Articulating sustainability reporting and management control: Bring to light the tensions in the interplay

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore the interplay between reporting (SR) and management control systems (MCS) of sustainability and to question the limits that comes up in this interplay as it may distract from the issue of guiding local sustainability action. Among the growing literature studying the interplay between SR and MCS, several papers raise the need for sustainability measurement that enable action arguing for a better "synergy" between both. Answering to a call from Traxler et al (2020), this paper aims at contributing to this literature by an in-depth studies taking a more practice-based view to explore this interplay and question the limits of this positive framing. Design/methodology: This paper is developed through an ethnographic methodology of a "deviant" case (Dumez, 2015). For three years, I have been involved at the headquarters of a multinational to coordinate the SR. I draw on Charles Sanders Peirce's theory of signs (Peirce, 1931, 1974) to question the different use of KPIs across the organization's layers. The empirical materials are records of interactions through a logbook and interviews. Findings: As central CSR managers draw on the regulatory framework of SR to set a legitimate MCS of sustainability, the latter becomes affected by external influences through compliancy of KPIs with auditability criteria. Yet, this merger comes with limitations when it comes to guide CSR actions at the operational level. The merger leads to an internal decoupling between a global and a local management control. To this regard, this paper shows that alignment leads to an illusion of control where KPIs have lost their contextual dimension and their ability to enable action. Research limitations: The main limitation of this paper comes with the originality of a deviant case where SR and MCS merged. Then, several contingencies need to be considered while analysing the results. Practical implication: This paper shows that stakeholders have different ways of comprehending and using KPIs. Therefore, seeking for alignment and standardization of KPIs could reduce the capacity of local actors to use KPIs in an alternative way that is more efficient for them to guide actions. Originality: This paper draws on a "deviant" case, used as a heuristic to question the limits of the positive frame of alignment between SR and MCS.