Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accounting, Organizations and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aos

Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance

and impact reports in non-governmental organizations
Susan O’Leary a, *, David Smith b
a
Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
b
RMIT University, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study considers the role of accounting in moments of resistance in day-to-day institutional contexts.
Received 12 December 2017 It does so by drawing on the perspectives of Mikhail Bakhtin (1981, 1984, 1986) e a Russian philosopher
Received in revised form who sought to understand the notion of dialogue in everyday communicative practices. We study these
21 April 2020
moments of resistance within the context of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) e organizations
Accepted 27 April 2020
Available online xxx
affected by authoritative discourses of accountability that seek representative, tangible and verifiable
understandings of impact and performance. Within our empirical study, we show how accounting re-
ports related to performance and impact gradually moved along a continuum from being received in
Keywords:
Non-governmental organizations
authoritative mode to internally persuasive mode and how, as a result, resistance to an authoritative
Resistance discourse of accountability was created and maintained. We found that this was enabled through the
Dialogic accounting reception and promotion of accounting’s subjunctive possibilities.
Bakhtin © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Subjunctivity
Performance and impact measurement

1. Introduction phenomenon embedded in a dynamic context” (Gallhofer &

Haslam, 2019, p. 5). In particular, research has investigated dia-
Accounting’s role in resistance to, and/or emancipation from, logic forms of accounting as a counter-point to monologism1 (see
potentially damaging authoritative discourse within institutional for example, Brown, 2009, 2017; Brown & Dillard, 2013; Vinnari &
and/or societal spaces has been a persistent subject of debate and Dillard, 2016). The core theme of these studies is that certain levels
investigation within the accounting literature (see for example, of pluralism exist in society, the dialogic interaction of which can
Ezzamel, Willmott, & Worthington, 2004; Jacobs, 2011; Tregidga, either be facilitated or inhibited by accounting tools. They promote
Milne, & Kearins, 2018). This body of literature has gone through dialogic accounting principles such as recognizing multiple values
a series of iterations starting with calls for revolutionary changes in and perspectives, and including non-monetary representations
democratic politics (Tinker, 1984, 1985) to more recent pragmatist within the provision of accounts. By embodying these principles,
approaches which see “…accounting as a multi-dimensional dialogic accounting is promoted as a way of “taking pluralism
seriously” in the manner in which information is measured, rep-
resented and communicated in accounting reports (Brown, 2009).
* Corresponding author. The pluralism referred to in prior dialogic accounting literature
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. O’Leary), [email protected]. most frequently refers to the surfacing and shaping of hitherto
au (D. Smith). unexamined or repressed ideological subjectivities and identities.
1
Monologism within accounting reduces accounting reports to a single meaning
or way of understanding, and has been criticized for this very reason (Macintosh &
According to Brown (2009, p. 322), identities are “neither pre-given
Baker, 2002). Monologic practice has enjoyed widespread acceptance due to the nor autonomously created; they are shaped and re-shaped through
perceived validity and desirability of a number of attributes attached to it, including dialogic interaction”. In keeping with democratization agendas
objectivity, accuracy, and statistical significance (Hall, 2014). Yet, the practice of (mostly associated with the work of Mouffe (2000; 2005)), dialogic
allowing the facts to speak for themselves, has allowed certain viewpoints, ways of
accounting represents a means of recognizing the situated knowl-
knowing, and the possibility of multiple truths and interpretations of reality to be
marked as off-limits (Brown, 2009; Nagel, 1986). This reality means that in practice edge and narratives of minorities and silenced ‘others’. While their
actors become unreflectively accustomed to monologism as a particular ideology. perspectives are non-essentialist, and open to re-shaping and
Due to a lack of exposure to alternatives, they unconsciously allow it to be repro- contestation, their inclusion is said to create wide-ranging
duced and internalized unchallenged (Jayasinghe & Wickramasinghe, 2011).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
0361-3682/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
2 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

discussion and debate, and “thicker, more complex un- “…demands that we acknowledge it, that we make it our own; it
derstandings” of important contemporary issues such as sustain- binds us, quite independent of any power it might have to
ability (Brown, 2009, p. 334). With some notable exceptions (see for persuade us internally; we encounter it with authority already
example, Ball, 2007; Bebbington & Fraser, 2014; Dillard & fused to it …. It is not therefore a question of choosing it from
Roslender, 2011), much of this literature has investigated extra- among other possible discourses that are its equal … it demands
institutional accounting practices (Brown, Dillard, & Hopper, 2015) - our conditional allegiance”.
practices within civil society or at the grassroots that occur outside
formal institutional spaces. Examples include the creation of
Authoritative discourse can emerge from various sources
counter-accounts within social movements (see for example,
including “…authority as such, or the authoritativeness of tradition,
Apostol, 2015; Denedo, Thomson, & Yonekura, 2017; Laine &
of generally acknowledge truths, of the official line and other
Vinnari, 2017; Thomson, Dey, & Russell, 2015). The focus on
similar authorities” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 344). For Bakhtin, authorita-
counter-accounting is often borne out of a tendency to see insti-
tive discourse, by its very nature, represents a repressive and
tutional forms of accounting in negative and repressive terms, and a
colonizing force, one that limits the surfacing of alternative forms of
desire to problematize institutional conduct (Dey, Russell, &
discourse, and the actions and behaviours that may arise from
Thomson, 2011; Gallhofer, Haslam, & Yonekura, 2015).
them. It is only when authoritative discourse is dialogized that one
Our starting point in this paper is similar to these dialogic ac-
can be liberated from it. Therefore, when one is able to re-tell
counting studies insofar as we investigate the role accounting plays
discourse in one’s own words and use it for one’s own purposes,
in a world of dialogic openness and explore the new visibilities that
it becomes internally-persuasive. This involves a process where
can be forthcoming from it. In accordance with Burchell, Clubb,
authoritative discourse becomes a basis of contemplation and the
Hopwood, Hughes, and Nahapiet (1980) and studies that have
balance between internal needs and external demands becomes an
followed their broad research agenda, we do not see accounting as
internal conflict. Therefore, when internally-persuasive discourse
a tool that has an inherent essence or foundation, a perspective
contradicts authoritative discourse, moments of resistance appear.
that, according to Hopwood (2007), is all too often forgotten. We
We consider both forms of discourse in the context of ac-
seek to make two notable contributions to the previous literature.
counting practices within institutional settings and pose the
First, following Cooper and Morgan (2013), we believe that multiple
following research question: What role does accounting informa-
stories can emanate from accountings that are narrated in a
tion assume in the movement from authoritative to internally
particular way, in this case, dialogic accounting. We argue that the
persuasive discourse? We draw on Bakhtin’s work in illuminating
subjectivities and identities investigated in the previous literature
how a discursive evolution (Hsu & Roth, 2014) can take place within
represent but one potential for dialogic accounting. We contend
organizations as they transition from authoritative to internally
that multiplicity does not stop at multiple perspectives, but rather
persuasive discourse. We are interested in the role of accounting in
takes into account a wide range of other contingent pluralities. We
this evolution and find that viewing it in subjunctive mode e that is
explore these other forms of pluralities, in particular the alternative
using it as a basis for surfacing suggestions, wishes for the future or
futures and imaginings that can be forthcoming from accounting’s
conditions contrary to fact e is useful here. In doing so, we place
manifestation in practice.
our study in the tradition of long-standing research that seeks to
Second, we recognize that the previous literature predomi-
uncover the various ways in which accounting becomes “purpo-
nantly focuses on “contested spaces where power asymmetries
sive” in the diverse roles it serves in practice; roles that are perhaps
cannot be suspended and agreement cannot be attained” (Brown &
quite divergent from its functional claims (Burchell et al., 1980, p.
Dillard, 2013, p. 178). In contrast, we seek to understand how in-
4). We seek to expand this research agenda with a more critical
dividuals and organizations in ordinary day-to-day institutional
perspective in terms of how accounting becomes purposive in
settings e what Ball (2007, pp. 762e3) terms “commonplace situ-
resisting authoritative discourse. Furthermore, in demonstrating an
ations and seemingly mundane actions” - struggle with the con-
explicit way in which accounting is viewed e that is, subjunctively -
sequences of ‘mainstream’ discourse and how, given the pervasive
we seek to overcome the dangers associated with studying eman-
nature of this discourse, begin to conceive of the world in other
cipatory accounting of often only vaguely and superficially speci-
more pluralistic ways. Therefore, overall we propose that, in
fying ‘better’ notions of accounting than that embodied within
contrast to dialogic accounting studies that call for greater un-
authoritative discourse (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2016).
derstandings of the many pluralistic perspectives that exist within a
We conducted our case study within a non-governmental or-
dialogic world of existence, for those working within everyday
ganization (NGO) called FoodTransit.3 The NGO sector is considered
settings, a crucial step in these ambitions is to embrace the dialogic
a particularly apt context as it constitutes an environment in which
character of the world and its ability to be conceived differently to
authoritative discourse often necessitates the provision of a series
that of authoritative discourse. In this sense, our study seeks to add
of essential imperatives related to measurable and quantifiable
particularity and specificity to our knowledge of the role of ac-
information that “…shun[s] ambiguity and seek[s] stability and
counting in moments of resistance, in line with a more pragmatic
certainty in assessing performance” (O’Dwyer & Boomsma, 2015, p.
view of accounting and resistance (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2019).
40). Accounting information in this context, like many others, be-
We find the dialogic principles of Mikhail Bakhtin e a Russian
comes a justification device that functions to legitimize and ratio-
philosopher who sought to understand the notion of dialogue in
nalize organizational practice (Burchell et al., 1980; Goddard &
everyday communicative practices e to be instructive here. Ac-
Assad, 2006). This can lead to the unwelcome effect of increased
cording to Bakhtin (1981, 1984, 1986), two forms of discourse2 exist
professionalization and managerialism in organizations with wel-
e authoritative and internally persuasive. Bakhtin (1981, p. 342)
fare missions (Chenhall, Hall, & Smith, 2010; Lewis, 2007). Yet, in
defines authoritative discourse as that which:
agreement with more recent accounting studies undertaken in

2
Bakhtin uses the term ‘discourse’ in multiple ways in his writings. We use the
term ‘discourse’ as being analogous with dialogue, where it is permeated by various
layers of plurality that exist and interact dialogically with one another in an unfi-
3
nalized process of meaning-making. This is a pseudonym, by agreement with the organization.

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

NGOs,4 we argue that NGOs do not always blindly accept authori- succinctly with our study, are studies that have problematized, as
tative forces of accountability, but often look for ways to overcome indeed Burchell et al. (1980) did, the notion that accounting in-
or change them. In highlighting a Bakhtinian perspective on dia- formation has representational properties. Several papers highlight
logue, we provide a theoretical context for exploring not only these the inability of accounting to operate as a machine that provides
acts of resistance, but also for considering how authoritative dis- ‘answers’ to various decision making alternatives (Jordan &
courses can become internally persuasive within organizations. We Messner, 2012; Jørgensen & Messner, 2010; Quattrone & Hopper,
believe this to have broad relevance to a variety of organizations 2005; Wouters & Wilderom, 2008). For example, according to
beyond the NGO sector; organizations that may find themselves Busco and Quattrone (2018a, p. 16). accounting “representations
responding to authoritative institutional pressures for stringent can only partially represent organizational worlds and discourses,
accountability and transparency through the production of seem- since they are inherently incomplete and, therefore, cannot fully
ingly static, monologic accounts of performance and impact. inform rational decision-making nor guarantee that certain con-
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: the next sequences will ensue in the future”.
section provides a background to the study of dialogue and resis- Much subsequent research has sought to investigate the legiti-
tance within the accounting literature, paying particular attention macy of accounting in working practices beyond the inadequacy of
to the dialogic accounting literature. This is followed by a discus- its representational qualities. This has included the role of ac-
sion on how Bakhtinian principles may prove useful in enhancing counting in enabling communicative action that will lead to
our understanding of the process/es by which authoritative decision-making (Chenhall, Hall, & Smith, 2013). Mouritsen and
discourse becomes internally persuasive discourse, and the role of Kreiner (2016) view the solidifying of such decisions through cal-
accounting in this transition. Following this, we outline our culative devices to be simply the end of one process and the start of
research methods, empirical context and findings. Finally we pro- another. Here decisions produce promises that initiate a series of
vide a discussion of these findings and make concluding comments. other processes that have to be continually developed and can lead
to intended, unintended and surprising effects. In this sense, the
2. Dialogic accounting and resistance role of accounting is to enable promising and “a commitment on
the part of the decision maker to take part in an unfolding world of
As highlighted by Gallhofer and Haslam (2019), it is difficult to unanticipated consequences” (Mouritsen & Kreiner, 2016, p. 22).
define or even identify what constitutes the literature on ‘eman- Studies have also found that the incompleteness of accounting
cipatory’ accounting or accounting related to resistance. That said, representations themselves can carry an intrinsically generative
some broad delineations are possible, starting with Tinker (1984, power in operating as a powerful tool for questioning knowledge
1985). Tinker adopted a critical Marxist lens within his research and across a variety of organisational boundaries. This is referred to as
presented a sharp dichotomy between conventional accounting - the use of accounting as a ‘maieutic’ machine (Busco & Quattrone,
understood to be unquestionably exploitative and problematic - 2018a; 2018b). For example, Busco and Quattrone (2015) demon-
and emancipatory accounting, which uncovers the repressive ele- strated that the ambiguity of certain performance indicators, and
ments of conventional accounting and seeks to transform it. From their lack of representational ability, leaves open space for ques-
this perspective, emancipatory accounting is associated with a tioning and debate over strategic courses of action that can lead to
resistance that is progressive in a revolutionary and radical sense. innovation on the part of an organization. Overall, therefore,
Subsequent studies on the role of accounting in resistance can studies of this kind demonstrate the mutability of accounting
be broadly placed into two categories. First, as highlighted by beyond e and indeed as a somewhat emancipatory reaction to e its
Masquefa, Gallhofer, and Haslam (2017), the emancipatory poten- inherent shortcomings. Yet they do not explicitly engage with
tial of accounting has permeated much interdisciplinary research emancipatory or critical thought (Masquefa, Gallhofer, Haslam,
and has manifested itself uncritically within it in neutral and un- 2017; Roslender & Dillard, 2003).
problematic terms, for example, as a ‘boundary object’ or an Second, in keeping with the more critical and progressive lens
organizational tool with ‘enabling’ properties (see for example, adopted by Tinker (1984, 1985) (but not necessarily his revolu-
Ahrens & Chapman, 2004; Briers & Chua, 2001). Studies of this kind tionary and radical stance), another stream of literature in-
broadly follow the research agenda laid down by Burchell et al. vestigates the role of accounting in resistance in increasingly
(1980) in terms of researching accounting in action and adhering pragmatic terms. Studies of this kind (see for example, Bryer, 2014;
to the idea that accounting gains legitimacy through working Cooper, Taylor, Smith, & Catchpowle, 2005; Masquefa et al., 2017;
practices5 (Busco & Quattrone, 2018a). What resonates most McKernan & O’Donnell, 1998; Oakes & Berry, 2009) challenge the
dichotomous view of accounting as being either repressive or
emancipatory. Instead they envisage the possibility of progress
4
For example, Chenhall et al. (2013, 2017) highlight the productive friction that along a continuum in which accounting, at any one time, is a multi-
can be brought about amongst divergent worldviews with regard to NGO evaluative dimensional phenomenon which can encompass both emancipa-
regimes, and how such values and beliefs can be expressed within a single ac- tory and repressive elements, the relative influence of either
counting tool. O’Dwyer and Boomsma (2015) show how NGO accounts can be co-
changing constantly in the context of dynamic environments
constructed between an NGO and those that traditionally would have insisted on
stringent accounts of performance. Agyemang et al. (2017) examine how the (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2019). Notably, research on dialogic ac-
perception of control from stringent upward accountability processes fails to stifle counting has contributed to this work on accounting and resistance
NGOs’ intrinsic commitment to their mission. O’Leary (2017) demonstrates how through its explicit focus on the unfinalized and contingent nature
grassroots monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that are often used for upward of the world (see for example, Brown, 2009; 2017; Brown & Dillard,
accountability processes, can also have transformative effects on NGO beneficiaries.
2013; Dillard & Roslender, 2011). By investigating how this focus
We see, therefore, a growing resistance to authoritative discourse within NGOs in
prior research. has been adopted by those who seek change, these studies allow for
5
Examples include studies that have investigated the ability of accounting to be an expanded understanding of how resistance manifests itself in
an ‘ammunition machine’; that is “used to articulate and promote particular practice. They do so by recognizing and drawing attention to the
interested positions and values” (Burchell et al., 1980, p. 17). This has manifested
itself in many papers that show how accounting systems operate to advance in-
terests and values in pluralistic situations where there are conflicting goals and
interactions (Andon, Baxter, & Chua, 2007; Briers & Chua, 2001; Chenhall et al.,
2013; Mikes & Morhart, 2017).

