The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0114-0582.htm

PAR
26,1/2 Accounting and accountability
challenges
Implementing sustainability in tertiary
94 organisations
Anil K. Narayan
Department of Accounting, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the strategy, accounting and accountability interface in
sustainability implementation in a large public tertiary education organisation in New Zealand.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses ethnography as an “engaging research” to help
explain the real-life enactment of accounting and accountability in advancing/deterring sustainability
initiatives. The study draws upon neo-institutional theoretical perspectives to help interpret the
findings.
Findings – Accounting and accountability are powerful conduits for strategy implementation.
Successful sustainability strategy implementation requires the embedding of financial accountability
within the implementation process.
Practical implications – A strong ideological commitment from senior management is required to
firmly embed sustainability in the tertiary organisation’s belief systems, values and norms to get
wider organisational acceptance and institutionalisation. Accounting needs to take a position of
centrality within organisations to help facilitate sustainability implementation.
Social implications – Government policy needs to incorporate specific concepts of sustainability
into the tertiary education strategy and funding framework to make public tertiary organisations
accountable for sustainability to the wider society.
Originality/value – This study provides unique insights into the sustainability implementation
process. It complements existing literature on sustainability accounting and accountability.
Keywords Strategy, Accountability, Accounting, Sustainability, Neo-institutional theory,
Tertiary education organisations
Paper type Research paper

Pacific Accounting Review
Vol. 26 No. 1/2, 2014
pp. 94-111
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0114-0582
DOI 10.1108/PAR-07-2013-0072
1. Introduction
Public tertiary education organisations have a pivotal role in society to increase the
knowledge, skills and values needed to create a sustainable future (Cortese, 2003).
However, despite some promising signs of initial engagement in sustainable activities
(Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008), most public tertiary education organisations have failed to
translate sustainability promises into reality (Bekessy et al., 2007; Beringer et al., 2008).
Of greater concern is that the research agenda for sustainability accounting and
accountability has been played out in almost “exclusively for-profit, corporate
settings”, prompting calls for more research in public sector organisations (Ball and
Grubnic, 2007, p. 243).
Sustainability accounting and accountability are interrelated concepts and according
to Gray (2006), the lack of sustainability accountability leads to confusion about
the appropriate methods for accounting and reporting. Adams (2004) warns that
increased sustainability reporting does not necessarily mean improved accountability
or enhancement of practice. In fact, accounting for sustainable development raises more Accounting and
challenges and many issues remain unresolved or have not been empirically explored accountability
(Bebbington, 2007). Recent research has not been influential in changing practice as it
simply states the lack of rigour of practice in sustainability accounting and challenges
accountability (Adams and Larrinaga-González, 2007). There have been calls for
researchers to engage more with organisations to help understand the values, rationales,
strategies and processes organisational actors use to construct sustainability 95
accounting and accountability (Adams and Larrinaga-González, 2007). By engaging
with organisations, research can help identify poor accounting and accountability
processes that deter sustainability initiatives (Adams, 2004).
This study responds to the aforementioned calls for a richer, more engaging research
by investigating the strategy-accountability-accounting interface in sustainability
implementation in a large public tertiary education organisation in New Zealand.
The study uses ethnography in a rare attempt to empirically inform how strategy
implementation is influenced by the accountability and accounting requirements within
the sustainability implementation process. The remainder of the paper has been
structured as follows. Section 2 provides a brief review of literature on sustainability,
sustainability accounting and accountability. Section 3 presents the neo-institutional
theoretical perspectives to help inform the study. Section 4 outlines the research
methodology and methods utilised in the study. Section 5 briefly describes the research
setting, followed by a presentation of findings in Section 6. Section 7 provides a
discussion of findings. Finally, Section 8 presents the conclusion and suggests possible
research implications for policy and practice.

