Relationship between the principles of dialogic accounting and non-financial reports
| Brown's principles (2009) | Principle's goal | Codification in non-financial reports |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple ideological guidelines | Considering stakeholders' different values and perspectives | Diversity of perspectives (environmental, social, economic, indigenous, community, etc.); acknowledgment of conflicts of interest (e.g. between profit and the environment); |
| Quotes from different groups of stakeholders (communities, NGOs, labor unions and investors) | ||
| Monetary reductionism | Extending the report beyond financial information, including social and environmental indicators | Non-financial indicators (emissions, diversity, human rights, education and health); |
| Social and environmental goals and impacts reported with the same level of emphasis as financial ones; explanations that go beyond monetary value (e.g. qualitative impacts on communities) | ||
| Subjectivity | Making accounting assumptions and criteria transparent, showing their limitations and choices | Acknowledgment of uncertainties, methodological limitations or alternative interpretations; |
| Reflections on how reporting decisions were made (e.g. indicators selected) | ||
| Transparent explanations on the processes and judgments used | ||
| Accessibility | Ensuring a clear language for different audiences | Use of plain language, infographics, and glossaries; reports translated or adapted for different audiences (e.g. local communities) |
| Explanations of technical terms, acronyms and indicators | ||
| Effective participation | Promoting active listening and incorporating feedback from stakeholders | Description of processes for consulting and actively listening to stakeholders; |
| Involvement of communities or social groups in the preparation of reports; | ||
| Explanation of how external contributions were incorporated | ||
| Power imbalances | Highlighting discrepancies between the organization and vulnerable groups | Acknowledging asymmetries between the company and vulnerable groups; |
| Affirmative actions to empower affected communities; transparency on social, environmental and labor conflicts | ||
| Transforming potential | Fostering organizational change from socio-environmental criticism | Evidence that social criticism has led to changes in practices; |
| Reports on organizational, cultural or governance change; | ||
| Proposals that aim to change production patterns or relationship with stakeholders | ||
| Resistance to monologism | Including controversies and critical voices in the reports | Inclusion of criticisms, controversies and dissenting viewpoints; |
| Avoiding purely festive, promotional or self-referential language; | ||
| Evidence that the report is more than just a reputation-building exercise: it is self-critical |
| Brown's principles (2009) | Principle's goal | Codification in non-financial reports |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple ideological guidelines | Considering stakeholders' different values and perspectives | Diversity of perspectives (environmental, social, economic, indigenous, community, etc.); acknowledgment of conflicts of interest (e.g. between profit and the environment); |
| Quotes from different groups of stakeholders (communities, NGOs, labor unions and investors) | ||
| Monetary reductionism | Extending the report beyond financial information, including social and environmental indicators | Non-financial indicators (emissions, diversity, human rights, education and health); |
| Social and environmental goals and impacts reported with the same level of emphasis as financial ones; explanations that go beyond monetary value (e.g. qualitative impacts on communities) | ||
| Subjectivity | Making accounting assumptions and criteria transparent, showing their limitations and choices | Acknowledgment of uncertainties, methodological limitations or alternative interpretations; |
| Reflections on how reporting decisions were made (e.g. indicators selected) | ||
| Transparent explanations on the processes and judgments used | ||
| Accessibility | Ensuring a clear language for different audiences | Use of plain language, infographics, and glossaries; reports translated or adapted for different audiences (e.g. local communities) |
| Explanations of technical terms, acronyms and indicators | ||
| Effective participation | Promoting active listening and incorporating feedback from stakeholders | Description of processes for consulting and actively listening to stakeholders; |
| Involvement of communities or social groups in the preparation of reports; | ||
| Explanation of how external contributions were incorporated | ||
| Power imbalances | Highlighting discrepancies between the organization and vulnerable groups | Acknowledging asymmetries between the company and vulnerable groups; |
| Affirmative actions to empower affected communities; transparency on social, environmental and labor conflicts | ||
| Transforming potential | Fostering organizational change from socio-environmental criticism | Evidence that social criticism has led to changes in practices; |
| Reports on organizational, cultural or governance change; | ||
| Proposals that aim to change production patterns or relationship with stakeholders | ||
| Resistance to monologism | Including controversies and critical voices in the reports | Inclusion of criticisms, controversies and dissenting viewpoints; |
| Avoiding purely festive, promotional or self-referential language; | ||
| Evidence that the report is more than just a reputation-building exercise: it is self-critical |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.