1. Colin Dey, University of Dundee Shona Russell, Landcare Research Ian Thomson, University of Strathclyde CSR Workshop, September 2008 Social accounting and the external problematisation of institutional conduct: Exploring the potential of shadow accounts

2. Background  ‘Social accounting project’ - pragmatic efforts to engagewith corporate accountability and initiate meaningfulchange  Initial emphasis on formal, procedural aspects ofaccounting  Outcome - mounting evidence of appropriation ratherthan change – organisation capture of language ofresponsibility and sustainability  Ongoing efforts to develop new more reflexiveapproaches to empirical study and engagement withcorporate accountability practices  Accountability discourses drawn from sociology,organisation theory, cultural and media studies, etc

3.  External problematising accounts: Independently produced Extend beyond shadowing corporations Represent the interests of oppressed social groups Widen the number and kind of stories that get told – and the actors who tell them Oppositional form of accounting Resistance - a way of talking back and addressing silence Surfacing of tensions and contradictions  Emancipatory? Or ‘an anchor on a bike’?  Are stories and evidence enough? Shadow accounting: Accounting for the other by the other

4. Shadow accounts take many forms…  social audits  deindustrialisation audits  silent accounts  shadow accounts  portrayal gap analysis  social accounts  counter accounts

5. Why are shadow techniques important?  public opinion increasingly alert to debates aboutrisk & impact of institutional activity  public trust in NGO groups consistently higherthan trust in corporations and other institutions  shadow techniques create ‘counter-expert’ (anti-business) sources of information intended toundermine dominant institutional messages  public opinion may therefore be mobilised inways that damage shareholder value

6. Analysing past experiments with shadow accounts: some common attributes  individuals or collectives collect data  develop theories that draw attention to defects in official accounts of events  construct alternative accounts  problematise official accounting assumptions  question origins, presentation and interpretation of costs, statistics and other evidence  uncover creative or manipulative accounting techniques  embedded within political discourses designed to change policies or specific decisions  to analyse this in more depth we have used Dean’s Analytics of Governance framework

7. Analytics of Government framework Analytics of Government framework  develops notions of governing as ‘bodies of knowledge, belief and opinion in which we are immersed’  components of government include: objectives techniques forms of knowledge visibilities identity construction

8. Problematisation Utopia knowledge identity rationality visibilities technologies Analytics of Government and Shadow Accounting Utopia knowledge identity rationality visibilities technologies Utopia knowledge identity rationality visibilities technologies Ability to change & Emanicipatory??

9. Shadow Accounts Exposing & reflecting invisible & silenced factors Presenting solutions Lacked awareness of governing regimes Did not always address obstacles to change Re-examining situations in light of new understandings Problematising status quo Representing & renarrating Exposing contradictions Undemocratic? Potentially oppressive? Change not directly related to ‘better’ evidence Critique and challenge undesirable institutional conduct Draws its power from power of conventional accounting Challenge knowledge & rationalities Operated in isolation from other ‘shadow’ technologies