Conceptual Background and Relationships between SR and MCS: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Conner Chen and Version 1 by ABM Fazle Rahi.

The movement for corporate sustainability reporting (SR) came into the spotlight in the middle of the 1990s when the South African first king code of corporate governance, widely known as the “King I” report, was published. The focus of SR is on value creation through intellectual, human, social, and natural capitals. In order to ensure that sustainable value creation is connected to the different types of capital, companies need to manage and control for such value creation. This point emphasises the link between value creation and management control systems (MCS).

  • sustainability report
  • integrated report
  • management control system

1. Introduction

The movement for corporate sustainability reporting (SR) came into the spotlight in the middle of the 1990s when the South African first king code of corporate governance, widely known as the “King I” report, was published (Dumay et al. 2016; Gleeson-White 2014)1. The stakeholder notion grabbed quick attention in the business world for its durable business growth without compromising stakeholders’ interests. Later, in 2002, the King II report introduced the concept of integrated reporting as a means of non-financial reporting in addition to financial reporting. This integrated reporting underpinned frameworks, such as the current Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Sustainability Accounting Standard Board (SASB), and the triple bottom line (Dumay et al. 2016; Gleeson-White 2014). Since then, organisations have been progressively motivated to report in line with such standards.
The SR aims to increase transparency in companies and their contribution to sustainable development (Elkington 1997; Herzig and Schaltegger 2006; Traxler et al. 2020). However, there are many reasons beyond transparency, pointing to the demands of the sustainability report, such as performance improvement, legitimacy, accountability, control, and stakeholder management (WBCSD 2015; Maas et al. 2016a, 2016b; Gond et al. 2012; Joseph 2012; Nigri and Del Baldo 2018). Direct and indirect pressure from stakeholders has sped up the disclosure process (Gleeson-White 2014; Jollands et al. 2018). For the sake of protecting shareholders and other stakeholders’ interests, the European Parliament issued the directive (European Union Directive 2104/95) on non-financial disclosure and diversity (La Torre et al. 2018). This new regulation requires larger companies with more than 500 employees and public interest entities to produce annual corporate reports with information on their social, environmental, human rights and anti-corruption policy, risks, and performance (European Union 2014). Thus, now many European countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, and Germany (Hoffmann et al. 2018), amend their voluntary disclosure, turning to higher degrees of mandatory disclosure.
There is a growing recognition that contribution to sustainable development requires organisations to embed considerations of the triple bottom line or ESG along with financial considerations into their managerial decision-making and organisational control process (Bonacchi and Rinaldi 2007; Perego and Hartmann 2009; Rahi et al. 2022b). Meanwhile, accounting scholars diverge in their opinions on whether SR and management control systems (MCS)2 should or should not be mixed into the same frameworks and clearly reflected in the sustainability report. Some scholars argue that SR is a mirror of managerial decision-making and control processes (Biswas and O’Grady 2016). In line with this, they provide frameworks of sustainability reporting management control systems (SRMCS) for bridging the relationship between them (i.e., Laughlin 1991; Morioka and de Carvalho 2016; Traxler et al. 2020; Tilt 2006). Researchers even warn of the risk of greenwashing if sustainability data solely is integrated into sustainability reports but not embedded in companies’ internal decision-making (Gray and Milne 2004; Milne and Gray 2013; Traxler et al. 2020). In contrast, other scholars see the links between SR and MCS as dangerous, risking direct management focus apart from the sustainability practice involving internal decision and management control processes (Bebbington et al. 2007; Riccaboni and Leone 2010; Maas et al. 2016b).
Despite the mixed scholarly views on the integration of sustainability reporting and management control, as well as how it spills over into companies’ sustainability practices, (i.e., what companies do and how they work), there is a growing consensus that SR should reflect the managerial motivations and attitudes within the company, as they respond directly to stakeholders’ demands. The development of sustainability reporting may, in line with this reasoning, be orientated towards improving sustainability practice in terms of management decision-making and work processes. Producing extensive sustainability reports may be considered inconsistent, with companies thereby claiming accountability and transparency while not linking sustainability to the company’s sustainability practice and MCS. Researchers see the effective implementation of successful sustainability strategies as requiring comprehensive MCS to ensure integration of sustainability into an organisation’s core operations and to push it towards transparency, performance improvement, legitimacy, accountability, control, and stakeholder management together (Epstein 1996; Epstein and Wisner 2005; Gond et al. 2012; Moon et al. 2011). In addition, empirical studies further identified that there is a clear linkage between sustainability reporting and financial performance (Oncioiu et al. 2020; Jones et al. 2007), and a proper contract of executive compensation helps in this regard (Al-Shaer and Zaman 2019). This means that sustainability reporting, employee motivation, financial performance, and stakeholder prosperity are endogenously and exogenously related to each other. There is a growing number of literature reviews focusing on sustainability and MCS separately. Their primary focus is performance management (i.e., Morioka and de Carvalho 2016) or MCS for sustainable development in general (i.e., Lueg and Radlach 2016), while neglecting the linkage between SR and MCS. A recent systematic review by Traxler et al. (2020) limits the review to a specific management control (MC) framework known as the Malmi–Brown framework.

