Search results

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.