Search results

Motivated by claims that the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IRF) can be used to comply with Directive 2014/95/EU (the EU Directive) on non-financial and diversity disclosure, the purpose of this study is to examine whether companies can comply with corporate reporting laws using de facto standards or frameworks.

The authors adopted an interpretivist approach to research along with current regulatory studies that aim to investigate business compliance with the law using private sector standards. To support the authors’ arguments, publicly available secondary data sources were used, including newsletters, press releases and websites, reports from key players within the accounting profession, public documents issued by the European Commission and data from corporatergister.com.

To become a de facto standard or framework, a private standard-setter requires the support of corporate regulators to mandate it in a specific national jurisdiction. The de facto standard-setter requires a powerful coalition of actors who can influence the policymakers to allow its adoption and diffusion at a national level to become mandated. Without regulatory support, it is difficult for a private and voluntary reporting standard or framework to be adopted and diffused. Moreover, the authors report that the <IRF> preferences stock market capitalism over sustainability because it privileges organisational sustainability over social and environmental sustainability, emphasises value creation over holding organisations accountable for their impact on society and the environment and privileges the entitlements of providers of financial capital over other stakeholders.

The authors question the suitability of the goals of both the <IRF> and the EU Directive during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The planned changes to both need rethinking as we head into uncharted waters. Moreover, the authors believe that the people cannot afford any more reporting façades.

The authors offer a critical analysis of the link between the <IRF> and the EU Directive and how the <IRF> can be used to comply with the EU Directive. By questioning the relevance of the compliance question, the authors advance a critique about the relevance of these and other legal and de facto frameworks, particularly considering the more pressing needs that must be met to address the economic, social and environmental implications of the COVID-19 crisis.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretically informed analysis of a struggle for power over the regulation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social and environmental accounting and reporting (SEAR) within the European Union.

The paper combines insights from institutional theory (Lawrence and Buchanan, 2017) with Vaara et al.’s (2006) and Vaara and Tienar’s (2008) discursive strategies approach in order to interrogate the dynamics of the institutional “arena” that emerged in 2001, following the European Commission’s publication of a Green Paper (GP) on CSR policy and reporting. Drawing on multiple sources of data (including newspaper coverage, semi-structured interviews and written submissions by companies and NGOs), the authors analyse the institutional political strategies employed by companies and NGOs – two of the key stakeholder groupings who sought to influence the dynamics and outcome of the European initiative.

The results show that the 2001 GP was a “triggering event” (Hoffman, 1999) that led to the formation of the institutional arena that centred on whether CSR policy and reporting should be voluntary or mandatory. The findings highlight how two separate, but related forms of power (systemic and episodic power) were exercised much more effectively by companies compared to NGOs. The analysis of the power initiatives and discursive strategies deployed in the arena provides a theoretically informed understanding of the ways in which companies acted in concert to reach their objective of maintaining CSR and SEAR as a voluntary activity.

The theoretical framework outlined in the paper highlights how the analysis of CSR and SEAR regulation can be enriched by examining the deployment of episodic and systemic power by relevant actors.

Social and environmental reports have become an increasingly regulated area of corporate reporting and communication. Nevertheless, the substance and level of detail present in such disclosures is largely at the discretion of companies, which has implications for the value of such disclosures to stakeholders. The purpose of this study is to shed light on social visibility as a determinant of the variation in substance found in social disclosures in order to understand underlying reasons for why some firms offer more substance than others in their social disclosures.

Based on a number of hypotheses, which are combined into social visibility, the paper investigates whether a firm's social visibility is a determinant of substance in social disclosures. To this end, the case of modern slavery statements is used as a recently introduced and legally mandated form of social sustainability disclosures.

The findings suggest that social visibility can explain part of the variation in the substance of social disclosures. However, for the remaining part, it is argued that substance in social disclosures can also be driven by institutional logics, which shape organizational outcomes in specific contexts, but are largely unobservable.

This article contributes new insights to the literature on the relationship between corporate social visibility and the substance of social disclosures.