2. Conceptual Background of SR and MCS and Their Relationships

2.1. Sustainability Reporting (SR)

A combination of financial and non-financial information is critical both for managers and for external stakeholders, such as investors (Koellner et al. 2005; Milne and Chan 1999; Reimsbach et al. 2018). Similar to financial reporting, sustainability reporting plays a crucial role for external decision-makers, such as in investment-related decisions (Bernow et al. 2019; Arvidsson and Johansson 2019). Here, SR refers to a non-financial report aimed at providing stakeholders with high-quality sustainability information in accordance with the three sustainability dimensions, namely governance, social, and environmental (White 2016; Arvidsson and Dumay 2021). Disclosure of SR is a major channel for companies to ensure transparency and legitimacy in front of stakeholders (Ditlevsen et al. 2013; and Beck et al. 2017). Nonetheless, a company’s degree of sustainability depends on the company’s true actions. From the beginning, companies published sustainability reports according to their own frameworks, and these frameworks often changed over the years. The lack of uniformity caused incomparability between organisations and even between years within the same company (Haller et al. 2018). In many countries, SR is still considered a voluntary practice, lacking uniform frameworks (Bhasin 2017). One reason for the lack of attention to SR from the beginning was the difficulty in transforming sustainability actions into accounting terms. However, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and Sustainability Accounting Standard Board’s (SASB) frameworks have been widely practiced by a large number of companies, also aligning sustainability and accounting. Over the years, the focus of SR is now on value creation through intellectual, human, social, and natural capitals as emphasised by Gleeson-White 2014. In order to ensure that sustainable value creation is connected to the different types of capital, companies need to manage and control for such value creation. This point emphasises the link between value creation and MCS (Chenhall et al. 2010; Skoog 2003).

2.2. Management Control Systems (MCS)

The term management control was introduced in Anthony’s (1965) theoretical work, where MC was separated from strategic planning and operational control. The concept of management accounting and control was, until this time, limited to cost accounting control, a perspective failing to take technological progression, organisational structure, and environmental changes into account (Otley 1994; Birnberg 2011). However, through Anthony’s work, MCS was theoretically developed into the notion that accounting is an integral part of planning and control. Scholars started to emphasise that design of the management control systems (MCS) needed to be shaped in line with organisational strategies, since the contemporary business environment and acceptance of changes are unavoidable when designing a MCS (Otley 1994). Over the years, researchers followed this framework of management control and developed the notion of contingency approaches in management accounting and control (i.e., Hopewood, Govindarajan, Gordon-Miller, Hayes, and Otley). Accordingly, sustainability strategies, goals, discourse, and mission statements are expected to be reflected within formal management control systems, while also communicated to stakeholders formally through reporting (Gond et al. 2012; Narayanan and Boyce 2019). This is in line with an “inside-out” perspective (Maas et al. 2016b; Schaltegger and Wagner 2006). The inside-out perspective is based on the business strategy and an analysis of issues that are important for the effective implementation for these strategies.

