„Sustainability accounting, an analysis of competing logics“

(1)

„Sustainability accounting, an analysis of competing logics“

By

Matthijs Antuma S2729229 Reviusstraat 132 9721KW Groningen matthijsantuma@gmail.com University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

EBM859B20.2019-2020.2 Dr. J.Gusc June 2020

(2)

ABSTRACT

This research is focused around the question why organizations engage in the use of sustainability accounting. This research explores the link between institutional pressures to engage in sustainability and the guidance of institutional logics in the way these pressures are interpreted. It is founded upon my own interest in finding out why organizations adopt sustainability accounting systems as well as by the gap in the literature that the reaction to institutional pressures is often explained through the use of institutional isomorphism. This research shifts the focus from homogeneous responses to

institutional pressures towards a more in-depth look at the values, beliefs and assumptions that guide the actions of actors. Using qualitative research methods in combination with a pattern matching approach, different institutional logics were found in five case organizations. Analysis of the results helped explain how institutional logics guide the decision-making process surrounding accounting systems. It is concluded that the overlap between the values, beliefs and assumptions and the characteristics of the sustainability accounting system is determining the choice to engage in sustainability accounting. This research opens up new routes towards understanding why and how organizations engage in corporate sustainability.

Keywords: Corporate sustainability, Sustainability accounting, Institutional theory, Institutional

(3)

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1The relation between sustainability accounting concepts. Adapted from Hahn & Kühnen

(2013) ... 9

Figure 2:'Ideal type' Logics. Source: Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury (2012) ... 14

Figure 3: Ideal types of sustainability logic and profitability logic (source: De Clercq & Voronov, 2011) ... 17

Figure 4: Sustainability flower based upon sustainable development goals ... 19

Figure 5: Secondary data ... 23

Figure 6: Interviews ... 24

Figure 7: Results Tony's Chocolonely ... 28

Figure 8: Results Eosta ... 29

Figure 9: Results Machandel... 30

Figure 10: Results Moyee Coffee ... 31

Figure 11: Results Coroos ... 32

(5)

TITLE

Sustainability accounting, an analysis of competing logics

INTRODUCTION

Over the past couple of decades, the increase in awareness for sustainability has had great effect on the behaviour of both corporations and society as a whole. Starting in the late 1980’s and the beginning of the 1990’s, researchers warned about the way companies did business and the negative effects on social and environmental matters (Bebbington & Larrinaga, 2014). The publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987 (Brundtland et al., 1987) was a direct call for action by stating that we as a society should accept that the social and environmental problems that occur all over the world are not standalone incidents but rather connected. It also stated that those problems can only be solved if we change the foundations of our economic and political systems to include environmental and social aspects. The term ‘sustainability’ has been a constant subject of discussion ever since, mainly because the term is seen as non-definable, as lacking general criteria which make it measurable, and there is not even a clear understanding of what exactly sustainability entails by professionals (Morelli, 2011). Sometimes other terms are added to the term sustainability in order give it a more specific meaning, such as “ecological”, “social” or “economic” (Morelli, 2011). There is no consensus about whether sustainability entails the relation between the environment, society and the economy, or whether it entails the relationship between humans and non-human. There is a growing body of literature that specifically targets accounting as a profession and academic field to define and work with the concept of sustainability. There is a call for a more interdisciplinary focus on sustainability and for a broader scope on sustainability, disagreeing with the way accounting literature still set the company at the centre of models and research (Bebbington & Unerman, 2018). However, following Baker (2010), this debate about sustainability and accountability is not easily resolvable, since there are socio-political reasonings at the core of the problem. Another point of discussion in the literature is the usage of different definitions in regards to sustainability. In the analysis of Montiel & Delgado-Ceballos (2014) on the use of different definitions in the literature, they propose to use the term ‘corporate sustainability’ when the focus is on the three constructs social, environmental and economical to reduce the ambiguity across different researches. Following this reasoning, and drawing upon other literature, the following definition for corporate sustainability will be used throughout this research:

“demonstrating the inclusion of social and environmental concerns in business operations and in interactions with stakeholders’’. (Searcy, 2012; Van Marrewijk, 2003)

(6)

Today we find ourselves in an era where consumers are becoming increasingly more involved in sustainability (Consumer Insights Survey 2019 - Retail En Consumergoods - Actueel En Publicaties - PwC, n.d.; Was 2018 the Year of the Influential Sustainable Consumer? – Nielsen, n.d.). Companies are seen as the entities that are dealing the most damage to our ecological sustainability by a large group of professionals (Kumarasiri, 2012). Society is asking companies to be more transparent (Karlsson & Korpi, 2019) and take a pro-active stance (Townsend, 2018) in dealing with sustainability topics. Not only these external impulses drive companies to engage more in

sustainability and sustainability reporting, also internal calls for a change by employees are a major factor that steers companies to be more transparent about sustainability. Internal pressures to publish reports on sustainability or calls for more data on sustainability in performance management systems are just an example of how lively the discussion on sustainability is (Lozano et al., 2018).

Pressure for an increase in corporate sustainability performance creates legitimacy concerns for organisations. This legitimacy is explained as the level that organisational actions are approved and or accepted by different stakeholders (Yang & Konrad, 2011). This concern for legitimacy has made that organisations are in need of developing sustainable strategies, the short- and long-term objectives as well as managing an effective implementation of said strategies (Maas et al., 2016). This puts a stress on managers to integrate sustainability issues into the managerial activities (Windolph et al., 2014). Management accounting (MA) is seen to be an important element in supporting corporate

sustainability (Maas et al., 2016). Making decisions on and balancing out economic performance and corporate sustainability performance can be a challenge, and MA as a profession can play a large role in achieving this balance by providing accurate, relevant and timely information for decision makers. MA therefore, enables organisations to engage in new practices and apply different sets of

management measures (Kumarasiri, 2012) MA literature has responded by providing research on the creation of sustainability management tools (Windolph et al., 2014). A possible solution to the calls for more sustainability accounting practices is the use of the True Cost Accounting (TCA) system. This method of calculating the costs of a company’s decision on products, services or investments does not only look at the direct or indirect costs associated with the decision, but also aims to monetize the external effects. It proposes that accountants look at the social and environmental impacts and that those impacts are monetized and included in the total cost. The goal of this method is to provide a fairer total cost of a decision and provides information on the level of sustainability. There has since been a growing body of literature and practical applications of this method.

