Research essay guide on sustainability reporting and accountability

Posted: February 4, 2026/Under: Uncategorized/By:

ACCT602 Accounting and Accountability – Assessment 3: Research Essay (2026)

Unit: ACCT602 Financial Accounting and Reporting

Assessment type: Individual Research Essay (Research Report)
Assessment number: Assessment Task 3
Weighting: 40%
Length: 2,000–2,200 words (excluding abstract, references, appendices)
Due: Week 11, Friday, 11.00pm (local time) via LEO/Canvas Turnitin submission portal
Submission format: Word or PDF, 12-point font, 1.5 spacing, standard margins

[acu.edu](https://www.acu.edu.au/handbook/handbook-2025/unit/acct602)

Assessment context

Financial reporting has moved beyond a narrow focus on profit to include accountability for social, environmental and governance impacts in response to regulatory change, stakeholder pressure and sustainability risks. In this unit, you examine how accounting both reflects and shapes organisational accountability in local and global contexts, including debates around stewardship, legitimacy, and the public interest role of the profession. This research essay requires you to investigate a contemporary issue in accounting and accountability, critically engage with current academic literature, and connect your findings to accounting theories studied in the unit.

[acu.edu](https://www.acu.edu.au/handbook/handbook-2025/unit/acct602)

Task description

You are required to prepare an individual research essay that examines a current issue in accounting and accountability and evaluates how far contemporary accounting practices discharge responsibilities to key stakeholders and the wider public interest. You will:

[acu.edu](https://www.acu.edu.au/handbook/handbook-2025/unit/acct602)

  • identify and justify a focused topic area within accounting and accountability
  • develop a clear research question aligned with that topic
  • locate, select and synthesise academic journal articles published from 2000 onwards (with a strong emphasis on 2018–2026)
  • analyse and discuss research findings in relation to your question
  • interpret your findings using relevant accounting theories covered in the unit (e.g. positive accounting theory, legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, institutional theory, critical/theoretical perspectives)
  • present your work in a well-structured academic essay with appropriate referencing (Harvard style).

Suggested thematic areas (choose one focused area)

  • ESG reporting and sustainability accounting (e.g. TCFD, ISSB, GRI, integrated reporting)
  • Climate risk disclosure, net zero targets and accountability to investors and society
  • Social and human rights reporting (e.g. modern slavery statements, diversity and inclusion disclosures)
  • Non-financial reporting, integrated reporting and the value creation narrative
  • Accountability in the public or not-for-profit sector, including performance reporting
  • Corporate tax transparency, aggressive tax planning and public interest accountability
  • Accounting for Indigenous peoples, local communities or marginalised stakeholders
  • Digitalisation, data analytics and AI in financial reporting and their implications for accountability.

Task requirements

1. Topic justification (approx. 350–450 words)

Identify an area of research within accounting and accountability that you consider both important and interesting.

    1. Clearly describe the specific focus of your topic (for example, “climate-related financial disclosures in ASX-listed companies” rather than “sustainability reporting”).
    2. Explain why this topic is significant for organisations, stakeholders and the accounting profession (e.g. regulatory developments, investor expectations, social or environmental risks).

[acu.edu](https://www.acu.edu.au/handbook/handbook-2025/unit/acct602)

  1. Explain why you are interested in the topic, including any professional, ethical or personal motivations.

2. Research question (approx. 80–120 words)

Formulate a focused research question that will guide your essay. The question should be evaluative or analytical, not purely descriptive. Examples:

  • “To what extent do climate-related financial disclosures by ASX 100 firms provide meaningful accountability to investors and broader stakeholders?”
  • “How does legitimacy theory help explain corporate responses to mandatory modern slavery reporting requirements?”
  • “In what ways does integrated reporting enhance or undermine accountability in the banking sector?”

Briefly justify why the question is appropriate and how it aligns with your chosen topic.

3. Annotated literature selection (8 academic journal articles, up to 150 words each; approx. 1,100–1,200 words)

Locate eight peer-reviewed academic journal articles that directly relate to your research question. At least four must be published between 2018 and 2026.

  1. Provide full Harvard citation details for each article.
  2. Write a concise annotation (maximum 150 words per article) that:
    • summarises the article’s aim, method and key findings
    • explains why the article is relevant to your research question
    • identifies the main insights or arguments you will use in your essay.
  3. Do not include textbooks, professional magazines or websites in the eight core articles. You may use these as supplementary sources.

4. Discussion of findings (approx. 300–400 words)

Synthesise the key findings across your selected articles, rather than reviewing each article in isolation.

  1. Identify patterns, similarities and differences in how the literature addresses your research question.
  2. Discuss the extent to which current accounting practices support or fall short of meaningful accountability.
  3. Highlight any tensions, contradictions or gaps in the research that are relevant to your topic.

