Conference Agenda

‘Smart city’ is a recent concept that upgraded the role of cities in various aspects that range from economic to technological and environmental ones (Mori and Christodoulou, 2012). A smart city is closely related to smart technology, smart citizens and smart environment with several implications on innovative technology, citizens well-being and environmental sustainability (Meijer and Rodriguez-Bolivar, 2015). Within a smart city context, citizens and their needs are prioritized, a fact that upgrades the significance of accountability, as well (Batty et al., 2012).

The annual report is a basic means of accountability to citizens and other stakeholders (Rosair and Taylor, 2000; Coy et al., 2001), as well as a communication tool used for impression management purposes (Aerts and Cormier, 2009; Skærbæk, 2005). The annual report is not restricted to conveying only financial information, as recently non-financial information is also included and thus communicated by private and public sector entities. A recent study on smart city reporting indicated the coverage of various topics beyond financial ones such as environmental, sustainability, and social issues (Cohen and Karatzimas, 2022). Other types of non-financial -non-audited- reports like the environmental report, the sustainability report, and the integrated report, can act supplementary communicating a public entity’s performance to its stakeholders.

The scope of this paper is to explore how smart cities communicate to the various stakeholders -most importantly citizens- their actions against climate change through their annual report. The target is to record the actual actions taken by smart cities against climate change, as presented in the annual reports, and to explore how this is communicated to the various stakeholders in the process of informing them about these actions and their results. At the same time, evidence on the performance of smart city councils in achieving the targets set is collected. Smart cities constitute an interesting setting to study climate change actions for three reasons: First, they are characterized by an environmental-friendly orientation (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017). Second, they are characterized by citizen-centricity and are thus closely related to constituents’ quality of living (Marsal-Llacuna et al., 2015; Karatzimas, 2023). Third -and contrasting to the previous- their infrastructure emphasis could prove hazardous to the environment and on citizens’ well-being reinforcing climate change phenomena (Ramaswuani et al., 2016; Obriger and Nateghi, 2021). The study tries to address two research questions:

R1: To what extent do smart cities make disclosures related to climate change actions in their annual reports?

R2: What are the actions taken by smart cities to face climate change, and how do they measure their performance?

Obriger and Nateghi (2021) highlight that as climate change adaptation and mitigation gain increased interest, smart cities will remain in the spotlight. The authors further argue that integrating smart cities and climate change actions “could have a lasting impact in cities, in terms of quality of life as well as overall resilience to climate change and related disaster” (Obriger and Nateghi, 2021). However, Salvia et al. (2021) indicate that national frameworks’ influence in regional and local actions is currently weak, while transnational networks inspire cities’ commitment. To understand the importance of cities’ role, one should consider that cities are responsible for more than 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions and are becoming increasingly vulnerable to climate change impacts (Salvia et al., 2023). The development of sustainable development goals (SDGs) and specifically on climate (SDG 13: Climate actions) raises expectations from cities, as they are considered central in SDG implementation providing the right circumstances to put opportunities to action (Sanchez Rodriguez et al., 2018).

The sample examined in this study comprises of the 2022 Smart21 Communities that report in English. Thus, smart cities located in the United States of America (U.S.A.), Europe, Canada and Australia are included, providing a broader understanding on the matter, as different approaches are expected to arise due to cultural differences. The cities sample is limited to those that report in English due to language barriers. The paper adopts an exploratory approach to content analyze the annual reports of the cities. The results provide useful information on the communication between smart cities and citizens on the aspect of climate change. By evaluating the status of reporting on climate change issues, important information could turn out regarding the context, the quality and the level of the provided information. Thus, the results of this study provide evidence (a) on the actions taken by smart cities, (b) on their performance in achieving them, and (c) on the way this is communicated to the stakeholders through reporting.

The timing of this study is also important, given the recent interest of standard-setting boards to publish relevant standards for climate change. The International Financial Reporting Standards Board (IFRSB) has already proceeded in publishing guidelines to private sector firms on how to disclose information related to climate change. In line with that, the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) is currently working towards translating these guidelines to the public sector environment (IPSASB, 2023). The present study moreover answers the calls for more technical and robust results regarding performance measurement, analysis and evaluation to the theoretical discussion on sustainability/climate change reporting (Cohen, 2022; Vignieri, 2023).

References

Aerts, W., & Cormier, D. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, organizations and society, 34(1), 1-27.

Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?. Cities, 60, 234-245.

Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., Ouzounis, G. & Portugali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214(1), 481-518.