(7)

The adoption of TCA and other sustainability accounting systems is often explained through the use of institutional isomorphism. Institutional isomorphism is used to understand how organisations deal with these pressures and how they translate them into their strategies to close the legitimacy gap (Iarossi et al., 2012). It is focussed on how organizations become alike over time in terms of actions and structure trough mimetic, normative and coercive pressure (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Other research on corporate sustainability and management accounting is focussed on the importance of voluntary disclosure and how corporate sustainability actions could be used a strategy or alter the performance of a company (Clarkson et al., 2013). There has also been a lot of research done on the influence of corporate sustainability disclosure and the effect on firm value (Schneider, 2011). Evidence on the positive relationship between environmental responsibility and performance leads to believe that engaging in sustainability is a no brainer for companies (Journeault, 2016).

Research has shown however that that organizations react differently to the same institutional pressures related to accounting (Herold & Lee, 2017; Hyvönen et al., 2009). Besides the economic benefits and external pressures, literature briefly mentioned the motivation of managers (Burritt & Schaltegger, 2010) or ‘committed approach towards sustainability accounting’ (Gonzalez Gonzalez & Zamora Ramírez, 2016) as possible factors that are related to the adoption of sustainability accounting systems. However, the underlying motivation is often explained in terms of economic benefits. A more multilevel perspective on the reasons why companies use sustainability accounting systems is needed (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). The implementation and development of sustainable accounting systems is done by human actors within organizations (Schneider, 2015). More focus is needed on the values and beliefs that these employees have in relation with sustainability

(Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). This requires research on the employees’ assumptions towards the link between social, environmental problems and human actions (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). This thesis answers the call from different researchers to focus on the values, beliefs and assumptions that are embedded within the organization and drives the choice on accounting systems. The constant struggle between financial and sustainability performance faced by organizations is due to the competing institutional logics at the field that shape the behaviour of organizations and its actors at the firm level. (Herold & Lee, 2017). In this study, it is argued that the institutional logics present at an organization dictate why an organization uses an accounting system. Instead of looking at only the organization itself and using classic economic theory to explain why companies engage in

sustainability accounting, systems theories such as institutional theory enable to broaden the look by incorporating societal influence in the analysis on sustainability accounting. While these theories are well established, they are underused in the sustainability accounting literature (Gray et al., 2009)

(8)

How do competing institutional logics shape the adoption of sustainability accounting systems by organizations?

A comparative case study will be done between organizations in the Dutch food sector in order to find the institutional logics that drive the engagement in sustainability accounting and specifically TCA. My personal motivation for this study was that in my opinion we as a society are still partly ignorant towards sustainability issues. I have come across multiple businesses and organizations who claim to be sustainable but I am still rather skeptical on the reasons why organizations want to do something about the problems in the world. This research helps me discover more about what organizations drive to do more than just a slogan or empty words. The adoption of sustainability accounting shows in my opinion the true face of a sustainable organization, and I want to find out why they adopt

sustainability accounting systems.

In the next section, there will be a review of relevant literature on the general topics surrounding management accounting, sustainability and institutional theory, after that the methodology will be discussed. Then a section follows explaining the case, the organizations that are researched and the results. This thesis will then be concluded with a discussion and conclusion

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sustainability accounting concepts

Accounting is often referred to as: “The language of business” (Harrison, 2013). The focus with traditional financial accounting is mainly on reporting to external stakeholders (Burritt & Schaltegger, 2010). Management accounting on the other hand serves a dual role. It is used as an information system in which data is stored from all business activities, and converts this data into information that is used as an input in decision making processes as well as a communication tool to outsiders and stakeholders (Burritt & Schaltegger, 2010; Harrison, 2013). Different accounting techniques and tools are used in order for a company’s financial data to be consistent, easy to read and useful for internal analysis and for stakeholders. Traditional accounting tools are essential for supporting managers in decision making processes. However, a large selection of research states that conventional accounting systems are limited as they include only quantitative monetary information (Amini & Bienstock, 2014; Boiral, 2011; Schaltegger & Burritt, 2010; Vitale et al., 2019). Over the last couple of years, the awareness for the environmental and social issues resulted in the development of the field of

(9)

economic issues constituting the three dimensions of sustainability” (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2010). The change from conventional accounting to sustainability accounting has developed in two ways. The creation of new systems that stimulates sustainable strategies, or as an addition to traditional accounting systems (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2010). According to Hahn & Kühnen (2013), the performance of an organisation in the area of sustainability is highly dependent on and measured by the use of sustainability accounting and reporting systems. While sustainability accounting is used for internal analysis and supports decision-making processes, sustainability reporting is used to share information on sustainability issues between internal and external stakeholders. Sustainability accounting is crucial in providing the data that is needed for reporting on sustainability (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013). In the area of sustainability reporting research several types of reports have come to light that are used to either focus on specific sustainability terms (environmental report, corporate social report) or as a more combined report that touches upon all aspects of the triple bottom line principles, combining the financial aspects with information on sustainability issues (integrated report) (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013; KPMG, 2017). Research tend to focus on single aspects within the literature of sustainability accounting (Vitale et al., 2019). these aspects are often seen as autonomous concepts in researching sustainability levels in organizations but as discussed before, sustainability accounting concepts are in relation with each other. An overview of the interplay between the accounting concepts of reporting and accounting can be seen from figure 1 which is an adapted version of the one from Hahn & Kühnen (2013)

(10)

The fact that these principles are related shows that the implementation of single initiatives by management in improving sustainability performance is not enough. Organizations need to align the strategy, the accounting and reporting practices in order to face the sustainability issues of today (Vitale et al., 2019). How sustainability accounting systems are used is determining which accounting system is incorporated. Sustainability accounting systems are developed according to three

approaches: the inside-out, outside in and twin-track approaches (Burritt & Schaltegger, 2010; Gonzalez Gonzalez & Zamora Ramírez, 2016; Maas et al., 2016). In the inside-out approach, managers set business strategies which include issues on sustainability and therefore they need

information provided by the accounting system. It is primarily driven by competitive economic forces. The outside-in approach is explained as the need for external reporting that drives the need for

information on sustainability and therefore a sustainability accounting system is needed.

