Search results

The differences of urban and rural as social spaces, their functions in society, as well as their mutual dependence have been a subject of scientific thinking since the antique times. This chapter revisits the topic from a sociological point of view, studying the evolution of the functions of rural in relation to urban, and how this evolution was reflected in the basic streams of rural research. The text ends by discussing rural research in relation to present social, economic and ecological tendencies. It is argued that the post-productionist phase of rural studies is losing its plausibility, because of the return of material functions for the countryside, during such recent trends as the global food crises and the greenhouse effect. This chapter discusses the prognosis made by the three founding fathers of rural sociology, Pitirim Sorokin, Carle C. Zimmerman and Charles J. Galpin (1932) that the society is melting together into a ‘rurban’ society, and takes distance from this prognosis for several reasons, for example because ecological tendencies seem to renew rather than diminish the differences between rural and urban. It is further argued that ecosystems have increasing impacts on societies in the form of adapted ‘greenhouse rationalism’. Such changes place rural research in a crossroads, posing the question whether to pay attention to increasingly important impacts of ecosystems on society, or not.

This chapter introduces the theoretical and political-practical underpinnings of this volume. It also gives an outline of the editorial organisation of the book and the various chapters. The chapter examines the literature on rural-urban relations, city-near rural areas and current challenges and problems identified in these areas. We identify huge sustainability and resilience problems in current rural-urban relations and metropolitan ruralities. We also relate to writings about a transition from the current carbon-based economy and society to a post-carbon society with reduced ecological footprints. The contributions in this volume are based on the current situation and provide ideas to develop the debate on rural-urban relations, metropolitan ruralities and post-carbon transition.

The purpose of this paper is to use a multi-disciplinary theoretical understanding of boundary setting to develop a quadripartite model in which sustainability reporting boundaries are classified as “Reputation Management”, “Ownership and Control”, “Accountability”; and, “Stakeholder Engagement”. Content analysis is then used to empirically test the model.

Using impression management theory, rationalism, systems and contingency theory, and network theory, a model is created which classifies sustainability reporting boundaries. Content analysis is used to empirically test boundaries across the disclosure of 49 GRI topics by the FTSE100.

Sustainability reporting fails to discharge accountability due to adoption of narrow “Reputation Management” boundaries. Boundaries are significantly (p<0.0001) narrower than previous research suggests. Findings support impression management theory as the strongest theory to predict reporting content. An ownership and control boundary, although widely criticized, represents the boundary of progressive reporters, lending marginal support for economic theories. Accountability boundaries are scarce. No evidence was found for stakeholder engagement boundaries.

The determination of boundary is critical to the discharge of accountability. A critical consideration of boundary setting is required, including authentic stakeholder engagement in determining boundaries and transparency of boundary adopted. The results are ranked to enable benchmarking of the FTSE100. Boundaries can be widened through regulation or “name and shame campaigns”.

This paper provides a theory-informed advancement in thinking on sustainability reporting boundary setting and the importance of this for advancing sustainability reporting quality.

This study aims to draw on the New Zealand context to provide extensions and comparative insights to prior research that has canvassed the reasons for sustainability reporting by local governments. A base is provided from which more extensive and theoretically grounded research can proceed.

Semi‐structured exploratory interviews were conducted in mid‐2009 in each of five local government councils in New Zealand with the person responsible for preparing the sustainability report.

Local governments in New Zealand were prompted to engage in sustainability reporting for reasons of leadership, accountability, and financial incentive; and by a need to bolster important internal stakeholders. Sustainability reporting by local governments in New Zealand does not appear to be motivated strongly by an idealistic desire to ensure a sustainable world, but more by pragmatism and economic rationalism.

New Zealand provides a unique setting in which to explore why local governments prepare sustainability reports. New Zealand has a statutory requirement for local governments to adopt a principles‐based approach to sustainable development. Additionally, public relations crisis management theory is drawn upon to provide some fresh perspective on reasons for sustainability reporting.

