Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review and assess Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal (SAMPJ)’s contributions to the body of sustainability disclosure research. Design/methodology/approach The authors review the 31 sustainability disclosure-themed articles published in SAMPJ up through Volume 8 (2017) and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the body of research, as well as its contributions to the understanding of the reporting phenomenon. Findings The assessment by the authors suggests SAMPJ has been very inclusive with respect to methods and topics, although we note certain areas where future research could be expanded. Research limitations/implications The authors limit the review to articles in SAMPJ, so they cannot assess the degree to which the general findings as to trends might reflect the overall body of sustainability disclosure research. Practical implications The review provides suggestions for where researchers looking to publish in SAMPJ might focus so as to enhance the overall body of knowledge. Social implications The primary social implication is that the preponderance of the evidence in the articles the authors review suggests that sustainability disclosure remains incomplete, biased and driven by concerns with legitimation. As such, it provides more evidence in support of the need for better regulation and enforcement. Originality/value While prior studies have summarized aspects of social and environmental accounting in general or with regard to specific journals, none has assessed the contributions specifically to sustainability disclosure research through this journal.

Building a coherent discourse on professionalism is a challenge for corporate social responsibility (CSR) practitioners, as there is not yet an established knowledge basis for CSR, and CSR is a contested notion that covers a wide variety of issues and moral foundations. Relying on insights from the literature on micro-CSR, new professionalism, and Boltanski and Thévenot’s (1991/2006) economies of worth framework, we examine the discourses of 56 CSR practitioners in South Korea on their claimed professionalism. Our analysis delineates four distinct discourses of CSR professionalism— strategic corporate giving, social innovation, risk management, and sustainability transition—that are derived from a plurality of more or less compatible moral foundations whose partial overlaps and tensions we document in a systematic manner. Our results portray these practitioners as compromise makers who selectively combine morally distant justifications to build their own specific professionalism discourse, with the aim to advance CSR within and across organizations. By uncovering the moral relationality connecting these discourses, our findings show that moral pluralism is a double-edged sword that can not only bolster the justification of CSR professionalism but also threaten collective professionalism at the field level. Overall, our study suggests paying more attention to the moral relationality and tensions that underlie professional fields.

Although CSR scholarship has highlighted how tensions in CSR implementation are negotiated, little is known about its normative and moral dimension at a micro-level. Drawing upon the economies of worth framework, we explore how spirituality influences the negotiation of CSR tensions at an individual level, and what types of justification work they engage in when experiencing tensions. Our analysis of semi-structured interview data from individuals who described themselves as Buddhist and were in charge of CSR implementations for their organizations shows that spirituality influences how they compromise among competing moral values by identifying two forms of justification work: compartmentalizing work and contextualizing work, which help spiritual practitioners minimize moral dissonance.

No abstract

Despite the importance of the conflicting dimensions of corporate sustainability for business strategy, little is known about the tensions that derive from adopting global environmental and social standards in East Asia. Through 65 in‐depth interviews conducted in Tokyo and Seoul, this article examines the tensions—and reactions to these tensions—of corporate sustainability managers tasked with the implementation of such standards in Japanese and South Korean multinational corporations. These represent key contexts of inquiry because of their normative tradition of corporate sustainability and geographical closeness. While elucidating that corporate sustainability managers in both countries encounter societal‐commercial, traditional‐modern, and individual‐collective tensions, the article describes the ways they react differently to these tensions. This article contributes to the literature on corporate sustainability and tensions and the contextual literature on corporate sustainability in Japan and South Korea, ultimately offering takeaways for the strategic planning of multinational corporations.