Dennis M. Patten and Hyemi Shin
The purpose of this paper is to review and assess Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal (SAMPJ)’s contributions to the body of sustainability disclosure…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to review and assess Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal (SAMPJ)’s contributions to the body of sustainability disclosure research.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors review the 31 sustainability disclosure-themed articles published in SAMPJ up through Volume 8 (2017) and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the body of research, as well as its contributions to the understanding of the reporting phenomenon.
Findings
The assessment by the authors suggests SAMPJ has been very inclusive with respect to methods and topics, although we note certain areas where future research could be expanded.
Research limitations/implications
The authors limit the review to articles in SAMPJ, so they cannot assess the degree to which the general findings as to trends might reflect the overall body of sustainability disclosure research.
Practical implications
The review provides suggestions for where researchers looking to publish in SAMPJ might focus so as to enhance the overall body of knowledge.
Social implications
The primary social implication is that the preponderance of the evidence in the articles the authors review suggests that sustainability disclosure remains incomplete, biased and driven by concerns with legitimation. As such, it provides more evidence in support of the need for better regulation and enforcement.
Originality/value
While prior studies have summarized aspects of social and environmental accounting in general or with regard to specific journals, none has assessed the contributions specifically to sustainability disclosure research through this journal.
Details
Keywords
This chapter explores the adaptation and evolution of stand-alone CSR reporting in two different political economies and late-capitalist countries: Brazil and South Korea. Instead…
Abstract
Purpose
This chapter explores the adaptation and evolution of stand-alone CSR reporting in two different political economies and late-capitalist countries: Brazil and South Korea. Instead of selecting between new institutionalism and the varieties of capitalism (VOC) approach, this study attempts to explore how the interaction between converging and diverging pressures appears in the adaptation and evolution of stand-alone CSR reporting (i.e., cross-fertilization process) in two countries.
Design/methodology/approach
Using qualitative content analysis this study focuses on the frameworks of CSR reports and the way CSR issues are described within the stand-alone CSR reports of four telecommunication companies in Brazil and South Korea.
Findings
Even though CSR reports in both countries have become similar due to the convergence of frameworks of CSR reporting, the key themes and the representation on each theme are still embedded within each form of market economy: a hierarchical market economy (HME) in Brazil and a network market economy (NME) in South Korea. From a cross-fertilization perspective, this chapter shows that the adaptation and evolution of CSR reporting occurs at two different levels of CSR reporting.
Value
This study has three major values. First, it explains the two different levels of the adaptation and evolution process of CSR reporting by bringing a dynamic cross-fertilization view. Second, it provides a qualitative study that focuses on the content of CSR disclosures instead of the quantity of those disclosures. Lastly, it contributes to the academic and practical research on CSR in late-capitalist countries and in two under-researched types of political economies.
Details
Keywords
Arthur Gautier, Anne-Claire Pache, Imran Chowdhury and Marion Ligonie
This paper seeks to understand how new practices that challenge established norms and values become institutionalized by studying the development of corporate philanthropy in…
Abstract
This paper seeks to understand how new practices that challenge established norms and values become institutionalized by studying the development of corporate philanthropy in France over three decades (1979–2011). Our inductive qualitative study uncovers the processes that enable actors at both field- and organizational-levels to enhance a new practice’s internal and external legitimacy, ultimately leading to its institutionalization. In particular, we identify the central role of a community of practice as a bridge between the field-level, purposive interventions (theorizing, influencing policy) of an institutional entrepreneur and the organizational-level, emergent interventions (mobilizing, embedding) of frontline practitioners experimenting with the new divergent practice, thereby enabling its legitimation and, ultimately, its institutionalization. As such, our findings contribute to refining our understanding of institutionalization processes as inherently distributed and to uncovering communities of practice as the missing link between “heroic” entrepreneurs’ interventions and the hidden work of frontline practitioners implementing the new practice.
Details
Keywords
This study aims to study the role of co-production among heterogenous actors to achieve a digital transformation for public service delivery. The importance of building legitimacy…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to study the role of co-production among heterogenous actors to achieve a digital transformation for public service delivery. The importance of building legitimacy and public value creation during the journey of adopting new technology is mainly discussed through analyzing the case of blockchain-based decentralized identity (DID) in South Korea (Korea).
Design/methodology/approach
Using a qualitative method, the conceptual framework for this study draws on public value theory that highlights co-production approaches on adoption and diffusion of new information system.
Findings
The results of this study provide empirical support for the claim that co-constructive and cross-sector partnership is critical to the adoption of blockchain-based DID and to maximize the value-in-use and increase citizens’ participation.
