A unifying framework for accounting absence

Purpose This paper aims to offer a framework toward facilitating a holistic examination of accounting absence and presence and the transitions between. Design/methodology/approach We review key studies, both empirical and theoretical, on accounting absence/presence to assess the underlying themes in determining and explaining accounting absence. We assess the framework's practicality using case studies from Jacobs and Kemp (2002). Findings Our conceptual framework is based on three interrelated constructs – application of an accounting definition to a specific context/setting, trust conceptualization and materiality consideration. We further emphasize the importance of attending to calculative dimensions of trust and introduce both normalized and beyond normalized materiality as essential to examining accounting absence and presence across different institutional contexts. Research limitations/implications As a practical matter, we have elected to include specific constructs into a unifying framework for evaluating the presence/absence of accounting, which inherently involves the risk of omitting an important factor that may prove beneficial in particular settings. Practical implications As calls for expanding what constitutes accounting, and therefore what is valued by accounting, continue to rise, we focus on the null (i.e. accounting absence), providing a fundamental framework to support such important discussions. Social implications The values defined by accounting are culturally determined, often dominated by neoliberal Westernized ideals. Our framework holds the potential to fundamentally evaluate the presence or absence of accounting among differing social arrangements, increasing the possibility of a more inclusive accounting determination. Originality/value The accounting absence and presence literature developed within different institutional and cultural contexts, and among divergent theorizing, has resulted in conflicting findings and limited applicability. Our unifying framework potentially assists in resolving contradictory findings and debates in the literature, while also broadening its application across diverse contexts.