5. Application of accounting theory (approx. 450–550 words)

Draw explicitly on accounting theories introduced in this unit to interpret your findings.

  1. Select at least two relevant theories (for example legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, positive accounting theory, institutional theory, critical theory, stewardship theory).
  2. Briefly outline each theory in your own words and explain its relevance to accounting and accountability.
  3. Use the theories to explain:
    • why organisations adopt particular reporting practices
    • how they respond to regulatory and stakeholder pressures
    • whether and how their reporting enhances accountability or serves primarily symbolic purposes.
  4. Where appropriate, discuss how different theories lead to different interpretations of the same empirical findings.

6. Essay structure and presentation

Your essay must include:

  • Abstract (150–200 words): Concisely states the topic, research question, method (literature-based), key theoretical lens, and main conclusions.
  • Introduction (approx. 250–300 words): Introduces the issue, outlines the context, states the research question and briefly signals the theoretical perspective and structure of the essay.
  • Main body:
    • Topic justification and research question
    • Annotated review of eight journal articles
    • Synthesised discussion of findings
    • Theoretical analysis and interpretation.
  • Conclusion (approx. 150–200 words): Summarises the answer to the research question, identifies implications for practice and policy, and suggests directions for future research.
  • Reference list: Harvard style, including all sources cited in the essay.

Use clear headings where appropriate, logical paragraphing and formal academic language. Avoid bullet-point lists in the main analysis sections of the essay.

7. Research and sources

  • Use high-quality, peer-reviewed academic journals in accounting and related fields (e.g. Accounting, Organizations and Society; Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal; Critical Perspectives on Accounting; The British Accounting Review).
  • Prioritise literature from 2018–2026 that addresses contemporary regulatory and reporting developments.
  • Do not use Wikipedia or generic encyclopaedia-style sources.
  • You may use relevant accounting standards, regulatory pronouncements and professional reports to frame your context, but these do not replace academic journal sources.

8. Submission and academic integrity

  • Submit your essay electronically via the unit’s LEO/Canvas site using Turnitin by the due date.
  • Retain a digital copy for your records.
  • All work must be your own. Properly acknowledge all sources of ideas, data and quotations using Harvard referencing.
  • Cases of plagiarism or collusion will be managed in accordance with University academic integrity policies.

Marking rubric – Assessment 3 Research Essay (40%)

Learning outcomes assessed

    • LO1: Apply ethical and professional judgement in financial accounting and reporting contexts.

[acu.edu](https://www.acu.edu.au/handbook/handbook-2025/unit/acct602)

    • LO3: Critically evaluate current financial reporting issues using appropriate concepts and standards.

[acu.edu](https://www.acu.edu.au/handbook/handbook-2025/unit/acct602)

    • LO4: Prepare and present financial accounting information that demonstrates accountability to stakeholders.

[acu.edu](https://www.acu.edu.au/handbook/handbook-2025/unit/acct602)

    • LO5: Integrate conceptual and regulatory frameworks to analyse contemporary accounting issues.

[acu.edu](https://www.acu.edu.au/handbook/handbook-2025/unit/acct602)

