Guest editorial: Navigating complexity and tensions? Accounting, accountability and governance in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

This special issue sought to further our understanding of accounting, accountability and governance practices in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA ^[1]) region, given the apparent commonalities (e.g. religion, language, accounting practices and culture) as well as the differences (e.g. history, colonial influence, political and legal systems, level of economic development, GDP and transparency) in its institutional background (Hassan et al., 2014; Tahat et al., 2018). An example of socio-cultural commonality lies in the Islamic religion, which is practised by almost 95% of the MENA population (Farah et al., 2021), which does significantly shape business, financial and accounting practices, i.e. Islamic accounting and finance (Kamla and Haque, 2019; Abras and Jayasinghe, 2023; Abras and Al-Mahameed, 2023; Aburous and Kamla, 2022). Yet, while some of the MENA constituents are considerably resource-rich and boast very high per capita income figures, others exhibit far lower levels on major development indicators (e.g. Human Development Index) and have weak or virtually non-existent capital markets, feeble accounting regulation and local accounting capacity. The state, rather than the private sector, remains the motor of development and agriculture and micro-businesses dominate local economies (Moses and Hopper, 2022). Furthermore, over the last few decades, some MENA countries have been experiencing major political upheavals, social and economic change, or conflict, leading in part to a redefinition of the institutional context, the role of business, civil society, non-governmental organisations and state agencies, with profound impacts on individuals and communities (Alshurafa and Kamla, 2024). In parallel, Gulf “city” states have spearheaded models of development aimed at creating global centres of financial, trading, economic and urban activity, drawing upon the contributions of international professionals, including accountants and financiers (Kamla, 2023). Elsewhere, while grappling with economic and (geo)political turmoil, some countries are continuing to enact accounting reforms, e.g. international financial reporting standards (IFRS) (Review of IFRS in MENA, 2026; Benhayoun, 2024), international standards on auditing (Ghattas et al., 2025) and public sector financial management systems in North Africa.

There remains a significant functionalist-led interest in these reforms based on taken-for-granted assumptions about their universal applicability. However, it is important to bear in mind that IFRS, ISA, sustainability reporting and other similar “good governance” reforms are not neutral technical improvements. For one thing, these reforms tend to rely on Western-centric assumptions about institutions, markets, “professionalism” and accountability that either do not apply, or operate in different ways, in MENA settings. As in many other Majority World countries (Uddin, 2025), accounting and governance reforms can function as instruments of legitimation, symbolic displays, elite consolidation, or external signalling to investors and international actors, rather than as drivers of substantive organisational or societal accountability. Therefore, what may appear as tensions, non-compliance, resistance and mixed outcomes, should not be seen as anomalies or weaknesses but rather as a range of possible consequences when Western-led programs are transposed to different institutional terrains (Ekanayake et al., 2025; Alazemi and Uddin, 2026).

Within these multifaceted perspectives and evolving contexts, the special issue aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the role of governance in enabling or constraining the exercise of accountability and how accounting information is produced and relied upon (if at all) in corporate, public and daily-life settings. Arguably, ownership structures and arrangements in business ventures can lead to distinctive uses of accounting, while the operations of large state-owned entities, such as those involved in strategic industries (e.g. Oil and Gas), often raise questions about organisational accountability, transparency and board processes (Alazemi and Uddin, 2026). Corporate sustainability reporting and other forms of social and environmental accounting have become far more prominent (Ahmed et al., 2021; Sorour et al., 2021; Tahat et al., 2025), potentially as an outcome of distinctive rationalities and logics. Admittedly, research on accounting, accountability and governance in the MENA context has been emerging and has been published in key accounting journals (Boolaky et al., 2018; Sarhan and Ntim, 2019; Abdelazim et al., 2023; Tahat et al., 2025). There is a preponderance of articles focusing on Egypt and, to some extent, on Turkey. Tahat et al. (2025) also note a phenomenal progress in accounting research in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, notably focusing on corporate governance, Islamic banks, corporate social responsibility and intellectual capital; largely reflective of the efforts to become part of the global economy and of the resources being invested in scholarly activity in the GCC region. At the same time, there appears to be limited work published in these so-called international journals. When reviewing the pattern of research and publications on developing countries in accounting journals deemed to be ABDC ^[2]-ranked A*, A and B from 2009 to 2018, Moses and Hopper (2022) found comparatively few studies focusing on individual MENA countries. Furthermore, only 78 out of the 980 articles on Asia related to MENA countries, while almost 51 out of 204 articles published on Africa discussed North African evidence. This dearth of outputs aligns with Uddin's (2025) view that research and experiences from MENA settings are deemed to be peripheral, context-bound, or methodologically weak, rather than being regarded as sources of theoretical insight worthy of publication.

