Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Conceptual Framework for Investigating ‘Capture’ in Corporate Sustainability Reporting Assurance

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The assurance of corporate sustainability reporting has long been a controversial field. Corporate management and assurance providers are routinely accused of ‘capturing’ what should be an exercise in public accountability. This article responds to recent calls for an analysis of the process by which ‘capture’ takes place. Integrating elements of neo-institutional theory and the arena concept, the article sets out a fresh conceptual framework for investigating the dynamics of the interactions between the various bodies active in the assurance field in the UK.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AccountAbility (2008) AA1000 Assurance Standard (AA1000AS). Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A.: 2004, ‘The ethical, social and environmental reporting performance portrayal gap’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 17 (5), 731-757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., R. Evans (2004) Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectations gap. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 14: 97-115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., and C. Larrinaga-Gonzalez: 2007, ‘Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 20 (3), 333-355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., V. Narayanan (2007) The ‘Standardization’ of Sustainability Reporting. In: J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, B. O’Dwyer (eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability. Routledge, London, pp 70-85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, A., D. L. Owen, and R. Gray: 2000, ‘External transparency or internal capture? The role of third-party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports’, Business Strategy and the Environment 9, 1-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J.: 1997, ‘Engagement, education and sustainability: A review essay on environmental accounting’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10 (3), 365-381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., C. Larrinaga, and J. M. Moneva: 2008, ‘Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21 (3), 337-361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U.: 1992, The Risk Society (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Belal, A. R.: 2002, ‘Stakeholder accountability or stakeholder management: A review of UK firms’ social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting (SEAAR) practices’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9, 8-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boele, R., D. Kemp (2005) Social auditors: illegitimate offspring of the audit family?. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 17: 109-119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, The Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92-117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S. M., and D. L. Owen: 2007, ‘Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 32, 649-667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D., and I. M. Gordon: 2001, ‘An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14 (5), 587-616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CorporateRegister.com (2008) Assure View: The CSR Assurance Statement Report. CorporateRegister.com Limited, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese, C. L., H.J. Irvine, and M.A Kaidonis: 2010, ‘Powerful players: How constituents captured the setting of IFRS 6, an accounting standard for extractive industries’, Accounting Forum 34, 76-88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., J. Goodstein, and W. R. Scott: 2002, ‘Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum’, Academy of Management Journal 12 (1), 45-56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dando, N., and T. Swift: 2003. ‘Transparency and assurance: Minding the credibility gap’, Journal of Business Ethics 44, 195-200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C.: 2002, ‘Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 15 (3), 282-311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C.: 2007, ‘Organizational legitimacy as a motive for sustainability reporting’, in J. Unerman, J. Bebbington and B. O’Dwyer (eds) Sustainability, Accounting and Accountability, (Routledge, Abingdon).

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., B. J. Cooper, and M. Shelly: 2006, ‘An investigation of TBL report assurance statements: UK and European evidence’, Managerial Auditing Journal 21 (4), 329-371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., and J. Unerman: 2006, Financial Accounting Theory, (McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead).

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., and W. W. Powell: 1983, ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review 48 (2), 147-160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, The Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., and J. Pfeffer: 1975, ‘Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behaviour’, Pacific Sociological Review 18 (1), 122-136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgley, C. R., M. J. Jones, and J. F. Solomon: 2010, ‘Stakeholder inclusivity in social and environmental report assurance’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 23 (4), 532-557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. M. and R. E. Freeman: 1993, ‘A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism’, in N. E. Bowie (ed) Ethical Theory and Business, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fargher, N., and A. A. Gramling: 2003, ‘Research note: The influence of attestation on users’ perceptions of assertion credibility in the asset management industry’, International Journal of Auditing 7, 87-100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEE: 2002, FEE Discussion Paper: Providing assurance on sustainability reports, (FEE, Brussels).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, (Pitman, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallhofer, S., and J. Haslam: 1997, ‘The direction of green accounting policy: critical reflections’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10 (2), 148-174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendron, Y., and J. Bédard: 2001, ‘Academic accounting research: An exploratory investigation into its usefulness’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12, 339-368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgakopoulos, G., and I. Thomson: 2008, ‘Social reporting, engagements, controversies and conflict in an arena context’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21 (8), 1116-1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R.: 2000, ‘Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, reporting and attestation: A review and comment’, International Journal of Auditing 4, 247-268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., J. Bebbington (2000) Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability Is the planet safe in the hands of business?. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management 1: 1-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., C. Dey, D. Owen, R. Evans, and S. Zadek: 1997, ‘Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10 (3), 325-364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., R. Kouhy, and S. Lavers: 1995, ‘Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 8 (2), 47-77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., D. Owen, and C. A. Adams: 1996, Accounting & Accountability, (Prentice Hall, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., and C. R. Hinings: 1996, ‘Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and new institutionalism’, Academy of Management Review 21 (4), 1022-1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., and R. Suddaby: 2006, ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The Big Five accounting firms’, Academy of Management Journal 49, 27-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., R. Suddaby, and C. R. Hinings: 2002. ‘Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields’, Academy of Management Journal 45 (1), 58-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., and L. D. Parker: 1990, ‘Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis’, Advances in Public Interest Accounting 3, 159-175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., R. E. Freeman (1999) Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 479–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S., and L. Bosk: 1988, ‘The rise and fall of social problems: A public arena model’, American Journal of Sociology 94, 53-78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, G.: 2009, ‘Unsustainable Reporting’, in CR Debates, The Royal Institution of Great Britain (CorporateRegister.com, London).