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
4 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

fact that much of the social and economic structures that surround (Bebbington & Fraser, 2014). They seek to provide an alternative
us deny contingency and instead rely on transcendental and starting point for discussion and decision-making, and, in the
foundational claims to justify their operation.6 In the process, many process, bring about transformative change, dialogic forms of
sectors of the population, and the possibilities inherent in their accountability, and mutual learning processes between stake-
embodied experiences of being, are excluded from discourse. Dia- holders (Bebbington, Brown, Frame & Thomson, 2007a; Fraser,
logic accounting has sought to expose the pretension of univer- 2012).
sality within authoritative discourse, make visible its contingency The majority of subsequent research in relation to counter-
and highlight the inevitability of exclusions or ‘remainders’ from its accounts has taken place in an extra-institutional context (for
various manifestations. Studies, therefore, promote the creation of example, in social movement campaigns), where they are viewed
space, within the process of providing an account, for accounting as strategies of resistance rather than tools of intra-organizational
practices and tools that allow a multiplicity of (often underrepre- change. Here, their ‘reframed’ and ‘re-narrated’ representations
sented) voices to be heard, interact dialogically and create pro- propose alternatives to the alienating or repressive institutional
ductive outcomes (Brown, 2009). accounts they seek to delegitimize, confront and ultimately change
In doing so, this has led to a wealth of literature that shows how (Apostol, 2015; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2003, 2019). By revealing “the
counter-accountings can recognize the alternative subject positions wrong in what had been presented as correct and accounted for”,
and hidden truths of what Brown and Tregidga (2017, p. 4) term these counter-accounts surface and use authoritative discourse’s
“surplus subjects”; that is those that have been repeatedly contradictions, remainders and exclusions to effect progressive
oppressed and silenced by institutions of power and authoritative change (Brown & Tregidga, 2017, p. 5). They aim to create political
discourse (see for example, Denedo et al., 2017; Laine & Vinnari, spaces that are “generative of more socially just ideas, knowledge,
2017; Vinnari & Laine, 2017). Resistance may take shape in the logics and identities” (Brown & Dillard, 2013, p. 184).
creation of these counter accounts, and become a rallying point for Beginning with Macintosh (2002), several authors within this
dissent and political advocacy, as described by Denedo et al. (2017, body of literature have highlighted the potential for a Bakhtinian
p. 1310): contribution to dialogic accounting (Bebbington, Brown, Frame, &
Thomson, 2007b; Catchpowle & Smyth, 2016; Dillard &
"Counter accounts are produced by, or on behalf of, individuals
Roslender, 2011; Macintosh & Baker, 2002). This has largely
who suffer from the consequences of the actions of others.
focused on the potential for heteroglossic accounting reports. Here,
Typically, these accounts originate from civil society organisa-
heteroglossia is taken to be the interaction of two contradictory
tions to represent the voices of the less powerful in order to
forces e centripetal and centrifugal. Centripetal forces attempt to
justify some form of emancipatory institutional and organisa-
unify, finalize and close meaning, while centrifugal forces work to
tional changes …. Counter accounts are conceptualised as
decentre it in a movement towards contradiction and complexity
symbolic political tactics that create alternative representations
(Bakhtin, 1981). Therefore, the significance of heteroglossic forms
of the consequences of problematic conduct".
of accounting lie not in what is referred to within accounts, but in
how this interaction between centrifugal and centripetal forces
Studies show, therefore, how counter-accounts, through the plays out in relation to material circumstances in an ever-changing
creation of new visibilities and possibilities for engagement, can world (Catchpowle & Smyth, 2016). Studies have suggested that
build moral outrage, articulate possible visions for change, and heteroglossic accounts would entail giving multiple voices equal
mobilize action and transformation (Brown, 2009; Himick & Ruff, expression within reporting processes where they could create
2019). their own meanings and understandings (Dillard & Roslender,
Counter-accounts were initially investigated within an institu- 2011). This would mean welcoming different forms of accounts,
tional environment. For example, Ball (2007) examined the use of alongside explanations of how they are prepared and an outline of
environmental accounting as a form of ‘workplace activism’ that major points of disagreement and contradiction (Macintosh &
sought to build internal capacity and commitment to environ- Baker, 2002). As with other dialogic accounting research, hetero-
mental values, and advocate for resources. Other studies highlight glossia within these studies, therefore, implies using ‘multiple ac-
the use of Sustainability Assessment Models (SAMs) in a variety of counts’ to recognize and surface alternative subject positions; that
organizational contexts from the UK oil and gas sector to a New is those that represent the remainders from authoritative
Zealand council (Bebbington & Fraser, 2014; Brown, 2009). These discourse.
models, in their reporting of a wide variety of information beyond In this context, we propose that an expanded examination of
financial figures, are proposed as alternatives to corporate green- Bakhtin’s dialogic theory can provide a threefold contribution to
washing, self-reporting and cost-benefit analyses. The dialogic dialogic accounting’s potential whilst also bringing a more critical
potential of SAMs is seen in multiple ways. First, they can display perspective to the research agenda set by Burchell et al. (1980).
critically reflective properties in exposing and interrogating an First, Bakhtin attunes us to a world of other heteroglossic possibil-
organization’s ‘meta-rules’ (Bebbington & Fraser, 2014). Second, ities to those examined in the previous literature. For him,
groups with different ideological epistemologies and value struc- discourse and cultural spaces are ‘heteroglot’ as they represent “the
tures (related to contested concepts such as accountability, co-existence of socio-ideological contradictions between the pre-
equality, risk or uncertainty) can construct their own SAMs and sent and the past, between differing epochs of the past, between
exchange them as a “way of explaining and justifying their per- different socio-ideological groups in the present, between ten-
spectives and differences and …. interrogat[ing] each other’s way of dencies, schools, circles and so forth” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 201).
knowing” (Brown, 2009, p. 332). Therefore, SAMs, within an Therefore, according to Bakhtin, pluralism exists at different levels
organizational context, have the ability to raise questions, surface of abstraction that both mediate and contradict each other
new ways of acting, and alter actors’ interpretive schema (Roberts, 2004). Multiplicity does not stop at multiple perspectives,
but rather includes a wide range of contingent pluralities. Hetero-
glossia means “denoting speech as something that says different
6
This is thought to be particularly relevant from an accounting and account-
things simultaneously” (Hsu & Roth, 2014, p. 734) with these
ability perspective where institutionalized authoritative discourses have been in ‘different things’ embodying infinite possibility. Recognizing this,
place for a significant period of time (Brown, 2009; Dillard & Roslender, 2011). we propose that dialogic accounting can produce new visibilities, in

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

particular, future subjunctive realities which may not be desirable, dialogue, not just with other people, but also with everything else.
well-informed or even viable, yet nonetheless are powerful in To exist is to engage in dialogue, a never-ending dialogue in a world
allowing us to intervene in current organizing processes. Previous that is indeterminate and unfinalizable (Robinson, 2011). Consis-
literature has acknowledged the potential for dialogic accounting to tent with the dialogic accounting literature, therefore, Bakhtin sees
surface “yet-to-be known possibilities” and “knowledge of a the world as fundamentally irreducible to unity; multiple contested
changing unfinished world” (Brown & Dillard, 2013, p. 188). Yet, as meanings and subjective worlds exist, and discourse, by necessity,
described above, the literature to date has tended to see the multi- will include many incommensurable voices. The dialogue that
voice embedded in heteroglossic discursive acts as multiple per- Bakhtin speaks of is distinct from an understanding of dialogue as a
spectives and subjectivities that surface through dialogic two-sided conversation or actual speech. Such descriptions of
interaction. dialogue do not appear in his works. As Hirschkop (1999, p. 4)
Second, Bakhtin’s theory is instructive in understanding how describes, dialogue for Bakhtin is more a “philosophical idea, a
authoritative discourse becomes internally persuasive. As characterization of our experiences of meaning and a shorthand
described by Brown (2009), accounting should be seen as subjec- answer to the question: what happens when one understands
tive, contestable and problematic when social conditions are something expressed?” For Bakhtin, a text itself is never complete
reduced to discreet (often quantifiable) categories, but how do we but ‘in process’. Dillard and Roslender (2011, p. 139) explain as
come to see it as thus? Of note within the previous literature is the follows:
fact that resistance can emerge from a problematization of accounts
“…the author is continually involved in dialogue with the text
that have emanated from authoritative discourse. For example,
that necessarily continues after the text is completed, i.e. has
Brown and Tregidga (2017. p. 16) describe “doubling practices”
been brought to an end via the act of publication … the process
where resistance is staged by drawing on the resources of author-
continues, through the complementary continuing dialogue
itative discourse in a way that disrupts, re-frames and transforms
with readers, whose role is to perpetuate the process in the
them into new perspectives. Similarly, Li and McKernan (2016) find
same unfinished way”.
that existing accounting practices, whilst problematic and far from
perfect, can provide the basis for the staging of political acts and
resistance. In drawing on Bakhtin, this study very much aligns with In this sense, Bakhtinian perspectives point us towards the
these sensibilities, yet extends previous literature by charting a reception and consideration of accounting information in sub-
“discursive evolution” (Hsu & Roth, 2014) in relation to the per- junctive mode (Hirschkop, 1986). The subjunctive here represents a
formance and impact reports within our empirical setting from complex form of engagement with authoritative discourse. It re-
those associated with authoritative and problematic accountability lates to an ability to decentre ‘truth’ claims, imagine alternatives,
requirements to those that became internally persuasive. In refuse to give in to monologism, and create “a second world that
particular, Bakhtinian principles led us to understand that such lies outside officialdom” (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 6). It means looking at
outcomes were achieved through an awareness and enactment of what we might do, may have done, should do or would do in
the dialogic nature of the social world, and a subsequent ability to certain circumstances (Howells, 2001). Coonfield (2009, p. 176)
distinguish between authoritative and internally persuasive describes texts received in subjunctive mode to be “purposeful and
discourse. effective beyond the act of telling; as other-directed; and … potent
Third, Bakhtin’s dialogic theory helps us understand in greater in instances of uncertainty”. Similar to counter-accounts, subjunc-
detail the nature and role of contingency in alternative futures and tive accounts seek to surface new (subjective) understandings of
imaginings, and its role in moments of resistance. Notably, he the world, but crucially these understandings, while possible, are
frequently describes how these imaginings may not be viable or often uncertain. In this sense, invoking the subjunctive means
even desirable, and therefore, are not only open to infinite contes- playing around with authoritative discourse in a carnivalesque
tation, but embody it. The contingency of imaginings, and the style of engagement (Hardy, 2006) which involves “turning the
debate that surrounds them, allows us to glimpse the possibility of social order topsy-turvy” (DaSilva Iddings & McCafferty, 2007, p.
what might have been or what might be in particular situations 32). This inverting of the foundations of mainstream discourse
were we not burdened by the all too often closure of debate by represents the means in which the subjunctive account gains sig-
authoritative discourse. This has the potential to make current nificance in the world and the way in which it enables institutional
circumstances dense with possibility and, therefore, is powerful in arrangements (dominated by authoritative discourse) to be navi-
allowing actors to intervene in and resist these circumstances with gated. When the formal account is received in subjunctive mode, its
purpose and creativity. We propose that this is particularly perti- significance does not necessarily lie in the account that it provides
nent within organizational settings where actors may find them- but in the plurality of heteroglossic possibilities e for example,
selves caught within a web of conflicting discourses and, therefore, alternative realities or futures - that arise from the social gestures it
not necessarily of the revolutionary temperament to engage in enacts (Bakhtin, 1981). In turn, these realities themselves come to
counter-accounting exercises, yet nonetheless can be instrumental represent subjunctive propositions insofar as they do not “neces-
in staging the beginnings of social change and resistance (Ball, sarily detail a thing that exists … [but] refer to a space which … fills
2007; Hoy, 2005). These core elements of Bakhtin’s theory are with a crowd of things that either don’t exist or maybe don’t exist
described in the next section. … with absences and possible absences, possible realities”
(Kelman, 1992, p. 6).
3. Bakhtin’s dialogism and accounting information For example, in Bakhtin’s (1984) description of novels, most
notably those of Dostoevsky, we find plots and narrative structures
Bakhtin’s work was undertaken in the context of literary criti- designed to test and probe the discourses around them, and not
cism, and focused on the historical, cultural and social specificity of merely to describe them (Hirschkop, 1986). This is said to be the
texts and practice. For Bakhtin (1981), within these settings, dia- case even when the text includes what appear to be ‘factual’ rep-
logism characterizes the entire social world. Nothing in the world e resentations e these representations are presented as hypotheses,
individuals, social movements, accounting reports, organizing as possibilities, with a right to be considered (Toulmin, 2003). They
processes, characters in a novel and so forth - exist ‘in themselves’, gain significance in that their difference and uncertain e potentially
but rather in their relations. This means that everything is in controversial e nature attracts attention and emphasises the

