Jeffrey Unerman below. Over sixteen years (2004-2020), Jeffrey published a remarkable 14 articles in AAAJ, which we have grouped into four themes. The first theme is that of corporate social responsibility reporting (CSR), a key concern of much of the Social and Environment Accounting (SEA) community. Jeffrey's most cited paper reflected a mainstay of this research – content analysis of corporate social responsibility reports (Unerman, 2000).
Following this work, together with Brendan O’Dwyer and John Bradley he explored the perceptions of Non-Governmental Organisations concerning corporate sustainability disclosures (O'Dwyer et al., 2005). Whilst NGOs believed that sustainability reports could be an essential tool for corporate accountability (in contrast to the pessimistic tone of much SEA research), they felt that this potential was unrealised due to a complicit political elite and a fragmented NGO community.
Throughout his career, Jeffrey had a keen interest in theory, and this interest was at the heart of his next CSR paper: a brief commentary on the newly proposed theory of Strategic Reputation Risk management (Unerman, 2008). Always looking to extend the field but never at the expense of intellectual rigour, Jeffrey was enthusiastic regarding the potential contribution of this theory but cautious about its potential impact on stakeholders beyond investors. A more substantial commentary on the potential for extending SEA research came in the form of a paper co-authored with Brendan O’Dwyer exploring the potential of interdisciplinarity (O’Dwyer and Unerman, 2014).
This paper suggested a continuum of three broad approaches: research that used one theory both individually (i.e. with each paper) and collectively (i.e. all papers used the same theory, such as the agency theory ‘school’), research that used one theory individually but multiple theories collectively (e.g. most SEA research), and research that used multiple theories individually. Calling for more research of the latter variety in order to promote both originality and utility, they also recognised the barriers of narrowly-focused journals, as well as the additional time and training that such an approach entails.
As well as an interest in CSR disclosures generally, Jeffrey was also interested in new developments, and in AAAJ turned his attention with colleagues to Integrated Reporting (IR) (de Villiers et al., 2014; Rinaldi et al., 2018) and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TFCD) (O'Dwyer and Unerman, 2020).
The first paper on IR was the commentary on a special issue that acted as a catalyst for IR research. By the time the second paper was published four years later – also introducing a special issue - the field had mushroomed, and the paper reviewed and categorised over 60 papers. Using the theoretical framework of the ‘idea journey’, the critical finding was that whilst extensive research had been undertaken on the initiation and application phases of the journey, much work remains to be done on the final phase: impact. The analysis of TFCD also reveals rich areas for SEA researchers, especially in relation to one of the notable features of this reporting regime: the requirement for corporations to undertake an analysis of the impact of multiple climate change scenarios on their business.
To date, few organisations have engaged with this requirement. Therefore research on the practicalities is pertinent, as well as more theoretical aspects, and such has how the concept of materiality might be applied.
Whilst Jeffrey’s work on disclosure regimes was undeniably important, perhaps what he will be remembered for most of all is his sustained research, along with collaborators Brendan O’Dwyer and Gloria Agyemang, on the question of NGO accountability (Unerman and O'Dwyer, 2006b; a; O'Dwyer and Unerman, 2007; Agyemang et al., 2017; Agyemang et al., 2019).
Early work included a discussion of the ethical responsibilities of NGOs arising from their advocacy work (Unerman and O'Dwyer, 2006b) and the introduction to a special issue on NGO accountability, which also articulated an extensive research agenda (Unerman and O'Dwyer, 2006a). A series of empirical studies followed. The first was an examination of the accountability of Irish NGOs to one of their key funders - the Irish government – and the success of a new reporting initiative instigated by the Irish government to encourage a longer-term, programmatic approach to funding (O'Dwyer and Unerman, 2007).
