Search results

Albeit gradual and uneven, the emergence of social and environmental reporting by publicly held corporations has been a major development in the last few decades. This paper aims to explore patterns of the emergence of these disclosures. Using an institutional theory lens, this paper considers mimetic, normative and coercive possibilities.

US publicly traded company data from 2013 to 2019 is used to test the hypotheses. Mimetic forces are proxied with corporate board interlock frequency. Normative ones use the extent of gender diversity on corporate boards. Measures of business climate and industry regulatory sensitivity proxy coercive potentiality.

Studied in isolation, each of the three forces through which organizations pursue the heightened legitimacy of enhanced environmental and social disclosures has credibility. The strongest support exists for mimetic and normative mechanisms, perhaps because the US government has been reluctant to make these expanded disclosures mandatory.

In the world of voluntary action, more attention to diffusion is needed. For these purposes, better proxies will be needed to study change. Social and environmental information should be separated for individual analysis.

At least in the USA, companies are attentive to what other companies are doing. There is something to be said for the ethical dimension of corporate transparency.

Governmental action in this area has not been effective, at current levels. Corporate leadership is essential. Critical information is shared about disclosure by board members.

Although institutional theory makes several appearances in this area, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the current study is the first empirical archival study to examine the three forces simultaneously, providing evidence as to the relative magnitude of each institutional force on environmental and social disclosures. Should these disclosures not be mandated by government, this study shows pathways for enhanced disclosures to continue to spread.

This research aims to examine the performativity of corporate reports as an example of an accounting inscription that can frame the relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entities and their stakeholders. The framing and overflow effects of these reports have been explored to consider whether they strengthen or undermine the reputation and capability of these community-controlled entities.

Aligned with actor–network theory and a decolonising research protocol, qualitative interviews were conducted with senior managers and directors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entities and their key stakeholders to explore their experiences of corporate reporting. Additional analysis of these organisations' annual reports was conducted to corroborate key reporting themes.

This research has identified a dual role for corporate reporting, simultaneously framing performance against an expectation of failure, but with the potential for accounting inscriptions to highlight positive contributions to cultural and community priorities. It also indicates the need for sector specifics within the reporting frameworks and adequate resourcing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entities to meet reporting obligations.

This research makes policy-based recommendations in terms of user-driven and culturally informed performance measures. It also highlights the importance of adequate funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entities to carry out meaningful performance evaluations beyond the preparation of financial statements.

One of the few empirical studies to capture the performativity of accounting inscriptions from the perspective of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entities. This sector has received minimal attention within the accounting discipline, despite significantly contributing to community well-being and cultural protection. There is emancipatory potential via policy frameworks that resonate with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural beliefs and practices.