Search results

Nuclear energy is a contested topic, requiring trade-offs in energy independence, ethicality and uncertainty. Anthropogenic climate change complicates these decisions further, with nuclear energy competing with other low-carbon and sustainable energy sources. Decisions about nuclear energy’s role, as part of a sustainable energy system, must be made in cooperation with all stakeholders. However, it is unclear how the public is involved in these decisions in the UK. This study aims to address this gap, exploring the degree to which public participation has occurred in the UK.

This paper conducted a scoping review of public participation in UK nuclear energy decision-making in the context of sustainable energy transitions, where the government retains and promotes nuclear energy as part of a sustainable energy system. Following a systematic literary search, this paper reviewed 28 academic and grey literature documents.

Public participation has primarily been conducted as consultations rather than active participation. There is limited evidence that consultations have meaningfully contributed to politically and socially responsible (i.e. individuals and groups working together for community benefit) decision-making, with public opinion on nuclear energy’s role being divided and is influenced by how it is framed.

Social aspects of nuclear energy development have historically received less attention than environmental and economic elements; the role of engagement and participation is relatively rare. Modern literature reviews in this context are largely absent, a gap this paper originally contribute to. This paper suggest ways in which how effective, inclusive engagement process could contribute to a fairer, responsible decision-making process and energy system in the UK.

In this chapter, the authors critically examine the application of unmeasured latent method factors (ULMFs) in human resource and organizational behavior (HROB) research, focusing on addressing common method variance (CMV). The authors explore the development and usage of ULMF to mitigate CMV and highlight key debates concerning measurement error in the HROB literature. The authors also discuss the implications of biased effect sizes and how such bias can lead HR professionals to oversell interventions. The authors provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of ULMF when a specific assumption is held: a single latent method factor contributes to the data. However, the authors dispute this assumption, noting that CMV is likely multidimensional; that is, it is complex and difficult to fix with statistical methods alone. Importantly, the authors highlight the significance of maintaining a multidimensional view of CMV, challenging the simplification of a CMV as a single source. The authors close by offering recommendations for using ULMFs in practice as well as more research into more complex forms of CMV.

Mindfulness-based interventions are on the rise in workplace settings to enhance Well-Being and address work stress. Their popularity is in part due to the fact that they are often assumed to have a net positive impact on both workers’ Well-Being and organizational functioning. However, the majority of workplace mindfulness practice and research focuses on individual-level mindfulness interventions and their associated outcomes, like reduced stress. However, the modern workplace is highly dependent on positive team functioning, and the impact of mindfulness in teams is lesser known. This review differentiates individual mindfulness from team mindfulness and explores how both individual and team mindfulness impact team functioning. The authors review mindfulness and teams’ literature to understand antecedents, correlated mediators, and consequences of mindfulness in team contexts, team processes, and the boundary conditions related to mindfulness outcomes. This review adds to the budding theoretical conversation regarding mindfulness at work and contributes valuable insight into the practical applications of mindfulness in teams.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the association between company reputation and dividend policy.

In this study, sample of 98,809 firm-year observations from 22 countries covering 2005–2016 were used.

Firm reputation concerns are associated with higher propensities to pay dividends and payout ratios. Further, this positive effect is more pronounced for firms with high free cash flows, high information asymmetry and low institutional monitoring. The results are robust to an instrumental variable approach, propensity score matching and the Heckman two-stage correction approach while addressing endogeneity concerns.

These findings have significant implications for various stakeholders, such as existing and potential investors, managers, policymakers and regulators, by providing insights into the relationship between corporate reputation and firm dividend payout decisions. Corporate reputation is highlighted as crucial for accessing finance, emphasizing the role of national regulators and policymakers in facilitating firms' efforts to improve their reputation. The study highlights the dynamics of corporate reputation and dividend payout, calling for proactive engagement from regulators and policymakers. Crafting policies conducive to reputation-building can enhance firms' financial prospects, indicating the need for strategic interventions at managerial, regulatory and policy levels. Understanding the influence of economic context is crucial for firms to tailor reputation management strategies and optimize funding opportunities in different economic environments.

Overall, results suggest that reputation serves as a disciplining mechanism, where firms will pay dividends to maintain their reputations.

COVID-19 has caused unprecedented disruption to health systems. There is much to be gained by capturing what was learned from changes and adaptations made by health services and systems. The Ministry of Health in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, sought to prioritise health services research (HSR) to address critical issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. We tested a priority setting methodology to create priorities for a specific funding opportunity and to extract generalisable lessons.

A virtual roundtable meeting of key stakeholders was held in June 2020. We used a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for priority setting, with potential items (n = 35) grouped under headings. Data was analysed through a reflective deliberative process.

We engaged 89 senior policy makers, health service executives, clinicians and researchers in the roundtable. The NGT proved an efficient method with participants reaching consensus on eight priorities. Findings included strong support for learning from the rapid response to COVID-19 and addressing needs of vulnerable populations and the health workforce. Opinions differed about strategic areas investment and where learnings should be via internal evaluation rather than funded research. Three of the eight recommended priorities were included in the funding opportunity.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required unprecedented change and adaptations within health systems, and rapid, applied health services research can help to create, understand and (where relevant) sustain change beyond the immediate impact of the pandemic. While final decisions may be dependent on a wider range of considerations by government, stakeholder enthusiasm for engagement in priority setting exercises may be dampened if they do not perceive their application in decision-making.

A modified nominal group technique can be used to set research priorities in constrained conditions by engaging large numbers of stakeholders in rankings and then using an online delivery of a roundtable and to reach consensus on priorities in real time. Recommended priorities for health services research can be readily generated through rapid engagement but does not guarantee their application.

Australia’s swift response to COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was perceived as a relative success due to the rapid public health and policy response and a relatively low number of cases. This response was underpinned by systematic knowledge mobilisation including support for targeted and prioritised health services research to fill knowledge gaps.

Setting priority processes can provide rich, engaged input to support government funding decisions about HSR. A wide range of dynamic and iterative processes influence decision-making in a rapidly evolving situation in the health system response to COVID-19. It is crucial to consider how major investment decisions will support a value-based healthcare system.

While the global body of knowledge on men and boys' experiences of sexual abuse during childhood has incrementally grown over the last several years, it remains an under-researched area of study. Drawing upon primary phenomenological research with men survivors of child sexual abuse (CSA) in India, in this chapter, I report and discuss findings that explore the gendered meanings that men who have experienced CSA make of their abuse experiences against a backdrop of heteropatriarchal assumptions and expectations regarding masculinity. Specifically, I discuss how effeminophobia – anxiety and disdain regarding feminine-identified behaviors, mannerisms, attributes and presentations among boys and men – is an ingredient and also the product of such meaning making and eventually works as another form of violence against men and boy survivors following the primary experience of sexual violence. More broadly, acknowledging the role of effeminophobia in constructing men and boy survivors' experiences supports the argument that heteropatriarchy is a double-edged weapon that injures women and gender-expansive people disproportionately but also hurts boys and men.

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the discussion surrounding the definition of accounting proposed by Carnegie et al. (2021a, 2021b) and further elaborated by Carnegie et al. (2023) from/under an institutionalist political-economy (IPE) based foundation and to specifically extend this approach to the arena of social and environmental accounting (SEA).

By adopting an IPE approach to SEA, this study offers a critique of the use of the notion of capital to refer to nature and people in SEA frameworks and standards.

A SEA framework based on the capabilities approach is proposed based on the concepts of human capabilities and global commons for the purpose of preserving the commons and enabling the flourishing of present and future generations.

The proposed framework allows the engagement of accounting community, in particular SEA researchers, with and contribution to such well-established initiatives as the Planetary Boundaries framework and the human development reports initiative of the United Nations Development Programme.

Based on the capability approach, this study applies Carnegie et al.’s (2023) framework to SEA. This new approach more attuned to the pursuit of sustainable human development and the sustainable development goals, may contribute to turning accounting into a major positive force through its impacts on the world, expressly upon organisations, people and nature.