2.3. Relationship between SR and MCS

The conceptualisation is based on the theoretical discussion mentioned above. In this, SR in the middle is surrounded by the MCS, stakeholder’s expectation, and institutional expectations, since SR is the interest of all the stakeholder, internally and externally. The four circles illustrate different parts of an MCS, including (1) informal control, (2) formal control, (3) stakeholders’ expectations, and (4) transparency and legitimacy requirements. To meet regulatory and stakeholder requirements, SR is considered a cardinal approach to decision-making based on both an “inside-out” and an “outside-in” perspective (Maas et al. 2016b). The inside-out perspective spans the informal and formal control systems and captures business areas, such as strategy, mission, vision, and analysis of issues that are relevant for the implementation of strategies (Maas et al. 2016b; Chiucchi et al. 2018). Here, the choice of KPIs, performance measurement, as well as what is reported externally, are based on internal decisions from an inside-out perspective (Maas et al. 2016b; Schaltegger and Wagner 2006; Nigri and Del Baldo 2018). That is, internal control and strategy-related information are highly linked to external reporting (Bui and Villiers 2017). This outlines a clear linkage between management accounting control and sustainability reporting. The outside-in perspective derives from external stakeholders’ requirements and expectations of the company’s sustainability impacts and operations (Bebbington et al. 2007; Clarkson et al. 2011; Gray 1992). The link between control and reporting is, thus, strongly influenced by societal expectations, regulatory requirements, and standards. Management control is, as such, guided by the “required” and the “expected.” Therefore, many authors argue that sustainability reporting reduces information asymmetry between organisations and key stakeholders, also facilitating improvement of corporate governance (Riccaboni and Leone 2010; Wulf et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2007; Heflin et al. 2005). The outside-in or inside-out perspectives, or both, can be used in an integrated manner for performance measurement and the reporting of sustainability issues (Maas et al. 2016b). Sustainability reporting initially came into action for external stakeholder purposes, but there is also increasing awareness of the potential of this communication channel to support managerial decision-making and internal control processes (Chiucchi et al. 2018). The rising attention on internal control through the preparation of sustainability reports has led many researchers to focus on the effects of SR design and implementation on MCSs (Chiucchi et al. 2018). Many authors have argued that SR can improve MCS through the successful implementation of intended strategies; following the assumptions that guiding principles for SR can help and develop control measures, this in line with the company’s strategic directions (Montemari and Chiucchi 2018). As such, SR may improve the capacity of MCSs.

References

  1. Dumay, John, Cristiana Bernardi, James Guthrie, and Paola Demartini. 2016. Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Accounting Forum 40: 166–85.
  2. Gleeson-White, Jane. 2014. Six Capitals: The Revolution Capitalism Has to Have—Or Can Accountants Save the Planet? Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
  3. Elkington, John. 1997. The triple bottom line. In Environmental Management: Readings and Cases. New York: SAGE.
  4. Herzig, Christian, and Stefan Schaltegger. 2006. Corporate sustainability reporting: An overview. In Sustainability Accounting and Reporting. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 301–24.
  5. Traxler, Albert Anton, Daniela Schrack, and Dorothea Greiling. 2020. Sustainability reporting and management control—A systematic exploratory literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 276: 122725.
  6. WBCSD. 2015. Reporting Matters: Redefining Performance and Disclosure. Available online: https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Redefining-Value/External-Disclosure/Reporting-matters/Resources/Reporting-matters-2015 (accessed on 1 November 2021).
  7. Maas, Karen, Stefan Schaltegger, and Nathalie Crutzen. 2016a. Reprint of Advancing the integration of corporate sustainability measurement, management and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 136: 1–4.
  8. Maas, Karen, Stefan Schaltegger, and Nathalie Crutzen. 2016b. Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 136: 237–48.
  9. Gond, Jean-Pascal, Suzana Grubnic, Christian Herzig, and Jeremy Moon. 2012. Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability. Management Accounting Research 23: 205–23.
  10. Joseph, George. 2012. Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for sustainability reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 23: 93–106.
  11. Nigri, Giorgia, and Mara Del Baldo. 2018. Sustainability reporting and performance measurement systems: How do small- and medium-sized benefit corporations manage integration? Sustainability 10: 4499.
  12. Jollands, Stephen, Chris Akroyd, and Norio Sawabe. 2018. Management controls and pressure groups: The mediation of overflows. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31: 1644–67.
  13. La Torre, Matteo, Svetlana Sabelfeld, Marita Blomkvist, Lara Tarquinio, and John Dumay. 2018. Harmonising non-financial reporting regulation in Europe: Practical forces and projections for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research 26: 598–621.
  14. European Union. 2014. Directive as Regards Disclosure of Non-Financial and Diversity Information by Certain Large Undertakings and Groups, 2014/95/EU. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095&from=EN/ (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  15. Hoffmann, Esther, Christian Dietsche, and Christine Hobelsberger. 2018. Between mandatory and voluntary: Non financial reporting by German companies. Nachhaltigkeits Management Forum Sustainability Management Forum 26: 47–63.
  16. Bonacchi, Massimiliano, and Leonardo Rinaldi. 2007. Dartboards and clovers as new tools in sustainability planning and control. Business Strategy and the Environment 16: 461–73.
  17. Perego, Paolo, and Frank Hartmann. 2009. Aligning performance measurement systems with strategy: The case of environmental strategy. Abacus 45: 397–428.
  18. Rahi, ABM Fazle, Ruzlin Akter, and Jeaneth Johansson. 2022b. Do sustainability practices influence financial performance? Evidence from the Nordic financial industry. Accounting Research Journal 35: 292–314.
  19. Biswas, Sharlene, and Winnie O’Grady. 2016. Using external environmental reporting to embed sustainability into organizational practices. Accounting Research Journal 29: 218–34.
  20. Laughlin, Richard C. 1991. Environmental disturbances and organizational transitions and transformations: Some alternative models. Organization Studies 12: 209–32.
  21. Morioka, Sandra Naomi, and Marly Monteiro de Carvalho. 2016. A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. Journal of Cleaner Production 136: 134–46.
  22. Tilt, Carol Ann. 2006. Linking environmental activity and environmental disclosure in an organisational change framework. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 2: 4–24.
  23. Gray, Rob, and Markus Milne. 2004. Towards reporting on the triple bottom line: Mirages, methods and myths. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up? Edited by Adrian Henriques and Julie Richardson. London: Earthscan, pp. 70–80.
  24. Milne, Markus J., and Rob Gray. 2013. W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 118: 13–29.
  25. Bebbington, Jan, Judy Brown, and Bob Frame. 2007. Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics 16: 224–36.
  26. Riccaboni, Angelo, and Emilia Luisa Leone. 2010. Implementing strategies through management control systems: The case of sustainability. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 59: 130–44.
  27. Epstein, Marc J. 1996. You’ve got a great environmental strategy—Now what? Business Horizons 39: 53–59.
  28. Epstein, Marc J., and Priscilla S. Wisner. 2005. Managing and controlling environmental performance: Evidence from Mexico. Advances in Management Accounting 14: 115–37.
  29. Moon, Jeremy, Suzana Grubnic, Christian Herzig, and Jean-Pascal Gon. 2011. Management control for sustainability strategy. CIMA Research Executive Summary Series 7: 1–20.
  30. Oncioiu, Ionica, Anca-Gabriela Petrescu, Florentina-Raluca Bîlcan, Marius Petrescu, Delia-Mioara Popescu, and Elena Anghel. 2020. Corporate sustainability reporting and financial performance. Sustainability 12: 4297.
