Search results

The purpose of this paper is to understand conflicts in sustainability reporting (SR) preparation.

In the preparation of SRs, the logic of financial rationality is often assumed to take precedence over the logic of sustainability. Based on an explorative qualitative case study of a large Swedish retailer, the paper problematizes this view. Over a reporting cycle, employees and consultants involved in the preparation process are interviewed. Conflicting ideas about SRs are identified and analyzed through the lens of institutional logics.

The study identifies five tensions in SR preparation. These tensions relate to conflicting ideas of what an SR is, how it should be written and how it should be used. Among findings, a conflict of logics can be found as the basis of at least one tension. However, tensions may also emerge within a shared sustainability logic.

A contribution of the study is that it sets its finger on the actual fieldwork with SRs. The study shows that it is unreasonable to claim that SRs are “self-evidently” captured by management according to financial rationality. Possibly, the nature of the studied firm, a company within the pharmaceutical and health sector, implies a stronger sustainability logic than in other firms.

According to the study, the results of an SR preparation process are highly dependent on the sometimes conflicting ideas of preparers and others within the company. It is of high importance to identify and clarify such conflicting ideas already in the beginning of the process, to link the SR to the corporate social responsibility strategy of the firm, and to involve top management in the process.

The study identifies underlying tensions in SR preparation. It also introduces a theoretical framework that makes it possible to analyze tensions in the preparation process.

In this viewpoint, the authors argue that the predominant method of analyzing conflict management focuses too heavily on the managerial interests in administrative efficiency and productivity rather than on the needs of individuals and organizations. The aim of this paper is to employ Weber's analysis of conflict systems, specifically the distinction between formal and substantive rationality, to support the authors’ view.

This is a viewpoint, where content is dependent on the author's opinion and interpretation.

Conflict management based on Weber's theories of formal and substantive rationality will benefit organizations and society by promoting a more positive perception of corporate behavior.

Future research could examine the relationship between organizational justice and the more global concepts of formality and rationality. Similarly, future research on justice may be expanded by through the notion and perception of legitimacy by members of the organization. How employees accept a system as fair and just has potential import for future justice research.

The combination of formal and substantive rationality offers a practical, and meaningful, way of dealing with conflict from a personal orientation as well as an organizational one. It orients conflict resolution toward people rather than productivity concerns. It further safeguards organizational interests by minimizing litigation, negative publicity, and other adverse effects of conflict.

Weber theorized that formal rationality requires organizations to develop clear, objective, and universal procedures in order to carry out administrative routines. Substantive rationality, in contrast, acknowledges that specific cases may demand particularized decision‐making focusing on individual cases. The paper draws on the procedural justice literature to show how these procedures can be implemented in a fair manner.

Drawing on recent research, which recognises the situated nature of accounting practices, the purpose of this paper is to extend the Burns and Scapens (B&S) framework and to illustrate its potential for studying the situated nature of management accounting practices. The extended framework distinguishes field-level institutions (which the authors term broader institutions) and institutions within the organisation (which the authors term local institutions). To extend the B&S framework the authors draw on recent debates in institutional theory, both new institutional sociology, where the focus is now on the institutional logics perspective, and old institutional economics, where there has been debate about the relationship between institutions and actions.

While the B&S framework focussed on institutions within the organisation, the extended framework explicitly recognises institutions which extend beyond the boundaries of the organisation. It also recognises the way in which rationality and deliberation are related to human agency, as well as the power of specific individuals and/or groups to impose new rules. To illustrate the usefulness of the extended framework the research note draws on a recent study of performance measurement in the Accounting and Finance Groups of the Universities of Groningen and Manchester.

It is argued that local institutions within the organisation combine with the broader institutions to shape the forms of situated rationality which are applied by individuals and groups within the organisation. Different groups within an organisation (e.g. engineers and accountants) can have different forms of situated rationality, and contradictions in these forms of rationality can be a source of institutional change or resistance to change within the organisation, and can explain why accounting changes can by implemented in different ways in different organisations and also in different parts of the same organisation.

The extended framework will be useful for studying: (1) how situated rationalities evolve within an organisation, more specifically how they are shaped by both local and broader institutions; and (2) how prevailing situated rationalities shape the responses to accounting change.

This paper aims to apply the logic of bounded rationality to corporate reputation management and explores how constraints posed by bounded rationality impact on firms’ implementation of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM).

This study draws on primary and secondary data from 12 UK-based companies. The authors conducted 17 semi-structured interviews and analysed the data through an inductive methodology.

Reputational risk exposure is a central driver in a company's decision to implement SSCM practices. However, managers face bounded rationality, in particular: conflicting priorities; capabilities and resources; commitment; and contextual setting, which in turn, means that companies do what they can to safeguard their reputation, but balance the extent to which they implement SSCM and the cost of doing so against the likelihood of exposure.

By engaging in collaborative relationships with their supply chain partners, focal firms who wish to implement SSCM can spread the cost of SSCM across supply chain partners, which helps decrease the extent to which firms face the conflicting priorities of financial targets and SSCM. A long-term commitment to SSCM can also help build capabilities and resources necessary for SSCM implementation.

The paper makes a significant contribution to the literature by conducting a cross-sectional study of the decision-making process involved in SSCM. The results suggest that managers are facing a number of constraints, which leads to sub-optimal choices regarding the level of SSCM implementation.