280
applied to examine the selected cases. Policy analysis on corporate data was
obtained from 80 companies adhered to the network.
A case study methodology was combined with theory building. The qualitative
research strategy sought to inductively build new theory concerning accountability
and reporting. As such, our data analysis followed procedures for inductive theory
building from each country as prescribed by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic
analysis and Yin’s (2009) chain of evidence method to analyze data (also Eisenhardt
1989b). The chain of evidence method calls for clear links in moving from data to
theory. Theory building is a process of data reduction based on cause-effect evidence. The process was to first group data into countries based on (1) accountability
status, (2) accountability mechanism, and (3) focus area. From these three sets of
themes, researchers then induced theoretical inferences of cause-effect between features and available information. Tables 18.2, 18.3, and 18.4 record the data from this
inductive theory-building process. After obtaining results from separate countries, a
comparative analysis was undertaken to identify commonalities and differences.
Findings were validated whenever possible with literature and policy reviews and
presented in the discussion and in the conclusion sections.
18.4 Discussion
Accountability is an essential component of corporate governance and overall sustainability. The need to make corporations more responsible for their sustainability
performance has led to the proliferation of voluntary sustainability regulations. The
examined network is one of such and establishes minimum requirements that ensure
active members are making changes that are socially and environmentally responsible. The framework ensures that business practices remain transparent and accessible by all shareholders and stakeholders. Based on a review of three cases, namely,
Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, this section explores to what extent
corporations aligned with the network’s principles are externally or internally
accountable and how accountability is operationalized.
The study showed that despite the existence of voluntary regulatory frameworks,
internal accountability prevails upon external forms of accountability. Three types
of external accountability mechanisms were identified, namely, sustainability policies, sustainability performance/activities, and sustainability reporting of both policy and performance. The latter concerns to corporate disclosure through
sustainability reports often aligned with the network’s principles. Sustainability
policy relates to policies or corporate statements that show corporate commitment
to sustainability. Finally, evidence indicates, however, that companies applying a
sustainability performance approach, display a plethora of scattered initiatives in
the form of corporate philanthropy reflecting a lack of a cohesive sustainability
strategy or framework.
I. B. Franco and M. Abe
applied to examine the selected cases. Policy analysis on corporate data was
obtained from 80 companies adhered to the network.
A case study methodology was combined with theory building. The qualitative
research strategy sought to inductively build new theory concerning accountability
and reporting. As such, our data analysis followed procedures for inductive theory
building from each country as prescribed by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic
analysis and Yin’s (2009) chain of evidence method to analyze data (also Eisenhardt
1989b). The chain of evidence method calls for clear links in moving from data to
theory. Theory building is a process of data reduction based on cause-effect evidence. The process was to first group data into countries based on (1) accountability
status, (2) accountability mechanism, and (3) focus area. From these three sets of
themes, researchers then induced theoretical inferences of cause-effect between features and available information. Tables 18.2, 18.3, and 18.4 record the data from this
inductive theory-building process. After obtaining results from separate countries, a
comparative analysis was undertaken to identify commonalities and differences.
Findings were validated whenever possible with literature and policy reviews and
presented in the discussion and in the conclusion sections.
18.4 Discussion
Accountability is an essential component of corporate governance and overall sustainability. The need to make corporations more responsible for their sustainability
performance has led to the proliferation of voluntary sustainability regulations. The
examined network is one of such and establishes minimum requirements that ensure
active members are making changes that are socially and environmentally responsible. The framework ensures that business practices remain transparent and accessible by all shareholders and stakeholders. Based on a review of three cases, namely,
Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, this section explores to what extent
corporations aligned with the network’s principles are externally or internally
accountable and how accountability is operationalized.
The study showed that despite the existence of voluntary regulatory frameworks,
internal accountability prevails upon external forms of accountability. Three types
of external accountability mechanisms were identified, namely, sustainability policies, sustainability performance/activities, and sustainability reporting of both policy and performance. The latter concerns to corporate disclosure through
sustainability reports often aligned with the network’s principles. Sustainability
policy relates to policies or corporate statements that show corporate commitment
to sustainability. Finally, evidence indicates, however, that companies applying a
sustainability performance approach, display a plethora of scattered initiatives in
the form of corporate philanthropy reflecting a lack of a cohesive sustainability
strategy or framework.
I. B. Franco and M. Abe