Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Re-theorizing the configuration of organization...

Electronic data

  • Humphrey, O'Dwyer and Unerman 2016 - forthcoming Accounting and Business Research

    Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Accounting and Business Research on 14/07/2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00014788.2016.1198683

    Accepted author manuscript, 939 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Re-theorizing the configuration of organizational fields: the IIRC and the pursuit of ‘Enlightened’ corporate reporting

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Re-theorizing the configuration of organizational fields : the IIRC and the pursuit of ‘Enlightened’ corporate reporting. / Humphrey, Christopher; O’Dwyer, Brendan; Unerman, J.

In: Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2017, p. 30-63.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Humphrey, Christopher ; O’Dwyer, Brendan ; Unerman, J. / Re-theorizing the configuration of organizational fields : the IIRC and the pursuit of ‘Enlightened’ corporate reporting. In: Accounting and Business Research. 2017 ; Vol. 47, No. 1. pp. 30-63.

Bibtex

@article{146bf8bd81914e0e9152ad673b810117,
title = "Re-theorizing the configuration of organizational fields: the IIRC and the pursuit of {\textquoteleft}Enlightened{\textquoteright} corporate reporting",
abstract = "This paper studies the emergence of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and its attempts to institutionalize integrated reporting as a practice that is critical to the relevance and value of corporate reporting. Informed by Suddaby and Viale{\textquoteright}s [(2011). Professionals and field-level change: institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59, 423–442] theorization of how professionals reconfigure organizational fields, the paper delineates the strategies and mechanisms through which the IIRC has sought to enroll the support of a wide range of stakeholder groups for the idea of integrated reporting in order to deliver a fundamental reconfiguration of the corporate reporting field. The paper{\textquoteright}s analysis reinforces the significance to any such field reconfiguration of the reciprocal and mutual arrangements between influential professionals and other powerful actors but does so in a way that (a) refines Suddaby and Viale{\textquoteright}s theorization of processes of field-level change and (b) pinpoints the fundamental policy challenges facing the IIRC. Gieryn{\textquoteright}s [(1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781–795] notion of boundary work is operationalized to capture some of the complexity and dynamism of the change process that is not sufficiently represented by Suddaby and Viale{\textquoteright}s more sequentialist theorization. From a policy perspective, the paper demonstrates just how much the IIRC{\textquoteright}s prospects for success in reconfiguring the corporate reporting field depend on its ability to reconfigure the mainstream investment field. Ultimately, this serves to question whether the IIRC{\textquoteright}s conceptualization of {\textquoteleft}enlightened{\textquoteright} corporate reporting is sufficiently powerful and persuasive to stimulate {\textquoteleft}enlightened{\textquoteright} investment behavior focused on the medium and long term–and, more generally stresses the theoretical significance of considering connections across related organizational fields in institutional analyses of field reconfiguration efforts. {\textcopyright} 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.",
keywords = "accountancy profession, boundary work, corporate reporting, enlightened investment behavior, IIRC, institutional work, integrated reporting, non-financial reporting, organizational field, sustainability reporting",
author = "Christopher Humphrey and Brendan O{\textquoteright}Dwyer and J. Unerman",
note = "This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Accounting and Business Research on 14/07/2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00014788.2016.1198683",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1080/00014788.2016.1198683",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "30--63",
journal = "Accounting and Business Research",
issn = "0001-4788",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Re-theorizing the configuration of organizational fields

T2 - the IIRC and the pursuit of ‘Enlightened’ corporate reporting

AU - Humphrey, Christopher

AU - O’Dwyer, Brendan

AU - Unerman, J.

N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Accounting and Business Research on 14/07/2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00014788.2016.1198683

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - This paper studies the emergence of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and its attempts to institutionalize integrated reporting as a practice that is critical to the relevance and value of corporate reporting. Informed by Suddaby and Viale’s [(2011). Professionals and field-level change: institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59, 423–442] theorization of how professionals reconfigure organizational fields, the paper delineates the strategies and mechanisms through which the IIRC has sought to enroll the support of a wide range of stakeholder groups for the idea of integrated reporting in order to deliver a fundamental reconfiguration of the corporate reporting field. The paper’s analysis reinforces the significance to any such field reconfiguration of the reciprocal and mutual arrangements between influential professionals and other powerful actors but does so in a way that (a) refines Suddaby and Viale’s theorization of processes of field-level change and (b) pinpoints the fundamental policy challenges facing the IIRC. Gieryn’s [(1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781–795] notion of boundary work is operationalized to capture some of the complexity and dynamism of the change process that is not sufficiently represented by Suddaby and Viale’s more sequentialist theorization. From a policy perspective, the paper demonstrates just how much the IIRC’s prospects for success in reconfiguring the corporate reporting field depend on its ability to reconfigure the mainstream investment field. Ultimately, this serves to question whether the IIRC’s conceptualization of ‘enlightened’ corporate reporting is sufficiently powerful and persuasive to stimulate ‘enlightened’ investment behavior focused on the medium and long term–and, more generally stresses the theoretical significance of considering connections across related organizational fields in institutional analyses of field reconfiguration efforts. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

AB - This paper studies the emergence of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and its attempts to institutionalize integrated reporting as a practice that is critical to the relevance and value of corporate reporting. Informed by Suddaby and Viale’s [(2011). Professionals and field-level change: institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59, 423–442] theorization of how professionals reconfigure organizational fields, the paper delineates the strategies and mechanisms through which the IIRC has sought to enroll the support of a wide range of stakeholder groups for the idea of integrated reporting in order to deliver a fundamental reconfiguration of the corporate reporting field. The paper’s analysis reinforces the significance to any such field reconfiguration of the reciprocal and mutual arrangements between influential professionals and other powerful actors but does so in a way that (a) refines Suddaby and Viale’s theorization of processes of field-level change and (b) pinpoints the fundamental policy challenges facing the IIRC. Gieryn’s [(1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781–795] notion of boundary work is operationalized to capture some of the complexity and dynamism of the change process that is not sufficiently represented by Suddaby and Viale’s more sequentialist theorization. From a policy perspective, the paper demonstrates just how much the IIRC’s prospects for success in reconfiguring the corporate reporting field depend on its ability to reconfigure the mainstream investment field. Ultimately, this serves to question whether the IIRC’s conceptualization of ‘enlightened’ corporate reporting is sufficiently powerful and persuasive to stimulate ‘enlightened’ investment behavior focused on the medium and long term–and, more generally stresses the theoretical significance of considering connections across related organizational fields in institutional analyses of field reconfiguration efforts. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

KW - accountancy profession

KW - boundary work

KW - corporate reporting

KW - enlightened investment behavior

KW - IIRC

KW - institutional work

KW - integrated reporting

KW - non-financial reporting

KW - organizational field

KW - sustainability reporting

U2 - 10.1080/00014788.2016.1198683

DO - 10.1080/00014788.2016.1198683

M3 - Journal article

VL - 47

SP - 30

EP - 63

JO - Accounting and Business Research

JF - Accounting and Business Research

SN - 0001-4788

IS - 1

ER -