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
6 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

appeal of the unfamiliar. Bakhtin (1981, p. 23) describes, for this evolution and how it impacted on what they experienced and
example, how a novel can be viewed by its audience as something focused on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, we employed a dia-
to be interfered with in an “operation of dismemberment” in which logical relationship with our research participants, where our focus
we can “turn it upside down, inside out, peer at it from above and was on stories of struggle within FoodTransit, rather than static
below, break open its external shell, look into its centre, doubt it, themes. While we used an interview protocol to guide each inter-
take it apart”. Therefore, the fact that the significance of an account view, interviewees were able to explore any issue they felt perti-
partly lies in the social gesture that it enacts, does not deny the fact nent to the study.
that the material contents of the account are important grounds for We conducted 18 audio-recorded interviews with 16 key
interaction. Indeed, for the social gesture to occur, these contents personnel, with an average duration of 51 min, which were sub-
are appraised, deliberated on, contested, modified, celebrated or sequently transcribed. Given the small size of the organization, this
resisted. Accounts seen in subjunctive mode can bring social ges- number of interviews enabled us to interview all senior personnel,
tures ‘into play’ and form the structural axis or ‘raw materials’ upon and to achieve coverage across all functional areas. A significant
which the dialogic world acquires significance (Hirschkop, 1986). part of these interviews was to uncover the challenges associated
Bakhtin (1981) argues, therefore, that meaning e that is, what with the above mentioned ‘stories of struggle’ within FoodTransit,
subjects come to see as significant - relies on both formal objects and to understand how interviewees understood and wrestled
(for example, accounting texts) and the social gesture that they with these challenges. Given this, we felt a predominant focus on
enact. those within the organization (ie. managers, employees, and vol-
This focus on subjunctivity allows us to think differently, in unteers) to be suitable. A list of interviewees appears in the Ap-
comparison to previous literature, about how resistance manifests pendix. As with any organization, many employees and volunteers
itself through the use of accounting practices, particularly in their working in FoodTransit had not been there since the beginning.
ability to prompt an evolution from authoritative to internally Nonetheless, understanding how they perceived its evolution, and
persuasive discourse. It provides an ability to recognize the also understanding the trajectories of these actors, became crucial
incommensurability of what Bakhtin (1981) terms ‘alien words’ (for to the conduct of fieldwork. In addition to interview data, some
example, those embodied within subjunctive realities) with current observation was undertaken. This involved attendance at staff
forms of meaning-making (premised perhaps on authoritative meetings, and approximately 12 hours accompanying food delivery
discourse), and allowing this incommensurability to alter one’s drivers on their rounds. Additionally, we had access to extensive
approach to a particular object or social/political situation. This internal documentation relating to evaluation of FoodTransit’s
does not necessarily mean agreeing with subjunctive realities or programmes, and publicly-available information, such as promo-
even acknowledging their legitimacy or desirability e they are, tional material, information from FoodTransit’s website and annual
after all, mere possibilities. It does, however, mean using this ‘alien’ reports.
content to decipher one’s own response, position and style of Analysis of the data took place over the entire data collection
communication in the present moment, and to figure out how one period. During this time, categories of relevance began to emerge.
might intervene with purpose in the future (Lawson, 2001). While we did subsequently identify themes in our analysis, we
Therefore, use of the subjunctive mode is “extremely political, recognized these not as finalizing descriptions, but rather “tenta-
something extremely subversive … [as] entire values systems can tive beginnings of the most significant task of representing indi-
no longer be taken for granted, they become problematic, they are vidual struggles in all their ambivalence and unfinalizability”
open to question” (Kelman, 1992, p. 6). As such, we see Bakhtin’s (Frank, 2005, p. 972). These themes were built into narrative form,
work as having substantial implications for issues of resistance, and re-drafted several times to refine their descriptive and theo-
dissent, and new ways of seeing the world (Koczanowicz, 2011, retically important suppositions (O’Sullivan & O’Dwyer, 2009). As
2013; Roberts, 2004). We contend that authoritative discourse can part of this analysis and drafting of findings, we remained aware of
be resisted or transformed into internally-persuasive discourse the uncertainty and often contradictory approach actors, both
through awareness of the dialogical character of the social world individually and collectively, had to various organizational chal-
and a resulting subjunctive view of accounting. We see the NGO lenges and the lack of coherence in their response. We do not aim to
context as a suitable location to gain this understanding, as be more certain than our research participants in terms of these
described below. challenges or approaches to overcoming them. Therefore, there is
no privileged voice e neither that of the research participants nor
4. Research method the researchers. We do not aim to impose a coherence to the stories
of research participants but rather present them with all their
Our field study was undertaken within FoodTransit, a welfare messiness and contradictions attached, and hope the audience for
NGO located in Australia, between September 2013 and March this research will come to their own messy, unfinalized reading.
2014. FoodTransit collects surplus food, predominantly fruit and Our findings do not have a specific beginning or finalized end;
vegetables, which would otherwise be sent to landfill. It re- having said that, they are not inconclusive, but open-ended, and
distributes this food to welfare agencies (for example, homeless inviting of further dialogue (Frank, 2005).
shelters, women’s programmes, asylum seeker centres). By doing
so, FoodTransit aims to enable these agencies to make significant
5. Case context: food security and FoodTransit
financial savings, which can be used elsewhere to benefit com-
munities. Our research methods included interviews, observation
Traditionally, there have been two polarising sides to the debate
and documentary review. We conducted these methods and sub-
on food security.7 The first stems from early interventions in the
sequent analysis in a manner consistent with Bakhtinian un-
‘productivist’ side of the debate and focuses on macro-level policies
derstandings (Frank, 2005). Specifically, our priority in conducting
of national self-sufficiency in relation to food production (Lang,
the fieldwork was to access a plurality of embodied experiences
and histories that had come to bear on the modern organization.
Methodologically, this involved understanding the evolution of the 7
Food security is said to exist “when all people, at all times, have physical, social
organization and how it had come about e this was not as a quest and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary
for concrete facts, but rather accessing how certain actors perceived needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” (Barrett, 2010, p. 825).

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Barling, & Caraher, 2009; Rosin, 2013). The second, spurred by Sen’s education programmes e Programme A and Programme B. Pro-
(1981) work, challenges this position and instead places the food gramme A involves an eight week programme for food aid re-
security debate in the context of wider political and socio- cipients that develops their food independence by providing
economic issues such as entitlement and access (Dilley & training on cooking skills, education in relation to nutrition, and
Boudreau, 2001). This has led to a focus on the micro-level ‘liveli- social interaction via community connections. Programme B rep-
hood security’ of poor households and intervention strategies that resents a training programme for staff and volunteers of commu-
seek to assist them (Lindenberg, 2002; Maxwell, 1996). nity food programmes which includes modules on food insecurity,
These two extremes of the debate have been criticised for their nutrition, food safety, and monitoring and evaluation of community
lack of attention to the intermediary meso-level efforts that take food programmes. Overall, therefore, the issue of food insecurity
place mostly in urban locations in what has been termed “the new and ways to overcome it represents the main central focus for
geography of food security” (Sonnino, 2016, p. 190). Although there FoodTransit’s work. However, it also seeks to have a significant
are still a wide variety of actors that continue to perpetuate the environmental impact by reducing the amount of food waste
macro and micro level approaches (Fouilleux, Bricas, & Alpha, generated and sent to landfills. Furthermore, the aim of its advo-
2017), meso-level actors are increasingly emerging as food system cacy and nutritional education programmes is to improve the long-
innovators. They seek to bridge the gap between supply-led and term health, wellbeing and food security of food aid recipients.
demand-led interventions, and pay attention to issues such as Several shortcomings have been identified in the literature in
public health, social justice, sustainability, environmental integrity relation to food security efforts of this kind. First, they have been
and community development8 (Fish, Lobby & Winter 2013; Lang & found to be relatively underdeveloped in comparison to other so-
Barling, 2012; Morgan & Sonnino, 2010). As such, the actions of cial movements which limits their ability to mobilize civil society in
local food-system innovators frequently do not address single is- a meaningful sense (Warshawsky, 2014). Second, by often only
sues but a multitude of complex interrelated issues, for example, focusing on downstream local activities such as emergency food
food wastage, obesity and lack of access to nutritionally adequate relief, food banks or community gardens, it remains questionable as
food. They aim to create novel forms of connectivity between the to whether they can address problems that have emerged at
nodal points of the food system; that is suppliers, retailers, con- different levels, for example, an ability to tackle the root causes of
sumers, households, communities, government policy and so forth food wastage and insecurity, or an ability to produce lasting social
(Sonnino, 2016). FoodTransit, as a food security NGO, can be change in areas characterised by extreme inequalities (Booth, 2014;
counted amongst these food justice efforts. Sonnino, 2016; Warshawsky, 2015). Third, Warshawsky (2014)
FoodTransit’s core mission is to ensure all Australians have shows how food security NGOs can be very much subject to the
enough healthy food to eat and as a result, are food secure. The vagaries and priorities of private sector donors.
organization comprises of approximately 50 staff and over 500 Finally, and of particular relevance to this study, is the issue of
volunteers. Traditionally, FoodTransit receives approximately half impact evaluation within food security efforts. The increased
its funding from charitable trusts and foundations. This funding is importance of impact evaluation, as distinct from a mere focus on
typically program-based, highly competitive, and does not cover outcomes10, in sectors such as international aid and development
infrastructure costs. The balance of funds comes from corporate assistance, has grown steadily (Cameron, Mishra & Brown, 2016;
donors, private individuals and the general public. In only one Levine & Savedoff, 2015; Sabet & Brown, 2018). Yet within food
Australian state does FoodTransit receive funding from the state security programmes, particularly those at the meso-level (as
government, albeit quite limited. This relatively low reliance on described above), the issue of impact evaluation has been prob-
government funding makes it critical that the organization engage lematic. Although there may be broad agreement that a move from
with philanthropic donors. FoodTransit’s primary food donor is measuring outcomes to impact is desirable, difficulties persist in
ShopRite,9 a national supermarket chain. FoodTransit has a contract agreeing measures of food security, attributing programme in-
with ShopRite, whereby it picks up surplus food from participating terventions to food security impacts, and the often prohibitive cost
stores and ShopRite contributes cash, other assets (for example, and difficulty of measuring long term food security impacts
forklifts, shelving), and in-kind support to FoodTransit. In addition, (Barrett, 2010; Holley & Mason, 2019; Jones, Ngure, Pelto, & Young,
FoodTransit accepts donated food from other supermarkets, food 2013; Riely, Mock, Cogill, Bailey, & Kenefick, 1999). The high stan-
manufacturers and community markets. dard of impact that is embodied in definitions of food security (see
Furthermore, FoodTransit is involved in research and advocacy footnote 7, for example10) involves more than just an assessment of
regarding nutrition and food security, and runs nutrition education nutritional status, but also a consideration of a community’s
initiatives. These initiatives predominantly take the form of two vulnerability to future disruptions in access to adequate and
appropriate food, and improvements in the economic and personal
well-being of individuals (Barrett, 2010).11 As a result, within this
8
The evolution of the food security debate could be seen as analogous to sector, impacts are often narrowly defined and confused with
movement towards a rights-based approach. Transitioning from service-based to programme outcomes (Holley & Mason, 2019; Riely et al., 1999).
rights-based approaches (RBAs) are not uncommon in NGOs, with attendant effects
Overall, therefore, we see the evolution of the food security
on monitoring and evaluation practices (see for example, O’Leary, 2017). However,
we see the literature on RBAs, as it is currently conceptualized within the ac- landscape itself to be quite heteroglossic in nature with multiple
counting literature, as being incompatible with the literature on dialogism. The interrelated, yet at times opposing and critical, standpoints and
current RBA literature is uncritical in relation to the pretension of universality in limitations. Certainly, as highlighted above, there has been much
dominant rights-based discourses; that is an unyielding adherence to the cultural criticism of the most recent meso-level approaches of NGOs such as
invariant of all-encompassing definitions of human rights. In contrast, agonistic
FoodTransit. We found that Food Transit, being situated within this
approaches to human rights seek to understand a plurality of ways in which human
dignity can be respected by broadening out our notion of the self beyond its
Western liberal variant; a variant that rests on autonomy and individual freedoms
(Panikkar, 1982). Examples of this from an agonistic perspective could include
10
understanding the quest for human dignity and a just social order in cultures where Ebrahim and Rangan (2014, p. 120) “distinguish between outcomes and im-
decision-making is less individualistic and more co-operative, and where the pacts, with the former referring to lasting changes in the lives of individuals and the
notion of the self is defined more in relation to specific kinds of relationships with latter to lasting results achieved at a community or societal level”.
11
others and, therefore, incapable of autonomous individuation (Mouffe, 2010, 2014). For a further comprehensive discussion on the inherent difficulties of
9
Like FoodTransit, ‘ShopRite’ is a pseudonym. measuring the impact of food security programmes, please see Barrett (2010).

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
8 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

sector, was at times acutely aware of its limitations and implicitly much food has gotten out … because of that van that wouldn’t have
attempted to respond to them in a variety of different ways. These gotten out … previously? Those sorts of things.”
findings are discussed in the next section.
The emphasis of accountability reports in the early days of the
6. Findings organization, therefore, was firmly on growth in terms of proving
that FoodTransit was redistributing increasing amounts of food. As
Our findings highlight that FoodTransit, like many other NGOs, described by Employee 9, external parties sought various forms of
was influenced by authoritative discourses of accountability which information:
prioritized tangible quantifiable measures of impact. Over time,
“We’re moving x amount of food to x amount of community pro-
however, the representativeness of these measures was questioned
grammes. That’s up on this time last year by x amount. The amount
and resisted, leading to a reconsideration of the role and meaning of
of kilos that has been rescued from landfill has saved x amount of
performance and impact assessment within FoodTransit. Gradually,
CO2 emissions to the environment but more importantly it has
these assessments became a means of attuning actors to the pos-
created x amount of meals for people who are struggling and
sibility of alternative impact narratives to that embedded within
people who are in need … we’ve added x amount of agencies, x
authoritative discourse, and an altered understanding of the sig-
amount of donors … they want bang for their buck and you want to
nificance of these assessments beyond their mere content. This led
give them that as well …".
to a perceived realignment of accountability relationships with
external parties. These findings are now discussed in greater detail.
Therefore, accounts of performance and impact emphasized
quantitative, tangible information, strongly related to an appreci-
6.1. Authoritative discourse of accountability
ation of the growth and scale of FoodTransit’s operations, and a
resulting sense of ‘value’ from funds donated. The importance of
Like any NGO, FoodTransit was subject to many accountability
providing information of this sort was strongly acknowledged as
pressures from external parties. These included requests from
being related to the inevitability of donors’ preferences for
financial donors for accounts of how donated funds were being
numbers; numbers in terms of highlighting sheer quantities of
spent and from food donors who wished to understand the impact
activity carried out but also importantly how this creates an un-
of the food they donated. FoodTransit experienced these account-
derstanding of the level of need that donated funds were contrib-
ability pressures in terms of dominant and authoritative versions of
uting to. This was seen as preferential to communicating a more in-
NGO accountability. Donors sought tangible, measurable, and easily
depth narrative of FoodTransit’s operations. This is described by
accessible information on performance and impact that linked
Employee 4 as follows:
succinctly to carefully identified levels of need. This manifested
itself in the gathering of two main types of performance and impact “At the end of the day it has to be numbers … nobody’s going to
information: 1) Measures of scale and capacity (for example, food read two paragraphs. They want to see something new. People
volume measures and participant numbers in nutrition education want to have …. 20,000 meals in Melbourne per week. That’s great
programmes) and 2) Social Return on Investment (SROI) exercises. … because that means everybody says well if FoodTransit wasn’t
Food volume measures initially involved measuring the number there they wouldn’t be there … then you’ve got a point, you’ve got
of kilos of food that were collected from food donors and redis- things to discuss … the moment you put something there in terms
tributed to food recipient agencies. However, this transitioned in of a figure, x number of meals, x number of people receiving food,
time to equating kilos of food to the number of meals for people in [it] turns everybody’s head to that’s the level of need. Otherwise it’s
need.12 This is described as follows: just an ephemeral thing isn’t it? We hear about the growing level of
need but what does it actually mean? How many people? We talk
“One thing we always did from the very start was monitor the food.
about increasing access to food [but] for how many people?”
So we’d measure every single kilogram of food that we moved. I
remember when I [first] volunteered it was just measuring boxes.
So we’d count the boxes and estimate the kilos and then …. we When the nutrition education programmes were added to
bought scales and we’d weigh all the produce …. . And then we had FoodTransit’s operations, the usefulness of communicating quan-
some [dieticians] come in … [to help us with] a measurement tool titative understandings of impact permeated these programmes
… of converting our boxes to kilos which meant this many meals for also. The emphasis of their impact and performance measures was
people in need” [Manager 1]. on participant numbers to highlight the scale and growth of the
nutrition education initiatives. This is described by Manager 1:
Data in support of these measures was gathered mainly by food “I think one part around donors is they like numbers. So participant
collectors by recording the volume of food obtained at each numbers is something that they do have a focus on …. like the
collection point electronically on Palm Pilots. In addition, given that education programmes …. They want to know how many in-
FoodTransit’s donors often provided funding for specific infra- dividuals and how many participants, and what are the numbers
structure items such as vehicles, forklifts or cold storage, they often that programme is going to potentially change behaviour [sic] or
sought information on what their funding had specifically ach- impact on or effect or participate in. So [funding] applications,
ieved. This is described by Employee 7: we’re very clear …. here are the numbers …. because we know
that’s what we want to see”.
“In the case of getting funding for the vans, it often comes via do-
nations. So how much activity happened out of a particular van? So
[a particular donor has] paid for a van - they want to know how Furthermore, in keeping with the simplicity of quantitative
measures and the easily accessible versions of impact that they

12
Kilograms of food were translated into a proxy measure of ‘number of meals
created’, calculated by dividing the volume of food collected by a measure of a
standard meal (500 g).

