Search results

Coproduction is both a recurrent way of organizing public services and a maturing academic field. The academic debate has analyzed several facets, but one deserves further analysis: its impact on the cost efficiency of public services. The purpose of this paper is to aim at systematizing the findings on the relationship between coproduction and cost efficiency and at developing insights for future research.

This paper is based on a structured literature review (SLR), following the approach proposed by Massaro, Dumay and Guthrie. The SLR approach differs from traditional narrative reviews since, like other meta-analysis methods, it adopts a replicable and transparent process. At the same time, when compared to most common meta-analysis or systematic review logics, it is better suited to incorporate evidence from case studies and etnographies. This makes the method especially suited to public administration and management studies.

Results shed light on the nature of the academic literature relating coproduction to cost efficiency, on what type of costs are affected and how and on the meaningfulness of productivity measures when public services are co-produced.

In times of fiscal distress for many governments, the paper contributes to research and practice in systematically re-assessing the effects of coproduction on public budgets.

This conceptual, multi-voiced paper aims to collectively explore and theorize family entrepreneuring, which is a research stream dedicated to investigating the emergence and becoming of entrepreneurial phenomena in business families and family firms.

Because of the novelty of this research stream, the authors asked 20 scholars in entrepreneurship and family business to reflect on topics, methods and issues that should be addressed to move this field forward.

Authors highlight key challenges and point to new research directions for understanding family entrepreneuring in relation to issues such as agency, processualism and context.

This study offers a compilation of multiple perspectives and leverage recent developments in the fields of entrepreneurship and family business to advance research on family entrepreneuring.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the literature on the representation of the quadruple and quintuple helix (QQH) in innovation environments such as incubators and science and technology parks (STPs).

The authors used the integrative review as a methodological approach and systematized studies regarding the main research objectives; theoretical approaches; methodology and study object; QQH representation, by identifying actor, performance and main results; and additional contributions to the QQH model.

As a result, the authors noticed a lack of standardization on the representation of the quadruple helix, but the example of associations and community centers as representatives of the civil society. The quintuple helix does not have an actor that represents the environment, but STPs foster sustainable actions, encourage the generation of green companies and stimulate sustainable practices among established companies.

Based on changes in the economic and social scenarios, new theoretical approaches emerge to explain the innovation process, such as the QQH. Incubators and STPs are favorable settings for interactions, according to the new models; however, there is a lack of studies addressing this topic in such environments. Hence, this study contributes to understanding the existence and performance of QQH, by showing how these new helices were identified, in addition to advancing the subject in innovation environments such as incubators and STPs.

This study aims to provide a critical assessment of developments in the field of voluntary corporate non-financial and sustainability reporting and disclosure (VRD). The assessment is grounded in the empirical material of a three-year research project on integrated reporting (IR).

Alvesson and Deetz’s (2021) critical management framework structures the arguments in this paper. By investigating local phenomena and the extant literature, the authors glean insights that they later critique, drawing on the empirical evidence collected during the research project. Transformative redefinitions are then proposed that point to future opportunities for research on voluntary organisational disclosures.

The authors argue that the mainstream approaches to VRD, namely, incremental information and legitimacy theories, present shortcomings in addressing why and how organisations voluntarily disclose information. First, the authors find that companies adopting the International IR Council’s (IIRC, 2021) IR framework tend to comply with the framework only in an informal, rather than a substantial way. Second, the authors find that, at times, organisations serendipitously chance upon VRD practices such as IR instead of rationally recognising the potential ability of such practices to provide useful information for decision-making by investors. Also, powerful groups in organisations may use VRD practices to establish, maintain or restore power balances in their favour.

The paper’s limitations stem directly from its aim to be a critical reflection. Even when grounded on empirics, a reflection is mainly a subjective effort. Therefore, different researchers could come to different conclusions and offer different lessons from the two case studies.

The different rationales the authors found for VRD should make a case for reporting institutions to tone down any investor-centric rhetoric in favour of more substantial disclosures. The findings imply that reporting organisations should approach the different frameworks with a critical eye and read between the lines of these frameworks to determine whether the purported normative arguments are achievable practice.

The authors reflect on timely and relevant issues linked to recent developments in the VRD landscape. Further, the authors offer possible ways forward for critical research that may rely on different methodological choices, such as interventionist and post-structuralist research.

This paper aims to investigate the current state of knowledge in key reporting aspects in relation to sustainability reporting in general and to reflect on their relevance to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in particular. In doing so, the major gaps in that knowledge are identified, and the paper proceeds to suggest further research avenues.

The authors conduct a review of papers published in leading journals concerning sustainability reporting to analyse the progress in the literature regarding three important reporting topics: materiality, comparability and assurance.

The review conducted in this study shows that there is still work to be done to ensure high-quality and consistent sustainability reporting. Key takeaways from the review of the extant literature are as follows: there is ongoing debate about the nature of sustainability reporting materiality, and single versus double materiality. Clearer guidance and better contextualisation are seen as essential for comparability, and, as GRI suggests, there is an important link to materiality that needs to be considered. Finally, assurance has not been mandatory under the GRI, but the current development at EU level might lead to the GRI principles being incorporated in the primary assurance standards.

In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future.

This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.