Purpose This study investigates how large Italian listed companies disclose extinction initiatives (EI) across mandatory non-financial statements (NFS) and voluntary website narratives. It explores whether emancipatory extinction accounting – framed in the literature as transformative and dialogic – remains vulnerable to impression management and symbolic legitimation. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on emancipatory accounting and impression management theories, the study applies textual narrative analysis to 2023 corporate disclosures in the energy, public utilities and telecommunications industries. It assesses both the substance and rhetorical construction of EI reporting, identifying emancipatory and symbolic features across channels. Findings The analysis reveals a marked decoupling between reporting spaces. NFSs predominantly contain symbolic and compliance-oriented disclosures, while websites more frequently report concrete conservation EI and localized biodiversity projects. However, these more substantive website accounts often remain selective and lack evaluative depth, with limited information on ecological outcomes, shared governance or long-term commitments. Thus, emancipatory elements coexist with traditional legitimacy-seeking attitudes, producing narratives of care without fully redistributing accountability or acknowledging non-human agency. Nevertheless, action-focused voluntary disclosures demonstrate emerging, situated forms of ecological engagement, suggesting that extinction reporting is evolving, rather than fixed. Research limitations/implications The study concerns a single reporting period and does not examine changing website content across time. Unlike NFS, providing comparative data, websites lack such temporal analysis, limiting the comparison of trends and movements in EI across time. Practical implications For policymakers, corporate behaviour may not be driven solely by institutional or legislative pressures but also by decision-makers’ awareness of, and preparedness to deal with, major environmental issues. Originality/value We contribute to interdisciplinary and critical perspectives on accounting research by showing that the boundary between substantive and symbolic reporting is not stable; it is rather actively negotiated; and by highlighting the need for dialogic, relational and evaluation-integrated forms of biodiversity and EI accounting.

Purpose Rewilding and de-extinction are strategies being adopted globally to address an urgent need for biodiversity protection and nature restoration. These strategies require immense funding to finance nature restoration and biodiversity enhancement, and forms of accounting and assurance are required to discharge accountability for the effective use of these funds. This study explores accounting, accountability, assurance, financing and governance for biodiversity protection and nature restoration, focusing on rewilding and de-extinction. Design/methodology/approach The study introduces a Special Issue of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal devoted to “Accounting and Accountability for Rewilding, De-extinction and Biodiversity Protection” and portrays the contributions in this issue. We also present two case studies: the development of nature (biodiversity) credits by CreditNature to finance rewilding programmes, and the planned de-extinction of the woolly mammoth by Colossal Biosciences. Findings There are two key findings. First, we suggest that accounting and finance be universally treated and portrayed as a unified discipline since new developments, such as the evolution of nature fintech through the creation of nature credits, are inextricably linked to the reporting of, and accounting for, these new forms of finance and their impact on nature and biodiversity. Second, we consider the Task Force for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) to accelerate the growth of nature finance. This can be interpreted and portrayed as an emancipatory accounting framework, contributing to engendering the development of nature credits and other forms of extinction finance. Research limitations/implications This investigation draws upon publicly available documents relating to the two cases. It lays the groundwork for further research on rewilding and de-extinction for proposing ways to increase the supply of private finance to meet the ever-growing demands for amelioration of the natural environment. Practical implications The study demonstrates the potential for the TNFD and other related frameworks for biodiversity and nature accounting to act as an emancipatory force in developing the key fields we identify as vital for rewilding and de-extinction, consequently enhancing biodiversity protection and nature restoration. Social implications Society is inextricably linked to nature. Species extinctions and biodiversity loss affect society, business and financial markets. Financing and accounting for rewilding and de-extinction are critical to the future protection and enhancement of biodiversity and to nature restoration globally. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to explore the accounting, accountability, finance and assurance aspects of rewilding and de-extinction.

