#Brexit - The Role of Accounting Firms in The Brexit Discourse On Twitter

#Brexit: The Role of Accounting Firms in the Brexit Discourse on Twitter
Theo Lynn1, Pierangelo Rosati, Martin Quinn and Brid Murphy

Dublin City University, Ireland
Abstract
Social media is widely used by accounting firms to achieve a variety of business objectives. It
is also a key enabler of non-market activities and the mobilisation of new publics in political
discourse. This paper explores the participation of accounting firms in the Twitter discourse
on the referendum regarding the membership of the United Kingdom (UK) in the European
Union (“Brexit”). We examine Twitter usage by accounting firms using the hashtag #Brexit
from the referendum announcement to one month after the Brexit vote: (1) to identify what
activities are supported by social media usage by accounting firms on Brexit, (2) to
understand the nature of business and socio-political engagement by accounting firms on
Brexit, (3) to explore the differences in social media usage and engagement in non-market
activities between accounting firms of different size, and (4) to validate whether social media
engagement by account firms in Brexit represents evidence of domain extension. Our
findings suggest that accounting firms engaged in a variety of market and non-market
activities using Twitter, and that while all firms engaged in knowledge sharing, smaller firms
are more likely to engage in socio-political involvement. This mobilisation of accounting
firms in socio-political discourse extends our understanding of how accounting firms use
social media, supports the view of the accounting firm as a social, institutional and political
practice, and represents a form of boundary expansion through new discursive and rhetorical
spaces.
Keywords: Socio-political Involvement, Brexit, Accounting Firms, Social Media, Boundary

Expansion, Twitter
1
Corresponding author: theo.lynn@dcu.ie; Dublin City University Business School, Dublin City University, Glasnevin Campus, Glasnevin,
Dublin 9, Ireland.
1
Introduction
There is a well-established literature on corporate participation in political and
societal change (Alzola, 2013; Baysinger, 1984; Carroll, 1979; Hillman and Hitt, 1999;
Hillman et al., 2004). Such literature can be grouped into three categories of non-market
activities – corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate political activities (CPA) and
socio-political involvement (SPI). While there are many definitions of CSR, it is largely
accepted to refer to the integration by a corporation of responsibilities to society and the
environment into their business operations and interactions with stakeholders (Dalshrud,
2008). While CSR can be seen as an effort to shape firm policy, activities and interactions
with stakeholders in favourable means to society and the environment, CPA refers to
corporate attempts to shape government policy in ways favourable to the firm (Baysinger,
1984). In both CSR and CPA, there is typically close relationship between firm activities in
these domains and firm objectives. In this respect, SPI differs in that it involves firms taking
positions on issues that are characterised as lacking societal consensus, having low
information rationality, and evolving viewpoints and issue salience (Nalick et al., 2016). SPI,
by definition, can be seen as riskier and more controversial than CSR and even CPA.
Since the early nineties, there has been an increasing focus on accounting, through the
measurement of activities and processes, not only in reporting historic facts about an
organisation but in shaping the behaviour of individuals and organisations (Miller, 1994;
Potter, 2005). This perspective of accounting as a social and institutional practice focuses on
the activity and outputs of accounting and not necessarily the role of the accountant per se.
Similarly, while academic research has examined the adoption of CSR policies by accounting
firms and indeed the socio-political role of accounts and related reports prepared by
accountants, there has been few articles on the corporate political activities or socio-political
involvement of accounting firms (at an organisational level) and accountants as individual
citizens.
Social media is a key enabler of SPI (Nalick et al., 2016). It enables organisations and
individuals to create and consume content but also to identify and connect with others with
similar or opposing views (Bruns and Burgess, 2011; Hoffman and Novak, 2012). Social
media is widely used by accountants to support a variety of market-focussed activities,
predominantly however with reference to marketing and knowledge sharing (Eschenbrenner
et al., 2015). Suddaby et al. (2015) posit that by adopting social media, the accounting
profession has become engaged in a form of domain change. This is evidenced by (1) a
change in the language of professional expertise, and (2) a shift away from the firm’s brand
towards the individual professional (Suddaby et al., 2015).
The referendum on continued membership of the United Kingdom (UK) in the
European Union (“Brexit”) was announced on 20 February 2016 and took place on 23 June
2016; the result was a vote to leave the European Union by a narrow majority (51.89%). In
politics, mobilisation theory suggests that access to the Internet leads to greater engagement
by groups in society who previously have not participated in the socio-political discourse
(Norris, 2002). Social media is seen as a potentially high impact mechanism for increasing
socio-political engagement due the low cost of participating in online social networks
combined with the ability to identify those with similar and opposing views through
mechanisms such as hashtags (Bruns and Burgess, 2011; Enjolras et al. 2013). This paper
2
explores the participation of accounting firms in the Twitter discourse on Brexit. We examine
Twitter usage by accounting firms using the hashtag #Brexit from the referendum
announcement to one month after the Brexit vote: (1) to identify what activities are supported
by social media usage by accounting firms on Brexit, (2) to understand the nature of business
and socio-political engagement by accounting firms on Brexit, (3) to explore the differences
in social media usage and engagement in non-market activities between accounting firms of
different size, and (4) to validate whether social media engagement by account firms in
Brexit represents evidence of domain extension.
This study makes a number of key contributions. Firstly, it extends our understanding
of social media usage by accounting firms beyond conventional market activities to include
non-market strategies such as SPI. Secondly, it examines whether accounting firms engage
with civic and political issues and how. Thirdly, it provides insights regarding the role firm
size plays in the context of both social media usage and participation in civic and political
discourse. Finally, it provides evidence of accounting firms extending to new discursive and
rhetorical spaces and thus supporting extant research in relation to domain extension as per
Suddaby et al. (2015).
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. The next section reviews existing
literature on non-market activities including CSR, CPA, and SPI, the accounting firm and
domain change, and social media usage by accounting firms. The research questions are then
presented. Following an overview of the methods for collecting and analysing data, findings
are presented and discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion on the limitations of the
research and avenues for future research.
Background and Theoretical Context
Corporate Engagement in Non-Market Activities
The literature pertaining to corporate participation in political and societal change may be
grouped into three categories of non-market activities - corporate social responsibility (CSR),
corporate political activities (CPA) and socio-political involvement (SPI). The concept of
CSR has been in evidence since the 1930s (Carroll, 1979) but has gained traction over the
past 20 years with a significant focus on corporate social irresponsibility (Aguilera et al.,
2007). This reflects an increasing awareness of the need for sustainable business practices
(Engle, 2007). CSR refers to the integration by an organisation of responsibilities pertaining
to its business operations and interactions with a wider set of stakeholders (Dalshrud, 2008).
It encompasses all those who impact, are impacted by, or have a legitimate interest in an
entity’s actions and performance, including investors, trading partners, society and the
environment. In essence, CSR is regarded as a means of measuring ‘social performance’
(Carroll, 1979) of an entity and assists in balancing needs and concerns of stakeholders, in
shaping policy and informing activities and interactions. The CSR concept and reporting
thereof has also been referred to as ‘corporate citizenship’, ‘social responsibility’ and more
recently as ‘sustainability reporting’ (Deegan, 2017; Engle, 2007). From a reporting
perspective, it encapsulates all aspects of reporting ‘which go beyond the economic’ (Gray,
2002, p.688). CSR is the subject of much extant research in the accounting literature, a
recounting of which is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the work of Manetti and
Bellucci (2016) is relevant in the context of this study. Their work explored the interactions
through social media - particularly Facebook, Twitter and YouTube – with stakeholders in
3
the context of social, environmental, or sustainability reporting. Their findings noted a
relatively small number of organisations utilised social media to engage stakeholders.
Government policies affect the environment within which organisations operate

(Hillman and Hitt, 1999; Shaffer, 1995). These policies effectively control resources that
frame operating contexts and highlight significant interdependence between organisations
and government. They can alter the size, structure, competitiveness and consumption patterns
of markets through various types of legislation and regulation (Gale and Buchholz, 1987). As
a result, organisations are increasing their efforts to influence public policy (Shaffer, 1995).
CPA describes corporate attempts to shape government policy in ways favourable to the
organisation where government entities are largely perceived as ‘adversaries rather than
allies’ (Baysinger, 1984, p.256). This assumes organisations are value-maximizing rational
business entities (Hart, 2010; Mathur and Singh, 2011). CPA activities incorporate decisions
with regard to selection of a political strategy approach - reactive or proactive; participation -
individual or collective; and specific strategy choices - information, financial incentive and
constituency-building. In addition, important categories of CPA antecedents are pertinent.
These include (1) firm size, structure, ownership, age, resources and capabilities; (2) industry
factors; (3) issue salience and issue competition, and institutional difference; (4) political
environment (Hillman et al, 2004; Rajwani et al., 2013). Implementation decisions must also
consider market strategies and the positions of other political actors. The motivation for CPA
is to ameliorate the operating environment or mitigate risk associated with public policy
decisions and as a result, achieve improved firm performance outcomes (Hadani et al., 2016).
Research on SPI is still at a nascent stage. In their seminal article, Nalick et al. (2016)
report on firm engagement in divisive, unsettled, emotionally charged, or contested issues
such as same-sex marriage, transgender rights and gun control. As noted earlier, SPI involves
organisations taking positions on issues that lack societal consensus, having low information
rationality, evolving viewpoints and issue salience (Nalick et al. 2016). Application of
Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder approach enables an examination of actions (Freeman et al.,
2004) that makes an organisation “both susceptible and amenable to social influence” (Nalick
et al. 2016, p.390). By participating or otherwise taking a position, directly or indirectly, in an
ongoing debate where social norms are contested, the firm may be perceived as acting
ethically or virtuously, responding to stakeholder pressures, and/or reflecting the ideologies
of senior management. At the same time, the firm may potentially alienate stakeholders with
opposing views for limited or no operational benefits. As such, SPI may be seen as riskier
and more controversial than CSR and CPA. Nalick et al. (2016) distinguish SPI from CSR
and CPA across three dimensions. Firstly, operational relatedness should be distal or
uncertain with no clear expectation of increased performance outcomes. Secondly, the
corporate position is binary – for or against. Thirdly, the manner of involvement may be
direct or indirect, formal or informal, and take a variety of forms. It should be noted that due
to the nascent stage of conceptualisation of SPI, there is little empirical evidence generally
and for accounting firms specifically.
The Accounting Firm and Domain Change
Against the backdrop of corporate engagement in non-market activities, it is

