Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)’s response to criticism and political pressure at the time of the global financial crisis through the lens of legitimacy theory.

This study constructs a thick description about a causal mechanism between social crisis and organizational change using a process-tracing approach that combines a historical narrative and a theoretical consideration.

The IASB faced criticism of its accounting standards for financial instruments and its governance structure during the financial crisis. This criticism represented the crises of pragmatic and cultural legitimacy. Facing these legitimacy crises, the IASB adopted such legitimation strategies as normalization and restructuring to repair its legitimacy. Additionally, in these repairing processes, the IASB, as a bonus, became institutionally embedded itself in the global political arena and succeeded to strengthen its legitimacy.

The study suggests that the financial crisis had a significant impact on the standardization of transnational accounting. Indeed, the crisis was an important turning point of the IASB’s work on revising its accounting standards to reduce complexity and altering its Constitution. Moreover, the authors bridge the gaps in the literature on accounting and legitimacy by examining how the IASB used particular legitimacy repair strategies when facing its legitimacy crises

The initial response to the crisis of the corporate‐welfare state is nativistic: “Give us that old time religion”. In almost every democratic industrial society, retrenchment has become the primary motive of social economic policy. In the name of nineteenth‐century economic wisdom, the inter‐war and post‐war commitment to human development, collective goals, and social justice is being abandoned. In this article I examine the current institutional crisis in an attempt to show that it is rooted in the holdover of an outmoded ideology and culture that has as its concomitant result a profound ideological lacuna. The implication of my argument is that it is not the last half‐century's social economic goals that should be abandoned but rather the nineteenth century folkways and folklore that frustrate their achievement and advocate their abandonment.

The idea of Evidence-Informed Practice (EIP) was introduced in Denmark at a national policy level with the 2013 national school reform. After 10 years of gradual development towards an output-oriented, accountability-based school system, the school reform fully realized the idea of a school system, which was oriented towards learning objectives and based on capacity building and supporting professional capital. One element of professional capital was EIP, and this idea was supported financially both by the parliament and large private foundations (e.g. the Maersk Foundation). However, for different reasons, the national reform created a lot of resistance among teachers and the national teacher union, including a number of pedagogical researchers. Partly, the reform was underfunded, and partly it represented a qualitative change from understanding teaching as craft to observing it as a rational, research-informed professional practice. The result was that EIP was met with scepticism among many teachers. After 6–7 years of EIP development, the current status is that one can identify a small, yet statistical significant positive correlation between teachers' professional, evidence-informed collaboration, and their job satisfaction. However, there have been no significant changes to student achievement, well-being and teaching experiences. Part of the explanation seems to be that EIP has been introduced with a combination of high social regulation and low social cohesion, pointing towards a fatalist system approach. However, this is not an expression of an intentional approach, but rather the result of a lack of teacher acceptance. One important reason for this was that the reform was underfunded. Consequently, it was combined with a labour market conflict followed by an increase of teachers hours without an increase of salary. This resulted in a legitimation crisis, which negatively influenced the teachers' acceptance of the school reform, including the idea of EIP.

This discussion forwards a political economy framework for the analysis of the role and impact of political intervention on the process and outcome of environmental conflicts. The proposed analytic approach, advocated by the class‐centric state perspective, focuses on the economic roots of political action in conflict situations. The paper provides a critique of the existing analytic approaches to conflict analysis. The paper also offers a brief account of Hawaii's land use policy and history of land‐related environmental conflicts to illustrate the potential of the political economy approach.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. The first part introduces a theoretical argument from Giddens to help explain the way in which accounting systems and systems of accountability have changed abruptly in New Zealand’s health care sector. The changes are proceeding, surrounded by controversy and the second part used Habermas’s theory of communicative action to assess the benefits or otherwise of reform and restructuring of the public health of New Zealanders. What counts as valid evidence is contentious. The reforms have been socially divisive, and surrounded by ideology and rhetoric. There appears to be little evidence to demonstrate that the reforms have improved or will ever improve access to health care by those without personal wealth.

Addresses the lack of any coherent intellectual perspective for establishing a theory of corporate accountability that is neither extreme right‐wing nor anti‐liberal. Insights derived from Rorty′s Contingency, Irony and Solidarity are employed to develop a new perspective on the relationship between corporate activities and the public interest. This perspective is then joined with Dewey′s view of social intelligence and Barber′s notion of Strong Democracy to argue for an expansion of corporate social accountability.

This introduction to the essays that follow argues that the chief problem with the dominant understanding of world affairs in the disciplines of International Relations and International Political Economy, including their Marxist versions, is an a historical, non-contradictory and economically cosmopolitan conception of capitalism. In their place, geopolitical economy is a new approach which returns to the conception of capitalism embodied in the culmination of classical political economy, Marxism. It was historical in two senses, distinguishing capitalism as a historically specific mode of social production involving by value production and understanding that its contradictions drive forward capitalism’s own history in a central way. This approach must further develop and specify uneven and combined development as the dominant pattern in the unfolding of capitalist international relations, one that is constitutive of its component states themselves. Secondly, it must understand the logic of the actions undertaken by capitalist states as emerging from the struggles involved in the formation of capitalist states and from the contradictions that are set in train once capitalism is established. Finally, it must see in the ways that class and national struggles and resulting state actions have modified the functioning of capitalism the possibilities of replacing the disorder, contestation and war that are the spontaneous result of capitalism for international relations the basis for a cooperative order in relations between states, an order which can also be the means for realising the permanent revolution and solidifying its gains on the international or world plane.

The purpose of this paper is to examine crisis management practices among gambling-related hospitality business stakeholders (GBSs) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

An online survey was administered to a sample of GBSs resulting in 64 completed surveys. The survey explored the COVID-19 crisis using a three-phase framework: preparedness (prior experience and response plans), response (level of importance and use of crisis practices) and future (confidence in recovery, beliefs about consumer behavior and new strategies). Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to investigate the influence of preparedness variables on crisis management capabilities. Importance-Performance Analysis was used to evaluate GBSs' crisis management capabilities and identify where performance might be improved. Factor analyses were employed to explore groupings of response practices as well as future strategies.

Prior experience had a significant impact on GBSs' crisis management. IPA indicated gaps between the importance GBSs assign to response practices and their corresponding level of use, specifically for those related to marketing and government. Factor analysis revealed response practices did not group according to the questionnaire's four themes, instead, three themes of marketing, efficiency and expenses were revealed. Prevention and hygiene emerged as dominant themes with respect to future strategies.

This is a timely study that investigates crisis management among GBSs during the COVID-19 pandemic. It provides important methodological contributions as well as valuable practical considerations for gambling-related hospitality businesses.

Increased developments in competition, globalisation and technology have led to an increased emphasis on innovation in organisations and academia. There is a substantial body of knowledge in regard to the concept of innovation. However, there is a need to make a distinction between innovation and the implementation of innovation in organisations. The study of innovation implementation is much less defined in regard to theory and practice. The aim of this paper is to develop a theoretical conception of innovation implementation primarily based on a critique of the literature. The development is intended to inform further research and enable organisations to develop pathways for effective implementation.

A conceptual and integrated framework is developed from the literature. The constructs of normalising, legitimising and conflict are used to develop the theory.

It is shown how conflict or abrasion is a key element of innovation implementation in attempting to overcome normalising and legitimising organisational forces. Moreover, it is contended that conflict can be used to assess innovation implementation.

There is a paucity of theory building at multiple levels within organisations in relation to innovation implementation.