PurposeThis study is a history of the APIRA Conference, first held in Sydney in 1995, as a catalyst for, and further development of, the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ) Community. It addresses the advent and development of the APIRA Conference series, together with the related Emerging Scholars' Colloquium (ESC) from 2001 and the linked Hall of Fame Awards from 2010. These strategies of the founding, and continuing Joint Editors, Parker and Guthrie, were designed for, and contributed to, interdisciplinary accounting research community building, concerned with demonstrating the value of scholarship of this ilk for transforming accounting and the world.Design/methodology/approachThe investigation embraced APIRA surviving records, including annual editorials published in AAAJ between 1988 and 2017, other relevant literature, oral history interviews with the editors and reminiscences of delegates.FindingsAPIRA has contributed to generating, shaping and leading developments in global interdisciplinary accounting research. Recognised for innovation and interdisciplinary research community building, with a reputation for nurturing emerging scholars and recognising exemplary research leaders, AAAJ continues to challenge the status quo and stimulate innovative, engaging and inclusive scholarship for changing mindsets in accounting thought and practice.Research limitations/implicationsThe study does not examine papers presented at APIRA nor ESC proposals or evaluate specific research published in AAAJ.Originality/valueThis historical study informs understanding of key drivers for stimulating, nurturing and developing the "AAAJ Community" and for instilling interdisciplinary accounting scholarship and its value for transformative purposes.

PurposeThis study aims to examine the extent and quality of biodiversity reporting within publicly traded companies in Italy during 2022, amidst growing calls worldwide for enhanced corporate environmental responsibility.Design/methodology/approachThe study proposes a framework derived from existing biodiversity reporting literature and international guidelines on the topic. Using data from companies' non-financial reports, the voluntary biodiversity disclosure index is quantified on disclosed information. Various quality reporting characteristics are also deepened. Sector-specific analysis is conducted across 11 industries.FindingsApproximately 30% of companies in the sample release information on their biodiversity practices/initiatives regarding biodiversity and extinction loss risks. Quantitative analysis reveals a general commitment to disclosure yet falls short of optimal standards. Qualitative insights suggest a genuine intention towards reporting exists, with notable gaps in future orientation, double materiality and mitigation strategies. The quality analysis underscores that the reporting is mainly generalised, narrative and disaggregated concerning actions to restore habitats and ecosystems.Research limitations/implicationsA limitation of this study is the observation of annual reports during one reporting period. Future studies of longer duration would provide cross-period insights into corporate behaviour.Practical implicationsPolicymakers should implement regulations and guidelines specifically tailored to biodiversity reporting, providing clear frameworks and standards for companies. Collaborative initiatives between governments, businesses and environmental organisations offer potential to develop best practices and facilitate knowledge-sharing in biodiversity reporting.Social implicationsCollaborative initiatives between governments, businesses and environmental organisations offer potential to develop best practices and facilitate knowledge sharing in biodiversity reporting.Originality/valueThe study contributes to future biodiversity disclosure research by introducing a comprehensive framework that fosters stakeholder trust and environmental accountability. It also sheds light on biodiversity stewardship among Italian companies, under EU directives.

PurposeThis article centres on the pertinence of redefining accounting for tomorrow, particularly for facilitating the attainment of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and, thereby, for shaping a better world. In aspiring for accounting to reach its full potential as a multidimensional technical, social and moral practice, this paper aims to focus on ideas, initiatives and proposals for realising accounting's future potential and responsibilities.Design/methodology/approachThe study deploys a further developed "strategic implementation framework", initially proposed by Carnegie et al. (2023), with an emphasis on accounting serving "the public interest" so as "to enable the flourishing of organisations, people and nature" (Carnegie et al., 2021a, p. 69; 2021b). It depicts strategies towards the future of accounting and the world.FindingsSignificant opportunities are identified for accounting and accountants, working closely with a diversity of stakeholders, to become alert to and cognisant of the nature, roles, uses and impacts of accounting. The evidence presented notes a predominant inattention of accounting and accountants to the SDGs despite the deteriorating state of our social and natural environment.Research limitations/implicationsWhilst this article examines other articles in this special issue (SI), there is no substitute for carefully reading, reflecting on and deliberating upon these articles individually.Originality/valueThe time for accounting to focus on creating a better world can no longer be extended. Accounting's full potential will not be realised by remaining in a narrow and complacent, technicist state.

