Search results

Neo-liberal “reform” has in many countries shifted services across the boundary between the public and private sector. This policy re-opens the question of what structural and managerial differences, if any, differences of ownership make to healthcare providers. The purpose of this paper is to examine the connections between ownership, organisational structure and managerial regime within an elaboration of Donabedian’s reasoning about organisational structures. Using new data from England, it considers: how do the internal managerial regimes of differently owned healthcare providers differ, or not? In what respects did any such differences arise from differences in ownership or for other reasons?

An observational systematic qualitative comparison of differently owned providers was the strongest feasible research design. The authors systematically compared a maximum variety (by ownership) sample of community health services; out-of-hours primary care; and hospital planned orthopaedics and ophthalmology providers (n=12 cases). The framework of comparison was the ownership theory mentioned above.

The connection between ownership (on the one hand) and organisation structures and managerial regimes (on the other) differed at different organisational levels. Top-level governance structures diverged by organisational ownership and objectives among the case-study organisations. All the case-study organisations irrespective of ownership had hierarchical, bureaucratic structures and managerial regimes for coordinating everyday service production, but to differing extents. In doctor-owned organisations, the doctors’, but not other occupations’, work was controlled and coordinated in a more-or-less democratic, self-governing ways.

This study was empirically limited to just one sector in one country, although within that sector the case-study organisations were typical of their kinds. It focussed on formal structures, omitting to varying extents other technologies of power and the differences in care processes and patient experiences within differently owned organisations.

Type of ownership does appear, overall, to make a difference to at least some important aspects of an organisation’s governance structures and managerial regime. For the broader field of health organisational research, these findings highlight the importance of the owners’ agency in explaining organisational change. The findings also call into question the practice of copying managerial techniques (and “fads”) across the public–private boundary.

Ownership does make important differences to healthcare providers’ top-level governance structures and accountabilities and to work coordination activity, but with different patterns at different organisational levels. These findings have implications for understanding the legitimacy, governance and accountability of healthcare organisations, the distribution and use power within them, and system-wide policy interventions, for instance to improve care coordination and for the correspondingly required foci of healthcare organisational research.

This study aims to provide a critical assessment of developments in the field of voluntary corporate non-financial and sustainability reporting and disclosure (VRD). The assessment is grounded in the empirical material of a three-year research project on integrated reporting (IR).

Alvesson and Deetz’s (2021) critical management framework structures the arguments in this paper. By investigating local phenomena and the extant literature, the authors glean insights that they later critique, drawing on the empirical evidence collected during the research project. Transformative redefinitions are then proposed that point to future opportunities for research on voluntary organisational disclosures.

The authors argue that the mainstream approaches to VRD, namely, incremental information and legitimacy theories, present shortcomings in addressing why and how organisations voluntarily disclose information. First, the authors find that companies adopting the International IR Council’s (IIRC, 2021) IR framework tend to comply with the framework only in an informal, rather than a substantial way. Second, the authors find that, at times, organisations serendipitously chance upon VRD practices such as IR instead of rationally recognising the potential ability of such practices to provide useful information for decision-making by investors. Also, powerful groups in organisations may use VRD practices to establish, maintain or restore power balances in their favour.

The paper’s limitations stem directly from its aim to be a critical reflection. Even when grounded on empirics, a reflection is mainly a subjective effort. Therefore, different researchers could come to different conclusions and offer different lessons from the two case studies.

The different rationales the authors found for VRD should make a case for reporting institutions to tone down any investor-centric rhetoric in favour of more substantial disclosures. The findings imply that reporting organisations should approach the different frameworks with a critical eye and read between the lines of these frameworks to determine whether the purported normative arguments are achievable practice.

The authors reflect on timely and relevant issues linked to recent developments in the VRD landscape. Further, the authors offer possible ways forward for critical research that may rely on different methodological choices, such as interventionist and post-structuralist research.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the themes emerging from the first studies exploring accounting, accountability and management practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and coming from a diversity of experiences, across countries, organizations and individuals. In so doing, the paper gives an overview of the most recent findings about the role of accounting and accountability in times of crisis that are hosted in this special issue of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ).

The paper draws together and identifies emerging themes related to the current COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on accounting, accountability and management practices and considers how the studies in this issue extend one’s knowledge of accounting and contribute to accounting research.

Three emerging themes are drawn and their contribution to accounting scholarship is discussed. The first theme deals with the role of accounting and numbers in supporting governmental responses to COVID-19. The second theme considers accounting practices used to make exceptional decisions at the organizational level in times of crisis. The third theme addresses a relevant frontier of research into accounting and inequalities.

In considering the diverse contributions of this special issue, the paper points out how uncertainty and change can impact the design, use and understanding of accounting, management and accountability practices and can be accepted by scholars and practitioners as part of such practices.

This paper provides a timely and comprehensive picture of the first reflections and research findings on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on one’s interpretation of accounting, accountability and management practices.

This study aims to investigate whether the learning organization, as envisioned by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline (1990), facilitates responsible innovation.

The authors analyze the component characteristics of the learning organization as defined by Senge (1990) to identify any conceptual or causal connections to responsible research and innovation (RRI). To define RRI, the authors make use of a commonly cited framework from the academic literature that is consistent with the vision of RRI promoted in European Union policy.

The authors find significant complementarities between being a learning organization and practicing responsible innovation. Some of the practices and characteristics of a learning organization in the sense of Senge (1990) do not merely facilitate RRI, they are RRI by definition. One important caveat is that to qualify as a responsible innovator according to the proposed framework, an organization must involve external stakeholders in the innovation process, a requirement that has no parallel in The Fifth Discipline. The authors conclude that there is at most a small step from being a learning organization to becoming a responsibly innovating learning organization.

The authors propose a reconsideration of the scope of applicability of Senge’s theory, opening new possibilities for drawing inspiration from The Fifth Discipline 30 years after the book was first published. The authors conclude that there may be significant non-economic advantages to being a learning organization, and that The Fifth Discipline may be more valuable for its ethical perspectives on the organization than as a prescription for how to achieve business success.

The purpose of the paper is to describe and analyze differences in patients' quality perceptions of private and public primary care centers in Sweden.

The article explores the differences in quality perceptions between patients of public and private primary care centers based on data from a large patient survey in Sweden. The survey covers seven dimensions, and in this paper the measure Overall impression was used for the comparison. With more than 80,000 valid responses, the survey covers all primary care centers in Sweden which allowed for a detailed analysis of differences in quality perceptions among patients from the different categories of owners.

The article contributes with a detailed description of different types of private owners: not-for-profit and for profit, as well as corporate groups and independent care centers. The results show a higher quality perception for independent centers compared to both public and corporate groups.

The small number of not-for-profit centers (21 out of 1,117 centers) does not allow for clear conclusions for this group. The results, however, indicate an even higher patient quality perception for not-for-profit centers. The study focus on describing differences in quality perceptions between the owner categories. Future research can contribute with explanations to why independent care centers receive higher patient satisfaction.

The results from the study have policy implications both in a Swedish as well as international perspective. The differentiation between different types of private owners made in this paper opens up for interesting discussions on privatization of healthcare and how it affects patient satisfaction.

The main contribution of the paper is the detailed comparison of different categories of private owners and the public owners.

The aim of our research is to give empirical and theoretical solutions to some criticalities of the original International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF). Indeed, it takes as value creation only the increase of the capitals triggered by business activities, overlooking the fulfilment of the institutional mission that is the actual value creation lever.

The present paper introduces a case study aimed at implementing the IIRF in an Italian non-profit healthcare organisation. The research is based on theory building from cases, action research and interventionist approach. IIRF was adopted because of its claimed ability to support the communication process to stakeholders and the control of value creation. However, IIRF shows several weaknesses.

An adjusted version of IIRF is suggested, highlighting the role played by IC in the organisational business model and in the value creation process. The adjusted seems able to foster awareness of the role IC in value creation in healthcare organisations.

In this paper no one of the singles pieces of the adjusted framework is innovative by itself, but jointly they give raise to an innovative solution, able to address the disclosing and managerial needs of the examined organisation. The single case study permits to us to test the weaknesses of the IIRF claimed in the literature, to suggest some adjustments to the original framework and to validate their effectiveness. Thanks to the single case study we then built theoretical constructs developing theory inductively; now the suggested framework can be further tested and validated in other organisations.

The paper introduces an innovative approach to IC reporting and disclosure in healthcare organisations. This is relevant not only for external communication but also for internal aims supporting managers in decision and actions.

This longitudinal research examines US symphony orchestra sector organizations to determine individual efficiencies in allocating resources (donations, governmental/private funding, etc.) for desirable outputs (concerts, educational programs, community outreach). It provides researchers and managers with a tool for identifying, assessing and mitigating organizational inefficiencies.

This study assesses relative efficiencies in performing arts organizations using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), a widely-used nonparametric data-intensive benchmarking technique that determines an optimal “production frontier” of best-practice organizations among their peers and assesses their abilities to turn multivariate inputs into multivariate desired outputs.

This analysis highlights efficiency differences in a wide range of orchestras in converting available resources into performance-related outputs. It provides individual arts organizations with useful results for developing practical benchmarks to achieve organizational efficiency improvement.

This study provides constructive benchmarking guidance for improving efficiencies of relatively-inefficient organizations. Future analysis can expand the scope to utilize a two-stage DEA model to provide more specific guidance to arts organizations.

This pragmatic analysis enables arts/culture institutions to assess their organizational efficiencies and identify opportunities to optimize resources in producing social outputs for their target markets.

