Figure 3
The diagram shows two side-by-side columns. The left column is titled “Technocratic Sustainability Accounting” and the right column is titled “Dialogic Sustainability Accountability”. Both columns include four similar headers with bullet points. In the “Technocratic Sustainability Accounting” column, the first header is “Epistemological Orientation” with two bullet points: “Shareholder primacy” and “Reflexivity and quantification”. The second header is “Institutional Anchors” with three bullet points: “Professional habitus”, “Lobbying power (for example, E S R S dilution)”, and “Capital market alignment”. The third header is “Key Features” with three bullet points: “Static disclosure frameworks”, “Financial materiality dominance”, and “Compliance-driven mindset”. The fourth header is “Outcomes” with three bullet points: “Symbolic reporting”, “Technocratic compliance”, and “Impression management”. In the “Dialogic Sustainability Accountability” column, the first header is “Epistemological Orientation” with three bullet points: “Critical pluralism”, “Reflexivity and participation”, and “Political accountability”. The second header is “Institutional Anchors” with three bullet points: “C D A scholarship”, “Participatory action research”, and “N G O practices”. The third header is “Key Features” with three bullet points: “Deliberative and narrative focus”, “Emphasis on pluralism and reflexivity”, and “Stakeholder-centered approaches”. The fourth header is “Outcomes” with three bullet points: “Empowerment of marginalized actors”, “Transformative learning”, and “Democratized accountability”. A downward arrow from the “Outcomes” of both columns leads to the text “Regulatory Ambitions and Conceptual Advance”.Dual epistemological trajectories in sustainability accounting: Technocratic Accounting vs Dialogic Accountability. Source: Author’s own work