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

provide, Food Transit also subsequently undertook an SROI exer- welfare NGOs and form their views on the value of donating to
cise.13 This involved employing the services of an SROI consulting FoodTransit accordingly:
agency who undertook an initial baseline SROI within FoodTransit,
“It wasn’t an amazing sounding outcome in terms of the results, the
a subsequent re-visiting of it two years later in a more in-depth
key figure that everyone remembers when you think of an SROI, for
evaluative study, and a re-purposing of the SROI framework in a
every dollar invested it was $2.60 or something like that … people
more tailor-made fashion for internal use within FoodTransit. The
look straight for the dollar and our figure, relatively speaking, was
SROI measure was initially used primarily to quantify in monetary
quite low. So there are other SROIs out there that are a lot higher.
terms the value of donating funds to FoodTransit. This is described
Especially in the education and employment sector. So if you’re
as follows:
taking … a young person and giving them a job and that’s your core
“…One of the outcomes is using it [the SROI measure] for fund- business, therefore, if they start getting a job, they come off welfare,
raising. So because it talks in a dollar sense, that’s … what funders so there’s a huge financial benefit to the community, that could be
look at … $2.75 returned. So we kind of ran the language of, if you quite easily and tangibly calculated, they’re always going to have a
invest $1.00 in FoodTransit, we’re pretty much going to triple our higher return, just because of the type of work … They [the SROI
value for you or triple that return in social impact. So that, I think, consultants] clearly state … do not compare SROIs to each other,
it’s been very tangible…" [Manager 1]. because they are absolutely independent pieces of work, but nature
says people will easily, if the number’s up there, they’ll compare
them. Again, that’s one of the limitations of the methodology and
Overall, FoodTransit’s annual reports and other forms of
the type of report” [Manager 1].
communication with external stakeholders tended to prominently
display metrics such as kilograms of food, number of meals, num-
ber of food programmes supported, number of participants in The SROI metric was seen as lacking in its ability to capture
nutrition education programmes and SROI figures. As such, they impact, or at least in its ability to capture what FoodTransit might
adhered to a dominant authoritative discourse associated with wish to communicate regarding its impact and the contextual
NGO accountability in the welfare sector, that of transparency, factors that might surround it. For example, a number of in-
tangibility, quantification and value for money. terviewees expressed dissatisfaction that the nature of Food-
Transit’s operations - specifically, in terms of the difficulties
inherent in ascribing a value to FoodTransit’s education pro-
6.2. Beginnings of resistance grammes and the benefit of services for individual welfare re-
cipients - was not being captured by the SROI measure. This was
Over time, FoodTransit grew increasingly aware of problems seen to have led to an understatement of FoodTransit’s SROI which
associated with measuring performance and impact in quantified was inherently problematic:
terms. Several interviewees discussed the deceptive simplicity of
“…my understanding [of SROI] is that there needs to be a very
food volume measures, the importance of assessing what differ-
direct impact and I think our organization does not necessarily
ence FoodTransit was making beyond simply re-distributing food,
[have that] because some of the impacts we have are not neces-
and the need to start tackling what organizational actors saw as
sarily as direct. Whereas, my personal belief is that I think it is very
root causes of food insecurity. The aim was to achieve this through a
valid to say, well, if we save a [food recipient] agency - say it’s
more intense focus on a broader set of initiatives including
three bucks - they’re not spending that $3 on food and they’re
providing nutrition education to food aid recipients. Metrics within
diverting that $3 of food that they would have had to spend on food
FoodTransit that captured food volumes, for example, told very
to a service that is actually breaking the cycle of disadvantage … so
little about how FoodTransit’s operations supported and helped
whether that be through training, education, employment, what-
those in need. It was recognized that measures of growth and ca-
ever other service it is, then actually, then that’s the roll on effect …
pacity presented a particular kind of ‘success story’ but conveyed
but SROI doesn’t pick that up” [Employee 11].
little about the impact of FoodTransit’s efforts in tackling food
insecurity:
Therefore, there was a growing unease within FoodTransit with
“At the moment we’re doing … quite well because our growth is
quantitative, tangible renderings of performance and impact. It was
outstanding. It looks good on a chart and the volumes are massive
felt that such information was collected to appease an external
but … volume based [measures are] a no brainer. You can pack a
authoritative discourse that had begun to adapt economic and
truck and take it out there and give away as much food as you like
market-oriented terminology to the NGO context through the use
… But … what impact is it making at the coalface … are we actually
of tools such as SROI. This had the effect of attaching the efficacy of
really making a difference or is it just a ‘feel good’ the fact that
donated funds to a growth in scale and capacity within NGOs. This
we’ve given food away today?” [Employee 6].
focus was thought to be unhelpful both in providing a focus for the
organization and in communicating externally. Furthermore, the
Problems with SROI were also similarly perceived. In compari- low SROI value potentially presented a challenge for FoodTransit, in
son to the positive growth associated with the food volume mea- that some donors may have been ‘put off’ by this low value relative
sures, the SROI result represented a rather low figure for the to other NGOs. As an initial response to these issues, FoodTransit
organization. This was deemed to be problematic due to the ten- embarked on portraying different versions of impact to that of
dency of external parties to compare this figure to that of other quantified measures, ones that were qualitative in nature and
related to the experiences of others.
Foremost among these was the initiation of an Annual Recipient
13
SROI is a technique that aims to “…capture and quantify the value created by Survey. This survey elicited a combination of quantitative and
the work of social purpose organizations, using techniques of monetization and the qualitative performance data from agencies who received food
expression of such a value as a ratio of benefits for investments” (Hall & Millo, 2018,
p. 340). As its name suggests, it is analogous to a traditional ROI calculation, albeit
from FoodTransit. It mainly questioned “what difference are we
one that seeks to evaluate the ‘social’, rather than financial, return, of an entity’s making? … Are we enabling [food recipent agencies] to get fresh food
investment.

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
10 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

into their communities’ diet? Is it good quality? Is it helping them to interactive and altering effect on the nature of accountability re-
save money [that] then they can inject into more programmes” lationships between FoodTransit and external stakeholders such as
[Employee 1]. As a result, the survey motivated agencies to provide food and financial donors. These observations are now discussed in
their own understandings of impact by providing stories of the turn.
impact the donated food was providing. Stories were then
communicated to potential donors through fundraising teams and
also included in external communications. An example of this was 6.3. The possibility of alternative impact narratives
provided by Employee 4:
As discussed in the previous section, the dissemination of
“We ask them [recipient agencies] if they’d give us a testimonial
metrics on growth, in terms of ever-increasing food volumes (ki-
…. we don’t script it or ask specific questions …. There’s a great one
lograms, meals, food programmes reached), related to the prefer-
from [a particular school] …. it says the school breakfast pro-
ences of donors for this type of information. The information was
gramme gets to people who otherwise come to school with nothing,
also useful internally to structure and plan the logistical aspects of
nothing before school and nothing for the whole day at school and
FoodTransit’s operations. Over time, however, the organization had
it also has a huge benefit on the whole school because their
reached a stage of maturity and stability that enabled those within
behaviour is not problematic. So that’s really great. There are a
it to consider matters beyond resourcing and logistics. It had
couple that are really good because they’re seeing it on …. a wider,
become sophisticated in terms of its service delivery and had the
a bigger picture level”.
capacity to consider issues associated with impact in some sense
free from an authoritative growth discourse, as explained by
Hence, it was not a major issue that FoodTransit’s food volume Employee 3:
measures did not in, and of themselves, allow such understandings
“ ….[in the early days of FoodTransit] we grappled probably at [a]
to be achieved as these metrics could be expanded upon and given
pretty every day tangible level with getting enough food in the
context through the ability of interested and knowledgeable parties
organization and having a waiting list of community food pro-
to add their own understandings of impact and performance. It was
grammes …. worrying about how much funding and how much
acknowledged that opening up the discussion on impact would
food we would get …. [then we] transitioned into a pretty good
create much greater understandings of impact beyond what
food donor base with some infrastructure to support all of the
quantitative performance measures on their own could convey. Yet,
rescue and redistribution activities. And now I guess my mind and
similar to the food volume and SROI measures, these means of
my activities and time are starting to wander more around where
communicating impact were sometimes problematic. This was
are we going, why are we doing this, are we really having a big
described by several employees as follows:
impact?”
“…because we don’t script it or ask specific questions, they
[recipient agencies] don’t frame it in any way other than “we love
As part of this, quantitative measures of growth began to prove
FoodTransit’s service … it really helps our agency … it saves us
problematic as indicators of FoodTransit’s impact and/or a reflec-
money, saves us having to go out and shop and buy the food, order
tion of its desire to tackle food insecurity. Paradoxically, despite
it” …. too simplistic - it’s got to be much meatier …. ” [Employee 4].
their problematic nature, however, these measures did prove
“Are we asking the right questions on [the survey] to put [a] … important in discussions regarding the long term impact of the
value on [FoodTransit’s impact]?... what are you doing about the organization. Their usefulness lay in the fact that they prompted
nonresponses? Because often, the nonresponses give you the best internal considerations of what the measures of growth actually
opportunity for change. Like, it’s not just about the good news, demonstrated and what significance this narrative of growth held -
because we feel that people generally don’t want to put the bad whether it was upheld in the context of solely satisfying dominant
news on a survey … How do we get a better response rate? You accountability requirements or perhaps reflected in some sense
know, what do we do to follow up the non-responders in a non- what FoodTransit wanted to do as an organization. Therefore, the
threatening but really important way?... they’re [food recipient measures allowed the organization to consider the concept of
agencies] losing us the opportunity to improve” [Employee 12]. impact, what it potentially could or should be, and how it should be
thought about.
This began with a problematization of the representation and
In this sense, survey responses were problematic as they were
measurement of growth as a focus for capturing and communi-
seen to equate impact only to the positive experiences of others,
catng FoodTransit’s performance and impact, as described by
and not to opportunities to learn of alternative (perhaps negative)
Manager 1:
impact narratives. Having experimented with several different
performance and impact tools, therefore, dissatisfaction with these “We were always very conscious about bigger is not better,
tools’ ability to represent FoodTransit’s impact was apparent. certainly not in the non-profit space. In the business world, you’re
However, in response to this dissatisfaction, there was not an on the front cover of BRW [Business Review Weekly] magazine
overwhelming move to enhance the representative nature of these with the graphs … [In] the non-profit world, that’s absolutely
tools. Indeed the whole concept of representation did not seem to highlighting the failures in the system. And it should never be seen
permeate how these tools were used to create certain outcomes. as success … If there’s this many food insecure people in Australia,
Rather, we observed that assessments of performance and impact and if we get that to zero … we’ve done our job”.
increasingly functioned as a means of attuning the organization to
multiple possibilities with regards to impact. A number of ongoing
Measures of growth provided to external parties such as donors,
and important discussions began with respect to impact and the
and highlighted in external publications such as annual reports, led
significance of the measures associated with it. As a result, the
to a recognition that information such as ever-increasing volumes
significance of performance and impact measures became less
of food was something the organization perhaps never wanted to
frequently attached to their content and structure, but to other
portray. As highlighted above by Manager 1, success in tackling food
forms of significance. We also found that such moves had an
insecurity would mean a complete eradication of its ill-effects and,

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

as such, a reduction (if not elimination) of the need for food relief. Other interviewees exhibited a preference for the simplicity of
Therefore, capturing and communicating impact in terms of the growth narrative, and its usefulness in providing relevant in-
increased capacity for the provision of food relief was seen as formation for their particular roles. This was particularly the case
counter-productive and impeded discussions on the future impact amongst the more logistically and service-oriented areas of the
FoodTransit could potentially have. Therefore, quantitative mea- organization. The research and development team, who had pri-
sures of growth came to be viewed differently. Rather than an mary responsibility for the organization’s monitoring and evalua-
analysis of their content and stucture, they prompted questions of tion, perceived that staff within these logistical areas often summed
what performance and impact could potentially mean for Food- up FoodTransit’s mission in terms such as “It’s a good simple idea.
Transit, other than growth. As Manager 1 highlighted, FoodTransit Hunger. Too much food. Put them together. Crack on with it”
staff: [Employee 3]. Therefore, there seemed to be a frustration by the
logistics team with what was seen to be the unhelpful performance
“…really started to question ourselves going well, our stats are
and impact activities of the research and development team. For
going up …. we’re feeling like we’re successful and we’re doing a
example, Employee 2 in describing the food delivery model in
really good job in moving this food yet times have really changed
which he was intimately involved in, displayed a preference for
out there and it seems to be getting worse and the evidence is
keeping the model and its evaluation “extremely simple”:
saying it’s getting worse, so are we really helping? And just by
asking ourselves that simple question really changed our thinking “I’ve always endeavoured to make sure that the model maintains
of what we could and maybe should be as an organization”. its simplicity because that’s the beauty of it, is that we simply
connect a donor and an agency, bring the two together and
encourage that relationship to grow. If it becomes complex and
Asking questions of this kind led to the creation of alternative
people find it overwhelming … it’s not complex. It needs to always
impact narratives. These centred on what success could look like for
maintain its integrity by staying simple and clear …. I try to make
FoodTransit and a conclusion that:
sure that the model’s run in a very pragmatic way and results are
“…we shouldn’t exist as an organization. We shouldn’t have this tangible and are based around the movement of food”.
waste and we shouldn’t have people turning up for food relief. We
have to at some stage be trying to get a tipping point where the
Therefore, the new focus on attempting to portray the role of
waste is reducing and people accessing food programmes are
performance and impact information in a different light did not
reducing and then we can say we’re actually being a successful
pervade all areas of the organization. Many departments and in-
organization” [Manager 1].
dividuals were of the view that the service delivery aspect of
FoodTransit’s operations should constitute its core operation, with
Here, dissatisfaction with performance and impact measures of other understandings of impact information being unnecessary,
growth led to the creation of a different impact narrative of ‘putting even for funding purposes, if the organization could demonstrate
the organization out of business’. This was based on an initial the volume of food moved. Any attempts to move beyond quanti-
problematization of growth (in terms of food and meal volume fication of food volume were met with skepticism. Within the
measures) in comparison to growth in other industries and a research and development team there was noticeable frustration
realization that in FoodTransit’s environment, growth was not with this attitude. However, the research and development team
necessarily positive as it could potentially be perpetuating a system also felt it was understandable given the organization’s trajectory,
of food insecurity, rather than tackling its root causes. and the multiple and fragmented parts of this trajectory. There was
Yet the alternative impact narrative of putting the organization an acknowledgement, therefore, that putting the organization out
out of business was not seen as a precise or even desirable goal to of business represented but one e far from certain e possibility for
work towards throughout the organization. While philosophically impact, as reflected on by Employees 3 and 12:
understood, it was seen by some as a contentious and even un-
“ ….maybe there’s nothing wrong with [wanting to keep current
helpful impact narrative in itself; that is, it was a “catchcry rather
representations of impact]. I’m a researcher so I think there is but
than something that we really truly actioned” [Employee 3]. Several
maybe there isn’t …. we are all going to have our own personal
interviewees described the futility of FoodTransit, through the
biases and influences and understandings of why we do what we
collection and delivery of food, trying to end food insecurity given
do so they come through in how I work and that’s not to say that
all the other structural conditions that may exist in relation to it, the
the person who’s fundraising or talking to our food donors has any
nonsensical nature of tracking progress towards putting an end to a
less legitimate claim”.
business, and the contradictory position of wanting to be helpful in
the community (in whatever capacity) whilst also aiming to not “I figure … if we keep the cost down and do more kilos, then we’re
exist in that community. For example, as recounted by Manager 1 actually improving the social contribution. So it’s not inconsistent,
and Employee 12: it’s just different people have different lenses”.
“if there’s this many food insecure people in Australia and if we get
that to zero, therefore we’ve done our job … [but] how can we Many interviewees nonetheless highlighted the philosphical
measure ourselves against [this]? I just think that’s so hard to do usefulness of basing impact discussions, not on the content of
and I’m not sure how we can do it. [But] we should be asking it of quantitative information, but on a long-term goal of not being in
course …”. business. Although, as described above by Manager 1, directly
measuring progress towards this was unhelpful, having this focus
“…I can’t see us in isolation being the crusader that stops people
allowed more in-depth thought and discussions of what the orga-
needing food … I’m not sure we can solve why people are homeless
nization could tangibly do in the present and future. Specific ex-
… there’s a whole raft of reasons which has nothing to do with
amples included a much more engrained focus on supporting and
growing food … you’ve got to remember how to do your core ac-
building capacity of food donors and food recipient agencies, and
tivity and make sure you’re doing that really well”.
fostering links between them, so that in time they could theoreti-
cally distribute and receive donated food without FoodTransit. This