Sustainability accounting systems following this approach are primarily focussed on reporting (Burritt & Schaltegger, 2010). A possible pitfall of following this approach is that only reporting on

sustainability could hint towards greenwashing (Gonzalez Gonzalez & Zamora Ramírez, 2016). The concept of greenwashing entails that organizations only bother with reporting on sustainability in order to communicate to the outside world that they are involved in sustainability. Organizations that adopt this approach are not involved in actually improving sustainability performance by having integrated accounting systems. Accounting systems that are used for both internal decision-making and external reporting are based on the twin-track approach. This approach is based on the

combination of the inside-out and outside-in approaches. According to Burritt & Schaltegger (2010), this approach is the path forward in developing systems that could be used for more than just

reporting or accounting, but instead are useful for problem solving. Sustainability accounting systems that have emerged from the development in research on this integrated approach are the triple bottom line and true cost accounting.

Already in the mid-nineties, but more so in the late-nineties, John Elkington (Elkington, 1997) wrote several articles in which he proposed the term Triple bottom line. The triple bottom line perspective dictates that companies should not only look at the bottom line in accounting in economic terms, but that environmental and social benefits or deficits should also be included. Even nowadays, the term triple bottom line, or the three P’s (people, planet, profit), are widely used by management

accountants and in the literature (Brown et al., 2018; Nichols et al., 2019; Svensson et al., 2018). Building on the literature on the triple bottom line, Bebbington et al. (2001) created a guideline to which businesses could engage in Full Cost Accounting1_{(FCA). In their paper they state that the} capitalist systems that are used today for determining the cost of a product misstate prices and cost by

(11)

neglecting a large portion of consequences of decisions. This accounting system is one in which the price of a product reflects the ‘true’ price of said product. This is done through internalizing

externalities. Externalities are social and environmental impacts that occur while engaging in a doing business, but the costs of those externalities are not borne by the company that creates these. Instead, these costs are borne by the society as a whole. Bebbington et al. (2001) essentially combined the social and environmental accounting mechanisms, answering the call from researches for a broader focus. They also provided a guide on how one should engage in using the true cost accounting method. This guide consists of four steps:

1. Define the cost objective: The first step is to determine for which product, process or organization a true cost calculation should be made

2. Specify the scope or limits of analysis: The next step is to define the boundaries of the calculation. The amount of impacts that for example a simple product has is substantial. Not only are there

impacts that arise with producing goods, but also impacts from other organizations that produce goods that the first organization uses. Setting the scope too large makes the calculation almost impossible and too complex.

3: Identify and measure external impacts: This step consists of measuring the impacts and linking them to the activities that are defined in the previous steps. The key for a successful measurement is the data availability and collection on both the impact and the cost objective. Often times, government reports on impacts can be used for estimations of the scale of impact a certain product has.

4: Monetisation of impacts: The last step is to take the data from step three and calculate the cost of the measured impacts. This is often highly complex and different measurement techniques can yield different results for the same impact.

(12)

TCA. This has resulted in some organizations adopting it while others do not. Research on why TCA and other sustainability accounting systems are used within organizations is discussed in the next section.

Legitimacy and sustainability accounting systems

Often research tries to explain the choice for organizations to use sustainability accounting systems by relying upon the use of institutional theory (Gonzalez Gonzalez & Zamora Ramírez, 2016).

Institutional theory is a contradiction to the classic economic theory of rationality and equilibrium dominated in the accounting theory and looks at how organizations react to their institutional context instead (Smith et al., 2011). Institutional theory can help explain processes and dynamics between companies (Smith et al., 2011) It entails that companies do not act purely rational but seek legitimacy by conforming to external expectations or pressures from different institutions. Institutions are defined as: “cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior’’ (Scott, 2013). These pressures affect how organizations behave by creating

legitimacy concerns. Organizations adhere to external pressure in order to be approved by these institutions that exert the pressures. Organizations that operate within the same organizational field are also bound in behavior by the same institutional pressures. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define organizational field as follows: a “recognized area of institutional life” which is created by “key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies and other organizations that produce similar services or products” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The Dutch food sector can be seen as an organizational field, as it revolves around a central issue (Windolph et al., 2014) the different

pressures from the three institutions are determining the choice to engage in sustainability accounting. -Regulative pressures arise from governments and regulatory bodies and include regulation on

sustainability accounting and reporting (United Nations, 2012).

-Normative pressures arise from professional bodies such as NGO’s related to sustainability (10 Principes - Transitiecoalitie Voedsel, n.d.) and social groups. Also standards produced by professional bodies and academics such as the GRI to report on sustainability issues are putting pressures on organizations to incorporate sustainability accounting and reporting systems (GRI Standards , n.d.).

-Cognitive pressures arise from the general knowledge in a field about the negative impacts that are related to the production of organizations (Gonzalez Gonzalez & Zamora Ramírez, 2016). The more information there exist on sustainability issues the more organizations are pressed to address these issues.

(13)

legitimacy (Herold & Lee, 2017). Research has shown how organizations react similar to institutional pressures (Barnett, 2006). This phenomenon is called institutional isomorphism. Isomorphism

describes the process of how the actions and structures of organizations are becoming more and more the same over time (Smith et al., 2011). There are three isomorphic processes named in the literature; coercive isomorphism, normative isomorphism and mimetic isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Fernando & Lawrence, 2014; Smith et al., 2011). These processes tie in with the institutional pressures in the sense that regulative pressures create coercive isomorphism. By having the power to put pressure on organizations, organizations are naturally moving towards each other in terms of actions and structure. The normative pressures that arise from the industry and professional bodies and the cognitive pressures that lead to mimetic isomorphism are seen to be even more important in relation with the use of sustainability accounting systems. Since adopting sustainability accounting is voluntary, pressure from regulatory bodies is not as strong as the call from professional bodies or social groups or the fact that companies have implemented sustainability accounting systems and therefore other companies feel the pressure to do so as well (Herold & Lee, 2017).

Research has proven however that organizations do not always react the same to the same institutional pressures (Hyvönen et al., 2009). In this study it is shown that also in the Dutch food sector,

organizations do differ in reaction to these pressures. This means that isomorphism can only be seen as part of the story. Instead of viewing organizational fields as homogeneous and rigid with

organizations that become similar, a different focus is needed on how institutional pressures affect organizations and its actors. Here the focus is shifted from how organizations interpret the cognitive, normative and regulative pressures and what they see as appropriate action towards a deeper

understanding of the values and assumption of organisational reality that are present within organizations.

Institutional logics and sustainability accounting systems

(14)

the assumptions, values, beliefs and rules that make these institutions possible. For example: “The institutional order of religion focuses on an explanation for the origin of the world and in converting all issues into expressions of absolute moral principles on the basis of faith” (Thornton et al., 2012). A framework is developed with different characteristics based on the values, beliefs, assumptions and rules that define a specific logic that supports an institution, in this case the seven most important institutions of modern western society (see figure 2) (Thornton et al., 2012).

Embedded within the reason why organizations traditionally do business lies the market or profitability logic (Laasch, 2018). This is because organizations traditionally aim to make profit, create financial value, and they operate in competitive markets which drive them to strive for more and more profits (Laasch, 2018). A market or profitability logic flows from neo-classical economic theory and the central concept of ‘rationality’. Rationality in this is sense represents the sole purpose of profit maximalization that organizations under this logic pursuit. It flows from the academic fields of business administration and economics taught at schools and universities. Organizations engaging in a sustainability business case either have a sustainability centred corporate sustainability focus, or a market centred corporate sustainability focus (A. Schneider, 2015). A market centred corporate sustainability focus is found when organizations engage in greenwashing. The use of TCA and its integrated approach towards sustainability is following a sustainability centred focus. This sustainability centred focus is driven by a sustainability logic. The definition of corporate

sustainability defined in the introduction shines a light on the most important aspect of sustainability in the business space, the equal attention to economic, environmental and economic performance. The concept of sustainability is backed by the values, beliefs and assumptions that that reflect this

(15)

sustainability and become institutionalized over time. It drives sustainability as well as is the product of engaging in sustainability (Silva & Figueiredo, 2017). The sustainability logic flows from interest groups in society, government bodies such as the United nations and their development of the sustainable development goals, from academic research on sustainability as well as within businesses that follow this logic (A. Schneider, 2015). These societal-level institutional logics are enacted by organizations based on the cultural context, the identity and experiences of people and the dominant logic present in the most important resource provider (Jones et al., 2012; Lok, 2010).

Research on how different logics relate to each other has moved into several areas. Researchers have identified that there are often multiple logics within a field. This existence of multiple logics drives institutional change because actors cannot merge different logics together, resulting in friction in how actors see the world (Berg Johansen & Waldorff, 2015). Studies are done on how logics compete with each other, or how multiple logic co-exist within for example a single organization (Durand et al., 2013; Lounsbury, 2007). The competition of multiple logics is a source of inability to change

(Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007). Because of the inherent different incompatible values, assumption and believes of the profitability logic and the sustainability logic, it is clear that these two are competing with each other in the same organizational field. For this study, the competition of these two logics are used to explain how they influence the adoption of sustainability accounting systems. the use of traditional accounting systems, designed for profit maximizing principles is therefore said to adhere to as profitability logic. The engagement in sustainable practices for right intensions (making the world a better place) is therefore said to follow the sustainability logic.

Based on the review of literature a proposition can be made.

The adoption of an accounting system is guided by the overlap between the values, beliefs and assumptions inherent of a particular institutional logic and the focus and goals of the accounting system

METHODOLOGY

(16)

institutional logics shaped the reaction to these pressures. To establish a baseline of the institutional pressures that are at play in the Dutch food sector, an analysis was done at the organizational field level. Analysis on institutional logics can be done at the societal, firm and individual level (Reay & Jones, 2015). For this study a focus on capturing the logics was on the firm level. In order to capture different institutional logics an explanation is required of the source and the elements of the ideal logics that form the basis on which behavioural patterns within the research organizations are compared to. The ideal framework that is presented in the literature review (figure 3), that is developed by Thornton et al. (2012), shows how ideal type logics are build. On the y-axis the elemental categories that show the components of institutional logics are presented (Reay & Jones, 2015; Thornton et al., 2012). These elements “represent cultural symbols and material practices particular to that order” (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 54). To further clarify; the elemental categories are representing the distinctive elements of what institutional logics entail. These categories are based on the assumptions, values, beliefs and material practices that define a particular logic. Which

institutional logics and their elemental categories are used is depended on the context inherent to the research. (Reay & Jones, 2015). In order to select ‘ideal types and different elemental categories, it is necessary to look at previous research in this area that has defined different institutional logics. For the context of this study, it is argued that two different logics are at play: the sustainability logic and the profitability logic. These were operationalized by using previous research on specification of these logics. These ‘Ideal type’ logics are created by studying archival data, previous research, preliminary interviews and theory from other disciplines (Reay & Jones, 2015). This study relies on the work of De Clercq & Voronov (2011) who specify the sustainability and profitability logic as follows (figure 3)

Sustainability Profitability

Dominant value Ecological footprint reduction; commitment to social justice and social responsibility

Wealth creation

Supporting values Personal commitment to the environment and social causes

Personal commitment to wealth accumulation

Production focus Waste reduction, cleaner is better, development of green technologies, responsibility

Speed to market, cost reduction

Marketing focus Cultivate limited negative or increased positive environmental and social impact

(17)

Basis of mission Build reputation as a responsible social actor

Build reputation as a successful economic actor

Basis of attention Develop and maintain low ecological footprint; promote fairness and justice

Develop and maintain financial success

Basis of strategy Win sustainability and responsibility

awards, obtain good reviews on sustainability-related issues

Secure broader market presence, establish superior market position

Governance mechanism

Stakeholders Shareholders

Figure 3: Ideal types of sustainability logic and profitability logic (source: De Clercq & Voronov, 2011)

Qualitative research methods are well suited for the investigation of logics because the nature of logics make that they can be captured through language, certain practices and are embedded in symbols. The assumption, values and beliefs are best captured by studying the stories, language, practices and symbols (Feldman et al., 1997; McMullin & Skelcher, 2018; Mishler, 1995). In order to assure validity and reliability, data triangulation is applied here (Golafshani, 2003; Yin, 2017). Data triangulation is the concept of using multiple sources of data to strengthen the cases and conclusion drawn from the research (Golafshani, 2003). This study therefore relied on a combination of interviews and archival data to capture these aspects. This approach allowed for an in-depth insight into the values, beliefs and assumptions that are present within an organization. Questions in the interview were based on the earlier described elemental categories of institutional logics (see appendix).

