Online Custom «Critical Review of the Article: Adoption of British CER Models in Chinese Companies» Essay Sample

Introduction

It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the fact that the modern trends in globalisation affect various spheres. For this reason, corporate environmental reporting is also a reason for adoption of global trends. This issue is particularly strong in China where business orientation gradually changes towards market economy. Hence, Chinese companies attempt to deploy Western models of CER. However, the academic perspective of this issue demonstrates numerous gaps in knowledge in regard to this phenomenon. Such a poor state of knowledge can be explained by absence of a distinct framework for studying the issue. Taking this point into account, the following paper provides a critical review of the article by Yang, Craig, and Farley (2015) that evaluates the current state of knowledge in regard to adoption of British CER practices to Chinese business environment.

Discussion

The research revolves around the question of standards of practicing various CER models in Chinese and UK academic literature. The paper focuses on the discussion of present frameworks, rules, and trends of academic insight of Chinese and British research literature on standards of Western CER practice applied to the Chinese environments. The paper outlines the problem that contemporary academic literature does not involve important factors of transporting Western practices of corporate environmental reporting in the framework of a proactively changing economic and business orientation (Belal & Cooper 2011). It is becoming increasingly apparent that the authors of the article paid particular attention to the theoretical perspective of the issue (Yang, Craig, & Farley 2015). The article does not evaluate the current state of Western practices of CER applied to Chinese environment but evaluate a scholar vision of this issue. Hence, the research problem of the article is based on vague academic understanding of implications related to appliance of Western CER practices in Chinese companies.

A special importance of this article is presented with review of the current state of knowledge in academic terms of the problem. The article does not address Western and Chinese practitioners of corporate environmental reporting but evaluates how researchers manage to reveal the insight of such practice. At the same time, the article promotes a much deeper view. First of all, the article mentions that the current academic knowledge disregards any common theory related to corporate governmental report (Yang, Craig, & Farley 2015). In such a way, the article orients the entire group of researchers towards incorporation of a profound theoretical framework in the related studies (Smith 2014). However, the writers also make a remark about a quite obvious mistake of the related academic literature: most of the reviewed papers neglect the socio-cultural perspective of the issue, which is why their vision of CER models’ transporting into Chinese economy is institutionalised but changing towards market layout (Ball & Craig 2010).

Nevertheless, the importance of this article is overestimated because of multiple reasons. First of all, evaluation of academic perspective of the problem does not render a direct impact on empirical evidence (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill 2009). Academic literature may discuss the issue in different ways and even present the fullest image of the implications related to British CER practice in Chinese business, but the factual state of the problem still can remain unchanged. Second, the outcomes of the article are excessively obvious meanwhile the methodology and initial purpose of the research are aimed to address the largest context of the research problem (Smith 2014). The article states an evident fact that cross-cultural and social barriers between Chinese business environment and Western models of corporate environmental reporting, which are the main concern for the contemporary practice in that regard (Xiao & Mi 2004). It is certainly true, but such outcomes do not make any significant contribution to the field of research (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill 2009).

As a consequence, the importance of the research initiative is also debatable. A need for evaluation of the academic consistency with factual state of the problem may have a substantial significance under circumstances of a distinct influence of academic findings on changing the standard of CER practice. Unfortunately, scientific perspective does not render sufficient capacity for policy-making as more and more business and accounting practitioners rely heavily on evidence-based practice and best expertise in the area meanwhile contemporary researches tend to present a descriptive value of their findings (Smith 2014). These characteristics are entirely applicable to the article under review. To the greatest extent, the problem of irrelevant transporting of Western CER models into Chinese business environment can be solved without making a preliminary research aimed at evaluation of the related academic literature (Shin 2014). This article could have obtained a different value provided that it was aimed at addressing general researching skill of the literature within the field (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill 2009). Still, the article attempts to give an account of global issues throughout a redundant perspective of academic literature.

The paper deploys multiple accounting and business theories, especially positive accounting theory, in order to place its research in specific terms (Yang, Craig, & Farley 2015). However, this strategy is valid because Chinese CER practice faces the most considerable hardships with implementing such reporting practice (Horsley 2007). The study explains that with the institutionalised background of Chinese business orientation, originally liberal approach is hardly applicable to organisational behaviour of companies with top-down corporate governance (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia 2009). Chinese business doctrine still does not recognise average workers as an independent decision-making entity so that positive accounting theory does not comply with governmentally controlled and top-regulated corporate environmental reporting (Yang, Craig, & Farley 2015). However, China gradually changes towards market economy and many companies feel helpless with the recently given freedom. This aspect has a profound socio-cultural implication, but the article did not mention the cross-cultural issue in that sense.

