Search results

This study aims to examine biodiversity reporting by South African food producers and retailers. It not only draws attention to the disconnect between reporting on an important environmental issue and the sense of commitment to environmental responsibility, but also shows that over time, organisations are becoming more proactive about biodiversity reporting.

The research uses a content analysis of sustainability and integrated reports and organised hypocrisy as a theoretical framework for analysing biodiversity-related disclosures.

Consistent with an organised hypocrisy framework, the research finds that the several companies rely on corporate reporting to emphasise actions and internal management strategies that are already producing favourable results. In contrast, mission statements, firm policy commitments and forward-looking analysis are avoided. There is, however, evidence to suggest that the gaps between corporate reporting and action may be giving companies the time to reform their practices, align biodiversity disclosures with genuine corporate action and move towards truly integrated business models.

Poor biodiversity reporting raises questions about the extent to which companies are managing serious environmental issues that can have a direct impact on their business models. Improvements in biodiversity reporting also suggest that corporate reporting is maturing and that some organisations are beginning to understand the need for managing their biodiversity impact.

The paper offers empirical evidence on how the disconnect between organisational rhetoric and action is used to manage stakeholder expectations and negate the need for environmental reforms. In this manner, organised hypocrisy is framed as a specific legitimisation strategy. The research also shows that organised hypocrisy is not absolute; despite the opportunity to engage in organised hypocrisy, some companies are taking a more proactive approach to biodiversity reporting. As a result, it may be appropriate to see organised hypocrisy as part of a transition to higher quality integrated or sustainability reporting.

Motivated by claims that the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IRF) can be used to comply with Directive 2014/95/EU (the EU Directive) on non-financial and diversity disclosure, the purpose of this study is to examine whether companies can comply with corporate reporting laws using de facto standards or frameworks.

The authors adopted an interpretivist approach to research along with current regulatory studies that aim to investigate business compliance with the law using private sector standards. To support the authors’ arguments, publicly available secondary data sources were used, including newsletters, press releases and websites, reports from key players within the accounting profession, public documents issued by the European Commission and data from corporatergister.com.

To become a de facto standard or framework, a private standard-setter requires the support of corporate regulators to mandate it in a specific national jurisdiction. The de facto standard-setter requires a powerful coalition of actors who can influence the policymakers to allow its adoption and diffusion at a national level to become mandated. Without regulatory support, it is difficult for a private and voluntary reporting standard or framework to be adopted and diffused. Moreover, the authors report that the <IRF> preferences stock market capitalism over sustainability because it privileges organisational sustainability over social and environmental sustainability, emphasises value creation over holding organisations accountable for their impact on society and the environment and privileges the entitlements of providers of financial capital over other stakeholders.

The authors question the suitability of the goals of both the <IRF> and the EU Directive during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The planned changes to both need rethinking as we head into uncharted waters. Moreover, the authors believe that the people cannot afford any more reporting façades.

The authors offer a critical analysis of the link between the <IRF> and the EU Directive and how the <IRF> can be used to comply with the EU Directive. By questioning the relevance of the compliance question, the authors advance a critique about the relevance of these and other legal and de facto frameworks, particularly considering the more pressing needs that must be met to address the economic, social and environmental implications of the COVID-19 crisis.

This paper explores how the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) conflicts with annual budgeting and how University actors responded to such conflicting demands in a public university in Tanzania, a developing country.

The data for this study were collected from interviews, observations and document reviews. Data analysis processes were guided by the concepts of organizational façades and organized hypocrisy.

The findings show that while the state required the university to implement the MTEF, budget preparers and managers were concentrating on basic budgeting problems in annual budgeting. As a result of these conflicting demands decoupling occurred, as there were inconsistencies between the talk and actions of actors in MTEF implementation. In response, actors engaged in organized hypocrisy. The talk and actions were organized by developing pro-effective and symbolic layers. The pro-effective layer showed that actors were concentrating on annual budgeting, while the symbolic layer, through the creation of façades, showed that actors symbolically implemented the MTEF.