2. Literature review
Sustainability has been defined by the United Nations World Commission on
Environment and Development as “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(Pogutz, 2008, p. 38). While this remains the most popular definition, approaches to
sustainability vary depending on the view and interest of individuals and organisations
(Clugston and Calder, 1999). However, the emphasis remains on activities that are
ecologically sound, socially just and economically viable and humane for the present and
future generations (Clugston and Calder, 1999). In recent times, sustainability has
become an increasingly important issue for tertiary education organisations across the
globe (Garcı́a et al., 2006; Beringer et al., 2008). A growing number of institutions are
signing national and international sustainability declarations and creating policies to
demonstrate a commitment to sustainability initiatives (Lozano et al., 2013). The
Talloires Declaration made in 1990 is seen as perhaps the most significant attempt to
define a sustainable university (ULSF, 1990). In 2005, the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) launched a major ten year initiative
referred to as the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development,
aimed at integrating sustainable development into education systems at all levels
(Garcı́a et al., 2006). Sustainability strategies within tertiary education organisations
now extend to curriculum and student activities, research, community service and
facilities management (Beringer et al., 2008).
Despite the visionary agenda adopted by many tertiary education organisations,
progress towards the successful implementation of sustainability strategies has been
PAR slow and insufficient (Bekessy et al., 2007; Pigozzi, 2010). This raises many questions,
26,1/2 such as, why the adoption of sustainability declarations and policies by tertiary
education organisations do not necessarily translate into implementation of their basic
commitments (Calder and Clugston, 2003; Adlong, 2013). Does this demonstrate that
there is little or no public accountability for failing to deliver (Bekessy et al., 2007)?
Prior studies identified organisational obstacles and barriers to the successful
96 implementation of sustainability initiatives in higher education as a means of assisting
key players to improve effectiveness (Velazquez et al., 2005). However, many
sustainability accountability questions remain largely unanswered.
Sustainability accountability is hard to define given the complexity surrounding the
definitions of both, sustainability and accountability (Beckett and Jonker, 2002).
However, the principles of accountability and sustainability are complementary
(Beckett and Jonker, 2002; Gobbels and Jonker, 2003) and sustainability accountability
can be explained by linking these complementary principles. In its simplest sense,
sustainability accountability refers to a strategy for managing diverse expectations of
sustainability within and outside the organisation. Using Romzek and Dubnick’s (1987)
accountability framework, sustainability accountability is part of the organisation’s
responsibility to the wider social system from which meanings, legitimation and higher
level support is derived to implement strategies. At the technical level, the sustainability
accountability focus is on the effective performance of detailed functions leading to
sustainable practices. Hence, the notion of sustainability accountability is much broader
and needs to be manifest within the organisation’s vision, mission, goals and strategies
as a prerequisite for sustainable development (Labuschagne et al., 2005). The Institute of
Social and Ethical AccountAbility (ISEA, 1999) provides a voluntary process standard
(AA1000) of accountability in terms of: the definition of goals and targets; measurement
of progress against targets; the auditing and reporting of performance; and, feedback
mechanisms (Gobbels and Jonker, 2003). Much of the extant literature on sustainability
accountability has been concerned with external reporting that has failed to make a
contribution to the practice of enhancing accountability (Adams, 2004).
Research linking traditional accounting to sustainability has received continuous
attention in accounting literature (Gray, 2006, 2010). A major criticism of traditional
accounting is its failure to give a complete account of activities relating to sustainable
development (Gale, 2006; Farneti and Guthrie, 2009). Not only does traditional
accounting preclude information about social and environmental activities, it treats
environmental goods such as air and water as being in infinite supply and free, thus
not reflecting its use or abuse in accounting profit measures and value creation (Farneti
and Guthrie, 2009). In traditional accounting systems, related environmental and social
costs are either hidden in overhead accounts or are not recorded (Gale, 2006).
In recent times, sustainability accounting has been promoted as a “new form of
accounting” (Lamberton, 2005, p. 7). It can be broadly defined as the provision of both
financial and management accounting information to help fulfil the accountability
purpose of internal and external stakeholders (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2010). Financial
accounting helps fulfil a major accountability purpose by enabling various external
stakeholders to assess the environmental and social impacts of the organisation through
disclosure statements (Lamberton, 2005). Management accounting has its major focus
on the provision of physical and monetary information for internal management
decision-making and “typically involves life-cycle costing, full-cost accounting, benefits
assessment, and strategic planning for environmental management” (IFAC, 2005, p. 19). Accounting and
Sustainability accounting now represents the process for the effective implementation of accountability
corporate strategies through sustainability performance measurement, management
and reporting (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010). challenges
The literature on sustainability accounting has grown enormously but the actual
practice of accounting for sustainable development is still in its infancy, raising more
challenges, with many issues far from resolved or empirically explored (Bebbington, 97
2007). There have been mounting concerns for “managerial capture”, that is,
sustainability engagement will not change practice or businesses may use sustainability
to pursue their own agendas (Adams and Larrinaga-González, 2007). Gray (2010) has
even questioned whether accounting for sustainability is “actually” accounting for
sustainability. There are calls for researchers to engage with organisations to draw from
the field the rationales the actors use to construct sustainability accounting and
accountability to enhance practice (Adams and Larrinaga-González, 2007).
In summary, the extant literature raises concerns about the insufficient progress
made by tertiary education organisations in implementing sustainability strategies
and questions the role of sustainability accounting and accountability. Thus, a key aim
of this research is to investigate the strategy, accountability and accounting interface
in sustainability implementation. The next section outlines the theoretical perspectives
used in the study.

3. Theoretical perspectives
This study uses neo-institutional theory to build an explanation of accounting and
accountability influences on sustainability development. The use of neo-institutional
theory is justified on the basis that “it offers a potentially valuable and instructive
sensemaking tool kit” to help explain an organisation’s general response to
sustainability issues (Ball and Craig, 2010, p. 292). More importantly, neo-institutional
theory offers unique perspectives that can be invoked to explain an organisation’s
accounting and accountability responses to environmental changes (Ball and Craig,
2010). Among these perspectives are the regulatory, normative and cultural-cognitive
institutional environment pressures that largely influence organisation behaviour
(Scott, 2001). The regulative pressure is applied through coercive mechanisms such
as a system of rules and exercise of power through accountability mechanisms.
The normative pressure arises from the profession’s wider norms and values
transmitted into organisations through the professional association of its members.
The cultural-cognitive pressures are taken for granted meanings and beliefs, derived
from shared understandings (Scott, 2001). Management will usually comply with
homogenous institutional pressures to gain organisational stability, legitimacy and
funding support (Scott, 2001).
Neo-institutional theory posits that sustainability initiatives can become
institutionalised by acquiring social acceptability and endorsement through
conformity to the norms and expectations of the institutional environment
(Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 1987).
The homogenous pressure from the institutional environment leads to a higher degree
of institutionalisation as organisational practices become increasingly similar to
one another (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Institutionalisation creates strong value
congruence among organisational members around the re-enactment of organisational
PAR routines, causing systems and practices to acquire a rule-like status that renders them
26,1/2 highly resistant to change (Zucker, 1977).
Neo-institutional theory is also “more potent as an explanation of social and
environmental accounting” because “it does explicitly consider process and internal
factors” (Adams and Larrinaga-González, 2007, p. 344). It “shows promise” in explaining
how organisations may embrace sustainability by focusing on the “deeper and more
98 resilient” aspects of the organisational processes made up of rules and routines
(Chen et al., 2008, p. 189). Organisational rules are formally recognised ways in which
“things should be done” whereas routines represent ways in which “things are actually
done” (Burns and Scapens, 2000, p. 6). Routines are “repetitive, recognizable patterns of
interdependent actions”, which are carried out by the entire organisation (Raak et al.,
2007, p. 1078). Normally, organisational rules and routines are “tightly coupled”, that is,
rules are closely followed (Rautiainen, 2010) and there is a consistency between the rule
and its enactment as a routine (Coyte et al., 2010).
Institutional theorists argue that the rules and routines may become “loosely
coupled” and “decoupled” to diminish conflicts and maintain legitimacy (Meyer and
Rowan, 1977). Loose coupling has been described by Meyer and Rowan (1977, p. 357), as
enabling organisations to “maintain standardized, legitimating, formal structures while
their activities vary in response to practical considerations”. Organisations that are
loosely coupled have the simultaneous existence of rationality and uncertainty, allowing
for flexibility in responding to institutional pressures, as well as allowing for physical or
logical separateness in dealing with technical work activity (Orton and Weick, 1990).
According to Orton and Weick (1990), organisational decision-making could be viewed
as a form of loose coupling between the various activities, events, sequences, problems
and choices. Organisations may also attempt to reduce institutional pressures, by
partially detaching or decoupling their activities from external contact (Meyer and
Rowan, 1977; Oliver, 1991). Several studies support decoupling of structural elements as
a rational managerial response to deal with contradictory or inconsistent institutional
pressures (Covaleski and Dirsmith, 1988; Brignall and Modell, 2000). Decoupling occurs
at different decision-making contexts (Brignall and Modell, 2000) and could be a
proactive strategic response to protect the organisation’s interest and maximise
efficiency without having to depend on external intervention or open up to public
scrutiny (Covaleski and Dirsmith, 1988; Oliver, 1991). The neo-institutional theoretical
lens outlined above promises to inform the extent to which accounting and
accountability practices influence sustainability implementation. The next section
outlines the research methodology and methods used in the study.

