Search results

This paper aims to critically analyse the circular economy (CE) models adopted in hospitality and tourism to tackle societal challenges in the current Anthropocene era, exploring the driving values and sustainability approaches.

A systematic literature review was carried out with an increasing level of analysis to delve more in-depth into the ability of the CE models to respond to current societal challenges. The review involved a stepwise analysis, starting with a thematic analysis of 151 papers to create a conceptual structure map of circular hospitality and tourism literature. Based on originality and representativeness, 22 papers were selected and analysed according to Hoffman and Jennings’ (2018; 2021) institutional approach to sustainability, which entails specific archetypes to address the Anthropocene society: market rules, technology fix and cultural re-enlightening.

The hospitality and tourism industry has made progress towards implementing CE models. However, CE models in market role and technology fix archetypes may fail to address the current challenges of the Anthropocene era. New culture-led approaches within the cultural re-enlightening archetype, such as the regenerative land practices, a-growth and place-making, and circular society, can foster a more radical shift towards strong sustainability.

The paper highlights the urgent need for a cultural shift towards radical and strong sustainability, identifying future research directions. Policymakers have a crucial role in shaping sustainability practices consistent with an ecological culture centred on acknowledging planetary boundaries.

Despite the increasing interest in CE models, it is still debated how the hospitality and tourism industry can continue to thrive while avoiding harmful impacts on the environment and local communities. The study critically reflects on the current contribution of CE models towards strong sustainability in hospitality and tourism.

This paper draws on the thinking of the nineteenth-century Italian philosopher and poet Giacomo Leopardi and scholars who studied his thoughts on the relationship between nature and humans. Leopardi's philosophy of nature recognizes the alienness of nature in relation to humankind, thus challenging human governance of the planet. The poet’s thoughts align with the dilemma identified in the Anthropocene literature: who speaks for nature? This dilemma has accounting implications in terms of the frameworks and disclosures to be adopted. Therefore, Leopardi’s thoughts can become the basis for a more articulated and complex understanding of some key concepts and issues at the roots of SEA.

The paper utilizes content analysis to examine four essays by Giacomo Leopardi, which serve as the source of our data.

Leopardi recognizes the alienness of nature with respect to humanity and the voicelessness of nature as a generative of conflict. He also warned of the consequences of human governance that does not take nature’s needs into account. These findings open a discussion on the complex accounting implications of the distance between humanity and nature. They can inspire SEA scholars to change the status quo by developing new accounting frameworks from the perspective of nature and adopting forms of governance of nature that recognize the need to protect it as a voiceless stakeholder.

Through Leopardi’s humanistic and poetic philosophy, the perspective of nature can be infused into SEA studies, thereby promoting the need for a multidisciplinary and complex approach to the discipline.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the contribution of the Mike Power’s Audit Society and associated papers from the 1990s to the (then) emerging field of environmental accounting. The paper also looks forward to how these seminal ideas are influenced by accounting in the Anthropocene, as examined in more recent sustainability accounting literature.

This is a reflective essay, drawing from the broad sweep of social, environmental and sustainability accounting literature.

The performativity of accounting and audit, as it pertains to the practices of environmental audit and sustainability reporting, is clearly evident, with Power’s work contributing significantly to this conceptualisation. At the same time, there is also a material dimension to this process. Indeed, distinguishing first and second-order risk (drawing from Power and others) is a critical and ongoing task for sustainability accounting.

We suggest that the Anthropocene offers challenges to the notion of the performativity of audit and reporting.

The current “Anthropocene” epoch has witnessed an imbalanced global change, but it is an opportunity to design a better and sustainable future. Sustainability criteria need to be fully implemented in political institutions, companies and universities. Moreover, sustainable pedagogies must accompany the process in terms of students’ professional competences to overcome crisis situations. This paper aims to evaluate geography degrees in Spain to corroborate whether students and teachers consider that students are prepared to address the challenges of global change.

The research is focused on the sustainable development goals (SDGs), a clear and easily identifiable framework for society that reflects the principles of the UN 2030 Agenda. A statistically validated questionnaire answered by 319 respondents has been used. Data analysis with descriptive and inferential techniques was performed.

The results show that geography degrees do not meet the needs of students, for whom career opportunities will be related to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda; there are significant gaps between the perception of teachers and students; some geographical topics are undervalued; SDGs are more present in optional subjects; and there is a need to “sustain” the curriculum, following this highly valued framework.

Geography educative programs had scarcely been empirically evaluated to check a sustainability framework implementation. This research provides innovative and unprecedented self-assessment results from higher education agents, in an empirical and statistically validated way.

This paper argues that extractivist logic creates the environmental conditions that produce “natural” hazards and also the human conditions that produce vulnerability, which combined create disasters. Disaster Risk Creation is then built into the current global socio-economic system, as an integral component not accidental by-product.

As part of the movement to liberate disasters as discipline, practice and field of enquiry, this paper does not talk disasters per se, but rather its focus is on “extractivism” as a fundamental explanator for the anthropogenic disaster landscape that now confronts us.

Applying a gender lens to extractivism as it relates to disaster, further highlights that Disaster Risk Management rather than alleviating, creates the problems it seeks to solve, suggesting the need to liberate gender from Disaster Risk Management, and the need to liberate us all from the notion of managing disasters. Since to ‘manage’ disaster risk is to accept uncritically the structures and systems that create that risk, then if we truly want to address disasters, our focus needs to be on the extractive practices, not the disastrous outcomes.

The fundamental argument is that through privileging the notion of “disaster” we create it, bring it into existence, as something that exists in and of itself, apart from wider socio-economic structures and systems of extraction and exploitation, rather than recognising it for what it is, an outcome/end product of those wider structures and systems. Our focus on disaster is then misplaced, and perhaps what disaster studies needs to be liberated from, is itself.

New Space activities offer benefits for human progress and life beyond the Earth. However, there is a risk that the New Space Economy may develop according to an anthropocentric mindset favouring human progress and survival at the expense of all other species and the environment. This mindset raises concerns over the social and environmental impacts of space activities and the accountability of space actors. This research article explores the accountability of space actors by presenting a pluralistic accountability framework to understand, inspire and change accountability in the New Space Economy. This study also identifies future research opportunities.

This paper is a reflective and normative essay. The arguments are developed using contemporary multidisciplinary academic literature, publicly available evidence and examples. Further, the authors use Dillard and Vinnari's accountability framework to examine a pluralistic accountability system for space businesses.

The New Space Economy requires public and private entities to embrace hybrid and pluralistic accountability for their social and environmental impacts. A new way of seeing the relationship between human life, the Earth and celestial space is needed. Accounting language is used to mirror and mobilise broader forms of responsibility in those involved in space.

This paper responds to the AAAJ's special issue call for examining how accountability can be ensured in the New Space Age. The space activities businesses conduct, and the anthropocentric view inspiring their race toward space is concerning. Hence, the authors advocate the need for rethinking accountability between humans and nature. The paper contributes to fostering the debate on social and environmental accounting and the accountability of space actors in the New Space Economy. To this end, the authors use a pluralistic accountability framework to help understand how the New Space Economy can face the risks emanating from its anthropocentric mindset.

This largely conceptual study aims to draw from the author’s experience of conversations with Svalbard’s educators, lessons for international higher education institutions’ engagement with climate change education and thinking for non-specialists.

In situ discussions with Svalbard’s educators informed the theoretical work of the author towards the development of conceptual conclusions. The theoretical frame used – “Red Biocentrism” – draws on both radical left and green thought to posit an emplaced, materialist understanding of author’s, participants’ and place’s intra-related contributions.

That, insofar as universities represent nodes in an ethical ecology, they have a capacity to realise that which is obvious in Svalbard – their role as embassies for their learning places, generative of spokespeople or ambassadors.

There is sparse published research into the work of Svalbard’s climate educators, as a pedagogical project undertaken under such extreme and rapidly changing environmental conditions. This study represents the first to reflect on what can be learnt from the educators of Svalbard by Universities elsewhere.