Search results

This study examines how accounting tools and techniques are used to create and support membership and reporting boundaries for a multi-entity sustainability scheme. It also considers whether boundary setting for this initiative helps to connect corporate activity with planetary boundaries and the SDGs.

A case study of a national agrifood sustainability scheme, analysing extensive documentary data and multi-entity sustainability reports. The concept of partial organising is used to frame the analysis.

Accounting, in the form of planning, verification, target setting, annual review and reporting, can be used to create a membership and a reporting boundary. Accounting tools and techniques support the scheme's standard-setting and monitoring elements. The study demonstrates that the scheme offers innovation in how sustainability reporting is managed. However, it does not currently provide a cumulative assessment of the effect of the sector's activity on ecological carrying capacity or connect this activity to global sustainability indicators.

Future research can build on this study's insights to further develop our understanding of multi-entity sustainability reporting and accounting's role in organising for sustainability. The authors identify several research avenues including: boundary setting in ecologically significant sectors, integrating global sustainability indicators at sectoral and organisational levels, sustainability controls in multi-entity settings and the potential of multi-entity reporting to provide substantive disclosure.

This paper provides insight into accounting's role in boundary setting for a multi-entity sustainability initiative. It adds to our understanding of the potential of a multi-entity reporting boundary to support connected measurement between corporate activity and global sustainability indicators. It builds on work on partial organising and provides insight into how accounting can support this form of organising for sustainability.

This paper explores the subpolitical role and main characteristics of a specific accounting technique, sustainability reporting boundaries. Its focus is on how the sett2ing of sustainability reporting boundaries affects the definition and distribution of social risks along the supply chain, particularly the risks related to working condition and human rights.

The paper draws on Beck's (1986) exploration of the ways in which techno-economic spheres offer opportunities for the politicisation of new areas. It is argued that the sphere of sustainability reporting offers that opportunity for the politicisation of supply chains. Using the case of Inditex, the historical context of initiatives relating to the ready-made garment (RMG) industry at global, European and industry level as well as media coverage on the entity are analysed; this is correlated with the analysis of boundary setting in relation to sustainability reports, focusing specifically on working conditions.

The analysis suggests that accounting technologies that set contested boundaries are subpolitical, that is, defined outside traditional political processes. The paper finds that the way social risks are framed along the supply chain renders them invisible and impersonal and that the framing of these risks becomes endless as they are contested by different groups of experts. Setting sustainability reporting boundaries has subpolitical properties in producing and framing those risks, whilst is simultaneously limited by the inherent politicisation of such an exercise. The questionable legitimacy of sustainability reporting boundaries calls for the construction not only of discursive justifications but also of new possibilities for political participation.

The analysis is limited to working conditions along one organisation's supply chain.

The contribution of this paper is threefold: (1) It studies in-depth how working conditions in global supply chains are portrayed in sustainability reports. (2) It answers the call to study accounting technologies themselves, in this case sustainability reporting boundaries. (3) It extends Beck's work on global ecological dangers to working conditions in global supply chains to explore how sustainability reporting boundaries are subpolitically involved in the definition and distribution of social risks along the supply chain.

The purpose of this paper is to use a multi-disciplinary theoretical understanding of boundary setting to develop a quadripartite model in which sustainability reporting boundaries are classified as “Reputation Management”, “Ownership and Control”, “Accountability”; and, “Stakeholder Engagement”. Content analysis is then used to empirically test the model.

Using impression management theory, rationalism, systems and contingency theory, and network theory, a model is created which classifies sustainability reporting boundaries. Content analysis is used to empirically test boundaries across the disclosure of 49 GRI topics by the FTSE100.

Sustainability reporting fails to discharge accountability due to adoption of narrow “Reputation Management” boundaries. Boundaries are significantly (p<0.0001) narrower than previous research suggests. Findings support impression management theory as the strongest theory to predict reporting content. An ownership and control boundary, although widely criticized, represents the boundary of progressive reporters, lending marginal support for economic theories. Accountability boundaries are scarce. No evidence was found for stakeholder engagement boundaries.