Burrell (2020) challenged management and organization studies (MOS) scholars to pay attention to a topic they have mostly ignored: the peasantry, those 2 billion people that work in the rural primary sector. This paper aims to address the topic to expand Burrell’s challenge by indicating that the peasantry offers a unique context to study a paradoxical condition: the coexistence of persistent poverty and vanguardist innovation.

The authors advance conceptual arguments that complement the reasons why researchers should pay more attention to the peasantry. They argue that continuation of past research into field laborers, transitioning from feudalism to industrial capitalism, still has currency, not just because of the good reasons listed by Burrell (enduring relevance of the phenomenon in developing countries; sustainability concerns; acknowledgment of common heritage) but also because some seemingly archaic practices are evident in the economically developed countries where most management and organizations scholars live.

The authors show that in advanced economies, the peasantry has not disappeared, and it is manifested in contradictory forms, as positive force contributing to sustainable productivity (in the case of digitized agriculture) and as a negative legacy of social inequality and exploitation (as a form of modern slavery).

The authors discuss contrasting themes confronting management of the peasantry, namely, modern slavery and digital farming, and propose that a paradox view may help overcome unnecessary dualisms, which may promote social exclusion rather than integrated development.

The initial rationale for developing integrated reporting included addressing the failures of traditional reporting to address sustainability issues. Subsequently, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) modified its stated objectives to emphasise integrated thinking and value creation. There has been debate on whether the IIRC’s process for developing its integrated reporting framework was subject to regulatory capture by the accounting profession (Flower, 2015; Adams, 2015; Thomson, 2015). This paper aims to provide additional evidence on the extent to which this regulatory capture occurred, with an update on current developments.

Data from interviews with key participants in the integrated reporting framework’s development and the IIRC’s Council and Working Group meeting minutes were analysed to identify to what extent the change in the IIRC’s focus can be explained by regulatory capture theory.

The findings show that the integrated reporting framework’s development was subject to regulatory capture by accountants. However, the extent of capture was mitigated to some extent by processes adopted in its development. This is consistent with regulatory capture theory.

This paper critically examines the debate on the extent to which the sustainability message has been lost as a result of regulatory capture. It provides an in-depth analysis of the IIRC’s treatment of sustainability which explores the application of regulatory capture theory and examines evidence not considered in previous studies.

This paper aims to introduce the special issue “Extractivism and the Links between International Business and People’s Struggles,” which is part of our joint research efforts oriented to advance critical knowledge on the impacts and strategies of extractive transnational corporations and social struggles against them.

This paper presents and discusses contemporary aspects of extractivism and their impacts on nature and livelihood. In a second moment, it introduces and reflects on the four articles that compose the special issue “Extractivism and the Links between International Business and People’s Struggles”.

Extractivism is destructive of nature and livelihoods. As reaction to its destructive logic, millions of people have organized to struggle against extractivist projects around the world. The publication of this special issue is part of authors’ joint research efforts oriented to advance critical knowledge on the impacts and strategies of extractive corporations and social struggles against them. The lessons that the authors learned in their research and their experiences in these struggles were the key motivating factors that led them to organize this special issue, exploring radical alternatives to extractivism, alternatives that have as fundamental criterion the production and reproduction of life.

The value of this introduction is to present and discuss the four articles of the special issue “Extractivism and the Links between International Business and People’s Struggles,” which compose a rich mosaic of themes that emerge in the struggles against extractive projects worldwide, creating a relevant picture of the main defies imposed by extractivism and its negative impacts, from political corporate social responsibility to discourses, from relational ontology to the relations among state, corporations and social movements.

This study aims to examine the relationship and effect of integrated reporting (IR) quality on sustainability performance and explore the relationships and effects of corporate governance mechanisms on IR quality and sustainability performance.

Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used in a longitudinal study by following the steps in Roemer’s Evolutionary Model on a sample of listed companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) in South Africa for a period from 2011 to 2016.

This study finds board effectiveness and external audit quality to be important determinants of IR quality. It also observes a strong effect of the IR quality on sustainability performance.

This study contributes by using and analysing a longitudinal data set from JSE, currently the only capital market globally requiring the mandatory IR application since 2010.