IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/aaajpp/v27y2014i7p1157-1189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a legitimate compromise?

Author

Listed:
  • Koen van Bommel

Abstract

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to examine the multiplicity of views on integrated reporting and to consider the possibility of, and impediments to, reconciling these multiple rationales (“orders of worth”) and thus gain legitimacy through a compromise. This sheds light on the understanding of integrated reporting as such, as well as shows how legitimacy struggles are resolved in practice around complex accounting practices in heterogeneous environments. Design/methodology/approach - – This explorative paper empirically applies Boltanski and Thévenot's sociology of worth (SOW) framework to analyse integrated reporting in the Dutch reporting field. Data were collected using multiple methods, including 64 semi-structured in-depth interviews with a wide range of relevant actors, and documentary analysis. Data were coded for the presence of orders of worth and legitimating compromise mechanisms. Findings - – The author's analysis suggests that integrated reporting combines the disparate domains of industrial, market, civic and green order of worth. These different logics of valuation need to be reconciled in a compromise in order for integrated reporting to become a legitimate practice. Such a compromise requires a common interest, avoidance of clarification and maintenance of ambiguity. The author's analysis suggests these mechanisms are violated though, with the risk that integrated reporting gets captured by investors and accountants, leading to local private arrangements rather than durable legitimate compromise. Research limitations/implications - – First, SOW informs the understanding of integrated reporting. It highlights in particular its fragility as fundamentally different rationales need to be reconciled, which is a challenge yet also gives rise to creative frictions. Second, the SOW framework creates the possibility for scholars to look closer at the dynamics of legitimacy and at the possible mechanisms to attain legitimacy in fragmented and heterogeneous environment. Practical implications - – The SOW framework offers tools for practitioners, in particular those working within a pluralistic context. The various mechanisms of compromise discussed in this paper provide practical guidelines for how to manage this complexity and gain or maintain legitimacy. Originality/value - – This rich empirical study combines a novel theoretical approach (the SOW framework) with an analysis of the relatively unexplored topic of integrated reporting. At the same time it introduces a conceptualisation of legitimacy that highlights communicative and constitutive dialogue and goes beyond fit and compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Koen van Bommel, 2014. "Towards a legitimate compromise?," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 27(7), pages 1157-1189, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:v:27:y:2014:i:7:p:1157-1189
    DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2013-1309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2013-1309/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2013-1309/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2013-1309?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cho, Charles H. & Laine, Matias & Roberts, Robin W. & Rodrigue, Michelle, 2015. "Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 78-94.
    2. Maria Serena Chiucchi & Marco Montemari & Marco Gatti, 2018. "The Influence of Integrated Reporting on Management Control Systems: A Case Study," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Filippo Vitolla & Nicola Raimo, 2021. "Adoption of Integrated Reporting: Reasons and Benefits—A Case Study Analysis," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(12), pages 244-244, July.
    4. Passetti, Emilio & Rinaldi, Leonardo, 2020. "Micro-processes of justification and critique in a water sustainability controversy: Examining the establishment of moral legitimacy through accounting," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    5. La Torre, Matteo & Dumay, John & Rea, Michele Antonio & Abhayawansa, Subhash, 2020. "A journey towards a safe harbour: The rhetorical process of the International Integrated Reporting Council," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    6. Venturelli, Andrea & Ligorio, Lorenzo & de Nuccio, Elbano, 2023. "Biodiversity accountability in water utilities: A case study," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    7. Pavlopoulos, Athanasios & Magnis, Chris & Iatridis, George Emmanuel, 2017. "Integrated reporting: Is it the last piece of the accounting disclosure puzzle?," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 23-46.
    8. Marco Gatti & Maria Serena Chiucchi & Marco Montemari, 2018. "Management Control Systems and Integrated Reporting: Which Relationships? The Case of the Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti Ancona," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(9), pages 169-169, August.
    9. Serena Santis & Michela Bianchi, 2021. "Disclosing Information on Financial and Non-Financial Capitals in the Integrated Report: An Empirical Analysis of Financial Industry," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(11), pages 1-62, July.
    10. Busco, Cristiano & Malafronte, Irma & Pereira, John & Starita, Maria Grazia, 2019. "The determinants of companies’ levels of integration: Does one size fit all?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 277-298.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:v:27:y:2014:i:7:p:1157-1189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.