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
12 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

focus also allowed current performance and impact measures to be which is great. So they can look at it in a very informed way. You
understood and articulated in a new light, rather than being know, they’re quite savvy” [Manager 1].
important in their own right. Rather than merely highlighting
volumes of food, for example, the categories of food would be
However, it was also seen as important to donors and the public
focused upon (for example, dairy, fruit and vegetables, meat etc.) as
who may not have been entirely familiar with the metric, and had
these related to community health outcomes. As Manager 1
perhaps, historically been satisfied with simpler metrics such as
highlights:
food volumes. Manager 1 highlighted that because of a basic human
“I think when we talk about putting ourselves out of business, a lot tendency to “head straight to the dollar” and to compare Food-
of it, it’s kind of philosophical rather than practical … Philosophi- Transit’s SROI with that of other welfare NGOs (despite clear di-
cally, that language filters through the team. When you start get- rections by the consulting firm responsible for SROI that the metric
ting inducted we talk about it, we talk about why that’s the case, should not be used in this manner), overcoming this was all about
because it helps drive investment into R&D, into the programmes, “how we message it out to people”. FoodTransit’s ability to “message”
into understanding the issue, asking well, what is this big thing the significance of SROI in a way that looked beyond the metric
we’re trying to address and how would we ever try and measure itself and the outcome it produced, for example, in conversations
that? That’s coming out of our simple philosophy that we need to and communications with donors, proved quite successful:
put ourselves out of business”.
“For those that may not understand, it … was still … very good …
again highlighting the credibility of what we do as an organization,
Therefore, a large proportion of FoodTransit’s activities and that we are trying to measure what we’re doing and show that
discussions around impact were linked to possible imagined e yet we’re serious about what we’re doing and not just heading off on a
uncertain - futures for the organization and its target welfare re- whim. So even if they didn’t understand the methodology as such …
cipients. Paradoxically, these stemmed from accounts of impact some of the feedback was they’re still glad [and say] “that’s
that while problematic in terms of their representativeness, were interesting you’re doing that … I’ll have a read” … it works well
useful in terms of envisioning alternatives to the notion of an all- [Manager 1].
encompassing representation. Reflexively, this in turn led to a dif-
ference in how the significance of performance and impact as-
This altered significance of performance and impact assess-
sessments was understood and acted upon with FoodTransit, as
ments was also observed in relation to the nutrition education
described in the next section.
programmes. Initially, asssessments carried out supporting these
programmes centred on participant numbers. Over time, however,
6.4. Significance beyond representation and content more in-depth evaluations began to be built into the programmes,
focused on pre-programme surveys and post-delivery focus groups
As highlighted previously, FoodTransit suffered from a lack of which “ask[ed] questions like how did you find the training? Did you
clarity with regards to what their various methods of performance find it helpful? Has it changed your work practices?” [Employee 5].
and impact assessments were able to communicate. Measures as The evaluations fed into long pilot periods relating to the education
far-ranging as food volume measures, annual recipient survey re- programmes during which information generated was used to
sponses and SROI were all criticized for their inability to represent refine the programmes and also the manner of their evaluation.
impact succinctly. However, rather than abandoning these mea- However, there were other areas of significance for these pilot
sures or trying to improve their representativeness, FoodTransit evaluations, ones which often overrode many of their other uses.
sought to convey their usefulness and significance beyond the in- First, performance and impact assessments as part of long pilot
formation they captured and represented. periods came initially as a surprise to many within FoodTransit in
An example of this was the means in which the SROI measure relation to the purpose of these assessments. This was very much
was eventually portrayed to external parties such as donors. An given the fact that up until this point, most assessments had been
alternative significance began to be attached to this exercise based around participant numbers, and this permeated many of the
beyond the figure it captured. This was largely done as a response to frames of reference of those that similarly measured items such as
the broader conversations in relation to funding in the welfare in- food volume measures and meals. Employee 10, who was involved
dustry and conducted “for an interesting point of difference in this in the pilot evaluations of these programmes, describes the
really difficult NGO space” (Employee 3). The outcome of the SROI following:
metric itself was regarded as inconsequential, which, to many in
“I think it took me about six months even to change some of those
FoodTransit, was a relief, given the comparatively low result it
internal attitudes from … staff here at FoodTransit, who thought …
yielded. However, the SROI number was displayed prominently in
in a year’s time, I should be able to offer Programme A to like, 100
Annual Reports and on FoodTransit’s website. This mainly stemmed
agencies and why couldn’t they deliver Programme A with … 50
from the fact that the SROI exercise was oriented toward a
different clients of theirs and … can’t they [programme partici-
perceived need to engage in a broader conversation with regards to
pants] all change their eating behaviours by the end of eight weeks
the importance FoodTransit was seen to be attaching to impact and
… That was a real sensationalized view of what a nutrition pro-
ways of thinking about it. Therefore, the provision of the SROI study
gramme could achieve and it’s been a real challenge to bring reality
and metric was oriented not necessarily towards placing a mone-
to that … saying … little changes are actually quite significant in
tary value on impact (despite that being the content), but rather in
the community group that we’re working with … I think [they
anticipation of it eliciting a positive response from donors with
were looking for] quantity [and] just assumed that that would be
regards to it being carried out at all, irrespective of the number
a good quality change as well”.
produced. This was promoted as especially important in relation to
more sophisticated donors:
Due to these realities, therefore, a lot of performance and impact
“…larger or more innovative, philanthropic funders, definitely
assessments of the nutrition programmes attempted to not only
understand the language and were very … happy to see that we’re
improve these programmes but also to justify their existence. This
using this type of methodology. They also understand its limitations

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 13

is further described by Employee 3: external to the organization, as described in the next section.
“It can be hard … because there can be tensions within the orga-
nization about who gets the funding and where … Why would you 6.5. Interactive and altering effects of performance and impact
employ another dietician or why would you fund a PhD assessments
[researcher] off in la-la land when we need a bloody cool room?...
often [using performance and impact assessments] is how I The alternative directions for performance and impact assess-
justify, explain my work” [Employee 3]. ments within FoodTransit had the capacity to interact with, and in
some ways, alter the nature of accountability relationships within
and surrounding FoodTransit. These assessments were often initi-
Second, adding these nutrition education programmes and
ated to alter discussions of impact information and its significance.
seeking to measure their performance and impact also related to
Such discussions frequently had little to do with what the assess-
how FoodTransit communicated with external parties, for example,
ments communicated about impact. For example, although the
financial donors. In parallels with the SROI exercise, the main
SROI exercise clearly represented an attempt to communicate
purpose of this was to communicate a particular understanding of
impact, it often failed in its ability to represent it usefully. None-
FoodTransit’s impact to donors, and in so doing, raise the organi-
theless, SROI opened up conversations regarding impact with do-
zation’s profile. As Manager 1 discussed:
nors. These conversations had little to do with what the SROI
“ ….the reports [impact and performance measurement reports measure itself represented or communicated about FoodTransit’s
of nutrition education programmes] we certainly use for advo- impact. However, they allowed both FoodTransit and donors to
cacy and credibility …. to raise our credibility as an organization. learn more about each other, and to come to understand various
Say this is what is going on e we are measuring the impact of our issues in relation to impact. As Manager 2 described it:
work, we’re really focused on asking bigger questions about what
“…it’s [SROI] a great way to get feedback … having conversations
we’re doing. So it was a ‘credibility of the organization’ and
with ShopRite … with our financial donors … I think that is almost
advocacy tool as well as being able to put on the desk of potential
more valuable than the number that you come out [with] …
supporters, funders …. people who are engaged, staff, volunteers e
Because you’re engaging, you’re finding out what do donors want,
to say here’s what we’re doing”.
what’s the value to them of working with FoodTransit? Of course
it’s about building on that and saying “Okay, well how can we
In this sense, changes in the significance of performance and actually increase that?”.
impact assessments centred around using these assessments to
create mindsets and form views not necessarily based on the con-
As such, apart from providing a source of innovative, differen-
tent of the assessments. The significance of the SROI measure or
tiated impact information, SROI, along with other performance and
pilot evaluations of the nutrition education programmes had little
impact assessment tools, engaged with stakeholders with regards
to do with the impact story represented within them but in what
to creating new understandings of how impact information could
these measures and assessments said about FoodTransit as an or-
be understood. Renewed understandings of what impact and per-
ganization. Therefore, as Managers 1 and 2 described, the impor-
formance information within FoodTransit actually signified had a
tance of performance and impact assessment was not in capturing
number of distinct outcomes. Despite an initial deference on behalf
the totality of FoodTransit’s impact and making this known, but
of external parties to authoritative discourse surrounding
rather in significant trial and error regarding what these assess-
accountability, the change in emphasis with regard to accounts of
ments could signify:
impact and performance within FoodTransit brought these external
“there’s a lot more opportunity and a lot more varied ways of stakeholders on ‘a journey’ [Manager 1] to new understandings. The
understanding what are these programmes really doing, beyond information was to facilitate conversations surrounding the
just an intake of fruit and veg or an increase in knowledge or meanings and implications of performance and impact informa-
skills.…we haven’t had a template to follow. We’re not a business tion. Rather than the measures being important in their own right
model related to an industry that existed before … so we’ve had to (for example, highlighting the scale and reach of FoodTransit’s
develop, create and innovate all the way. So we’re constantly operations through volume-based measures), importance was
evolving. So therefore, we have to adapt to that evolvement..” placed on the data as a means of bringing various parties together,
and engaging in depth around issues, as Employee 3 described:
“…it’s not realistic to say that we want a monitoring and evalua-
tion sort of framework for the whole organization to look at the “Here’s what we can know based on our resources, based on our
totality of what we do. We do need to break it down … you have to best efforts … you know how you got to where you got to and can
start off with a kind of a hypothesis … let’s try this out, let’s kick this revise it … [now you as donors can] sort of help us name up how it
around and see if it works … we’ve got to trial it”. is that we’re going to achieve these kind of big objectives.”

The aim was not to create a holistic account or representation of Performance and impact information became implicated in
FoodTransit’s impact. Rather, it was to provide information that broader discussions of accountability, particularly how external
would allow the organization and external others to move forward stakeholders themselves were responsible for their actions. For
in their understandings of impact information and attach different example, the provision of food volume measures allowed Food-
significance to performance and impact measures. In this sense, Transit to construct meanings with ShopRite in relation to
FoodTransit attempted to portray performance and impact assess- achieving what were once alternative hypothetical narratives
ments as important not in terms of their content and focus, but relating to waste reduction goals:
rather the pervading focus of these assessments on being able to
“I think that by us [using this data has the effect of] educating
tell an “anticipated something”; a ‘something’ presently unknown
huge corporates like ShopRite on how they can change their pro-
but to be attained. Interviewees recounted that this led to an
cesses only slightly …. educating them on how simple it is to reduce
observable change in accountability relationships both within and
their waste and then help people in need at the same time ….