"Debate: The fallacy of making non-financial resources into financial resources without concern for their context—A reply to Christiaens (2022)." Public Money & Management, 43(5), pp. 436–437 Additional informationNotes on contributorsPaolo FerriPaolo Ferri is an Associate Professor in Accounting and Director of the Graduate degree in Innovation and Organization of Culture and the Arts (GIOCA) at the University of Bologna. His research explores the roles of accounting in the arts and culture.Garry D. CarnegieGarry D. Carnegie is an Emeritus Professor of RMIT University and an Associate Editor of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. His interests span contemporary and historical accounting research and he was editor/joint editor of Accounting History for 25 years.Shannon I. L. SidawayShannon Sidaway is a Lecturer in Accounting at RMIT University. Prior to joining RMIT, she worked as a chartered accountant providing business advisory, accounting and taxation services to clients from a range of industries, including the not-for-profit sector.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to augment an understanding of the importance and relevance of a proposed new definition of accounting to reset, inform and develop accounting education, professional practice and research, from tomorrow, for the purpose of shaping a better world. In the process of setting an agenda, we outline, discuss, and analyse the eight articles which follow depicting complementary and insightful scenarios during COVID-19. Design/methodology/approachThis study applies an original informing framework for discussion and analysis purposes, described as Framework of the Multidimensional Nature of Accounting. The proposed, multidimensional definition is "Accounting is a technical, social and moral practice concerned with the sustainable utilisation of resources and proper accountability to stakeholders to enable the flourishing of organisations, people and nature" (2021a, p. 69, 2021b). FindingsAccounting is conceived, understood and examined in the research portrayed as a combined technical, social and moral practice concerned with shaping a better world to enable the flourishing of organisations, people and nature. To the contrary, accounting is not recognised as a mere neutral, benign, technical practice. Research limitations/implicationsWhile this paper examines the other articles, there is no substitute for carefully reading, and reflecting on, all the articles published. Importantly, each contribution provides unique and comprehensive insights on accounting during the initial global pandemic period. Originality/valueAccounting is studied in different organisational and social contexts against the backdrop of a global pandemic, among other "wicked problems" worldwide.

Global university rankings and the metrics mazeDiscussions and debates continue over a truly contentious issue in higher education, the institutional passion for micro-performance measurement in the form of key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics; otherwise be known as a "metrics maze".Are you lost in the metrics maze?On writing, Campus Morning Mail had just published in the same week two commentaries on global university rankings (GURs), by Angel Calderon, on 26 and 28 June respectively and another by Merlin Crossley on 21 July.This industry was established in 2003 with the advent of the Shanghai Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU) as the inaugural ranking of global universities.Subsequently, the numbers of sector rankings of the genre have multiplied.According to an RMIT University web site, "there are at least 15 global ranking schemas" [1].Therefore, how many global rankings exist for our public universities to select and use?The metrics maze has become much larger across the past 20 years since the initial release of numbers dominated GURs and continues to do so.Of course, the larger the maze, the harder it becomes to find one's way out.Getting into the rankings caper seems to be straightforward and, indeed, considered trendy in this "calculative era".Currently, we are into the global rankings season.Calderon, on 26 June, comments that "Aus unis shine bright under Leiden lights".Readers are advised that the Leiden Ranking "includes 1,318 universities, up by 93 from 1,225 in 2021".For better or worse, the oldest universities (formed when there were essentially few universities established), which are often the largest, need not be greatly concerned.These institutions appear to be eternally privileged and often guard their positioning with strong commitment and enthusiasm.Next, on 28 June, "Angel Calderon (critically) reviews big-name rankings", with the subheading, "Nature Index can be better and U-Multirank not much use in Australia".U-Mr, as it is known, originated in 2014, and "covered 804 institutions from more than 70 countries.The 2022 edition covers 2202 institutions".In essence, it seems that this growth is well expressed as, "the more participants there are, the better it shall be".Merlin Crossley, on 21 July, referred to what he calls the "university league tables" and expressed a view that these "would fade into the background", adding "it's happening" already.Why is this the case?According to the author, "because once things settle . . .rankings are self-reinforcing and stable".In other words, GURs are predicted to become firmly fixed in time and across space.What is the point of this nice, even potentially cosy setup for the so-called top-ranked universities?Does this mean that direct competition among our public universities, as indeed stimulated by GURs, results in effectively no change in the future perceived standing of institutions, say in the next 10, 20 or 30 years, as purportedly identified by ranking positions?Notwithstanding Crossley's comments, the constant uploading of institutions into ranking competitions creates a much bigger gap between those players ranked in the Top 100 and those in the Bottom 100.The first category has great cache for marketing purposes to move further up the rankings towards even higher ground.For institutions herded within the bottom tier, their positioning is at least potentially embarrassing and even viability threatening.Unlike in 2003, how many universities evidently aspire to be ranked very well in several different ranking schemas?It does not seem necessary to provide examples of these AAAJ 36,