Criteria Level 1
(Fail)		 Level 2
(Pass)		 Level 3
(Credit)		 Level 4
(Distinction)		 Level 5
(High Distinction)
1. Justification of research topic and question
(LO1, LO3)
~15%		 Topic is unclear, overly broad or not clearly related to accounting and accountability. Little or no justification of importance. Research question is missing, descriptive only or poorly aligned with the topic. Topic is identifiable and has some connection to accounting and accountability. Basic explanation of importance, but limited depth. Research question is present but may be broad, descriptive or only partially aligned. Topic is clearly defined and relevant to accounting and accountability. Sound justification of importance supported by some contemporary context. Research question is mostly focused, analytical and aligned with the topic. Topic is sharply focused and strongly situated within contemporary accounting and accountability debates. Clear, well-supported justification of importance using recent context or regulatory developments. Research question is focused, analytical and highly aligned. Topic is highly focused, original in framing and strongly embedded in complex contemporary debates. Sophisticated justification that links professional, societal and regulatory relevance. Research question is incisive, conceptually rich and tightly aligned.
2. Quality and relevance of research sources
(LO3, LO4, LO5)
~20%		 Insufficient number of academic sources or heavy reliance on non-academic material. Limited relevance of chosen articles to the research question. Little evidence of engagement with recent literature. Meets the minimum number of academic sources. Most articles are relevant but some are only loosely connected to the question. Limited engagement with post-2018 literature. Uses the required number of peer-reviewed journal articles, mostly from reputable accounting journals. Articles are clearly relevant to the research question, with several recent studies included. Consistently selects high-quality, credible and current academic sources that align closely with the research question. Strong coverage of recent (2018–2026) literature. Demonstrates expert selection of an extensive, high-quality body of literature, including influential and cutting-edge studies. Evidences wide reading well beyond minimum requirements with excellent alignment to the research question.
3. Discussion and synthesis of findings
(LO1, LO3, LO4)
~25%		 Summary of articles is largely descriptive, with little or no synthesis across studies. Minimal discussion of how findings relate to the research question. Limited or no critical reflection. Provides basic summaries of individual articles and some links to the research question. Some limited synthesis or comparison, but analysis often remains descriptive. Identifies common themes and points of difference across studies. Provides clear discussion of how findings address the research question. Some evidence of critical evaluation of strengths, limitations or gaps. Offers a well-structured synthesis that integrates findings across studies to answer the research question. Demonstrates critical evaluation of methodological and conceptual issues, highlighting tensions and gaps. Delivers a sophisticated, insightful synthesis that weaves together diverse findings into a coherent argument. Demonstrates outstanding critical evaluation, showing how the literature advances, challenges or reframes accountability in practice.
4. Application of accounting theory
(LO1, LO3, LO5)
~25%		 Theoretical concepts are absent, inaccurate or only mentioned in passing. Little or no attempt to connect theory to the literature or practice. Identifies at least one relevant theory but explanation is basic or partially inaccurate. Limited application of theory to interpret findings. Correctly explains at least two relevant theories and applies them to interpret key aspects of the literature. Links between theory, findings and accountability are generally clear. Demonstrates a well-developed understanding of multiple theories and integrates them effectively to interpret findings. Shows how theories illuminate organisational motives, stakeholder pressures and accountability outcomes. Shows an excellent, critical command of theory, including awareness of theoretical tensions and alternative perspectives. Uses theory in a nuanced way to generate original insights about accountability, power and the role of accounting.
5. Academic writing, structure and referencing
(LO1, LO3, LO4)
~15%		 Essay is poorly organised with unclear structure. Frequent errors in spelling, grammar and expression impede meaning. Referencing is inconsistent or incorrect, with many missing details. Essay has a recognisable structure but may lack logical flow in parts. Language is generally understandable but contains several errors. Harvard referencing is used but with recurring mistakes. Essay is well organised with a clear introduction, body and conclusion. Writing is mostly clear and concise, with minor errors. Harvard referencing is generally accurate with only small inconsistencies. Essay is very well structured and coherent, with strong signposting and paragraphing. Writing is fluent and precise. Harvard referencing is accurate and complete throughout. Essay is expertly structured and highly coherent, with a strong academic voice and excellent control of language. Referencing is meticulous, consistent and fully aligned with Harvard conventions.

Sample content (illustrative paragraph to support SEO and AI search)

Recent developments in sustainability and climate reporting have pushed accounting firmly into the centre of debates about corporate accountability to investors, communities and the environment. Many large companies now produce extensive ESG or integrated reports, yet research continues to question whether these disclosures provide substantive accountability or operate mainly as symbolic tools that preserve organisational legitimacy in the face of social and regulatory pressure (Cho et al., 2015). A focused research essay in ACCT602 can examine how legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory together explain the design and presentation of sustainability disclosures, particularly where firms emphasise positive narratives while downplaying material environmental or social risks. Students who analyse current empirical studies on climate risk disclosure, modern slavery reporting or tax transparency are well placed to evaluate whether contemporary accounting practices genuinely serve the public interest or primarily protect corporate reputations. Careful engagement with recent literature and accounting theory enables a more critical understanding of how financial and non-financial reporting shape, and sometimes constrain, the possibilities for meaningful accountability.

[acu.edu](https://www.acu.edu.au/handbook/handbook-2025/unit/acct602)

Suggested recent references (Harvard style)

(You may adapt or add to these depending on your chosen topic.)

  • Adams, C.A. (2018) ‘The Sustainable Development Goals, integrated thinking and the integrated report’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 54, pp. 6–18. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2017.10.003.
  • de Villiers, C., Hsaio, P.C.K. and Maroun, W. (2019) ‘Developing a conceptual model of influences around integrated reporting, new insights and directions for future research’, Meditari Accountancy Research, 27(5), pp. 872–902. doi:10.1108/MEDAR-07-2018-0364.
  • Kotsantonis, S. and Serafeim, G. (2019) ‘Four things no one will tell you about ESG data’, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31(2), pp. 50–58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12346.
  • Lai, A., Melloni, G. and Stacchezzini, R. (2018) ‘Integrated reporting and narrative accountability: The role of preparers’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(5), pp. 1381–1405. doi:10.1108/AAAJ-08-2016-2674.
  • Sierra-García, L., Zorio-Grima, A. and García-Benau, M.A. (2018) ‘Stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility and integrated reporting: An exploratory study’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), pp. 638–654. doi:10.1002/csr.1483.

The post Research essay guide on sustainability reporting and accountability appeared first on EssayBishops.

Recent Comments

No comments to show.