Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T23:40:51.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where Is the Accountability in International Accountability Standards?: A Decoupling Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Michael Behnam  and
Tammy L. MacLean
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

A common complaint by academics and practitioners is that the application of international accountability standards (IAS) does not lead to significant improvements in an organization’s social responsibility. When organizations espouse their commitment to IAS but do not put forth the effort necessary to operationally enact that commitment, a “credibility cover” is created that perpetuates business as usual. In other words, the legitimacy that organizations gain by formally adopting the standards may shield the organization from closer scrutiny, thus enabling rather than constraining the types of activities the standards were designed to discourage.

There is a lack of research on why certain types of IAS are more prone than others to being decoupled from organizational practices. Applying a neo-institutional perspective to IAS, we theorize that the structural dimensions of the types of standards themselves can increase the likelihood of organizations adopting IAS standards in form but not in function.

Type
Special Section Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 45 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, C. A. 2004. The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17: 731–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, C. A., & Evans, R. 2004. Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectations gap. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arevalo, J. A., & Fallon, F. T. 2008. Assessing corporate responsibility as a contribution to global governance: The case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Governance, 8(4): 456–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behnam, M., & Rasche, A. 2009. Are strategists from Mars and ethicists from Venus?—Strategizing as ethical reflection. Journal of Business Ethics, 84: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beschorner, T., & Müller, M. 2007. Social standards: Toward an active ethical involvement of businesses in developing countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 73: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielak, D., Bonini, S. M. J., & Oppenheim, J. M. 2007. CEOs on strategy and social issues. McKinsey Quarterly, 43: 8–12.Google Scholar
Blagescu, M., & Lloyd, R. 2006. 2006 Global Accountability Report: Holding power to account. London: One World Trust.Google Scholar
Blair, M., Bugg-Levine, A., & Rippin, T. 2004. The UN’s role in corporate social responsibility. McKinsey Quarterly, 40: 21–23.Google Scholar
Boatright, J. R. 2000. Globalization and the ethics of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. 2008. Isomorphism, diffusion, and decoupling. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin-Anderson, K. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 78–98. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruno, K., & Karliner, J. 2000. Tangled up in blue: Corporate partnerships at the United Nations. San Francisco: Transnational Resource and Action Center.Google Scholar
Carasco, E. F., & Singh, J. B. 2008. Human rights in global business ethics codes. Business and Society Review, 113: 347–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanagh, G. F. 2004. Global business ethics: Regulation, code, or self-restraint. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14: 625–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterji, A., & Levine, D. 2006. Breaking down the wall of codes: Evaluating non-financial performance measurement. California Management Journal, 48: 29–51.Google Scholar
Centindamar, D., & Husoy, K. 2007. Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: The case of the United Nations Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76: 163–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapp, J. 2005. Global environmental governance for corporate responsibility and accountability. Global Environmental Politics, 5: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities. 2001. Green paper on promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/greenpaper_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Deva, S. 2006. Global compact: A critique of the UN’s “public-private” partnership for promoting corporate citizenship. Syracuse Journal of International Law & Commerce, 34: 107–51.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1991. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis: 63–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, L. B. 1992. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97: 1531–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, L. B., Petterson, S., Chamberlain, E., & Erlanger, S. 1991. Legal ambiguity and the politics of compliance: Affirmative action officers’ dilemma. Law & Policy, 13(1): 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egels-Zanden, N. 2007. Supplier’s compliance with MNC’s codes of conduct: Behind the scenes at Chinese toy suppliers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75:45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbannan, M., & McKinley, W. 2006. A theory of the corporate decision to resist FASB standards: An organization theory perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31: 601–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, M. J. 2008. Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
Evans, J. M., Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. 2006. Who’s in the ethics driver’s seat? Factors influencing ethics in the MBA curriculum. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3): 278–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, M., & Kilcoyne, J. 1997. Why transnational corporations are organizing to “save the global environment.” The Ecologist, 27: 138–42.Google Scholar
Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2006. The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1173–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. 2006. Cognitive underpinnings of institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31: 347–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gereffi, G., Garcia-Johnson, R., & Sasser, E. 2001. The NGO-industrial complex. Foreign Policy, 125: 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., & Behnam, M. 2009. Advancing integrative social contracts theory: A Habermasian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 89: 215–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. 2007. Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17: 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. 2008. Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82: 755–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göbbels, M, & Jonker, J. 2003. AA1000 and SA8000 compared: A systematic comparison of contemporary accountability standards. Managerial Accounting Journal, 18: 54–58.Google Scholar
GRI. 2008a. G3 Guidelines. http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/G3Guidelines/.Google Scholar
GRI. 2008b. GRI Application Levels. http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/FB8CB16A-789B-454A-BA52-993C9B755704/0/ApplicationLevels.pdf.Google Scholar
Grief, A. 1997. Microtheory and recent developments in the study of economic institutions through economic history. In Kreps, D. & Wallis, K. (Eds.), Advances in economic theory and econometrics, Vol. 2: 79–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hussey, D. M., Kirsop, P. L., & Meissen, R. M. 2001. Global reporting initiative guidelines: An evaluation of sustainable development metrics for industry. Environmental Quality Management, 11: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability (ISEA). 1999. AccountAbility 1000: A foundation standard in social and ethical accounting, auditing, and reporting. London: ISEA.Google Scholar
Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability (ISEA). 2004. Strategic challenges for business in the use of corporate responsibility codes, standards, and frameworks. London: ISEA.Google Scholar
