Advertisement

SDG 17 Partnerships for the Goals

Global Business Networks: Accounting for Sustainability
  • Isabel B. FrancoEmail author
  • Masato Abe
Chapter
Part of the Science for Sustainable Societies book series (SFSS)

Abstract

Corporate accountability has expanded rapidly in recent years as a tool that business can employ to respond for corporate performance. Nevertheless, the exercise of corporate accountability is challenging as it requires stronger corporate capacity and commitment to respond to external stakeholders in alignment with voluntary regulatory norms. In response, corporate agendas are being significantly shaped by internal and external stakeholders that are employees, suppliers, and customers. Yet, an examination of the current status of accountability both as a historical trend and in current corporate agendas in selected cases shows an increasing gap between policy and impact. Based on a case study method and theory building, the research reported in this article shows the status of corporate accountability of companies operating in Asia-Pacific and adhered to the Global Compact Network. It also provides some conceptual and practical tools toward enhanced accountability, contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal 17 (SDG 17) and its targets Multi-stakeholder partnerships (17.16 and 17.17) and Data, monitoring, and accountability.

Keywords

Corporations SDG 17 Sustainability Reporting Accountability Disclosure Global Compact Network 

References

  1. Abe M, Franco I (2017) Socially responsible business: a model for a sustainable future. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and The Pacific, Bangkok. Retrieved from http://www.unescap.org/publications/socially-responsible-business-model-sustainable-future-studies-trade-investment-and
  2. Abe M, Ruanglikhitkul W (2013) Integrating sustainability reporting into global supply chains in Asia and the Pacific, Chapter II. From corporate social responsibility to corporate sustainability: moving the agenda forward in Asia and the Pacific, studies in trade and investment no. 77. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), BangkokGoogle Scholar
  3. Amer E (2015) The penalization of non-communicating UN Global Compact’s companies by investors and its implications for this initiative’s effectiveness. Bus Soc 0007650315609303Google Scholar
  4. Bedewella E, Fairbrass J (2016) Seeking legitimacy through CSR: institutional pressures and corporate responses of multinationals in Sri Lanka. J Bus Ethics 136:503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boiral O, Henri JF (2017) Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Bus Soc 56(2):283–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovens M (1998) The quest for responsibility. Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan NM, Solomon J (2008) Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: an overview. Account Audit Account J 21(7):885–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (1992) Financial aspects of corporate governance report with code of best practices. Gee (A division of Professional Publishing, London, p 90Google Scholar
  10. Cooper C (1992) The non and nom of accounting for (M)other nature accounting. Audit Account J 5(3):23Google Scholar
  11. Cummings J (2001) Engaging stakeholders in corporate accountability programmes: a cross-sectoral analysis of UK and transnational experience. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 10(1):45–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenhardt KM (1989a) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14(1):57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenhardt KM (1989b) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fontrodona J, Sison A (2006) The nature of the firm, agency theory and shareholder theory: a critique from philosophical anthropology. J Bus Ethics 66(1):33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9052-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foxhall L, Lewis A (1996) Greek law in its political setting justifications not justice. Clarendon Press Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Franco I (2014) Building sustainable communities: enhancing human capital in resource regions – Colombian case. The University of Queensland, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedman M (1970) A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13(1970): 32–33Google Scholar
  19. Galbraith VH (1961) The making of Domesday Book. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert DU, Behnam M (2013) Trust and the United Nations global compact: a network theory perspective. Bus Soc 52(1):135–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Godfrey A, Hooper K (1996) Accountability and decision-making in feudal England: Domesday Book revisited. Account Hist 1(1):35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/103237329600100103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gray R, Owen D, Evans R, Zadek S (1997) Struggling with the praxis of social accounting. Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures. Account Audit Account J 10(3):325–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hood C (1991) A public management for all Seasons? Public Adm 69(1):3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes OE (2003) Public management and administration, vol VIII, 3rd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Ministry of Legislation (1998) Foreign Investment Promotion Act. Ministry of Legislation of ROKGoogle Scholar
  26. Mulgan R (2000) Accountability: an ever-expanding concept? Public Adm 78(3):555–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ospina S, Diaz W, O’Sullivan JF (2002) Negotiating accountability: managerial lessons from identity-based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 31(1):5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parsons C (2017) The (in) effectiveness of voluntarily produced transparency reports. Bus Soc 0007650317717957Google Scholar
  29. Post JE (2013) The United Nations global compact: a CSR milestone. Bus Soc 52(1):53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Power M, Laughlin R (2003) Critical theory and accounting (Alvenson Willmont ed.). Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts JT (1982) Accountability in Athenian Government: books on demandGoogle Scholar
  32. Schembera S (2018) Implementing corporate social responsibility: empirical insights on the impact of the UN Global Compact on its business participants. Bus Soc 57(5):783–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sinclair A (1995) The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Acc Organ Soc 20(2–3):219–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)e0003-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sok K, Whang (2014) Corporate social responsibility implementation in South Korea: lessons from American and British CSR policies. J. Int. Area Stud 12(2):99–118Google Scholar
  35. Stewart R (1999) Public policy (Robyn Flemming ed.). Sydney MacMillan Publishers Australia PTYGoogle Scholar
  36. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (2013) Central bank law. The State law and Order Restoration CouncilGoogle Scholar
  37. Von Dornum D (1997) The straight and the crooked: legal accountability in ancient Greece. Columbia Law Rev 97(5):1483–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson R (1968) The theory of syndicates. Econometrica 36(1):119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. World Bank (1996) Environment matters. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Yin RK (2009) Case study: research design and methods, vol 5, 4th edn. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the Advanced Study of SustainabilityUnited Nations University Shibuya-kuTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Australian Institute for Business and EconomicsThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Macroeconomic Policy and Financing for Development DivisionTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations