Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia

Purpose: The authors investigate the contributions of social capital (SC) dimensions (bridging, bonding and linking) in crowdfunding campaigns by comparing the dynamics of agri-food businesses with those of two other sectors – cultural and technological. Design/methodology/approach: The authors develop linear regressions on a proprietary data set of 5,290 projects launched on the Italian platform “Produzionidalbasso.com”, from 2014 to 2020. Findings: The authors’ findings suggest that combining the three social capital dimensions (bridging, bonding and linking) has a more substantial overall effect on the number of backers involved in agri-food projects than in cultural and technological projects. Agri-food entrepreneurs effectively mobilize all resources embedded in the SC dimensions and therefore create the conditions to develop new ties that financially support the project. Practical implications: Agri-food entrepreneurs may benefit from those results improving their funding strategies. Therefore, agri-food entrepreneurs can explore and exploit the instruments available on the CFD platform – video and rewards associated with the campaign – gaining more benefit from the backers involved compared with other project categories. Originality/value: The study proposes a broader perspective regarding SC that encompasses the proponent, the company and the campaign with three different types of ties: bonding, bridging and linking. These SC dimensions can differently shape diverse sectors and this eclectic configuration can differentiate the effects of SC in crowdfunding campaigns. This study pinpoints how crowdfunding determinants change, based on project categories.

Accounting can be defined in different ways, but despite the possible nuances of its potential definitions, it has been established that accounting is a science that sets a system of measurement that could, ideally, be built in several ways (Alexander & Nobes, 1994; Frank, 1979; Schipper & Trombetta, 2010). Examining accounting from a normative point of view, scholars have discussed several important issues, for example how to define the building blocks of a proper measurement system for recording organizational facts by using different sets of evaluation metrics (Mattessich, 1995). In this vein, Mattessich (2002) distinguished between normative and conditional normative accounting approaches, considering the latter able to synthetize the opposing views of the more orthodox normative approach and the positive one. Despite the opposition between the normative and the positive stances (Ball & Brown, 1968; Watts & Zimmerman, 1978; 1990; Kaplan & Ruland, 1991; Milne, 2002), accounting has developed over time both as a normative and as a positive science, depending on the cognitive needs that scholars aim to address. In particular, the normative foundations of accounting determine its features as a measurement system and should not be considered an old-fashioned topic given its importance in influencing all the results on which all theoretical discussions are based (Tinker et al., 1982). In this regard, referring to the normative foundation of accounting, Ahmed and Belkaoui (2004, p. ix) stated: “A single generally accepted accounting theory does not exist. Several attempts have been made to formulate such a theory … the various attempt have resulted in different frameworks for financial reporting standards”. This sentence highlights how the normative approach is not a unified block; it is rather a nuanced set of different approaches. The differentiation among possible accounting approaches comes from the fact that accounting develops “in response to perceived needs … adapting to meet changes in the demands made on it” (Alexander & Nobes, 1994, p. 4). In addition, accounting depends on the value theory adopted, so that “while value theory has traditionally provided the logics for exchange relations, accounting has provided the system for measuring and reporting reciprocity and exchange” (Tinker et al., 1982, p. 174).

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of accountability in times of exception. The Italian government's account-giving practices are critically analysed with respect to the distinct modes in which duties of accountability are discharged for the exceptional measures taken during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in early 2020. Design/methodology/approach: This paper draws on an exploratory case study. The case analysis draws primarily on data obtained through publicly available documents and covers the period between January 1 and August 7, 2020. Findings: The paper reveals that the Italian government employed various accountability styles (rebuttal, dismissal, reactive, proactive and coactive). Each style influenced both how the government justified its conduct and how it sought to form distinctive relationships with social actors. Originality/value: The paper uses the notion of “styles of accountability” to empirically illustrate how an unprecedented public governance challenge can reveal broader accountability trends. The paper contributes to accountability research by elucidating how governments tackle ambiguity and uncertainty in their systems of public accountability in extraordinary times.

Principles of Management: Practicing Ethics, Sustainability, Responsibility was the first official textbook of the United Nations global initiative network, Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME). It includes coverage of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which are central to business education and practice today.

rganizations around the world are experimenting new tools and methods that provide information of their progress on reaching the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In particular we focus on the specific targets of SDG 5 that aims to achieve gender equality and calls for the full participation of women and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of political and economic decision-making. The paper provides guidance on how to implement an appropriate measurement and reporting process that fit with the RPOs’ SDG 5 accountability issues. Over the past decade, companies are getting better at identifying where the status of women is material to their business, as board members, employees, customers, suppliers and as members of the communities in which they operate. For many firms, integrating gender issues across the value chain is now considered both good for society and good for business. An important role in encouraging companies to develop an integrated approach to gender equality issues, has been played by the EU normative, in particular the Directive 2014/95/EU. The non-financial reporting directive (NFRD) has stimulated many firms to report their objectives and implementation plan for promoting gender equality strategically. This process is ongoing, but it is not too early to explore what we can learn from the successful integration and assessment of gender issues across corporate sustainable value chains. How can we adapt the approaches used in that effort to build a similar movement for monitoring of RPOs’ progress on SDG 5? The paper recommends an approach for measuring SDG progress that accounts on how RPOs’ define the gender issues that are material for both organization and its stakeholders in order to fulfil the leave no‐one behind ambition of the 2030 agenda. Applying this approach can significantly change the progress narrative and stakeholders’ understanding of RPOs’ priorities for SDG 5 implementation and progress evaluation.