Although the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill was formally presented to the House of Commons and read a first time on March 1st, time for its second reading had not been found when…
Abstract
Although the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill was formally presented to the House of Commons and read a first time on March 1st, time for its second reading had not been found when the House adjourned for the Whitsuntide recess, in spite of the fact that Her Majesty's Government had applied the guillotine to the proceedings on the highly contentious Television Bill in the Committee stage. Moreover, the Finance Bill, though some progress has been made in dealing with amendments, will still need some days for the discussion of a large number of amendments and proposed new clauses of which notice has been given by members of different political allegiances. On May 26th the Leader of the House was asked by a Labour member whether trade interests had been pulling strings with the object of delaying the second reading of the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill. Mr. Crookshank, while discouraging the suggestion, did not seem ready to give any definite information with respect to the date when progress is likely to be made. Meanwhile, The Economist has published a letter from Mr. C. A. Adams, C.B.E, (whose exceptionally strong qualifications to write with authority are well known to administrators of Food and Drug law), suggesting that there is a strong case for enlarging the scope of the Amendment Bill so as to include cosmetics, as has been found desirable and practicable in Canada and in the United States. The British Food Journal is not hopeful that a Government which has scrapped the Labelling Advisory Service of the Ministry of Food will adopt Mr. Adams's excellent advice, nor that it will recognise that changes in circumstances since 1875 make it desirable now to eliminate the control of modern medicinal products—incapable of being chemically analysed—from the scope of an Act intended mainly to deal with food. But it is at least permissible to hope that legislators will not be so foolish as to agree in this session to the multiplication of small Food and Drugs Authorities, pending the long‐delayed reform in the structure of local government. On the unwisdom of this multiplication, Mr. H. E. Monk, B.Sc., F.R.I.C., public analyst for Kent and for many boroughs and urban districts in that county, is submitting some thoroughly wise comments in a paper on Food Standards which he is to present to the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration on June 23rd.
Sarah J. Williams and Carol A. Adams
The purpose of this paper is to examine how disclosure of employee issues by a large UK bank may or may not promote transparency and accountability (as assessed by the…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine how disclosure of employee issues by a large UK bank may or may not promote transparency and accountability (as assessed by the completeness of the account) toward the employee stakeholder group, and to shed light on the implications of the organisation‐society relationship for employee accountability.
Design/methodology/approach
The intrinsic stakeholder framework forms the basis of the qualitative, longitudinal analysis. It is adopted as the moral ground for the provision of a “complete” account of employee issues. In seeking to shed light on the organisation‐society relationship and its implications for reporting on employee issues the authors build a broader theoretical framework incorporating various social and political theories dealing with legitimacy, political economy, and language and rhetoric. Interpretive and critical approaches are employed. The analysis draws on an extensive review of published materials relating to employment in the UK retail banking industry and NatWest in particular, impacts of workplace changes occurring in the banking sector, and to the economic, social and political environment over the period of the study.
Findings
The findings indicate that what and how NatWest reported on employee issues was influenced by considerations other than transparency and employee accountability. The analysis highlights the complexity of the role of disclosures in the organisation‐society relationship and consequently the limitations of the use of a single theoretical framework to interpret disclosures.
Research limitations/implications
The longitudinal analysis indicates how reporting practices are issue and context dependent and points to the limitations of theorising in corporate social reporting based on a single time frame and a limited analysis of the reported issues.
Practical implications
In highlighting a lack of accountability to employees, the findings have implications for the development of reporting standards on issues relevant to employees. Over time, it is hoped that development of an employee inclusive reporting framework, along with exposure of the contradictory role that reports may play in promoting accountability, will contribute toward improved employee management practices.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the corporate social reporting literature by extending the analysis beyond the firm focused stakeholder management perspective to considering disclosures from a moral perspective and the extent to which the complex organisation‐society relationship might work against the promotion of transparency and accountability toward stakeholders (specifically employees). In this way, through an in‐depth longitudinal analysis of disclosures from multiple perspectives, the paper contributes to theorising of the role of social disclosure in the organisation‐society relationship.
