arbiter
JournalsAccount

Redistributing responsibility: a diffractive approach to corporate accountability

Lee Moerman & Sandra van der Laan

Critical Perspectives on Accounting2026https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2026.102847article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

In this paper we draw on Barad’s posthuman performativity and diffractive methodology to provide insights into the ethical dimensions of accounting and financial reporting practices to understand corporate accountability differently. We focus on the production of a financial report, turning our attention to the intra-actions of both human and non-human agents that enact material-discursive boundaries. These boundaries create world-knowing ‘representations’ and, in doing so, perform accountability. By adopting Barad’s approach, we demonstrate the ethico-onto-epistem-ology of financial reporting using an illustrative case. This case study explores the reorganisation strategy of a former asbestos manufacturer and its attempts to evade compensation payments by redistributing this responsibility to a separate legal entity. However, artefacts such as financial reports, leave ‘traces’ of practices, human and non-human agency and boundary-making intra-actions which reveal a prioritisation by those charged with governance with safeguarding shareholder wealth and delivering a technical, rather than, moral or ethical accountability.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2026.102847

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{lee2026,
  title        = {{Redistributing responsibility: a diffractive approach to corporate accountability}},
  author       = {Lee Moerman & Sandra van der Laan},
  journal      = {Critical Perspectives on Accounting},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2026.102847},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Redistributing responsibility: a diffractive approach to corporate accountability

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.