Considering the above, this special issue sought expressions of interest related to broad notions of accounting (e.g. financial and non-financial corporate disclosure, sustainability accounting) and governance practices, in terms of the extent to which they contribute to the exercise of accountability. Through a review of these earlier expressions of interest and a strong scholarly participation at the 2024 Accounting and Accountability in Emerging Economies (AAEE) Workshop ^[3] in Kuwait, a total of 40 submissions were received, signalling a vibrant and diverse research community engaging with MENA-focused accounting topics. The submissions spanned core areas such as corporate financial disclosure, auditing, governance mechanisms, sustainability reporting and public-sector accountability, consistent with the thematic priorities outlined in the call for papers.

Participation was geographically diverse (with submissions from 19 countries, including 10 from the MENA region) and the eight accepted articles are contributions from authors based in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon, Morocco and Iraq. These distributions suggest an increasingly international yet regionally grounded engagement with emerging economies scholarship, particularly on issues such as audit quality, IFRS adoption, sustainability reporting practices, board characteristics and the evolving challenges faced by regulatory and governance institutions across MENA. In addition, the articles demonstrate promising methodological variety and substantive depth, ranging from quantitative-archival studies to qualitative investigations. Collectively, they offer fresh insights into audit practices, corporate reporting and sustainability reporting, reflecting the complex nature of how these operate in the MENA context and the tensions they generate. We would also highlight the commendable levels of engagement from both authors and reviewers, with the articles proceeding though several rounds of review, ensuring that they can collectively offer deeper insights into practices across the MENA region and the scope they offer from the perspective of theory development. The contributions are methodologically rich, providing both empirical validation of theoretical concepts and interpretive exploration of local institutional complexities.

There are three quantitative studies that rely on econometric methods and relatively large datasets to examine key relationships in corporate governance and the adoption of accounting standards. Research examining the influence of board characteristics, such as foreign directors, on corporate innovation and dividend policy in the GCC highlights the region's shift towards governance structures that seek to be (at least visibly) more aligned to global perspectives. The need to signal an alignment towards “good governance” to the outside world remains a key motivation underlying the research. Perceptions about agency problems and insider control lead to a review of existing corporate governance frameworks, e.g. changing board composition and dividend policies as a signal to foreign direct investors (Al-Hajri and Khan, 2024; Baqer and Soliman, 2023).

The first paper by Mardini (2026), entitled “The Impact of Boards of Directors' and Audit Committees' Characteristics on Corporate Innovation: Empirical Evidence from the GCC Countries,” is grounded in agency theory and resource dependence theory. Relying on a robust Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) model on a sample of 213 GCC firms, the authors investigate how governance structures influence innovation intensity. Their key finding noted that a larger Board of Directors may introduce coordination and decision-making delays, thereby reducing the effectiveness of corporate innovation. This contribution thus challenges the conventional wisdom that “more” governance is always better, recommending that policymakers exercise caution when mandating increases in board size, as such mandates may undermine national innovation priorities. Extending the discussion on governance, the second paper by Yousef et al. (2026), entitled “The Influence of Board Foreign Directors on Dividend Payout in GCC Non-Financial Firms,” relies on agency theory to examine how the presence of foreign directors affects corporate financial policy. This study provides distinctive empirical evidence on the relationship between foreign board representation and dividend pay-out in the GCC context. The authors identified a specific association between foreign director participation on dividend behaviour, contributing to an understanding of how global expertise influences corporate distribution policies in this emerging market. The authors recommend encouraging greater participation by foreign directors to help align dividend policies with international practices.

