对可持续发展报告标准制定的批判性思考

IF 5.2 4区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal Pub Date : 2023-05-19 DOI:10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0054
Irshad Ali, Peni Fukofuka, A. Narayan
{"title":"对可持续发展报告标准制定的批判性思考","authors":"Irshad Ali, Peni Fukofuka, A. Narayan","doi":"10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe aim of this paper is to provide critical reflections on the role of standard setters and the endeavours of various organisations to provide sustainability reporting standards.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors’ critical reflections are informed by the literature and websites of IASB, International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), global reporting initiative (GRI) and other relevant organisations. The authors use Bourdieu’s concept of field to support their analysis and critique.\n\n\nFindings\nThe authors highlight how a disrupted standard-setting field will be a distraction from efforts to address real sustainability issues and concerns. Determining the “legitimate” sustainability reporting standards is likely to be an outcome of struggles between occupants in the sustainability standard-setting field. Accordingly, the shape of legitimate standards will be defined by those with power. The concern is the priority and the motive underpinning the endeavours of those with power. The authors propose that it is important for both the ISSB and GRI to serve the interest of a broad range of actors, including those who are not likely to have a say in sustainability reporting standard setting.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThis paper contributes to sustainability reporting practice by putting forward a case for strengthening current sustainability reporting practices with appropriate changes to overcome some of the criticisms of the GRI.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThe authors highlight that there is a much broader group of stakeholders who require sustainability information and that it is important that the sustainability reporting standards serve the information needs of all stakeholders and not just those of the dominant actors. However, the ISSB with its economic focus will inevitably focus on the concern of investors and market participants.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe originality in this paper is the use of Bourdieu’s concept of field to theoretically highlight how a new standard setter may disrupt the sustainability standard-setting field and act as a distraction from efforts to address sustainability issues and concerns that the world faces.\n","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical reflections on sustainability reporting standard setting\",\"authors\":\"Irshad Ali, Peni Fukofuka, A. Narayan\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe aim of this paper is to provide critical reflections on the role of standard setters and the endeavours of various organisations to provide sustainability reporting standards.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe authors’ critical reflections are informed by the literature and websites of IASB, International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), global reporting initiative (GRI) and other relevant organisations. The authors use Bourdieu’s concept of field to support their analysis and critique.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe authors highlight how a disrupted standard-setting field will be a distraction from efforts to address real sustainability issues and concerns. Determining the “legitimate” sustainability reporting standards is likely to be an outcome of struggles between occupants in the sustainability standard-setting field. Accordingly, the shape of legitimate standards will be defined by those with power. The concern is the priority and the motive underpinning the endeavours of those with power. The authors propose that it is important for both the ISSB and GRI to serve the interest of a broad range of actors, including those who are not likely to have a say in sustainability reporting standard setting.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThis paper contributes to sustainability reporting practice by putting forward a case for strengthening current sustainability reporting practices with appropriate changes to overcome some of the criticisms of the GRI.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThe authors highlight that there is a much broader group of stakeholders who require sustainability information and that it is important that the sustainability reporting standards serve the information needs of all stakeholders and not just those of the dominant actors. However, the ISSB with its economic focus will inevitably focus on the concern of investors and market participants.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe originality in this paper is the use of Bourdieu’s concept of field to theoretically highlight how a new standard setter may disrupt the sustainability standard-setting field and act as a distraction from efforts to address sustainability issues and concerns that the world faces.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":22143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0054\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0054","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: 1

摘要

本文的目的是对标准制定者的角色和各种组织为提供可持续发展报告标准所做的努力提供批判性的反思。设计/方法/方法作者的批判性思考来自国际会计准则理事会(IASB)、国际可持续发展准则理事会(ISSB)、全球报告倡议组织(GRI)和其他相关组织的文献和网站。作者使用布迪厄的场域概念来支持他们的分析和批判。研究结果作者强调了一个被打乱的标准制定领域将如何分散人们对解决真正可持续性问题和关注的努力的注意力。确定“合法的”可持续发展报告标准很可能是可持续发展标准制定领域的居住者之间斗争的结果。因此,合法标准的形式将由当权者来定义。这种关切是当权者努力的首要任务和动机。作者建议,ISSB和GRI都必须服务于广泛参与者的利益,包括那些不太可能在可持续发展报告标准制定中拥有发言权的人。实践意义本文提出了一个案例,通过适当的改变来加强当前的可持续发展报告实践,以克服GRI的一些批评,从而为可持续发展报告实践做出了贡献。社会意义作者强调,有更广泛的利益相关者群体需要可持续发展信息,可持续发展报告标准服务于所有利益相关者的信息需求,而不仅仅是那些主要参与者的信息需求,这一点很重要。然而,以经济为中心的ISSB必然会引起投资者和市场参与者的关注。原创性/价值本文的原创性是利用布迪厄的领域概念,从理论上强调了一个新的标准制定者如何扰乱可持续性标准制定领域,并分散了解决世界面临的可持续性问题和关注的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Critical reflections on sustainability reporting standard setting
Purpose The aim of this paper is to provide critical reflections on the role of standard setters and the endeavours of various organisations to provide sustainability reporting standards. Design/methodology/approach The authors’ critical reflections are informed by the literature and websites of IASB, International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), global reporting initiative (GRI) and other relevant organisations. The authors use Bourdieu’s concept of field to support their analysis and critique. Findings The authors highlight how a disrupted standard-setting field will be a distraction from efforts to address real sustainability issues and concerns. Determining the “legitimate” sustainability reporting standards is likely to be an outcome of struggles between occupants in the sustainability standard-setting field. Accordingly, the shape of legitimate standards will be defined by those with power. The concern is the priority and the motive underpinning the endeavours of those with power. The authors propose that it is important for both the ISSB and GRI to serve the interest of a broad range of actors, including those who are not likely to have a say in sustainability reporting standard setting. Practical implications This paper contributes to sustainability reporting practice by putting forward a case for strengthening current sustainability reporting practices with appropriate changes to overcome some of the criticisms of the GRI. Social implications The authors highlight that there is a much broader group of stakeholders who require sustainability information and that it is important that the sustainability reporting standards serve the information needs of all stakeholders and not just those of the dominant actors. However, the ISSB with its economic focus will inevitably focus on the concern of investors and market participants. Originality/value The originality in this paper is the use of Bourdieu’s concept of field to theoretically highlight how a new standard setter may disrupt the sustainability standard-setting field and act as a distraction from efforts to address sustainability issues and concerns that the world faces.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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