Originality/value
This study suggests a new perspective, which contributes to the information system literature and the phenomenological analysis by investigating co-constructive partnership among cross-sector organizations through the legitimacy-building process, which has not been much empirically researched.
Details
Keywords
Charles H. Cho, Giovanna Michelon, Dennis M. Patten and Robin W. Roberts
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure is receiving increased attention from the mainstream accounting research community. In general, this recently published research…
Abstract
Purpose
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure is receiving increased attention from the mainstream accounting research community. In general, this recently published research has failed to engage significantly with prior CSR-themed studies. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it examines whether more recent CSR reporting differs from that of the 1970s. Second, it investigates whether one of the major findings of prior CSR research – that disclosure appears to be largely a function of exposure to legitimacy factors – continues to hold in more recent reporting. Third, it examines whether, as argued within the more recent CSR-themed studies, disclosure is valued by market participants.
Design/methodology/approach
Using Fortune 500 data from the late 1970s (from Ernst & Ernst, 1978) and a more recent sample (2010), the authors identify differences in CSR disclosure by computing adequate measures in terms of disclosure breadth and comparing them for any potential changes in the influence of legitimacy factors between 1977 and 2010. In the second stage of the analysis, the authors use a standard valuation model to compare the association between CSR and firm value between the two time periods.
Findings
The authors first find that the breadth of CSR disclosure increased significantly, with respect to both environmental and social information provision. Second, the authors find that the relationship among legitimacy factors and CSR disclosure does not differ across the two time periods. However, the analysis focusing on environmental disclosure provides evidence that industry membership is less powerfully related to differences in reporting, but only for the weighted disclosure score. Finally, the results indicate that CSR disclosure, in apparent contrast to the arguments of the more recent mainstream investigations, is not positively valued by investors.
Research limitations/implications
The authors explore changes in CSR disclosure only for industrial firms and as such the authors cannot generalize findings to companies in other industries. Similarly, the authors focus only on companies in the USA while different relationships may hold in other countries. Further, the disclosure metrics are limited by the availability of firm-specific information provided by Ernst & Ernst. Limitations aside, however, the findings appear to suggest that the failure of the new wave of CSR research in the mainstream accounting community to acknowledge and consider prior research into social and environmental accounting is potentially troublesome. Specifically, recent CSR disclosure research published in mainstream journals often lends credence to voluntary disclosure arguments that ignore previous contradictory findings and well-established alternative explanations for observed empirical relationships.
Practical implications
This paper provides supporting evidence that the unquestioned acceptance by the new wave of CSR researchers that the disclosure is about informing investors as opposed to being a tool of legitimation and image enhancement makes it less likely that such disclosure will ever move meaningfully toward transparent accountability.
Originality/value
The study suggests that CSR disclosure, while used more extensively today than three decades ago, may still largely be driven by concerns with corporate legitimacy, and still fails to provide information that is relevant for assessing firm value. As such, the failure of the mainstream accounting community to acknowledge this possibility can only hinder the ultimate development of better accountability for all of the impacts of business.
Details
Keywords
Anand Gurumurthy and Rambabu Kodali
According to the literature, on an average, it takes around three to four years to develop a new product and about 50 percent of the costs incurred in product development (PD…
Abstract
Purpose
According to the literature, on an average, it takes around three to four years to develop a new product and about 50 percent of the costs incurred in product development (PD) tend to be spent on waste that occurs during the PD process. Hence, organizations are implementing various alternative methodologies such as Concurrent Engineering (CE), Lean Product Development (LPD)/Lean New Product Development (LNPD), and Agile Product Development (APD)/Agile New Product Development (ANPD) to improve their existing PD process. However, it is not clear: how does an organisation or a PD manager choose between these alternative methodologies for improving their PD process?
Design/methodology/approach
Since the above‐mentioned problem requires multiple factors/criteria/elements (in short, it will be called as “attributes” for the sake of simplicity) to be considered simultaneously; the use of a Multi‐Attribute Decision Making (MADM) model is warranted. The most commonly used MADM model, namely the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is utilized to model the above problem using a hypothetical case situation.
Findings
In this paper, the different attributes that are to be considered while making a decision of selecting a suitable PD methodology were identified. Furthermore, the results of AHP indicated that LPD is a better alternative for the case situation under consideration.
Originality/value
According to the authors' knowledge, no paper exists in the literature of AHP or PD or LPD/LNPD that discusses the application of AHP for the selection of a product development methodology, especially for making a strategic decision in a product design and development department of an organisation.