  • Humphrey, C.: 2001, ‘Audit research – looking beyond North America’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12, 369-376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAASB: 2004, ‘International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3000: Assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical financial information’ (ISAE3000), (IFAC, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. J., and J. Solomon: 2010, ‘Social and environmental report assurance: some interview evidence’, Accounting Forum 34, 20-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Key, S.: 1999, ‘Towards a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder ‘theory”, Management Decision 34 (4), 317-328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A.: 2010, ‘Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation’, Business Strategy and the Environment 19 (3), 182-198.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG: 2008, KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting, (KPMG Global Sustainable Services, Amsterdam).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. K.: 1993, ‘The Implications of Organisational Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and Disclosure’, in Critical Perspectives on Accounting (Conference Paper) (New York).

  • Lounsbury, M.: 2008, ‘Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 33, 349-361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltby, J.: 1995, ‘Environmental audit: Theory and practices’, Managerial Auditing Journal 10 (8), 15-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G., L. Becatti: 2009, ‘Assurance services for sustainability reports: Standards and empirical evidence’, Journal of Business Ethics 87, 289-298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medawar, C.: 1976, ‘The Social Audit – A Political View’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 1(4), 389-394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., and B. Rowan: 1977, ‘Institutionalised organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83 (2), 340-363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., K. Kearins, and S. Walton: 2006, ‘Creating adventures in wonderland: The journey metaphor and environmental sustainability’, Organization 13(6), 801-839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood: 1997, ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts’, Academy of Management Review 22 (4), 853-886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moll, J., J. Burns, and M. Major: 2006, ‘Institutional Theory’ in Z. Hoque (ed), Methodological Issues in Accounting Research, (Spiramus, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morimoto, R., J. Ash, and C. Hope: 2005, ‘Corporate social responsibility audit: From theory to practice’, Journal of Business Ethics 62, 315-325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Néron, P-Y.: 2010, ‘Business and the polis: What does it mean to see corporations as political actors?’, Journal of Business Ethics 94, 333-352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B.: 2003, ‘Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 16 (4), 523-557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B.: 2005, ‘The construction of a social account: a case study in an overseas aid agency’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (3), 279-296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., and D. Owen: 2005, ‘Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: A critical evaluation’, The British Accounting Review 37 (2), 205-229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer B., D. Owen (2007) Seeking stakeholder-centric sustainability assurance An examination of recent sustainability assurance practice. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 25: 77-94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen D. L., T. A. Swift, C. Humphrey, M. Bowerman (2000) The new social audits: accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions? European Accounting Review 9(1): 81-98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., and T. Brorson: 2005, ‘Experiences of and views on third-party assurance of corporate environmental and sustainability reports’, Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 1095-1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D.: 2005, ‘Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 8 (6), 842-860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. T.: 1993, ‘Getting comfortable with the numbers: Auditing and the micro-production of macro-order’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (7/8), 605-620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J., and A. Noelke: 2005, ‘International accounting standard setting: A network approach’, Business and Politics 7 (3), 1-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M.: 1991, ‘Auditing and environmental expertise: Between protest and professionalism’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 4 (3), 30-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M.: 1994, The Audit Explosion, (Demos: London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M.: 1997, ‘Expertise and the construction of relevance: Accountants and environmental audit’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (2), 123-146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O.: 1992, ‘The social arena concept of risk debates’, in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds), Social Theories of Risk, (Praeger Westport, CT).

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, A. J.: 2009, ‘Regulatory networks for accounting and auditing standards: A social network analysis of Canadian and international standard-setting’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 571-588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scalet, S., and T. F. Kelly: 2010, ‘CSR rating agencies: What is their global impact?’, Journal of Business Ethics 94, 69-88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R.: 1995, Institutions and Organizations, (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M.-G., and W. E. D. Creed: 2002, ‘Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective’, Academy of Management Review 27 (2), 222-247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., and R. Gray: 2007, ‘Social and environmental reporting and the business case’, (ACCA, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., J. Husillos, and C. Correa: 2010, ‘Cargo cult science and the death of politics: a critical review of social and environmental accounting research’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (1), 76-89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, E.: 1997, ‘The defects of stakeholder theory’, Corporate Governance 5 (1), 3-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steurer, R.: 2006, ‘Mapping Stakeholder Theory Anew: From the ‘Stakeholder Theory of the Firm’ to Three Perspectives on Business–Society Relations’, Business Strategy and the Environment 15 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. E.: 1995, ‘Managing legitimacy – strategic and institutional approaches’, Academy of Management Review 20 (3), 571-610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swift, T., N. Dando (2002) From methods to ideologies: Closing the assurance expectations gap in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting’. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 8: 81-89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilt, C: 2001, ‘The content and disclosure of Australian environmental policies’ Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 14(2), 190-212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J.: 2008, ‘Strategic reputation risk management and corporate social responsibility reporting’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21 (3), 362-364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2008) Building a New Institutional Infrastructure for Corporate Responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87-108

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallage, P.: 2000, ‘Assurance on sustainability reporting: An auditor’s view’, Auditing: A journal of Theory and Practice 19, 53-65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D.: 1991, ‘Corporate social performance revisited’, Academy of Management Review 16 (4), 691-718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S., P. Raynard, M. Forstater, and J. Oelschlaegel: 2004, ‘The future of sustainability assurance’, (ACCA, London).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds , U.K.

    John Smith

  2. Bradford University School of Management, University of Bradford, Bradford, U.K.

    Ros Haniffa & Jenny Fairbrass

Authors
  1. John Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ros Haniffa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jenny Fairbrass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, J., Haniffa, R. & Fairbrass, J. A Conceptual Framework for Investigating ‘Capture’ in Corporate Sustainability Reporting Assurance. J Bus Ethics 99, 425–439 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0661-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0661-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation