The paradox of accounting for cultural heritage: a longitudinal study on the financial reporting of heritage assets of major Australian public cultural institutions (1992-2019)

Purpose The monetary valuation of cultural heritage of a selection of 16 major public, not-for-profit Australian cultural institutions is examined over a period of almost three decades (1992-2019) to understand how they have responded to the paradoxical tensions of heritage valuation for financial reporting purposes. Design/methodology/approach Accounting for cultural heritage is an intrinsically paradoxical practice; it involves a conflict of two opposite ways of attributing value: the traditional accounting and the heritage professionals (or curatorial) approaches. In analysing the annual reports and other documentary sources through qualitative content analysis, the study explores how different actors responded to the conceptual and technical contradictions posed by the monetary valuation of heritage assets, the accounting phraseology of accounting standards. Findings Four phases emerge from the analysis undertaken of the empirical material, each characterised by a distinctive nature of the paradox, the institutional responses discerned and the outcomes. Although a persisting heterogeneity in the practice of accounting for cultural heritage is evident, responses by cultural institutions are shown to have minimised, so far, the negative impacts of monetary valuation in terms of commercialisation of deaccessioning decisions and distorted accountability. Originality/value In applying the theoretical lens of paradox theory in the context of the financial reporting of heritage, as assets, the study enhances an understanding of the challenges and responses by major public cultural institutions in a country that has led this development globally, providing insights to accounting standard setters arising from the accounting practices observed.

Automated summary

This study examines the monetary valuation of cultural heritage of 16 major public, not-for-profit Australian cultural institutions over almost three decades (1992-2019) to understand their responses to the paradoxical tensions of heritage valuation for financial reporting purposes. The analysis reveals four phases characterized by distinct nature of the paradox, institutional responses, and outcomes, showing that although there is heterogeneity in the practice of accounting for cultural heritage, cultural institutions have minimized the negative impacts of monetary valuation in terms of commercialization and distorted accountability.