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
14 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

whether it’s corporates, government, or other volunteer organiza- 7. Discussion

tions just being led by FoodTransit into how they can all work
together quite well to come out with a much better outcome than Studies in relation to dialogic accounting have been diverse in
before, that’s definitely demonstrating that we’re trying to have nature. Many highlight how monologic forms of accounting have
those three main groups work in harmony to help each other out acted to silence certain voices and privilege others and, therefore,
and have that whole shared value equation work in a positive way” mainly emphasize the repressive nature of ‘mainstream’ account-
[Employee 8]. ings within institutional settings (Gallhofer et al., 2015). These
studies focus on establishing dialogic accounting as a credible and
noteworthy alternative (see for example, Brown, 2009; Brown &
Here, a recounting of food volumes had the effect of not merely
Dillard, 2013; Macintosh & Baker, 2002). Here dialogic accounting
showing the value of donating food to FoodTransit, but also how
is seen as important in surfacing alternative subject positions, those
behavioural change by donors themselves can lead to the realiza-
that represent the remainders from authoritative discourse; that is
tion of certain proposed impact narratives. In this manner, Food-
those that have been excluded and ignored. Studies, therefore,
Transit, through various performance and impact accounts, sought
advocate for the inclusion of polyvocal and alternative ideological
to encourage a shared ownership and accountability approach to
standpoints, even if there is an acknowledgement that these sub-
their operations rather than simply seeking to represent the impact
jectivities are contingent, emergent and open to contestation.
of their activities through chosen measures. By doing so, Food-
We find that similar to Brown and Tregidga’s (2017, p. 16)
Transit was able to strike a balance between the types of infor-
doubling practices, accounting texts that are enmeshed in author-
mation it communicated to donors, as Employee 5 noted:
itative discourse (in our case, accountability practices) can be re-
“KPIs are wonderful when you can go to governments or funding appropriated or re-framed so that “they are saying something
bodies and say guess what, we moved 60 tonnes of food to this area else entirely” about the present and future. This is akin to Bakhtin’s
in this particular time. I think an astute funding body will then need (1981, p. 427) assertion that “a word, discourse, language or culture
to ask the next question, well OK what happened to that food? … undergoes ‘dialogization’ when it becomes relativized, de-
Then you can start to bring on other things like well, not only did privileged, aware of competing definitions for the same thing”. In
we deliver a whole lot of food to the community … but we also got an effort to shed more light on how this occurs in practice, we draw
involved … in the development of community gardens and the in detail on Bakhtin’s (1981) dialogic theory and show how a sub-
delivery of those two [education] programmes … I don’t think any junctive view of accounting enables this “discursive evolution”
government or funding body would not listen seriously to those from authoritative to internally persuasive discourse (Hsu & Roth,
types of arguments. So I think this is where we’re starting to see the 2014).
balance here”. Bakhtin (1981, 1984, 1986) highlights a world that is unavoidably
and inherently dialogic; a world in which its constitutive elements
e including accounting reports - are always contingent and open to
Gradually, this appeared to have the desired effect of encour-
contestation, where the various possibilities embedded within
aging an appreciation of the importance of viewing performance
them often remain as possibilities but are no less important or
and impact information somewhat hypothetically, with a strong
relevant to organizing processes of resistance. We demonstrate
element of trial and error. Reflecting on her involvement in impact
here that this occurs through an evolution from authoritative to
assessment, Employee 3, for example, describes her role as follows:
internally persuasive discourse by recognition of the subjunctive
“I may be reframing or trying to clarify …. who are we making this possibilities embodied in and derived from accounting information.
impact on and maybe a little bit of the why (I’m not too concerned Reports received in subjunctive mode generate particular un-
about …. measuring the size of the problem. We know it’s there. derstandings, not as a particular account of fact, but as “a possibility
Let’s crack on with doing something about it), but yeah, who is it or an aim, or calls it into doubt or denies its reality, or expresses
and what is it and when does it …. happen? Just sort of a hypo- judgement on it” (Howells, 2001, p. 144). Therefore, characteristics
thetical …. ” such as “doubt, possibility, necessity, desire and future time” are
expressed by a subjunctive view of accounting (Arend & Sunnen,
2016, p. 2907). In our study, we find that dialogic accounting pro-
FoodTransit and external parties came to see performance and
duces new visibilities in terms of future subjunctive realities which
impact information not in a representative sense, but as part of
may not be desirable, well-informed or even viable, yet nonetheless
broader conversations. As Manager 1 describes:
are powerful in allowing us to intervene in current organizing
“There’s a couple [of donors that] we’ve got really good relation- processes (and deal with the consequences of day-to-day authori-
ships and have had great support with, because they get it … they tative discourse) with purpose and creativity. We, therefore,
understand what we’re doing, they believe in the cause … they demonstrate the surfacing of subjunctive realities which are not
trust us and they want to give us that little bit of freedom to test merely open to contestation but, embody it and use this contingency
and try and know things may or may not work, knowing that ul- to intervene in current circumstances with purpose.
timately, we are heading in the right direction and do as much good In this sense, we find that accounting reports can contain a
as we can … If you have the trust and relationship with the donor … certain amount of “surface reportage” of particular events or ac-
you’re taking them on that journey as well. So they buy into what tivities but they open out into social gestures where users are
you’re doing. They trust and believe that you’re doing the right invited to imagine alternatives to what is embodied within these
thing and that gives you a little bit more freedom with the metrics.” texts (Howells, 2001, p. 147). Furthermore, we find that accounts
regarded in this subjunctive mode - in their simultaneous ability to
exist outside of, and speak back to, ‘official’ discourse in carnival-
It was felt that as FoodTransit had progressed in seeking to think
esque moments of exchange (White, 2014) - have the potential to
about impact and its significance differently to that embodied
be part of acts of resistance and change (Koczanowicz, 2011, 2013;
within authoritative accountability discourse, so too had its donors.
Roberts, 2004). These findings are now discussed in detail within
The implications of our findings are discussed in the next section.
the context of our empirical study.

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 15

7.1. Discursive evolution to internally persuasive discourse subjunctive realities that allowed the organization to consider the
nature of its performance and impact. Reflecting the inevitable
Within FoodTransit there was a large volume of mismatched openness and possibility of the world (Bakhtin, 1981), the organi-
and fragmented sources of performance and impact information. zation embarked on activities and thought processes that actively
Different metrics e food volume measures, participant numbers, imagined alternatives to the status quo and the accountability
narratives within surveys and SROI exercises e all reflected the pressures within the food security sector. Although the sector had
various aspects of FoodTransit’s operations and there was no become interested in impact, our study showed that this still often
coherent framework to draw these disparate understandings of manifested itself in preferences for tangible, quantifiable and
performance and impact together. However, the narratives created essentially ‘representational’ outcomes (Riely et al., 1999). Exam-
by these fragmented renderings of performance and impact were ples of imagined futures, therefore, related to longer-term impacts
not seen as digressions from or ‘side stories’ to an overall view of including the attainment of food security for all Australians,
FoodTransit’s impact; rather, they were integral to how the ‘story’ reduction of waste by food donors, reducing the need for emer-
of impact was formed (Shields, 1993). gency food relief, and ultimately putting FoodTransit out of busi-
When FoodTransit was founded and beginning to grow, redis- ness. The most notable example was the latter - the goal of putting
tribution of food to welfare agencies was seen as an appropriate the organization out of business. The logic behind this goal was an
and helpful response to growing food insecurity. The more food increasing realization that growing the food redistribution aspect of
that was redistributed, the greater FoodTransit’s impact would be. FoodTransit was problematic for two reasons: first, it perpetuated
Performance and impact information based on food volume mea- the problem of food insecurity and, second, it did not allow a focus
sures sought to reflect this by highlighting the scale of FoodTransit’s on tackling the root causes of food insecurity; both of these rep-
distribution services. However, over time, many employees began resenting longstanding criticisms of NGOs in the food security
to express dissatisfaction with these metrics’ representativeness. landscape (Booth, 2014; Warshawsky, 2014, 2015). Putting itself
Some believed that they reflected an increasing need for food relief, ‘out of business’, however, was not a goal FoodTransit seriously
rather than capturing progress towards FoodTransit’s goal of tack- aimed to work towards; indeed, it wasn’t even a goal that organi-
ling food security. Therefore, gathering information on food vol- zational actors necessarily saw as legitimate. For example, the
umes prompted a debate on whether the impact of FoodTransit lay inconsistency between reporting on and measuring (increasing)
in the fact that it was efficient in food distribution or whether it was food volumes, and aiming to reduce food movement to zero, was
instead interested in longer-term impacts. This led to revised un- noted. There was also a recognition that measuring progress to-
derstandings of the significance of food volume measures; a wards going out of business was difficult.
recognition that these measures perhaps actually reflected the Consistent with Bakhtin’s dialogic world of openness, the goal of
problem the organization was seeking to address or at best repre- going out of business was a mere possibility, and, therefore, un-
sented a short-term solution. certain, perhaps even undesirable. Furthermore, this immeasurable
As such, measures of performance and impact within Food- objective could not be reflected in the organization’s current per-
Transit were taken apart, doubted and denied as a basis for reality formance and impact assessment tools. Yet, similar to Brown and
(Howells, 2001) in an “operation of dismemberment” (Bakhtin, Tregidga’s (2017) doubling practices e where authoritative
1981, p. 23). They created a basis for dialogue14 and exchange discourse offers the possibility for re-invention and appropriation
amongst organizational actors in the context of uncertain or through an attentiveness to the ambiguities of its rules and
disputed objectives (Burchell et al., 1980). This allowed actors to methods - these performance and impact tools did initiate dis-
develop an appreciation of what the measures represented, critique cussions regarding subjunctive objectives of this kind. Therefore,
their representation of FoodTransit’s impact, and imagine alterna- similar to SAMs and other forms of counter-accounts, performance
tive realties where impact might be represented differently (Li & and impact measures in FoodTransit were not used for their ability
McKernan, 2016; Toulmin, 2003) or, as happened over time, allow to ‘represent’ reality, but to provide an alternative starting point for
the notion of representation itself to be questioned. In this sense, discussion in which ‘something’ could be generated from a space of
the internal persuasiveness of performance and impact information possibilities, a process that proved more useful than the accounts of
was not in its ability to create a holistic account or representation of performance themselves (Bebbington, Brown & Frame, 2007;
FoodTransit’s impact and compare this to a predefined template or Bebbington & Gray, 2001). Presenting alternative subjunctive re-
business model. Rather this information was used to understand alities to FoodTransit’s focus on ever-increasing growth focused the
current circumstances and enable actors to intervene in those cir- attention of actors within and external to FoodTransit on the
cumstances purposefully (Lawson, 2001). Therefore, we found that problems of growing food-volume measures in terms of perpetu-
a focus on subjunctivity within FoodTransit was rooted in the or- ating food insecurity at the expense of tackling root causes. Situ-
ganization’s formal performance and impact assessment practices. ating the organization temporarily and hypothetically within these
This meant that these practices, in providing particularity to frames of reference allowed multiple stories to emanate from the
possible accounts of performance and impact, provided the organization’s performance and impact narratives (Cooper &
‘structural axis’ or ‘raw materials’ (Hirschkop, 1986) for a subjunc- Morgan, 2013) and the construction of “what if” imaginings,
tive understanding of different dialogic worlds, and were essential rather than “what is” understandings, of impact (Howells, 2001).
to ensure the organization and its stakeholders did not ‘lose’ In this sense, the unfamiliarity and incommensurability of being
themselves in the unstructured nature of these worlds. This is put out of business in relation to current meaning-making in per-
described in more detail in the next section. formance and impact exercises, allowed FoodTransit to use this
‘alien subject’ (Bakhtin, 1981) to decipher and contemplate its
7.2. Creation of subjunctive realities focus, and how operations might be conducted differently going
forward. This ability to construct and interrogate subjunctive re-
Within FoodTransit, we saw the creation of numerous alities within FoodTransit allowed a retreat to its core focus of food
insecurity and a reconsideration of it. Over time, the organization
was able to use these reflections to move towards a greater focus on
14
We use the term ‘dialogue’ here in its more colloquial sense, in terms of addressing root causes of food insecurity, for example, through the
engaging in conversation and collective thought processes. operation of its nutrition education programmes. Additionally, this

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
16 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

was accompanied over time by a reduced focus on the business- Furthermore, we find that in viewing performance and impact
oriented discourse represented by volume-based measures of assessment in this way, FoodTransit was not only able to co-exist
movement of food. Analysing subjunctive realities allowed actors to with and shelter from authoritative accountability arrangements
constitute performance and impact measures, and current cir- but also engage with them. Here we found a role for performance
cumstances by what they were not (Brown & Dillard, 2013) and and impact assessments as “…mechanisms around which interests
made this focus ‘present’ in further performance and impact dis- [were] negotiated, counter claims articulated and political pro-
cussions. We show, therefore, that although accounting informa- cesses explicated” (Burchell et al., 1980, p. 17). For example, the
tion frequently creates patterns of visibility (Burchell et al., 1980), it engrained preferences of FoodTransit’s food and financial donors
also highlights invisibilities and this too has the effect of shaping for tangible measures of growth and scale led to a growing
organizational practice. In this sense, the invisible e in this case, the dissatisfaction that such measures increasingly did not align with
subjunctive - may have been an impulse, but it led to explicit and the organization’s welfare mission relating to tackling food inse-
demonstrable organizational outcomes (Stewart, 2013). curity. This led to a desire to disrupt these accountability arrange-
In this manner, we find that subjunctive realities often do not ments and motivate different understandings of performance and
represent aspirational goals, the likes of which organizations might impact information among external parties (Howells, 2001). An
traditionally monitor progress towards. Nor do they rest on an example of this was the conduct of SROI exercises that attached a
illusion of shared meaning among a variety of organizational actors. dollar value to the impact of FoodTransit’s services. The SROI metric
They did provide frames of reference, however, that allowed their was used not simply in terms of portraying the monetary value for
shared usage. In particular, the ambiguity and contingency of sub- FoodTransit’s services, but to initiate an appreciation among
junctive realities allowed organizational actors to make sense of external stakeholders for the value and importance of thinking
FoodTransit’s current position and contemplate how they might about FoodTransit’s impact in new and creative ways. The power
intervene to change its circumstances (Lawson, 2001; Seligman & and significance of this metric was the way it prompted others to
Weller, 2012). think about impact differently and contribute in a more engaged
way, with the actual outcome or measurement technicalities (and
7.3. Resistance and transformation problems thereof) of the evaluation being somewhat inconse-
quential. In this sense, mutual learning processes emerged not from
Traditional NGO accountability requirements, where NGOs ideological differences but on subjunctive renderings of the future.
report their impact to, for example, financial donors, typically The same was true in relation to the performance and impact re-
centre on essential imperatives of quantifiable, tangible un- ports that were generated by the nutrition education programmes,
derstandings of performance and impact (Hall, 2014; O’Dwyer & which were released to improve FoodTransit’s credibility as an or-
Unerman, 2008). The nature of these reports suggests a world ganization interested in creating a future of long-term social
awaiting discovery, one that can be charted, described and, in part, change.
known (Lawson, 2001), yet the subjectivity of such accounts is This represented the beginning of a change in, and a reshaping
rarely recognized (see Brown (2009) and Macintosh and Baker of, the social order of accountability relationships at FoodTransit
(2002) for a discussion of monologic accounts). FoodTransit was (Coonfield, 2009). Previously, it had simply been a matter of
not immune to the authoritative discourse of such accountability providing performance and impact information in anticipation of
pressures. Indeed, at times during its growth trajectory, the orga- food and financial donors’ preferences. Over time, it transitioned to
nization felt them acutely, for example, during the initial stages of greater engagement between FoodTransit and external others with
establishing its credibility within the welfare field. It responded to regards to how impact could be understood. In this sense, we see
these pressures in a variety of ways including the collection and the potential for resistance in the dialectic between formal texts
dissemination of quantified simple measures of impact relating to, and social gestures (Koczanowicz, 2011, 2013). Bakhtin (1981)
for example, food volume measures and participant numbers recognizes such outcomes in claiming that objects such as texts
within nutrition programmes. are in dialogic relation to the rest of the world, they do not simply
As highlighted previously, early resistance to authoritative dis- tell a story about the world but demand a response in various forms
courses of accountability manifested itself in a desire within that enriches and elaborates meanings attached to them. As such,
FoodTransit to interrogate its existence and its role within the the formality of the performance and impact measures within
welfare sector. Internally, the organization began to relate the sig- FoodTransit opened out into the enactment of particular social
nificance of performance and impact information (most frequently gestures (Bakhtin, 1981).
prepared to appease authoritative accountability pressures) to This finding is very much in line with pragmatist perspectives in
subjunctive realities, rather than the technical, literal or represen- which accountings ‘of the establishment’ are said to have the po-
tational meaning of the information presented by these measures. tential for emancipatory dimensions (Gallhofer et al., 2015). By
In this sense, we find that the creation of subjunctive worlds does attempting to facilitate thinking and discussion surrounding sub-
not attempt to replace authoritative discourse, but allows alterna- junctive organizational realities using performance and impact in-
tive subjunctive discourses to inhabit the same time and space as, formation as a basis, FoodTransit was able to create these
and relatively unencumbered by, the struggles and pressures possibilities for change. Within NGO spheres, a greater emphasis on
associated with authoritative discourses of accountability. There- impact (as opposed to outcomes) has been a persistent priority. Yet
fore, we show here that a simultaneous participation in the sub- within this context, authoritative discourses of accountability have
junctive space of a “what if” world (and a rejection of the long been seen as a way of measuring an assumed to be known
importance of the “what is” meanings embodied in authoritative impact. Particularly in the food security sector, the problematics of
discourse) allows some shelter from the problems of accountability, measuring long-term impact have led to a situation where impacts
for example, those which prevent organizations from thinking are often narrowly defined and confused with programme outcomes
about complex social missions (O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2007, 2008). (Holley & Mason, 2019; Riely et al., 1999). The intervention of