Details
Keywords
Carol A. Adams and Carlos Larrinaga‐González
The purpose of this paper is to present a case for research in ethical, social and environmental (or sustainability) accounting and accountability which engages with those…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present a case for research in ethical, social and environmental (or sustainability) accounting and accountability which engages with those organisations claiming to manage and report their sustainability performance. In addition, the paper reviews the contributions in this special issue.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper provides an analysis and critique of the extent of engagement research in the field of sustainability accounting and accountability. It draws on the fields of management, management accounting and critical accounting to present a case for further research engagement with sustainability accounting and accountability practice.
Findings
The paper finds that the extant literature in the field of sustainability accounting and reporting, in contrast to the fields of management accounting and management, has largely ignored practice within organisations. The lack of “engaging research” is found to be due to concerns about increasing the breadth of participants in the social accounting agenda and “managerial capture”. The paper argues that further research engaging with organisations is needed in order to identify how accounting and management systems might reduce their negative sustainability impacts. The paper argues that such research can benefit from the methodological and theoretical insights of other disciplines.
Research limitations/implications
The paper suggests where further contributions might be made by future research endeavours engaging with organisations.
Practical implications
Engagement research in sustainability accounting and reporting has the potential to improve theorizing, practice and the sustainability performance of organisations.
Originality/value
Drawing on the methods and theories of other disciplines and the papers in the special issue, the paper presents a way forward for researchers engaging with organisations practicing sustainability accounting and reporting.
Details
Keywords
Carol A. Adams and Glen Whelan
The purpose of this paper is to conceptualise how future changes in corporate social disclosure (CSD), aimed at improving accountability for corporate performance to key…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to conceptualise how future changes in corporate social disclosure (CSD), aimed at improving accountability for corporate performance to key stakeholder groups, might be brought about.
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing on the work of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises with respect to human (and organisational) action and the work of Leon Festinger and Kurt Lewin with respect to human (and organisational) change, the paper examines how academics and other corporate stakeholders might effect changes in CSD.
Findings
Managers act in a way which maximises their formal happiness (from von Mises) and change occurs following the creation of cognitive dissonance (Festinger) which leads to “unfreezing” (Lewin). Stakeholders can effect change by creating cognitive dissonance. With specific reference to Anglo‐American limited liability and publicly traded corporations, such cognitive dissonance and unfreezing normally involves a perceived threat to profitability.
Research limitations/implications
Research and theorising in corporate social disclosure patterns should take as given: that the managers of Anglo‐American limited liability and publicly traded corporations continue to be strongly encouraged, via both legal and remunerative means, to maximize shareholder wealth; and that this state of affairs significantly influences the information which management choose to disclose. Future research might instead examine and consider means of creating sources of dissonance significant enough to result in managerial concern for change within the constraints imposed on managers of Anglo‐American corporations. Such research might be conducted by engaging with organisations and their stakeholders.
Practical implications
The findings have implications for the manner in which corporate stakeholders act and interrelate with others in order to effect change towards more complete and credible sustainability reports which demonstrate accountability for material impacts to key stakeholder groups.
Originality/value
The paper focuses on how change in corporate behaviour might be brought about given the personal motivations and institutional constraints imposed on the behaviour of corporate actors.
Details
Keywords
The Milk and Cream Standards Committee, of which Lord WENLOCK is Chairman, have commenced to take evidence, and at the outset have been met by the difficulty which must…
Abstract
The Milk and Cream Standards Committee, of which Lord WENLOCK is Chairman, have commenced to take evidence, and at the outset have been met by the difficulty which must necessarily attach to the fixing of a legal standard for most food products. The problem, which is applicable also to other food materials, is to fix a standard for milk, cream and butter which shall be fair and just both to the producer and the consumer. The variation in the composition of these and other food products is well known to be such that, while standards may be arrived at which will make for the protection of the public against the supply of grossly‐adulterated articles, standards which shall insure the supply of articles of good quality cannot possibly be established by legal enactments. If the Committee has not yet arrived at this conclusion we can safely predict that they will be compelled to do so. A legal standard must necessarily be the lowest which can possibly be established, in order to avoid doing injustice to producers and vendors. The labours of the Committee will no doubt have a good effect in certain directions, but they cannot result in affording protection and support to the vendor of superior products as against the vendor of inferior ones and as against the vendor of products which are brought down by adulteration to the lowest legal limits. Neither the labours of this committee nor of any similar committee appointed in the future can result in the establishment of standards which will give a guarantee to the consumer that he is receiving a product which has not been tampered with and which is of high, or even of fair, quality.