The third quantitative-led paper by Benhayoun and Zejjari (2026), entitled “Investigating micro-level determinants of IFRS for SMEs prospective adoption in emerging economies – Evidence from Morocco”, focuses instead on the adoption of IFRS for SMEs, which highlights the difficulty of translating global standards into local institutional contexts due to factors such as compliance costs, cultural resistance and lack of professional resources (Lahlou and Boujelben, 2023; Tahat et al., 2025). Drawing on diffusion of innovations theory and institutional theory, the study uses a survey of 102 SMEs to provide empirical evidence on the factors influencing IFRS for SMEs adoption. Overall, Moroccan SMEs perceive IFRS for SMEs as being less responsive of their needs and offering limited benefits in their context. They would prefer some form of adaptation that combines an established international framework and local needs. The SMEs' organizational characteristics, accounting professionals' characteristics and industry type did not significantly influence the adoption decision. Given the respondents’ emphasis on adaptation, the authors recommend that regulators prioritize changes to local GAAP to effectively encourage the prospective adoption of global standards. Given the large number of SMEs in the region, such findings would be of key interest to owners, accounting firms and financial institutions. They also push back against a tide of “wholesale” adoption, signalling a preference by SME actors for hybrid practices that are informed by distinct logics of legitimacy, survival and value creation.

The five qualitative papers rely on interpretive methods – including case studies, interviews and discourse analysis – to provide rich, context-specific accounts of institutional complexity, crisis management and accountability challenges in different MENA sub-regions.

The paper by Matta et al. (2026), entitled “Auditor Insights on Hyperinflation and Audit Practices in Lebanon Under IAS 29: A Qualitative Approach”, provides novel insights and contributions into the experiences of auditors with the application of IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies in Lebanon, a context that is largely displaced from our knowledge about day-to-day practices vis-à-vis the practical applications of international accounting standards. It addresses the issue of auditing and financial reporting in hyperinflationary environments, whereby sustained, extreme hyperinflation places unprecedented strain on auditor judgement and exposes major gaps in financial reporting enforcement (Institute of Chartered Accountants, 2024; Uwaydah and Kassir, 2024). The in-depth interviews show the unique challenges faced by Lebanese auditors as the application of IAS 29, especially in a context of hyperinflation, with unreliable inflation indices, fractured exchange or Sayrafa rates, political instability, institutional weakness and an economy dominated by cash transaction. The qualitative method and methodology linking institutional theory and positive accounting theory (PAT) to hyperinflationary auditing practices unravel a number of hurdles faced in the application of IAS 29, where what seems like a technical exercise in valuating assets in the context of hyperinflation, is mediated by local realities and ambiguities that require institutional and contextual judgements and knowledge, as well as adaptive strategies to operate in such a volatile environment. For example, the narratives show how economic considerations, incentives and pressures are often prioritised by managers and auditors in decision-making and strategies related to applying standards, something that is facilitated by the weak implementation and enforcement environment. The study provides a timely contribution where weak enforcement, inconsistent use of inflation indices and resistance to compliance are all at play. It offers important recommendations to regulators, practitioners and policy makers, where the authors call for tailored implementation guidelines based on local contexts and monitoring the application of international standards. The study is a stark reminder that the development of international accounting standards, which usually build on experiences within Western contexts (see Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007; Botzem and Quack, 2009; Arnold, 2012), requires the involvement and knowledge of local practitioners, otherwise there is a danger that their aims and applications will remain fractured and weak. While the study focuses on the single case of Lebanon, it provides a scope for wider understandings around the applications of IASs in fragile contexts. In addition, it provides an important contribution to Arab audit research, given the challenges of accessing primary data in such settings (Ben Hamadi and Ghattas, 2025).