Research method

Study context

The sector which is the context of the study was chosen based on both purposive sampling as well as convenience sampling. The food sector as a whole has been subject of interest in regards to

sustainability while the choice of the Dutch food sector was mainly because of convenience based on the geographic location that this research has been executed in. According to a report from DPG media (2020), The Dutch food sector is one of the sectors with the highest consumer interest in sustainability efforts and one of the highest sectors where consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable products. But on the other hand, research shows that consumers perceive the sector as one of the lowest performing sectors when it comes to advancements in sustainability efforts. The

(18)

ecosystems and the end to hunger are all examples of goals that overlap with business practices in the food sector. The close relation with nature and the direct use of natural resources combined with labor-intensive processes and so the thereby related social issues, makes the implementation of sustainability accounting more of a logical choice than for example in a service providing company in a finance field.

Case selection

Case selection within the Dutch food sector was based on snowball sampling. Conversations with external accounts pointed towards possible organizations that were engaged in sustainability accounting, while during analysis and conversations with other organizations, more organizations were brought up that could be used for this research. Several characteristics are needed to be the same or close for different companies in order to compare them. Firm characteristics such as the position within a certain supply chain, the size and the scale in of the company were important in this sense (González-Benito & González-Benito, 2010). Based on these selection criteria, five organizations were selected for this research.

Company 1: Tony’s Chocolonely

The first company that was researched is the Dutch chocolate producer Tony’s Chocolonely. It’s most important mission as stated on the website is to provide chocolate bars that are 100% made without slavery involved. Also, their mission is to be as sustainable as possible, leading into the practice of minimizing negative externalities related to the production of chocolate. Trough researching archival data and directions from other sources such as True Price (Cocoa: Tony’s Chocolonely Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana - True Price, n.d.) it was evident that Tony’s Chocolonely engages in true cost accounting methods. It has determined the true price of their chocolate already in 2013 and has done so as well over 2017 to see where they were standing at that time. Additional to this, the company has a dedicated impact team whom are involved in keeping track and tackling different social and environmental issues that arise during the production of chocolate (Annual FAIR Reports - Tony’s Chocolonely, n.d.).

Company 2: EOSTA

(19)

report also laid down a foundation on how to calculate the external cost of food production. In their initial pilot report, they state that the focus was on the following impacts: livelihoods, health, climate, water and soil. Today the organization has built the use of TCA around a what they call a

sustainability flower (figure 5). This sustainability flower is built upon the sustainable development goals presented by the UN in 2015 (Leal Filho et al., 2018)

Figure 4: Sustainability flower based upon sustainable development goals

Eosta state that for the assessment of the different elements of the sustainability flower they do a basic assessment which is based on interviews and visits to farms all by themselves. The true cost

calculation is done with the help of their daughter organization called Soil & More (Sustainability Flower | Www.Natureandmore.Com, n.d.).

Company 3: Machandel

The third company that was researched is Machandel. Machandel specializes in the production of biodynamic preserves (Machandel: Een Familiebedrijf in Biologische Levensmiddelen Met Meer Dan 30 Jaar Ervaring, n.d.). Its headquarters and production facility are located in Haulerwijk, the

Netherlands. The organization states that they are striving to be as sustainable as possible, not only in their choice of raw materials, suppliers but also by producing their own energy and the attention to personnel (Biologisch dynamisch en duurzaam Machandel, n.d.). They have a plethora of

(20)

The accounting system used by Machandel is based on an ERP tool (Exact Globe) and provides the company mainly with data on resources and financials. There are in the process of a reorganization and are currently in development of the accounting system for which members of the ERP team are continuously adding modules and improving information quality.

Company 4: Moyee Coffee

Moyee Coffe is a coffee wholesaler based in Amsterdam. They claim to work towards a fairer world by producing not only good coffee but also by paying their farmers significantly more than the competition so they earn a livable income as well (Solidarity Campaign - Moyee Coffee, n.d.). They are currently in a development program with other coffee wholesalers, the Dutch governmental organization MVO Nederland, Soil & More (Eosta) and EY in order to create a TCA tool specifically for the coffee industry (Futureproof Coffee Collective Werkt Aan Een Eerlijke Koffieprijs | Resultaat | MVO Nederland, n.d.). Under the name Futureproof Coffee Collective, they started in Colombia by benchmarking the average true price of coffee. The collectives’ plan is to expand to different countries and add more coffee organizations along the way, hoping to achieve that in a couple of years every organizations will buy coffee based on the true price (Futureproof Coffee Collective - International Sustainable Business | MVO Nederland, n.d.)

Company 5: Coroos

Coroos is a Dutch organization specialized in conserving fruit, vegetables and legumes. Their main goal is to provide high quality products for the lowest price possible (Over Coroos, n.d.). The organization is always trying to innovate on product characteristics, supply chain management and production processes (Fruit: Belangrijke Groeimarkt Voor Coroos, n.d.; ING, 2017). The

organization is not engaged in sustainability accounting and engages instead in traditional accounting methods (Coroos, 2018b, 2018a; Jan Hermans, n.d.).

Data collection

Archival data

For this research multiple types of existing data were used. Existing data was selected based on the closeness of the source to the organizations. Since this research is about capturing the institutional logics within a particular organization, data was used that could possibly reflect the assumptions, values, beliefs and practices of said organization. The following data was therefore used: annual reports, websites, previous interviews and external reports. For an overview see figure 5

Organization Data used

(21)

-Annual FAIR Reports 2018-2019 - Tony’s Chocolonely.

External reports:

-Cocoa: Tony’s Chocolonely Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana - True Price, n.d.;

Web Pages:

-De Echte Prijs van Een Reep Chocolade.. - Tony’s Chocolonely, n.d.;

-Tony’s Frequently Asked Questions - Tony’s Chocolonely, n.d.;

-Tony’s Our Mission - Tony’s Chocolonely, n.d.; -Tony’s Chocolonely, n.d.;

Online press articles:

-Over 2 Million Children Still Work in the Chocolate Industry - Tony’s Chocolonely, n.d.; -Tony’s Awarded as Most Sustainable Brand - Online Interviews:

-Maatschapwij, 2017

Eosta External reports:

-Eosta et al., 2017: True Cost Accounting For Food, Farming & Finance Report (TCA-FFF)

Web pages: -Eosta, n.d.;

-Mission & Values | Eosta, n.d.;

-HR Policy | Eosta, n.d.; Mission & Values | -Working at Eosta | Eosta, n.d.;

-Where Can I Find Nature & More Fruits and Vegetables with True Cost Information? | Www.Natureandmore.Com, n.d.

