Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorContrafatto, Massimo
dc.contributor.authorFerguson, John
dc.contributor.authorPower, David
dc.contributor.authorStevenson, Lorna Ann
dc.contributor.authorCollison, David
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-29T12:30:07Z
dc.date.available2019-11-29T12:30:07Z
dc.date.issued2019-12-17
dc.identifier.citationContrafatto , M , Ferguson , J , Power , D , Stevenson , L A & Collison , D 2019 , ' Understanding power-related strategies and initiatives : the case of the European Commission green paper on CSR ' , Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , vol. Ahead of print . https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2018-3529en
dc.identifier.issn0951-3574
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 263762657
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: ca03986c-782c-4796-aeba-8b711fb763b9
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-2655-3258/work/67167284
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85076926100
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000502837800001
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/19030
dc.description.abstractPurpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretically informed analysis of a struggle for power over the regulation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social and environmental accounting and reporting (SEAR) within the European Union. Design/methodology/approach The paper combines insights from institutional theory (Lawrence and Buchanan, 2017) with Vaara et al.’s (2006) and Vaara and Tienar’s (2008) discursive strategies approach in order to interrogate the dynamics of the institutional “arena” that emerged in 2001, following the European Commission’s publication of a Green Paper (GP) on CSR policy and reporting. Drawing on multiple sources of data (including newspaper coverage, semi-structured interviews and written submissions by companies and NGOs), the authors analyse the institutional political strategies employed by companies and NGOs – two of the key stakeholder groupings who sought to influence the dynamics and outcome of the European initiative. Findings The results show that the 2001 GP was a “triggering event” (Hoffman, 1999) that led to the formation of the institutional arena that centred on whether CSR policy and reporting should be voluntary or mandatory. The findings highlight how two separate, but related forms of power (systemic and episodic power) were exercised much more effectively by companies compared to NGOs. The analysis of the power initiatives and discursive strategies deployed in the arena provides a theoretically informed understanding of the ways in which companies acted in concert to reach their objective of maintaining CSR and SEAR as a voluntary activity. Originality/value The theoretical framework outlined in the paper highlights how the analysis of CSR and SEAR regulation can be enriched by examining the deployment of episodic and systemic power by relevant actors.
dc.format.extent29
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journalen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2019 Emerald Publishing Limited. This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission. Permission for further reuse of this content should be sought from the publisher or the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2018-3529en
dc.subjectCorporate social responsibility policyen
dc.subjectGreen paperen
dc.subjectInstitutional politicsen
dc.subjectPower-infused dynamicsen
dc.subjectSocial and environmental accounting and reportingen
dc.subjectHD28 Management. Industrial Managementen
dc.subjectHF5601 Accountingen
dc.subjectJN Political institutions (Europe)en
dc.subjectT-NDASen
dc.subjectBDPen
dc.subject.lccHD28en
dc.subject.lccHF5601en
dc.subject.lccJNen
dc.titleUnderstanding power-related strategies and initiatives : the case of the European Commission green paper on CSRen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Centre for the Study of Philanthropy & Public Gooden
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Managementen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2018-3529
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record