Analysing the lobbying behaviour of experts during the due process of the International Integrated Reporting Framework

• Published in: Sustainability accounting, management and policy journal (Print) Vol. 15; no. 1; pp. 23 - 47
• Main Author: Rivera, Yaismir Adriana
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bingley Emerald Publishing Limited 02.01.2024; Emerald Group Publishing Limited
• Subjects: Accounting; Cognition; Constituents; Content analysis; Credibility; Due process of law; Experts; Knowledge; Legitimacy; Lobbying; Lobbyists; Policy making; Political power; Regulation; Sociopolitical factors; Sustainable development; Technocracy; Lobbying strategies; Regulators and academics; Integrated reporting; Expert knowledge; The political functions of expert knowledge; Accounting professional bodies and firms; The International Integrated Reporting Framework
• ISSN: 2040-8021; 2040-8021; 2040-803X
• DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2021-0310

Purpose Drawing on Suchman’s conception of cognitive legitimacy and Boswell’s account of the political functions of expert knowledge, this paper aims to study the due process followed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) prior to the publication of the first version of the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF). Specifically, the author analyses the lobbying strategies used in the comment letters sent by a subset of lobbyists, “the experts”, represented by accounting bodies and firms, regulators and academics. Design/methodology/approach From both a form- and meaning-oriented analysis, this paper focuses on how the experts resorted to the functions of knowledge when they took part in the IIRF’s public consultation. The author first carries out a quantitative content analysis of the responses to the 2013 Consultation Draft submitted by those constituents considered as accounting expert lobbyists. Then, the author analyse how these actors framed their comments under expert knowledge to legitimise the IIRC, the IIRF and the accounting profession itself. Findings The findings suggest that the expert groups welcomed the opportunity, not simply to legitimise the IIRC through their democratic support, but to provide a technocratic settlement that ensures the due process is based on the mobilisation of expert knowledge as a legitimate source. By drawing on the cognitive legitimacy of expert lobbyists, the IIRC drew on the political functions of expert knowledge to reduce uncertainty and gain stability. Practical implications Analysis of the lobbying strategies used by the accounting experts whose position could make a difference and receive more attention from the IIRC makes this contribution of particular interest, especially since the first version of the IIRF sought to guide disclosure and sustainable business practices around the world. Social implications Experts as political actors play a legitimising role since they are capable of producing relevant knowledge that, due to its nature and scope, certainly affects policymaking and sustainable development. Originality/value This research provides a sociopolitical perspective to comprehend how some lobbying strategies, in this case, of expert actors, contribute to legitimising a standard-setter body and its endeavours in the context of voluntary standards.