4. Research methodology and methods

This study uses ethnography as a research methodology constituted by multiple data
collection methods. The choice of ethnography is justified on the basis of calls from
researchers (Adams and Larrinaga-González, 2007; Ball and Craig, 2010) to “engage”
with organisations and draw from the “field” the rationales used to construct
sustainability accounting and accountability to enhance practice. The researcher has the
advantage of “living-in” and “engaging” with the members of the organisation for some
time to experience their social existence in real time (Putnam et al., 1993). The closeness
to the people, events, and natural practice within the context being studied, helps
produce a rich and thick portrayal of life that is representational, interpretive
and persuades the reader that “this is life as it is lived by real people, in real time, and in Accounting and
real places” (Putnam et al., 1993, p. 224). Lillis (2008) explains that sustained engagement accountability
in research sites using multiple data sources is a distinguishing feature of ethnography
as a methodology, rather than a method. challenges
Ethnography as a methodology, sits comfortably with neo-institutional theory to
help explain how organisations embrace sustainability. Both have a common
epistemological point of view (Zilber, 2002). Neo-institutional theory takes a broader 99
view of sustainability by involving the organisation and its environment to provide a
deeper understanding of the process by which organisational activities, norms and
routines may, over time, become rule-like social facts (Scott, 1987). Ethnography also
contributes to a more holistic understanding of organisational processes and activities
by enabling the researcher to look inside the organisation to understand and interpret
the organisational cultural system within its own rules, rituals, norms, myths and
symbols that evolves over time (Dey, 2002).
Ethnography allows data to be gathered from a range of sources (Hammersley, 2006;
Lillis, 2008). Participant observation was the main data collection method. Much
information was also gained from strategic plans, policy documents and minutes of
senior executive meetings, budgets, annual reports, audit reports, e-mails and
information on web sites. The study was undertaken in a large tertiary education
organisation in New Zealand over a 16 year period (1996-2012). The researcher held a
senior faculty position in the case study organisation from 1996 to 2006 and was
constantly observing developments in sustainability during this period. The researcher
was a complete observer in terms of the actual implementation of sustainability
initiatives but became a participant observer through his involvement in the operation of
the accounting and accountability processes of the organisation and “engagement” in
various management meetings and corporate, social and cultural settings. At no time
was the researcher a complete participant which minimised researcher bias and helped
improve the trustworthiness of the data. Observations from daily work activities and
social relations around sustainability and related accounting and accountability issues
were transformed into field notes. Continuous but distant contact was maintained with
the field actors through informal conversations that helped a lot in the refinement and
gap-filling of field notes taken at the time of fieldwork. Although the researcher left the
organisation in 2006, he maintained regular contact with senior managers and staff and
made several site visits to collect data at regular intervals. Five unstructured interviews
were conducted in 2008/2009 with senior staff and management to follow-up on the
re-emergence of sustainability initiatives after some major organisational changes were
made during this period. Another informal meeting was held with senior staff in early
2012 to monitor progress. Throughout the 16 year period, data were gathered on an
iterative basis, with the researcher taking on a reflexive and interpretive role, which is,
observing, reflecting, interpreting and going back into the field and gathering more data.
Data analysis was carried out to ensure that the resulting narrative was a systematic
and rich portrayal of real-life organisational systems, processes and practices.
Hammersley (2006) and Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) explains that ethnographic
analysis of data involves interpretation of the meanings and functions of human actions.
It is important to look beyond what people say to help “understand the shared system of
meanings” called “culture” in ethnographic research (Goulding, 2005, p. 298). Negotiated
meanings were induced from field-based observations through a combination of actors’
PAR views and researcher interpretation. Data from various written sources and interviews
26,1/2 were “weaved together” to help interpret meanings and understand a particular
phenomenon (Lillis, 2008, p. 356). Actual data analysis was conducted in four stages.
The first stage involved developing narratives of sustainability developments in the
organisation. This helped reduce the data collected into a more manageable form. The
second stage of analysis was reading through the narratives and identifying clear
100 patterns. These patterns were then checked with subsequent rounds of data collection.
The third stage involved identifying clusters of meanings and opinions held by the
“natives” ( Jonsson and Macintosh, 1997). The final stage involved feeding emerging
stories back to the various participants as a subjective validity test of this narrative. At
the writing up stage, the analytical focus was on making a theoretical sense of the data.
The next section briefly describes the research setting within its historical and cultural
context to help explain the significance placed on sustainability.

5. The research setting

The case study organisation, “Eco-University” (not the real name)[1], is an established
New Zealand tertiary education institution, with a long history of sustainability
initiatives in teaching, research, and campus management. Its main campus is situated
on approximately 60 hectares of greenery comprising lawns, gardens and native trees
lining its natural free-flowing water streams that provide a habitat for several fish and
bird species. The area surrounding the campus has many historic buildings and sites
that are carefully maintained. A local indigenous elder (Kaumatua) described the
campus location as:
[. . .] rich in history with enormous cultural and spiritual significance [. . .] because it is part of
the original settlement area of the indigenous people [. . .] the natural spring offered relief to
the sick, was used for healing, bathing [. . .] and was a constant source of food.
During the 16 year period of this study, I participated in and observed many rituals
and traditions on campus that paid respect to the cultural and spiritual aspects of the
environmental thinking. These traditions were based on strong links between the
indigenous cultural value system of sustainability and the natural environment.
Eco-University’s core value of environmental sustainability is simple – “making sure
that in meeting its needs, it does not reduce the opportunity for future generations”
(Sustainability Strategy, 2011). From various conversations with staff and management,
it became clear that there were homogenous institutional pressures to adopt global
agendas and strategies to help portray sustainability as a legitimate activity.
Eco-University aims to strengthen its contribution to environmental sustainability
across all areas of its business. Its goals on sustainability are to develop a green and
eco-friendly campus environment, undertake eco-sustainable building projects and
improve sustainability management in energy and water consumption, waste
management, procurement, transport and protection of the natural habitat.
Eco-University’s core value and the cultural and historical context provide an
interesting background to various sustainability initiatives that are presented next.

