No abstract

No abstract

This paper interprets managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure (CSD) presence and absence through the lens of organisational legitimacy theory. Evidence from in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with 29 senior managers in 27 Irish public limited companies is presented. It is one of the few studies to use interview‐based evidence in attempts to understand the motivations for CSD and responds to calls for more empirical work of this nature in the CSD literature. The paper extends and interrogates the use of legitimacy theory to infer motivations for CSD by presenting a narrative which contemplates conceptions of legitimacy as both a process and a state while endeavouring to understand the motives for CSD. In this manner, the paper furnishes a more complex, complete, and critical story of the motives for CSD. The perspectives suggest that while CSD may occasionally form part of a legitimacy process, ultimately this is misguided as it is widely perceived as being incapable of supporting the achievement of a legitimacy state. Consequently, for many managers, the continued practice of CSD is deemed somewhat perplexing. The paper reflects on the implications of these findings for future CSD research and practice.

Furnishes a narrative reflecting an in‐depth examination of managerial conceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the Irish context. The narrative locates itself within the debate surrounding the extent to which corporate management may capture social accountants’ efforts to promote a broad society‐centred conception of CSR. Three key findings emerge from the narrative. First, there is evidence of a tendency for managers to interpret CSR in a constricted fashion consistent with corporate goals of shareholder wealth maximisation. Second, pockets of robust resistance to and defences of this narrow conception do, however, also emerge in the narrative. Third, the complexity of conceiving of a clear meaning for CSR, particularly for those exposed to the structural pressures encountered by these managers, is apparent. This is evident in the initial, somewhat contradictory, nature of many of the conceptions analysed. Reflects on these findings and considers their broad implications for social accountants’ attempts to promote greater society centred corporate accountability in Ireland.

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to develop a staged theoretical argument regarding whether non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can be considered responsible and accountable for the direct and indirect consequences, on a wide range of stakeholders, flowing from their advocacy activities. Design/methodology/approach -The paper is primarily theoretical and conceptual, developing a structured, conditional and staged model illustrated with empirical examples. Findings -The paper finds depending upon the theoretical arguments accepted at each stage of the model, the advocacy activities of an NGO may be considered to cause a widespread and often unintended negative impact upon the lives of many stakeholders who are either close to, or remote from, the NGO. Also, that depending upon the theoretical position taken regarding the scope of accountability, all entities -including NGOs -may be regarded as responsible and accountable for the impacts which their activities directly and indirectly cause to a broad range of stakeholders.Research limitations/implications -The model is primarily theoretical, so it can benefit from empirical studies to assess its applicability in practice. It also has the scope to be applied in assessing the responsibility and accountability of a range of other entities for their advocacy -such as businesses, religious bodies, political parties, and academics. Practical implications -The paper presents a ontribution to the growing debate on NGO accountability. Originality/value -The paper uses the synthesis of various philosophical positions to develop a conditional, staged model which may be used to establish whether NGOs (and other organisations) can be regarded as having responsibilities and accountabilities for the direct and indirect impacts of their advocacy activities on a broad range of stakeholders.

No abstract

This paper studies the emergence of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and its attempts to institutionalize integrated reporting as a practice that is critical to the relevance and value of corporate reporting. Informed by Suddaby and Viale's [(2011). Professionals and field-level change: institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59, 423-442] theorization of how professionals reconfigure organizational fields, the paper delineates the strategies and mechanisms through which the IIRC has sought to enroll the support of a wide range of stakeholder groups for the idea of integrated reporting in order to deliver a fundamental reconfiguration of the corporate reporting field. The paper's analysis reinforces the significance to any such field reconfiguration of the reciprocal and mutual arrangements between influential professionals and other powerful actors but does so in a way that (a) refines Suddaby and Viale's theorization of processes of field-level change and (b) pinpoints the fundamental policy challenges facing the IIRC. Gieryn's [(1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781-795] notion of boundary work is operationalized to capture some of the complexity and dynamism of the change process that is not sufficiently represented by Suddaby and Viale's more sequentialist theorization. From a policy perspective, the paper demonstrates just how much the IIRC's prospects for success in reconfiguring the corporate reporting field depend on its ability to reconfigure the mainstream investment field. Ultimately, this serves to question whether the IIRC's conceptualization of 'enlightened' corporate reporting is sufficiently powerful and persuasive to stimulate 'enlightened' investment behavior focused on the medium and long term -and, more generally stresses the theoretical significance of considering connections across related organizational fields in institutional analyses of field reconfiguration efforts.