Jovanovic, S., & Wood, R. V. 2007. Dialectical interactions: Decoupling and integrating ethics in ethics initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17: 217–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate America’s affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71: 589–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kell, G. 2005. The Global Compact. Selected experiences and reflections. Journal of Business Ethics, 59: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kell, G., & Levin, D. 2003. The Global Compact network: An historic experiment in learning and action. Business and Society Review, 108: 151–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A., & Lenox, M. 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 698–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacs, R. 2006. Interdisciplinary bar for the public interest: What CSR and NGO frameworks contribute to the public relations of British and European activists. Public Relations Review, 32: 429–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leipziger, D. 2001. SA8000: The definite guide to the new social standard. London: FT Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Leipziger, D. 2003. The corporate responsibility code book. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
Logsdon, J. M., & Lewellyn, P. G. 2000. Expanding accountability to stakeholders: Trends and predictions. Business and Society Review, 105: 419–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLean, R., & Rebernak, K. 2007. Closing the credibility gap: The challenges of corporate responsibility reporting. Environmental Quality Management, 16: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLean, T. 2003. How structural decoupling facilitates organizational misconduct. Academy of Management 2003 Annual Meeting Proceedings: G1–G6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLean, T., & Behnam, M. Forthcoming. The dangers of decoupling: the relationship between compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct. Academy of Management Journal.Google Scholar
Martin, R. L. 2002. The virtue matrix: Calculating the return on corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 80: 69–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Mathews, M. R. 1997. Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10: 481–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M., Thomas, R., Leipziger, D., & Coleman, G. 2003. Living corporate citizenship: Strategic routes to socially responsible business. London: FT Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1991. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis: 41–62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. 2002. Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, 9: 215–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. 2004. Getting to the bottom of “triple bottom line.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 14: 243–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, D. 2000. Monitoring the monitors: a critique of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) labor monitoring. http://nature.berkeley.edu/orourke/PDF/pwc.pdf.Google Scholar
Owen, D. L., & Swift, T. A. 2001. Social accounting, reporting and auditing: Beyond the rhetoric? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10: 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlock, E. J., Sato, F. S., & Yardley, J. A. 1990. Accountability standards for corporate reporting. Journal of Accountancy, 169: 94–100.Google Scholar
Rasche, A. 2009. Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards: The case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16: 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. 2006. From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Applying Habermasian discourse ethics to accountability research. Journal of Business Ethics, 65: 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, M. A., & Yuthas, K. 2008. Moral discourse and corporate social responsibility reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 78: 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, T., & Dickson, D. 2007. Guidelines by stakeholders, for stakeholders. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 25: 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, J. G. 2001. global_governance.net: The Global Compact as learning network. Global Governance, 7: 371–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAAS. 2008a. The certification process. http://www.saasaccreditation.org/certprocess.htm.Google Scholar
SAAS. 2008b. Certified facilities list. http://www.saasaccreditation.org/certfacilitieslist.htm.Google Scholar
SAAS. 2008c. Requirements for gaining and maintaining accreditation. http://www.saasaccreditation.org/certprocess.htm.Google Scholar
SAI. 2008a. Overview of SA8000. http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=473.Google Scholar
SAI. 2008b. SA8000. http://www.sa-intl.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/2008StdEnglishFinal.pdf.Google Scholar
Scholtz, J. T. 1984. Cooperation, deterrance, and the ecology of regulation enforcement. Law and Society Review, 18(2): 179–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sethi, S. P. 2003. Setting global standards: Guidelines for creating codes of conduct in multinational corporations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Sethi, S. P., & Williams, O. F. 2000. Creating and implementing global codes of conduct: An assessment of the Sullivan Principles as a role model for developing international codes of conduct—Lessons learned and unlearned. Business and Society Review, 105: 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. 2009. Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84: 937–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, E. Y. 2009. The integration of corporate social responsibility into business practice in Asia, from 2000 to 2007. Unpublished paper, available on the website of the Waseda University’s (Japan) Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration: http://www.waseda-giari.jp/sysimg/rresults/456_report_5-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. M., Steensma, H. K., Harrison, D. A., & Cochran, P. L. 2004. Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 181–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigzelius, I., & Mark-Herbert, C. 2009. Tailoring corporate responsibility to suppliers: Managing SA8000 in Indian garment manufacturing. Scandinavian Management Journal, 25: 46–56.Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thérien, J.-P., & Pouliot, V. 2006. The Global Compact: Shifting the politics of international development? Global Governance, 12(1): 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. 1999. Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41: 131–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulder, R., & Kolk, A. 2001. Multinationality and corporate ethics: Codes of conduct in the sporting goods industry. Journal of International Business Studies 32: 267–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2008. World investment report 2008. New York: United NationsGoogle Scholar
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). 2008a. About the Global Compact. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html.Google Scholar
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). 2008b. Corporate citizenship in the world economy. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). 2010. UN Global Compact participants. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ParticipantsAndStakeholders/index.html.Google Scholar
Waddock, S. 2004. Creating corporate accountability: Foundational principles to make corporate citizenship real. Journal of Business Ethics, 50: 313–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K. 1999. Compliance and values oriented ethics programs: Influences on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2): 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. 1999a. Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. 1999b. Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 539–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, J. D. & Zajac, E. J. 1994. Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 367–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, J. D. & Zajac, E. J. 1998. The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reform and shareholder reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 127–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, J. D. & Zajac, E. J. 2001. Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 202–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, O. F. 2004. The UN Global Compact: The challenge and the promise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14: 755–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar