Where Is the Accountability in International Accountability Standards?: A Decoupling Perspective
A common complaint by academics and practitioners is that the application of international accountability standards (IAS) does not lead to significant improvements in an organization's social responsibility. When organizations espouse their commitment to IAS but do not put forth the effort nece...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Business ethics quarterly 2011-01, Vol.21 (1), p.45-72 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 72 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 45 |
container_title | Business ethics quarterly |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Behnam, Michael MacLean, Tammy L. |
description | A common complaint by academics and practitioners is that the application of international accountability standards (IAS) does not lead to significant improvements in an organization's social responsibility. When organizations espouse their commitment to IAS but do not put forth the effort necessary to operationally enact that commitment, a "credibility cover" is created that perpetuates business as usual. In other words, the legitimacy that organizations gain by formally adopting the standards may shield the organization from closer scrutiny, thus enabling rather than constraining the types of activities the standards were designed to discourage. There is a lack of research on why certain types of IAS are more prone than others to being decoupled from organizational practices. Applying a neo-institutional perspective to IAS, we theorize that the structural dimensions of the types of standards themselves can increase the likelihood of organizations adopting IAS standards in form but not in function. |
doi_str_mv | 10.5840/beq20112113 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_861386789</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>25763051</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25763051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-2654ad34140b924622c6cbe94fd48c409153924a30c229f7f4a66dc194c83dcc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0EtLAzEUBeAgCtbqyrUQ3LiQ0bw7cSOlvgoFBRXdjZlMxqZMM9MkI_TfG6mIdHXhno8L9wBwjNEFzxm6LM2KIIwJxnQHDAjmNKOUiF0wwIiTDHP0vg8OQligpGROB-DjbW68gdMA49zAsdZt76IqbWPjGloHpy4a71S0rVPNdv4clauUr8L1FRzDG5PCrrHuEz4ZHzqjo_0yh2CvVk0wR79zCF7vbl8mD9ns8X46Gc8yTTGLGRGcqYoyzFApCROEaKFLI1ldsVwzJNMvaa8o0oTIelQzJUSlsWQ6p5XWdAjONnc73656E2KxtEGbplHOtH0ocoFpLka5TPJ0Sy7aPv3YJMSkoIJQnND5BmnfhuBNXXTeLpVfFxgVP10X_7pO-mSjFyG2_o8SPhIUcUy_AbkHerY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>849636231</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Where Is the Accountability in International Accountability Standards?: A Decoupling Perspective</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Cambridge Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Behnam, Michael ; MacLean, Tammy L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Behnam, Michael ; MacLean, Tammy L.</creatorcontrib><description>A common complaint by academics and practitioners is that the application of international accountability standards (IAS) does not lead to significant improvements in an organization's social responsibility. When organizations espouse their commitment to IAS but do not put forth the effort necessary to operationally enact that commitment, a "credibility cover" is created that perpetuates business as usual. In other words, the legitimacy that organizations gain by formally adopting the standards may shield the organization from closer scrutiny, thus enabling rather than constraining the types of activities the standards were designed to discourage. There is a lack of research on why certain types of IAS are more prone than others to being decoupled from organizational practices. Applying a neo-institutional perspective to IAS, we theorize that the structural dimensions of the types of standards themselves can increase the likelihood of organizations adopting IAS standards in form but not in function.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1052-150X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2153-3326</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5840/beq20112113</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: Philosophy Documentation Center</publisher><subject>Accountability ; Accounting standards ; Business audits ; Business ethics ; Business structures ; Compliance costs ; Corporate responsibility ; Corporate social responsibility ; Ethical accountability ; Ethical codes ; International standards ; International system ; Journalism ; Neoinstitutionalism ; Organizational analysis ; Organizational behavior ; Reporting standards ; Social responsibility ; Special Section Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility ; Standardization ; Structural analysis ; U.S.A</subject><ispartof>Business ethics quarterly, 2011-01, Vol.21 (1), p.45-72</ispartof><rights>The Society for Business Ethics</rights><rights>Copyright Loyola University of Chicago Jan 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-2654ad34140b924622c6cbe94fd48c409153924a30c229f7f4a66dc194c83dcc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-2654ad34140b924622c6cbe94fd48c409153924a30c229f7f4a66dc194c83dcc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25763051$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25763051$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27923,27924,58016,58249</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Behnam, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacLean, Tammy L.</creatorcontrib><title>Where Is the Accountability in International Accountability Standards?: A Decoupling Perspective</title><title>Business ethics quarterly</title><description>A common complaint by academics and practitioners is that the application of international accountability standards (IAS) does not lead to significant improvements in an organization's social responsibility. When organizations espouse their commitment to IAS but do not put forth the effort necessary to operationally enact that commitment, a "credibility cover" is created that perpetuates business as usual. In other words, the legitimacy that organizations gain by formally adopting the standards may shield the organization from closer scrutiny, thus enabling rather than constraining the types of activities the standards were designed to discourage. There is a lack of research on why certain types of IAS are more prone than others to being decoupled from organizational practices. Applying a neo-institutional perspective to IAS, we theorize that the structural dimensions of the types of standards themselves can increase the likelihood of organizations adopting IAS standards in form but not in function.</description><subject>Accountability</subject><subject>Accounting standards</subject><subject>Business audits</subject><subject>Business ethics</subject><subject>Business structures</subject><subject>Compliance costs</subject><subject>Corporate responsibility</subject><subject>Corporate social responsibility</subject><subject>Ethical accountability</subject><subject>Ethical codes</subject><subject>International standards</subject><subject>International system</subject><subject>Journalism</subject><subject>Neoinstitutionalism</subject><subject>Organizational analysis</subject><subject>Organizational behavior</subject><subject>Reporting standards</subject><subject>Social responsibility</subject><subject>Special Section Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><subject>Structural analysis</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><issn>1052-150X</issn><issn>2153-3326</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpd0EtLAzEUBeAgCtbqyrUQ3LiQ0bw7cSOlvgoFBRXdjZlMxqZMM9MkI_TfG6mIdHXhno8L9wBwjNEFzxm6LM2KIIwJxnQHDAjmNKOUiF0wwIiTDHP0vg8OQligpGROB-DjbW68gdMA49zAsdZt76IqbWPjGloHpy4a71S0rVPNdv4clauUr8L1FRzDG5PCrrHuEz4ZHzqjo_0yh2CvVk0wR79zCF7vbl8mD9ns8X46Gc8yTTGLGRGcqYoyzFApCROEaKFLI1ldsVwzJNMvaa8o0oTIelQzJUSlsWQ6p5XWdAjONnc73656E2KxtEGbplHOtH0ocoFpLka5TPJ0Sy7aPv3YJMSkoIJQnND5BmnfhuBNXXTeLpVfFxgVP10X_7pO-mSjFyG2_o8SPhIUcUy_AbkHerY</recordid><startdate>20110101</startdate><enddate>20110101</enddate><creator>Behnam, Michael</creator><creator>MacLean, Tammy L.</creator><general>Philosophy Documentation Center</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110101</creationdate><title>Where Is the Accountability in International Accountability Standards?: A Decoupling Perspective</title><author>Behnam, Michael ; MacLean, Tammy L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-2654ad34140b924622c6cbe94fd48c409153924a30c229f7f4a66dc194c83dcc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Accountability</topic><topic>Accounting standards</topic><topic>Business audits</topic><topic>Business ethics</topic><topic>Business structures</topic><topic>Compliance costs</topic><topic>Corporate responsibility</topic><topic>Corporate social responsibility</topic><topic>Ethical accountability</topic><topic>Ethical codes</topic><topic>International standards</topic><topic>International system</topic><topic>Journalism</topic><topic>Neoinstitutionalism</topic><topic>Organizational analysis</topic><topic>Organizational behavior</topic><topic>Reporting standards</topic><topic>Social responsibility</topic><topic>Special Section Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><topic>Structural analysis</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Behnam, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacLean, Tammy L.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Business ethics quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Behnam, Michael</au><au>MacLean, Tammy L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Where Is the Accountability in International Accountability Standards?: A Decoupling Perspective</atitle><jtitle>Business ethics quarterly</jtitle><date>2011-01-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>45</spage><epage>72</epage><pages>45-72</pages><issn>1052-150X</issn><eissn>2153-3326</eissn><abstract>A common complaint by academics and practitioners is that the application of international accountability standards (IAS) does not lead to significant improvements in an organization's social responsibility. When organizations espouse their commitment to IAS but do not put forth the effort necessary to operationally enact that commitment, a "credibility cover" is created that perpetuates business as usual. In other words, the legitimacy that organizations gain by formally adopting the standards may shield the organization from closer scrutiny, thus enabling rather than constraining the types of activities the standards were designed to discourage. There is a lack of research on why certain types of IAS are more prone than others to being decoupled from organizational practices. Applying a neo-institutional perspective to IAS, we theorize that the structural dimensions of the types of standards themselves can increase the likelihood of organizations adopting IAS standards in form but not in function.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>Philosophy Documentation Center</pub><doi>10.5840/beq20112113</doi><tpages>28</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1052-150X |
ispartof | Business ethics quarterly, 2011-01, Vol.21 (1), p.45-72 |
issn | 1052-150X 2153-3326 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_861386789 |
source | Business Source Complete; Cambridge Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | Accountability Accounting standards Business audits Business ethics Business structures Compliance costs Corporate responsibility Corporate social responsibility Ethical accountability Ethical codes International standards International system Journalism Neoinstitutionalism Organizational analysis Organizational behavior Reporting standards Social responsibility Special Section Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility Standardization Structural analysis U.S.A |
title | Where Is the Accountability in International Accountability Standards?: A Decoupling Perspective |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T01%3A36%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Where%20Is%20the%20Accountability%20in%20International%20Accountability%20Standards?:%20A%20Decoupling%20Perspective&rft.jtitle=Business%20ethics%20quarterly&rft.au=Behnam,%20Michael&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45&rft.epage=72&rft.pages=45-72&rft.issn=1052-150X&rft.eissn=2153-3326&rft_id=info:doi/10.5840/beq20112113&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E25763051%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=849636231&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=25763051&rfr_iscdi=true |