-‘Business as Usual Is No Longer an Option’ | Eosta, 2020

-Eosta Wins European Sustainability Award | Eosta, 2018;

(22)

Economic Impact of Organic Fruit on Consumer Health | Eosta, 2017;

-Who Will Pay the “True Price”? | Eosta, 2019; Online interviews:

-Lillioja, 2019

Machandel Web pages:

-Biologisch Dynamisch En Duurzaam Machandel, n.d.;

-Demeter - Keurmerken Machandel, n.d.; -Duurzame Samenwerkingen Machandel, n.d. -Keurmerken Machandel, n.d.;

-Over Ons - Machandel: Dit Is Ons Verhaal, n.d.;

-Vegetarisch - Voedingsstijlen Machandel, n.d.; -Voor Wie Is Machandel? Machandel: Onze Doelgroep, n.d.)

Online blog posts:

-Machandel: Een Familiebedrijf in Biologische Levensmiddelen Met Meer Dan 30 Jaar

Ervaring, n.d.

-Het Verhaal Achter Machandel , n.d.; -Van Land Tot Klant - Zo Pakken We -Biologische Teelt Bij Machandel Aan, n.d.; Online interviews:

-Frans de Ruyter - Machandel - Nomilk2day, n.d.;

Moyee Coffee Annual reports:

-Impact Report 2017, n.d.; External reports:

-Futureproof Coffee Collective - International Sustainable Business | MVO Nederland, n.d.; Web pages:

-Governance, n.d.;

(23)

-De Week van de Circulaire Economie - Moyee Coffee, n.d.;

-Futureproof Coffee Collective Werkt Aan Een Eerlijke Koffieprijs | Resultaat | MVO

Nederland, n.d.

-Nominatie Koning Willem I Plaquette Voor -Duurzaam Ondernemerschap - Moyee Coffee, n.d.;

Online interviews:

-5 Tips Voor Impactondernemers, van Guido van Staveren van Dijk (Moyee Coffee) | Sprout, n.d.;

-Koffie-Ondernemer Moyee Coffee Bouwt Miljoenenbedrijf… | De Ondernemer, n.d.;

Coroos Annual reports:

-Coroos, 2018b, 2018a

External reports:

-ING, 2017

Web pages:

-Coroos Is Kritisch Op Kwaliteit, n.d;

-Coroos | Actief in het verduurzamen van fruit, peulvruchten en groenten, n.d.;

-Fruit: belangrijke groeimarkt voor Coroos, n.d.;

-Jan Hermans | LinkedIn, n.d.;

Peulvruchten: groeimarkt in Europa, n.d.; Online press articles:

-Coroos/Servero: Innoveren Richting de Schijf van Vijf | FoodPersonality, n.d.;

-Coroos Heeft Spijt van Verboden

Prijsafspraken Die Leidden Tot 13,6 Miljoen Euro Boete | Zeeuws Nieuws | Pzc.Nl, n.d.;

(24)

Interviews

In addition to the archival data, three in-depth interviews were conducted with key persons of

Machandel. The interviewees were selected based on the position within the company, the relatedness to the choice of accounting system and the decision-making power. The interviews followed a semi-structured approach which allowed for a more open discussion on the subjects, enabling the

interviewees to reveal more about the assumptions, values and beliefs that they possess (see the interview guide in the appendix). Questions were asked around the reason for doing business as well around the choice for an accounting. Interviews were held over the phone and lasted between fifteen and thirty minutes each. They were recorded using an external recorder. This allowed for a

transcription of the interviews which could be used for data analysis. To ensure confidentiality the interviewees were presented by their function instead of their names. For an overview of the interviewees see figure 6

Organization Selected interviewees

Machandel -Supply Chain manager & member of ERP team

-ICT specialist & member of ERP team -Financial manager

Figure 6: Interviews

Data analysis

(25)

RESULTS

Institutional pressures on sustainability and sustainability accounting

The way organizations in the Dutch food sector are seeking legitimacy by adhering to the institutional pressures to become more sustainable and the process of isomorphism described in the theory section can be applied here. The regulative (coercive), Normative (normative) and Cognitive (mimetic) pressures to become more sustainable that relate to the food sector are explained here.

Regulative pressures to become more sustainable are coming from institutions with power and are communicated through for example legislation and subsidizing sustainability projects. High pressure on organizations exist when there is sufficient legislation that prohibits or tries to minimize

environmental and social impacts from regulative bodies (Gonzalez Gonzalez & Zamora Ramírez, 2016). The Dutch government and regulatory bodies of the EU are the most important source of coercive pressure on the Dutch food sector here. Legislation such as the ‘Wet milieubeheer’ and ‘Activiteitenbesluit milieubeheer’ (Wetten.Nl - Regeling - Activiteitenbesluit Milieubeheer -

BWBR0022762, n.d.) are examples through which the government forces organizations to act in a way that minimizes negative external effects. It also gives out subsidies to organizations and projects related to sustainability and it tries to only use sustainable products for internal use. It also set up a specific organization that tries to help organizations in becoming more sustainable, called ‘MVO Nederland’ (Wat Is MVO Nederland? | MVO Nederland, n.d.). Supporting the initiatives and legislation is the whish for the Dutch government for the Netherlands to be the leader in sustainable and safe food production (Slotverklaring Nationale Voedseltop Op 26 Januari 2017 | Tweede Kamer Der Staten-Generaal, n.d.)

Normative pressures to be more sustainable and to engage in sustainability accounting can arise from social understanding of the sector and the level of pollution and the call for more sustainability efforts by organizations. It also flows from professional bodies such as NGO’s. For example, the

Transitiecoalitie Voedsel, a Dutch NGO that is involved in creating awareness on TCA and other sustainability initiatives for the food sector (10 Principes - Transitiecoalitie Voedsel, n.d.). Also, NGO’s are asking for more focus on sustainability in the food industry (Ngo’s: Voedsel Hoger Op EU-Agenda - Nieuwe Oogst, n.d.)

Cognitive pressures arise from other companies and general information levels on a specific subject in the organizational field (Gonzalez Gonzalez & Zamora Ramírez, 2016) High cognitive pressures to engage in sustainability and sustainability accounting come from the notion that information is readily available on how organizations create environmental and social issues and there is a clear

(26)

issues and have implemented tools to measure their levels of sustainability (see Eosta & Tony’s Chocolonely). This puts pressure on other organizations to do the same.

This shows that there are high institutional pressures on the Dutch food sector to be involved in social and environmental issues and so direct and indirect in sustainability accounting systems that provides information on these issues.