Whilst borne from good intentions, the reality of lack of development understanding and staff turnover on the government side, and a sense of ‘box-ticking’ combined with an (understandable) timidity on the NGO side, meant that the presence of completed documentation accompanied an absence of accountability. Similar sentiments were observed a decade later in the setting of Northern Ghana, where foreign donors employed local fieldworkers to undertake a range of development activities. Whilst finding genuine commitment among fieldworkers, frustrations were evident over the prescriptive nature of donor requirements in terms of actions and timetables, together with the lack of ability to engage in dialogue with donors to better explain the challenges of local contexts and conditions.
Fittingly, Jeffrey was able to contribute to a paper which summed up these and other studies by reflecting on the progress made since the 2006 special issue (Agyemang et al., 2019). Four areas were suggested for future focus: the impact of ‘tied aid’ (government-funded aid which is delivered by NGOs, but where this delivery must follow governmental instructions), how NGO identities are formed in conjunction with types of accountability, how accountability operates in informal movements (such as Occupy and #MeToo) and how accountability methodologies are being created and deployed in the field.
Finally, along with Jan Bebbington, in recent years, Jeffrey spent considerable vitality alerting the SEA community to the importance of engaging with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; 2020).
Perhaps more than any other works, the two papers in this theme (the second of which is also an AAAJ special issue introduction) paint a vivid picture of the possibilities for SEA researchers to help solve the world's most substantial problems. In a similar vein to work on IR and TFCD, the late entrance of SEA researchers is lamented, but the point made that is critical not only that this research is done within interdisciplinary partnerships, but also that results are published in channels to reach the broadest possible audience, i.e. beyond accounting academic journals (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018).
Concrete suggestions as to where SEA might be most usefully directed are offered: those SDGs which link social and environmental factors (SDG 8 – economic growth, SDG 9 – infrastructure; and SDG 12 – sustainable consumption and production) (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020).
We are immensely grateful for the depth, breadth, and insights that Jeffrey's AAAJ oeuvre provides, a collection which is especially impressive given it is only a part of his work. But our gratitude is tempered by the sadness that this oeuvre is now complete. We will miss not only Jeffrey's acuity but, especially, his humanity. We hope this collection will help introduce others to the remarkable work of an extraordinary man.
Warren Maroun
James Hazelton
Corporate social responsibility reporting (chronological order)
Integrated reporting & the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
Non-governmental organisations
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Complete reference list
Agyemang, G., O’Dwyer, B. and Unerman, J. (2019), "NGO accountability: retrospective and prospective academic contributions", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 2353-2366.
Agyemang, G., O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. and Awumbila, M. (2017), "Seeking “conversations for accountability”: Mediating the impact of non-governmental organization (NGO) upward accountability processes", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 982-1007.
Bebbington, J. and Unerman, J. (2018), "Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: An enabling role for accounting research", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Bebbington, J. and Unerman, J. (2020), "Advancing research into accounting and the UN Sustainable Development Goals", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1657-1670.
de Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L. and Unerman, J. (2014), "Integrated Reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1042-1067.
O'Dwyer, B. and Unerman, J. (2007), "From functional to social accountability: Transforming the accountability relationship between funders and non-governmental development organisations", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 446-471.
O'Dwyer, B. and Unerman, J. (2020), "Shifting the focus of sustainability accounting from impacts to risks and dependencies: researching the transformative potential of TCFD reporting", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1113-1141.
O'Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. and Bradley, J. (2005), "Perceptions on the emergence and future development of corporate social disclosure in Ireland", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 14-43.
O’Dwyer, B. and Unerman, J. (2014), "Realizing the potential of interdisciplinarity in accounting research", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1227-1232.
Rinaldi, L., Unerman, J. and de Villiers, C. (2018), "Evaluating the integrated reporting journey: insights, gaps and agendas for future research", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1294-1318.
Unerman, J. (2000), "Methodological issues - Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 667-681.
Unerman, J. (2008), "Strategic reputation risk management and corporate social responsibility reporting", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 362-364.
Unerman, J. and O'Dwyer, B. (2006a), "On James Bond and the importance of NGO accountability", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 305-318.
Unerman, J. and O'Dwyer, B. (2006b), "Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 349-376.