Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between the degree of stakeholder salience and the degree of emphasis placed on accountability dimensions for infrastructure assets (IFAs) as perceived by mayors and chief executive officers (CEOs) of local government authorities (LGAs). Comparisons are drawn between the salience accorded to two broad stakeholder groups at the public level and at the government level.

Perceptions of mayors and CEOs are examined through a mail questionnaire survey administered among LGAs in Australia.

Overall accountability for IFAs by the LGAs is influenced by the salience accorded to the demands and needs of public stakeholders (PSs) but not the salience accorded to government stakeholders (GS). It is evident that public and managerial accountabilities are impacted by PS salience, whereas political accountability is impacted by the salience of GS. Thus, it emphasises that the establishment and implementation of policies, processes and systems that render transparency and responsiveness to the public, as well as service quality and the disclosure of performance measures, are positively affected by the salience accorded to PS groups.

The results of the study may be affected by the inherent weaknesses associated with mail surveys.

Accountability of LGAs for IFAs to GS needs enhancement, specifically stronger policy incentives.

This paper contributes to the literature, providing evidence on how mayors and CEOs of LGAs perceive the salience of different stakeholders of IFAs and its impact on the perceived accountability.

The purpose of this paper is to explore issues relating to imposing a ban on the importation of asbestos-contaminated building materials (ACBMs) in the Australian context to better understand the multiple accountabilities and consequences.

This study undertakes a qualitative content analysis of the multiple accountabilities and stakeholder expectations using the lens of actor–network theory. This study further explores the weaknesses and complexities associated with implementing a complete ban on asbestos, ensuring that only asbestos-free building materials are imported to Australia. This study uses data collected from 15 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, responses from the Australian Border Force to a questionnaire and 215 counter accounts from the media, the Australian Government, industry organizations, non-governmental organizations and social group websites during the period from 2003 to 2021.

This study reveals that stakeholders' expectations of zero tolerance for asbestos have not been met. This assertion has been backed by evidence of asbestos contamination in imported building materials throughout recent years. Stakeholders say that the complete prevention of the importation of ACBMs has been delayed because of issues in policy implementations, opaque supply chain activities, lack of transparency and non-adherence to mandatory and self-regulated guidelines.

Stakeholders expect public and private sector organizations to meet their accountabilities through mandatory adoption of the given policy framework.

This research provides a road map to identify the multiple accountabilities, their related weaknesses and the lack of implementation of the necessary protocol, which prevents a critical aspect of legislation from being effectively implemented.

This paper aims to examine the tensions amongst the audit firms operating in Sri Lanka with the introduction of open economic policies in early 1980s and its impact to the auditing profession.

Using a qualitative approach, this study consists of in-depth interviews, documentary review and critical interpretation supported by the perspectives of globalisation, digitalisation and neo-liberalism.

The findings indicate that the main reasons for the tension between audit firms (local and international) have been the conflict of interests on the market share. While global pressures on International Standards of Auditing created more opportunities for international audit firms to capture a wider market with the support of the state, the local audit firms apparently lost their market and experienced tension created by staff. Evidence shows the negative impact of globalisation on the open economic policies and the local audit market.

The findings of this research will be useful for policymakers in revising auditing practices to ensure healthy corporate governance. Only 25 interviews were conducted; hence, the results may not be a holistic representation of the audit environment in Sri Lanka.

This study is significant, as the business capital has surged into Sri Lankan market as a result of the ongoing international agencies-led economic reforms. Such reforms have emphasised the transparency and accountability.

This study aims to examine the impact of soft law and institutional signalling on voluntary reporting of environmentally sensitive companies in Thailand.

Environmental disclosures in annual reports and sustainability reports of 108 listed companies for the years 2010–2014 were analysed using a checklist of un-weighted scores combined with panel data modelling.

The results show increasing trends of voluntary reporting dominated by disclosures on emissions data. Thai sustainability reporting guidelines released in 2012 were found to have a significant effect on the amount of disclosures of companies in the agriculture and food sector only. Results show that the age of the company and media attention have a significant positive relationship with environmental disclosures. Profitability is found to have a negative relationship with the level of environmental disclosures.

This study adds to existing environmental reporting literature from the perspective of soft law and institutional signalling and their impact on environmental reporting in the context of an economically developing, environmentally sensitive and in a Buddhist cultural setting country, Thailand.

This paper looks at Thai environmental disclosures from the perspective of soft law and institutional signalling, which is an original and unique contribution to CSR literature, considered through the lens of institutional legitimacy.

The purpose of the study is to investigate differences between the perceptions of the Mayors and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of local government authorities (LGAs) with regards to the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency of different identified stakeholder groups regarding their claims and needs concerning infrastructure assets. Stakeholder groups are categorised into those at the public level and those at higher-tier government level.

A survey of 420 LGAs throughout Australia was undertaken using an instrument developed from the constructs in Mitchell et al.’s (1997) theory of stakeholder identification and salience.

The results first reveal that there are more similarities than differences between the perceptions of the Mayors and CEOs with regard to stakeholder attributes of different stakeholder groups. Second, both Mayors and CEOs view stakeholders in infrastructure decision-making as largely “expectant dependant”. However, there is evidence that some biased priority may be accorded to the “public stakeholder” category over “higher-tier government” category because the CEO’s perception of the power of “public” stakeholders, together with the Mayor’s managerial values, is significantly positively related to their perceptions of the salience of these “public” stakeholders, but not “higher-tier government” stakeholders. However the results of the analysis change in the combined sample of the Mayor and CEO, making both categories of stakeholders as “definitive” in infrastructure decision-making.

The results of this study are subject to the usual limitation of mail surveys, including biases that can arise in respondents’ rating based on their perceptions. The findings have implications for the process of infrastructure decision-making in local governments.

This paper contributes to the literature, providing evidence on how Mayors and CEOs of local governments prioritise the needs, interests and claims of different stakeholders with respect to infrastructure assets.