worthwhile exploring the changing role of accounting and the accounting firm in society.
Since the late 1980s, there has been an increasing focus on the role of accounting (Malsch,
2013; Power, 1997; Sikka, 2009) with reference to shaping ‘the strategic options and the
external economic conditions’ (Skærbæk and Tryggestad, 2010, p.108). The evolution of
4
accounting as a social and institutional practice can be examined across three dimensions –
accounting as a technique, rationales of accounting, and domain change (Potter, 2005). As a
technique, clearly accounting performs an important role in the production of pertinent
information to enable the standardisation and comparison of entities (O’Dwyer, 2011; Potter,
2005; Power, 1997). However, by representing disparate and abstract activities, events, and
processes in a standardised way, accounting overcomes a form of semantic interoperability
through a specialized language of accounting, what Miller (1994, p.3) refers to as
‘rationales’.
Accounting rationales ‘produces a narrative that acquires symbolic power, directing

legitimacy and power to the organisation’ (Killian and O’Regan 2016, p.1), thereby shaping
relations between the entity and its stakeholders and thus contributing to organisational
change (Deegan, 2017; Unerman and Chapman, 2014). The role of accounting therefore may
lie, not on making rational decisions, but in helping politically-made choices to be accepted
(Sykianakis and Bellas, 2011). The accounting profession has established itself as a key
player in this area (Power, 1997) and may be regarded as a ‘political mediator’ (Malsch,
2013, p.165) in that it influences practices reported by organisations and may intentionally
forward a certain interpretation of reality as truth (O’Dwyer, 2011; Power, 1997). However,
the role of accounting as a linguistic device in socialising accounting processes and data is
also acknowledged by researchers (Killian and O’Regan, 2016; Potter, 2005). The influence
of accounting, as either a means of legitimation or linguistic device, is largely based on the
view that accounting is, and indeed accounting firms are, both objective and unbiased.
The study of domain change in accounting is a complex task for researchers.

Researchers have looked at both the processes and the implications of changing the
accounting domain (Potter, 2005). At the same time, it has been approached through a variety
of institutional lenses including old institutional economics (Burns, 2000), new institutional
sociology (Collier, 2001), structuration theory (Coad and Herbert, 2009) and actor network
theory (Alcouffe et al., 2008). Regardless of focus or lens, there is agreement that the
accounting profession has changed since the late 1970s (Greenwood et al., 2002; Potter,
2005). Potter (2005, p.274) enumerates several examples of domain change through both new
calculative techniques and application of accounting practices to new areas. Whereas
Greenwood et al. (2002) suggest that professional accounting bodies, external actors, play a
significant role in transforming (and maintaining) the organisational field – a concept central
to institutional theory (Scott, 2014) – Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) focus on the role of
internal actors in a theory they refer to as ‘institutional work’.
Suddaby et al. (2015, p.52) define institutional work as ‘the process by which the
habitual practices of individual and collective actors engaged in somewhat routine
interactions contribute to macro-level social change’. To illustrate how institutional work
explains domain change, Suddaby et al. (2015) present a study of social media usage by Big 4
accounting firms (i.e. Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC) and explore how social media ‘creates
an opportunity to reconfigure accounting expertise in new ways’ (Suddaby et al., 2015, p.
53). These new ways may include domain extension as boundary work, domain extensions as
rhetorical work and domain extension as embedded agency. Drawing on extant research,
Suddaby at al. (2015) characterise domain extension as extension in to adjacent areas of
expertise. While their study did not support this hypothesis in relation to accounting firms
and social media marketing, it did support domain extension as rhetorical work and as
embedded agency. They found that social media usage was reconstituting the professional
image of accounting firms in two ways. First, they suggested a trend towards the individual
5
professional’s expertise, rather than that of the firm or profession itself; second, they reported
a trend towards industry-specific knowledge being disseminated, rather than general
professional expertise (Suddaby et al., 2015, p.63). Domain extension as embedded agency
relates to the increased focus on individual accountants rather than the profession or firm, as
their knowledge transfers increased agency and power to the social media operator, who
engineers the reconstitution of the individual accountant as a celebrity professional.
Social Media Usage by Accounting Firms

