Exemplar or Radical Structuralism - Free Essay Sample

Introduction

The reading is an exemplar because it seeks to explain the concept of a given human culture. They explain the idea of organized hypocrisy in different organizations. Indeed, the authors also explain how the culture must be understood through it, relating to the broader system (Cho et al., 78). While focusing on radical culturalism, they uncover structures that underlie the thoughts and feelings of people regarding organized hypocrisy. It shows why the article is an exemplar.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Arguments Presented by Authors

In this journal of accounting, organizations, and society, the authors describe the topic of organized hypocrisy, different organizational façades, and how to report sustainability. They begin by arguing the point that sustainability is becoming more ubiquitous in many organizations. Indeed, there is still a wide gap that is persisting between sustainability and how to put it into practice (Cho et al., 78). Apart from that, they go ahead to argue that, despite having different actions of valuable research done by them, the functionality that sustainability gets to play in any transition towards a society that is less sustainable will always remain unclear. With this, they proposed an enriched and extra-nuanced theoretical lens to advance to greater philosophical heights.

The authors argued that societal and institutional pressures that are contradictable need different types of organizations to participate in hypocrisy and design facades. This move will bring a limitation of different prospects of sustainability reports growing into substantive disclosures. Seemingly, to demonstrate this concept, they deploy different mechanisms. These methods include having them examine talks, choose on decisions, and actions of two major multinational oil and gas corporations in the United States (Cho et al., 78). In the end, they bring some salient points in their argument.

Data Relied

In this journal, the authors relied on data from the gas corporations in the United States. These items were present during the national discussion regarding the exploration of oil in the Alaskan national wildlife heritage (Cho et al., 78). It was through this point that most ideas got presented in a way that could be analyzed. They also depended on data from different human rights organizations in the United States. These data helped in understanding how society was involved in societal aspects.

Data Collection

Their focus during the collection of data was interested in information from 2004 to 2006 (Cho et al., 78). This period was during the introduction and re-debating of the ANWR bill. Seemingly, the companies where data was collected from were Chevron and ConocoPhillips. The focus was on collecting different qualitative data for research purposes. All these helped to prove their points during research.

Data Analyzation

Since it was qualitative data being collected in this place, there were various items to the discussion in the findings. They analyzed annual and sustainability reports, websites, and shareholder plans from these two multimillion corporations in the United States (Cho et al., 78). Seemingly, there was an analysis of the rational façade regarding the business sustainability of the companies. All these concepts helped in proving the objectives of their study. Indeed, different ideas, like organized hypocrisy, were qualitatively analyzed.

Change of Conclusions

There is one conclusion open for challenging in this journal. The findings were that hypocrisy and developing rational, progressive, and reputation facades could be beneficial to corporations, or they won't exist (Cho et al., 78). While basing on the definition of sustainability, this point can get challenged. These practices don't permit organizations to frame their different elements of commitment. Anyone discussing hypocrisy in organizations will dispute with this conclusion.

Comparison of Different Analysis

The best rationale that matches the paper is about discussing the beneficial paradox of the issue. This move will support the idea that sustainability is more of a technical measure (Cho, 2016, par. 3). When one thinks on this scale, it will assist in proving different concepts in a more open manner. The functionalist paradigm, in this case, is concerned with providing explanations of the status quo, rational choice, social integration, consensus, need satisfaction, and social order (Hirschheim & Klein, 1989, 1201). Organizations will get encouraged to work on their weaknesses rather than just talking. It will be relevant to the qualitative data being provided.

Conclusion

With this journal, the best rational that is best matched with it is the organization of inconsistencies as they find a daring approach to a given issue. The image provides a proper inspiration to organizations and their policymakers to design advanced forms of reporting sustainability that will be more sustainable when it comes to accelerating climatic changes and its rates. Developers must conduct an inquiry as part of systems design and intervene in the social world as apart of system implementation (Hirschheim & Klein, 1989, 1199). Matter of climate change can never be consistent at all times, and thus they need this model. All data collected can work best with this four-fold model. Indeed, all these will help in the understanding of the aim of the research by the authors.

References

Atkins, J., Atkins, B. C., Thomson, I., & Maroun, W., 2015. "Good" news from nowhere: Imagining utopian sustainable accounting, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5): 651-670.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2013-1485

Cho, C., 2016. How hypocrisy and facades can be good for people, planet, and profit. Council on Business and Society Insights.
https://councilcommunity.org/2016/03/10/how-hypocrisy-and-facades-can-be-good-for-people-planet-and-profit/

Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M., 2015. Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40: 78-94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003

Hirschheim, R. & Klein, H. K., 1989. Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 32(10): 1199-1216.
https://doi.org/10.1145/67933.67937.