Purpose

Drawing on Suchman’s conception of cognitive legitimacy and Boswell’s account of the political functions of expert knowledge, this paper aims to study the due process followed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) prior to the publication of the first version of the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF). Specifically, the author analyses the lobbying strategies used in the comment letters sent by a subset of lobbyists, “the experts”, represented by accounting bodies and firms, regulators and academics.

Design/methodology/approach

From both a form- and meaning-oriented analysis, this paper focuses on how the experts resorted to the functions of knowledge when they took part in the IIRF’s public consultation. The author first carries out a quantitative content analysis of the responses to the 2013 Consultation Draft submitted by those constituents considered as accounting expert lobbyists. Then, the author analyse how these actors framed their comments under expert knowledge to legitimise the IIRC, the IIRF and the accounting profession itself.

Findings

The findings suggest that the expert groups welcomed the opportunity, not simply to legitimise the IIRC through their democratic support, but to provide a technocratic settlement that ensures the due process is based on the mobilisation of expert knowledge as a legitimate source. By drawing on the cognitive legitimacy of expert lobbyists, the IIRC drew on the political functions of expert knowledge to reduce uncertainty and gain stability.

Practical implications

Analysis of the lobbying strategies used by the accounting experts whose position could make a difference and receive more attention from the IIRC makes this contribution of particular interest, especially since the first version of the IIRF sought to guide disclosure and sustainable business practices around the world.

Social implications

Experts as political actors play a legitimising role since they are capable of producing relevant knowledge that, due to its nature and scope, certainly affects policymaking and sustainable development.

Originality/value

This research provides a sociopolitical perspective to comprehend how some lobbying strategies, in this case, of expert actors, contribute to legitimising a standard-setter body and its endeavours in the context of voluntary standards.

中文翻译：

---

分析专家在国际综合报告框架正当程序中的游说行为

目的

本文借鉴苏克曼的认知合法性概念和博斯韦尔对专家知识政治功能的阐述，旨在研究国际综合报告理事会（IIRC）在第一版国际综合报告框架发布之前遵循的正当程序（IIRF）。具体来说，作者分析了由会计机构和公司、监管机构和学者代表的一部分游说者“专家”发送的评论信中使用的游说策略。

设计/方法论/途径

本文从形式和意义两个方面分析专家在参与IIRF公众咨询时如何发挥知识的作用。笔者首先对会计专家游说者对2013年征求意见稿的答复进行了定量内容分析。然后，作者分析了这些行为者如何在专业知识下发表评论，以使 IIRC、IIRF 和会计行业本身合法化。

发现

研究结果表明，专家组欢迎这个机会，不仅通过民主支持使 IIRC 合法化，而且提供技术官僚解决方案，确保正当程序建立在调动专家知识作为合法来源的基础上。通过利用专家游说者的认知合法性，IIRC 利用专家知识的政治功能来减少不确定性并获得稳定性。

实际影响

对会计专家所使用的游说策略的分析使这一贡献特别令人感兴趣，特别是因为 IIRF 的第一版旨在指导世界各地的披露和可持续商业实践，这些专家的立场可能会产生影响并受到 IIRC 的更多关注。

社会影响

专家作为政治行为者发挥着合法作用，因为他们有能力提供相关知识，而这些知识由于其性质和范围，肯定会影响政策制定和可持续发展。

原创性/价值

这项研究提供了一个社会政治视角，以理解一些游说策略（在本例中是专家行为者的游说策略）如何有助于使标准制定机构及其在自愿标准背景下的努力合法化。