Dr Michael Rogerson

Purpose – Firms are increasingly pressured to comply with mandatory supply chain transparency (SCT) regulations. Drawing on information processing theory (IPT), the authors show how blockchain technology can address information uncertainty and equivocality in assuring regulatory compliance in an interorganizational network (ION).Design/methodology/approach – IPT is applied in a single case study of an ION in the mining industry that aimed to implement blockchain to address mandatory SCT regulations. The authors build on a rich proprietary dataset consisting of interviews and substantial secondary material from actors along the supply chain.Findings – Our case shows that blockchain creates equality between actors, enables compliance, and enhances efficiency in an ION, reducing information uncertainty and equivocality arising from conflict minerals regulation. The system promotes engagement and data sharing between parties, whilst protecting commercial sensitive information. The lack of central authority prevents larger partners from taking control. The system provides mineral provenance and a regulation-compliant record. System cost analysis shows that the system is efficient as it is inexpensive relative to volumes and values of metals transacted. Issues were identified related to collecting richer human rights data for assurance and compliance with due diligence regulations.Originality/value – We provide some of the first evidence in the operations and supply chain management literature of the specific architecture, costs, and limitations of using blockchain for SCT. Using an information processing theory lens in an ION setting, we demonstrate how blockchain-based systems can address two key IPT challenges: environmental uncertainty and equivocality.Acknowledgements This paper is dedicated to Dr Alisha Tuladhar, who died in September 2022 as the research for this paper came to an end. Alisha’s desire to see her research have a positive impact on the world was a driving force behind the paper’s development and she contributed to its progress in the way that she contributed to everything she did: whole-heartedly and with intelligence and passion.  The authors would like to thank their respondents at Minespider for their participation and engagement in our research project.  The authors thank Andreas Wieland and Jens Roehrich for their helpful advice, who provided valuable and detailed feedback on drafts of the paper, and attendees of both the International Annual EurOMA Conference in Berlin in June 2022 and the Competitive Advantage in the Digital Economy (CADE) conference in Venice in July 2022, where several questions were asked which caused us to reflect on and improve the paper.  The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the EPSRC Centre for the Decentralised Digital Economy (DECADE) [EP/T022485/1], the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg NWE project “Blockstart: Blockchain-based applications for SME competitiveness”, and the Bradshaw Research Institute for Minerals and Mining (BRIMM).

As part of a European Union-funded project, we investigate why SMEs choose to adopt or not adopt blockchain in their operations. The study used the technological-organisational-environmental (TOE) framework to understand the challenges, enablers and barriers faced by small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) and their intention to adopt or to not adopt blockchain technology. A qualitative study involved interviews with SMEs and triad consultations session between blockchain technical experts, SMEs and researchers. Our findings suggest that SMEs find blockchain confusing and complex. Consequently, SMEs in our sample adopt the technology only where well-defined use cases can be used to attract larger clients or as a central function of the business model, rather than in addition to existing operations and supply chain uses. We believe this to be important because it means that SMEs will be less able to use blockchain as a disruptive source of competitive advantage against larger players.

Purpose This paper investigates how organisations are responding to mandatory modern slavery disclosure legislation. Experimentalist governance suggests that organisations faced with disclosure requirements such as those contained in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 will compete with one another, and in doing so, improve compliance. The authors seek to understand whether this is the case. Design/methodology/approach This study is set in the UK public sector. The authors conduct interviews with over 25% of UK universities that are within the scope of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and examine their reporting and disclosure under that legislation. Findings The authors find that, contrary to the logic of experimentalist governance, universities' disclosures as reflected in their modern slavery statements are persistently poor on detail, lack variation and have led to little meaningful action to tackle modern slavery. They show that this is due to a herding effect that results in universities responding as a sector rather than independently; a built-in incapacity to effectively manage supply chains; and insufficient attention to the issue at the board level. The authors also identity important boundary conditions of experimentalist governance. Research limitations/implications The generalisability of the authors' findings is restricted to the public sector. Practical implications In contexts where disclosure under the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 is not a core offering of the sector, and where competition is limited, there is little incentive to engage in a "race to the top" in terms of disclosure. As such, pro-forma compliance prevails and the effectiveness of disclosure as a tool to drive change in supply chains to safeguard workers is relatively ineffective. Instead, organisations must develop better knowledge of their supply chains and executives and a more critical eye for modern slavery to be combatted effectively. Accountants and their systems and skills can facilitate this development. Originality/value This is the first investigation of the organisational processes and activities which underpin disclosures related to modern slavery disclosure legislation. This paper contributes to the accounting and disclosure modern slavery literature by investigating public sector organisations' processes, activities and responses to mandatory reporting legislation on modern slavery.

The increasing focus on business and human rights (BHR) in civil society and policymaking has not been matched by research on corporate actions to respect and protect human rights. The lack of research on BHR is especially acute outside of Western Europe and Anglo-centric contexts. This paper seeks to investigate how the largest Russian firms conceptualize and fulfil their human rights obligations under the UN Guiding Principles and the extent to which internationalization of those firms may have impacted these behaviours. I use a unique dataset created from a sample made of the 100 largest firms listed on the Moscow Stock Exchange. Using the theoretical construct of institutional conflict, I find that cross-listing on other stock exchanges and the extent to which firms frame their broader social responsibility issues as 'sustainability' or 'sustainable development' rather than 'corporate social responsibility' has a substantial impact on firm attention to human rights. While this attention is encouraging, firm disclosure of actions taken to mitigate against violations and protect human rights is extremely limited and the strength of domestic institutional pressures has resulted in very little firm action in the face of the extreme and widespread human rights violations being committed in Ukraine by Russia.

Traditionally, manufacturing organisations have operated in a linear economy with products manufactured from raw materials and the end product discarded once it reaches the end of its usefulness

There is a growing understanding that modern slavery is a phenomenon ‘hidden in plain sight’ in the home countries of multinational firms. Yet business scholarship on modern slavery has so far focused on product supply chains. To address this, we direct attention to the various institutional pressures on the UK construction industry, and managers of firms within it, around modern slavery risk for on-site labour. Based on a unique data set of 30 in-depth interviews with construction firm managers and directors, we identify two institutional logics as being integral to explaining how these companies have responded to the Modern Slavery Act: a market logic and a state logic. While the institutional logics literature largely assumes that institutional complexity will lead to a conciliation of multiple logics, we find both complementarity and continued conflict in the logics in our study. Though we identify conciliation between aspects of the market logic and the state logic, conflict remains as engagement with actions which could potentially address modern slavery is limited by the trade-offs between the two logics.

Efforts to manage the climate impact of, and labour standards in, supply chains have often beenconducted in isolation. Organizations which negotiate and manage framework agreements for publicsector buyers, the scope of which includes sustainability management (Rogerson et al., 2020), are well placedto incorporate efforts to address both of these two issues concurrently, especially given their purchasing volume and overall spend. However, we know little of the impact of attempts to manage these risks simultaneously. Our paper therefore investigates supply chain management by a consortium which manages climate and modern slavery risks for members.