Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a picture of the state of the art in social and environmental accounting research applied to the public sector, highlighting different streams and the main gaps in current literature and providing input for future research. Design/methodology/approach A bibliometric method was used to analyse the characteristics, citation patterns and content of 38 papers published in international academic journals. Findings The findings show that the research on social and environmental reporting in the public sector is still at an early stage. Current investigations, although slowly on the increase, are still very few and localised. Most papers are about the reasons why public organisations report, what and how they report, but there are so many aspects that need to be investigated more in-depth or require extra validation in order to open new directions for future research, among which the relationship with and the differences between other non-financial type of reporting, namely ICR and IR. Research limitations/implications The study shows some limitations, mainly related to the adoption of the bibliometric method. Indeed, it does not take into account books and chapters but only papers published in international and academic journals. This leads to exclude a significant part of the existing literature and other relevant contributions on the field. Originality/value Social and environmental reporting practices are quickly spreading in the public sector. The field is particularly interesting, given the specific connotations of this kind of organisations. However, the literature is clearly not exhaustive and there is not a comprehensive and systematic review of the state of the art on the subject.
Background: Due to an increasingly elderly population, a higher incidence of chronic diseases and higher expectations regarding public service provision, healthcare services are under increasing strain to cut costs while maintaining quality. The importance of promoting systems of co-produced health between stakeholders has gained considerable traction both in the literature and in public sector policy debates. This study provides a comprehensive map of the extant literature and identifies the main themes and future research needs. Methods: A quantitative bibliometric analysis was carried out consisting of a performance analysis, science mapping, and a scientific collaboration analysis. Web of Science (WoS) was chosen to extract the dataset; the search was refined by language, i.e. English, and type of publication, i.e. journal academic articles and reviews. No time limitation was selected. Results: The dataset is made up of 295 papers ranging from 1994 to May 2019. The analysis highlighted an annual percentage growth rate in the topic of co-production of about 25%. The articles retrieved are split between 1225 authors and 148 sources. This fragmentation was confirmed by the collaboration analysis, which revealed very few long-lasting collaborations. The scientific production is geographically polarised within the EU and Anglo-Saxon countries, with the United Kingdom playing a central role. The intellectual structure consists of three main areas: public administration and management, service management and knowledge translation literature. The co-word analysis confirms the relatively low scientific maturity of co-production applied to health services. It shows few well-developed and central terms, which refer to traditional areas of co-production (e.g. public health, social care), and some emerging themes related to social and health phenomena (e.g. the elderly and chronic diseases), the use of technologies, and the recent patient-centred approach to care (patient involvement/engagement). Conclusions: The field is still far from being mature. Empirical practices, especially regarding co-delivery and comanagement as well as the evaluation of their real impacts on providers and on patients are lacking and should be more widely investigated.
This research aims to analyse social reporting in Italian Court Offices, focusing in particular on the latest Milan Court social report and to underline the problems encountered by operators when applying social reporting methodologies to complex organisations. The results are not very satisfactory: the deficiencies identified do not allow to overcome the three major issues that voluntary reporting entails. In summary, the work shows how difficult is to adopt social reporting procedures within complex institutions and the need to elaborate new methodologies. Social reporting can have a fundamental role in regenerating Public Value, therefore the study is far from being over because of the importance to check in the future the progress (or regress) of Judicial Offices along this path and to consider the need to create a specific model for these public entities.
Co-produced practices and publications in the healthcare sector are gaining momentum, since they can be a useful tool in addressing the sustainability and resilience challenges of health systems. However, the investigation of positive and, mainly, negative outcomes is still confused and fragmented, and above all, a comprehensive knowledge of the metrics used to assess these outcomes is lacking. To fill this gap, this study aims to systematically review the extant literature to map the methods, tools and metrics used to empirically evaluate co-production in health services. The search took place in six databases: Scopus, Web of Science, Psych INFO, PubMed, Cochrane and CINAHL. A total of 2311 articles were screened and 203 articles were included in the analysis, according to PRISMA guidelines. Findings show that outcomes are mainly investigated through qualitative methods and from the lay actor or provider perspective. Moreover, the detailed categorisation of the quantitative measures found offers a multidimensional performance measurement system and highlights the impact areas where research is needed to develop and test new measures. Findings should also promote improvements in empirical data collection on the multiple faceted co-produced activities and spur the consciousness of the adoption of sustainable co-productive initiatives.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.