The article refers to various sources of theoretical as well as empirical evidence, but the main emphasis is placed on works by Horsley (2007); Ezzamel, Xiao, & Pan (2007); and Xiao & Mi. Beyond doubt, these works present the evidence for evaluation of the current state of knowledge in regard to the problem, which is why the choice of these sources as the foundation for the research is the appropriate decision. The references are chosen in relevance to the subject of the research, and they provide enough information for conducting a complete research (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill 2009). In addition to that, these sources as well as less significant ones provide the article with sampling material. The article not only refers to the evidence presented in these sources but also focuses on their discussion and evaluation with respect to the subject of the research (Yang, Craig, & Farley 2015). Hence, the choice of references is well-justified in the article.

To proceed to the methodology of the article, it is informative to note that this aspect is the weakest side of the research. The article used a mixed methodology, which included quantitative selection of Chinese and English language articles and their qualitative evaluation. Mixed methodology is unfeasible for such complex and profound research, especially under the circumstance of a hard combinability of articles’ quantity and their content. It is hard to argue that a mixed methodology should presuppose a distinct correlation between quantitative data and qualitative outcomes (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill 2009). Thus, such correlation is impossible in the research presented with the article. In addition, such approach does not suggest any distinct efficiency. A number of related academic works in English and Chinese, and presence of a particular content do not suggest direct conclusions, which can improve the current state of knowledge within the research field (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill 2009). For this reason, methodology of the article’s research is dramatically weak.

However, the sampling has been conducted with an appropriate profoundness since the selection of articles reviewed with the study is well-justified. The works discussed within the article are relevant to the subject and research problem so that the study managed to formulate its outcomes on the basis of these references. Therefore, critique of the article is also well-justified even though the study does not bring any significant outcomes (Smith 2014). The size of the sample is sufficient to make the best judgement of the issue, but the initial orientation towards academic literature as the main determinant of progress in CER practice in China is fairly irrelevant (Aston 2014). The quality of sampling strategy is satisfactory, but the subject and purpose of sampling leave much to be desired (Abdel 2011). In such a way, validity of the paper also entails explainable concerns once extents of methodology and sampling do not comply with purposes and outcomes of the article.

Nevertheless, the reliability of the paper is evidently high because its outcomes and relevance of the chosen sources for evaluation, sampling, and referencing are quality. In addition, outcomes of the article are obvious, but their credibility cannot be denied, which is why the study is sufficiently reliable. One should not confuse that with a validity of the research (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill 2009). As a matter of fact, the validity of the article is weak. The study does not suggest any effective solutions to the problem and states facts, which can be used within a narrow term of academic perspective of CER practice in China. The articles’ findings may motivate an academic community to widen its field of research in that regard, but it does not necessarily mean that these findings will be reflected in the empirical evidence.

The results of the sampling have been properly analysed. The authors completed a scrupulous analysis of the sampled academic works and identified a common problem with deployment of positive accounting theory in Chinese business environment (Shin 2014). By the same token, the article identified implications on differences in Western and Chinese business models in relation to organisational behaviour and hence standards of practicing CER (Yang, Craig, & Farley 2015). However, the article, failed to mention evidence of changing business orientation of China in the presented Chinese language articles. Consequently, the conclusion has been made on the basis of the general knowledge, which can be not apparent to specific audiences of the article.

Henceforth, consistency of conclusions and final remarks with the main analysis of the article can be confirmed. The article makes appropriate conclusions in spite of the fact that they are increasingly apparent to the target audience of the article. Furthermore, the study suggests that the future research should focus on the solution of distinct improvements in adaptation of Western CER models for Chinese business environment (Yang, Craig, & Farley 2015). Thus, the article conducted a preliminary research, which underpins such a need. However, this need is also apparent, especially to business entities within China and the United Kingdom. Overall, the article draws relevant conclusions, but it does not necessarily mean that the study has managed to make a significant contribution to the field of research.

Conclusion

It is appropriate to make a general comment on the fact that the article is mainly irrelevant in regard to the problem of adoption British CER models in Chinese companies. The article has chosen the irrelevant and redundant orientation for its research meanwhile the quality of the study itself is fairly high. For this reason, the main drawbacks of the article are initial redundant research problem and unfeasible methodology. The quality of the analysis, sampling, and drawing conclusions is satisfactory, but it does not render any advantages to the research outcomes once they are obvious or hardly applicable to a common practice. Thus, the further research suggested by the author is expected to improve and justify the quality of the article.