6. Findings
This section of the paper presents the case analysis of the sustainability initiatives and
the interplay between strategy, accountability and accounting.
6.1 Sustainability initiatives Accounting and
Waste management. Eco-University’s concern for sustainability arose in 1992, when accountability
some employees in the works registry realised that they had to deal with increasing
volumes and cost of waste removal from campus. These concerns were heightened by the challenges
recent enactment at that time of the Resource Management Act 1991, a ground-breaking
government legislation governing the management of natural resources and the
environment. The waste management concerns led to the first waste audit of the campus 101
in 1992. The audit results were later utilised in an attempt to implement waste
minimisation systems including the establishment of recycling systems on the campus.
Observations from management meetings noted that the Resource Management Act
established sustainable management as the guiding principle for decision-making.
In the period 2004-2006, sustainability initiatives did not feature on the management
agenda as Eco-University came under severe financial pressure to cut budgets and reduce
expenditure. Accounting became loosely coupled with management decision-making as
cost concerns, monthly financial reports and budget forecasts were increasingly relied
upon by management to justify decisions. However, accounting was decoupled from the
management decision-making process when it did not support decisions. In June 2007, the
recycling stations that had operated successfully for over ten years were removed and
recycling was restricted to paper only. The facilities manager explained that this was
primarily due to the management’s decision to reduce recycling expenditure. Another
senior manager commented that “efficiency gains had to be made in all business areas
without any exceptions”. However, both managers failed to consider the reduced cost of
transport and landfill fees that could have been avoided from recycling. In fact,
accounting routines were deliberately decoupled in terms of the technical cost savings
calculations to avoid interference with the management decision to stop the recycling
operations. From participant observations, it became clear that managers selectively
adopted the accounting routines which apparently offered them more organisational
control but rejected accounting routines that seemed to threaten their decisions.
Following an audit of sustainability in 2008, the waste recycling was again fully
re-instituted. This was partly due to the homogenous institutional pressures resulting in
the prevalence of recycling programmes in other tertiary organisations evidenced from a
review of their annual reports. Institutional pressure also came from the Waste
Minimisation Act 2008 introduced by government to encourage waste minimisation and
decrease waste disposal. In 2011, Eco-University committed itself to a Waste
Minimisation Plan aligned to the government’s Waste Minimisation Strategy 2010 to
reduce the harmful effects of waste and to improve the efficiency of resource use. In a
follow-up visit to the campus in June 2011, I observed many initiatives on recycling
paper, cardboard, glass and bottles, containers, metals and green waste. Not only was the
waste management and recycling concept of sustainable development highly visible on
campus, it became part of a value system shared by many staff. During a casual
conversation, an employee roughly estimated that “of the 650 tonnes of waste generated
in 2010, about 30% was recycled, 5% was composted, and 65% were sent to landfill. By
2016, the target is to achieve a 30% reduction in waste sent to landfill”. This is the same
target for waste reduction set by the local council thus implying that sustainability
initiatives in waste management may be largely driven by coercive regulatory pressures.
Campus development. In 1999/2000, growing student enrolments challenged
Eco-University’s management to undertake major campus development initiatives.
PAR There was immediate pressure on management to provide additional car parking and
26,1/2 building space. Daily observations revealed a shortage of car parks and major traffic
congestion on all roads leading in and out of the campus. To reduce the amount of
traffic flow, management implemented carpooling initiatives and gradually introduced
timetabling changes to allow more classes to be held outside the peak traffic hours.
Various observations from budget committee and finance meetings revealed major
102 divisions within management when discussions were held on campus development
initiatives. The environmentalists’ concern to protect the green campus grounds
clashed with the supporters of campus development, even though both arguments
were supportive of growing the student population. As an initial compromise, parking
meters were installed to previously free car parking spaces to discourage staff and
students from bringing their vehicles to campus. Later on, environmental “activism”
combined with the local council’s planning restrictions on the high volume of traffic
flow on roads surrounding the campus forced senior management to suspend the
building of new car parks on campus. Instead, new cycle ways were built with the
support of the local council. A major green card initiative was implemented to grant
“green credits” to students not bringing their vehicles to campus. The green credits
gave students discounts on fees, stationery and book purchases. The green credit
incentive worked well initially, but later on, accounting concerns relating to the proper
identification and recording of “green” transactions, including the high cost of
monitoring the green card system far outweighed the benefits. By mid-2000, falling
enrolments and relocation of some teaching departments to a new campus with ample
car parking space resulted in the abandonment of this initiative.
With growing enrolments, there was also an escalation of costs in heating, lighting and
water usage. To control these costs and change employee behaviour towards sustainability,
accounting deployed the overhead cost allocation model that identified and charged back
costs to the faculties incurring them. Monthly overhead allocations became a very effective
accounting routine to control costs. Daily observations revealed that many employees were
switching off lights, computer screens and air-conditioning and heating units when not in
use. One head of school commented, “I now pay more attention to my overhead costs in my
financial reports because it represents about 35 percent of my total school budget”.
Between 1999 and 2003, Eco-University undertook two major building projects and
observations from the planning meetings revealed management’s desire to be driven by
a strong eco-sustainability theme in both building projects. Accounting routines based
on budgeting and long-term project cost estimates were loosely coupled with the
management decision-making process to influence decisions to build sustainability
initiatives into the projects. The campus developers, planners and engineers were
largely driven by the normative pressure of their profession. They were able to mimic
other eco-building plans and green development project designs that became widely
accepted and diffused in the institutional environment. They relied on accounting
routines based on long-term energy efficiency strategies and green cost saving
calculations to justify the project costs. The first building completed in 2001 had natural
lighting and eco-friendly cooling and heating systems. The second single level building
completed in 2003 had low-impact eco-sustainable landscaping to protect the natural
habitat and promote climatic cooling. Observations at various stages from construction
to completion of the second building revealed a “greener construction” with the use of
recycled, locally sourced and low-energy materials. The building’s “green roof” feature
provides a natural habitat for birds and insects. The low-maintenance planting and Accounting and
sculptured gardens help increase awareness of the need for water and energy accountability
conservation and preserves much of the natural environment surrounding the building.
Management’s desire to adapt to the natural surroundings, rather than to dominate it, challenges
was largely driven by Eco-University’s cultural context. Between 2000 and 2005,
Eco-University undertook major public relations campaigns promoting its campus as a
place of possibilities with postcard images on sustainability themes linked to its natural 103
environment to help attract more students.
Education. Sustainability initiatives in education started around the mid-1990s.
Encouraged by the opportunities presented by the fertile land and the natural water
streams on campus, as well as Eco-University’s social, cultural and historical context,
programmes in sustainable horticulture and sustainable land management were
developed. A lecturer in organic food production with a strong commitment to the
norms, values and beliefs in sustainability became one of the early pioneers of
eco-sustainable practice. He established an organic garden on campus as a teaching
initiative to give students the opportunity to relate their classroom learning to practice.
Revenue from staff and student purchases of the garden produce helped subsidise the
cost of maintaining the garden. As revenue from the sale of the garden produce
increased, accounting changes were implemented to make this an entrepreneurial
activity with an expectation that revenue from this programme would cover all costs.
However, staff teaching on the programme had reservations about the tight coupling of
the accounting rules and routines with sustainability initiatives. Observations made at a
finance meeting noted the following comments made by a lecturer:
Finance department is driven by the profit mentality and everything must fit into their
cost-benefit equations. Teaching about sustainability is not all about profits. It requires a
deep normative, cultural and ethical commitment to sustainability.
It seems that these comments supporting the decoupling of accounting from
sustainability was not a bad idea after all because the entrepreneurial initiative failed
to generate any profits and was eventually discontinued in early 2000.
Also in 2000, the School of Engineering started new programme initiatives in
environmental engineering. By 2004, initiatives were developed to embed the
sustainability component in every course in the Bachelor of Engineering programme.
Many teachers of engineering courses were members of the Institute of Professional
Engineers and shared a common background, training, norms and values of their
professional organisation. Industry representatives from the engineering profession on
Eco-University’s advisory boards largely influenced new programme development
initiatives embracing the sustainability theme. Hence, through the professional
organisation’s normative influence, Eco-University was able to import the profession’s
wider norms and values on sustainability into its academic programmes. Similarly in
2001, a team of specialists across several disciplines with an interest in sustainability
joined together to create a Bachelor of Resource Management programme. This
programme operated successfully until 2005 when it was phased out due to accounting
cost concerns and budget targets not met as a result of low student enrolments. The
Building and Design School also undertook many research and teaching projects on
sustainability. These included building an eco-sustainability house and designing
furniture, a kitchen and bathroom to help reduce the amount of energy, water
PAR consumption and waste. A lecturer in design closely involved with these projects
highlighted the normative pressure on education for sustainability by commenting that:
26,1/2
[. . .] one of the biggest challenges the product design profession faces is to produce
sustainable products. Actually designing sustainable products shouldn’t be a choice, it
should be a requirement. Designers need to consider whether the materials they are using are
damaging to the planet or sustainable.
104 In the period 2000-2004, several other programmes on sustainability from an
indigenous Maori perspective, eco-fuel efficiency, and restoration of the ecology of the
waterways were initiated to support the sustainability in education strategy at
Eco-University.
During the period 2004-2006, Eco-University came under considerable funding
pressure that led to major uncertainties and restructuring within the organisation. All
faculties had to cut budgets and sustainability was no longer a strategic priority. Through
official correspondence and meetings, senior management sent strong messages to all
staff that financial sustainability was more important than environmental sustainability.
Accounting rules and routines including budgeting, costing and financial management
processes became tightly coupled and increasingly formalised and institutionalised as
Eco-University tried to project an image of rationality and compliance with government’s
financial accountability expectations. From 2004 onwards, field observations showed a
downwards spiralling of environmental sustainability in education.
The re-emergence of sustainability. In 2007, sustainability began to re-emerge at
Eco-University, coinciding with the release of the government’s new Tertiary Education
Strategy 2007-2012 requiring tertiary organisations to “[. . .] demonstrate that their
education and research is contributing to positive economic, social, cultural and
environmental outcomes [. . .]” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 13). To revive
sustainability initiatives, some staff members who championed the sustainability cause,
showcased previous research projects that questioned Eco-University’s commitment to
sustainability. This led to the first comprehensive sustainability audit of the campus
with the support of senior management. The audit, conducted in early 2008, revealed that
the organisation’s commitment to sustainability was ad hoc and uncoordinated and there
was neither a current policy nor a culture for sustainability on campus. According to the
auditor, when a set of recommendations was presented, “the top management began
retreating” by suggesting that the government’s tertiary education strategy placed no
priority for investment in sustainable development and “if it is not in the investment
plan, it will not get done”. Eco-university blamed the government for the lack of financial
resources and financial accountability to drive sustainability implementation. However,
the absence of leadership among Eco-University’s management was also a major factor
that came in the way of implementing sustainability strategies.
In 2009, with major changes in Eco-University’s top management and the arrival of
a new chief executive, the real push for sustainability began with a “collective action”
of interested staff, students and community groups. The auditor who initiated the
collective action process commented during an interview that “with so many people
involved, the top leadership could not ignore us any longer”. Eco-University’s senior
management responded by reaffirming its commitment to sustainability.
A sustainability working group was formed to develop the terms of reference for an
organisation-wide sustainability strategy. In early 2010, the senior executive
established a project team to draw a specific funding and investment plan for
integrating sustainability into all areas of teaching, research and campus operations. Accounting and
A project manager from a specialist environmental consultancy firm was appointed to accountability
assist with the development of an organisation-wide sustainability strategy. In
December 2010, the strategy, project plan and budget gained senior management challenges
approval. The strategy emphasised strengthening the organisation’s contribution to
environmental sustainability across all areas of its business. An environment
sustainability fund was established in 2011 to support the new strategy and a full-time 105
environmental management officer was appointed to oversee initiatives and provide
direction and support. At the same time, a comprehensive environmental management
information system was implemented to provide an efficient flow of information
throughout the organisation, plus an improved recognition and understanding of
responsibilities and interrelationships. The environmental management system is
easily accessible by all staff from Eco-University’s web site and now provides regular
updates on sustainability news and events, funding, strategy and policy initiatives. It
provides objectives and performance targets designed to help the organisation achieve
its sustainability goals and become more accountable.

