Judith Ströhle

By making use of the purpose definition set out by the British Academy’s Future of the Corporation programme we argue that performance relates to purpose in two dimensions. Firstly, purpose sets the frame of long-term success and defines materiality for an organisation both from a single and from a double materiality perspective. Secondly, performance in relation to purpose needs to measure profitability net of negative externalities. We review and discuss the current landscape of non-financial reporting and measurement frameworks on how they lend themselves to the determination of materiality on the one hand and to the accounting of externalities on the other hand, in order to achieve an approximation of performance in relation to purpose. We conclude by discussing how materiality and measurement viewed through a purpose-lens could help an advanced understanding of performance in practice for sustainable finance, corporate governance and management decision-making.

The effectiveness of private governance on global labour standards remains extremely difficult to assess, let alone measure. Debates surrounding relevant factors focus on two areas: contextual variables regarding social and economic upgrading, and firm-specific characteristics. This article contributes to both debates, looking at characteristics of buyer companies, while also taking institutional variables into account. It examines structural and environmental features of cases encoded in a data set derived from over 1000 audit reports compiled by the Fair Labor Association. Focusing on the apparel, sports- and footwear industry, the article highlights the importance of regulatory quality, economic performance and social freedom in sourcing countries for the success of private governance. The analysis statistically underlines the importance of public governance specifically for process rights, such as anti-discrimination and freedom of association. Complementarity between private and public governance programmes may therefore be particularly important for these standards.

In the absence of legally binding frameworks and standards, research has shown that the assurance of non-financial information has developed as an analogy of financial auditing, copying its processes, logics and methods. We study the consequences of this analogy through an in-depth study of hand collected data of FTSE100 sustainability reporting and assurance. We view non-financial assurance statements as discursive tools of boundary work and find that the financial audit logics in non-financial assurance reinforce rather than challenge traditional firm boundaries. We identify three mechanisms of boundary work that are responsible for this: a) stakeholder exclusion due to firm and management centricity, b) issue exclusion (exclusion of certain topics) due to conservatism in practice and measurement, and c) a limited audit scope due to methodological and professional constraints. We argue that this stands in sharp contrast to calls for problem-oriented, impact-focussed and inclusive approaches to sustainability measurement. Non-financial assurance in its current design is therefore not appropriate to give a true and fair view of the types of information needed to reflect the complex, dynamic and interdependent nature of the grand sustainability challenges.