The paper suggests that budgetary reforms of governments, Western donors, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and bilateral donors should focus on addressing the basic problems in annual budgeting rather than advocating complex reforms that compel actors to engage in hypocrisy and developing façades. Moreover, university management should address basic budgeting problems to avoid budgeting games during annual budgeting.

This is the first paper to employ the concept of organized hypocrisy to investigate the MTEF. By demonstrating the pro-effective layer, the paper responds to the call for investigation of how accounting works in practice (van Helden et al., 2021). Moreover, by presenting the symbolic layer, the paper responds to the call to investigate how facades are created (Michelon et al., 2016). The paper demonstrates how the concept of organized hypocrisy works well with the concept of organizational facades.

This paper introduces the special issue “Rebuilding trust: Sustainability and non-financial reporting, and the European Union regulation”. Inspired by the studies published in the special issue, this study aims to examine the concept of accountability within the context of the European Union (EU) Directive on non-financial disclosure (hereafter the EU Directive) to offer a critique and a novel perspective for future research into mandatory non-financial reporting (NFR) and to advance future practice and policy.

The authors review the papers published in this special issue and other contemporary studies on the topic of NFR and the EU Directive.

Accountability is a fundamental concept for building trust in the corporate reporting context and emerges as a common topic linking contemporary studies on the EU Directive. While the EU Directive acknowledges the role of accountability in the reporting practice, this study argues that regulation and practice on NFR needs to move away from an accounting-based conception of accountability to promote accountability-based accounting practices (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). By analysing the links between trust, accountability and accounting and reporting, the authors claim the need to examine and rethink the inscription of interests into non-financial information (NFI) and its materiality. Hence, this study encourages research and practice to broaden mandatory NFR practice over the traditional boundaries of accountability, reporting and formal accounting systems.

Considering the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis, this study calls for further research to investigate the dialogical accountability underpinning NFR in practice to avoid the trap of focusing on accounting changes regardless of accountability. The authors advocate that what is needed is more timely NFI that develops a dialogue between companies, investors, national regulators, the EU and civil society, not more untimely standalone reporting that has most likely lost its relevance and materiality by the time it is issued to users.

By highlighting accountability issues in the context of mandatory NFR and its linkages with trust, this study lays out a case for moving the focus of research and practice from accounting-based regulations towards accountability-driven accounting change.

The purpose of this study is to examine the ways that sin industry companies attempt to utilise CSR reporting for legitimation.

Conventional and summative content analyses were carried out on annual CSR reports in UK tobacco and gambling companies, juxtaposed against analysis of the actual behaviour of the companies, collectively and individually.

The paper concludes that there is an ongoing tension between the business of sin industry companies and their attempts to establish and maintain any legitimacy, using CSR reporting in particular ways to try to prove their credentials to society and to engage salient stakeholder support. Ultimately, they aim to give themselves the scope for strategic choice to enable survival and financial flourishing.

Further research on CSR on other sin industries and in other jurisdictions with different regulatory situations could shed further light on the achievement or denial of different types of legitimacy. Studying different time periods as industries change would be of value.

On a practical basis, the study offers guidelines to stakeholders on the use of CSR reports from sin companies, and suggests the establishment of objective external CSR reports, overseen by accounting regulators.

The paper provides an overview of the role of sin industries in society, and mitigating their harms.

This study allowed for a comprehensive, dynamic and inclusive understanding of the interplay of CSR reporting and legitimacy by addressing conflicting interests between sin companies' social effects and inherent activities at the industry level. The methodology of multiple case study design in two sin industries combined content analysis of CSR reports, juxtaposed against analysis of behaviour in context. Previous research included the juxtaposition of actuality in analysis of only single case studies or particular issues. Thus, this research allows for a broader industry understanding. On a practical basis, the study offers guidelines to stakeholders on the use of CSR reports from sin companies, and suggests the establishment of objective external CSR reports, overseen by accounting regulators. At the social level, the paper provides an overview of sin industries in society, and mitigating their harms.

In this essay, the author reflects on the legitimacy theory in corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure research.

This is a reflection/review essay based on a review of relevant literature.

