Nuria Descalzo Ruiz (2023)

Chapter one studies the production of knowledge by a collaborative initiative of scholars aiming at developing the foundations for a socio-ecologically-centred accounting research program. The Scientific/Intellectual Movements General Theory is the framework for analysis, and the empirical material was gathered through publications and participant observation of more than 60 hours of collective work. The analysis resulted in two main findings: 1) Social and Environmental Accounting Research (SEAR) is the result of a successful Scientific Intellectual Movement (SIM): SEAR is nowadays recognized as a field of research and, following the insights provided by this analysis SEAR developed as the result of a SIM. As the field became normalized, the SIM extinguished. The analysis of the case, the literature produced in SEAR and the nature of the discussions produced by the S-E group revealed that many of the more radical ideas did not survive the institutionalized version of the f ield. However, they continued to be brought up marginally by a part of the research community. 2) Processes of normalization imply the abandonment of a part of the propositions of a SIM, leading to cyclical processes of intellectual grievance that can re-mobilise action. S-E group participants reclaim some of the ideas about the role of ecology and critical approaches in accounting that were present in the emergence of SEAR but became marginalized as the field gained recognition. The field study shows that, while a SIM might extinguish once it is generally accepted and normalized, some of the ideas discarded in this process and still relevant can generate sufficient intellectual dissatisfaction to mobilize a second wave of collective action. In addition to the description of this new dynamic of grievance and mobilization, this study provided a comprehensive analysis of the emergence and evolution of the field from a lens focused on deliberate processes of scientific evolution. Chapter two analyses the multiple meanings of stewardship in accounting research building bridges with sustainability science through two strategies: the analysis of the literature on stewardship in accounting and sustainability/environmental science; and the analysis of the SeaBOS case study. The notion of boundary objects is used to explain the processes by which cooperation is achieved in the absence of consensus. The analysis of SeaBOS revealed that members share a general commitment to stewardship, but the more concrete application of the object by different members shows substantial differences. They give rise to the following three propositions: 1) A new vision of materiality: current frameworks/standards of corporate sustainability reporting define the content of corporate reports by reference to the notion of materiality. The general understanding of materiality stresses the opinion of stakeholders about the company as a pivotal factor for the content of sustainability reports. The analysis of SeaBOS showed that transparency is indispensable for the exercise and development of stewardship strategies but should be informed by science and respond to the needs of biosphere resilience and planetary boundaries. Exploring the requirements and redefinition of materiality for reporting biosphere stewardship is necessary. 2) Reconsidering the notion of stakeholder: the definition of stakeholders assumes that stakeholders have agency over the company. Stewardship includes more diverse, intergenerational, and non-human “stakeholders” than accountability. SeaBOS showed that relationships with local communities are not built bidirectional: they are not considered partners for sustainability challenges, while the scientists’ articulation of stewardship points to the need to engage with artisanal fishers, women, indigenous peoples, etc. in transforming the narratives of the ocean. Equity is a functional driver for biosphere resilience, while current definitions of stakeholder do not include it. Stakeholder approaches based on f interest generate tensions with the dimension of care (a key point in the stewardship normative agenda). Stakeholder articulations need to be developed to respond to stewardship. 3) New narratives in accounts for the Anthropocene: the progress report built by SeaBOS follows a different and innovative format but shares with the companies’ CSR reports the portrayal of only positive actions and results, not discussing where performance should be improved or where ambitions are not up to science-based standards. SeaBOS showed examples of companies starting to be transparent in cases of low performance. Scientists state that transparency in cases of low performance needs to be rewarded instead of punished. Modern narratives that only underline successes need to be overcome and substituted with new narratives that are informative of the dynamics that need to be changed to safeguard the biosphere’s resilience. The concept of boundary objects is directly related to the resolution of complex problems in the absence of consensus. These scenarios are likely to increase in the biosphere in crisis and enable the analysis of dynamics by which articulations can reconcile for cooperation and sustainability in the Anthropocene. The last research study is a decolonial analysis of corporate biosphere stewardship. The insights derived from the analysis of SeaBOS employing the decolonial Sociology of Absences and Emergences are articulated into five propositions: 1) The role of science: ecological literacy is necessary for addressing the interplay between accounting and nature. From a decolonial perspective, the value of scientific knowledge is recognized while it advocates for more dynamic understandings of reality, avoiding totalities and valuing alternative sources of knowledge. This perspective corresponds to the scientific position found in SeaBOS, recommending the inclusion of local knowledge and traditional values into approaches to ecosystem management. The role of science raises the challenge of developing accounting technologies which make an ecology of knowledge(s) visible. 2) The axiology of care: care is a key element in the theorization of stewardship and decoloniality. Central in sustainability accounting is the notion of development, which is questioned from both decolonial and ecological perspectives. Development entails a linear understanding of time and progress, while it stands on increased levels of material consumption. Substituting development with the axiology of care is a means of decolonializing accounting while acting in the present to produce concrete alternatives for a more sustainable future. 3) The need for equity and recognition: accounting plays a key role in producing visibilities and reproducing rationalities. While equity occupies a relevant dimension in the scientific articulation of stewardship, as it is not formalized into a traceable commitment, it becomes produced as in existent across corporate accounts. The ecology of recognition requires that differences are accounted for and made visible and recognized as equal. 4) The global/local tension: While ocean stewardship requires a global perspective, local experiences are equally relevant and usually end up produced as inexistent. However, local diversity is indispensable for resilience on ecological and social terms, and therefore accounts should be aware of the need to preserve the wealth of human experience with the inclusion of local considerations. 5) The definition of value: accounting for stewardship should differentiate between conceptualizations of value, expanding the notion of productivity to include social and ecological productivity. Such accounting would be able to distinguish productivity from extractivism, mobilizing an ecology of productivity(ies). Decolonializing the notion of productivity would enhance the value(s) of the biosphere.