Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-4whtl Total loading time: 0.312 Render date: 2021-05-16T04:20:57.149Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Abstract:

This article assesses the proliferation of international accountability standards (IAS) in the recent past. We provide a comprehensive overview about the different types of standards and discuss their role as part of a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Based on this, it is argued that IAS can advance corporate responsibility on a global level because they contribute to the closure of some omnipresent governance gaps. IAS also improve the preparedness of an organization to give an explanation and a justification to relevant stakeholders for its judgments, intentions, acts and omissions when appropriately called upon to do so. However, IAS also face a variety of problems impeding their potential to help address social and environmental issues. The contribution of the four articles in this special section is discussed in the context of standards’ problems and opportunities. The article closes by outlining a research agenda to further develop and extend the scholarly debate around IAS.

Type
Special Section Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., & Snidal, D. 2000. The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54: 40119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54: 42156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, C. A. 2004. The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17: 73157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aravind, D., & Christmann, P. 2011. Decoupling of standard implementation from certification: Does quality of ISO 14001 implementation affect facilities’ environmental performance? Business Ethics Quarterly, 21: 73102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arevalo, J. A., & Fallon, F. T. 2008. Assessing corporate responsibility as a contribution to global governance: The case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Effective Board Performance, 8: 45670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, D. 2005. Understanding global slavery. Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, B. 2003. Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24: 14380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behnam, M., & MacLean, T. L. 2011. Where Is the accountability in international accountability standards? A decoupling perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21: 4572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendell, J. 2005. In whose name? The accountability of corporate social responsibility? Development in Practice, 15: 36274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, S. 2005. Legitimacy in global environmental governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1: 13966.Google Scholar
Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. 2007. Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation and Governance, 1: 34771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitzer, V., Francken, M., & Glasbergen, P. 2008. Intersectoral partnerships for a sustainable coffee chain: Really addressing sustainability or just picking (coffee) cherries? Global Environmental Change, 18: 27184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. 2008. Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes. Regulation and Governance, 2: 13764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boiral, O. 2003. ISO 9000: Outside the iron cage. Organization Science, 14: 72037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. 2005. Public-private partnerships: Effective and legitimate tools of transnational governance. In Grande, E. & Pauly, L. W. (Eds.), Complex sovereignty: Reconstituting political authority in the twenty-first century: 195216. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Boström, M. 2003. How state-dependent is a non-state-driven rule-making project? The case of forest certification in Sweden. Environmental Policy and Planning, 5: 16580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. 2000. The contemporary expansion of standardization. In Brunsson, N. & Jacobsson, B. (Eds.), A world of standards: 117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. 2006. Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 863878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, A. 2006. Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC). 2005. Looking for a quick fix? How weak social auditing is keeping workers in sweatshops. Amsterdam: Clean Clothes Campaign.Google Scholar
Cooper, S. M., & Owen, D. 2007. Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32: 64967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, A., & Matten, D. 2007. Business ethics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. C. 2001. Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization: A crisis of legitimacy. Review of International Studies, 27: 13350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. A. 1999. Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic’s view. In Shapiro, I. & Hacker-Cordon, C. (Eds.), Democracy’s edges: 1936. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delmas, M., & Montes-Sancho, M. 2011. An institutional perspective on the diffusion of international management system standards: The case of the environmental management standard ISO 14001. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21: 10332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deva, S. 2006. Global Compact: A critique of the UN’s “public-private” partnership for promoting corporate citizenship. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Communication, 34: 10751.Google Scholar
Djelic, M. L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. 2006. Introduction: A world of governance: The rise of transnational regulation. In Djelic, M. L. & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.), Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation: 128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domask, J. 2003. From boycotts to global partnership: NGOs, the private sector, and the struggle to protect the world forests. In Doh, J. P. & Teegen, H. (Eds.), Globalization and NGOs: Transforming business, government, and society: 15786. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. 2010. The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21: 10921107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. 1970. The order of things. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fung, A. 2003. Deliberative democracy and international labor standards. Governance, 16: 5171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A., O’Rourke, D., & Sabel, C. 2001. Can we put an end to sweatshops? Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. 2007. Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17: 187216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. 2008. Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82: 75573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2010. About GRI. http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI.Google Scholar
Göbbels, M., & Jonker, J. 2003. AA1000 and SA8000 compared: A systematic comparison of contemporary accountability standards. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18: 5458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2009. Guidance on social responsibility (Draft International Standard ISO/DIS 26000). Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
Jamali, D. 2010. MNCs and international accountability standards through an institutional lens: Evidence of symbolic conformity or decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics, 95: 61740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kell, G. 2005. The Global Compact selected experiences and reflections. Journal of Business Ethics, 59: 6979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kell, G., & Levin, D. 2003. The Global Compact network: An historic experiment in learning and action. Business and Society Review, 108: 15181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kell, G., & Ruggie, J. G. 1999. Global markets and social legitimacy: The case for the “Global Compact.” Transnational Corporations, 8: 10120.Google Scholar
Khan, F. R., Munir, K. A., & Willmott, H. 2007. A dark side of institutional entrepreneurship: Soccer balls, child labour, and postcolonial impoverishment. Organization Studies, 28: 105577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirton, J. J., & Trebilcock, M. J. 2004. Hard choices, soft law. Voluntary standards in global trade, environment and social governance. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Kobrin, S. J. 2009. Private political authority and public responsibility: Transnational politics, transnational firms, and human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 34974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurlantzick, J. 2004. Taking multinationals to court: How the Alien Tort Act promotes human rights. World Policy Journal, Spring: 6067.Google Scholar
Leipziger, D. 2010. The corporate responsibility code book (2nd ed.). Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
Leisinger, K. M. 2007. Capitalism with a human face: The UN Global Compact. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 28: 11332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, D. L., Brown, H. S., & de Jong, M. 2009. The contested politics of corporate governance: The case of the Global Reporting Initiative. Business & Society, 49: 88115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, R., Amengual, M., & Mangla, A. 2009. Virtue out of necessity? Compliance, commitment and the improvement of labor conditions in global supply chains. Politics and Society, 37: 31951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, R. & Romis, M. 2007. Improving Work Conditions in a Global Supply Chain. Sloan Management Review, 40 (2): 5362.Google Scholar
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 2009. The logic of appropriateness. ARENA Working Paper Series No. 04/09. University of Oslo: Arena Center for European Studies.Google Scholar
Maskus, K. E. 2000. Intellectual property rights in the global economy. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1991. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 4162. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. 2005. The United Nations’ Compact with business: Hindering or helping the protection of human rights? University of Queensland Law Journal, 24: 44566.Google Scholar
OECD. 2010. Guidelines for multinational enterprises. http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34889_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. 2000. Monitoring the monitors: A critique of Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) labor monitoring. http://web.mit.edu/dorourke/www/PDF/pwc.pdf.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. 2003. Outsourcing regulation: Analyzing nongovernmental systems of labour standards and monitoring. Policy Studies Journal, 31: 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, D. L., & O’Dwyer, B. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: The reporting and assurance dimension. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 384409. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paine, L. S. 1994. Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72: 10617.Google Scholar
Paine, L. S., Deshpandé, R., Margolis, J. D., & Bettcher, K. E. 2005. Up to code. Does your company’s conduct meet world class standards? Harvard Business Review, 83: 12233.Google ScholarPubMed
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. 2006. Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 7188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picciotto, S. 2008. Constitutionalizing multilevel governance? International Journal of Constitutional Law, 6: 45779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A. 2009a. “A necessary supplement”: What the United Nations Global Compact is and is not. Business and Society, 48: 51137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A. 2009b. Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards: The case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16: 192205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A. 2010. Collaborative governance 2.0. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 10: 50011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. 2006. From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability: Applying Habermasian discourse ethics to accountability research. Journal of Business Ethics, 65: 25167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (Eds.). 2010. The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roht-Arriaza, N. 1995. Shifting the point of regulation: The International Organization for Standardization and global lawmaking on trade and the environment. Ecology Law Quarterly, 22: 479539.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J. G. 2001. Global_governance.net: The Global Compact as learning network. Global Governance, 7: 37178.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J. G. 2002. Trade, sustainability and global governance. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 27: 297307.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J. G. 2003. The United Nations and globalization: Patterns and limits of institutional adaptation. Global Governance, 9: 30121.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J. G. 2004. Reconstituting the global public domain: Issues, actors and practices. European Journal of International Relations, 10: 499531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32: 10961120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. 2009. Introduction to the special section: Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16: 50532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, D. A., & Christmann, P. 2011. The effectiveness of market-based governance schemes: The case of fair trade coffee. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21: 13356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigzelius, I., & Mark-Herbert, C. 2009. Tailoring corporate responsibility to suppliers: Managing SA8000 in Indian garment nanufacturing. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25: 4656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, M. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamm-Hallström, K. 2008. ISO expands its business into social responsibility. In Boström, M. & Garsten, C. (Eds.), Organizing transnational accountability: 4660. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2010. World Investment Report. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Utting, P. 2002. Regulating business via multi-stakeholder initiatives: A preliminary assessment. In Utting, P. (Ed.), Voluntary approaches to corporate responsibility: 61126. Geneva: United Nations Research Centre for Social Development.Google Scholar
Utting, P. 2008. The struggle for corporate accountability. Development and Change, 39: 95975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, D. 2008. Private global business regulation. Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 26282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddock, S. 2008. Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22: 87108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. 1999. Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 4157.Google Scholar
Williams, O. F. 2004. The UN Global Compact: The challenge and the promise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14: 75574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadek, S. 2008. Global collaborative governance: There is no alternative. Corporate Governance, 8: 37488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *