Search results

The post industrial revolution era, driven by an expansion of the global energy system (Jaccard, 2006), has witnessed an exponential increase in the consumption of finite and non-renewable resources, coupled with substantial destruction of the natural environment. Weizsacker and Jesinghaus (1992) observed that the consequence of further growth in a conventional sense would not be worldwide prosperity, but rather lead to destruction, putting in jeopardy prosperity and indeed the very basis of life. It follows that the continuance of such economic growth, measured by traditional means is unsustainable and illogical in the long run.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate the context of sustainability in a framework for greater corporate accountability.

Applied conceptual research.

This literature review shows that current corporate accountability frameworks forces companies to focus on a narrow source for value creation based on imperfect economic theories inadequate response to societal issues and misleading measurement systems. The current conceptual accountability frameworks are dramatically inadequate in the context of escalating sustainability issues and needs of both society and business. The business responses, through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, voluntary sustainability reports and industry standards are only a poor attempt to address the fundamental sustainable development challenges. Economic theory has defined externalities as residual to the market and as market failure requiring government intervention.

This paper proposes a direct valuation and formal accounting of externalities on the corporate balance sheet, with an offsetting appraisal of the social licence to operate for the corporation, thus creating a meaningful and integrated basis for accountability.

The current definition and understanding of corporate accountability is challenged. The paper presents a broad grounding in relevant literature for change to the current corporate accountability framework. The main contribution of this paper towards theory development is that meaningful corporate accountability framework in the context of sustainability can connect social progress to the economic value of the firm's strategy.

This paper aims to clarify the complex path of negative externalities in the sharing economy and proposes corresponding policy recommendations.

This paper aims to establish an analytical framework for the negative externalities of the sharing economy and to extract the main factors that produce negative externalities, and then, through qualitative comparative analysis method find out how these factors interact to form a negative externality.

Negative externalities in the sharing economy come from the joint effect of the sharing degree of the product or service and constraint mechanism, and the current main modes of the shared economy increase the possibility of negative externalities.

The paper proposes a complex path resulting from negative externalities in the shared economy.

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

Building on the literature of hybrids in the context of public organizations, this paper aims to discuss under which conditions hybrids can adequately provide “critical services”, a subset of public services characterized by their simultaneous exposure to externalities, socio-economic cohesion and legitimacy concerns.

The authors collect indications from two stylized examples, prisons and defense, to develop propositions as a step toward assessing the potential role of hybrids as alternatives to direct public provision or full privatization in the delivery of critical services.

This paper examines the conditions under which hybrid arrangements outperform the polar cases of public bureaus and full privatization in the delivery of a specific subset of public goods that the authors identify as “critical services”.

The authors suggest that there might be comparative advantages in relying on hybrid arrangements rather than the usual solutions of fully private or fully governmental provision. However, they also submit that these advantages are conditional to the capacity of hybrids to reconcile competing interests to achieve socio-economic cohesion, to combine capabilities dispersed among partners to benefit from positive externalities and to satisfy legitimacy concerns with respect to the role of government.

It was not until the late 1960s that housing attracted much attention from academic social scientists. Since that time the literature has expanded widely and diversified, establishing housing with a specialised status in economics, sociology, politics, and in related subjects. As we would expect, the new literature covers a technical, statistical, theoretical, ideological, and historical range. Housing studies have not been conceived and interpreted in a monolithic way, with generally accepted concepts and principles, or with uniformly fixed and precise methodological approaches. Instead, some studies have been derived selectively from diverse bases in conventional theories in economics or sociology, or politics. Others have their origins in less conventional social theory, including neo‐Marxist theory which has had a wider intellectual following in the modern democracies since the mid‐1970s. With all this diversity, and in a context where ideological positions compete, housing studies have consequently left in their wake some significant controversies and some gaps in evaluative perspective. In short, the new housing intellectuals have written from personal commitments to particular cognitive, theoretical, ideological, and national positions and experiences. This present piece of writing takes up the two main themes which have emerged in the recent literature. These themes are first, questions relating to building and developing housing theory, and, second, the issue of how we are to conceptualise housing and relate it to policy studies. We shall be arguing that the two themes are closely related: in order to create a useful housing theory we must have awareness and understanding of housing practice and the nature of housing.