Search results

This article seeks to unravel the mechanisms through which financial actors agreed upon a sustainability accounting standard without financializing social and environmental issues, i.e. assigning a monetary value to sustainability.

The article examines the Reporting and Assessment Framework created by the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UN-PRI), the leading reporting sustainability framework in the asset management industry. It relies on a longitudinal case study that draws upon interviews, participant observation, and archival data.

The article demonstrates that the conception of the framework was a funnelling process of sustainability valuation comprising two co-constituted mechanisms: a process of valorization – judging what is deemed of value – and a process of evaluation – agreeing on how to assess value. This valuation process was unfolded by creating the framework, thanks to two enabling conditions: the creation of non-prescriptive evaluative criteria that avoided financialization and the valuation support of an enabling organization.

The article helps understand how an industry can encompass the diversity of motives and practices associated with the adoption of sustainability by its economic actors while suggesting a common framework to report on and assess those practices. It uncovers alternatives to the financialization process of sustainability accounting standards. The article also offers insights into the advantages and inconveniences of such a framework. The article enriches the literature in the sociology of valuation, financialization, and sustainability accounting.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the evolution of paternalism as a long-term component of a management control system (MCS) in a multi-national business enterprise.

The authors used a historical methodology involving the collection and evaluation of both primary and secondary data. Annual reports of Michelin (2009–2021) were also analysed to trace the evolution of the MCS towards corporate social responsibility (CSR).

This research traces the evolution of Michelin's Paternalistic MCS from “Traditional Paternalism” to “Welfare Paternalism”, “Managerial Paternalism” and “Libertarian Paternalism” thereby leading the way to CSR. The findings indicate that the evolution of the MCS revealed “Managerial Paternalism” as a specific type of paternalism and an important component of the “Personnel and Cultural Controls” (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2018, p. 95) at Michelin.

Many multi-national companies began as family-owned and controlled firms (e.g. Ford, Toyota, Fiat, Renault, Tata) and they often employed paternalistic MCSs during their early development (Newby, 1977; Perrot, 1979; Colli, 2003). Such MCSs have been seen as being anachronistic and are often abandoned as the family-owned enterprise grows into a multi-national company (Casson and Cox, 1993; McKinlay et al., 2010). The research challenges this assertion and demonstrates how aspects of a paternalistic MCS can survive in a multi-national business enterprise.

With respect to practical implications, this research shows that paternalism can still be a component of an MCS in a multi-national enterprise.

Using a historical approach, this research addresses a gap in the prior literature regarding the variations and persistence of paternalism in companies. In the case of Michelin, the authors investigate the evolution of its paternalistic MCS from a traditional form to an emphasis on CSR.

How can organisations and their key stakeholders, including the financial markets, benefit from the increased understanding of the role of intangibles in value creation in listed firms? One response is to challenge the finance industry to create innovative investment products based on analysis of intangibles, including human capital (HC), which can act as a lead indicator of future financial performance. This may require qualitative research specialist expertise in finance houses. The purpose of this paper is to address these issues.

The paper uses qualitative data from the trading floor of Merrill Lynch in Sydney and Hong Kong, drawing on participatory action research, by the first author. It also draws on field research interview data with biotechnology executives, using a case study approach, by the second author.

The findings suggest that finance industry may need to move beyond the use of indices and ethical investment screens to more clearly understand the role of intangibles, such as HC, in value creation.

This paper described the evolution of a set of HC analysis models, and applies them to the biotechnology industry. The results indicate that more qualitative information on listed companies can be analysed and interpreted to make the investment process more transparent to all stakeholders, including securities analysts. This may influence other researchers to extend these approaches to improve the quality of intangibles analysis.