The determination of boundary is critical to the discharge of accountability. A critical consideration of boundary setting is required, including authentic stakeholder engagement in determining boundaries and transparency of boundary adopted. The results are ranked to enable benchmarking of the FTSE100. Boundaries can be widened through regulation or “name and shame campaigns”.

This paper provides a theory-informed advancement in thinking on sustainability reporting boundary setting and the importance of this for advancing sustainability reporting quality.

The purpose of this paper is to enhance conceptual understanding of reporting boundaries in corporate annual reports by developing a conceptual framework of the rules and principles, referred to here as dimensions, underlying boundaries. A total of nine contemporary regulations/guidelines are compared in terms of the boundary dimensions identified to illustrate similarities and differences in boundary concepts.

To develop a conceptual framework of reporting boundary dimensions, academic and industry literature were analysed to identify boundary dimensions. Thereafter, nine contemporary regulations/guidelines were compared in terms of these dimensions. A qualitative approach was taken including document analysis and content analysis.

A total of 10 key boundary dimensions were identified through analysis of academic and industry literature. Each dimension represents a continuum along which regulations/guidelines can position themselves. Taken together, the 10 dimensions provide a comprehensive description of the chosen boundary concept.

The paper contributes to accounting theory by providing a holistic conceptual framework of dimensions relating to reporting boundaries, thus answering calls for more conceptual development of the boundary construct. The conceptual framework and comparison of contemporary regulations/guidelines adds to scarce literature considering financial and non-financial boundaries simultaneously, which is relevant for annual reports. From a practical perspective, the paper brings renewed visibility to boundaries with implications for preparers, users, standard setters and auditors of annual reports.

The field of Supply Chain Management (SCM) has mainly focused on applications for large firms, where significant amount of theory has been developed in the last decades. Little attention has been received by micro and small enterprises (MSEs) that in Latin America represent approximately 99% of all businesses and are the key for the development of the economy, employment, and growth of the region. Due to MSEs' lack of productivity, only a fraction of them survive and thus contribute to Latin America's economic growth. In this chapter, we discuss the connection between MSEs' productivity growth and SCM. We present key takeaways from the literature and summarized different research approaches used to study this emerging field, specifically related to the impact of the size of the company, the use of surveys to gather data, and the importance of field interventions. We also present a large-scale project (i.e., MIT GeneSys) that focuses on improving survival of MSEs in developing countries and discuss some preliminary learnings gained via conducting shadowing/immersion of ∼250 MSEs from Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. We conclude the chapter by presenting some recommendations for the future research agenda for the emerging field of SCM for MSEs in Latin America.

This paper discusses the evolution of sustainability reporting and the role of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in relation to the social and environmental accounting (SEA) literature calling for a revolution in the standardization of sustainability reporting and the inherent complexities. This paper focuses on the future role of GRI in light of the changes resulting from harmonization supported by the International Sustainability Standards Board and the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group’s draft European Sustainability Reporting Directive.

Building on Bourdieu (1983, 1992) and SEA studies, the authors adopt a critical and qualitative approach to theorize power dynamics in the sustainability reporting field. After identifying the main issues arising from the complexity of the sustainability reporting standards and practices according to SEA scholars, the authors connect them with Bourdieu’s (1992, 1983) field theory to discuss the future role of GRI.

The findings suggest two distinct but intertwined roles that GRI could play in the future, namely, power related and theoretical/technical, aimed at engendering revolutionary rather than evolutionary changes in sustainability reporting.

This study offers practical implications for GRI to strengthen its future role in sustainability reporting standardization.

The limited time available to mitigate the disastrous consequences of non-sustainable business on society and the environment calls for urgently addressing the complexities of sustainability accounting to foster a positive impact on society and the environment.

The authors’ reflections reclaim the SEA literature as central to identifying sustainability complexity and Bourdieu’s (1983, 1992) notions of power as key to understanding the role of GRI in the sustainability field. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes the intersection of different critical concepts, including power, complexity, value, capital and materiality.

With the initial focus on the extreme end of the work conditions continuum where, in the last decade, legislation has been introduced to combat illegal and illegitimate practices, this issue's lead paper provides an overview on key topics of extreme work conditions of modern slavery and accounting. The paper introduces the Special Issue on “Accounting for modern slavery, employees and work conditions in business” and its selected papers.