Social media represents one of the most transformative impacts of information
technology and has fundamentally changed the way we communicate, collaborate, consume,
and create content (Cortizo et al., 2011; Aral et al., 2013). Social media includes a set of web-
based and mobile tools and applications that allow users to create (consume) content that can
be consumed (created) by others and which enables and facilitates connections (Hoffman and
Novak, 2012). Social networking sites can be differentiated by the extent to which users (1)
reveal themselves, (2) know if others are available, (3) relate to each other, (4) know the
social standing of others and content, (5) form communities, (6) communicate with each
other, and (7) exchange, distribute and receive content (Kietzmann et al., 2011).
Given the great extent of actual and potential impacts of social media usage on
individuals and organisations, it has attracted growing attention from researchers from a wide
range of disciplines. Accounting and finance researchers, driven by the fact that social media
platforms have been recognised as an official communication channel (SEC, 2013), have
been among the most active in investigating the effect of social media usage. Social media
engagement has been found to be related with stock market performance (Bollen et al., 2011,
Luo, 2009; Luo et al., 2013; Tirullinai and Tellis, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011), firm profitability
(Goh et al., 2013; Rishika et al., 2013), and with the effects of company disclosure (Jung et
al., 2015; Lee et al., 2015; Prokofieva, 2015; Spenger et al., 2014; Trinkle et al., 2015). A
special issue of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal in 2017 provided several
studies under the theme of “Accounting, accountability, social media and big data: revolution
or hype?” Of the papers in this issue, only one paper draws directly on social media data,
namely the work of Bellucci and Manetti (2017), which uses Facebook data.
Social media also provides a new channel for individuals and organisations to disclose
and manage their accounting information (e.g., Blankespoor et al., 2014; Haigh et al., 2013;
Sprenger et al., 2014). Despite the fact that social media democratises the process of
acquisition, processing and diffusion of accounting information (Saxton, 2012), the adoption
of social media by accounting firms might be challenging (Perdana et al., 2015). Compared to
other professional services, accounting services are uniquely characterised in regard to (actual
and perceived) quality, which derives from a combination of a high level of expertise and
trustworthiness (Holm and Zaman, 2012; Eschenbrenner et al., 2015). By enhancing firm
visibility, social media might allow accounting firms to communicate these characteristics to
a wider audience (Eschenbrenner et al., 2015). However, it also exposes the firm to the risk of
losing control over the information flow due to the virality typical of social media platforms,
which might result in reputational damage (Blankerspoon et al., 2014; Jung et al., 2015; Lee
et al., 2015).
A recent strand of the accounting literature aims to shed light on the reasons for social
media adoption by accounting firms and the characteristics of their social media
6
communication (Debreceny, 2015). However, empirical evidence is still limited: two studies
have been published to date i.e. Suddaby et al. (2015) and Eschenbrenner et al. (2015). As
discussed above, Suddaby et al. (2015) show how social media usage contributes to domain
change in accounting. In their study, they undertake a thematic analysis of new media
messages of Big 4 accounting firms and present evidence of how different types of social
media messaging supports domain change by highlighting (1) specific accountants mentioned
in the press, (2) new hires, (3) accountants with specific expertise, or (4) recognising the
achievements of specific accountants (kudos). As highlighted earlier, this has led to the
emergence of a ‘celebrity accountant’ over the firm, and potential erosion or reconstitution of
perceptions of the boundaries of accounting or the accounting profession.
Eschenbrenner et al. (2015) examine the social media usage of Big 4 accounting firms
and second-tier firms against seven business objectives identified by Ployhart (2012) –
recruitment and selection, socialization and onboarding, training and development,
knowledge sharing, branding and marketing, creativity and problem solving, and influencing
organizational and cultural change. Their findings suggest that Big 4 firms pursue Knowledge
Sharing on Facebook and Twitter to a greater extent than second-tier firms, while second-tier
firms pursue Socialization and Onboarding on Facebook and Branding and Marketing on
Twitter to a greater extent than Big 4 firms. In other words, accounting firms exploit social
media communication to emphasise their strengths compared to their competitors with Big 4
firms striving to emphasise their expertise and to become an information source for timely
industry topics, and second-tier accounting firms emphasising more desirable work hours and
environment.
A major limitation of the above mentioned studies is, as recognised by the authors
themselves, the generalizability of their results for two main reasons. First, both studies focus
on large auditing firms. Specifically, while Suddaby et al. (2015) focus their analysis on
social media accounts of the Big 4 accounting firms only, Eschenbrenner et al. (2015) also
include two second-tier accounting firms (i.e. Crowe Horwath and McGladrey & Pullen) in
their analysis. Even though the key role of Big 4 accounting firms in leading the processes of
change in the accounting profession is undeniable (Greenwood et al., 2002; Suddaby et al.,
2007), smaller accounting firms might have significantly different incentives and rationales
for social media communication (Padar, 2012). Second, both studies analyse accounting firms
in the North American context where most of the accounting knowledge has been generated,
and where professionalism is manifest differently compared with other countries (Krause,
1996; Sciulli and Halley, 2009; Suddaby et al., 2015). Given the high peculiarity of large
accounting firms and of the North American context, the validity of their conclusions in other
contexts (e.g. European Union) is still an open question.
Research Questions
Eschenbrenner et al. (2015) suggest that accounting firms use social media generally
to meet a variety of business objectives as per Ployhart (2012) and that Big 4 firms pursue
Knowledge Sharing on Twitter to a greater extent than second-tier firms, while second-tier
firms use Branding and Marketing on Twitter to a greater extent than Big 4 firms. Their
findings do not differentiate between market activities and non-market activities. No papers
could be identified on social media usage by accounting firms in either civic and political
discourse or socio-political involvement specifically. A critical research issue is, therefore, to
7
understand the types of activities engaged in by accounting firms in the #Brexit discourse. As
such, our first research question is what activities are supported by social media usage by
accounting firms on Twitter within the #Brexit discourse?
There is a growing literature base that suggests a decline in professional discourse by
accounting firms where, due to commercial pressures, accounting firms have become less
objective and unbiased (Hanlon, 1994; Hanlon, 1996; Samuel et al., 2009). As accounting
firms move away from technical commentary, the aura of professionalism and the basis for
legitimation is eroded, as in the case of socio-political involvement, the accounting firm
effectively takes a specific side, and in the case of domain extension, the transfer of focus
from the firm to the celebrity accountant and their views. There is also a transfer of agency to
the social media operator. A second research question is, therefore, what is the nature of
engagement by accounting firms in the #Brexit discourse and what types of non-market
activities, if any, do accounting firms engage in i.e. CPA, CSR or SPI?
A review of CPA literature suggests firm size is one of the most prominent firm-level
antecedents to CPA (Hillman et al., 2004). Research suggests larger firms have greater
resources and thus greater economic and/or political power, and as a result greater ability to
be politically engaged (Schuler and Rehbein, 1997). In contrast, Cook and Fox (2000)
suggest smaller firms are more politically active. One might also argue that as larger firms are
more likely to have government contracts, they may pursue a more relational and less
confrontational approach to civic and political engagement (Hillman and Hitt, 1999. As
discussed, Eschenbrenner et al. (2015) suggests that firm size is a determinant of the type of
business objectives pursued on social media. Thus, our third research question is what are the
differences in social media usage and engagement in non-market activities between large
(Top 100) and small accounting firms in the UK?
Research on mobilisation theory suggests that social media in general, and Twitter
specifically, can enable new publics to form and participate in civic and social discourse
(Bruns and Burgess, 2011; Enjolras et al., 2013; Suiter et al., 2017). Suddaby et al. (2015)
posit that the creation of new discursive spaces is the first step in the erosion and
reconstruction of professional boundaries. Their research on Big 4 accounting firms’ social
media usage is enabling domain extension as rhetorical work and as embedded agency.
Notwithstanding the seminal nature of their work, their research is limited to a small number
of elite US accounting firms. As such, our fourth question is does the content and nature of
engagement by accounting firms in the #Brexit discourse support boundary extension as
rhetorical work and as embedded agency?
Methodology
This paper explores the participation of accounting firms in the Twitter discourse on
Brexit. As such, the empirical context is informed by two primary factors – the referendum
and Twitter. Referendums are a growing feature of the political landscape, but one in which
civic duty and political dissatisfaction drive participation (Schuck and de Vreese, 2015).
Brexit, in particular, is of interest as a focus of SPI research as it is what Stone (2002) refers
to as a policy paradox – it lacked normative or institutional societal consensus. Furthermore,
the Brexit campaign featured significant information asymmetries and low information
structures as well as a high degree of shifting views over the period of the referendum. As
such, Brexit contains all the elements of a socio-political issue.
8
Twitter is a suitable empirical context for a variety of reasons. First, social media is
used effectively ubiquitously by the UK electorate; over 63% of UK adults used social
networking in 2016 (Office of National Statistics, 2016). While Twitter does not release
country-level statistics, sources report that approximately 17% of the UK population uses
Twitter daily (Statista, 2016). Second, it is large and widely used by accounting firms. During
the period of analysis, Twitter (2016) reported that it had 313 million monthly active users;
only one (Leonard Curtis) of the 1022 Top 100 firms in the UK did not have a Twitter
account were, while two other (i.e. Churchill Knight & Associates and Silver Levene) were
not active during the Brexit campaign (see Appendix AError! Reference source not
found.). Third, unlike other popular social networking sites, Twitter is largely an open
network and as such facilitates the connection, sharing and consumption of content between
strangers (Lynn et al., 2015). Fourth, Twitter is widely used in political discourse by
traditional actors such as politicians and campaigners (Chadwick, 2011; Kreiss, 2014; Quinn
et al., 2016), the media (Broersma and Graham, 2012; Chadwick, 2011; Parmelee, 2014;
Verweij, 2012), and the general public (Suiter et al., 2017). Fifth, hashtags (#) are widely
used on Twitter. Researchers have emphasized the key role of the hashtag in political
discourse, and referendums specifically, in enabling Twitter users to identify others with
similar and opposing views and form ad hoc and calculated publics around a specific hashtag
(Bruns and Burgess, 2011; Suiter et al., 2017).
Using Twitter’s enterprise API platform, GNIP, we prepared a dataset of all English
language tweets featuring the hashtag ‘#Brexit’ from the announcement of the referendum on
23 February 2016 until 23 July 2016, one month after the vote. Only original posts were
included in the dataset, no retweets were included. From this dataset of 10.6 million tweets,
we identified 1,274 Twitter accounts that self-report, through their user summary or bio, as an
accounting or accounting services firm. The final dataset comprised 1,765 tweets before the
vote, 317 tweets on the day of the vote, and 2,013 tweets after the vote (see Table 4). 55 large
accounting firms were identified and coded based on Accountancy Age’s Top 50+50 2016
UK survey (Accountancy Age, 2016).
Three coding schemes were developed. The first featured the seven business
objectives identified by Ployhart (2012) as per Eschenbrenner et al. (2015, p.8) and was
extended to include non-market messages (e.g. influencing societal or political change),
automated and other tweets. Automated tweets were coded separately as they do not
necessarily reflect the views of the firm, accounting professionals in the firm, or the social
media moderator controlling the account. Table 1 summarises the coding scheme by activity
and message type. A second coding scheme (Table 2) was developed to identify evidence of
socio-political engagement based on Nalick et al. (2016, p. 389) including CSR, CPA, SPI
and other socio-political engagement. The final coding scheme (Table 3) was based on the
thematic content analysis categories used by Suddaby et al. (2015, p.64) to identify the
emergence of celebrity accountants, an indicator of domain extension as rhetorical work and
as embedded agency. Two coders independently interpreted the intent of each tweet and
classified into one of the categories per coding scheme. Inter-rater reliability with Kappa co-
efficients of 0.95, 0.96 and 1 were achieved for the three coding schemes respectively. As per
2
102 accounting firms are included as two firms, James Cowper Kreston and Hillier Hopkins, were late entrants in to the Accountancy Age
survey.
9
Eschenbrenner et al. (2015), chi-square tests were used to assess differences between the top
102 accounting firms and other accounting firms in the dataset.
Table 1 - Business Objectives Coding Scheme (extending Ployhart (2012))
Business Objective Motivation Message Type
Recruitment and Selection Improve sourcing of candidates and enhance Market

candidate quality
Socialization and Onboarding Increase organisational identification and Market

commitment
Training and Development Increase training effectiveness and/or reduce Market

training costs
Knowledge Sharing Rapid dissemination of information and Market

knowledge at low cost
Branding and Marketing Enhance brand value and marketing effort Market
Creativity and Problem Solving Increase quality, accuracy, and speed of Market
problem solving
Influencing Organizational Culture/Change Reinforce or change organizational culture Market
Influencing Societal or Political Change Reinforce or change public policy or social Non-market
norms
Automated Tweets Rapid dissemination of content with no effort Market

or cost
Other Tweets Other tweets not classified elsewhere Market/Non-Market
Table 2 - Coding Scheme for Socio-political Engagement (based on Nalick et al., (2016))
Socio-Political Engagement Definition Message Type
Corporate Social Responsibility Advance a social good to stakeholders that Non-Market

enhances organisational performance
Corporate Political Activity Manage or influence political institutions or Non-Market

actors in ways favourable to the firm
Socio-political Involvement Direct participation or indirect support for a Non-Market

salient social issue that is part of an ongoing
debate regarding contested social norms
Socio-political Engagement Participation in socio-political discourse Market/Non-Market

through third party content curation, objective
knowledge sharing, and socio-political
engagement other than CSR, CPA, SPI
Table 3 - Thematic Content Analysis of Twitter Messages for Domain Extension as

Rhetorical Space and as Embedded Agency (based on Suddaby et al., (2015))
Message Type Definition
Media Promotion of the activities of a specific employee in the media
New Hire Promotion of the acquisition of new talent
Expertise Promotion of content authored by a specific employee
Kudos Identification of specific employees for congratulations
10
Findings and Discussion
Nature of Social Media Engagement by Accounting Firms in the #Brexit Twitter Discourse
In total, over 422 screen-names representing 774 accounting firms were identified in
the #Brexit discourse. Table 4 reports the number of tweets, the number of screen-names (i.e.
Twitter accounts), and the average daily activity for each time period. It clearly illustrates that
both large and smaller accounting firms were actively using the #Brexit hashtag consistently
over the three phases of the referendum with significant increases in activity from the day of
the vote on. However, such an increase is mostly due to small firms which passed from 0.03
tweets per day per user pre-Brexit to, 0.77 during the vote to 0.11 tweets post-Brexit. Large
firms increased their activity as well; however, the difference between pre and post-Brexit is
less pronounced (0.05 vs 0.09). Unsurprisingly, the day of the vote and the day after the vote
i.e. when the result was announced, were characterised by the highest level of activity for
both small and large accounting firm, confirming the relevance of Brexit for accounting
professionals.
Table 4 - Twitter Usage in the #Brexit Discourse by Referendum Phase
Pre Vote Post TOT
Variable Sample # % # % # % # %
Large 407 46.0% 45 5.1% 433 48.9% 885 100.0%