6.2 Accountability and accounting influences

Eco-University’s charter, investment and strategic plans are high level accountability
documents negotiated and approved for funding by the government. Prior to 2006, these
documents made no specific strategic commitment to sustainability. According to
Eco-University’s auditor, sustainability was “reduced to an inconsequential component”
because the government’s tertiary education strategy placed no priority for investment in
sustainable development. With no explicit government funding, senior management felt
that they had no formal accountability for sustainability. In 2006, Eco-University
formulated a new charter that contained some value statements emphasising that
“[. . .] we are committed to sustainable development, and seek to apply the principles of
sustainability in our teaching and research, and in developing an eco-campus
environment [. . .].” These value statements provided a loose coupling between the
strategy and the institutional and technical demands of sustainability accountability.
However, despite a commitment to the sustainability strategy expressed through value
statements, Eco-University’s investment and strategic plans made no explicit reference to
investing in sustainability. Accountability was weakened as charter commitments were
not translated into specific goals and objectives relating to eco-sustainable practices.
Hence, these actions had effectively decoupled the performative aspects of sustainability
from the strategic documents that required a demonstration of accountability. Interviews
with senior managers revealed that there was no organisation strategy to implement
sustainability and often sustainability issues failed to make the senior management
agenda as there were more pressing fiscal challenges facing the organisation.
Accounting and accountability requirements were dominant influences on
management decision-making. Eco-University’s top priority was to balance its budget
to demonstrate accountability for government funding. Strategic planning and budgeting
processes became increasingly formalised as management tried to portray an image of
rationality and compliance with institutionalised convention. Management selectively
coupled (adopted) and decoupled (rejected) accounting routines from decision-making to
gain greater organisational control. Field observations revealed that when Eco-University
came under financial pressure, strong decoupling was in play with funding for
PAR sustainability initiatives usually taken off the budget priority list. Decoupling decisions
26,1/2 were often justified in terms of higher investment costs, longer payback periods, or
sustainability projects not meeting the accounting criteria for investment. With declining
funding, accounting information based on profitability measures became tightly coupled
with the management decision-making process. Costing models with breakeven and
profitability analysis reports were used as mandatory accounting routines to evaluate the
106 financial viability of new and existing sustainability education programmes. Both the
academic board and senior executive placed greater reliance on these accounting routines
to support decision-making. They were inclined not to approve continuation or
development of any sustainability programmes that failed the financial viability test
based on government funding and profitability measures.
With accounting acquiring a rule-like status tightly coupled with routines to justify
management decisions, it became difficult to argue the manner in which accounting
routines were actually applied. One head of school commented “our courses make a
profit but the high central overhead cost allocation turns it into a loss. We have no
control over the rising central services cost”. The traditional overhead allocation
method acquired a rule-like status that rendered it highly institutionalised and
resistant to change. Similarly, some sustainability projects were cancelled due to the
failure of the traditional budget to allocate funds beyond the year-end accounting
period and recognise long-term savings. While financial project cost estimates were
made for budgeting purposes, a full picture of environmental issues and related
benefits flowing over the project life cycle was not estimated and used in
decision-making. Hence, the institutionalised traditional accounting routines at
Eco-University prevented the advancement of many sustainability projects. The next
section provides a discussion of the key themes that emerged from the study.

