IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v13y2019i2p260-279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Big audit firms as regulatory intermediaries in transnational labor governance

Author

Listed:
  • Luc Fransen
  • Genevieve LeBaron

Abstract

Due diligence and corporate disclosure initiatives effectively expand the role of professional service firms as regulatory intermediaries in the governance of conditions of production in global supply chains. In this paper, we examine the rise of the “Big Four” audit firms in the market for services connected to transnational labor governance. Through a qualitative case study of audit firms in modern slavery governance, we argue that the Big Four's political repertoire for transnational labor governance expands beyond the roles that are typically linked to their services, and promotes an agenda that touches on key debates on what constitutes proper transnational labor governance. Big audit firms engage in a variety of informal and covert influencing practices and are shown to promote an agenda of incrementalist soft‐law labor governance, opposing concrete performance targets, binding public regulation and an independent watchdog role for civil society.

Suggested Citation

  • Luc Fransen & Genevieve LeBaron, 2019. "Big audit firms as regulatory intermediaries in transnational labor governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 260-279, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:13:y:2019:i:2:p:260-279
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12224
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12224?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bothello , Joel & Mehrpouya, Afshin, 2018. "Between Regulatory Field Structuring and Organizational Roles: Intermediation in the Field of Sustainable Urban Development," HEC Research Papers Series 1304, HEC Paris.
    2. Thomas Lawton & Steven Mcguire & Tazeeb Rajwani, 2013. "Corporate Political Activity : A Literature Review and Research Agenda," Post-Print hal-02312913, HAL.
    3. Sébastien Mena & Daniel Waeger, 2014. "Activism for Corporate Responsibility: Conceptualizing Private Regulation Opportunity Structures," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(7), pages 1091-1117, November.
    4. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    5. Puro, M, 1984. "Audit Firm Lobbying Before The Financial Accounting Standards Board - An Empirical-Study," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 624-646.
    6. Graeme Auld & Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2010. "Transparency in Nonstate Certification: Consequences for Accountability and Legitimacy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 10(3), pages 97-119, August.
    7. Locke, Richard M. & Qin, Fei & Brause, Alberto, 2007. "Does monitoring improve labor standards? Lessons from Nike," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59405, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Phillips, Nicola. & LeBaron, Genevieve. & Wallin, Sara., 2018. "Mapping and measuring the effectiveness of labour-related disclosure requirements for global supply chains," ILO Working Papers 995008793002676, International Labour Organization.
    9. Sofie Bouteligier, 2011. "Exploring the agency of global environmental consultancy firms in earth system governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 43-61, March.
    10. Kenneth Abbott & Duncan Snidal, 2010. "International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 315-344, September.
    11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/13776 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Stefan Renckens & Graeme Auld, 2022. "Time to certify: Explaining varying efficiency of private regulatory audits," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 500-518, April.
    2. Ainsley Elbra & John Mikler & Hannah Murphy‐Gregory, 2023. "The Big Four and corporate tax governance: From global dis‐harmony to national regulatory incrementalism," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(1), pages 72-83, February.
    3. Sheila Killian & Philip O'Regan & Ruth Lynch & Martin Laheen & Dionysios Karavidas, 2022. "Regulating havens: The role of hard and soft governance of tax experts in conditions of secrecy and low regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 722-737, July.
    4. Onna M. van den Broek & Robyn Klingler‐Vidra, 2022. "The UN Sustainable Development Goals as a North Star: How an intermediary network makes, takes, and retrofits the meaning of the Sustainable Development Goals," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1306-1324, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luc Brès & Sébastien Mena & Marie‐Laure Salles‐Djelic, 2019. "Exploring the formal and informal roles of regulatory intermediaries in transnational multistakeholder regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 127-140, June.
    2. José Carlos Marques, 2019. "Private regulatory capture via harmonization: An analysis of global retailer regulatory intermediaries," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 157-176, June.
    3. Francesca Colli & Johan Adriaensen, 2020. "Lobbying the state or the market? A framework to study civil society organizations’ strategic behavior," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 501-513, July.
    4. Niklas Elert & Magnus Henrekson, 2019. "The collaborative innovation bloc: A new mission for Austrian economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 295-320, December.
    5. George O. White & Jean J. Boddewyn & Tazeeb Rajwani & Thomas A. Hemphill, 2018. "Regulator Vulnerabilities to Political Pressures and Political Tie Intensity: The Moderating Effects of Regulatory and Political Distance," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 743-769, October.
    6. Jodi L. Short & Michael W. Toffel & Andrea R. Hugill, 2016. "Code Contingencies: Designing Monitoring Regimes to Promote Improvement in Supply Chain Working Conditions," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-001, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2019.
    7. Thomas M Maak & Nicola M Pless & Christian Voegtlin, 2016. "Business Statesman or Shareholder Advocate? CEO Responsible Leadership Styles and the Micro-Foundations of Political CSR," Post-Print hal-01480535, HAL.
    8. Brandon Gipper & Brett J Lombardi & Douglas J Skinner, 2013. "The politics of accounting standard-setting: A review of empirical research," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 38(3), pages 523-551, December.
    9. Bozanic, Zahn & Dirsmith, Mark W. & Huddart, Steven, 2012. "The social constitution of regulation: The endogenization of insider trading laws," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 461-481.
    10. Niklas Elert & Magnus Henrekson, 2021. "Entrepreneurship prompts institutional change in developing economies," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 34(1), pages 33-53, March.
    11. Zhifeng Yang, 2013. "Do Political Connections Add Value to Audit Firms? Evidence from IPO Audits in China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 891-921, September.
    12. Edmund Malesky & Markus Taussig, 2019. "How Do Firms Feel About Participation by Their Peers in the Regulatory Design Process? An Online Survey Experiment Testing the Substantive Change and Spillover Mechanisms," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 129-150, June.
    13. Kenneth W. Abbott & David Levi-faur & Duncan Snidal, 2017. "Theorizing Regulatory Intermediaries," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 14-35, March.
    14. Sébastien Mena & Daniel Waeger, 2014. "Activism for Corporate Responsibility: Conceptualizing Private Regulation Opportunity Structures," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(7), pages 1091-1117, November.
    15. Mia Mahmudur Rahim, 2017. "Improving Social Responsibility in RMG Industries Through a New Governance Approach in Laws," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(4), pages 807-826, July.
    16. Tahiru Azaaviele Liedong & Daniel Aghanya & Tazeeb Rajwani, 2020. "Corporate Political Strategies in Weak Institutional Environments: A Break from Conventions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(4), pages 855-876, February.
    17. José Carlos Marques, 2017. "Industry Business Associations: Self-Interested or Socially Conscious?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(4), pages 733-751, July.
    18. Rodrigo M. S. Moita & Claudio Paiva, 2013. "Political Price Cycles in Regulated Industries: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 94-121, February.
    19. Scott Gehlbach & Konstantin Sonin & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2010. "Businessman Candidates," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 718-736, July.
    20. John A. Parnell, 2017. "Cronyism from the Perspective of the Firm: A Cross-National Assessment of Nonmarket Strategy," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 32(Fall 2017), pages 47-74.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:reggov:v:13:y:2019:i:2:p:260-279. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.