Search results

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the contribution of the Mike Power’s Audit Society and associated papers from the 1990s to the (then) emerging field of environmental accounting. The paper also looks forward to how these seminal ideas are influenced by accounting in the Anthropocene, as examined in more recent sustainability accounting literature.

This is a reflective essay, drawing from the broad sweep of social, environmental and sustainability accounting literature.

The performativity of accounting and audit, as it pertains to the practices of environmental audit and sustainability reporting, is clearly evident, with Power’s work contributing significantly to this conceptualisation. At the same time, there is also a material dimension to this process. Indeed, distinguishing first and second-order risk (drawing from Power and others) is a critical and ongoing task for sustainability accounting.

We suggest that the Anthropocene offers challenges to the notion of the performativity of audit and reporting.

This paper aims to examine the processes of sustainability reporting assurance (SRA) and the influence they have on shaping perception from disclosures. Given the evidence of inconsistencies and ambiguities in assurance processes, this paper examines how legitimacy is attained and maintained at different stages of SRA.

Evidence collected from 23 semi-structured interviews with assurance providers (APs), consultants, professionals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (non-APs) was used to conduct a thematic analysis from the perspectives of interviewees.

APs and non-APs are united in recognising the value of SRA, although, perspectives on transparency between the two groups differ. Experience and industry knowledge are essential to SRA delivery with non-APs preferring accounting APs. Nevertheless, non-APs are concerned about the role of companies in deciding assurance scope, as it can affect scrutiny. APs favour data accuracy (as opposed to data relevance) assurance due to team dynamics and internal review influences, with the latter also restricting assurance innovation. APs are interested in accessing better evidence and stakeholder engagement evaluations. Providing advisory services was not rejected by all APs. The perspectives of APs and non-APs demonstrate how progress in SRA has gained pragmatic legitimacy with noticeable gaps that serve to undermine attainment of moral legitimacy.

SRA is a developing practice that will adopt changes as it continues to mature; some of these changes could impact findings in this research. General perspectives on SRA were sought from interviewees, this affected the ability for an in-depth focus on any of the range of interesting SRA issues that arose over the course of the research. Interviews were conducted with relevant parties in the SRA space that operate in the UK. Perspectives from parties outside the UK were not solicited.

Companies make an important decision to commission SRA. Findings in this research have highlighted specific non-APs issues of concern that can be useful in structuring operations and reporting regimes to facilitate assurance procedures. The findings will also be helpful to APs as they can direct more emphasis on stakeholder concerns towards demonstrating greater stakeholder accountability. Regulatory and standard setters can enact appropriate policies that can potentially drive the practice forward for assessment of cognitive legitimacy.

The findings provide relevant account of stakeholder voices on the quality of corporate disclosures that has a direct effect on the wellbeing of communities and sustainability of societies. Collective stakeholder input on expectations can shape sustainability discourse.

This research demonstrates the applicability of financial audit quality indicators in SRA processes, extends the debate around the effectiveness of new audit fields and highlights the challenges of maintaining legitimacy with different audiences.

This paper aims to propose and assess a framework to analyse the institutionalization of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) through a framing analysis.

The framework was developed by combining the institutional approach with orders of worth, drawing insights from a comprehensive literature review. To assess it, the authors conducted a qualitative analysis of annual reports from companies with the largest market capitalization over a six-year period and interviewed union representatives in Spain and Sweden.

The framework comprises five dimensions (industrial, market, civic, green and connectionist). The empirical results reveal that companies consistently frame I4.0 with an emphasis on industrial and market perspectives. In contrast, unions place a stronger emphasis on civic issues, with Spanish unions holding a more negative view of I4.0, expressing concerns about working conditions and unemployment.

The proposed framework brings interesting insights into the dispute over the meaning of I4.0. Although this empirical study was limited to companies and unions in Sweden and Spain, the framework can be expanded for broader investigations, involving additional stakeholders in one or more countries. The discussion outlined using the varieties of capitalism approach is relevant for understanding the connection between the meso and macro levels of this phenomenon.

In navigating the landscape of I4.0, managers should remain flexible, and ready to tailor their strategies and operations to align with the distinct demands and expectations of stakeholders and their specific institutional environments. Similarly, policymakers are urged to acknowledge these contextual intricacies when crafting strategies for implementing I4.0 initiatives across national settings.

Based on the empirical findings, this study underscores the importance of fostering social dialogue and involving stakeholders in the implementation of I4.0. Policymakers and other stakeholders should take proactive measures, tailored to each country’s context, to mitigate potential adverse effects on labour and workers.

The study presents a novel framework that facilitates the systematic comparison of I4.0 framing by different actors. This contribution is significant because the way actors frame I4.0 affects its interpretation and implementation. Additionally, the aggregate analysis of results enables cross-country comparisons, enhancing our understanding of regional disparities.

Previous research has explored the link between sustainability disclosure and reputation but produced contradictory results. This study aims to clarify the sustainability disclosure–reputation relationship through a quantitative analysis of the correlations between these variables reported in empirical research papers. The second objective was to determine how various moderators affect the sustainability disclosure–reputation link.

The meta-analysis was based on a systematic review of the literature covering empirical research on the corporate sustainability disclosure and reputation relationship. A total of 92 articles were meta-analyzed to compile their findings on four extrinsic moderators: company size, ownership, stock listing status and activity sector.

The findings confirm that a significant positive correlation exists between corporate sustainability disclosure and reputation. The moderator analysis also revealed that companies’ different characteristics can explain researchers’ divergent results.

The results have considerable practical relevance for organizational management. First, they can motivate managers to improve and disclose their company’s social and environmental impacts to strengthen their reputation, which in turn will help accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Second, the findings can ensure organizations develop disclosure and reputation management strategies adapted for each firm’s size, ownership, stock listing status and activity sector.

The results have considerable practical relevance for organizational management. First, they can motivate managers to improve and disclose their company’s social and environmental impacts to strengthen their reputation, which in turn will help accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Second, the findings can ensure organizations develop disclosure and reputation management strategies adapted for each firm’s size, ownership, stock listing status and activity sector.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first to clarify the link between disclosure and reputation, which makes a unique contribution to the field of social and environmental accounting. A larger sample of primary research was collected, and key extrinsic moderators were examined to explain prior studies’ contradictory findings.