IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/aaajpp/aaaj-09-2019-4167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subpolitics and sustainability reporting boundaries. The case of working conditions in global supply chains

Author

Listed:
  • Carla Antonini
  • Cornelia Beck
  • Carlos Larrinaga

Abstract

Purpose - This paper explores the subpolitical role and main characteristics of a specific accounting technique, sustainability reporting boundaries. Its focus is on how the sett2ing of sustainability reporting boundaries affects the definition and distribution of social risks along the supply chain, particularly the risks related to working condition and human rights. Design/methodology/approach - The paper draws on Beck's (1986) exploration of the ways in which techno-economic spheres offer opportunities for the politicisation of new areas. It is argued that the sphere of sustainability reporting offers that opportunity for the politicisation of supply chains. Using the case of Inditex, the historical context of initiatives relating to the ready-made garment (RMG) industry at global, European and industry level as well as media coverage on the entity are analysed; this is correlated with the analysis of boundary setting in relation to sustainability reports, focusing specifically on working conditions. Findings - The analysis suggests that accounting technologies that set contested boundaries are subpolitical, that is, defined outside traditional political processes. The paper finds that the way social risks are framed along the supply chain renders them invisible and impersonal and that the framing of these risks becomes endless as they are contested by different groups of experts. Setting sustainability reporting boundaries has subpolitical properties in producing and framing those risks, whilst is simultaneously limited by the inherent politicisation of such an exercise. The questionable legitimacy of sustainability reporting boundaries calls for the construction not only of discursive justifications but also of new possibilities for political participation. Research limitations/implications - The analysis is limited to working conditions along one organisation's supply chain. Originality/value - The contribution of this paper is threefold: (1) It studies in-depth how working conditions in global supply chains are portrayed in sustainability reports. (2) It answers the call to study accounting technologies themselves, in this case sustainability reporting boundaries. (3) It extends Beck's work on global ecological dangers to working conditions in global supply chains to explore how sustainability reporting boundaries are subpolitically involved in the definition and distribution of social risks along the supply chain.

Suggested Citation

  • Carla Antonini & Cornelia Beck & Carlos Larrinaga, 2020. "Subpolitics and sustainability reporting boundaries. The case of working conditions in global supply chains," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 33(7), pages 1535-1567, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:aaaj-09-2019-4167
    DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-09-2019-4167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2019-4167/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-09-2019-4167/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-09-2019-4167?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. Annalisa Baldissera, 2023. "Sustainability reporting in banks: History of studies and a conceptual framework for thinking about the future by learning from the past," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 2385-2405, September.
    2. Jeng-Bang Wang & Guan-Hua Wang & Chung-Ya Ou, 2023. "The Key Factors for Sustainability Reporting Adoption in the Semiconductor Industry Using the Hybrid FRST-PSO Technique and Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Lukka, Kari & Becker, Albrecht, 2023. "The future of critical interdisciplinary accounting research: Performative ontology and critical interventionist research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    4. Tregidga, Helen & Laine, Matias, 2022. "On crisis and emergency: Is it time to rethink long-term environmental accounting?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    5. Tae Hee Kim & Sun Hye Lee & Petros Vourvachis, 2023. "Accounting Standard-Setting for an Emission Trading Scheme: The Korean Case," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(4), pages 1003-1024, February.
    6. Walaa Wahid ElKelish*, 2023. "Accounting for Corporate Human Rights: Literature Review and Future Insights," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(2), pages 203-226, June.
    7. Stefania Camoletto & Laura Corazza & Simone Pizzi & Erica Santini, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility due diligence among European companies: The results of an interventionist research project with accountability and political implications," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1122-1133, September.

    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:aaaj-09-2019-4167. 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.