  31. Jones, Stewart, Geoff Frost, Janice Loftus, and Sandra Van Der Laan. 2007. An empirical examination of the market returns and financial performance of entities engaged in sustainability reporting. Australian Accounting Review 17: 78–87.
  32. Al-Shaer, Habiba, and Mahbub Zaman. 2019. CEO compensation and sustainability reporting assurance: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Business Ethics 158: 233–52.
  33. Lueg, Rainer, and Ronny Radlach. 2016. Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review. European Management Journal 34: 158–71.
  34. Koellner, Thomas, Olaf Weber, Marcus Fenchel, and Roland Scholz. 2005. Principles for sustainability rating of investment funds. Business Strategy and the Environment 14: 54–70.
  35. Milne, Markus J., and Christian C. C. Chan. 1999. Narrative corporate social disclosures: How much of a difference do they make to investment decision-making? British Accounting Review 31: 439–58.
  36. Reimsbach, Daniel, Rüdiger Hahn, and Anil Gürtürk. 2018. Integrated reporting and assurance of sustainability information: An experimental study on professional investors’ information processing. European Accounting Review 27: 559–81.
  37. Bernow, Sara, Johathan Godsall, Bryce Klempner, and Charlotte Merten. 2019. More than Values: The Value-Based Sustainability Reporting That Investors Want. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/more-than-values-the-value-based-sustainability-reporting-that-investors-want# (accessed on 26 April 2020).
  38. Arvidsson, Susanne, and Jeaneth Johansson. 2019. Sense-making and sense-giving: Reaching through the smokescreen of sustainability disclosure in the stock market. In Challenges in Managing Sustainable Business. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–109.
  39. White, Gwendolen B. 2016. Sustainability Reporting: Getting Started, 2nd ed. Hampton: Business Expert Press.
  40. Arvidsson, Susanne, and John Dumay. 2021. Corporate ESG reporting quantity, quality and performance: Where to now for environmental policy and practice? Business Strategy and the Environment 31: 1091–110.
  41. Ditlevsen, Marianne Grove, Anne Ellerup Nielsen, and Christa Thomsen. 2013. Corporate reporting: An integrated approach to legitimacy. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing 9: 1637–43.
  42. Beck, Cornelia, John Dumay, and Geoffrey Frost. 2017. In pursuit of a ‘single source of truth’: From threatened legitimacy to integrated reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 141: 191–205.
  43. Haller, Axel, Chris J. Van Staden, and Cristina Landis. 2018. Value added as part of sustainability reporting: Reporting on distributional fairness or obfuscation? Journal of Business Ethics 152: 763–81.
  44. Bhasin, Madan Lal. 2017. Integrated reporting: The future of corporate reporting. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research 6: 17–31.
  45. Chenhall, Robert H., Matthew Hall, and David Smith. 2010. Social capital and management control systems: A study of a non-government organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society 35: 737–56.
  46. Skoog, Matti. 2003. Visualizing value creation through the management control of intangibles. Journal of Intellectual Capital 4: 487–504.
  47. Anthony, Robert Newton. 1965. Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration.
  48. Otley, David. 1994. Management control in contemporary organizations: Towards a wider framework. Management Accounting Research 5: 289–99.
  49. Birnberg, Jacob G. 2011. Robert N. Anthony: A pioneering thinker in management accounting. Accounting Horizons 25: 593–602.
  50. Narayanan, Venkateshwaran, and Gordon Boyce. 2019. Exploring the transformative potential of management control systems in organisational change towards sustainability. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 32: 1220–39.
  51. Schaltegger, Stefan, and Marcus Wagner. 2006. Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation 3: 1–19.
  52. Chiucchi, Maria Serena, Marco Montemari, and Marco Gatti. 2018. The influence of integrated reporting on management control systems: A case study. International Journal of Business and Management 13: 19.
  53. Bui, Binh, and Charl De Villiers. 2017. Management control systems to support sustainability and integrated reporting. In Sustainability Accounting and Integrated Reporting. London: Routledge, pp. 121–48.
  54. Clarkson, Peter M., Michael B. Overell, and Larelle Chapple. 2011. Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environmental performance. Abacus 47: 27–60.
  55. Gray, Rob. 1992. Accounting and environmentalism: An exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability. Accounting, Organizations & Society 17: 399–425.
  56. Wulf, Inge, Jens Niemöller, and Natalia Rentzsch. 2014. Development toward integrated reporting, and its impact on corporate governance: A two-dimensional approach to accounting with reference to the German two-tier system. Journal of Management Control 25: 135–64.
  57. Chen, Wei-Peng, Huimin Chung, Chengfew Lee, and Wei-Li Liao. 2007. Corporate governance and equity liquidity: Analysis of S&P transparency disclosure rankings. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15: 644–60.
  58. Heflin, Frank L., Kenneth W. Shaw, and John J. Wild. 2005. Disclosure policy and market liquidity: Impact of depth quotes and order sizes. Contemporary Accounting Research 22: 829–66.
  59. Montemari, Marco, and Maria Serena Chiucchi. 2018. Enabling intellectual capital measurement through business model mapping: The Nexus case. In The Routledge Companion to Intellectual Capital. London: Routledge, pp. 266–83.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback