Search results

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 study aims to investigate the impact of diverse practices in sustainability reporting and assurance on the disclosure of sustainable development goals (SDGs). Specifically, the authors examine the disclosure of SDGs along two dimensions: disclosure breadth, denoting the number of goals mentioned, and disclosure depth, encompassing the extent of actions disclosed to advance these goals.

Using a panel Tobit regression analysis, the authors analyse the communication on progress questionnaires from 299 companies (resulting in 1,015 firm-year observations) participating in the United Nations Global Compact from 2017 to 2021.

The findings revealed that greater adherence to Global Reporting Initiative standards increases SDG disclosure breadth; external assurance using publicly recognised standards, more than proprietary methods, is associated with SDG disclosure breadth and depth; and the review of information by multiple stakeholders improves the depth of SDG disclosure more than evaluation by a panel of peers.

The originality of this study lies in its examination of the intricate interplay between sustainability disclosure and assurance practices, on the one hand, and the disclosure of SDGs, on the other. Uniquely, the authors consider the various levels of implementation of these practices, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of their influence on SDG disclosure.

The purpose of this paper is to understand whether and how the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) paradigm can be useful in social reporting in the context of nonprofit healthcare organizations. In other words, the study deals with non-financial reporting and information, allowing external stakeholders to comprehensively evaluate the organization’s performance and behavior, investigating internal stakeholder perception over ESG paradigm application.

The authors used a case study approach investigating four cases among nonprofit healthcare organizations in Italy. Analyses of available primary sources have been conducted, followed by semi-structured interviews. Interviews were then transcribed and coded in a joint blinded process by all authors. More specifically, three areas have been investigated: (1) factors motivating the development of non-financial disclosure practices; (2) the rationale behind the organization’s decision to include specific topics; and (3) the future perspective on the future of non-financial disclosure within the specific sector.

ESG may serve as a suitable framework to create comparable documents that can act as benchmarks for similar institutions. However, while nonprofit organizations (NPOs) can draw inspiration from ESG, the utility of these criteria should be thoughtfully tailored to align with the organization’s mission. The ESG using as a general guide, instead of implementing it as a real tool to assess performances, emerges as a positive practice. NPOs should not focus on fulfilling ESG requirements bur rather take inspiration from them. Otherwise, the risk is an excess of focus on the formal aspect rather than on its content.

The study contributes to a better understanding of social and ESG’ reporting activities and approaches in the healthcare sector by describing some case studies and the effect of sustainability in the social reporting of nonprofit healthcare organizations.

The authors examine how performance measurement systems (PMSs) and academic agency influence the meaning of research quality in practice. The worries are that the notion of research quality is becoming too simplistically and narrowly determined by research quality's measurable proxies and that academics, especially manager-academics, do not sufficiently realise this risk. Whilst prior literature has covered the effects of performance measurement in the university sector broadly and how PMSs are mobilised locally, there is only little understanding of whether and how PMSs affect the meaning of research quality in practice.

The study is designed as a comparative case study of two university faculties in Finland. The role of conceptual analysis plays a notable role in the study, too.

The authors find that manager-academics of the two examined faculties have rather similar conceptual understandings of research quality. However, there were differences in the degree of slippage between the “espoused-meaning” of research quality and “meaning-in-practice” of research quality. The authors traced these differences to how the local PMS and manager-academics’ agency relate to one another within the context of increasing global and national performance pressures. The authors developed a tentative framework for the various “styles of agency”. This suggests how the relationship between the local PMS and manager-academics’ exerted agency shapes the “degrees of freedom” of the meaning of research quality in practice.

Given that research quality lies at the heart of academic work, the authors' paper indicates that exploring the three matters – performance measurement, the agency of manager-academics and the meaning of research quality in practice – in combination is crucial for the sustainability of the academe. The authors contribute to the literature by detailing the way in which local PMS and manager-academics' agency have material impacts on what research quality means in practice. The authors conclude by highlighting the pressing need for manager-academics to exercise the agency in efforts to safeguard a broad and pluralistic understanding of research quality in practice.