In response to the world’s rising awareness on sustainability, industry players and policymakers are devoting great efforts to bolster green building developments. Every green building project (GBP) involves numerous stakeholders and potentially incompatible concerns. Despite the associated environmental, economic and social benefits, GBP developments have often confronted managerial barriers which are actually emerged from stakeholders – the actual key determinants of a project. Holistically analyzing the complexity of stakeholders in GBPs is, therefore, crucial to improving GBP management and achieving greater sustainability for all involved. The purpose of this paper is to analyze stakeholder complexity in large GBPs using a holistic framework which integrates both empirical and rationalistic analytical perspectives.

The complexity of stakeholders in GBPs can be considered from three aspects – identifying stakeholders, assessing stakeholder interactions and analyzing stakeholder concerns. The proposed stakeholder analysis framework uses both empirical methods (e.g. interviews and surveys) and rationalistic methods (e.g. chain referral sampling and social network analysis) to analyze GBP stakeholder complexity. Case study of a lab-enabled commercial GBP in Hong Kong was undertaken to illustrate the framework.

The framework enables a holistic, objective and effective stakeholder analysis; leading GBP leaders toward a complete understanding of project stakeholder complexity. The case study findings bring managerial insights to GBP leaders on the general SNA-related stakeholder dynamics and the important stakeholder concerns, of large Hong Kong GBPs. The findings diagnose general connectivity structures of GBP stakeholders, identify influential and peripheral actors in GBP information exchange, and suggest clues to improve their dynamics. In addition, ten key stakeholder concerns were identified, including comprehensive governmental standards and procedures, clear sustainability goals at the outset, effective stakeholder engagement, adequate design flexibility, and a “can-do” attitude of contractors and consultants – which are all vital for successful GBP development. The underlying reasons of these concerns and recommendations to addressing them were also discussed.

Many existing GBP stakeholder studies appear to use a single analytical perspective to assess project stakeholder complexity, but this may not gain a full understanding. The holistic stakeholder analysis framework used herein combines empiricism and rationalism. It helps to bring GBP leaders and implementers toward a more informed project decision making, a more thorough understanding of stakeholder complexity, as well as a more effective engagement of stakeholders.

This paper is a review of KPMG’s true value methodology. It highlights how a positive for the methodology is its advance of a systemic perspective, with the challenge being its furthering of an agenda of corporate centricity, where money is the mediator for societal decisions.

This paper draws on existing literature to develop its arguments.

The paper highlights how the true value methodology has merit for furthering a move towards the embrace of a more systemic thinking by business leaders; for example, how organisations are nested in society, not separate from society. However, the methodology is a cause for concern, because, for “true value” (ibid, p. 3) to be identified, albeit the notion of true value is one that stuns with its hubris, there is a need to monetise all exchanges and have corporations make societal well-being decisions based on monetary calculations as opposed to moral or ethical considerations. Thus, the methodology is advancing a corporate centric and narrowly defined perspective on what constitutes societal progress.

This paper is a review of the methodology with some critique and implications for management, leadership and culture discussed.

The arguments presented highlight how the methodology furthers a particular perspective, and thus it should, like all tools, be used with an understanding of its limitations.

A key social implication brought forward in the paper is a corporate-centric perspective on societal progress. This corporate-centric perspective ensures that although a more systemic perspective is taken, society is viewed as a little more than a servant of the corporation.

In drawing on existing literature, the originality lies in the combination of arguments brought together to realise the central claims.

To discuss systemic thinking in relation to the naturalistic and anti‐naturalistic position in the philosophy of social science. To develop the theme in two parts: I and II.

A cybernetic approach is taken and a discussion on what is the foundation for the philosophy of social science for systemic thinking is developed.

The findings for Part I are that the rationalistic view of knowledge is based on reflection and reason. The empirical viewpoint on knowledge based on observations. The realistic view of knowledge is based on the link between the rationalistic and the empirical point of view. The systemic viewpoint is based on the realistic view of knowledge.

Provided assistance to social scientists who study social systems from the systemic or cybernetic point of view. Gives researchers studying problems/phenomena in social systems a systemic viewpoint.

It positioned systemic thinking in relation to the philosophy of social science.