Amanda Ball

Environmental accounting and change in UK local government

Purpose – This paper aims to explore environmental accounting in terms of long‐term societal transition towards “sustainable development”.Design/methodology/approach – Accordingly, the paper uses an abstracted and generic framework of antecedents to “deinstitutionalisation” (the erosion or discontinuity of institutionalized organisational activities or practices) to analyse a case study of how a UK local government council is responding to an environmental agenda in the context of an array of gradual political, functional and social pressures to change its activities.Findings – The findings of the study indicate how, in different ways, environmental accounting is pressed into use to promote such change.Originality/value – Contrary to other frameworks which emphasise how environmental accounting is potentially constructive/empowering or captured/colonized, drawing on this case study the paper argues that environmental accounting may in contrast be mobilised to contribute to a process of deinstitutionalisat...

The evolution of benchmarking in UK local authorities

Explores issues surrounding the recent evolution of benchmarking in the UK public sector with particular regard to local authorities. Argues that what is being done in the name of benchmarking in UK local authorities is fundamentally different to the current understanding of benchmarking practice in the private sector. Despite these differences, and somewhat ironically, the development of benchmarking in the public sector pre‐dates its popularity in the private sector. In the public sector, benchmarking is frequently in response to central government requirements, or is used for defensive reasons rather than striving for performance gains. These themes are captured in two new benchmarking typologies: compulsory and voluntary models of benchmarking. Concludes that: the reasons for benchmarking in the public sector are confused; pressures for accountability in the public sector may militate against real performance improvement; and an appropriate balance between the use of benchmarking for control and improvement purposes is yet to be achieved.

Editorial: Accounting and Reporting for Sustainable Development in Public Service Organizations

Introduction to the Issues Proponents of sustainable development argue that the exclusive pursuit of economic development will undermine society unless the existence of ecological limits to industrial production and affluent lifestyles is respected (Porritt, 2005). Heightened awareness of anthropogenic climate change has reinforced this message with politicians and citizens understanding the necessity for development to be both socially and ecologically sustainable (Gore, 2006; Stern, 2006). Accounting technologies (and specifically reporting practices) have emerged as a potential means for progressing sustainable development as it may allow business to engage with analysts, investors, lenders and consumers about green (and to a lesser extent its socially responsible) credentials. In addition, there is evidence that reporting provides a mechanism for organizations to make sense of who they are, what they are seeking to achieve and to motivate future actions (see Bebbington et al., 2008). This themed edition of Public Money & Management takes stock of how public service organizations are engaging with the sustainable development agenda. The sustainable development commitments made by various governments (see, for example, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2005; Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2003; Scottish Executive, 2005) potentially may cascade through all public service operations. Yet the corporate, for-profit sector has dominated the strategizing and reporting for sustainable development with the record of public sector accountability for sustainable development being described as ‘seemingly patchy’ (Ball, 2005, p. 3). In addition to failing to replicate trends in corporate sustainability reporting, the public sector sometimes struggles to achieve basic accountability requirements for the sustainable management of the government estate (Sustainable Development Commission, 2007). This situation, however, fails to reflect the considerable potential for public sector organizations to support sustainable development delivery via their impact on social service provision and managing their environmental impact (Ball and Grubnic, 2007).

Advancing Sustainable Management of Public and Not for Profit Organizations

Abstract The article is located in the social and environmental accounting research (SEAR) literature. A considerable body of work in the SEAR literature investigates the accounting and management practices and motives of businesses that report on their social, environmental or sustainability impacts. The potential value that researchers might derive in turning their attention to public services, social, environmental or sustainability practices, however, has been largely overlooked. The main objective of the article is to review relevant literature and ideas concerning accounting and accountability as key processes in advancing sustainability practices. The article also reviews the contributions to this PMR Special Issue and draws several conclusions.

Benchmarking as a Tool for the Modernisation of Local Government

This paper examines benchmarking as a tool of the modernisation process in local government and the contradictory tensions in the Best Value scheme are explored. Benchmarking is shown to encapsulate the dichotomous nature of a modernising philosophy which espouses innovation and local solutions alongside the government’s centralising tendencies. One consequence is the advancement of ‘compulsory’ and ‘defensive’ modes of benchmarking with local authorities benchmarking for external accountability reasons; issues of tangible improvement are secondary concerns. These tensions are viewed as irreconcilable, the implication is that local government will need to carefully manage and evaluate its benchmarking activities.

Benchmarking in local government under a central government agenda

Examines the practical experience of benchmarking in the UK local government sector during the period leading to the introduction of an important policy initiative for local government under “New Labour”. Argues that, under conditions of fiscal control, benchmarking has been subsumed under the wider practice of performance measurement in the sector. A critical factor is the primacy of the role of performance monitoring in local government, which in turn results from the controlling nature (in fiscal and political terms) of UK central government. The corollary is a conflation of two distinct views of benchmarking: benchmarking as a rigorous and challenging scrutiny of local government processes; and benchmarking as an instrument of central government control. Such a state of affairs would appear to offer a number of advantages to those policy makers whose blueprint for the reform of local government encourages the use of benchmarking across the sector.

Reasons for sustainability reporting by New Zealand local governments

Purpose – 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.Design/methodology/approach – 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.Findings – 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.Originality/value – New Zealand provides a unique setting in which to e...

The Carbon Neutral Public Sector

Abstract This paper argues for research into the effectiveness of government strategies for a ‘carbon neutral public sector’. We review initiatives in three OECD countries: New Zealand, Australia and the UK. In all jurisdictions, government agencies have consistently stressed ‘leading by example’ as a rationale for adoption. ‘Direct mandate’ by the Prime Minister (NZ); ‘organic development’ from wider central government sustainability initiatives (UK); and a more ‘laissez faire’ approach by Australian Federal and State Governments, were identified as the general pathways leading to implementation. Our assessment indicates: a lack of understanding of the implementation process for carbon neutrality; a need to identify and critically examine the ‘offset threshold’ at which mitigation efforts cease and offsetting is adopted; an absence of any evaluation of the ‘leading by example’ rationale; a lack of inter-country comparisons; a gap in understanding the relationship with economic and social aspects of sustainability; and a need to evaluate the utility of core government departments as the focus of carbon accounting. We urge colleagues to consider research in this area with a view to contributing to the interdisciplinary solutions which we believe are required.

INTERPRETING THE DYNAMICS OF PUBLIC SECTOR BUDGETING: A DIALECTIC OF CONTROL APPROACH

Developing a dialectic of control theoretical framework, the paper shows how the theory may be applied to explain turbulence in public sector budgeting. Applying the framework to fieldwork research in two large UK local authorities, the study explores the knowledge and intentionality of actors engaged in budgeting. Focusing on a crisis in educational funding, cognitive issues based around unreliability of cost and planning data were significant factors behind tactical successes for local budgetees. Central government, however, was able to exert power through its ability to change the rules, leading to new structures for public education provision. The dialectical framework avoids the reductionism and functionalism that characterises some of the budget gaming literature and also has potential implications for interpreting step changes in public funding.

Discovering its Own Relevance? Reflections on the ‘New’ Management Accounting in the Public Sector

The observation that accounting is central to an on-going drive to reform the public sector is hardly new. The case of benchmarking, however, illustrates that a ‘new management accounting’ has been appropriated by public sector reformers and the accountants who serve information ‘needs’ generated by the dichotomous ‘problem’ of central governmental fiscal control versus decentralised empowerment. The case of benchmarking illustrates how, via its rhetorical power, the ‘new management accounting’ plays a central role in legitimising old demands placed on accounting. Caught up in the discourse of new public financial management reforms, accounting in the public sector is mired in a search for its own ‘relevance’.