Although almost constantly under attack from a variety of scholars, legitimacy theory seems to hold on in the social and environmental disclosure arena. However, the failure of the recent wave of CSR-themed work published in The Accounting Review to even acknowledge, let alone engage with, the theory is problematic.

We, in the CSR disclosure arena, need to do all we can to help emerging scholars (particularly in the USA) find the rich body of research the mainstream journals fail to discuss.

Legitimacy-based research can help move CSR disclosure at least closer to being a tool of accountability, as opposed to a tool for legitimation.

Perhaps the critique of the mainstream North American literature’s failure to consider legitimacy theory can lead to the recognition of the need to focus on the harm to sustainability that a narrow, shareholder-centric focus leads to.

This reflection takes a unique look at the contributions of legitimacy theory to CSR disclosure research.

The initial rationale for developing integrated reporting included addressing the failures of traditional reporting to address sustainability issues. Subsequently, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) modified its stated objectives to emphasise integrated thinking and value creation. There has been debate on whether the IIRC’s process for developing its integrated reporting framework was subject to regulatory capture by the accounting profession (Flower, 2015; Adams, 2015; Thomson, 2015). This paper aims to provide additional evidence on the extent to which this regulatory capture occurred, with an update on current developments.

Data from interviews with key participants in the integrated reporting framework’s development and the IIRC’s Council and Working Group meeting minutes were analysed to identify to what extent the change in the IIRC’s focus can be explained by regulatory capture theory.

The findings show that the integrated reporting framework’s development was subject to regulatory capture by accountants. However, the extent of capture was mitigated to some extent by processes adopted in its development. This is consistent with regulatory capture theory.

This paper critically examines the debate on the extent to which the sustainability message has been lost as a result of regulatory capture. It provides an in-depth analysis of the IIRC’s treatment of sustainability which explores the application of regulatory capture theory and examines evidence not considered in previous studies.

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.

The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it examines nuances that specific camouflaging perspectives provide to enhance traditional and widely adopted theories in social and environmental accounting. Second, within research on camouflaging, the paper stimulates multidisciplinarity and cross-fertilization by presenting recent developments in organizational theory that hold promise for enhancing our understanding of camouflaging. Finally, it discusses how the research contributions published in this special issue help advance the notion of corporate camouflaging.

The paper makes use of an extensive literature review and discusses research implications related with the choice of theoretical framework.

The idea of camouflaging may provide narrower and more refined perspective(s) that can help researchers delve deeper into their topic of interest and thereby support potentially substantive contributions to the field.

The paper offers suggestions for future social and environmental accounting research that adopts the concepts of organized hypocrisy, organizational façades and functional stupidity into the study of organizations.

This article explores the influence of duality in institutional logics on internal accounting, with a focus on a Polish public university. More particularly, we answer the research question: how does illegitimacy risk arising from the divergent pressures of the institutional environment impact management accountings in this institution?

This paper seeks to uncover intricacies of notions of internal legitimacy façade, decoupling and counter-coupling in practice. It explores details of organizational responses involving management accounting aimed at reducing illegitimacy risk. Achieving good organizational access, the authors adopt a qualitative case study approach involving contextual appreciation/document analysis/participant observation/discussion with key actors: facilitating building upon theoretical argumentation through finding things out from the field.

The authors uncover and discuss organizational solutions and legitimizing manoeuvres applied, identifying four adaptation tactics in the struggle to support legitimacy that they term ‘ceremonial calculations’, ‘legitimacy labelling’, ‘blackboxing’ and ‘shadow management accounting’. These can be seen in relation to decoupling and counter-coupling. Ceremonial calculations supported the internal façade. Shadow management accounting supported pro-effectiveness. Legitimacy labelling and blackboxing helped bind these two organizational layers, further supporting legitimacy. In interaction the four tactics engendered what can be seen as a ‘counter-coupling’ of management accounting. The authors clarify impacts for management accounting.

The usual limitations of case research apply for generalizability. Theorizing of management accounting in relation to contradictory logics is advanced.

The article illuminates how management accounting can be understood vis-à-vis contradictory logics.

Elaboration of the tactics and their interaction is a theoretical and empirical contribution. Focus on a Polish university constitutes an empirical contribution.