Fictions and mirages: measuring and auditing the immeasurable in monetary termsAccounting standard setters evidently envision financial value in everything.Indeed, when accountants hear the word "value" or "valuation", the preceding word of "financial" literally jumps into their minds.Evidently, they cannot escape this bondage to monetary measurement.Do you imagine a future in which public cultural, heritage and scientific collections of not-for-profit cultural heritage or arts institutions, should accounting standard-setters get their way, will have an additional key feature for all visitors to these venues?Imagine this conceivable scenario.Each and all objects/artefacts displayed or in back rooms or storehouses of our public, not-for-profit collecting institutions would feature a large and colorful price/value tag.This would proudly display the incongruous and immeasurable monetary values that accountants, following the (now proposed) adoption of a new, controversial international accounting standard pertaining to "heritage assets", would attempt to impose on these public collections held by the not-for-profit institutions as custodians for society.This regime was loudly applauded by the proud accounting standardsetters but was held to be widely offensive in the community, so much so that only accountants would be interested in visiting these institutions to witness this "accounting fiction" (Carnegie and Wolnizer, 1995, p. 31, title) and "accountability mirage" (Carnegie and West, 2005, p. 914).Unfortunately, and not unexpectedly, the price tags were prepared using the traditional, hallmark green biros of auditors and methodically affixed to all collection items in prominent, and often in inappropriate places.In a classic example, one day a price tag was rumored to be found mysteriously and controversially placed across the mouth of the priceless "Mona Lisa" painting.The non-accountants were perplexed by this leap attributed to the philosophy underpinning new public management (NPM).This vast majority of the population quickly lost faith and trust in the management of these institutions and in government, especially as objects in public collections are removed at law, through formal institutional constituting documents and sound governance processes from the economics of the marketplace.They are treasured and prized; positioned beyond the domain or ravages of markets.Public collections are indeed so important that a monetary valuation, in substance, cheapens them to everyday ordinariness.Moreover, these collections were understood by accounting standard-setters as mere mundane items in the category of "property, plant, and equipment".It has been widely understood and broadly appreciated across the decades and centuries that these rare "priceless collections", as universally known, possess important non-financial cultural, heritage and scientific values.In the specific organizational and social contexts in which the objects comprising these collections are held and operate, they do not have any rightful place as "heritage assets", shown as part of property, plant and equipment, in audited statements of financial position.Many citizens even wondered out loud about the possible, supposed "super-powers" of modern-day auditors to reliably measure the immeasurable in financial terms.Auditors of the past were evidently well beyond this apparent, now presumed, capability, of measuring and auditing the immeasurable in monetary terms.Who knows what lies in the future, particularly when it comes to the proposed monetary valuation and audit of "priceless" public cultural, heritage and scientific collections around

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Garry D. Carnegie; Accounting through the Eyes of a Witness, 1973–2022. Accounting Historians Journal 1 June 2023; 50 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2308/AAHJ-2022-023 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAccounting Historians Journal Search Advanced Search

PurposeUsing the most available literature, this viewpoint takes and supports the argument that public cultural, heritage and scientific collections of not-for-profit cultural heritage or arts institutions are non-financial resources, expressly in the specific organisational and social contexts in which they are held, for preservation, conversation and protection into perpetuity. These collections are, therefore, not “assets” or “heritage assets” for recognition in statement of financial position.Design/methodology/approachTo clarify and augment the literature in developing better understanding of how the monetary valuation of public cultural, heritage and scientific collections for general purpose financial reporting purposes is both not fit-for-purpose in these contexts and at least potentially misleading to stakeholders.FindingsThe evaluation of this public sector financial reporting issue portrays to be fit-for-purpose in its social and organisational contexts in which public, non-profit collecting institutions operate. Accounting's role is not the change contexts in the public sector into settings which they are, in substance, not.Originality/valueTo contribute to the overcoming of controversy by illuminating to both accounting professionals and heritage professionals the vexed issues involved in its ongoing discussion and debate. It is argued that there is no need for any accounting standard to be issued on this topic, which would lead to financial values being placed on non-financial cultural, heritage and scientific collections resources in statements of financial position, thereby misrepresenting these collections.

This Introduction to the Edward Elgar Handbook of Accounting, Accountability and Governance puts the collection of chapters making up the Handbook into context. The general philosophy of the Handbook is that accounting, accountability and governance go beyond being technical practices to be learned, adopted and repeated, and must be studied as social and moral practices. The chapters making up the five parts of the Handbook are outlined. Part I considers past and present perspectives on accounting, accountability and governance. Part II examines various mechanisms for accounting, accountability and governance, including audit, assurance and different forms of accounting. Part III considers accounting, accountability and governance in diverse contexts and sectors, including junior stock markets, emerging economies, higher education, the public sector, hybrid organizations and Islamic financial institutions. Part IV reviews some new perspectives on accounting, accountability and governance, including counter accounts and spotlight accounting, as well as the application of ideas of governmentality to accounting, accountability and governance. Part V considers some future directions and notes how the recent COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped accounting, accountability and governance relationships and mechanisms. The Introduction finishes with some indications of how the Handbook may be used in teaching and research.

This chapter addresses the interplay of accounting, governance and accountability. After an introduction, the chapter reviews relevant prior literature that examines how accounting, accountability and governance inter-relate both generally and in specific contexts. The key concepts of the Handbook (accounting, accountability and governance) are introduced and the key interconnection points between these elements are considered. Understanding the interaction between these elements in the organizational and social contexts in which they operate is essential for the success of organizations, people and nature, as well as global stability and sustainability. Accounting, accountability and governance are not merely abstract values. Given the interplay of these elements, they shape and change the contexts in which we live, work and play and, moreover, impact human behaviour, organizational and world culture, as well as organizational and social functioning and development.

What is accounting today? Are conventional definitions of accounting adequate for the early 2020s? What definition do you teach? Accounting is positioned in this study as not a mere neutral, benign, technical practice. It is also a social practice and moral practice as understood based on the important research of accounting scholars across the past 40 years. The paper supports a new definition of accounting as technical, social and moral practice, proposed by Carnegie, G., Parker, L., & Tsahuridu, E. [(2021a). It's 2020: what is accounting today? Australian Accounting Review, 31(1), 65-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/ auar.12325; (2021b). Redefining accounting for tomorrow. IFAC Knowledge Gateway, April 6. https://www.ifac.org/knowledgegateway/preparing-future-ready-professionals/discussion/ redefining-accounting-tomorrow]. The era of calculative order in which we live is illuminated using a tailored case study on global university rankings, using the lens of the proposed definition of accounting. It is intended to provide a better understanding globally of the effects of accounting emergence and change to both professional accountants and non-accountants. Readers may ask 'why'? Accounting has not attained its full potential and can contribute to shaping a better world from tomorrow.

