Search results

Funding: This research was funded by the Scottish Government Hydro Nation Scholars Programme. ; We explore the activities of frontline workers situated in public bodies responsible for water service provision. We use Scotland as a case study. Here, like in other parts of Europe, communities there are greater expectations and responsibilities placed on communities to tackle water concerns. In this context, frontline workers are required to collaborate closely with communities to encourage their involvement in public services whilst being more attentive to their needs and concerns. Doing so brings the relationship between the frontline workers and communities into focus. In water services, a research gap exists as to how frontline workers interact with communities and influence engagement. Although frontline workers in water services have a highly influential role, evidence of how they perform their daily duties remains limited. This gap hinders understanding the challenges that frontline workers experience and how they can be overcome. Responding to this gap, we look to administration and policy studies, where a tradition of studying frontline workers exists in diverse public policy areas. Using the concepts of biasing, aligning and negotiating, we explore the activities of frontline workers. Using interview and observational data, we demonstrate how they (i) bias services to limit and control engagement, (ii) align resources and people to enhance opportunities for engagement and (iii) negotiate with colleagues and communities to deliver goals. We unpack the role of frontline workers and explore their pertinent position in water governance as they work inside and outside their organisations. We finish with conclusions and future avenues for research. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

Purpose: This paper reviews and synthesises academic research in environmental accounting and demonstrates its shortcomings. It provokes scholars to rethink their conceptions of 'accounts' and 'nature', and alongside others in this AAAJ special issue, provides the basis for an agenda for theoretical and empirical research that begins to 'ecologise' accounting. Design/methodology/approach: Utilising a wide range of thought from accounting, geography, sociology, political ecology, nature writing and social activism, the paper provides an analysis and critique of key themes associated with 40 years research in environmental accounting. It then considers how that broad base of work in social science, particularly pragmatic sociology (e.g. Latour, Boltanksi and Thévenot), could contribute to reimagining an ecologically informed accounting. Findings: Environmental accounting research overwhelmingly focuses on economic entities and their inputs and outputs. Conceptually, an 'information throughput' model dominates. There is little or no environment in environmental accounting, and certainly no ecology. The papers in this AAAJ special issue contribute to these themes, and alongside social science literature, indicate significant opportunities for research to begin to overcome them. Research Implications: This paper outlines and encourages the advancement of ecological accounts and accountabilities drawing on conceptual resources across social sciences, arts and humanities. It identifies areas for research to develop its interdisciplinary potential to contribute to ecological sustainability and social justice. Originality: How to 'ecologise' accounting and conceptualise human and non-human entities has received little attention in accounting research. This paper and AAAJ special issue provides empirical, practical and theoretical material to advance further work.

When disaster strikes, our instinctive response is to make things better, not only as individuals but also as groups, organisations, communities and major institutions within society. With increasing climate-related disasters and the potential for future global pandemics, philanthropy will continue to play an essential role. Yet our knowledge of how philanthropic responses to disasters are motivated, organised and received is fragmented. This book is a step toward curating our existing knowledge in the emerging field of 'disaster philanthropy' and to building a robust base for future research, practice and public policy. The authors highlight unknowns and ambiguities, extensions and unexplored spaces, and challenges and paradoxes. Above all, they recognise that philanthropic responses to disasters are complex, conditional and subject to change

Engagement with diverse social science disciplines is essential to revealing political, social, and institutional challenges that must be addressed to advance effective biodiversity conservation (Bennett et al. 2017; Teel et al. 2018). One challenge that remains insufficiently investigated is frustration with the lack of impact of innovative information tools and systems of accounts aimed at motivating and guiding ecosystem management. The conservation community invests considerable efforts in their creation and experimentation. However, ecosystem-based tools do not always lead to the changes in decision, action, or policy conser- vation scientists expect (e.g., Ruckelshaus et al. 2015). Often, the inability of such information systems to gen- erate expected changes is not due to technical limitations rather than the too fragile articulation between their de- sign and the complex realities of developing strategies and organizing management of ecosystems in a diversity of contexts. Investigating such articulation between an information system and the organizational details of its systematic use is precisely what characterizes an aca- demic field: accounting, which belongs to management as a discipline and often intersects with social sciences or economics.

Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent. ; publishedVersion

Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.