7. Discussion
For sustainability initiatives to become institutionalised or accepted as part of the
organisation’s shared value system, strong support is required from the regulatory,
normative and cultural-cognitive elements. However, acting responsibly towards
sustainability is unlikely to be merely driven by homogenised institutional norms,
values and practices. An effective organisational response requires resources and an
ideological commitment from senior management to implement practices. At
Eco-University, even though the sustainability logic was firmly embedded in the
organisation’s cultural context, many initiatives failed because the organisation lacked
the financial capacity and senior management’s commitment to the sustainability
agenda. The findings also suggest that organisational strategies on sustainability are
strongly influenced by institutionally prescribed strategies, with accounting and
accountability playing a key role in strategy implementation. Sustainability was out on
the fringes at Eco-University mainly because there was no clear government strategy
with funding priorities that imposed accountability obligations to implement practices.
The interplay between strategy-accountability-accounting in sustainability
implementation is very obvious. When viewed from the neo-institutional lens,
accounting acts as an enabling mechanism that provides a consensus and a context for
action that loosely couples institutional and technical demands. Accounting practices
at Eco-University based on conventional costing routines and budgeting rituals were
the outcome of an institutionalised financial accountability relationship with the
government that forestalled sustainability initiatives. Sustainability initiatives Accounting and
required the support of a new accountability framework and new accounting accountability
routines, but as sustainability failed to get on the organisational agenda, it did not get
any accounting support. In fact, accountability and accounting were undermined by challenges
the lack of an organisational strategy and a strategic response from management
towards sustainability. Management placed no strategic priority on the
implementation of sustainability initiatives as they were not under any regulatory 107
and coercive funding and accountability pressure from the government. Finally, when
an organisational-wide strategy on sustainability was adopted in late 2010, accounting
became an enabling mechanism to help implement sustainability initiatives.
For the effective discharge of accountability, Beckett and Jonker (2002) argue that
the principles of accounting must be value free and neutral. However, the manner in
which accounting was applied was not necessarily value free and neutral. Managers
selectively adopted (loosely coupled) accounting routines with decisions that
apparently supported organisational strategy but rejected (decoupled) accounting
routines that appeared to threaten their power to influence decisions. For example, full
costs were used to justify the abandonment of the waste recycling project, but no costs
saving projections were presented to justify its continuation. When under financial
constraint, there was a tight coupling between the accounting rules and routines with
the management decision-making process to demonstrate financial accountability.
Management discontinued a number of sustainability in education initiatives when
financial accountability purely measured by the accounting rule of profitability using
revenue and full costing routines could not be satisfied.
Neo-institutional theory suggests that organisations respond to coercive, normative and
cognitive institutional pressures and make strategic choices of adaptation to these
pressures (Oliver, 1991). Even though sustainability initiatives at Eco-University were
backed by strong normative and cultural-cognitive obligations towards a much broader
societal expectation, sustainability was still out on the fringes. Eco-University placed no
strategic priority on the implementation of sustainability initiatives as there was no coercive
funding and accountability pressure from the government. The lack of government
strategy and funding were often presented as reasons for the lack of support from senior
management to implement many sustainability initiatives. This perhaps implies the need
for a more rigorous government regulation and funding incentives combined with a greater
emphasis on enforcement to effectively promote sustainability programmes.
For sustainability to become an institutionalised practice, it needs to become a normal
and desirable activity creating strong value congruence amongst organisational members,
routines, systems and processes. The findings of this study reveal that since there was no
organisation-wide strategy for sustainability, accounting and accountability systems and
processes were not developed, leading to the marginalisation and subsequent failure of
many sustainability initiatives. Accountability failures were systemic at both the
government and organisational level. The government regulations and financial
accountability framework largely influence the mission, goals and objectives of public
tertiary organisations. Neo-institutional theory posits that management processes
increasingly formalise and become institutionalised as an organisation seeks to project an
image of rationality and compliance with convention. Eco-University relied on formalised
and institutionalised operational and financial management processes to meet the
accountability expectations of government funding. Since the government’s tertiary
PAR education strategy placed no priority for investment in sustainability, Eco-University did
26,1/2 not develop clear strategies for sustainability implementation. This implies that acting
responsibly towards sustainability is not merely driven by acceptable behaviour, but
largely in anticipation of positive funding gains. It also seems that accountability for
sustainability is narrowly construed in terms of managerial responses to funding
pressures from the government. Eco-University’s management recognised its
108 accountability obligations only from the priorities set in the government’s tertiary
education strategy. Senior management were of the view that they had no accountability
for sustainability if the vision, goals and objectives of the tertiary education strategy
were not translated into explicit investment funding priorities. Hence, accountability
and accounting requirements based on the government’s tertiary education strategy and
investment funding plans became a major deterrence to the implementation and
institutionalisation of many sustainability initiatives.

8. Conclusion
This study provides unique insights into the strategy, accountability and accounting
interface in sustainability implementation. It demonstrates that accounting and financial
accountability are powerful conduits for strategy implementation within public tertiary
education organisations. Successful sustainability strategy implementation, therefore,
requires the embedding of financial accountability within the sustainability
implementation process. The study makes a number of important contributions that
has implications for policy-making and practice. Senior management at tertiary
organisations need to recognise that the pathway to institutionalisation of sustainability
is a long-term conditioning process. Development of sustainability requires the genuine
support of the organisation leaders, evidenced in all critical dimensions of organisational
life and written into the mission statement and strategic plans with clear accountability
frameworks. Highly institutionalised traditional accounting and accountability routines
and practices make sustainability implementation difficult. Hence, accounting and
accountability systems need to be flexible enough to recognise new initiatives, with
routines and practices effectively utilised to translate sustainability goals and objectives
into implementation plans. Accounting also needs to take a position of centrality within
organisations, so that it can help facilitate changes towards sustainability
implementation. Policy-makers need to recognise that the regulatory elements backed
by the normative and cultural-cognitive elements may work well to make sustainability
an institutionalised practice. However, in the absence of the regulatory elements, the
normative and cultural-cognitive pressures may be insufficient if not backed by
the financial incentives and a strong ideological commitment from senior management to
the sustainability agenda. Finally, government policy needs to incorporate specific
concepts of sustainability into the tertiary education strategy and funding mechanisms to
make public tertiary organisations more accountable for sustainability performance.
Sustainability will become an institutionalised practice when it is firmly embedded in the
tertiary organisation’s belief systems, values, norms, vision, mission and goals.

