{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01738794435857805, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015455950540958269, 'mean_word_length': 5.7952755905511815, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Accounterability and the Problematics of Accountability

The relatively recent concept of accounterability is part of a critical discourse on accountability initiated by Kamuf (2007) and leading to the Critical Perspectives on Accounting special edition that Joannides’ paper is part of. The basic premise of this paper is that, in light of recent events of corporate malpractice, instead of calling for greater levels of accountability and transparency, it is necessary to critically reflect on the operational processes of organisations. Joannides’ interesting work is based on ethnographic research in the Salvation Army. Carrying out the analysis in a religious organisation is of importance as it represents an idealised setting. It enables more personal reflection due to the lack of accounting regulation whilst maintaining sufficient relevance to inform the practices in business organisations. The author states that the ‘to whom’ question of accountability is currently under-explored in the existing literature. In this particular case, the members of the organisation are solely accountable to God – an ideal accountability that cannot be imposed and is operationalised through accounterability. Accounterability is the process of critical reflection and resistance to respond to limitations and contradictions in its operationalisation. Interestingly, the author links the ideal accountability and the absence of a direct relationship with the higher principal to that between employees and shareholders. Similarly to God, shareholders are not fully accessible to employees, which causes problems of accountability because, just like ministers, managers speak for an ideal higher principal. Second, this ideal relationship raises questions about the acceptance of managers as surrogates of the principal. Third, accounterability might be understood as a way of establishing intelligent accountability and therefore leading to exercising individual responsibility instead of being merely limited to compliancedriven behaviour. Hence, accounterability enables to overcome problems, such as the lack of transparency due to the opacity of the relationships between employees and the principal, and transforms day-to-day practices if the ideal accountability is impossible to implement. Overall, this paper provides important insights on advancing the critical discourse on accountability, which, as the author points out, still needs more research. Particularly, the construction and interpretation of the higher principal’s notion of value should be subject to further analysis.