bjectivity is a cornerstone of legitimacy in accounting, yet its evolution shows it cannot be seen merely as a
neutral reflection of economic reality. The positivist approach grounded objectivity in observability,
measurement, and the separation of the observer from reality—treating financial information as a neutral
representation of events. Post-positivism shifted the basis of objectivity to testability, fallibility, and
intersubjective agreement, emphasizing independent critique over the pursuit of definitive truth. Constructivist
and critical approaches revealed that financial statements are shaped by language, professional institutions,
and power relations, with accounting constructing—not merely recording—reality.
In this context, objectivity has transitioned from a property of numbers to a property of process: transparency
about assumptions, documentation of judgments, and independent review replace claims of neutrality. In
complex valuations and high-risk environments, the traditional three dimensions of objectivity—evidential,
measurement, and verification—are insufficient on their own, and the auditor’s role shifts from verifying
outcomes to evaluating the logic and methods used to produce the figures.
Drawing on philosophy of science and critical accounting literature, this paper argues that objectivity is a
multi-layered, institutional construct whose strengthening requires a focus on process, transparency, and
professional accountability.