Performing an FSC audit

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT
W. Cook, E. Turnhout, S. van Bommel
{"title":"Performing an FSC audit","authors":"W. Cook, E. Turnhout, S. van Bommel","doi":"10.1108/JOE-10-2020-0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) intends to promote responsible forestry through its certification scheme. The primary engine that drives this promotion is auditing. Audits serve a dual purpose: they make forest managers accountable for their claim of meeting the FSC standard, and they make the actions of auditors and auditee account-able, or able to be put into an account. The latter of these is rarely investigated, despite it being crucial to understanding how FSC audits are done.Design/methodology/approachThis article examines FSC forest certification audits as practices where the FSC standards gain meaning. In-depth analysis of these practices enables insight into how different values related to forest certification and auditing are articulated and negotiated in practice, characterizing particular modes of auditing. In this paper, the authors examine the practices of FSC forest management auditors in multi-day audits in Africa and in Spain. Their materials were analyzed and coded using Goffman’s elements of dramaturgy.FindingsThe authors’ findings show that auditing practices entail a series of nested performances in which the auditors and auditees interact together and in which front stage and back stage performances constantly alternate as auditors and auditees perform for each other and simultaneously for an absent audience.Originality/valueThe authors’ analysis demonstrates how in these performances, professional values related to following auditing rules and ensuring that audits are rendered account-able in a particular way take a prominent position. This risks overshadowing the accountability of the FSC system which is ultimately grounded in its ambition to improve forest conservation and management.","PeriodicalId":44924,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Ethnography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Ethnography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-10-2020-0039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

PurposeThe Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) intends to promote responsible forestry through its certification scheme. The primary engine that drives this promotion is auditing. Audits serve a dual purpose: they make forest managers accountable for their claim of meeting the FSC standard, and they make the actions of auditors and auditee account-able, or able to be put into an account. The latter of these is rarely investigated, despite it being crucial to understanding how FSC audits are done.Design/methodology/approachThis article examines FSC forest certification audits as practices where the FSC standards gain meaning. In-depth analysis of these practices enables insight into how different values related to forest certification and auditing are articulated and negotiated in practice, characterizing particular modes of auditing. In this paper, the authors examine the practices of FSC forest management auditors in multi-day audits in Africa and in Spain. Their materials were analyzed and coded using Goffman’s elements of dramaturgy.FindingsThe authors’ findings show that auditing practices entail a series of nested performances in which the auditors and auditees interact together and in which front stage and back stage performances constantly alternate as auditors and auditees perform for each other and simultaneously for an absent audience.Originality/valueThe authors’ analysis demonstrates how in these performances, professional values related to following auditing rules and ensuring that audits are rendered account-able in a particular way take a prominent position. This risks overshadowing the accountability of the FSC system which is ultimately grounded in its ambition to improve forest conservation and management.
执行FSC审计
目的森林管理委员会(FSC)打算通过其认证计划来促进负责任的林业。推动此提升的主要引擎是审核。审计有双重目的:它们使森林管理者对其符合FSC标准的声明负责,并使审计员和被审计方的行为能够或能够被纳入账户。后者很少被调查,尽管它对理解FSC审计是如何进行的至关重要。设计/方法论/方法本文将FSC森林认证审计视为FSC标准获得意义的实践。通过对这些做法的深入分析,可以深入了解与森林认证和审计相关的不同价值观在实践中是如何表述和协商的,从而确定特定审计模式的特点。在本文中,作者考察了FSC森林管理审计员在非洲和西班牙的多日审计中的做法。他们的材料是用戈夫曼的戏剧元素进行分析和编码的。研究结果作者的研究结果表明,审计实践需要一系列嵌套的表演,在这些表演中,审计人员和被审计对象一起互动,并且随着审计人员和受审计对象为彼此表演,同时为缺席的观众表演,前舞台和后舞台的表演不断交替。独创性/价值作者的分析表明,在这些表现中,与遵守审计规则和确保审计以特定方式进行会计核算相关的专业价值观占据了突出地位。这有可能掩盖FSC系统的问责制,FSC系统最终基于其改善森林保护和管理的雄心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
37.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Organizational Ethnography (JOE) has been launched to provide an opportunity for scholars, from all social and management science disciplines, to publish over two issues: -high-quality articles from original ethnographic research that contribute to the current and future development of qualitative intellectual knowledge and understanding of the nature of public and private sector work, organization and management -review articles examining the history and development of the contribution of ethnography to qualitative research in social, organization and management studies -articles examining the intellectual, pedagogical and practical use-value of ethnography in organization and management research, management education and management practice, or which extend, critique or challenge past and current theoretical and empirical knowledge claims within one or more of these areas of interest -articles on ethnographically informed research relating to the concepts of organization and organizing in any other wider social and cultural contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信