Purpose The Australian higher education sector faces severe risks from the consequences of COVID-19. This paper aims to explore these risks, their immediate impacts and the likely future impacts. The authors specifically focus on the institutional financial and social risks arising from the global pandemic. Design/methodology/approach The authors collect data using the 2019 annual reports of the 37 Australian public universities and relevant media contributions. The findings of identified sector change are interpreted through Laughlin’s organisational change diagnosis. Findings The sector confronts significant financial and social risks because of its over-reliance on income from fee-paying onshore overseas students resulting in universities primarily undertaking morphostatic changes. These risks include job losses, changing employment conditions, mental health issues for students, scholars, other staff, including casual staff, online learning shortfalls and the student expectations of their university experience. The study reveals how many of these risks are the inevitable consequence of the “accountingisation” of Australian public universities. Practical implications Despite material exposure, the universities provide only limited disclosure of the extent of the risks associated with increasing dependence on overseas student fees to 31 December 2019. The analysis highlights fake accountability and distorted transparency to users of audited financial statements – a major limitation of university annual reports. Originality/value Research on the Australian higher education sector has mainly focussed on the impact of policies and changes. The public disclosure of critical risks taken by these universities are now addressed.

The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board of the International Federation of Accountants issued exposure draft ED78 Property Plant and Equipment in April 2021. It proposes valuing 'heritage items' for recognition as 'heritage assets' in statements of financial position. This proposed requirement for global application casts the spotlight on a highly controversial topic in regulated financial reporting. The monetary valuation of cultural, heritage and scientific collections of public not-for-profit museums, art galleries and similar repositories has been subject to considerable discussion and debate for the past three decades. Our purpose is to critically examine this perennial financial reporting controversary, in the context of the three conceptions of accounting: accounting as technical practice, social practice and moral practice as articulated in the definition of accounting proposed by Carnegie et al. (2021a, 2021b) for discussion, debate and potential adoption in the accounting profession, including by accounting standard setters in all sectors. This article is intended to challenge accounting to enhanced self-awareness in reaching its full potential.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the COVID-19 pandemic risk disclosures in a sample of annual reports of Australian public universities. These universities rely heavily on fee-paying onshore overseas students. Analysing these risk disclosures is essential to understanding the COVID-19 crisis and the implications for organisational change.Design/methodology/approachDocument analysis and content analysis of the 2019 annual reports of all Victorian public universities were undertaken to identify the disclosure of COVID-19 risk impacts. Applying Laughlin's Habermasian insights of change, the study explores the pathways of change adopted by universities to overcome the risk impacts. However, financial risk disclosures about income from this source were virtually non-existent.FindingsAny risk associated with COVID-19 disclosed was minimal in a qualitative, neutral and constant format. The quality of disclosures was low. Media statements, however, pointed to significant income loss and suggested a strategy of substantial cost-cutting, including employee redundancies, which we identified as morphostatic changes of universities to overcome the risk impacts.Research limitations/implicationsThe study reveals the risk associated with sector's aggressive growth strategy, jeopardising their financial viability and quality of teaching and research.Practical implicationsThe findings provide insights to the Australian higher education sector. The low quality of external risk disclosures of these universities suggests an urgent need for transformation.Originality/valueAustralian public universities play a crucial role in society. This role will be diminished by a failure to disclose and manage significant risks adequately.

Performance measurement and management has become a passion, even approach-ing a mania, of Australian public universities. In a world of multiple, competing global rankings of universities, known as global university rankings (GURs), our public universities pit themselves against each other competitively in seeking to ascend selected ranking regimes that best suit and reflect their institutions. This Australian study delves into this New Public Management (NPM) driven mantra, by examining the explicit mission or purpose statements (hereafter “missions”) and the vision or ambition statements (hereafter “visions”) of the 37 public universities in Australia in late 2021/early 2022, based on their public disclosures. This study provides widespread evidence of the formal aspirations of these institutions to act in the public interest and to serve and advance society, communities and people. At the same time, however, the main operational game, or rather the passion being played out by these institutions, is facilitated by means of the transformative (or potentially corrupting) power of GURs in moving Australia’s public universities progressively towards a self-interested corporate culture and associated dysfunctional behaviours in creating competition within and across public universities. This dichotomy is identified as the “macro-contributions” approach to university management as opposed to the “micro-measurement”, metrics-driven approach to university management, described herein as “the macro-micro contradiction” in public university management. Accounting as performance measurement is portrayed as transformative, influencing human behaviour, shaping organisational culture, and impacting the organisational and social functioning and development of these institutions. Moreover, public universities, in substance, become what they are not.