Justifications and rationalities within a counter-story: The domination of the accountability for sustainability over the accountability for the monetary

Abstract

<p>

</p><p>The accountability for financial and monetary issues has often been seen to dominate the accountability for wider sustainability. In this paper, we present a case in which the opposite takes place: in the case company, accountability for sustainability is dominant and accountability for the monetary is, surprisingly, peripheral. The study shows how accountabilities for such peripheral and dominant issues are justified. Rationality has often been drawn on in justifications and here it is shown how rationality can, surprisingly, be used to justify two different, even contradictory accountabilities by claiming it is rational to favor each form of accountability – something that sounds not only irrational but also logically impossible. The dominant accountability is justified by tying it to the “bigger pictures” of sustainability and rationality. The justification for the more peripheral accountability takes place by tying this form of accountability to the dominant form and to wider ideas such as private sector practices (promoted as preferable) and rationality. It is shown how the accountability for sustainability relies on a “logical” form of rationality while the accountability for the monetary is tied to an “appearance” form of rationality. Consequences are discussed for an understanding of such rationality forms and for the associated promotion of sustainability over the monetary more widely in society.</p><p>

<br /></p>