Analysing the lobbying behaviour of experts during the due process of the International Integrated Reporting Framework

IF 5.2 4区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal Pub Date : 2023-10-12 DOI:10.1108/sampj-07-2021-0310
Yaismir Adriana Rivera
{"title":"Analysing the lobbying behaviour of experts during the due process of the International Integrated Reporting Framework","authors":"Yaismir Adriana Rivera","doi":"10.1108/sampj-07-2021-0310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Drawing on Suchman’s conception of cognitive legitimacy and Boswell’s account of the political functions of expert knowledge, this paper aims to study the due process followed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) prior to the publication of the first version of the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF). Specifically, the author analyses the lobbying strategies used in the comment letters sent by a subset of lobbyists, “the experts”, represented by accounting bodies and firms, regulators and academics. Design/methodology/approach From both a form- and meaning-oriented analysis, this paper focuses on how the experts resorted to the functions of knowledge when they took part in the IIRF’s public consultation. The author first carries out a quantitative content analysis of the responses to the 2013 Consultation Draft submitted by those constituents considered as accounting expert lobbyists. Then, the author analyse how these actors framed their comments under expert knowledge to legitimise the IIRC, the IIRF and the accounting profession itself. Findings The findings suggest that the expert groups welcomed the opportunity, not simply to legitimise the IIRC through their democratic support, but to provide a technocratic settlement that ensures the due process is based on the mobilisation of expert knowledge as a legitimate source. By drawing on the cognitive legitimacy of expert lobbyists, the IIRC drew on the political functions of expert knowledge to reduce uncertainty and gain stability. Practical implications Analysis of the lobbying strategies used by the accounting experts whose position could make a difference and receive more attention from the IIRC makes this contribution of particular interest, especially since the first version of the IIRF sought to guide disclosure and sustainable business practices around the world. Social implications Experts as political actors play a legitimising role since they are capable of producing relevant knowledge that, due to its nature and scope, certainly affects policymaking and sustainable development. Originality/value This research provides a sociopolitical perspective to comprehend how some lobbying strategies, in this case, of expert actors, contribute to legitimising a standard-setter body and its endeavours in the context of voluntary standards.","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-07-2021-0310","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Drawing on Suchman’s conception of cognitive legitimacy and Boswell’s account of the political functions of expert knowledge, this paper aims to study the due process followed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) prior to the publication of the first version of the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF). Specifically, the author analyses the lobbying strategies used in the comment letters sent by a subset of lobbyists, “the experts”, represented by accounting bodies and firms, regulators and academics. Design/methodology/approach From both a form- and meaning-oriented analysis, this paper focuses on how the experts resorted to the functions of knowledge when they took part in the IIRF’s public consultation. The author first carries out a quantitative content analysis of the responses to the 2013 Consultation Draft submitted by those constituents considered as accounting expert lobbyists. Then, the author analyse how these actors framed their comments under expert knowledge to legitimise the IIRC, the IIRF and the accounting profession itself. Findings The findings suggest that the expert groups welcomed the opportunity, not simply to legitimise the IIRC through their democratic support, but to provide a technocratic settlement that ensures the due process is based on the mobilisation of expert knowledge as a legitimate source. By drawing on the cognitive legitimacy of expert lobbyists, the IIRC drew on the political functions of expert knowledge to reduce uncertainty and gain stability. Practical implications Analysis of the lobbying strategies used by the accounting experts whose position could make a difference and receive more attention from the IIRC makes this contribution of particular interest, especially since the first version of the IIRF sought to guide disclosure and sustainable business practices around the world. Social implications Experts as political actors play a legitimising role since they are capable of producing relevant knowledge that, due to its nature and scope, certainly affects policymaking and sustainable development. Originality/value This research provides a sociopolitical perspective to comprehend how some lobbying strategies, in this case, of expert actors, contribute to legitimising a standard-setter body and its endeavours in the context of voluntary standards.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分析专家在国际综合报告框架正当程序中的游说行为
利用Suchman的认知合法性概念和Boswell对专家知识政治功能的描述,本文旨在研究国际综合报告委员会(IIRC)在第一版国际综合报告框架(IIRF)发布之前遵循的正当程序。具体而言,作者分析了由会计机构和公司、监管机构和学者代表的游说者子集“专家”发出的评论信中使用的游说策略。本文从形式导向和意义导向两方面分析了专家在参与IIRF公众咨询时如何运用知识的功能。作者首先对被认为是会计专家游说者的选民对2013年咨询草案的回应进行了定量内容分析。然后,作者分析了这些行为者如何在专家知识的基础上构建他们的评论,以使IIRC、IIRF和会计职业本身合法化。研究结果表明,专家组欢迎这个机会,不仅仅是通过他们的民主支持使IIRC合法化,而是提供一个技术官僚的解决方案,确保正当程序基于专家知识作为合法来源的动员。通过利用专家游说者的认知合法性,IIRC利用专家知识的政治功能来减少不确定性并获得稳定性。对会计专家所使用的游说策略的分析,其立场可能会产生影响,并得到IIRC更多的关注,这一贡献特别令人感兴趣,特别是因为IIRF的第一版旨在指导世界各地的披露和可持续商业实践。作为政治行动者的专家发挥着合法化的作用,因为他们能够提供相关的知识,这些知识由于其性质和范围,肯定会影响决策和可持续发展。原创性/价值本研究提供了一个社会政治视角来理解一些游说策略,在这种情况下,专家行为者,如何有助于使标准制定机构及其在自愿标准背景下的努力合法化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Investigating the barriers and strategies for establishing desalination plants to mitigate water scarcity in Sri Lankan dry zones Environmental sustainability balanced scorecard: a strategic map for joint action by municipalities Advancing fiscal transparency in Latin American countries: new findings in reports on tax sustainability in Chile Forward-looking information: does IIRC framework adoption matter? Environment court, shareholder conflict and corporate governance: evidence from market reactions to bank loan announcements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1