No. of Tweets Small 1358 42.3% 272 8.5% 1580 49.2% 3210 100.0%
TOT 1765 43.1% 317 7.7% 2013 49.2% 4095 100.0%
Large 72 26.9% 36 13.4% 160 59.7% 268 100.0%

No. of Users Small 350 34.8% 176 17.5% 480 47.7% 1006 100.0%
TOT 422 33.1% 212 16.6% 640 50.2% 1274 100.0%

Large 0.05 0.63 0.09 0.02
Average Activity Small 0.03 0.77 0.11 0.02
TOT 0.03 0.75 0.11 0.02
Table 5 presents the number of tweets, screen-names and average daily activity per
business objective. Unsurprisingly, Twitter was not used for the more internally focussed
activities i.e. Recruitment and Selection, Socialization and Onboarding, Training and
Development, and Influencing Organizational Culture/Change. It is clear from these results,
that the findings are consistent with Eschenbrenner et al. (2015) in that the highest frequency
of tweets and activity was in Knowledge and Sharing, followed by Branding and Marketing.
Knowledge and Sharing content typically included posts on specific Brexit-related topics
including implications for tax, exports, recruitment, strategies and advice for planning. It also
includes a significant proportion of social media curation and linking to third party articles.
Unlike Eschenbrenner et al. (2015), the tweets in #Brexit discourse did not focus on awards
and recognition, but rather the promotion of events and opportunities to engage with firms for
advice. However, these results suggest that accounting firms make use of automated tweets,
primarily for Branding and Marketing, but also participate in socio-political engagement to
Influence Societal and Political Change. Much of the socio-political engagement could be
classified as status updates and more interestingly more subjective opinion. It is noteworthy
11
that, unlike Eschenbrenner et al. (2015), the results suggest some use of Twitter for Creativity
and Problem Solving in so far as firms used Twitter to engage with Twitter audiences to
conduct polls, seek solutions or answer specific questions.
12
Table 5 - Twitter Usage by Business Objective
No. of Tweets No. of Users Average Activity
Panel A: Full Sample
Business Objective Pre Vote Post TOT Pre Vote Post TOT Pre Vote Post TOT
Recruitment and Selection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Socialization and Onboarding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Training and Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Knowledge Sharing 1447 213 1628 3288 285 141 507 933 0.04 0.76 0.11 0.30
Branding and Marketing 158 13 86 257 50 10 38 98 0.02 0.65 0.08 0.25
Creativity and Problem Solving 40 14 34 88 30 12 28 70 0.01 0.58 0.04 0.21
Influencing Organizational Culture/Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Influencing Societal or Political Change 69 41 79 189 37 27 30 94 0.01 0.76 0.09 0.29
Automated 43 29 170 242 14 15 22 51 0.02 0.97 0.27 0.42
Other 8 7 16 31 6 7 15 28 0.01 0.50 0.04 0.18
TOT 1765 317 2013 4095 422 212 640 1274 0.03 0.75 0.11 0.30
Panel B: Large Firms
Automated 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOT 407 45 433 885 72 36 160 268 0.04 0.63 0.09 0.25
Panel C: Small Firms
Automated 43 29 164 236 14 15 22 51 0.02 0.97 0.26 0.42
Other 7 6 16 29 5 7 14 26 0.01 0.43 0.04 0.16
TOT 1358 272 1580 3210 350 176 480 1006 0.03 0.77 0.11 0.31
This table reports the number of tweets, the number of users, and the average daily activity for by business objective and time period for the full sample (Panel A), large firms (Panel B) and small firms (Panel C).
13
Knowledge Sharing and Branding and Marketing are the main objectives pursued by
both large and small firms; both cohorts present similar shifts in focus after the vote by
engaging in higher (lower) Knowledge Sharing (Branding and Marketing). The comparison
of the average daily activity reveals some interesting findings. Specifically, large firms were
more active in Knowledge Sharing and Branding and Marketing before the vote, and in
Branding and Marketing and Influencing Social and Political Cultural Change after the vote.
On the other hand, small firms were more active in Knowledge Sharing and with marketing
activities through automated tweets before the vote, and in automated tweets and Knowledge
Sharing after the vote. This suggests that large firms, when the referendum outcome was
uncertain, sought to establish their expertise pre-Brexit and then once the outcome was
decided, shifted to marketing activities post-Brexit to exploit the opportunity represented by
the exit from the EU. In contrast, activities by smaller firms did not reflect such strategic
thinking. Their activity most likely reflects their resource constraints and ability to generate
new content quickly, and as a result is contains a large proportion of news sharing and
automated tweets based on popular content in their Twitter feed rather than their own
deliberate thoughts on such topics. Table 6 reports some sample tweets for each business
objective.
Table 6 - Thematic Content Analysis by Business Objective
Message type Number Sample tweets
Knowledge Sharing 3288 • What are the financial reporting considerations of #Brexit? Read Deloitte's
#FinancialReportingAlert to find out: https://t.co/ZMAAcBIMQK
• #Brexit: Five Tax Implications for Businesses https://t.co/bbjHsd9lIX via
@bdoaccountant
• Key tax considerations to think about now the EU referendum has been decided:
https://t.co/1GarnHukMo #Brexit #BDOonBrexit
Branding and Marketing 257 • Next week we're hosting talk on #Brexit political & economic implications for
business leaders with @CRS_Lawyers https://t.co/COnQafmFgU
• Join our #Brexit debate on 15 June to hear the arguments on why we should stay in or
leave the EU https://t.co/o0lYvEcfMG #Eureferendum
• #Brexit could have potential #implications on UK #VAT so contact our dedicated VAT
team to find out more https://t.co/cJlv0pDlt6
Creativity and Problem 88 • Have your say on Brexit. Take our survey https://t.co/cQ2wbgv0n0 #brexit #brexitpoll
Solving #brexitsurvey #fdi
• Clients who are concerned by the uncertainty created by the #Brexit vote should contact
us https://t.co/EdYHzEwn3Y https://t.co/JEYZrgjDD9
• How will leaving the EU affect your imports/exports, let us know! #manufacturing
#brexit #engineering https://t.co/1BqZRVweVy
Influencing Societal or 189 • #Brexit - a personal view of the #EUref ----> https://t.co/sLRLEFqs0w
Political Change • It's a bit like in an audit firmThe partner of audit firm still carries authority & sway
over junior clerks #brexit https://t.co/scjYcUiDbI
• "I would never have dared to go in, but, having gone in, I would never have dared to
come out."Churchill on Suez ... or on #Brexit?#EU
Automated Tweets 242 • The latest The Leicester Accountant! https://t.co/3DmRAQCgQX #brexit #tax
• Hot off the press! Catalyst Enterprise News! is out! https://t.co/fNtaIsZK9A #brexit
#borisjohnson
• The latest My Online Bookkeeper Daily! https://t.co/o8v3vsmvtw #brexit #euref
Other 31 • Please remember to vote today, it shapes your future and the future of Britain #BREXIT
#EURef https://t.co/kLdrSJ1OZR
• Best of luck @TheresaMay2016 #NewPM to lead #Brexithttps://t.co/tqB3lqdbbV
• Nothing to tweet today - am ignoring #brexit. I've lived on the Isle of Man for 15+ years
outside EU, can't vote so only time will tell...
14
Socio-Political Engagement by Accounting Firms in the #Brexit Discourse on Twitter
Table 7 summarises socio-political engagement by accounting firms in the #Brexit
discourse on Twitter. The results suggest that there is very little evidence of CSR or CPA.
The few tweets on these issues relate to voter mobilisation and the impact (or lack thereof) of
Brexit on a business. A small number of tweets (41) from 28 firms met a narrow definition of
SPI where the tweets express a clear position on Brexit e.g. leave or remain. What is less
clear is the extent of socio-political involvement if one broadens out the definition. For
example, a further 72 tweets from 37 firms express an opinion of various sorts e.g. party
politics however it may not be clear whether they are pro-leave or pro-remain. In contrast, 57
firms engaged in some form of socio-political engagement where the opinion was unclear,
often related to party politics or a status update on the campaign. Similarly, the two largest
categories of tweets involve some form of socio-political curation through sharing third party
content (669 screen-names) or sharing non-partisan firm-generated content (355 screen-
names). While the latter is not socio-political engagement, it is weak form of SPI at best.
However, socio-political curation is more troublesome from a research perspective. Social
media curation is the largest Twitter activity (50.9% of all tweets) and typically involved
sharing news articles on various general and accounting-specific Brexit-related issues.
Invoking a narrow definition, is the sharing of third party content, that is clearly leaning
towards one side or another, a statement of a position on Brexit or merely a form of
knowledge sharing? This is unclear.
Interestingly, the comparison between small and large firms reveals that all the tweets
associated with CSR (11), CPA (5) and SPI (41) activities were generated by small firms
suggesting that large firms tended to not take a clear position, for or against, in the #Brexit
debate. Indeed, the evidence from the data suggests that the main focus of large firms was to
communicate their expertise; the greatestportion of their tweets (399) was associated with
activities related to sharing Non-partisan First Party Expertise. Finally, the large number of
large firms’ tweets associated with Socio-Political Curation (225) and the low number of
tweets classified as Automated (1) further provides evidence of the willingness of large firms
to build their reputation through social media. It is worth noting that large firms are more
likely than small firms to have a communication strategy that reflects the objectives of the
organisation instead of the top management. In small firms, the role of entrepreneur/owner is
central and he/she usually is responsible for more than one role in the organisation. Studies
suggest that the informal, immediate and conversational nature of Twitter makes content
shared on Twitter more reflective of the entrepreneur’s individual perceptions of an event
(Tata et al. 2015). With this in mind, the social media account(s) of the firm is(are) likely to
reflect the personal opinion of the person(s) actively managing the account(s), this case the
lead partners in the smaller firms. This is consistent with research on managerial influence on
CPA (Blumentritt, 2003; Burris, 2001). Similarly, in our study larger firms were more likely
to remain neutral discussing the pros and cons of both sides. Again this is consistent with
extant CPA research and could be explained by resource dependency theory i.e. that firms
with greater dependency on government policy or contracts is likely to pursue a more
relational and less confrontational relationship with government (Hillman and Hitt, 1999).
Table 8 presents examples of tweets associated with each type of socio-political engagement.
15
Table 7 - Twitter Usage by Socio-Political Engagement
Type of Engagement Pre Vote Post TOT Pre Vote Post TOT Pre Vote Post TOT
Corporate Social Responsibility 4 6 1 11 3 3 1 7 1.33 2.00 1.00 1.57
Corporate Political Activity 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Socio-Political Involvement 19 8 14 41 12 7 9 28 1.58 1.14 1.56 1.46
Other Socio-Political Engagement 1490 245 1713 3448 363 175 580 1118 4.10 1.40 2.95 3.08
Socio-political Curation with Opinion 1003 160 925 2088 239 106 324 669 4.20 0.14 0.09 3.12
Other Socio-Political Discourse without Opinion 90 15 28 133 33 12 12 57 2.73 1.17 2.83 2.33
Other Socio-Political Discourse with Opinion 24 14 34 72 12 10 15 37 2.00 5.60 48.40 1.95
Non-partisan First Party Expertise 373 56 726 1155 79 47 229 355 4.72 0.62 0.74 3.25
Other 208 28 114 350 67 26 60 153 3.10 6.15 15.42 2.29
Automated 42 29 169 240 13 15 21 49 3.23 0.00 0.00 4.90
Other 118 2 44 164 14 2 9 25 8.43 1.00 4.89 6.56
Automated 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Other 90 26 70 186 53 24 51 128 1.70 1.08 1.37 1.45
Automated 42 29 168 239 13 15 20 48 3.23 1.93 8.40 4.98
This table reports the number of tweets, the number of users, and the average daily activity by socio-political engagement and time period for the full sample (Panel A), large firms (Panel B), and small firms (Panel C)
16
Table 8 - Thematic Content Analysis by Socio-Political Engagement
Type of Engagement Number Sample quotes
Corporate Social 11 • Today is the last day! Register to vote in the #EUReferendum, if you haven't
Responsibility already. - #Brexit #RemainOrLeave
• We know we're all bored of #Brexit already but please ensure you vote today,
regardless of which side you fall on
• 23 days til we have to make our decision-in or out? The decision is too important to
ignore, don't forget to have your say #Brexit #InOrOut
Corporate Political Activity 5 • #Brexit would have no impact on our business, so I guess you could say we are
prepared.
• @matthewbennett agree but could call a general election with a view to gaining
mandate for continuing #Brexit or stopping the process
• British Expats Encouraged To Register for Brexit Referendum
https://t.co/JOYJykbFH7 #ExpatLife #Brexit #Referendum
Socio-political Involvement 41 • #Brexit AND Bust? Could This Be The End of Britain? #EUref
https://t.co/1S4Vf4aobj https://t.co/6QsqBLzLR9
• Now keep the promise of Ã‚Â£350m a week for our #NHS - Sign the petition:
#EuRef #Leave #Brexit https://t.co/ROu7Pnc5sC
• #BREXIT means business, accountable business folks!Not a moment to waste!Now
everyone has free market choice to trade with UK British
Socio-political Curation with 2088 • #Brexit decision should increase focus on #NorthernPowerhouse say business
Opinion leaders https://t.co/QJCrIeftMs @insidernwest
• City economist says Soros wrong on #Brexit https://t.co/EU5ArocVbF
• #Brexit uncertainty hits sterling.https://t.co/goa2ngvWsY
Other Socio-Political 133 • What will be the consequences/benefits of an #EU exit? #voteforthefuture #BREXIT
Discourse without Opinion #UKEUreferendum
• Join our #Brexit debate on 15 June to hear the arguments on why we should stay in
or leave the EU https://t.co/o0lYvEcfMG #Eureferendum
• #Brexit is a hot topic of contension with the 23rd close at our heels. Have you
decided? #EU #Brexit
Other Socio-Political 72 • Everyone LOVES a winner, but no LOVE for #Brexit!#BrexitVote #StayPositive
Discourse with Opinion #EU #UK #Goodbye #LeaveWins #Blog https://t.co/KVZOw5uG1h
• 2016 #Eureferendum by far the most important vote that todayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s politicians
will ever be involved in #BREXIT https://t.co/GC3r4u4sjT
• #Brexit means #BrexitLet us get on with building the country.There are too many
here that want to destroy us all https://t.co/7QrqiRJdPD
Non-partisan First Party 1155 • Tax Insight: UK Chancellor issues Brexit tax warning #brexit
Expertise https://t.co/bE4x9uDUUe
• Post-Brexit, what's likely to happen from a financial compliance perspective?
https://t.co/WOwbkphYo2 #Brexit https://t.co/yyUrBUFfnC
• What are the financial reporting considerations of #Brexit? Read Deloitte's
#FinancialReportingAlert to find out: https://t.co/ZMAAcBIMQK
Other 350 • From #Brexit to supply chains, let us have your views. All participants will receive a
free copy of the final report https://t.co/EvfOquxc1U
• Join us for beer and #Brexit. Book with @EnglefieldKate #Bedford #politics
https://t.co/6VkDtPgJln
• Our #EU debate live stream - should we stay or should we go? - starts at 6pm. Be
sure to tune in #Brexit https://t.co/mEjo07ZesQ
Automated 240 • The latest https://t.co/lilFeNZ3EM! https://t.co/4LrP1ZEKmG #brexit #bizitalk
• The latest The Clover Accountants Daily! https://t.co/uBpYzne3ah Thanks to
@Sara_Moseley @MyJQ @ukinportugal #socialmedia #brexit
• The latest The Leicester Accountant! https://t.co/3DmRAQCgQX #brexit #tax
Domain Change as Rhetorical Discourse and Embedded Agency

The results of codification of the data for the third coding scheme identified only six
tweets (from three large and three smaller accounting firms) promoting an individual featured
in the Media. There was only one reference to a New Hire and no name is mentioned in the
tweet, again from a small firm, and no tweets in the dataset were identified that could be
identified as Kudos. With regards to Expertise, the results confirm the phenomenon identified
by Suddaby et al. (2015) of accounting firms, both large and small, promoting individual
partner or director expertise. Specifically, of 1,234 Expertise tweets, 810 were generated from
small firms and 424 from large firms. Table 9 provides examples of these types of tweets.
Unsurprisingly, there is a sharp increase in the number of Expertise tweets post-Brexit for
17
both small and large firms, suggesting a willingness by the firms to present themselves as
experts. The motivation could be multifold e.g. branding, acquisition of new clients, or re-
assurance for their existing clients. Secondly, there is evidence of promotion of specific
domain or industry knowledge associated with such expertise rather than the accounting
profession. Table 10 presents these results. As a consequence, these results also suggest that
increased agency has been transferred to the social media operator of the firm Twitter
account.
Table 9 - Thematic Content Analysis of Twitter Usage for Domain Change
Message Number Sample tweets
type
Media 6 • Partner Ruth Dooley joined Mark Cummings @BBCGlos this morning - listen here
https://t.co/3GZpzBRBR1 #Brexit
• Jane Parry features in @LBVmagazine with her initial #Brexit reaction - https://t.co/3v67rWgVPe
https://t.co/zy6jGnQXRQ
• We have the @itvtynetees cameras interviewing @Harlandsdavid all about the impact of #Brexit.
Read our blog here >> https://t.co/b2moQUB0cF
New Hire 1 • A post #Brexit view of our uncertain world from our newest recruit. https://t.co/OjLgMLUSjR
https://t.co/VekLjiKjqa
Expertise 1234 • Jonathan Hill from our Financial Planning team on our investment philosophy post #Brexit
https://t.co/UlRSwzcnQV
• #Brexit - An update from our Director @PomChakravarti: https://t.co/uZQtZi-
• Mhup #BrexitVote #EUref #EUreferendum #HMRC #tax
• .@DaveKendrickUHY head of #automotive, comments on the economic impact of #Brexit on the
#automotive industry https://t.co/6GFSJM04yS #motor
Kudos 0
DiscussionThe empirical context of this study is novel, if not unique; it comprises

accounting firms, social media and a relatively rare and particular form of representative
democracy, a referendum. It is generally accepted that accounting is a social and institutional
practice. This study focussed on the accounting firm rather than the practice of accounting
and the nature of firm-level usage of social media. There are relatively few studies of social
media usage of accounting firms and these tend to focus on US and Big 4 accounting firms.
Our first research question sought to extend our understanding of social media usage by a
wider group of accounting firms than the Big 4 and on a specific social networking platform
i.e. Twitter. Our study included over 750 firms including 55 of the Accountancy Age Top
50+50 accounting firms in the UK. We identify that 99 of the 102 large accounting firms
identified by Accountancy Age were active on Twitter and 55 engaged in the #Brexit
discourse during the period of analysis. We show that size is a significant determinant of
social media messaging and the topics engaged in and that accounting firms engage in a wide
range of communication tactics to achieve their objectives using Twitter. While the data
suggests that the dominant messaging related to market activities and objectives such
Knowledge and Sharing and Branding and Marketing, it is clear from the data that
accounting firms pursue non-market activities including influencing social and political
activities. As such, in addition to the substantive findings summarised in the previous
discussion, our study also extends the analytical frameworks for social media content analysis
used in extant accounting research to include non-market objectives and activities
(Eschenbrenner et al., 2015; Suddaby et al., 2015).
18
Table 10 - Twitter Usage by Domain Change
Domain Change Pre Vote Post TOT Pre Vote Post TOT Pre Vote Post TOT
Media 1 0 5 6 1 0 5 6 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
New Hire 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Expertise 404 5 825 1234 84 5 162 251 4.81 1.00 5.09 4.92
Kudos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOT 405 5 831 1241 85 5 168 258 4.76 1.00 4.95 4.81
Media 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
New Hire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Expertise 116 0 308 424 31 0 124 155 3.74 0.00 2.48 2.74
Kudos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOT 117 0 310 427 32 0 126 158 3.66 0.00 2.46 2.70
Media 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
New Hire 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Expertise 288 5 517 810 53 5 38 96 5.43 1.00 13.61 8.44
Kudos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOT 288 5 521 814 53 5 42 100 5.43 1.00 12.40 8.14
This table reports the number of tweets, the number of users, and the average daily activity by domain change and time period for the full sample (Panel A), large firms (Panel B) and small firms (Panel C).
19
Referendums are a particular form of representative democracy that, while more
prevalent internationally, are still used relatively selectively. With Brexit, the UK electorate
was asked to vote on one particular proposal; continued membership of the European Union.
The historic nature of this referendum cannot be underestimated. In the history of the UK,
there has only been three UK-wide referendums including Brexit, two of which related to
membership of the EU3. Brexit meets the conditions for a socio-political issue as laid down
by Nalick et al. (2015). It was, and remains, a divisive issue lacking societal consensus (as
evidence by the result), having low information rationality, and featuring evolving viewpoints
and issue salience. Our analysis identified that accounting firms were engaged in a wide
range of non-market activities as evidenced by their Twitter participation including CSR,
CPA, and SPI. However, it is not clear whether current articulations of such activities capture
fully corporate civic and political participation. We argue that all engagement with the
#Brexit sub-network on Twitter de facto represents a form of socio-political engagement,
whether it is ad hoc or calculated. Indeed, our findings recognise the potential need for more
nuanced interpretations of CSR, CPA and SPI that recognise the greater participatory role,
activities and engagement characteristics social media can play in a networked society, what
we term ‘socio-political engagement’, outside of narrower definitions of CSR, CPA and SPI.
In the context of social media this may include social curation, automation (including bots),
formal vs informal engagement, and participation in ad hoc vs. calculated publics. Figure 1
proposes a framework for classifying such engagement, the SPE Grid. Such a framework
highlights that, in the social media world, other SPE activities may be linked to, or develop
into, CPA, SPI or CSR activities if their main focus shifts more towards operational or
stakeholder benefits, or both.
Figure 1 - A Framework for Classification of Socio-political Engagement (The SPE

Grid)
While there are numerous studies of accounting as a socio-political practice, there are
fewer studies on accounting firms. With respect to the empirical context, this study also
makes a contribution to political communications theory by providing confirmatory evidence
of mobilisation theory. Our study shows that accounting firms are engaged in both direct and
indirect civic and political discourse beyond traditional market objectives.
3
United Kingdom European Communities Membership Referendum, 1975; United Kingdom Alternative Vote Referendum, 2011.
20
The findings have managerial implications at strategic, tactical and functional levels
as they involve the firm’s brand, marketing operations and specific-platform activities. The
decision, planned or emergent, to take and promote a particular position on a socio-political
issue and the separation of emphasis from the expertise of the firm to ‘celebrity accountants’
is a firm-level decision. This is particularly relevant where the issue lacks societal consensus
and risks alienating existing or future policy-makers, clients, employees and other
stakeholders. At a marketing operations level, while nearly all of the largest UK firms are on
Twitter, activity varies and some (three) have decided not to use Twitter in their marketing
mix. The evidence suggests that Twitter is used by accounting firms to build awareness
(cognition), sentiment (attitude) and drive intention to purchase (conation). While not the
specific focus of this paper, the findings suggest that each of these operational strategies is
employed or firms achieve these outcomes identified, directly or indirectly. In addition to
building awareness, there are clear examples of advocacy both directly through mentions and
sharing (re-tweeting). The shift in emphasis post-Brexit with specific calls to action (e.g. to
contact specialist domain experts for Brexit advice) supports the use of conative strategies.
Furthermore, it shows that accounting firms are adaptive in their engagement on Twitter e.g.
larger firms increased their intensity towards knowledge sharing post-Brexit. At an
operational level, the various message-level activities identified, whether market or non-
market, are of use in planning and engaging in social media at the platform-level regardless
of size. Again, there is evidence of adaptive capabilities and behaviour post-Brexit e.g.
smaller firms made more use of automation.
With regard to domain extension, we present evidence of domain extension as a
rhetorical work and the reconstitution of embedded agency in the accounting profession at the
individual level of analysis as per Suddaby et al. (2015). We present referendums as a new
rhetorical or discursive space for accounting firms in that it is clear from the evidence that
firms are engaging in new civic and political participation through a new space, social media.
As such, we confirm Suddaby et al.’s (2015) proposition of new rhetorical spaces on social
media but also present evidence of a shift towards the celebrity accountant and the delegation
of representation to a marketing or social media operator. It should be noted that,
unsurprisingly, the Brexit debate is not necessarily a platform for New Hire or Kudos
messaging; however, the relatively low volume of Media-based tweets was of interest but this
may not be reflective of the wider discourse, which does not feature the hashtag #Brexit.
Nonetheless, there is ample evidence of the individual accountant as an embedded agentic
actor and indeed the rhetorical subordination to social media operators as presented by
Suddaby et al. (2015). Furthermore, the evidence of social political involvement by
accounting firms and opinion and more informal messaging via Twitter, particularly by
smaller firms, suggests a significant dilution of the language of professional expertise
associated with accounting but also of the accountant as objective and unbiased.
Finally, regarding size, our research suggests firm size is an important antecedent of
the type of socio-political participation accounting firms engage in as evidenced by their
Twitter usage. The thematic focus of larger firms, and their decision to remain neutral, can be
explained by a variety of theories including the resource-based view, profit-maximisation and
resource dependency theories. As discussed, smaller firms may reflect managerial influence.
It is worthy to note an emergent phenomenon in relation to size which is evident in the data in
that there is an increasing prominence of both franchises (e.g. TaxAssist) and cloud
21
accounting firms (e.g. Xero and Sage affiliates). In both cases, there is evidence of collective
coordination and participation similar to that found in CPA (Hillman and Hitt, 1999; Cook
and Fox, 2000). These organisations adopt social media in style different to other firms in
that they represent a form of hive coordination, following their lead from the master brand or
account. This transfers significant authority from the subsidiary firms, who may be as small
as one accountant, to the master franchise, some of which lack the embedded social and
institutional culture of accounting. Individually, these small firms cannot attract significant
attention from the mainstream media for their position, but on social media their coordinated
and collective action can result in abnormal attention through mechanisms such as Twitter
trends etc. As such, these emerging collective organisations may represent a structural change
to the accounting sector, a new type of hive influence in the context of marketing
communication, and new competitive threat to established firms.
Concluding comments
In this paper we analyse Twitter usage by accounting firms in the political discussion
about the Brexit referendum. Specifically, we investigate: (1) what activities are supported by
social media usage by accounting firms on Brexit, (2) the nature of business and socio-
political engagement by accounting firms on Brexit, (3) the differences in social media usage
and engagement in both social media usage and non-market activities between accounting
firms of different size, and (4) the extent to which accounting firms engaged in domain
extension activities.
This paper makes a number of contributions to the literature. Firstly, it extends our
understanding of social media usage by accounting firms beyond conventional market
activities to include Influencing Social and Political Change and non-market activities such
as SPI. Secondly, it examines whether accounting firms engage with civic and political issues
and how. We provide confirmatory evidence of mobilisation theory and the participation of
accounting firms as a socio-political actor. We identify the need for a more nuanced
approache to how civic and political participation is classified, particularly in the context of
social media, and present the SPE Grid as an organising mechanism. Thirdly, we provide
insights into the role firm size plays in the context of both social media usage and
participation in civic and political discourse. We identify a potential structural change in the
accounting sector, focussed on franchise and cloud account firms, which may represent a new
form of social influence in the sector and may impact the wider competitive forces in the
market. The technology brands behind some of these networks, for example Xero and Sage,
do not have the same accounting cultural embeddedness or professional constraints as the
wider market and as such may contribute to the further dilution of the ‘profession’ of
accounting. Finally, our study provides evidence of accounting firms extending in to new
discursive and rhetorical spaces, the transfer from firm-level expertise to individuals, and the
rise of the social media operator as an embedded agentic actor. Thus, we support and confirm
extant research in relation to domain extension (Suddaby et al. 2015).
Notwithstanding its contributions, this study is not without limitations. Firstly, we
focus on one empirical context. While referendums, and specifically Brexit, are attractive
because of their historical importance, rarity and in this case, lack of societal consensus, they
do not easily allow for wider generalisation. Similarly, Brexit, and the associated Twitter
discussion, was largely limited to one country, the UK, and our study was limited to English
22
language and one social media platform, Twitter. Further research is required on the
participation of accounting firms in other political spaces including referendums, local and
general elections, as well as wider social discourse, in the UK and elsewhere. While popular,
Twitter is just one social media platform, and additional research on other platforms
including LinkedIn and Facebook would be informative and allow for additional analytical
lenses including inter-network analysis, social network analysis, peak detection analysis, and
topic analysis (Lynn et al., 2015). Such research could be further supplemented with primary
qualitative research to understand the processing depth of socio-political engagement and
secondary research using material shared on Twitter (reports, infographics, images, videos
etc.) but also primary destination sites for these materials e.g. corporate websites, blogs,
traditional media and other social networks. While this study focussed largely on one firm-
level antecedent (size), one industry (accounting), and one issue (Brexit), there is a rich
stream of research opportunities available including additional antecedents, socio-political
engagement types, how firms organise for socio-political engagement, and the outcomes of
such socio-political engagement. The more established CSR and CPA literature may be
informative in this regard (Hillman et al. 2004).
23
References
Accountancy Age (2016), Top 50+50 Firms 2016. Available at:
https://www.accountancyage.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2016/09/AA-top50-
workbook-2016.pdf, accessed 15 May 2017.
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., and Ganapathi, J. (2007), “Putting the S back
in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 836–863.
Alcouffe, S., Berland, N., and Levant, Y. (2008), “Actor-networks and the diffusion of
management accounting innovations: A comparative study”, Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Alzola, M. (2013), “Corporate dystopia: The ethics of corporate political spending”, Business
& Society, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 388-426.
Aral, S., Dellarocas, C., and Godes, D. (2013), “Introduction to the special issue—social
media and business transformation: a framework for research”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Baysinger, B. D. (1984), “Domain maintenance as an objective of business political activity:
An expanded typology”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 248–258.
Bellucci, M., and Manetti, G. (2017), “Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic accounting?
Evidence from large philanthropic foundations in the United States”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 30. No. 4, pp. 874-905
Blankespoor, E., Miller, S.G., and White, H.D. (2014), “The role of dissemination in market
liquidity: Evidence from firms' use of Twitter™”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 89. No. 1,
pp. 79-112.
Bollen, J., Mao, H., and Zeng, X. (2011), “Twitter mood predicts the stock market”, Journal
of Computational Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Broersma, M. and Graham, T. (2012), “Social media as beat: Tweets as a news source during
the 2010 British and Dutch elections”, Journalism Practice, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 403-419.
Bruns, A. and Burgess, J. E. (2011), “The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc
publics” Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR)
General Conference 2011.
Burns, J. (2000), “The dynamics of accounting change: inter-play between new practices,
routines, institutions, power and politics”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 566-596.
Burris, V. (2001), “The two faces of capital: Corporations and individual capitalists as
political actors”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, pp. 361-381.
Carroll, A. B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 497–505.
Chadwick, A. (2011), “The political information cycle in a hybrid news system: The British
prime minister and the “Bullygate” affair”, The International Journal of Press/Politics,
Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 3-29.
Coad, A. and Herbert, I. (2009), “Back to the future: New potential for structuration theory in
management accounting research?” Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20, No.3, pp.
177-192.
24
Collier, P. M. (2001), “The power of accounting: a field study of local financial management
in a police force”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 465-486.
Cook, R. G., and Fox, D. R. (2000), “Resources, Frequency, and Methods: An Analysis of
Small and Medium-Sized Firms’ Public Policy Activities”, Business & Society, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 94-113.
Cortizo, J. C., Carrero, F. M., and Gómez, J. M. (2011), “Introduction to the special issue:
mining social media”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.
5-8.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008), “How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
definitions”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 15,
No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Debreceny, R. S. (2015), “Social media, social networks, and accounting”, Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 1-4.
Deegan, C. (2017), “Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research
within Critical Perspectives of Accounting: Hits, misses and ways forward”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 43, pp. 65-87.
Engle, R. L. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility in host countries: a perspective from
American managers”’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 14, No. 1, pp 16-27.
Enjolras, B., Steen-Johnsen, K., and Wollebæk, D. (2013), “Social media and mobilization to
offline demonstrations: Transcending participatory divides?” New Media & Society, Vol.
15, No. 6, pp. 890-908.
Eschenbrenner, B., Nah, F. F.-H., and Telaprolu, V. R. (2015), “Efficacy of social media
utilization by public accounting firms: Findings and directions for future research”.
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 5-21.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., and Parmar, B. (2004), “Stakeholder theory and “the corporate
objective revisited””, Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 364–369.
Gale, J., and Buchholz, R. (1987), The political pursuit of competitive advantage: What
business can gain from government, in Marcus, A., Kaufman, A., & Beam, D. (Eds.),
Business strategy and public policy: pp. 231-252. New York: Quorum.
Goh, K. Y., Heng, C. S., and Lin, Z. (2013), “Social media brand community and consumer
behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user- and marketer-generated content”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 88–107.
Gray, R. (2002), “The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society,
privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?”
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 687-708.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., and Hinings, C. R. (2002), “Theorizing change: The role of
professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1.pp. 58-80.
Hadani, M., Doh, J. P, and Schneider, M. A. (2016), “Corporate Political Activity and
Regulatory Capture: How Some Companies Blunt the Knife of Socially Oriented Investor
Activism”, Journal of Management, in press, pp. 1-30.
25
Haigh, M. M., Brubaker, P., and Whiteside, E. (2013), “Facebook: examining the information
presented and its impact on stakeholders”, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 52-69.
Hanlon, G. (1994), The Commercialisation of Accountancy—Flexible Accumulation and the
Transformation of the Service Class. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Hanlon, G. (1996), “Casino Capitalism and the Rise of the “Commercialised” Service Class-
an Examination of the Accountant”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 7. No. 3,
pp. 339-363.
Hart, D. M. (2010), Political theory of the firm, in: Coen D., Wilson G. (Eds). Oxford
handbook of business and government. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Pp. 173–90.
Hillman, A. J., and Hitt, M. A. (1999), “Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of
approach, participation, and strategy decisions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.
24, No. 4, pp. 825–842.
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., and Schuler, D. (2004), “Corporate political activity: A review
and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 837–857.
Hoffman, D. L. and Novak, T. P. (2012), Why do people use social media? Empirical
findings and a new theoretical framework for social media goal pursuit. Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1989586, accessed 15 May 2017.
Holm, C., and Zaman, M. (2012), “Regulating audit quality: Restoring trust and legitimacy”,
Accounting Forum, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 51–61.
Jung, M. J., Naughton, J.P., Tahoun, A., and Wang C. (2015), Corporate use of social media.
Working Paper, New York University, Northwestern University.
Jung, M. J., Naughton, J. P., Tahoun, A., and Wang, C. (2016), “Do Firms Strategically
Disseminate? Evidence from Corporate Use of Social Media”. Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2588081 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2588081.
Killian, S. and O’Regan, P. (2016), “Social accounting and the co-creation of corporate
legitimacy”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., and Silvestre, B. S. (2011), “Social media?
Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 241-251.
Krause, E. A. (1996), Death of the guilds: Professions, states and the advance of capitalism,
1930 to the present. Ann Arbor, MI: Yale University Press.
Kreiss, D. (2014), “The virtues of participation without power: Campaigns, party networks,
and the ends of politics”. The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 537-554.
Lawrence, T. and Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. in Clegg, S.,
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B. & Nord, W. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd
edn., pp. 215-254. Sage: London.
Lee, L. F., Hutton, A. P., and Shu, S. (2015), “The Role of Social Media in the Capital
Market: Evidence from Consumer Product Recalls”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.
53, No. 2, pp. 367-404.
Luo, X. (2009), “Quantifying the long-term impact of negative word of mouth on cash flows
and stock prices”, Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 148-165.
Luo, X., Zhang, J., and Duan, W. (2013), “Social media and firm equity value”, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 146–163.
26
Lynn, T., Kilroy, S., van der Werrf, L., Venkatagiri, S., and Healy, P. (2015), “Towards a
General Framework for Social Media Research Using Big Data” Procomm 2015: IEEE
Professional Communication Conference.
Malsch, B. (2013), “Politicizing the expertise of the accounting industry in the realm of
corporate social responsibility”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 38, No. 2,
pp. 149-168.
Manetti, G., and Bellucci, M. (2016), “The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in
sustainability reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 29, No. 6,
pp. 985-1011.
Mathur, I. and Singh, I. (2011), “Corporate Political Strategies”, Accounting & Finance, Vol.
51, No. 1, pp. 252-277.
Miller, P. (1994), Accounting as social and institutional practice: An introduction, in
Hopwood, A. G. & Miller, P. (Eds.), Accounting as a Social and Institutional Practice,
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Nalick, M., Josefy, M., Zardkoohi, A., and Bierman, L. (2016), “Corporate Sociopolitical
Involvement: A Reflection of Whose Preferences?” The Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 384-403.
Norris, P. (2002), Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge University
Press.
O'Dwyer. B. (2011), “The case of sustainability assurance: constructing a new assurance
service”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 1230–1266.
Office of National Statistics. (2016), Internet access – households and individuals: 2016.
Available at:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homein
ternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividuals/2016,
accessed 15 My 2017.
Padar, J. (2012), “Innovation or stagnation?” Accounting Today, Vol. 26, No. 6, p. 54.
Parmelee, J. H. (2014), “The agenda-building function of political tweets” New Media &
Society, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 434-450.
Perdana, A., Robb, A., and Rohde, F. (2015), “XBRL diffusion in social media: Discourses
and community learning”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 71-106.
Ployhart, R. E. (2012), Social Media in the Workplace: Issues and Strategic Questions.
SHRM Foundation Executive Briefing. Available at:
http://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/products/Documents/Social%20Media%20Briefing
-%20FINAL.pdf, accessed 15 My 2017.
Power, M. (1997), “Expertise and the construction of relevance: Accountants and
environmental audit”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 123-
146.
Potter, B. N. (2005), “Accounting as a social and institutional practice: Perspectives to enrich
our understanding of accounting change”, Abacus, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 265-289.
Prokofieva, M. (2015), “Twitter-based dissemination of corporate disclosure and the
intervening effects of firms' visibility: Evidence from Australian-listed companies”
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 107-136.
27
Quinn, M., Lynn, T., Jollands, S., and Nair, B. (2016), “Domestic Water Charges in Ireland-
Issues and Challenges Conveyed through Social Media”, Water Resources Management,
Vol. 30, No. 10, pp. 3577–3591.
Rajwani T., Lawton, T., and McGuire, S. (2013), “Corporate Political Activity: A literature
review and research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15, No.
1, pp. 86–105.
Rishika, R., Kumar, A., Janakiraman, R. and Bezawada, R. (2013), “The effect of customers?
Social media participation on customer visit frequency and profitability: An empirical
investigation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 108–127.
Samuel, S., Covaleski, M. A., and Dirsmith, M. W. (2009), “Accounting in and for US
Governments and Non-profit Organizations: a Review of Research and a Call to Further
Inquiry”, Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 3, pp. 1299-1322.
Saxton, G. D. (2012), “New media and external accounting information: A critical review”,
Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 286-302.
Schuck, A. R.-T. and de Vreese, C. H. (2015), “Public support for referendums in Europe: A
cross-national comparison in 21 countries”, Electoral Studies, Vol. 38, pp.149-158.
Schuler, D. A., and Rehbein, K. (1997), “The filtering role of the firm in corporate political
involvement”, Business & Society, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 116-139.
Sciulli, D. and Halley, J. A. (2009), “Professions and Burgertum: etymological ships passing,
night into day”, Comparative Sociology, Vol. 8, pp. 202–246.
Scott, W. R. (2014), Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Stanford:
Sage Publications.
Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) (2013), SEC Says Social Media OK for
Company Announcements if Investors Are Alerted. Available at:
https://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1365171513574, accessed
15 May 2017.
Shaffer, B. (1995), “Firm-level responses to government regulation: Theoretical and research
approaches” Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 495–514.
Sikka, P. (2009), “Financial Crisis and the Silence of the Auditors”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 34. No. 6-7, pp. 868-873.
Skærbæk, P. and Tryggestad, K. (2010), “The role of accounting devices in performing
corporate strategy”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 108-124.
Sprenger, T. O., Tumasjan, A., Sandner, P. G., and Welpe, I. M. (2014), “Tweets and trades:
The information content of stock microblogs”, European Financial Management, Vol. 20,
No. 5, pp. 926-957.
Statista. (2016), Age distribution of Twitter users in Great Britain from May 2013 to July
2016. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/278320/age-distribution-of-twitter-
users-in-great-britain/, accessed 15 May 2017
Stone, D. A. (2002), Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York:
Norton.
Sykianakis, N. and Bellas, A. (2011), “Organization Politics and the Role of Accounting”
European Research Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3,pp. 119-134.
28
Suddaby, R., Cooper, D., and Greenwood, R. (2007), “Trans-national regulation of
professional services: Governance dynamics of field level organizational change”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 32, pp. 333–362.
Suddaby, R., Saxton, G. D., and Gunz, S. (2015), “Twittering change: The institutional work
of domain change in accounting expertise”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.
45, pp. 52-68.
Suiter, J., Nair, B. and Lynn, T. (2017), “The role of social media in driving participation and
engagement in referendums”, ECIU Workshop - Menace or Blessing? The Role of Direct
Democracy in the Process of Political Representation.
Tirunillai, S., and Tellis, G. (2012), “Does chatter really matter? Dynamics of user-generated
content and stock performance”, Marketing Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 198–215.
Trinkle, B.S., Crossler, R.E., and Bélanger, F. (2015), “Voluntary Disclosures via Social
Media and the Role of Comments”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.
101-121.
Twitter (2016). Selected Company Metrics and Financials. Available at:
https://investor.twitterinc.com/index.cfm, accessed 15 May 2017
Unerman, J., and Chapman, C. (2014), “Academic contributions to enhancing accounting for
sustainable development”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp.
385-394.
Verweij, P. (2012), “Twitter links between politicians and journalists”, Journalism Practice,
Vol. 6, No. 5-6, pp. 680-691.
Zhang, X., Fuehres, H., and Gloor, P.A. (2011), “Predicting stock market indicators through
twitter “I hope it is not as bad as I fear””, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.
26, pp. 55-62.
29
Appendix A List of Top 100 Accounting firms from AccountacyAge (2016).
Rank 2016 (2015) Name of firm Twitter #Brexit Tweets
1 (1) PwC Y 0
2 (2) Deloitte Y 1
3 (4) EY Y 0
4 (3) KPMG Y 8
5 (5) Grant Thornton UK Y 11
6 (6) BDO Y 46
7 (7) RSM (Baker Tilly) Y 0
8 (8) Smith & Williamson Y 2
9 (10) Moore Stephens Y 14
10 (9) Mazars Y 17
11 (11) PKF UKI Y 8
12 (12) Saffery Champness Y 3
13 (13) Haines Watts Y 67
14 (14) Crowe Clark Whitehill Y 5
15 (15) UHY Hacker Young Y 97
16 (17) MHA MacIntyre Hudson Y 103
17 (16) Begbies Traynor Group Y 0
18 (18) Kingston Smith Y 45
19 (19) Wilkins Kennedy Y 6
20 (20) Menzies Y 0
21 (24) TaxAssist Accountants Y 79
22 (22) Buzzacott Y 21
23 (23) FRP Advisory Y 0
24 (29) Kreston Reeves Y 52
25 (24) HW Fisher & Company Y 1
26 (28) Price Bailey Y 27
27 (32) haysmacintyre Y 3
28 (27) Anderson Anderson & Brown Y 0
29 (31) SJD Accountancy Y 0
30 (30) Frank Hirth Y 0
31 (34) Hazlewoods Y 6
32 (33) Armstrong Watson Y 5
33 (36) Bishop Fleming Y 4
34 (35) Duncan & Toplis Y 0
35 (37) ASE Y 0
36 (-) Streets Y 0
37 (41) Barber Harrison & Platt Y 7
38 (40) Larking Gowen Y 2
39 (-) Leonard Curtis N 0
40 (41) Old Mill Y 1
41 (39) Lovewell Blake Y 0
42 (49) SRLV Y 0
43 (44) Forrester Boyd Y 2
44 (42) Mercer & Hole Y 0
45 (46) Barnes Roffe Y 0
46 (48) Moore & Smalley Y 7
47 (43) Lubbock Fine Y 0
48 (51) Simmons Gainsford Y 0
49 (52) Carter Backer Winter Y 3
50 (67) Thomas Westcott Y 0
51 (54) Scott-Moncrieff Y 3
52 (50) Silver Levene Y 0
53 (53) Ensors Y 0
30
Appendix A (continued from previous page)
Rank 2016 (2015) Name of firm Twitter #Brexit Tweets
54 (-) Smith Cooper Y 0
55 (56) Rothmans Y 6
56 (61) BKL Y 3
57 (57) Beever and Struthers Y 29
58 (55) Shipleys Y 1
59 (58) French Duncan Y 0
60 (60) Henderson Loggie Y 0
61 (66) Beavis Morgan Y 35
62 (68) Critchleys Y 0
63 (72) Goodman Jones Y 0
64 (71) Mitchell Charlesworth Y 3
65 (-) Rickard Luckin Y 0
66 (69) Brebners Y 0
67 (75) HJS Solutions Y 0
68 (73) TGS Taylorcocks Y 0
69 (-) Milsted Langdon Y 21
70 (74) Shelley Stock Hutter Y 0
71 (76) Jeffreys Henry Y 0
72 (84) Crunch Y 0
73 (77) EQ Accountants Y 0
74 (77) RDP Newmans Y 21
75 (81) BSG Valentine Y 0
76 (88) Ecovis Wingrave Yeats Y 1
77 (82) Broomfield & Alexander Y 5
78 (-) Churchill Knight & Associates Y 0
79 (85) Bennett Brooks & Co Y 0
80 (90) Nixon Williams Y 0
81 (94) LB Group Y 0
82 (93) The MPA Group Y 0
83 (88) Raffingers Y 19
84 (86) Rouse Partners Y 0
85 (90) Jackson Stephen Y 0
86 (87) Creaseys Y 1
87 (97) Grunberg & Co Y 0
=88 (-) Howard Worth Y 21
=88 (96) Whitley Stimpson Y 10
90 (-) Ellacotts Y 0
91 (-) Wilder Coe Y 0
92 (-) Moore Thompson Y 0
93 (107) WSM Partners Y 0
94 (92) HURST Y 0
95 (105) Wellden Turnbull Y 0
96 (98) PM+M Y 19
97 (-) Begbies Chartered Accountants Y 0
98 (102) Simpkins Edwards Y 0
99 (99) Lamont Pridmore Y 22
100 (104) Charterhouse Y 0
Late James Cowper Kreston Y 0
Late Hillier Hopkins Y 4
31

#Brexit - The Role of Accounting Firms in The Brexit Discourse On Twitter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

#Brexit - The Role of Accounting Firms in The Brexit Discourse On Twitter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#Brexit: The Role of Accounting Firms in the Brexit Discourse on Twitter

Theo Lynn1, Pierangelo Rosati, Martin Quinn and Brid Murphy

Keywords: Socio-political Involvement, Brexit, Accounting Firms, Social Media, Boundary

Government policies affect the environment within which organisations operate

The Accounting Firm and Domain Change

Against the backdrop of corporate engagement in non-market activities, it is

Accounting rationales ‘produces a narrative that acquires symbolic power, directing

The study of domain change in accounting is a complex task for researchers.

Social Media Usage by Accounting Firms

Recruitment and Selection Improve sourcing of candidates and enhance Market

Socialization and Onboarding Increase organisational identification and Market

Training and Development Increase training effectiveness and/or reduce Market

Knowledge Sharing Rapid dissemination of information and Market

Influencing Organizational Culture/Change Reinforce or change organizational culture Market

Automated Tweets Rapid dissemination of content with no effort Market

Other Tweets Other tweets not classified elsewhere Market/Non-Market

Corporate Social Responsibility Advance a social good to stakeholders that Non-Market

Corporate Political Activity Manage or influence political institutions or Non-Market

Socio-political Involvement Direct participation or indirect support for a Non-Market

Socio-political Engagement Participation in socio-political discourse Market/Non-Market

Table 3 - Thematic Content Analysis of Twitter Messages for Domain Extension as

Media Promotion of the activities of a specific employee in the media

New Hire Promotion of the acquisition of new talent

Expertise Promotion of content authored by a specific employee

Kudos Identification of specific employees for congratulations

Large 407 46.0% 45 5.1% 433 48.9% 885 100.0%

TOT 1765 43.1% 317 7.7% 2013 49.2% 4095 100.0%

Large 72 26.9% 36 13.4% 160 59.7% 268 100.0%

TOT 422 33.1% 212 16.6% 640 50.2% 1274 100.0%

Domain Change as Rhetorical Discourse and Embedded Agency

DiscussionThe empirical context of this study is novel, if not unique; it comprises

Figure 1 - A Framework for Classification of Socio-political Engagement (The SPE

You might also like