Conference Agenda

This study examines carbon accounting in a large industrial corporation, which has set an ambitious science-based climate target to reduce its carbon emission intensity. Relying on sociology of worth, this paper aims to provide insights into the multiple rationalities of carbon, and carbon accounting in particular. Instead of focusing on the technical aspects of carbon accounting this study sheds light on the social processes and human interaction in carbon accounting. This study draws on interpretative single case study of large heavy industrial corporation. Our primary dataset consists of interviews from the headquarters and one major production site. In our study, ‘carbon account’ is considered as the object under scrutiny, and the object to which multiple orders of worth can be attached. Our empirical analysis describes how people attach multiple rationalities to carbon, and how carbon accounting is valued and justified through different orders of worth. We posite that carbon accounting, a new organisational phenomenon, may raise discussions or debates within organisations in regards of its meanings, roles and implications. We aim to understand how different corporate actors address these multiple rationalities, which are seen essential in promoting carbon management within organisations. Our interview data sheds light on a very timely issue of carbon accounting and management, being able to touch upon some of the very recent understandings of carbon. Moreover, our study adds understanding on how the technical solutions for carbon management can efficiently be implemented within organizations through the mediating elements of human action.

Strategic decisions, such as strategic orientation and deviation, can impact agency problems and the level of firm uncertainty; therefore, it is likely that these decisions play a significant role in shaping corporate governance outcomes. Consequently, this research examines whether strategic orientation and strategy deviation impact board faultlines. Using a sample of 152 PSX-listed firms from 2011 to 2022, we find that both strategic orientation and strategy deviation are positively linked with greater board faultlines. Specifically, firms pursuing the prospector strategy tend to experience a greater distance between board subgroups (faultline distance) and greater within-subgroup cohesion (faultline strength). In contrast, defender strategy firms are associated with lower faultline intensity. Furthermore, strategy deviation is linked with greater faultline distance. We also find that governance mechanisms, such as board independence and audit committee gender diversity, help mitigate these strategy-induced faultlines. Finally, our results suggest that board faultlines are associated with lower firm performance. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the role of strategic orientation and strategy deviation in shaping board faultlines. Therefore, we contribute to the literature by providing new insights into how strategic decisions impact board dynamics and act as catalysts for the formation or exacerbation of faultlines within the board of directors.

Food waste has emerged as one of the most pressing sustainability concerns, carrying environmental, social, and economic costs. Estimates suggest that roughly a third of the food intended for human consumption is never eaten, intensifying resource inefficiency, global hunger, and contributing around a tenth of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. To address this, the United Nations incorporated food waste reduction into the Sustainable Development Goals, with SDG 12.3 specifically urging countries to halve waste levels by 2030. The UK has taken an active role through schemes such as WRAP’s Courtauld Commitment and the Food Waste Reduction Roadmap, both of which promote a structured “Target–Measure–Act” approach. Within this context, the seafood industry is particularly instructive, given the perishability of its products, the international scope of its supply chains, and the volume of by-products it generates.

This study investigates how twenty prominent seafood companies operating in the UK report on food waste, with the aim of determining whether such disclosures embody genuine accountability or serve primarily as symbolic communication. A content analysis was undertaken that is structured around six dimensions: recognition of food waste, provision of quantitative information, explicit reference to SDG 12.3, integration with governance structures, alignment with the food waste hierarchy, and the rhetorical stance adopted. The findings indicate that while all firms acknowledge food waste, very few provide measurable data or demonstrate clear governance oversight. The majority emphasise targets without supporting baselines, draw on symbolic associations with the SDGs, and present achievements in celebratory terms. By contrast, only a small number disclose waste volumes or evidence board-level responsibility. Most reported actions centred on redistribution and recycling, with little systematic focus on valorising by-products or eliminating landfill disposal.

The results underscore a continuing disconnect between the image companies project in their reports and the substance of their actual practices, what prior research has described as a performance-portrayal gap. This pattern is consistent with the use of impression management techniques and efforts to secure legitimacy. The study offers three key contributions: empirically, it documents the current state of reporting practices in the seafood sector; theoretically, it draws together insights from accountability, legitimacy, and impression management frameworks; and practically, it outlines implications for regulators and stakeholders concerned with strengthening the credibility of sustainability disclosures.

Keywords

Food waste; Sustainability reporting; Accountability; Legitimacy theory; Impression management; UK seafood industry; SDG 12.3