تئوری ساختاردهی : سهم نورمن مکینتاش و کاربرد آن در انتشار تجارت
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|19733||2011||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Volume 22, Issue 2, February 2011, Pages 212–227
This paper examines the contribution of Norman Macintosh to the development of structuration theory which is then used to investigate accounting and the European Union emissions trading system (EU ETS). The research of Norman Macintosh demonstrated the potential of structuration theory as a sensitizing device for management accounting research by illustrating how accounting represents the dimensions of signification, legitimation and domination as well as the ethics of profit manipulation using the dialectic of control. He also demonstrated the role of agency in changing management accounting systems (MAS), which represent a source of ontological security, as well as the role of methodological bracketing. Extending the critical perspective of the work of Norman Macintosh, the investigation of accounting and the EU ETS using structuration theory demonstrated how the EU ETS and the financial reporting interpretation for emission rights, IFRIC 3, represented the dimensions of signification, legitimation and domination. A structural contradiction resulting in measurement mismatches, tension between two moral stances and resource allocation problems led to the withdrawal of IFRIC 3, which has resulted in the IASB and the FASB forming a coalition to develop guidance on accounting for ETS.
This paper provides an overview of the contribution of Norman Macintosh to the development of structuration theory, which is then used as a sensitizing device to analyse the introduction of the European Union emissions trading system (EU ETS) and the associated accounting interpretation, IFRIC 3. The research of Norman Macintosh, Robert Scapens and John Roberts developed structuration theory (Giddens, 1976, Giddens, 1979 and Giddens, 1984) as a theoretical framework that enables management accounting research to include social and political phenomena for the purpose of understanding accounting practices (Macintosh and Scapens, 1990, Macintosh and Scapens, 1991 and Roberts and Scapens, 1985). Specifically, Norman Macintosh has used structuration theory to analyse accounting and control systems as well as organizational change (Macintosh, 1994, Macintosh and Scapens, 1990 and Macintosh and Scapens, 1991), profit manipulation (Macintosh, 1995), the need for methodological brackets (Scapens and Macintosh, 1996) as well as the use of ethnographic research studies (Jönsson and Macintosh, 1997). In addition, the work of Norman Macintosh and Robert Scapens was the focus of a methodological debate in structuration theory (Boland, 1993, Boland, 1996, Macintosh and Scapens, 1990 and Scapens and Macintosh, 1996). The IASB has recognized that the use of, and interest in, ETS has continued to grow worldwide, resulting in a demand for consistent and transparent accounting treatment (IASB, 2007a and IASB, 2007b). To date, ETS research has focused upon accounting issues (Bebbington and Larrinaga-González, 2008 and Engels, 2009), policy networks (Braun, 2009), valuation of allowances (Johnston et al., 2008), carbon disclosure (Kolk et al., 2008), and carbon markets (MacKenzie, 2009). Whilst research into ETS is a developing area, the IASB believes that there is little guidance with a resulting gap in international accounting literature on ETS (IASB, 2007b), where Hopwood (2009) believes the likelihood of fraud, manipulation and a range of unanticipated consequences is very real, with a resulting need for a questioning and critical approach of the actions and consequences associated with ETS. Structuration theory can sensitize researchers as to how the development of ETS was shaped by contradiction, conflict and unintended consequences. Critical research of the EU ETS can be undertaken from a variety of paradigms such as interpretist, radical structuralist, radical humanist and post-modernist (Macintosh and Scapens, 1990), the focus of which would be on ETS as either a structure or a process. Structuration theory links structure to agency and in the process illustrates the interaction of structures of signification, legitimation and domination (Granlund, 2003, Macintosh, 1994 and Scapens and Macintosh, 1996) that have developed from the EU ETS and IFRIC 3, therefore explaining how their development was shaped by the role of agents, or individuals, in critical situations that were characterized by conflict, contradiction and unintended consequences, similar to the approach of Conrad (2005) and Tollington (2006). This approach can therefore examine the inter-relationship between how organizations manage and disclose their carbon emissions (Bebbington and Larrinaga-González, 2008), and provide a “road map” for ETS researchers wishing to focus in detail on particular elements of structuration theory (Macintosh and Scapens, 1991) by informing research at the signification level using Gadamer's hermeneutics, at the domination level using the work of Weber, and at the legitimation level using the theories of members of the Frankfurt School of Social Philosophy (Scapens and Macintosh, 1996). In order to critique and analyse the contributions of Norman Macintosh to structuration theory, and to use this work as a starting point for analysing the introduction of the EU ETS and IFRIC 3, this paper seeks to address the following questions: 1. What has been the contribution of Norman Macintosh to the development of structuration theory and its methodological approaches within management accounting?; and 2. How can the introduction of the EU ETS and the associated accounting interpretation, IFRIC 3, be analysed using structuration theory as a sensitizing device? The paper is structured as follows. The next section provides an overview of structuration theory and its methodological issues, with an emphasis upon the contribution of Norman Macintosh. The third section examines the accounting systems associated with the EU ETS and IFRIC 3. The fourth section uses structuration theory as a sensitizing device to understand the interconnection of structures resulting from the EU ETS and IFRIC 3. The final section provides a discussion and concluding comments.