What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Since the end of the 1990s, sustainability reporting has become an increasingly relevant topic in business and academia. However, literature is still limited in quantity and no major reviews of the latest developments have thus far been presented. This paper provides a review of 178 articles dating from 1999 to 2011 from journals related to business, management, and accounting. Our aim is to identify what determinants of sustainability reporting are examined in the literature and to identify (in)consistencies, gaps, and opportunities for future research. We specifically illuminate factors influencing the adoption, the extent, and the quality of reporting. Based on our findings we provide an otherwise often missing link to theory (especially legitimacy, stakeholder, signaling, and institutional theory). Finally, possible future research themes are discussed by illuminating gaps and underexposed themes in the area of regulation and governance as well as reporting quality and stakeholder perception.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2330264_code1468472.pdf?abstractid=2290524&mirid=4

Determinants of Sustainability Reporting: A Review of Results, Trends, Theory, and Opportunities in an Expanding Field of Research

Offers a comprehensive critique of the spread of auditing in both the public and private sectors and shows how to achieve a better balance between audits and other forms of accountability. Michael Power is Professor of Accounting at the LSE. ‘A rare attempt to stand back and question the very notion of auditing and the place it has assumed in our society.’ Financial Times

The Audit Explosion

Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research

In this paper we explore how multinational corporations (MNCs) adopt assurance practices to develop and sustain organizational accountability for sustainability. Using a panel of Fortune Global 250 firms over a period of ten years, we document the diffusion patterns of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. We specifically investigate how evolving auditing practices, namely diversity of assurance standards and type of assurance providers, shape the quality of sustainability assurance statements. The results illustrate great variability in the adoption of assurance practices in the formative stages of this novel market. Our descriptive analysis indicates the relevance of external institutional pressures as well as internal resources and capabilities as underlying factors driving the adoption of assurance. Our evidence also suggests that several MNCs project a decoupled or symbolic image of accountability through assurance, thereby undermining the credibility of these verification practices. The paper contributes to the emerging literature on international accountability standards and emphasizes the need to enhance theory-based, cross-disciplinary knowledge related to auditing and accountability processes for sustainability.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2062900_code105013.pdf?abstractid=2062900&mirid=1&type=2

Multinationals’ Accountability on Sustainability: The Evolution of Third-Party Assurance of Sustainability Reports

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.

Ros Haniffa

Papers

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