Journal articles
Monciardini D (2023). Gabriel Webber Ziero, Business, Compliance and Human Rights Law. The Effectiveness of Transnational Private Regulations for Vulnerable Stakeholders (New York: Routledge, 2022), 248 pp. ISBN: 9781032026633. Business and Human Rights Journal, 1-3.
Monciardini D, Rocca L, Veneziani M (2023). Virtuous circles: Transformative impact and challenges of the social and solidarity circular economy. Business Strategy and the Environment
Monciardini D, Dalhammar C, Malcolm R (2022). Introduction to the special issue on regulating the circular economy: Gaps, insights and an emerging research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 350(J. Clean. Prod. 279 2021).
Ho C, Böhm S, Monciardini D (2022). The collaborative and contested interplay between business and civil society in circular economy transitions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(6), 2714-2727.
Ahlström H, Monciardini D (2021). The Regulatory Dynamics of Sustainable Finance: Paradoxical Success and Limitations of EU Reforms. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(1), 193-212.
Fitch-Roy O, Benson D, Monciardini D (2020). All around the world: assessing optimality in comparative circular economy policy packages.
Journal of Cleaner Production,
286CAbstract:
All around the world: assessing optimality in comparative circular economy policy packages
The recent global diffusion of circular economy regulatory policy packages (CERPPs) raises questions over their extent, composition and, critically, potential effectiveness. While research into circular economy (CE) regulation is growing, a dearth of analyses of the optimal design of CE policy packages presents a clear gap in the literature. This paper therefore surveys current waste management policy to identify the degree to which circular economy practices are being translated into public policy globally. Examining resource use and waste management policy in 60 countries, the paper first provides a snapshot of the global spread of CE policy packages. Secondly, the assessment framework is applied to three case studies of recent CE policy packages from Finland, Greece and South Korea. These cases fall some way short of theoretical optimality, suggesting that long-term CERPP effectiveness is questionable.
Abstract.
Monciardini D, Mähönen JT, Tsagas G (2020). Rethinking Non-Financial Reporting: a Blueprint for Structural Regulatory Changes.
Accounting, Economics, and Law: a Convivium,
10(2).
Abstract:
Rethinking Non-Financial Reporting: a Blueprint for Structural Regulatory Changes
Abstract
. The article introduces the thematic issue of Accounting, Economics, and Law: a Convivium dedicated to the regulation of non-financial reporting. It provides the reader with an overview of the varying approaches and frameworks that have emerged over time in relation to the reporting of non-financial information. In particular, the article focuses on the European Non-Financial Reporting Directive. We maintain that to date this latter initiative has failed to deliver on its intended objectives. In the context of the ongoing revision process of this initiative, the present paper outlines five key areas to be improved drawing on the lessons learnt from the past as well as from key points raised by the papers in the present thematic issue. What emerges from this collective effort is a renewed agenda that highlights some of the structural failures of the current reporting regime and a blueprint for future reforms. The final section summarises the various contributions of articles included in this thematic issue.
Abstract.
Maher R, Monciardini D, Boehm S (2020). Torn between Legal Claiming and Privatized Remedy: Rights Mobilization against Gold Mining in Chile. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(1), 37-74.
Biondi L, Dumay J, Monciardini D (2020). Using the International Integrated Reporting Framework to comply with EU Directive 2014/95/EU: can we afford another reporting façade?. Meditari Accountancy Research, 28(5), 889-914.
Fitch-Roy O, Benson D, Monciardini D (2019). Going around in circles? Conceptual recycling, patching and policy layering in the EU Circular Economy Package.
Environmental Politics,
29(6), 983-1003.
Abstract:
Going around in circles? Conceptual recycling, patching and policy layering in the EU Circular Economy Package
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.
Abstract.
Monciardini D, Conaldi G (2019). The European regulation of corporate social responsibility: the role of beneficiaries' intermediaries. Regulation and Governance
Monciardini D, Bernaz N, Andhov A (2019). The Organizational Dynamics of Compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act in the Food and Tobacco Sector. Business and Society
Monciardini D (2016). The ‘coalition of the unlikely’ driving the EU regulatory process of non-financial reporting.
Social and Environmental Accountability JournalAbstract:
The ‘coalition of the unlikely’ driving the EU regulatory process of non-financial reporting
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.
Abstract.
Zambon S, Monciardini D (2015). Intellectual capital and innovation. A guideline for future research. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, n°17(2), 13-26.
Monciardini D (2014). Regulating Accounting for Sustainable companies. Some considerations on the forthcoming EU Directive.
European Company Law,
11(2), 121-124.
Abstract:
Regulating Accounting for Sustainable companies. Some considerations on the forthcoming EU Directive.
If it’s true that all long marches begin with a step, the step taken by the European Commission on April 2013 towards effective corporate social and environmental reporting is fundamental, yet irresolute. After four years of gestation (going back to the 2009 Commission Workshops on environmental, social and governance disclosure), the Commission finally revealed its proposal as regards a Directive on the disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large companies and groups. The measure is expected to be adopted in 2014. In a nutshell, the proposal amends Art 46 of the Fourth Directive. The new regime would require all European companies with more than 500 employees to disclose a statement related to, at least, four major non-financial reporting matters – environment, employees, human rights and anti-corruption – or to explain why they have not done so where necessary. More specifically, the information should include: a description of their policy; the results of such policies; the risks related to these matters and how the company intend to manage them. In order to avoid duplications and reward existing efforts, companies that are already preparing a comprehensive standalone report will be exempt from the obligation. The article suggests that the proposed framework is rather weak and improvements are proposed.
Abstract.
Monciardini D (2012). Good business? the struggles for regulating ESG disclosure.
Oñati Socio-Legal Series,
3, 1-23.
Abstract:
Good business? the struggles for regulating ESG disclosure
During the last decade, the regulation of corporate social and environmental disclosure and reporting has gradually but steadily emerged. What explains its emergence at different levels of regulation and through varying modes of governance? Which political and socio-economic actors are involved? Who has benefitted from its emergence? the onset of the current economic and sustainability crisis has shown the need for a more ‘regulated capitalism’ and called for a re-assessment of dominant ideas about ‘CSR’ and ‘corporate governance’.
Better transparency and disclosure have often been indicated as a solution to this impasse.
The paper focuses on the emergence of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure regulation in Europe during the last decade. It is organized in four
main sections. After introducing the argument within the literature on the
regulation of corporate accountability, the second section offers an historical overview of the recursive emergence of environmental and social disclosure regulation. Thereafter, the paper briefly reviews the current debate over the regulation of ESG disclosure. In particular, it outlines the interests of the main constituencies involved at the EU-level: large corporations, institutional investors, trade unions, NGOs, professional accountants and financial analysts, public authorities. The last part develops an argument suggesting the current emergence of ESG disclosure regulation constitutes an institutional investors’ strategy to strengthen, on the one hand, their control over managers and, on the other hand, the legitimacy of their claims over companies resources.
Abstract.