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 17

FoodTransit in this engrained ritual ruptured its ‘naturalness’ and legitimacy through working practices (Burchell et al., 1980).
unproblematized nature (Brown, 2009; Brown & Dillard, 2013). This, Through case study research within FoodTransit, we sought to
in turn, allowed a more fluid contingent understanding of both study accounting in the contexts in which it operates, and how it
impact and the traditional principal-agent function of accountability intersects with other organizational practices and processes
with FoodTransit having more agency and voice in effecting mutual (Hopwood, 1987). Yet we also sought to go beyond this body of
learning processes between it and its donors (Bebbington et al., literature. According to Roslender and Dillard (2003, p. 337),
2007b). This manifested itself in an implied invitation to external research of this kind is mostly said to have “a strong affinity with an
stakeholders to imagine particular worlds within which actions, interpretivist approach to sociological enquiry, and to be relatively
performance measures and accountability arrangements might be uncritical in emphasis”. Likewise, Hopper and Bui (2016) claim that
construed differently. Many interviewees spoke of the trust built much of the management accounting research that draws on
between FoodTransit and external stakeholders, which represented Burchell et al. (1980) seeks to examine the ways in which ac-
a fundamental change from the previous authoritative regime of counting gains legitimacy through working practices as a means of
accountability. In addition, interviewees perceived that this created solidifying management control, frequently in support of organ-
self-altering effects amongst these stakeholders as they developed a isational ends and corporate agendas. In contrast, by employing a
growing appreciation for performance and impact assessment’s role methodology consistent with Bakhtinian understandings (Frank,
in motivating and prompting a consideration of subjunctive realities. 2005), we sought to place our study in a somewhat wider sphere
Furthermore, interviewees felt that these stakeholders began to of critical thought regarding the roles of accounting within society.
understand the trial and error orientation of many performance and In particular, we sought to look at how accounting gains legitimacy
impact studies. in the context of authoritative discourses that can be embedded
However, it is important to note that the resistance discussed within organisational practice, such as discourses that have
here represents but a ‘moment of resistance’ and not a complete promulgated accounting’s representational abilities. In showing the
denunciation of the accountability requirements embodied with ways in which accounting can be implicated in reacting to and
the food security sector, or the NGO sector more broadly. Specif- resisting such circumstances, we also link to what is broadly
ically, the actual requirement to provide an account of impact for termed enabling (Roslender & Dillard, 2003) or emancipatory ac-
donated funds was still very much adhered to and actioned albeit in counting research agendas (Broadbent & Laughlin, 2001; Gallhofer
a more fluid, engaged and flexible manner. In this sense, carnival- & Haslam, 2003, 2019).
esque styles of engagement (Hardy, 2006) are often but temporary In particular, we investigate the role of dialogic accounting in
spaces in a world that is indeterminate and unfinalizable processes of resistance; a role that perhaps was not envisaged by
(Robinson, 2011). What was resisted, however, was the linking of those who make foundational and essentialist claims about the
such accounts to the market and business-oriented terminology function of accounting (Burchell et al., 1980). We posit that dialogic
associated with tangible, measurable and easily accessible infor- accounting has the potential for acts of resistance in mundane day-
mation of performance and impact which mostly related to an to-day organizational-based situations where contingent realities
appreciation of the growth and scale of FoodTransit’s operations, are surfaced, not only as a means of giving voice to the minority, but
and a resulting sense of ‘value’ from funds donated. Resistance here also to use such realities as an important means of imagining future
manifested itself in a desire to engage with these measures, rela- alternatives to current circumstances. Therefore, we also contribute
tivize and de-privilege them (as opposed to seeking to improve to previous literature on accounting and resistance (for example,
their ‘representational’ qualities), and ultimately infuse them with Ezzamel et al., 2004; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2019; Masquefa et al.,
an alternative, more internally persuasive, significance, specifically 2017) by proposing that an explicit recognition of the subjunctive
their ability to surface subjunctive realities (Bakhtin, 1981). role of accounting texts, particularly within institutional settings,
Therefore, these moments of resistance resonate strongly with can be instrumental in allowing for and enabling moments of
Gallhofer and Haslam’s (2019) contention that emancipatory ac- resistance. Furthermore, we propose these findings to be important
tions tend to progress along a continuum in which tools such as to understandings of dialogic accounting. As Ball (2007) highlights,
accounting, at any one time, are multi-dimensional phenomena focusing only on organized forms of actions e such as social
which can encompass both emancipatory and repressive elements. movements e can risk missing these more discrete and tacitly
In summary, our findings allow us to appreciate that dialogic organized, yet no less effective, institutionally-based forces.
accounting can afford not only moments of freedom from author- We do, of course, recognize that our findings perhaps run
itative discourse, particularly in an institutional setting, but also counter to those of a more radical disposition that seek to cultivate
enables organizational actors to transition from this discourse to an an insurgent sensibility. Proponents of such a disruptive and
internally persuasive one in which possibilities for alternative fu- transformative stance exhibit an indifference to institutional set-
tures can be contemplated with purpose. We found that attaching tings as they see authoritative discourse to always be associated
subjunctivity to FoodTransit’s performance and impact reports with repressive power. Therefore, they see any attempts to engage
represented a way of surfacing the unfinalizability and contingency with authoritative discourse to be in danger of co-optation by such
of the world, allowed organizational actors to intervene in this discourse or ultimately re-enforcing the status quo (Archel,
world with purpose and intent, and brought about moments of Husillos, & Spence, 2011). In the context of FoodTransit, there was
resistance to authoritative discourse and an engagement with no critical engagement with the role of neoliberalism or power
those that might have historically perpetuated it. relations and their role in creating the conditions for food insecu-
rity, and no attempt to politically organise those living in food
8. Conclusion insecure conditions so as to demand their rights. Indeed, in com-
parison to the propositions of prior dialogic accounting studies
In this study, we contribute to long-standing research that in- (Brown, 2009; Brown & Tregidga), we saw little evidence that
vestigates how accounting becomes purposive in practice and gains FoodTransit at the time of our study attempted to incorporate

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
18 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

multiple external viewpoints or perspectives e for example, that of settings that are highly stratified, such as in the case in Martinez
food aid recipients e either on the concept of food security or and Cooper (2017).15 Finally, as is the case for all case study
organisational understandings of performance or impact. Whilst research, we were only in the organization for a finite period of
acknowledging such viewpoints, we believe our case study does time. Taking a Bakhtinian perspective that everything is unfinaliz-
show, however, how moments of resistance can be small, gradual able, we recognize that there is always the potential for new un-
and at face value, insignificant, yet nonetheless powerful. They derstandings to emerge after researchers have left the field.
work with the ‘messiness’ of lived reality and proceed in a neces- We believe that the implications of our study point to the
sarily slow, elusive and difficult to gauge manner given the day-to- importance of considering the political nature of identity. If mo-
day consequences of authoritative discourse (Bebbington et al., ments of resistance and/or transformation are to be increasingly
2007b; Meyerson & Scully, 1995). Combined over time, however, possible, fostering political identities and a new concept of the
and invoking viewpoints that promote more nuanced and fine- political subject will become a necessary condition (Koczanowicz,
grained approaches to societal change (Bebbington & Fraser, 2013, 2015). Brown et al. (2015, p. 638) highlight the need for in-
2014; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2019), these moments of resistance dividual and collective identities that encompass a capacity for
can amount to the beginning of a movement, a backlash, a counter- critical reflexive agency which would allow a “deep questioning of
force and the cumulative power of ‘small wins’ (Ball & Seal, 2005). paradigmatic assumptions, and a re-framing of how one perceives
In this manner, we show how accounting texts relating to per- the world and relations with others, … [a] generous engagement
formance and impact within FoodTransit gradually moved along a with difference … [and] established groups mutually engaging
continuum from being received in authoritative mode to internally their commonalities and differences”. Attention needs to be paid,
persuasive mode and how, as a result, resistance to an authoritative therefore, to the “response-ability” (Norval, 2009, p. 307) of sub-
discourse of accountability was created and maintained. In this jects if they are to embark on the arduous work of resistance to
sense, we agree with previous NGO accounting literature (for authoritative discourse (Brown & Tregidga, 2017). Several authors
example, Agyemang, O’Dwyer, Unerman, & Awumbila, 2017) that (see for example, Bebbington et al., 2007b; Brown & Dillard, 2013;
NGOs, as political actors, do not always blindly accept the author- Brown et al., 2015; Wingenbach, 2011) question what institutional
itative forces of destructive accountability. While not denying the and extra-institutional structures might enable such identities to
real and pervasive realities of hierarchical and upward account- emerge and flourish. Furthermore, in recognizing the contingent
ability pressures, our study shows the organizational spaces in nature of the world, we also wish to highlight the contingent nature
which NGOs can shield themselves from these pressures and this is of identity, agency and subjectivity. This points to the difficulties in
where relatively formal, static and narrow delineations of ac- conceiving of actors as unified selves’ and the importance of instead
counting information can legitimately and usefully give rise to understanding the emergent nature of identities that are not yet
resistance, transformation and change (Gallhofer et al., 2015; Li & fully formed or developed (Brown, 2009; Brown & Tregidga, 2017;
McKernan, 2016). In this sense, our study is in line with the Norval, 2009). We believe that understanding these political
increasing pragmatic approach to resistance in the literature where identities would expand our investigation in this paper of the self-
the dichotomy between repression and emancipation is rejected altering consequences of dialogism and present a powerful focus
and, as a result, revolutionary emancipation from authoritative for future study.
discourse is not always the immediate focus (Gallhofer et al., 2015;
Hoy, 2005). We do propose, however, that it is possible that when
complemented with exposure to the alternative voices embedded
in, for example, counter-accounts e so as to fully embrace a Acknowledgements
multitude of dialogic possibilities (beyond subjunctive futures) e
the ‘smalls wins’ and beginnings of resistance can move more to- The helpful comments and suggestions of Brendan O’Dwyer, Jan
wards this revolutionary temperament. Otherwise, an organisation Mouritsen, Paul Andon, Rina Dhillon, Robyn King, Roel Boomsma,
in the long-term can be restricted in relation to the scope of Mike Shields, Kari Lukka, Eija Vinnari, Laura Maran, Anne Riviere,
alternative dialogic perspectives it can draw on in its newly dialo- Oana Apostal, Helen Tregidga, Jeremy Morales and two anonymous
gized space of possibilities. reviewers are gratefully acknowledged along with seminar partic-
Like any study, our study suffers from a number of limitations. ipants at the University of Technology Sydney, La Trobe University,
Most notably, we were unable to gain access to the direct benefi- the University of New South Wales, Manchester Business School,
ciaries of FoodTransit’s work nor its donors. We do not see this as Turku Business School, Royal Holloway University, Toulouse Busi-
being entirely problematic, however, as our focus was on how ness School, the University of Strathclyde, Monash University, and
organizational actors in an NGO viewed accounting information, conference participants at the 8th Management Accounting as So-
what about the way they regarded it induced them to attach an cial and Organizational Practice (MASOP), London, April 2015; the
altered significance to it, and how this mobilized a movement from European Accounting Association Congress, Glasgow, April 2015;
a dominant authoritative discourse to one that was internally- International Perspectives in Accounting Conference, Stockholm,
persuasive. However, future NGO research could seek to include July 2015; NGOs, Accounting and Accountability Research Day,
the voices of beneficiaries and perspectives of donors. Second, our Aston Business School, Birmingham, May 2017; and Critical Per-
case organization was one which had limited reliance on govern- spectives in Accounting Conference, Quebec, July 2017.
ment funding. While we believe that our findings would be appli-
cable to organizations that rely heavily on government as a source
of funding, we recognize that to some extent, this is an empirical
question, and so further research could consider this issue in more Appendix. List of interviewees
depth. Similarly, while we have no reason to believe that our results
would not hold across other settings, further research could also
consider the role of resistance to authoritative discourses in

15
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 19

Interviewee Job Title Duration (minutes)

Manager 1 Manager, R & D 60

Manager 1 Manager, R & D (second interview) 60
Manager 2 CEO 45
Employee 1 Volunteer and Agency Relationship Manager 40
Employee 2 Program Coordinator 30
Employee 3 Research Officer 50
Employee 3 Research Officer (second interview) 75
Employee 4 Fundraising Coordinator 60
Employee 5 Food Program Manager 40
Employee 6 State Manager No. 1 60
Employee 7 IT systems and applications developer 40
Employee 8 National Key Account Manager - Shop-Rite 60
Employee 9 State Manager No. 2 90
Employee 10 Nutrition Programs Manager 40
Employee 11 State Manager No. 3 50
Employee 12 Finance Manager 50
Employee 13 National Operations Manager 40
Employee 14 State Manager No. 4 35

References Brown, J., Dillard, J., & Hopper, T. (2015). Accounting, accountants and accountability
regimes in pluralistic societies: taking multiple perspectives seriously. Ac-
counting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 626e650.
Agyemang, G., O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., & Awumbila, M. (2017). Seeking ‘conver-
Brown, J., & Tregidga, H. (2017). Re-politicizing social and environmental accounting
sations for accountability’: Mediating the impact of non-governmental orga-
through Rancie re: On the value of dissensus. Accounting, Organizations and
nization (NGO) upward accountability processes. Accounting, Auditing &
Society, 61, 1e21.
Accountability Journal, 30(5), 982e1007.
Bryer, A. R. (2014). Participation in budgeting: A critical anthropological approach.
Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2004). Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: A field
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(7), 511e530.
study of management control systems in a restaurant chain. Contemporary
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J., & Nahapiet, J. (1980). The roles of
Accounting Research, 21(2), 271e301.
accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Andon, P., Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2007). Accounting change as relational drifting: A
5(1), 5e27.
field study of experiments with performance measurement. Management Ac-
Busco, C., & Quattrone, P. (2015). Exploring how the balanced scorecard engages and
counting Research, 18(2), 273e308.
unfolds: Articulating the visual power of accounting inscriptions. Contemporary
Apostol, O. M. (2015). A project for Romania? The role of the civil society’s counter-
Accounting Research, 32(3), 1236e1262.
accounts in facilitating democratic change in society. Accounting, Auditing &
Busco, C., & Quattrone, P. (2018a). Performing business and social innovation
Accountability Journal, 28(2), 210e241.
through accounting inscriptions: An introduction. Accounting, Organizations and
Archel, P., Husillos, J., & Spence, C. (2011). The institutionalisation of unaccount-
Society, 67, 15e19.
ability: Loading the dice of Corporate Social Responsibility discourse. Account-
Busco, C., & Quattrone, P. (2018b). Search of the “Perfect One”: How accounting as a
ing, Organizations and Society, 36(6), 327e343.
maieutic machine sustains inventions through generative ‘in-tensions’. Man-
Arend, B., & Sunnen, P. (2016). Dialogic teaching. Investigating teacher-student talk
agement Accounting Research, 39, 1e16.
from a CA perspective. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in
Cameron, D. B., Mishra, A., & Brown, A. N. (2016). The growth of impact evaluation
Education, 7(4), 2906e2912.
for international development: How much have we learned? Journal of Devel-
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of
opment Effectiveness, 8(1), 1e21.
Texas Press.
Catchpowle, L., & Smyth, S. (2016). Accounting and social movements: An explo-
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University
ration of critical accounting praxis. Accounting Forum, 40(3), 220e234.
of Minnesota Press.
Chenhall, R., Hall, M., & Smith, D. (2010). Social capital and management control
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of
systems: A study of a non-government organization. Accounting, Organizations
Texas Press.
and Society, 35(8), 737e756.
Ball, A. (2007). Environmental accounting as workplace activism. Critical Perspec-
Chenhall, R., Hall, M., & Smith, D. (2013). Performance measurement, modes of
tives on Accounting, 18(7), 759e778.
evaluation and the development of compromising accounts. Accounting, Orga-
Ball, A., & Seal, W. (2005). Social justice in a cold climate: Could social accounting
nizations and Society, 38(4), 268e287.
make a difference? Accounting Forum, 29(4), 455e473.
Chenhall, R., Hall, M., & Smith, D. (2017). The expressive role of performance
Barrett, C. B. (2010). Measuring food insecurity. Science, 327(5967), 825e828.
measurement systems: A field study of a mental health development project.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., & Frame, B. (2007a). Accounting technologies and sus-
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 63, 60e75.
tainability assessment models. Ecological Economics, 61, 224e236.
Coonfield, G. (2009). Storytelling as communication and ritual: Addiction narrative
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I. (2007b). Theorizing engagement:
through a blue lens. Storytelling, Self, Society, 5(3), 176e192.
the potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting, Auditing & Account-
Cooper, D., & Morgan, W. (2013). Meeting the evolving corporate reporting needs of
ability Journal, 20(3), 356e381.
government and society: Arguments for a deliberative approach to accounting
Bebbington, J., & Fraser, M. (2014). Organizational change and sustainability ac-
rule making. Accounting and Business Research, 43(4), 418e441.
counting. In J. Bebbington, J. Unerman, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability ac-
Cooper, C., Taylor, P., Smith, N., & Catchpowle, L. (2005). A discussion of the political
counting and accountability (2nd ed., pp. 141e153). London: Routledge.
potential of social accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(7),
Bebbington, J., & Gray, R. (2001). An account of sustainability: Failure, success and a
951e974.
reconceptualization. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(5), 557e587.
DaSilva, I. A. C., & McCafferty, S. G. (2007). Carnival in a mainstream kindergarten
Booth, S. (2014). Food banks in Australia: Discouraging the right to food. In
classroom: A Bakhtinian analysis of second language learners’ off-task behav-
G. Riches, & T. Silvasti (Eds.), First world hunger revisited: Food charity or the right
iors. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 31e44.
to food? (pp. 15e28). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Denedo, M., Thomson, I., & Yonekura, A. (2017). International advocacy NGOs,
Briers, M., & Chua, W. F. (2001). The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in
counter accounting, accountability and engagement. Accounting, Auditing &
management accounting change: A field study of an implementation of
Accountability Journal, 30(6), 1309e1343.
activity-based costing. Accounting,. Organizations and Society, 26(3), 237e269.
Dey, C., Russell, S., & Thomson, I. (2011). Exploring the potential of shadow accounts
Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2001). Organisational resistance strategies to un-
in problematizing institutional conduct. In S. P. Osborne, & A. Ball (Eds.), Social
wanted accounting and finance changes: the case of general medical practice in
accounting and public management: Accountability for the public good (pp.
the United Kingdom. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(5),
64e75). New York: Routledge.
339e361.
Dillard, J., & Roslender, R. (2011). Taking pluralism seriously: Embedded moralities
Brown, J. (2009). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies:
in management accounting and control systems. Critical Perspectives on Ac-
Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 313e342.
counting, 22(2), 135e147.
Brown, J. (2017). Democratizing accounting: Reflections on the politics of “old” and
Dilley, M., & Boudreau, T. E. (2001). Coming to terms with vulnerability: A critique of
“new” pluralisms. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 43, 20e46.
the food security definition. Food Policy, 26(3), 229e247.
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013). Critical accounting and communicative action: On the
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the
limits of consensual deliberation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(3),
scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3),
176e190.

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
20 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx

118e141. collectively. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 7(3), 275e289.

Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H., & Worthington, F. (2004). Accounting and management- Lewis, D. (2007). The management of non-governmental development organizations.
labour relations: The politics of production in the ‘factory with a problem’. London: Routledge.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 269e302. Li, Y., & McKernan, J. (2016). Human rights, accounting, and the dialectic of equality
Fish, R., Lobley, M., & Winter, M. (2013). A license to produce? Farmer in- and inequality. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(4), 568e593.
terpretations of the new food security agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, Lindenberg, M. (2002). Measuring household livelihood security at the family and
40e49. community level in the developing world. World Development, 30(2), 301e318.
Fouilleux, E., Bricas, N., & Alpha, A. (2017). ‘Feeding 9 billion people’: Global food Macintosh, N. B. (2002). Accounting, accountants and accountability. London:
security debates and the productionist trap. Journal of European Public Policy, Routledge.
24(11), 1658e1677. Macintosh, N. B., & Baker, C. R. (2002). A literary theory perspective on accounting:
Frank, A. W. (2005). What is dialogical research, and why should we do it? Quali- Towards heteroglossic accounting reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
tative Health Research, 15(7), 964e974. Journal, 15(2), 184e222.
Fraser, M. (2012). “Fleshing out” an engagement with a social accounting technol- Martinez, D., & Cooper, D. (2017). Assembling international development:
ogy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(3), 508e534. Accountability and the disarticulation of a social movement. Accounting, Orga-
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2003). Accounting and emancipation: Some critical in- nizations and Society, 63, 6e20.
terventions. London and New York: Routledge. Masquefa, B., Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2017). Developing appreciation of micro-
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2019). Some reflections on the construct of emancipatory organizational processes of accounting change and indicating pathways to
accounting: Shifting meaning and the possibilities of a new pragmatism. Critical more ‘Enabling Accounting’ in a micro-organizational domain of research and
Perspectives on Accounting, 63, 101975. development. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 44, 59e82.
Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., & Yonekura, A. (2015). Accounting as differentiated uni- Maxwell, S. (1996). Food security: A post-modern perspective. Food Policy, 21(2),
versal for emancipatory praxis: Accounting delineation and mobilisation for 155e170.
emancipation(s) recognising democracy and difference. Accounting, Auditing & McKernan, J., & O’Donnell, P. (1998). Financial accounting: Crisis and the commodity
Accountability Journal, 28(5), 846e874. fetish. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9(5), 567e599.
Goddard, A., & Assad, M. J. (2006). Accounting and navigating legitimacy in Tan- Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of
zanian NGOs. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), 377e404. ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585e600.
Hall, M. (2014). Evaluation logics in the third sector. Voluntas: International Journal Mikes, A., & Morhart, F. (2017). Bringing back Charlie Chaplin: Accounting as
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 307e336. catalyst in the creation of an authentic product of popular culture. Management
Hall, M., & Millo, Y. (2018). Choosing an accounting method to explain public policy: Accounting Research, 35, 66e82.
Social return on investment and UK non-profit sector policy. European Ac- Morgan, K., & Sonnino, R. (2010). The urban foodscape: World cities and the new
counting Review, 27(2), 339e361. food equation. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(2),
Hardy, J. (2006). "In the Neighborhood of": Dialogic uncertainties and the rise of 209e224.
new subject positions in environmental education. Mind, Culture and Activity, Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London and New York: Verso.
13(3), 260e277. Mouffe, C. (2005). Return of the political. London and New York: Verso.
Himick, D., & Ruff, K. (2019). Counter accounts of profit: Outrage to action through Mouffe, C. (2010). Civil society, democratic values and human rights. In T. Carver, &
“just” calculation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. In press. J. Bartelson (Eds.), Globality, democracy and civil society (pp. 109e125). Oxon:
Hirschkop, K. (1986). Bakhtin, discourse and democracy. New Left Review, 160, Routledge.
92e113. Mouffe, C. (2014). Democracy, human rights and cosmopolitanism: An agonistic
Hirschkop, K. (1999). Mikhail Bakhtin: An aesthetic for democracy. Oxford: Oxford approach. In C. Douzinas, & C. Gearty (Eds.), The meanings of rights: The phi-
University Press. losophy and social theory of human rights (pp. 181e192). Cambridge: Cambridge
Holley, C. E., & Mason, C. (2019). A systematic review of the evaluation of in- University Press.
terventions to tackle children’s food insecurity. Current Nutrition Reports, 8(1), Mouritsen, J., & Kreiner, K. (2016). Accounting, decisions and promises. Accounting,
11e27. Organizations and Society, 49, 21e31.
Hopper, T., & Bui, B. (2016). Has management accounting research been critical? Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.
Management Accounting Research, 31, 10e30. Norval, A. (2009). Democracy, pluralization, and voice. Ethics & Global Politics, 2(4),
Hopwood, A. G. (1987). The archeology of accounting systems. Accounting, Orga- 297e320.
nizations and Society, 12(3), 207e234. O’Sullivan, N., & O’Dwyer, B. (2009). Stakeholder perspectives on a financial sector
Hopwood, A. G. (2007). Whither accounting research? The Accounting Review, 82(5), legitimation process: The case of NGOs and the equator principles. Accounting,
1365e1374. Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(4), 553e587.
Howells, C. A. (2001). In the subjunctive mood: Carol Shields’s ‘Dressing up for the Oakes, H., & Berry, A. (2009). Accounting colonization: Three case studies in further
carnival’. The Yearbook of English Studies, 31, 144e154. education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 343e378.
Hoy, D. C. (2005). Critical resistance: From poststructuralism to post-critique. Cam- O’Dwyer, B., & Boomsma, R. (2015). The co-construction of NGO accountability:
bridge: MIT Press. Aligning imposed and felt accountability in NGO-funder accountability re-
Hsu, P. L., & Roth, W. M. (2014). From authoritative discourse to internally lationships,. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(1), 36e68.
persuasive discourse: Discursive evolution in teaching and learning the lan- O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2007). From functional to social accountability:
guage of science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(3), 729e753. Transforming the accountability relationship between funders and non-
Jacobs, K. (2011). Enlightenment and emancipation: Reflections for critical ac- governmental development organisations. Accounting, Auditing & Account-
counting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(5), 510e515. ability Journal, 20(3), 446e471.
Jayasinghe, K., & Wickramasinghe, D. (2011). Power over empowerment: Encoun- O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A
tering development accounting in a Sri Lankan fishing village. Critical Per- case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7e8),
spectives on Accounting, 22(4), 396e414. 801e824.
Jones, A. D., Ngure, F. M., Pelto, G., & Young, S. L. (2013). What are we assessing O’Leary, S. (2017). Grassroots accountability promises in rights-based approaches to
when we measure food security? A compendium and review of current metrics. development: The role of transformative monitoring and evaluation in NGOs.
Advances in Nutrition, 4(5), 481e505. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 63, 21e41.
Jordan, S., & Messner, M. (2012). Enabling control and the problem of incomplete Panikkar, R. (1982). Is the notion of human rights a Western concept? Diogenes,
performance indicators. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), 544e564. 30(120), 75e102.
Jørgensen, B., & Messner, M. (2010). Accounting and strategising: A case study from Quattrone, P., & Hopper, T. (2005). A ‘timeespace odyssey’: Management control
new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(2), systems in two multinational organisations. Accounting, Organizations and So-
184e204. ciety, 30(7e8), 735e764.
Kelman, J. (1992). Artists and value. In Some recent attacks. Stirling: AK Press. Riely, F., Mock, N., Cogill, B., Bailey, L., & Kenefick, E. (1999). Food security indicators
Koczanowicz, L. (2011). Beyond dialogue and antagonism: A Bakhtinian perspective and framework for use in the monitoring and evaluation of food aid programs.
on the controversy in political theory. Theory and Society, 40(5), 553e566. Washington, DC: Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA).
Koczanowicz, L. (2013). Education for resistance, education for consensus? In Roberts, J. M. (2004). From populist to political dialogue in the public sphere: A
T. Szkudlarek (Ed.), Education and the political. Comparative and international Bakhtinian approach to understanding a place for radical utterances in London,
education (A diversity of voices). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 1684e1812. Cultural Studies, 18(6), 884e910.
Koczanowicz, L. (2015). Politics of dialogue: Non-consensual democracy and critical Robinson, A. (2011). In theory Bakhtin: Dialogism, polyphony and heteroglossia.
community. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Ceasefire Magazine, 29.
Laine, M., & Vinnari, E. (2017). The transformative potential of counter accounts: A Rosin, C. (2013). Food security and the justification of productivism in New Zealand.
case study of animal rights activism. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 50e58.
Journal, 30(7), 1481e1510. Roslender, R., & Dillard, J. F. (2003). Reflections on the interdisciplinary perspectives
Lang, T., & Barling, D. (2012). Food security and food sustainability: Reformulating on accounting project. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(3), 325e351.
the debate. The Geographical Journal, 178(4), 313e326. Sabet, S. M., & Brown, A. N. (2018). Is impact evaluation still on the rise? The new
Lang, T., Barling, D., & Caraher, M. (2009). Food Policy: Integrating health, environ- trends in 2010e2015. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 10(3), 291e304.
ment and society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Seligman, A. B., & Weller, R. P. (2012). Rethinking pluralism: Ritual, experience, and
Lawson, H. (2001). Closure: A story of everything. London: Routledge. ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levine, R., & Savedoff, W. (2015). Aid at the frontier: Building knowledge Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford,

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140
 S. O’Leary, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx 21

UK: Oxford University Press. 292e334.

Shields, C. (1993). Arriving late: Starting over. In J. Metcalf, & J. R. Struthers (Eds.), Vinnari, E., & Dillard, J. (2016). (ANT) agonistics: Pluralistic politicization of, and by,
How stories mean (pp. 244e251). Erin, Ontario: Porcupine’s Quill. accounting and its technologies. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 39, 25e44.
Sonnino, R. (2016). The new geography of food security: Exploring the potential of Vinnari, E., & Laine, M. (2017). The moral mechanism of counter accounts: The case
urban food strategies. The Geographical Journal, 182(2), 190e200. of industrial animal production. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 57, 1e17.
Stewart, T. K. (2013). Religion in the subjunctive: Vaiṣṇava narrative, Sufi counter- Warshawsky, D. N. (2014). Civil society and urban food insecurity: Analyzing the
narrative in early modern Bengal. The Journal of Hindu Studies, 6(1), 52e72. roles of local food organizations in Johannesburg. Urban Geography, 35(1),
Thomson, I., Dey, C., & Russell, S. (2015). Activism, arenas and accounts in conflicts 109e132.
over tobacco control. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), Warshawsky, D. N. (2015). The devolution of urban food waste governance: Case
809e845. study of food rescue in Los Angeles. Cities, 49, 26e34.
Tinker, T. (Ed.). (1984). Social accounting for corporations: Private enterprise versus the White, E. J. (2014). ‘Are you ‘Avin a Laff?’: A pedagogical response to Bakhtinian
public interest. New York: Markus Wiener. carnivalesque in early childhood education. Educational Philosophy and Theory,
Tinker, T. (Ed.). (1985). Paper prophets: A social critique of accounting. London: Holt: 46(8), 898e913.
Rinehart and Winston. Wingenbach, E. (2011). Institutionalizing agonistic democracy: Post-foundationalism
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University and political liberalism. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Press. Wouters, M., & Wilderom, C. (2008). Developing performance-measurement sys-
Tregidga, H., Milne, M. J., & Kearins, K. (2018). Ramping up resistance: Corporate tems as enabling formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics
sustainable development and academic research. Business & Society, 57(2), department. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4e5), 488e516.

Please cite this article as: O’Leary, S., & Smith, D., Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in
non-governmental organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101140