Moving to the intersection of management accounting and culture, the paper by Melhem et al. (2026), entitled “Beyond bias in performance measurement and rewards practices: The role of informal networks in social inequality within Global Professional Service Firms”, contributes to an understanding of how indigenous institutions interact with formal control systems. The research provides in-depth insights into how performance measurement and reward systems (KPIs) imported from a global professional service firm (GPSF) are informally reinterpreted locally in a Jordanian subsidiary through informal logics like wasta ^[4]. The paper, through interviews with employees of the Jordanian subsidiaries in different seniority levels and internal archival data, shows how such processes and attempts to aligning management accounting practices with local norms reveal different consequences on rewards allocations and systematically reproduce social inequality amongst employees based on their networks and access to wasta. The paper introduces the concept of decoupled complementarity to this unique context, by showing how informal logics in local contexts like wasta, do not merely coexist with formal management systems like KPIs, but in return actively reshape them. The article is an important reminder that measurement systems are not neutral but instead require context-sensitive adaptation to local norms when transplanted from GPSFs to subsidiaries to address inequalities between employees. It provides a very interesting link between management accounting mechanisms and practices and those of human resource management and calls for care to mitigate against social inequalities (Al-Dhaheri and Jones, 2023) through wasta. While wasta is a particularly Arab term and practice, the impact of social capital and network on careers and resource allocation is a global issue, manifesting in nearly all contexts. The decoupled complementarity framework can help link such concepts and conceptualise their impact on GPSFs globally.

The communication complexities of external social reporting in the region are tackled by Almeflh and Almofleh (2026) in a paper entitled “Persuasive language in Corporate Environmental Reporting in Saudi Arabia: A Critical Discourse Analysis”. This is a welcomed addition to the literature on persuasive strategies and discourse analysis in corporate environmental reporting in a scarcely examined non-English-speaking context of Saudi Arabia. The paper combines Nwagbara and Belal's (2019) critical discourse analysis (CDA) analytical approach with Jowett and O'Donnell's (2012) persuasion strategies to examine how language is used strategically in corporate environmental reports of Saudi Arabian listed companies. It shows how three Saudi companies from different sectors use persuasive discourse (e.g. shape, reinforce and/are change) to manage legitimacy and influence stakeholders perceptions and responses, particularly aligning national (e.g. Saudi Vision 2030) and global sustainability agendas, including the adoption of reporting frameworks like GRI and ISO. Frameworks like GRI and ISO influence persuasive strategies where companies adopting GRI use the framework to respond, shape and change stakeholders’ perceptions of the company, while the adoption of ISO is often used only to shape responses. Methodologically, the distinction between soft discourse (non-verifiable items like corporate vision statements) and hard discourse (e.g. performance figures) provides more interesting insights on persuasive strategies used by these companies. The paper shows how soft discourse is usually used for response shaping, while hard discourse is often used to both shape and change perceptions. The paper seeks to help preparers and users of environmental reports understand the role of linguistic choices in affecting stakeholders' trust, as well as support the development of more accountable reporting standards. In so doing, it makes the case for identifying potential cases of greenwashing, a globally and regionally significant issue as GCC countries pursue ambitious environmental targets (Hanif and Al-Malki, 2024). The authors strongly recommend that regulators mandate not just what is disclosed, but also the quality and neutrality of the language used to address greenwashing tendencies.

In a similar vein, the paper by Khudir et al. (2026), entitled “Evaluating the sustainability reporting of oil and gas companies in post-conflict regions: the case of Kurdistan”, focuses on accountability in extreme operating environments, by disclosures in the conflict (or post-conflict) region of Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). Within a rarely documented context, the authors analyse seven annual reports by foreign and local oil companies operating in KRI and interview a diverse group of stakeholders (citizens, tribal and community leaders and local workers). They reveal how oil-led economic reforms have exacerbated conflicts rather than bring stability in the region. The critical lens, bound by stakeholder and accountability theories, adopted in the paper allow for insights into how long-term conflicts in the region have allowed oil companies to profit at the expense of sustainability concerns of “powerless” stakeholders. Hence, a lack of mandatory, robust reporting can contribute to renewed social tensions and inhibit reconstruction (UN Global Compact, 2023). The study shows how both foreign and local oil companies have minimum reporting and engagement with local stakeholders in relation to sustainability. The paper provides recommendations asking policy makers and regulators to mandate sustainability reporting that align with “high-quality” international, global standards and consider local stakeholders needs and concerns when addressing and reporting on issues of sustainability in such conflict-ridden areas. The paper highlights the need to theorise accountability in oil and gas industries and fragile contexts and calls for more participatory and context-sensitive reporting. The paper's own engagement with community stakeholders is an important dimension in shifting power from corporate and state decision makers to community concerns.

Finally, the implementation of IFRS for SMEs is further explored by Bakr and Napier (2026), in the paper entitled “Implementing IFRS for SMEs in Saudi Arabia: Views of SME Owners and Managers.” Distinctively, the research provides a rich exploration of the perceptions of 52 Saudi SMEs owners, managers and advisors around the introduction of IFRS for SMEs, by relying on longitudinal evidence comparing stakeholders' perceptions before and (2018–2019) and after (2022–2024) implementation. Drawing on institutional logics and diffusion of innovations lenses, the paper provides critical insight into the adoption of IFRS for SMEs in Saudi Arabia, where the conflict between the purely economic-rational (“modernisation”) logic of IFRS and the embedded (‘traditionalist’) family and social logics within Saudi SMEs initially diminishes the likelihood of successful adoption (Al-Otaibi and Al-Humaid, 2024). Despite initial scepticism towards the new standards, the modernisation logic eventually prevailed as SMEs became reconciled to the idea of implementation, despite some difficulties and concerns about costs related to implementation and compliance. The links between a national local agenda, especially Vision 2030 and adoptions particularly facilitated the wide adoption of the standards. Furthermore, broader economic reforms (e.g. introduction of VAT in Saudi Arabia and Zakat calculation using financial statements) also played a role in legitimising the adoption of the standards. The findings show that implementation of standards and their successful or wider adoption work much better when they are clearly articulated as part of a national development agenda. The paper also provides practical and stakeholder-driven perspectives on the acceptance and implementation challenges of IFRS for SMEs in the Saudi context, identifying institutional barriers and perceived complexity as key challenges. Recommendations call for regulators to tailor implementation support (e.g. training, simplified resources) to address the specific complexity barriers perceived by SME owners and managers.

Overall, we are delighted to have been able to achieve a balance in topics, methods and approaches in this special issue. While these themes seem “global” in nature (e.g. IFRS, sustainability reporting, auditing, performance measurement, corporate governance), the studies show how these practices and discourses are largely intertwined with the social, ownership and political realities of the region. Certainly, we note complex dynamics and tensions even when it appears these practices are gradually being embedded in MENA organisations. We are particularly pleased that deeper insights into single country contexts and practices allowed us an appreciation into how smaller and less-researched countries in the region (e.g. Lebanon, Kurdish Region of Iraq) interface with accounting, governance and accountability reforms. Given the inherently limited number of large (and listed) companies in the region and already well explored settings (e.g. Egypt, GCC) using quantitative archival data, it is noteworthy that many researchers have privileged qualitative approaches and different sectors of the economy (e.g. small and medium enterprises, audit firms, oil and gas companies). We certainly see the relevance for more empirical and longitudinal forays that focus on a diversity of institutions, organisations and actors, such as local and central government bodies and state-owned entities.

With these important new contributions, the special issue opens the way for future research that takes a more critical theoretical and analytical approach. Below are some suggestions.

Critical and interdisciplinary accounting literature has a long history of problematising the conceptualisation of accounting as technical and instrumental, decoupled from political and social contexts (Chua, 2019), including in the MENA region (e.g. Gallhofer et al., 2000; Kamla, 2015; Alawattage and Alsaid, 2018). While this special issue shows a promising departure from such dominant conceptualisations, we suggest that future research can explicitly problematise the ways in which legitimate knowledge in accounting continues to be shaped by Western-centric standards, theories, professional and accountability frameworks, which often “cheerleads” market-based, positive, instrumental and technical focus in accounting research (Chua, 2019; Uddin, 2025). Engaging with such notions requires concerted efforts to not only acknowledge, but also critically interrogate, the colonial, imperial and (post)-colonial legacies in the MENA region and how they operate through both coercive means (e.g. dependency on foreign investments and aid) as well as forms of cultural imperialism (Said, 2014), such as perceiving harmonisation initiatives, such as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and GRI, as neutral accounting tools that benefit everyone equally (See Gallhofer et al., 2000).

Such a task is complex but provides varied research avenues vis-à-vis the MENA region. For example, rather than perceiving Western-centric initiatives to sustainability reporting as the ultimate frameworks to advance social and environmental accounting agenda in the MENA region, more attention to local notions, concepts and initiatives around the environment and society might be more effective. The accounting literature has made significant advances in advocating and bringing to the fore indigenous people's perspectives and theories that reflect a much deeper respect for the earth and all life and how these can impact the development and practice of sustainability accounting and reporting (Gallhofer et al., 2000; Greer and Patel, 2000; Gallhofer, 2018; Bujaki et al., 2023). Such notions remain largely absent from the accounting literature on MENA region, despite some notable advances, especially in the broader area of Islamic accounting (see Kamla et al., 2006; Kamla, 2015; Abdelzaher et al., 2019). Such expansion of theories and contexts not only works to better reflect concerns and practices in local MENA contexts but also provides alternative approaches to understanding and advancing accounting, governance and accountability systems in different contexts, opening up potentials for cross-cultural learning and appreciation (Greer and Patel, 2000; Alazemi and Uddin, 2026).

The task also involves questioning and addressing ways in which both researchers and the researched in MENA contexts internalise and normalise Western and English-speaking accounting knowledge, practices, standards and thought. Uddin (2025) addresses the notion of “epistemic injustice” in accounting knowledge creation, where knowledge and researchers from the Majority World are constrained in contributing to academic debates and knowledge-making due to dominant epistemic frameworks that exclude or devalue their perspectives. This creates forms of testimonial injustice, where local actors' accounts and practices are afforded less credibility and hermeneutical injustice, where available conceptual frameworks are ill-equipped to interpret phenomena such as informality, family control, crisis, conflict, or religiously grounded economic practices. All too often, long standing organisational governance arrangements are pejoratively dismissed as weak or not adhering to ‘modern’ standards without an appreciation of how and why they do contribute to social or organisational outcomes (e.g. Ekanayake et al., 2025). Several papers in this Special Issue implicitly challenge these dynamics by showing how accounting and governance practices in MENA do not merely represent imperfect versions of global models, but are shaped by distinct logics of legitimacy, survival and value creation. We invite future research, however, to make epistemic injustice more visible to move beyond applying established theories to non-Western settings, and instead to develop concepts, explanations and critiques that emerge from, and speak back to, the lived realities of these contexts. In doing so, there is a need to learn from traditional governance and accounting practices.

Failing to acknowledge and address epistemic injustice has consequences, including the dominance of quantitative and market-based studies, which concurrently drive a focus on larger, richer countries in the Majority World, that have developed financial markets, neglecting smaller countries (see also Moses and Hopper, 2022). This reduces research diversity, influences and limits imagination around a more equal and emancipatory forms of accounting and accountability (Chua, 2019). Others like Husillos et al. (2024) point to similar notions when arguing that the expectations placed on researchers from the Majority World, such as in Latin America, to acquire English language proficiency while native English speakers are not expected to learn other languages. They call for a critical evaluation of these hegemonic practices and their consequences. The role of English in both the language of publication as well as in shaping accounting practices and ideologies globally but particularly in the MENA region requires a much wider interrogation in different contexts, including in smaller countries of MENA (Evans and Kamla, 2018; Aburous and Kamla, 2022). While it is understandable that many researchers in the MENA region aspire to publish in international English-speaking journals, there is too little explicit awareness or agony about the hegemony of Western culture and English as the language of research and practice. Thus, much remains to be addressed in respect to proposing strategies or to draw attention and provoke discomfort about the uncritical use of English not only in academic publications but also in practice through accountants’ education and training. Previous research has begun to interrogate the implications of the dominance of English in research and practice on the ability of MENA societies to address socio-economic inequity and disharmony (see Aburous, 2016; Aburous and Kamla, 2022). Kamla and Komori (2018) suggest more attention to the potential role of multi/bilingual researchers as “cultural brokers”, as methodologically we need to more explicitly appreciate the magnitude of moving between people, languages, ideas and practices. Such interrogation extends debates to potentials for decolonisation of accounting knowledge through both questioning and challenging the privileged positions of English language and Western culture in preserving Western-centric accounting knowledge and practices, as well as preserving colonial and neo-colonial structures. We also call for a more explicit agenda for widening both geography and epistemic reach. For example, there is a significant need to carry out research in under-researched MENA settings and from fragile and post-conflict contexts, such as Palestine, and encourage work that examines Arabic-language reporting and bilingual disclosure strategies, not only as a “gap” in the literature but as a route into theorising power, hierarchy and professional stratification through language.

The MENA region, like many regions in the Majority world, is plagued with continued colonial and neo-colonial Western legacies. The Cameroonian historian Achille Mbembe (2020) in his book Necropolitics argues that today, more than ever the global capital markets operate based on the model of war, where people and the planet are pitted against each other. The genocide and settler-colonialism in Palestine, closely linked to other regional social, economic and political historical colonial exploitations and unrest so far have evaded attention in accounting scholarship (Alazzeh and Uddin, 2025; Alshurafa and Kamla, 2024). As researchers focused on championing concerns and voices of people and societies in the Majority World (see Uddin, 2025), including in the MENA region, we argue that we have an intellectual role and responsibility to challenge such forces of necropolitics, (settler)-colonialism, imperialism and domination to develop and envisage alternatives to their hegemony. This requires a clear and clarified political and methodological commitment to the dismantling of systems of domination and alleviating human (and non-human) suffering, including through accounting. For example, there is a need to better understand the entanglement between corporate profits and power, and the ongoing genocide in Palestine (see Albanese, 2025). How can we as accounting researchers address such entanglement, including the role of accounting and the markets in “organising” violence rooted in setter-colonialism (Srinivas et al., 2025), how can we account for the ways in which the targeting of health, education and cultural infrastructure in Gaza by Israel, supported by Western Allies (see Srinivas et al., 2025), are entangled with accounting processes involving arms companies, the military, digital infrastructures, finance and universities? How can we address the overall silence in sustainability and accountability scholarship on the role of military in the destruction of the environment in MENA? Surely current Western sustainability reporting initiatives, such as GRI and IFRS S1 and S2 fall extremely short of addressing such pressing issues. The increasing adoption of “Sustainability” standards is another terrain of contestations, noting the diversity of views and imperatives, for example, between some of the richer fossil-fuel-led economies versus the poorer, institutionally weak, ones.

Notions and ideas around decolonisation emerging from the MENA region remain absent from the expansive discussion in the literature around decolonisation in and through accounting (see Bujaki et al. (2023), for a literature review of decolonisation studies in accounting). Previous research in accounting, while not focusing on MENA region, has addressed various methodological, theoretical and empirical approaches to accounting research focusing on decolonisation and the dismantling of different systems of domination. Examples include building on liberation theology in South America to offer valuable insights for mobilising a more emancipatory accounting, that is concerned with eliminating poverty and suffering (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2004); challenge dualism in Western thought through feminist theories and attention to non-human agency (e.g. Gallhofer, 2018; Everett, 2004); suggestions around activist forms of accounting research, including using counter or shadow accounts to create alternative representations of oppressed groups and co-develop accounting systems with Indigenous peoples to promote transformative practice and representation (Haynes, 2025). While many of these examples might remain entrapped within the Western theoretical perspectives to some extent, attention to such notions is largely absent from research vis-à-vis MENA region, and we invite future studies to engage more seriously with notions around decolonisation and anti-colonial struggles emerging from people's experiences and struggles in the region. More generally, understanding tensions and dynamics in the application of what is termed “global” or “international” reporting frameworks can build on theoretical and conceptual dimensions that examine imbalanced power structures and the role of colonialism, neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism in such “transfers”.

Finally, since our call for the workshop and submissions almost three years ago, political uncertainty, civil unrest, democratic backsliding and conflict have undoubtedly heightened tensions and divisions within the region. In this light, calls for better mechanisms to enhance corporate and state accountability and transparency may sound hollow, especially if they end up benefitting only the politically and economically powerful in maintaining the status quo. We therefore invite contributions to articulate how accounting and governance mechanisms could empower the powerless and marginalised communities/individuals in the region.