The method adopted is a wide-ranging literature review exploring the continuum of work conditions and their relationship to accounting, especially extreme exploitation of workers through modern slavery.

Employment and workplace conditions and practices in business can be viewed as a continuum ranging from the illegal and illegitimate practices of modern slavery, through unethical and often illegal practices such as wages theft, to decent work. Given this continuum, in this Special Issue avenues are identified for accounting research to provide an account of the effectiveness of actions taken to eliminate modern slavery and overcome grey areas of work conditions.

The paper helps to create an improved understanding of different types of exploitation in work conditions in different industries and the role accounting might play in research and practice.

Slavery did not end with abolition in the 19th century. Instead, it changed its forms and continues to harm people in every country in the world especially in certain industries, of which several are discussed and accounting advice proffered. Likewise, as reflected in Special Issue papers, the role of accounting in reducing less extreme forms of poor work conditions is also considered.

The paper provides an overview of different forms and degrees of exploitation in work conditions and identifies the need for and areas of accounting research in this emerging area.

This review aims to summarize the extent to which sustainability dimensions are covered in the selected qualitative literature, the theoretical and ontological underpinnings that have informed sustainability research and the qualitative methodologies used in that literature.

This study uses a systematic review to examine prior empirical studies in sustainability reporting between 2000 and 2021.

This review contributes to sustainability research by identifying unexplored and underexplored areas for future studies, such as Indigenous people’s rights, employee health and safety practice, product responsibility, gender and leadership diversity. Institutional and stakeholder theories are widely used in the selected literature, whereas moral legitimacy remains underexplored. The authors suggest that ethnographic and historical research will increase the richness of academic research findings on sustainability reporting.

This review is limited to qualitative studies only because its richness allows researchers to apply various methodological and theoretical approaches to understand engagement in sustainability reporting practice.

This review follows a novel approach of bringing the selected studies’ scopes, theories and methodologies together. This approach permits researchers to formulate a research question coherently using a logical framework for a research problem.

In the context of increasing competition between chained retailers and family-owned retailers, it is key to understand the customer's format choice. Using a logistics regression (i.e., binary logit) model, we explain customers' preference to buy in supermarkets or in small-scale, mom-and-pop stores like nanostores. We collect a representative sample of over 110 surveys from customers in the district of Surco, Lima, Perú, which is a representative area of the features of Lima's residents. We asked customers to focus on analyzing their preference between two retail formats: modern channel (i.e., big-box retailers, supermarkets, and hypermarkets) and traditional channel (i.e., mom-and-pop stores, nanostores). Our surveys included factors pertaining retail format attributes as well as factors related to the purchasing process. The results showed that time available for purchase and a comparatively better perceived service at a mom-and-pop store (i.e., nanostore) are significant factors that explain a higher probability of selecting these retailers, while a better store's ambience benefits more supermarkets. The overall discrete choice model is able to explain 65% of the variance using pseudo R-squared of the actual format choice decisions.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the progress and future prospects of two relatively “new” institutions in this field: the European Commission (EC), together with the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation.

This paper reflexively analyses the recent events that characterise the European Union (EU) regulatory standard-setting landscape in the sustainability field. It is mainly based on publicly available documents.

After analysing the different routes followed to enter the field, this paper shows how the EC/EFRAG takes a wider view than the IFRS Foundation on certain key reporting aspects, that is, target audience, materiality and reporting boundary. As for the reporting scope, although it seems that the IFRS Foundation has a more restrictive vision, it is working to broaden it.

This paper provides some ideas about the potential cooperation between the two institutions. This paper also highlights some potential problems stemming not only from their intrinsic characteristics but also from the routes they have taken to enter the field.

By envisioning how the EU sustainability reporting standard-setting landscape might evolve, this paper sheds light on how companies might need to approach sustainability reporting to adapt to the new institutional demands. Suggestions for collaboration between the two institutions could help them reach common ground and, thus, prevent misunderstandings for companies and stakeholders.

The reflections and takeaways benefit from the authors’ first-hand information, as both are involved in the EU process. The authors could, therefore, feed into further discussions on the developments and challenges facing the EU in this domain.