Efficiency improvements enable performing arts organizations to provide additional artistic/social services, with fewer resources, to larger audiences.

This research demonstrates the abilities of DEA analysis to assess both a sector and its individual organizations to determine efficiencies, identify sources of inefficiencies and assess longitudinal efficiency trends.

The paper aims to propose an integrated reporting (IR) framework rooted in Freeman’s stakeholder theory (ST). The proposed framework modifies the international integrated reporting framework (IIRF) and aims to overcome criticisms related to its focus on investors and the abandonment of sustainability.

The paper develops a modified IIRF based on an in-depth analysis of the IR and ST literature. The framework was then applied to a non-profit health-care organisation to verify its theoretical assumptions.

The modified IIRF was conceived as a ready-to-use tool. By applying it to a business case, it was validated with respect to whether and how it could help achieve better and more stakeholder-oriented reporting. The findings enabled us to validate the use of the tool not only for reporting but also for the self-assessment of organisations with respect to embedding ST.

The modified IIRF was implemented only in one case, and further implementations are needed to comprehensively identify its strengths and weaknesses, both in for-profit and non-profit organisations.

The revised IIRF represents an updated tool for reporting and disclosing the value created by an organisation for itself and for its stakeholders including the external entities affected by the impacts engendered by the organisation. In this way, the IIRF can give visibility to all value created and the value creation process, including sustainability matters. This allows integrated thinking processes to be incorporated accordingly, supporting better management.

This paper suggests three adjustments to improve the IIRF’s ability to incorporate ST as a theoretical foundation. The adjusted IIRF is a ready to-use-tool specifically highlighting what value or values an organisation delivers (its outcomes), for whom (its stakeholders) and how (its specific business processes) within a business model effectively connecting them. From this point of view, it fits the rising stream about the evolution of the sustainability reporting fostered jointly by the international integrated reporting council and sustainability accounting standard board, and by the European Union.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceived benefits of integrated reporting (IR) and factors influencing the motives that supervisory board members (SBMs) have for advocating a change towards IR implementation.

An exploratory survey study was conducted to investigate the influence of external market conditions, internal organizational conditions and observed benefits on the motivation to advocate IR adoption in companies that have not yet implemented IR. A unique set of survey data from 62 SBMs of Dutch companies was used for analysing the propositions derived from IR literature and based on institutional theory, legitimacy theory and diffusion of innovation theory.

The respondents indicated to be supportive of IR adoption. SBMs who had experienced the implementation of IR observed that IR offers benefits. Their motives for advocating a change towards IR in companies that had not implemented IR were influenced most by the observed benefits in IR companies. SBMs only involved in companies that had not adopted IR are motivated to support IR adoption to a similar extent. These findings suggest that directly observed benefits by SBMs need to exceed a considerable minimum level before these SBMs are more motived to advocate IR than their peers who have not witnessed the implementation of IR and that experiences are shared across companies. The motivation of both groups is influenced by external market conditions but not by internal organizational conditions.

The findings have implications for potential IR adopters and institutions promoting the further diffusion of IR as they emphasize the need for tangible benefits of IR and confirm that sharing good practices and benefits of IR can provide a catalyst for IR adoption. The findings contribute to the understanding of the motivation of SBMs as an important organizational condition for implementing IR as this study provides insights in the factors that drive this motivation of key actors influencing the decision to implement IR. Furthermore, the finding that these factors predominantly comprise tangible results and external market conditions is relevant from an organizational change perspective.

Understanding the mechanisms of IR-adoption decisions provides a relevant basis for deploying programmes promoting IR as a general reporting standard. This could provide society and a broad range of stakeholders with access to information incorporated in integrated reports. It could ultimately have a major impact on society by improving decision-making and increasing the long-term sustainability of organizations and their relations with stakeholders.

This study provides preliminary empirical evidence concerning the perspectives of SBMs on their motives for advocating IR, based on a unique sample from a country that has been involved with IR from its start.

Research about the modern mutually beneficial nonprofit organizations (MBNPOs) has great value because of the increasingly important role that the MBNPO plays in society. The establishment and management of MBNPOs are critical for its development.

Integrated marketing communications (IMC) theory is applied to the research on establishment and management innovation. The establishment of MBNPOs needs four sequential steps: identifying the target group, providing services to meet the demand of stakeholders, designing appropriate communication tactics and deploying proper organizational structure to accomplish efficient communication.

Three types of approach enable traditional enterprises to transform into MBNPOs: product innovation, operational innovation and synergetic development. The application of IMC theory accomplishes management innovation of MBNPOs in three aspects: leading market-orientation specific to stakeholder-orientation, making management innovation systematic in MBNPOs and clarifying targets of management innovation in MBNPOs.

This is one of the first examinations of establishment path and management innovation of MBNPO based on IMC theory.