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

By D. Gilbert, Andreas Rasche, S. Waddock. 2011

355 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b8b5f2d5154fe04bb188838245630d7f42980be6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and small and medium sized enterprises: The governmentality dilemma of explicit and implicit CSR communication (2019, background): “In such globalized contexts, explicit CSR communication has proven a helpful strategy to signal to policy-makers and consumers that the company is in alignment with legitimate CSR norms (Gilbert et al., 2011).”
Voluntary Governance Mechanisms in Global Supply Chains: Beyond CSR to a Stakeholder Utility Perspective (2016, background): “the issues of accountability in international accounting standards (Gilbert et al., 2011; Rasche, 2010), the challenges associated with supplier-buyer relationships (Sheth and Sharma, 1997; Steinfield et al.”
The Paradox of Corporate Social Responsibility Standards (2013, neutral): “…of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA e-mail: sarasvathys@darden.virginia.edu 1 Our definition of CSR Standards is very similar to the definition of International Accountability Standards (IAS) recently adopted by Gilbert et al. (2011) in a Business Ethics Quarterly Special Issue dedicated to IAS.”
Legitimacy‐as‐Feeling: How Affect Leads to Vertical Legitimacy Spillovers in Transnational Governance (2014, neutral): “However, evaluators in a TGS context operate in a “low-validity environment,” where events are highly idiosyncratic, insufficiently predictable (Kahneman and Klein, 2009, p. 523), and often politically contested (Bartley, 2007; Gilbert et al., 2011).”
How Do Firms Comply with International Sustainability Standards? Processes and Consequences of Adopting the Global Reporting Initiative (2015, background): “questions related to the social and environmental performance of firms (Gilbert et al., 2011). Standards provide a form of self-regulation, as corporations adopt voluntary standards that go beyond governmental regulation (Christmann & Taylor, 2006), generally differing from firms’ codes of conduct, ”
Standardization as Institutional Work: The Regulatory Power of a Responsible Investment Standard (2012, methodology): “Lastly, standard monitoring is used to effectively control organizational behavior (Ahrne et al., 2007, Gilbert et al., 2011).”
How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review (2017, background): “Not surprisingly, studies at the institutional level of analysis regularly ground their work on institutional theory (e.g., Aguilera & Jackson, 2003; Gilbert, Rasche, & Waddock, 2011; Helfen & Sydow, 2013), whereas at the organization level, a greater diversity of theories emerges (e.g., Arya &…”
The Emergence of a Standards Market: Multiplicity of Sustainability Standards in the Global Coffee Industry (2012, background): “We therefore challenge the dichotomous view on standards multiplicity as either a ‘source of innovation’ or ‘confusion’ (Bendell, 2005; Fransen, 2011; Gilbert et al., 2011), which eventually initiates a ‘race to the bottom’ (Bitzer et al., 2008).”
Assessing the Impacts of Higher Education Institutions on Sustainable Development—An Analysis of Tools and Indicators (2018, background): “SATs, in the broadest sense, can be understood as instruments that provide HEIs with a systematic set of procedures and methods to measure, audit, benchmark, and communicate their SD efforts [12,13], including economic, environmental, social, and inter-linking issues in the entire HEI system.”
Means versus Ends in Opaque Institutional Fields: Trading off Compliance and Achievement in Sustainability Standard Adoption (2014, background): “Certain standards are firm-specific, while others are eligible for all companies in one sector or even stretch out across industries (Gilbert et al., 2011).”
From Employment Relations to Consumption Relations: Balancing Labor Governance in Global Supply Chains (2014, methodology): “seen as the most stringent because they reduce information asymmetries and provide buyers with information about their suppliers’ performance (Gilbert et al., 2011; King, Lenox, & Terlaak, 2005).”