Empirical studies indicate that business compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act is disappointing, but they struggle to make sense of this phenomenon. This article offers a novel framework to understand how business organizations construct the meaning of compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act. Our analysis builds on the endogeneity of law theory developed by Edelman. Empirically, our study is based on the analysis of the modern slavery statements of 10 FTSE 100 (Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 Index) companies in the food and tobacco sector, backed by interviews with business, civil society, and public officers. We offer a dynamic model that draws attention to the role of compliance professionals in framing ambiguous rules and devising a variety of organizational responses to modern slavery law. Contrary to extant research that tends to praise organizations for going "beyond compliance", our study underlines the risks of managerialization of modern slavery law, whereby merely symbolic structures come to be associated with legal compliance, even when they are ineffective at tackling modern slavery.

The article investigates the driving forces that have been shaping the regulatory process of the EU directive on non-financial reporting (NFR). Drawing on a three-year empirical study, it argues that the latter was driven by a "coalition of the unlikely", led by a growing section of investors, together with a network of NGOs and parts of European trade unions. Rather than a formal alliance, we are witnessing the emergence of an objective convergence of interests amongst the three groups of actors, aimed at limiting managers' power and obtaining more corporate transparency and accountability. Deploying a political economy explanatory framework, the paper originally contributes to the existing literature on EU CSR policy, focused on the cleavage between business and civil society. The role of EU regulators (the "Barnier-effect") in supporting mandatory NFR and the impact of the financial crisis, seen as catalysts for changes, are also taken into account. The paper concludes discussing some implications for policy-makers and research.

The circular economy (CE) concept is informing the governance of resource use and waste management on a global scale, leading to widespread policy instrument innovation. However, the recent appearance of CE 'policy portfolios' raises questions about whether such policies are genuinely path-breaking or are merely adjustments to existing arrangements. Tracing the emergence of the European Union's Circular Economy Package shows that, while some measures are genuinely novel, many others are 'patched' onto pre-existing instruments and that the overall portfolio exhibits a high degree of institutional 'layering'. Given the evidence of relative ineffectiveness of past incremental environmental interventions, there is a mismatch between such approaches and the scale, pace, and scope of transformation implied by contemporary articulations of the circular economy concept. Creating the policy conditions for sustainable production and consumption may require more radical policy formulations than CE proponents acknowledge.

Purpose Motivated by claims that the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IRF) can be used to comply with Directive 2014/95/EU (the EU Directive) on non-financial and diversity disclosure, the purpose of this study is to examine whether companies can comply with corporate reporting laws using de facto standards or frameworks. Design/methodology/approach The authors adopted an interpretivist approach to research along with current regulatory studies that aim to investigate business compliance with the law using private sector standards. To support the authors’ arguments, publicly available secondary data sources were used, including newsletters, press releases and websites, reports from key players within the accounting profession, public documents issued by the European Commission and data from corporatergister.com. Findings To become a de facto standard or framework, a private standard-setter requires the support of corporate regulators to mandate it in a specific national jurisdiction. The de facto standard-setter requires a powerful coalition of actors who can influence the policymakers to allow its adoption and diffusion at a national level to become mandated. Without regulatory support, it is difficult for a private and voluntary reporting standard or framework to be adopted and diffused. Moreover, the authors report that the <IRF> preferences stock market capitalism over sustainability because it privileges organisational sustainability over social and environmental sustainability, emphasises value creation over holding organisations accountable for their impact on society and the environment and privileges the entitlements of providers of financial capital over other stakeholders. Research limitations/implications The authors question the suitability of the goals of both the <IRF> and the EU Directive during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The planned changes to both need rethinking as we head into uncharted waters. Moreover, the authors believe that the people cannot afford any more reporting façades. Originality/value The authors offer a critical analysis of the link between the <IRF> and the EU Directive and how the <IRF> can be used to comply with the EU Directive. By questioning the relevance of the compliance question, the authors advance a critique about the relevance of these and other legal and de facto frameworks, particularly considering the more pressing needs that must be met to address the economic, social and environmental implications of the COVID-19 crisis.

No abstract