Search results

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.

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 the paper is to identify the state-of-the-art of scientific research on externalities generated in cities by the sharing economy in tourism (SET) based on an extensive literature review.

This review detected benefits and costs of the SET in cities development described in the literature using the economic externalities theory approach. The SALSA (Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis) research procedure was used to collect relevant academic articles. For findings, the qualitative and quantitative content analysis combined to make a critical analysis of selected papers was conducted.

Thirty articles devoted to the impact of the SET in cities were identified. Five topics that gained researchers’ attention were recognized: real estate market; transportation; quality of life and gentrification; entrepreneurship and innovativeness of citizens; and local budgets’ incomes. The studies that present externalities of development of the SET in a more complex way are extremely rare.

Research limitations are related to the methods used. The subjectivism of the research is a limitation to possibilities to achieve similar results when analyzing the same set of papers by different researchers. The results then are not to be generalized.

The research reveals a list of problems with externalities of the development of the SET in tourism destinations. Those problems are to be solved by policymakers in cities.

This study identified the gaps of previous research on the impacts of the SET on cities’ development. The paper presented an original conceptualization of future research.

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.

This paper reports research results from a replication of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) ‘Excellence’ study of 30 Slovenian organisations. It has been theorised that the Excellence principles are generic throughout the world but that these principles must be applied differently in different cultures, political and economic systems, stages of development, media systems and levels of activism. Results of this quantitative study showed that the principles of Excellence clustered into an identical index for Slovenia and for the Anglo countries. Differences among the four countries emerged, however, which had implications for specific application of the principles in Slovenia. Slovenian organisations had somewhat lower overall Excellence scores. Public relations departments in Slovenia had less support from the dominant coalition and were involved less in strategic management than in the English‐speaking countries. Slovenian public relations departments reported less knowledge of practising four models of public relations and two roles. However, Slovenian CEOs were somewhat more supportive of symmetrical public relations than their English‐speaking counterparts. Slovenian organisations reported equal levels of activism to the Anglo organisations. However, Slovenian organisations reported a less conducive internal context for Excellence — more authoritarian organisational cultures, more asymmetrical internal communication, and lower levels of individual job satisfaction and satisfaction with the organisation.

The purpose of this multi-voiced paper is to propose a prosocial paradigm for the field of performance management and management control systems. This new paradigm suggests cultivating prosocial behaviour and prosocial groups in organizations to simultaneously achieve the objectives of economic performance and sustainability.

The authors share a common concern about the future of humanity and nature. They challenge the influential assumption of economic man from neoclassical economic theory and build on evolutionary science and the core design principles of prosocial groups to develop a prosocial paradigm.

Findings are based on the premise of the prosocial paradigm that self-interested behaviour may outperform prosocial behaviour within a group but that prosocial groups outperform groups dominated by self-interest. The authors explore various dimensions of performance management from the prosocial perspective in the private and public sectors.

The authors call for theoretical, conceptual and empirical research that explores the prosocial paradigm. They invite any approach, including positivist, interpretive and critical research, as well as those using qualitative, quantitative and interventionist methods.

This paper offers implications from the prosocial paradigm for practitioners, particularly for executives and managers, policymakers and educators.

Adoption of the prosocial paradigm in research and practice shapes what the authors call the prosocial market economy. This is an aspired cultural evolution that functions with market competition yet systematically strengthens prosociality as a cultural norm in organizations, markets and society at large.

Presents a brief account of the development of antibiotics so as to put such drugs in perspective. Then the issue of antibiotic resistance is considered and Tisdell’s economic analysis of the phenomenon is presented. Emphasis is placed on the inter‐generational trade‐off that is associated with this important social issue. The paper concludes by discussing Australia’s institutional arrangements for funding pharmaceutical, and hence antibiotic, expenditures.