Accounting, industrial and organisational relations: A comment on ‘some comments’

Abstract

‘Accounting, Industrial and Organisational Relations: Some Comments for Future Research’, by Derek Purdy responds to a paper that I recently published in this journal (Amernic, 1988). This note comments upon and extends some of Purdy’s general suggestions. However, there are three issues upon which Purdy raises questions--to my mind inaccuratelyand these get in the way of the main thrust of the paper. I cite them in the interests of clarity without wishing to get involved in detailed quibbling. (a) Purdy raises the difference between ‘accounting disclosure and industrial relations’ and ‘accounting and industrial relations disclosure’, and goes on to define how he believes these two phrases should be interpreted. It would seem improper for his definitions to be imposed upon others, and indeed, he seems to feel the same way since he writes (p. 68), ‘There are various constructions which can be applied to these phrases’. (b) Purdy asserts that my examples involve essentially published annual accounts, but I should note that (i) The Massey-Ferguson example refers clearly to a ‘company-prepared feasibility study, upon which Massey ostensibly made its decision to close the Kilmarnock plant’ (Amernic, 1988, p. 145); and (ii) I mention that ‘Although the illustrations are restricted to the profit-seeking sector, not-for-profit examples could be readily provided (for an example from the university sector, see Amernic, 1985)‘, in which a major portion of the analysis was devoted to carting information. (c) Derek Purdy’s assertion that my analysis is limited to collective bargaining is also inappropriate, since the Massey case deals with a shutdown; and I would not wish to ignore the important impact that attitudinal structuring may have on the bargaining relationship and future industrial