Many costs are hidden by retailers and passed onto
consumers in the final prices of goods. Because the
value-added is equivalent to the cost paid by the retailer plus
any markup it represents the total wealth created in a
nation’s economy (Riahi-Belkaoui 1992, 1996, 1999).
Common fungible consumer products that are related to
energy storage such as disposable batteries are a good test
case for the tacit costs incurred by consumers.
Members of the value-added chain, and their contributions relative to the producers of the product, have not been
analyzed in many product categories. In many cases, there is
a gap between “real” and “pseudo” value-added activities.
The VAS is often used as a broad measure to determine
corporate performance buy-in. It has gained recognition as a
more useful tool when compared to conventional measures
based on the traditional accounting system.
Value-added accounting provides a bridge between the
macro and micro levels of accounting as it uses a
well-established term since value-added was used in 1970 in
the first US Census of Production (Fort et al. 2017).
Between 1950 and 2000, over 100 articles have been published related to value-added reporting (Riahi-Belkaoui
1996, 1999; Haller et al. 2016) have recommendation the
broad adoption of value-added reporting in the United States
to conform with international standards of reporting. The
claim that “value added information has greater predictive
and explanatory power than earnings” is not empirically
supported because “value added is not calculated consistently” (Van Staden 1999).
Supply Chain Management (SCM) as a body of knowledge suffers from a lack of novel ideas (Burgess et al. 2006).
Instead, most researchers base their work on multiple
existing theories coopted from other areas and combine
existing research methods to generate data to extend existing
theories. Because corporations vary greatly the way they
structure supply and distributional channels SCM analysis
should consider the advantages and disadvantages of each
based on the transaction undertaken (Ellram 1991). From an
accounting standpoint, supply chain reporting has greater
consistency in terms of the reduction of information
impactedness and the use of a common framework when
compared to value-added statements alone.
Many views of value-added statements and stakeholder
theory give rise to a view of CSR that contains competing,
contradictory, and incompatible objectives (Charkham
2011). For CSR to be translated into operational
decision-making it must be communicated with clarity and
understood by all levels of an organization and those outside
of the organization who regulate and tax it. Mitchell
et al. (1997) propose little modification to enhance the utility
of stakeholder theory with respect to value-added services. It
has become apparent that this area is harmed more by a
broad definition that loses operational effect than a narrow
definition that sacrifices managerial salience. Additionally,
the use of value-added accounting has often been stretched
beyond its effectiveness because of competing definitions.
Business leaders’ and policymakers’ attention is devoted to
growing and sustaining operations. An unexamined broad
definition of value-added and stakeholder theory encourages
corporations to set aside CSR as a public relations foil.
Research that recommends modifications to value-added
theory in order to better understand CSR has far-reaching
ramifications for economic, societal, legal, ethical, and philanthropic development. Framing this topic is the key to
resolution between various interests. This conflict of ideas
strikes at the very foundations of the study of organizations
including how we determine the legality of various groups.
Stakeholder theory lacks specificity and cannot be operationalized in a way that allows scientific inspection and
therefore offers no decision-making criteria. However,
value-added accounting does provide measurable and testable data for use by academics, administrators, and practitioners alike.
Value-added accounting, corporate social responsibility,
and stakeholder theory all have the same object of analysis:
businesses. All organizations have stakeholders, yet
for-profit multinational corporations (MNC) are the primary
object of stakeholder theory for two reasons (Camilleri 2017;
Markley and Davis 2007). First, these firms represent powerful interests that are not bound by international treaties and
whose actions have global consequences. Second, other
nongovernmental organizations of substantial size and
financial wherewithal do not have direct ownership but
instead are controlled by a board that views corporations as
competitors for the control of scarce financial resources. This
sets up a game.
As the debate is often focused on publicly traded firms
this discussion is limited to the application of stakeholder
theory to MNCs. Based on relationships between executives,
the board of directors and shareholders, managers of these
companies are given various levels of autonomy to make
good and bad decisions. Without this independence, exemplified by the more autocratic capitalism in some developed
countries, corporations become the arm of another entity,
presumably the state. Each corporation can make the commitment to improve community well-being in order to
maintain its independence through discretionary business
practices and the choice to contribute corporate resources to
social initiatives (Lee and Kotler 2011; Seretny and Seretny
2012). Instead of asking should a firm care about the triple
bottom line of planet, people, or profits, research should
explore how every corporation is obligated to all these
interests by defining the boundaries of stakeholder theory.
The following research methodology will identify and isolate real-value-added when compared to pseudo-valueadded.
An Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility and Role …
25
consumers in the final prices of goods. Because the
value-added is equivalent to the cost paid by the retailer plus
any markup it represents the total wealth created in a
nation’s economy (Riahi-Belkaoui 1992, 1996, 1999).
Common fungible consumer products that are related to
energy storage such as disposable batteries are a good test
case for the tacit costs incurred by consumers.
Members of the value-added chain, and their contributions relative to the producers of the product, have not been
analyzed in many product categories. In many cases, there is
a gap between “real” and “pseudo” value-added activities.
The VAS is often used as a broad measure to determine
corporate performance buy-in. It has gained recognition as a
more useful tool when compared to conventional measures
based on the traditional accounting system.
Value-added accounting provides a bridge between the
macro and micro levels of accounting as it uses a
well-established term since value-added was used in 1970 in
the first US Census of Production (Fort et al. 2017).
Between 1950 and 2000, over 100 articles have been published related to value-added reporting (Riahi-Belkaoui
1996, 1999; Haller et al. 2016) have recommendation the
broad adoption of value-added reporting in the United States
to conform with international standards of reporting. The
claim that “value added information has greater predictive
and explanatory power than earnings” is not empirically
supported because “value added is not calculated consistently” (Van Staden 1999).
Supply Chain Management (SCM) as a body of knowledge suffers from a lack of novel ideas (Burgess et al. 2006).
Instead, most researchers base their work on multiple
existing theories coopted from other areas and combine
existing research methods to generate data to extend existing
theories. Because corporations vary greatly the way they
structure supply and distributional channels SCM analysis
should consider the advantages and disadvantages of each
based on the transaction undertaken (Ellram 1991). From an
accounting standpoint, supply chain reporting has greater
consistency in terms of the reduction of information
impactedness and the use of a common framework when
compared to value-added statements alone.
Many views of value-added statements and stakeholder
theory give rise to a view of CSR that contains competing,
contradictory, and incompatible objectives (Charkham
2011). For CSR to be translated into operational
decision-making it must be communicated with clarity and
understood by all levels of an organization and those outside
of the organization who regulate and tax it. Mitchell
et al. (1997) propose little modification to enhance the utility
of stakeholder theory with respect to value-added services. It
has become apparent that this area is harmed more by a
broad definition that loses operational effect than a narrow
definition that sacrifices managerial salience. Additionally,
the use of value-added accounting has often been stretched
beyond its effectiveness because of competing definitions.
Business leaders’ and policymakers’ attention is devoted to
growing and sustaining operations. An unexamined broad
definition of value-added and stakeholder theory encourages
corporations to set aside CSR as a public relations foil.
Research that recommends modifications to value-added
theory in order to better understand CSR has far-reaching
ramifications for economic, societal, legal, ethical, and philanthropic development. Framing this topic is the key to
resolution between various interests. This conflict of ideas
strikes at the very foundations of the study of organizations
including how we determine the legality of various groups.
Stakeholder theory lacks specificity and cannot be operationalized in a way that allows scientific inspection and
therefore offers no decision-making criteria. However,
value-added accounting does provide measurable and testable data for use by academics, administrators, and practitioners alike.
Value-added accounting, corporate social responsibility,
and stakeholder theory all have the same object of analysis:
businesses. All organizations have stakeholders, yet
for-profit multinational corporations (MNC) are the primary
object of stakeholder theory for two reasons (Camilleri 2017;
Markley and Davis 2007). First, these firms represent powerful interests that are not bound by international treaties and
whose actions have global consequences. Second, other
nongovernmental organizations of substantial size and
financial wherewithal do not have direct ownership but
instead are controlled by a board that views corporations as
competitors for the control of scarce financial resources. This
sets up a game.
As the debate is often focused on publicly traded firms
this discussion is limited to the application of stakeholder
theory to MNCs. Based on relationships between executives,
the board of directors and shareholders, managers of these
companies are given various levels of autonomy to make
good and bad decisions. Without this independence, exemplified by the more autocratic capitalism in some developed
countries, corporations become the arm of another entity,
presumably the state. Each corporation can make the commitment to improve community well-being in order to
maintain its independence through discretionary business
practices and the choice to contribute corporate resources to
social initiatives (Lee and Kotler 2011; Seretny and Seretny
2012). Instead of asking should a firm care about the triple
bottom line of planet, people, or profits, research should
explore how every corporation is obligated to all these
interests by defining the boundaries of stakeholder theory.
The following research methodology will identify and isolate real-value-added when compared to pseudo-valueadded.
An Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility and Role …
25