Capturing institutional logics

Despite the pressures to engage in sustainability accounting that are present in the Dutch food sector, there was found to be clear differences in how organizations deal with these pressures. The analysis on competing institutional logics helps understanding why organizations engage in TCA. The analysis of archival data has shown that organization adhere to different logics which in turn were determining the involvement in sustainability issues as well as the adoption in TCA. In figures 8, 9, 10 and 11, an overview can be found of the findings on which logic was present at each organization. Organizations either adhered to a sustainability logic, a profitability logic or a combination of the two logics.

Adherence to a sustainability logic and the choice of accounting system

Organizations that could be considered clearly adhering to a sustainability logic were: Tony’s Chocolonely, Eosta and Moyee Coffee (figure 7,8 and 10). These organizations also either had implemented or were in the process of implementing TCA. The results show that environmental and social performance were evenly or even more valued than economic performance. The supporting values carried out by employees underpin this statement as well. The importance of dividing profits fairly across supply chains and optimizing production not in economic terms but more importantly in environmental and social terms all contributed to the argument of the adherence to a sustainability logic. The guidance of the sustainability logic in adopting TCA can be explained via multiple findings.

(27)

sustainability accounting systems. The pro-active stance to make a change and doing so by being open, sustainable and fair has resulted in them needing an accounting system that reflects these issues and goes beyond the sole purpose of economic performance. TCA is therefore the logical choice for their accounting system.

Adherence to a profitability logic and the choice of accounting system

The adherence to a profitability logic was clearly found within Coroos (figure 9). The values as well as the production and mission focusses all showed clear signs towards the importance of economic performance above else. This organization dealt with the institutional pressure to be more sustainable only by providing a very small section in an annual report and on their website on trying to reduce waste and water consumption (Coroos | Actief in Het Verduurzamen van Fruit, Peulvruchten En Groenten, n.d.; Coroos, 2018a). The constant mentioning of being the cost leader and always trying to innovate on quality points towards a focus on economic performance above else. The employees working at Coroos also focus primarily on beating the competition.

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

Adherence to both logics and the choice of accounting system

Machandel’s case was less clear than the other four organizations. The analysis of archival data shows that the organization mostly adheres to a sustainability logic (figure 9). Especially their production focus, which is purely based on organic and bio-dynamic food production is clearly in line with the adherence of a sustainability logic. They also promote fairness as well as stating the importance of transparency. However, the actual level of transparency on topics such as production process, negative external impacts and financials was not on the same level compared to EOSTA, Tony’s Chocolonely and Moyee Coffee.

Interviews with the key figures within Machandel shed some extra light on this duality in logics (see figure 12). When questioned about how the interviewees dealt with the pressures to be sustainable, the following was answered:

“We sure do feel the pressure (to be sustainable), competitors are not passive as well. We need to be constantly innovative”. (Supply chain manager)

“Consumers are constantly asking for fairtrade, and they want to see it on the label. In France, it is really important to show that you deliver fairtrade. Over there is also a lot of pressure from the

government (to be sustainable)” (Financial manager)

This shows that they are feeling the pressure to engage in sustainability. The adherence to different logics guides how they are dealing with these pressures.

The interviewees valued sustainability and leaving the planet behind in a better state for next generations as important values. In their practices, the choice to work only with organic and bio-dynamic suppliers shows the overlap with the sustainability logic. The statement of the importance of transparency, as well the claim that sustainability is the core of their business all reflect the

sustainability logic. However, analysis of the interviews also revealed that the organization does not adhere exclusively to a sustainability logic.

The importance of growth and product features are also mentioned by multiple interviewees. There are quotes found (figure 12) that show the important of price and attractiveness of the products as an important focus. Also the focus on providing information primarily for shareholders is an indication of the existence of a profitability logic. Wat was also notable was the focus on the consumer in answering the questions. For example:

(34)

(35)

(36)

DISCUSSION

The results provide insight on how institutional logics shape the adoption of sustainability accounting within organizations. This research focuses on the different reactions to the legitimacy gap created by the demand for more sustainability and thus sustainability accounting. The organizations researched here were adhering to different institutional logics which helped explaining the differences in the adoption of sustainability accounting systems.

The main finding of this research and the answer to the research question of how institutional logics shape the adoption of sustainability accounting systems is the following: The adoption of

sustainability accounting systems is guided by the overlap between the values, beliefs and assumptions inherent of a sustainability logic present within an organization and the goals and characteristics of the sustainability accounting system.

This research therefore sheds a light on the importance of researching the values, beliefs and

assumptions that are present within organizations. This shifts the focus way from external pressures, and towards an internal look at how members of organizations make sense of the world and how that helps explaining the engagement in sustainability and sustainability accounting. This research therefore contributes to the literature by exploring the link between institutional logics and corporate sustainability. This research adds to the practice by providing a insight in how the values, beliefs and assumptions of decision makers within organizations influence the adoption of accounting systems. this provides a starting point on researching how an organization could shift in the logics that are adhered as well as an useful guide for employers that can be used for selecting the right employee for the organization.

The results show that organizations either clearly adhere to a profitability or a sustainability logic, but that the co-existence of these two logics is also possible, resulting in different reactions to the

(37)

entity that adheres to a profitability logic, that same logic is bound to be determining the action of the organization even though the members of the organization itself are adhering to a sustainability logic. The competition between the logics that was present at an organization found in this research is therefore a source of resistance to change their actions and behaviour to fit in with the institutional pressures on being more sustainable (Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007).

This resistance of change and the competing logics is also found in the use of greenwashing. Greenwashing is the concept that explains that organizations use a focus on sustainability for economic purposes. The findings from this research show that the competing logics of sustainability and profitability can explain the reason why organizations engage in greenwashing. The clash between the values, beliefs and assumptions that guide towards sustainable performance are mixed with the focus on economic performance. Moving forward, a focus is needed on how we as a society all move towards the sustainability logic.

The institutional pressures on sustainability on the field level imply the shift from a state where economic performance was the most important goal, to a state where the three principles of

sustainability (environmental, social and economic) are all valued equal. Because this is a process of change, the organizations research here could be classified according to the classifications of

Herremans et al. (2009). The organizations that adhere to a sustainability logic can be seen as

‘leaders’. The organizations on the other end of the spectrum, adhering to the profitability logic can be seen as the ‘laggards’. These two labels represent the extremes of the spectrum, so the adherence of multiple logics lies somewhere in between. Leaders have already adapted to the institutional pressures while laggards refuse to change to the pressures. The findings from this research open up future research potential on the implementation of sustainability accounting systems by investigation how organizations shift from being laggards to being leaders. This move is crucial in tackling the sustainability issues of today.

(38)

CONCLUSION

This study focussed on how institutional logics shape the development of sustainability accounting systems. Previous research consisted of using institutional isomorphism as drivers for engaging in sustainability accounting. This research has shown that the adherence of a sustainability logic guides the engagement in sustainability accounting based on the overlap of the values, beliefs and

(39)

REFERENCES

Amini, M., & Bienstock, C. C. (2014). Corporate sustainability: An integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.016

Baker, M. (2010). Re-conceiving managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(7), 847–867. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011080153

Barnett, M. L. (2006). Waves of Collectivizing: A Dynamic Model of Competition and Cooperation Over the Life of an Industry. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(4), 272–292.

https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540255

Bebbington, J., Gray, R., Hibbitt, C., & Kirk, E. (2001). Full Cost Accounting: An Agenda for Action. In The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

Bebbington, J., & Larrinaga, C. (2014). Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 395–413.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.01.003

Bebbington, J., & Unerman, J. (2018). Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: An enabling role for accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929

Berg Johansen, C., & Waldorff, S. B. (2015). What are Institutional Logics - and Where is the Perspective Taking Us? Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 14380.

https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.14380abstract

Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431

Boiral, O. (2011). Managing with ISO Systems: Lessons from Practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 197–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.12.003

Brown, C. J., Althor, G., Halpern, B. S., Iftekhar, M. S., Klein, C. J., Linke, S., Pryde, E. C., Schilizzi, S., Watson, J. E. M., Twohey, B., & Possingham, H. P. (2018). Trade-offs in triple-bottom-line outcomes when recovering fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 19(1), 107–116.

https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12240

(40)

future. New York, 8.

Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829–846.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011080144

Clarkson, P. M., Fang, X., Li, Y., & Richardson, G. (2013). The relevance of environmental

disclosures: Are such disclosures incrementally informative? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32(5), 410–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2013.06.008

Consumer Insights Survey 2019 - Retail en consumergoods - Actueel en publicaties - PwC. (n.d.). Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://www.pwc.nl/nl/actueel-en-publicaties/diensten-en-sectoren/retail-and-consumer/consumer-insights-survey-2019.html

De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. (2011). Sustainability in entrepreneurship: A tale of two logics. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 29(4), 322–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610372460

Demaio, A., & Jones, A. (2018). The true price of sugar-sweetened disease: political inertia requires renewed, strategic action. Medical Journal of Australia, 209(2), 60–61.

https://doi.org/10.5694/mja18.00223

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Durand, R., Szostak, B., Joudan, J., & Thornton, P. H. (2013). Institutional Logics as Strategic Resources. Books.Google.Com. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039A&B010 Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 532. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st centuryThe triple bottom line of 21st century. Alternative Management Observatory, April, 1–16.

https://doi.org/http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tqem.3310080106

Feldman, M. S., Sköldberg, K., & Nicole Brown Debra Horner, R. (1997). Making Sense of Stories: A Rhetorical Approach to Narrative Analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh010

Fernando, S., & Lawrence, S. (2014). A theoretical framework for CSR practices: Integrating

(41)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). Food wastage footprint: full-cost accounting. www.fao.org/publications

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. In The Qualitative Report (Vol. 8). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf

González-Benito, J., & González-Benito, Ó. (2010). A study of determinant factors of stakeholder environmental pressure perceived by industrial companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.631

Gonzalez Gonzalez, J. M., & Zamora Ramírez, C. (2016). Organisational communication on climate change: The influence of the institutional context and the adoption pattern. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(2), 286–316.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-10-2014-0126

Graue, C. (2015). Qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Sales, Retailing & Marketing, 4(9), 5–14. www.ijsrm.com

Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (2009). Some theories for social accounting?: A review essay and a tentative pedagogic categorisation of theorisations around social accounting (pp. 1–54).

https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-3598(2010)0000004005

GRI Standards . (n.d.). Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/ Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends,

theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005

Harrison, W. T. (2013). Financial accounting: International Financial Reporting Standards. Pearson. Herold, D., & Lee, K.-H. (2017). The Influence of the Sustainability Logic on Carbon Disclosure in

the Global Logistics Industry: The Case of DHL, FDX and UPS. Sustainability, 9(4), 601. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040601

Herremans, I. M., Herschovis, M. S., & Bertels, S. (2009). Leaders and laggards: The influence of competing logics on corporate environmental action. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 449– 472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0010-z

Herremans, I. M., & Nazari, J. A. (2016). Sustainability reporting driving forces and management control systems. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 28(2), 103–124.

https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51470

(42)

https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180802681511

Iarossi, J., Miller, J. K., O’Connor, J., & Keil, M. (2012). Addressing the Sustainability Challenge: Insights from Institutional Theory and Organizational Learning. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1839802

Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the de novo category “Modern Architecture,” 1870-1975. Organization Science, 23(6), 1523–1545. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0701

Journeault, M. (2016). The influence of the eco-control package on environmental and economic performance: A natural resource-based. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 28(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51476

Karlsson, A., & Korpi, A.-E. (2019). Emission Compensation as Companies’ Sustainability Strategy: Hindering Genuine Sustainability or Striving Towards It? Individual Consumers’ Perspective. Malmö universitet/Kultur och samhälle.

Kumarasiri, J. (2012). Management Accounting Practices for Sustainability. In Best Practices in Management Accounting (pp. 101–114). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230361553_7

Laasch, O. (2018). Beyond the purely commercial business model: Organizational value logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.09.002

Lapuente, E. (2012). Full cost in desalination. A case study of the Segura River Basin. Desalination, 300, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.06.002

Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U., Alves, F., Pace, P., Mifsud, M., Brandli, L., Caeiro, S. S., & Disterheft, A. (2018). Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: the role of the

sustainable development goals (SDG). International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 25(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2017.1342103

Lillioja, A. (2019). Volkert Engelsman (Eosta): “De planeet staat in de fik, dus gas op die lollie!” - MT.nl. https://www.mt.nl/management/strategie/eosta-duurzaam-modern-werken/571567 Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture.

Journal of World Business, 45(4), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.006 Lok, J. (2010). INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS AS IDENTITY PROJECTS. The Academy of

Management Journal, 53, 1305–1335. https://doi.org/10.2307/29780261

„Sustainability accounting, an analysis of competing logics“