Cohen, S. (2022). Debate: Climate change, environmental challenges, sustainable development goals and the relevance of accounting. Public Money & Management, 42(2), 55-56.

Cohen, S., & Karatzimas, S. (2022). Analyzing smart cities' reporting: do they report “smart”?. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(5), 602-621.

Coy, D., Fischer, M., & Gordon, T. (2001). Public accountability: a new paradigm for college and university annual reports. Critical perspectives on accounting, 12(1), 1-31.

Karatzimas, S. (2023). Government accounting literacy as an attribute of smart citizenship. Public Money & Management, 43 (4), 293-301.

Marsal-Llacuna, M. -L., Colomer-Llinàs, J., & Meléndez-Frigola, J. (2015). Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the Smart Cities initiative. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90 (B), 611–622

Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392-408

Mori, K., & Christodoulou, A. (2012). Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1), 94-106.

Obringer, R., & Nateghi, R. (2021). What makes a city ‘smart’ in the Anthropocene? A critical review of smart cities under climate change. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 103278.

Ramaswami, A., Russell, A. G., Culligan, P. J., Sharma, K. R., & Kumar, E. (2016). Meta-principles for developing smart, sustainable, and healthy cities. Science, 352(6288), 940-943.

Rosair, M., & Taylor, D. W. (2000). The effects of participating parties, the public and size on government departments' accountability disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Accountability & Performance, 6(1), 77-97.

Salvia, M., Olazabal, M., Fokaides, P. A., Tardieu, L., Simoes, S. G., Geneletti, D., ... & Reckien, D. (2021). Climate mitigation in the Mediterranean Europe: An assessment of regional and city-level plans. Journal of Environmental Management, 295, 113146.

Salvia, M., Pietrapertosa, F., D'Alonzo, V., Maestosi, P. C., Simoes, S. G., & Reckien, D. (2023). Key dimensions of cities’ engagement in the transition to climate neutrality. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, 118519.

Sanchez Rodriguez, R., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., & Barau, A. S. (2018). Sustainable Development Goals and climate change adaptation in cities. Nature Climate Change, 8(3), 181-183.

Skærbæk, P. (2005). Annual reports as interaction devices: the hidden constructions of mediated communication. Financial Accountability & Management, 21(4), 385-411.

Vignieri, V. (2023), "Active community for climate change: a Dynamic Performance Governance analysis of a biodiversity preservation program", Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, ahead-of-print.

Smart working (SW) (also called telecommuting, agile working or flexible working) is a new way of working that poses great challenges to all organizations. Ideally born in the late 1950s (Caillier, 2013), thanks to the development of new information technologies, it began to materialize in U.S. government agencies in the 1990s (Kemp, 1995), when specific legislation allowed a flexible work mode called “teleworking.” Key features include flexibility of location, time and method of work, creating the problem of how employee performance can be monitored and evaluated. Scholarly attention has been drawn from the beginning to concerns about employee productivity, work-life balance, and possible 'negative impacts on careers (Caillier, 2013; de Vries et al., 2019). Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic and related national regulations adopted by almost every government in the world have forced public and private organizations to manage their workforce from home (Williamson et al., 2022a). The need to identify how to align SW with performance management and measurement systems (PMSs) also emerged, as traditional systems (e.g., time spent in the office) appear to be no longer capable of assessing performance in the SW environment. As a result, the need to identify new indicators to capture the ability to meet project deadlines, quality of work, employee well-being emerges, coupled with the need for systems able to emphasize outcomes and results (OECD, 2023)

Purpose: This study investigates the connection between sustainability planning, accounting, and reporting in 15 Italian port authorities, examining the presence of a structured and integrated focus on sustainability across these dimensions.

Design/methodology/approach: The research utilises a content analysis, examining strategic plans, financial statements, and sustainability reports from the port authorities. For each authority, an in-depth analysis of the contents of each document is conducted, and the links between them are evaluated. Finally, a comparison is made across the various authorities to assess the different levels of integration achieved. This approach allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the integration of sustainability practices.

Findings: The analysis reveals a significant gap in the integration of specific and measurable sustainability targets within strategic plans and reports. While sustainability issues are identified and highlighted, the connection to financial investments and detailed performance metrics is often lacking. The study also finds a lack of external assurance, which undermines the credibility of sustainability reports.

Originality/value: Previous literature has mainly focused on local governments and universities. This study provides a valuable contribution by investigating a neglected area of research, namely port authorities. It employs a holistic approach embracing all the steps of the sustainability discourse (strategic planning, accounting, and reporting). The study also documents the need to develop uniform guidelines to improve the harmonisation of sustainability reporting in the public sector.