Guest editorial: The role of accounting and management control systems (MCS) in organisations' sustainability performance

Over the last twenty years, accounting and management control systems (MCSs) have developed as organisations aim to meet broader stakeholder expectations than purely economic goals (Harris et al., 2018). Sustainability objectives have been incorporated into MCSs in many organisations (Beusch et al., 2022; Frostenson and Johnstone, 2023; Johnstone et al., 2023; Lueg and Radlach, 2016), partly in response to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs published in 2014) by 2030.SDG 16 contains targets for effective, accountable and transparent institutions (16.6), alongside the need for responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making for institutions at all levels (16.7). To achieve these targets, we need to know more about what corporations, governments and other organisations are doing about sustainability. Sustainability reporting poses challenges both internally and externally that MCSs can address. The most obvious role for MCSs is in setting and monitoring key performance indicators (KPIs). However, MCSs' research can still focus too much on the diagnostic controls and not enough on the interactive controls (Simons, 1995). This requires a new conceptualisation of controls (Johnstone, 2019).The focus on sustainability in accounting research continues to be on environmental aspects, with societal matters less reported or explored. The areas of the quality of the work environment (SDG8), health and wellbeing of employees and customers (SDG3) and gender and diversity (SDGs 5 & 10) may be neglected in challenging economic situations, but practice-based research in these areas may help to encourage a better understanding of how organisations can tackle these issues. The wellbeing, working conditions, pay and terms of employment for people struggling to cope with the rising costs of living, and in many parts of the world simply struggling to survive, may be of heightened concern (e.g. Christ et al., 2020; Gunarathne et al., 2016; Tappura et al., 2015), but research on such matters is still hard to find in accounting journals. Hence, this special issue set out to find and publish contextual research on how MCSs have helped or could be adapted to support organisations in performing better in their social objectives.Since we issued the call for papers for this issue, there has been an argument for organisations and researchers to embrace a new prosocial paradigm in the performance management field (Pfister et al., 2024), with twelve co-authors making a case for such a paradigm shift. However, world events (e.g. US trade tariffs and ongoing turf wars) make the likelihood of prosocial thinking more challenging as many global and local companies refocus on economic issues. That is not to say we should ignore or give up on the challenge, but to recognise the added complexity researchers and practitioners must face if humanity is to achieve the SDGs. Meanwhile, organisations need to adapt their MCSs with an eye to both long-term value creation (with all stakeholders in mind) and survival beyond the current economic turmoil. We are pleased to introduce six articles in this issue that contribute in some way to the prosocial paradigm.First, we deal with sustainability reporting and the demands placed upon MCSs to measure and capture sustainability performance. Boucard and Letiche (2025) address representational dilemmas related to different measurements of non-financial indicators in sustainability reporting by using Peirce's semiotics as their theoretical framework. Their study is an ethnographic participant-observer study in a French international construction firm where one of the authors worked at the headquarters in the sustainability reporting function. In addition, they gathered data by conducting semi-structured interviews. Regarding the findings, headquarters in the firm demanded that the reporting of the non-financial indicators be based on the financial progress rates of building projects, whereas subsidiary managers resisted this and saw actual operational progress as more relevant. The authors illustrate a case wherein the semiotic crisis of sustainability reporting impairs or even threatens its usefulness. The study extends the literature on sustainability reporting in arguing for a pluralistic and relational ontology of what actually is to be controlled. They show the existence of different modes of relations in the interactions of "sign-interpretant-object" when activity is identified as iconic, indexical and/or symbolic.Next, in their single-case study, Monazzam and Nilsson (2025) studied how sustainability reporting influences strategy implementation and strategy formulation. Their empirical evidence is based primarily on interviews of managers in one of Europe's largest iron ore producers. The study draws upon the single- and double-loop learning concepts within organisational learning literature, combined with diagnostic control and interactive control concepts in a lever of control model. The authors show that sustainability reporting is conducive to organisational learning in two major ways. First, sustainability reporting facilitates strategy implementation (resembling single-loop learning/diagnostic control) by identifying deviations, prescribing actions, and clarifying responsibilities. Second, it facilitates strategy formulation (double-loop learning/interactive control) by supporting materiality analysis and external benchmarking, identifying strategic uncertainties, and reassessing and adjusting the strategy. Their study contributes to prior literature by identifying how sustainability reporting affects processes and activities to implement and formulate the sustainability strategy.Demaret and Molinari (2025) investigate how traditional MCSs are mobilised to meet evolving sustainability reporting demands. Through a case study of Energeo, a French energy company, the study shows that conventional tools—such as spreadsheets and financial software—are not discarded but adapted to support compliance with frameworks like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) for sustainable activities. A key contribution lies in reframing the role of legacy and the EU taxonomy systems, demonstrating how planning, cultural, and administrative controls can effectively underpin sustainability compliance. Drawing on institutional theory, the paper illustrates how MCSs are embedded through mechanisms such as defining roles, vesting authority, and educating stakeholders. It also highlights the importance of centralised structures (e.g. an "impact division") and cross-functional collaboration in integrating financial and non-financial data. The study contributes a practical lens for understanding how MCSs evolve under regulatory pressure.In contrast, Narikiyo et al. (2025) examine the alignment of strategic acquisitions and disposals with sustainability objectives over a decade-long period at Unilever. Using stewardship theory and an integrated thinking framework, the study traces a shift from purely financial motivations towards greater sustainability integration in acquisition decisions—though divestments often remained economically driven. It raises critical questions about the depth of sustainability integration, noting tensions between financial and social goals, and suggesting that some acquisitions may have been more symbolic than substantive. The study emphasises the role of leadership in shaping sustainability orientation and calls for greater transparency and stronger integration of sustainability considerations into strategic control systems.Together, these two papers provide complementary insights into how MCSs contribute to sustainability performance. One focuses on regulatory compliance and institutional embedding; the other on strategic alignment and organisational intent. Both underscore the evolving, context-dependent nature of MCSs in supporting sustainability, revealing both opportunities and persistent challenges in practice. We move from the context of organisations with shareholders to those not-for-profit organisations with the remaining two papers.Stirk and Frecknall-Hughes (2025) examine the personal sustainability conduct of organisational members as agents operating within the MCSs of a UK university, through the lens of strong structuration theory. They conducted interviews with academics, administrators and managers to explore how and why those working in a university acted in a more (or less) sustainable way. The study focussed on employees' actions in relation to food waste and paper usage. They revealed some "top-down" elements of MCSs (external structures) that constrained sustainability performance and some "bottom-up" elements of MCSs (internal structures) that enhanced sustainability performance of the university. This shows that organisations do not always have to impose formal controls to achieve sustainability goals, as engendering a culture of trust and relying on individuals' own motivation to act responsibly can work.The final paper, Knowles (2025), also investigated the interaction between informal and formal controls in MCSs in the voluntary sector. In a context characterised by a reliance on unpaid "staff" where managerial control is necessarily less directive in the absence of employment contracts. In this context, organisations have the challenge of managing "social contracts" to ensure goals are met. This places greater emphasis on social exchange and informal controls, which other organisations could learn from. The study used evidence from five not-for-profit (NFP) organisations. Knowles analysed what enhanced or hindered nine relationships in MCSs, using a framework informed by Simons' levers of control.We are now over a decade since Bakker (2013) provocatively claimed accountants will save the world. His statement is both an insight into the role of accounting, including MCSs and a challenge to the accounting community – practitioners, regulators and researchers. His insight was based on the simple premise that we need better data to inform business decisions, without which "there's no transformation. And without transformation there's no hope of solving climate and other big themes" (Bakker, 2023).The provocation for accountants, especially for those involved with MCSs, is to develop tools and techniques to produce better data. While there has been some progress with regard to financial reporting disclosures, "The progress companies have made in managing the performance around these data points has not been as robust as the reporting disclosure work" (Bakker, 2023). Of course it could be that companies have made more progress with MCSs than is evident from the literature, simply because researchers have lacked access to observe these developments or because journals have not published some studies which are judged to be too descriptive or under-theorised.This SI goes some way to addressing Bakker's challenge while at the same time recognising the distance that still needs to be travelled. We especially wish to encourage further research that deals with how organisations can motivate more sustainable behaviour in the workplace through MCSs, such as Johnstone and Beusch (2025).