Accounting at a Theoretical Crossroad: Re-Articulating Professional Logic through a Multi-Perspective Synthesis

Purpose: This paper addresses growing concerns about the capacity of representational and measurement-centred frameworks to account for contemporary accounting practice. It positions accounting at a theoretical crossroads and seeks to re-articulate professional logic through a multi-perspective synthesis that brings together institutional, epistemic, justificatory, and valuation-based insights.

Design/methodology/approach: The study adopts a conceptual and interpretive approach. It develops an integrative analytical framework through systematic engagement with post-2020 accounting and organizational literatures, complemented by illustrative reasoning to clarify how key mechanisms operate in practice. The analysis is explicitly non-empirical and mechanism-oriented.

Findings: The paper shows that accounting operates as a professional practice oriented toward mediating institutional complexity, constructing knowledge through epistemic judgment, legitimising decisions via justificatory practices, and framing value in ways that shape governance outcomes. These mechanisms interact to sustain professional authority under conditions of uncertainty.

Originality/value: By synthesising fragmented theoretical streams, the study offers a coherent re-articulation of accounting’s professional logic. Rather than proposing a new grand theory, it provides an analytical lens that connects existing perspectives and clarifies their interrelations.

Theoretical implications: The analysis challenges the sufficiency of representational assumptions and reframes accounting rationality as a process of justified valuation under uncertainty. It advances accounting theory by integrating institutional, epistemic, and valuation perspectives within a single explanatory framework.

Practical and societal implications: The findings highlight the importance of transparency in justification and professional judgment for accountability and public trust, suggesting limits to purely standardisation-based approaches.