IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v49y2025i1p20-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Soft law regulation and labour rights reporting: a deficit in moral legitimacy?

Author

Listed:
  • Sepideh Parsa
  • Ian Roper
  • Iris Maurer
  • Michael Mueller-Camen

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts British and German transnational corporations’ (TNCs) reporting on the labour rights of workers in their global value chains (GVCs) for the years 2012 and 2018, using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines – an initiative that comes under the category of soft law regulation. Between these dates, regulatory changes took place in Britain and in the EU which had relevance to the reporting of labour rights issues more generally. Simultaneously the GRI reporting guidelines shifted to more flexible requirements in the transition from G3.1 to G4. This paper examines the consequences of these changes and finds that, in combination, these changes did not lead TNCs to improving the labour rights reporting. The paper suggests that even though reporting to international guidelines tends to be context-based, there was some convergence in this broadly negative outcome. This all suggests that there was an element of regulatory capture in the shifts to softer regulatory regimes. Conceptually, this points to a reduction in substantive disclosures and leads to a deficit in moral legitimacy and its displacement by more pragmatic legitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Sepideh Parsa & Ian Roper & Iris Maurer & Michael Mueller-Camen, 2025. "Soft law regulation and labour rights reporting: a deficit in moral legitimacy?," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(1), pages 20-44, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:49:y:2025:i:1:p:20-44
    DOI: 10.1080/01559982.2023.2250030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01559982.2023.2250030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01559982.2023.2250030?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.

    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:taf:accfor:v:49:y:2025:i:1:p:20-44. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    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.