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper provided an overview of the contribution of Norman Macintosh to the development of structuration theory and its methodological approaches within the accounting discipline, and then used structuration theory as a sensitizing device to analyse the introduction of the EU ETS and the associated accounting interpretation, IFRIC 3. Structuration theory, which refers to the conditions governing the continuity or transformation of structures and the reproduction of systems ( Giddens, 1976, 1979, 1984 ) was developed by Anthony Giddens as a sensitizing device for the purposes of thinking about research problems and interpreting research results ( Giddens, 1984 ). Norman Macintosh, along with John Roberts and Robert Scapens, was one of the first researchers to contribute to the development of structuration theory within the discipline of accounting. Norman Macintosh, along with Robert Scapens, was the first researcher to demonstrate the potential of structuration theory as a sensitizing device within management accounting research, using the case of GM to demonstrate the intercon- nectionofstructuresofsignification,legitimationanddomination,andhowtheyarereproducedandchangedinroutineand critical situations respectively. In the process, he also demonstrated that MAS comprise structures of signification, legitima- tion and domination, using the University of Wisconsin budgeting system to illustrate that MAS are interpretative schemes that embody the norms of organizational activity as well as being an authoritative resource. He further demonstrated the potential of structuration theory as a sensitizing device by using the dialectic of control to explain the ethics of profit manipulation, as well as demonstrating the role of agency in changing MAS, using the case of GM to illustrate how the GM executives implemented a new MAS in a critical situation. Norman Macintosh also used the examples of the University of Wisconsin and GM to illustrate that MAS are a source of ontological security to agents because of their regular and predetermined reporting patterns. Norman Macintosh contributed to the methodological considerations of structuration theory by arguing that institu- tional analysis is needed to complement the analysis of strategic conduct in order to explore how accounting statements are understood and accepted by managers as well as how accounting practices are at their most powerful when man- agers take accounting standards for granted. In summary, Norman Macintosh and Robert Scapens highlighted that the conceptual link between agency and structure is a central feature of both institutional analysis and the analysis of strategic conduct. Hopwood (2009) recognized the need for critical research of ETS because of the likelihood of fraud, manipulation and unanticipated consequences. Structuration theory, as a sensitizing device, responds to this request because it highlights how the development and interaction of structures of signification, legitimation and domination of the EU ETS and IFRIC was shaped by the role of agents in critical situations that were characterized by conflict, contradiction and unintended consequences. The EU ETS, established by the Directive of the European Parliament and council, was an unintended consequence of the failure of the European Union to introduce a carbon energy tax. Agency, in the form of an EC team, headed by JosDelbeke, acting at practical and discursive consciousness and motivated by a sense of ontological security, was central to the establishment of the EU ETS. The Directive enabled a structure of signification to be reproduced as it specified the interpretive schemes that were to be used for the measurement of emissions, as well as the issuing and banking of allowances. It also established the ‘moral obligation’ of the EU ETS, which, through the interpretive schemes, legitimated the pursuit of the objectives of the EU ETS, as well as containing provisions for verification and penalties. The responsible institutional bodies for the EU ETS were the European Parliament and the Council for the European Union. The Directive also represented an allocative resource as it contained requirements for the allocation and issue of allowances, whilst as an authoritative resource, it required member states to issue a report on its application. The dialectic of control was also evident as staff members from DG environment were able to exercise control over the knowledge being shared whilst experts from consultancies and NGOs were able to influence the policy-making process of the EU ETS. In summary, the language of Directive 2003/87/EC legitimated the right of the EC to hold member states to account with regard to the EU ETS. The introduction of IFRIC 3 in September 2004 was an unintended consequence of the establishment of the EU ETS which raised questions about the appropriate accounting for the scheme in accordance with IFRS. Up until its withdrawal in June 2005, IFRIC 3 identified three elements of a signification structure that resulted from a cap and trade ETS, an asset for allowances held, a government grant and a liability, an obligation to deliver allowances equal to emissions that have been made. The interpretative schemes were contained in IAS 38 and IAS 37 respectively. Agency, specifically, the Chairman of EFRAG, motivated by a sense of ontological security, recommended to the EC that it should not endorse IFRIC 3 because of the unsatisfactory measurement and reporting mismatches resulting from the application of IAS 37 and IAS 38. IFRIC 3 was subsequently withdrawn by the IASB upon request from the EC in June 2005. IFRIC 3 represented a structural contradiction because it did not meet European parliamentary requirements on the application of international accounting standards whilst the modalities as contained in IAS 37 and 38 had rules that worked against each other respectively. This crisis of signification had an unintended consequence, the withdrawal of IFRIC 3. The legitimacy of the IFRIC to develop IFRIC 3 was based upon its mandate to review accounting issues on a timely basis in order to provide consensus on the appropriate accounting treatment. IFRIC 3 failed the tests of relevance and reliability according to the IASB framework as well as the regulations of the European Parliament and Council due to the measurement and reporting mismatches and the belief that it would not faithfully represent economic reality. Therefore, as a legitimation structure, IFRIC 3 resulted in tension between the moral stances of compliance with IFRIC 3, as well as compliance with the IASB framework and the organizational norms of the European Parliament and Council on the application of international accountingstandards.ThisenabledEFRAGandtheECtodrawupontheresourcesattheirdisposalandresisttheauthorityof the IASB through the dialectic of control. Specifically, they used the EC directives to reduce the effectiveness of IFRIC 3 as an authoritative and allocative resource by arguing that IFRIC 3 was contrary to the true and fair principles as contained in the EC’s directives and that in addition, it did not meet the criteria of understandability, relevance, reliability and comparability. As a result, the IASB withdrew IFRIC 3 in June 2005. ThewithdrawalofIFRIC3hasresultedinastructuralcontradictionasthereisanabsenceofanaccountingdiscoursewith regard to emissions trading, evidence of a critical situation. Due to this structural contradiction, the IASB and FASB board members, acting at the discursive level of consciousness with an unconscious motivation for ontological security, have formed a coalition, the Agenda project, with the purpose of developing a new accounting signification structure with regard to ETS. This will provide the modalities that will enable the reproduction of new structures of signification, legitimation and domination. Future accounting research using the dialectic of control as a sensitizing device could examine in more detail the process by which the IASB and FASB are developing a new accounting exposure draft and subsequent standard with regard to ETS.