Note
1. The name of the tertiary education organisation has been changed to preserve the
anonymity of participants.
References Accounting and
Adams, C.A. (2004), “The ethical, social and environmental reporting – performance portrayal accountability
gap”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 731-757.
Adams, C.A. and Larrinaga-González, C. (2007), “Engaging with organisations in pursuit of
challenges
improved sustainability accounting and performance”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 333-355.
Adlong, W. (2013), “Rethinking the Talloires Declaration”, International Journal of Sustainability 109
in Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 56-70.
Ball, A. and Craig, R. (2010), “Using neo-institutionalism to advance social and environmental
accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 283-293.
Ball, A. and Grubnic, S. (2007), “Sustainability accounting and accountability in the public
sector”, in Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting
and Accountability, Routledge, London, pp. 243-265.
Bebbington, J. (2007), “Changing organizational attitudes and culture through sustainability
accounting”, in Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (Eds), Sustainability
Accounting and Accountability, Routledge, London, pp. 226-242.
Beckett, R. and Jonker, J. (2002), “AccountAbility 1000: a new social standard for building
sustainability”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 36-42.
Bekessy, S.A., Samson, K. and Clarkson, R.E. (2007), “The failure of non-binding declarations to
achieve university sustainability: a need for accountability”, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 301-316.
Beringer, A., Wright, T. and Malone, L. (2008), “Sustainability in higher education in Atlantic
Canada”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 48-67.
Brignall, S. and Modell, S. (2000), “An institutional perspective on performance measurement and
management in the ‘new public sector’”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 281-306.
Burns, J. and Scapens, R.W. (2000), “Conceptualizing management accounting change: an
institutional framework”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-25.
Burritt, R.L. and Schaltegger, S. (2010), “Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 829-846.
Calder, W. and Clugston, R. (2003), “Progress towards sustainability in higher education”,
Environmental Law Reporter, Vol. 33, pp. 10003-10022.
Chen, A.J.W., Boudreau, M. and Watson, R.T. (2008), “Information systems and ecological
sustainability”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 186-201.
Clugston, R. and Calder, W. (1999), Critical Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education,
available at: www.ulsf.org/pdf/Critical_dimensions_SHE.pdf (accessed 10 June 2012).
Cortese, A.D. (2003), “The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future”,
Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 15-22.
Covaleski, M.A. and Dirsmith, M.W. (1988), “An institutional perspective on the rise, social
transformation, and fall of a university budget category”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 562-587.
Coyte, R., Emsley, D. and Boyd, D. (2010), “Examining managing accounting change as rules and
routines: the effect of rule precision”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 20 No. 53,
pp. 96-109.
Dey, C. (2002), “Methodological issues: the use of critical ethnography as an active research
methodology”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 106-121.
PAR DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2,
26,1/2 pp. 147-160.
Farneti, F. and Guthrie, J. (2009), “Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector
organisations: why they report”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 33, pp. 89-98.
Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C.I., Hoshikoshi, A., Mishra, A., Motodoa, Y.,
110 Onga, M. and Ostwald, M. (2008), “An international comparative analysis of sustainability
transformation across seven universities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 295-316.
Gale, R. (2006), “Environmental costs at a Canadian paper mill: a case study of environmental
management accounting (EMA)”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 14, pp. 1237-1251.
Garcı́a, F., Kevany, K. and Huisingh, D. (2006), “Sustainability in higher education: what is
happening?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, pp. 757-760.
Gobbels, M. and Jonker, J. (2003), “AA1000 and SA8000 compared: a systematic comparison of
contemporary accountability standards”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 54-58.
Goulding, C. (2005), “Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology: a comparative
analysis of three qualitative strategies for marketing research”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 294-308.
Gray, R. (2006), “Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value
creation? Whose value? Whose creation?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 793-819.
Gray, R. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability . . . and
how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35, pp. 47-62.
Hammersley, M. (2006), “Ethnography: problems and prospects”, Ethnography and Education,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007), Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd ed., Routledge,
New York, NY.
IFAC (2005), International Guidance Document: Environmental Management Accounting,
International Federation of Accountants, New York, NY.
ISEA (1999), AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000): A Foundation Standard in Social and Ethical
Accounting, Auditing and Reporting. Overview of Standards and Its Applications, ISEA,
London.
Jonsson, S. and Macintosh, N.B. (1997), “Cats, rats, and ears: making the case for ethnographic
accounting research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4, pp. 367-386.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C. and van Erck, R.P.G. (2005), “Assessing the sustainability
performance of industries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp. 373-385.
Lamberton, G. (2005), “Sustainability accounting – a brief history and conceptual framework”,
Accounting Forum, Vol. 29, pp. 7-26.
Lillis, T. (2008), “Ethnography as method, methodology, and ‘deep theorizing’: closing the gap
between text and context in academic writing research”, Written Communication, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 353-388.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F., Huising, D. and Lambrechts, W. (2013), “Declarations for
sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the
university system”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48, June, pp. 10-19.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutional organizations: formal structures as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-363.
Ministry of Education (2007), Tertiary Education Strategy 2007-2012, Ministry of Education, Accounting and
Wellington.
Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of Management
accountability
Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 145-179. challenges
Orton, J.D. and Weick, K.E. (1990), “Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualisation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 203-223.
Pigozzi, M.J. (2010), “Implementing the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 111
(DESD): achievements, open questions and strategies for the way forward”, International
Review of Education, Vol. 56 Nos 2/3, pp. 255-269.
Pogutz, S. (2008), “Sustainable development, corporate sustainability, and corporate social
responsibility: the missing link”, in Utting, P. and Clapp, J. (Eds), Corporate Accountability
and Sustainable Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 34-60.
Putnam, L., Bantz, C., Deetz, S., Mumby, D. and Van Maan, J. (1993), “Ethnography versus critical
theory: debating organizational research”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 221-235.
Raak, A.V., Paulus, A. and Made, J.V.D. (2007), “The social conditions for health and social care
policy: routines and institutions in the Dutch case of need assessment”, Public
Administration, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 1077-1095.
Rautiainen, A. (2010), “Contending legitimations: performance measurement coupling and decoupling
in two Finnish cities”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 373-391.
Romzek, B.S. and Dubnick, M.J. (1987), “Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the
challenger tragedy”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 227-238.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R.L. (2010), “Sustainability accounting for companies: catchphrase or
decision support for business leaders?”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45, pp. 375-384.
Scott, W.R. (1987), “The adolescence of institutional theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 32, pp. 493-511.
Scott, W.R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
ULSF (1990), The Talloires Declaration, University Leaders for a Sustainable Future,
Washington, DC.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N. and Sanchez, M. (2005), “Deterring sustainability in higher education
institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education
institutions”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 383-391.
Zilber, T.B. (2002), “Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: the
case of a rape crisis center in Israel”, Academy of Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 234-254.
Zucker, L.G. (1977), “The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 726-743.

Further reading
Oliver, C. (1992), “The antecedents of deinstitutionalization”, Organization Studies, Vol. 13,
pp. 563-588.

Corresponding author
Anil K. Narayan can be contacted at: anil.narayan@aut.ac.nz

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints