监管授权和对令人不安的知识的反应:采掘业国别报告的案例

IF 3.6 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Lisa Baudot , David J. Cooper
{"title":"监管授权和对令人不安的知识的反应:采掘业国别报告的案例","authors":"Lisa Baudot ,&nbsp;David J. Cooper","doi":"10.1016/j.aos.2021.101308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We examine responses to pressures to act on extractive firm country-by-country reporting (CbCR) by three regulators: the International Accounting Standards Board, the European Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Debates over CbCR of payments that extractive firms make to governments center on improvements to transparency, governance, and accountability and raise questions about the division of regulatory labor in terms of where and by whom global reporting issues are undertaken and why. Our comparative analysis suggests that while the three regulators resist or respond reluctantly to similar pressures to act on CbCR, each responds in distinct ways that reflect and impact regulatory mandates. Specifically, we show how the regulators’ responses constitute the purpose, problematize the objectives, and construct the perceived interests served by CbCR in relation to each regulator’s mandate. We highlight how these responses can be understood through modes of discursive ignorance (McGoey, 2019) and the uncomfortable knowledge (Rayner, 2012) that each regulator may engage with when pressures challenge how regulators make sense of the world. Our study highlights that regulatory responses are based partly on what regulators assume are their mandates, their legitimacy and ways of operating. It analyzes their self-understandings and defense mechanisms, thereby providing an elaboration of responses to pressures for action and offering a richer political economy of regulation that highlights sensemaking in these processes. We further elaborate on what these responses imply for the division of regulatory labor around pressures to act on global reporting issues, as well as broader implications for participation in and ignorance around accounting regulatory projects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48379,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Organizations and Society","volume":"99 ","pages":"Article 101308"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulatory mandates and responses to uncomfortable knowledge: The case of country-by-country reporting in the extractive sector\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Baudot ,&nbsp;David J. Cooper\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aos.2021.101308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>We examine responses to pressures to act on extractive firm country-by-country reporting (CbCR) by three regulators: the International Accounting Standards Board, the European Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Debates over CbCR of payments that extractive firms make to governments center on improvements to transparency, governance, and accountability and raise questions about the division of regulatory labor in terms of where and by whom global reporting issues are undertaken and why. Our comparative analysis suggests that while the three regulators resist or respond reluctantly to similar pressures to act on CbCR, each responds in distinct ways that reflect and impact regulatory mandates. Specifically, we show how the regulators’ responses constitute the purpose, problematize the objectives, and construct the perceived interests served by CbCR in relation to each regulator’s mandate. We highlight how these responses can be understood through modes of discursive ignorance (McGoey, 2019) and the uncomfortable knowledge (Rayner, 2012) that each regulator may engage with when pressures challenge how regulators make sense of the world. Our study highlights that regulatory responses are based partly on what regulators assume are their mandates, their legitimacy and ways of operating. It analyzes their self-understandings and defense mechanisms, thereby providing an elaboration of responses to pressures for action and offering a richer political economy of regulation that highlights sensemaking in these processes. We further elaborate on what these responses imply for the division of regulatory labor around pressures to act on global reporting issues, as well as broader implications for participation in and ignorance around accounting regulatory projects.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting Organizations and Society\",\"volume\":\"99 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101308\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting Organizations and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368221000866\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Organizations and Society","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368221000866","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

我们研究了三个监管机构对采掘公司国别报告(CbCR)采取行动的压力的反应:国际会计准则理事会、欧盟委员会和证券交易委员会。关于采掘企业向政府支付的CbCR的争论集中在提高透明度、治理和问责制方面,并提出了关于在何处、由谁进行全球报告以及为什么进行全球报告的监管分工的问题。我们的比较分析表明,虽然这三家监管机构抵制或不情愿地应对类似的压力,要求对CbCR采取行动,但它们各自以不同的方式做出回应,反映和影响监管任务。具体而言,我们展示了监管机构的回应如何构成目的,如何对目标提出问题,以及如何根据每个监管机构的任务构建CbCR所服务的感知利益。我们强调如何通过话语无知模式(McGoey, 2019)和令人不安的知识模式(Rayner, 2012)来理解这些反应,当压力挑战监管者如何理解世界时,每个监管者可能会参与其中。我们的研究强调,监管机构的反应部分基于监管机构对其职责、合法性和运作方式的假设。它分析了他们的自我理解和防御机制,从而提供了对行动压力的反应的详细说明,并提供了强调这些过程中意义的更丰富的监管政治经济学。我们进一步阐述了这些回应对围绕全球报告问题采取行动的压力的监管分工的含义,以及对参与和忽视会计监管项目的更广泛影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Regulatory mandates and responses to uncomfortable knowledge: The case of country-by-country reporting in the extractive sector

We examine responses to pressures to act on extractive firm country-by-country reporting (CbCR) by three regulators: the International Accounting Standards Board, the European Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Debates over CbCR of payments that extractive firms make to governments center on improvements to transparency, governance, and accountability and raise questions about the division of regulatory labor in terms of where and by whom global reporting issues are undertaken and why. Our comparative analysis suggests that while the three regulators resist or respond reluctantly to similar pressures to act on CbCR, each responds in distinct ways that reflect and impact regulatory mandates. Specifically, we show how the regulators’ responses constitute the purpose, problematize the objectives, and construct the perceived interests served by CbCR in relation to each regulator’s mandate. We highlight how these responses can be understood through modes of discursive ignorance (McGoey, 2019) and the uncomfortable knowledge (Rayner, 2012) that each regulator may engage with when pressures challenge how regulators make sense of the world. Our study highlights that regulatory responses are based partly on what regulators assume are their mandates, their legitimacy and ways of operating. It analyzes their self-understandings and defense mechanisms, thereby providing an elaboration of responses to pressures for action and offering a richer political economy of regulation that highlights sensemaking in these processes. We further elaborate on what these responses imply for the division of regulatory labor around pressures to act on global reporting issues, as well as broader implications for participation in and ignorance around accounting regulatory projects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.40%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Accounting, Organizations & Society is a major international journal concerned with all aspects of the relationship between accounting and human behaviour, organizational structures and processes, and the changing social and political environment of the enterprise.
×
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