Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

This paper develops a framework for evaluating sustainability assessment methods by separately analyzing their normative, systemic and procedural dimensions as suggested by Wiek and Binder [Wiek, A, Binder, C. Solution spaces for decision-making – a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2005, 25: 589-608.]. The framework is then used to characterize indicator-based sustainability assessment methods in agriculture. For a long time, sustainability assessment in agriculture has focused mostly on environmental and technical issues, thus neglecting the economic and, above all, the social aspects of sustainability, the multifunctionality of agriculture and the applicability of the results. In response to these shortcomings, several integrative sustainability assessment methods have been developed for the agricultural sector. This paper reviews seven of these that represent the diversity of tools developed in this area. The reviewed assessment methods can be categorized into three types: (i) top-down farm assessment methods; (ii) top-down regional assessment methods with some stakeholder participation; (iii) bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods with stakeholder participation throughout the process. The results readily show the trade-offs encountered when selecting an assessment method. A clear, standardized, top-down procedure allows for potentially benchmarking and comparing results across regions and sites. However, this comes at the cost of system specificity. As the top-down methods often have low stakeholder involvement, the application and implementation of the results might be difficult. Our analysis suggests that to include the aspects mentioned above in agricultural sustainability assessment, the bottomup, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods are the most suitable ones.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator‐based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Several methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems have been developed. These methods do not fully: (i) take into account the multi‐functionality of agriculture; (ii) include multidimensionality; (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge; and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade‐offs. This paper reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator‐based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis, (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies. The top‐down farm assessments focus on field or farm assessment. They have a clear procedure for measuring the indicators and assessing the sustainability of the system, which allows for benchmarking across farms. The degree of participation is low, potentially affecting the implementation of the results negatively. The top‐down regional assessment assesses the on‐farm and the regional effects. They include some participation to increase acceptance of the results. However, they miss the analysis of potential trade‐offs. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches focus on a regional scale. Stakeholders are included throughout the whole process assuring the acceptance of the results and increasing the probability of implementation of developed measures. As they include the interaction between the indicators in their system representation, they allow for performing a trade‐off analysis. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.

Experience and real estate investment decision-making: a process-tracing investigation

This study investigates the impact of experience upon trained behaviours in real estate investment decision‐making. In a controlled experiment design, two groups of subjects, experts and novices, conduct an evaluation and reach a decision about two investment options. Using a process‐tracing technique, each subject’s behaviour is observed and recorded. Differences between the groups are discovered in relation to some behaviour characteristics, but experience appears not to impact all behaviours. These findings are discussed in relation to the current absence of a universal normative model of real estate investment decision‐making. In an associated component of the study, the belief that monetary compensation is needed in order to render valid results from studies such as this is tested. We find this not to be the case.

A normative method to analyse workarounds in a healthcare environment: motivations, consequences, and constraints

Healthcare information systems have the potential to enhance productivity, lower costs, and reduce medication errors by automating business processes. However, various issues such as system complexity and system abilities in a relation to user requirements as well as rapid changes in business needs have an impact on the use of these systems. In many cases failure of a system to meet business process needs has pushed users to develop alternative work processes (workarounds) to fill this gap. Some research has been undertaken on why users are motivated to perform and create workarounds. However, very little research has assessed the consequences on patient safety. Moreover, the impact of performing these workarounds on the organisation and how to quantify risks and benefits is not well analysed. Generally, there is a lack of rigorous understanding and qualitative and quantitative studies on healthcare IS workarounds and their outcomes. This project applies A Normative Approach for Modelling Workarounds to develop A Model of Motivation, Constraints, and Consequences. It aims to understand the phenomenon in-depth and provide guidelines to organisations on how to deal with workarounds. Finally the method is demonstrated on a case study example and its relative merits discussed.

Rhetoric in international standard setting process: constructing accounting reality

The paper seeks to explore in depth the ways in which rhetorical strategies are employed in the international accounting standard setting process. The study proposes that rather than simply detailing new accounting requirements, the texts and drafts of accounting standards are artefacts, i.e. deliberately and carefully crafted products, that construct, persuade and encourage certain beliefs and behaviours. The persuasive and constructive strategies are also employed by the constituents submitting comment letters on the regulatory proposals. Consequently, the international accounting standard setting process is an ‘interactive process of meaning making’ (Fairclough, 1989). The study regards accounting as a social construct based on intersubjectivity (Searle, 1995; Davidson, 1990, 1994) and posits language as a constitutive factor in the process (Saussure, 1916; Peirce, 1931-58). This approach to the use of language and the role of rhetoric as a persuasive tool to convince others to our perception of ‘accounting reality’ is supported by the sociological work of Bourdieu (1990, 1991). Bourdieu has drawn our attention to how language becomes used, controlled, reformed and reconstituted by the social agents for the purposes of establishing their dominance. In our study we explore in particular the joint IASB and FASB proposals and subsequent regulations on the scope of consolidation and relevant disclosures that address issues of off-balance sheet financing, a subject that is very timely and of great topical importance. The analysis has revealed sophisticated rhetorical devices used by both the Boards and by the lobbyists. These reflect Aristotelian ethos, pathos and logos. The research demonstrates that those using accounting standards as well as those reading comment letters on the proposals for new standards should be aware of the normative nature of these documents and the subjectivity inherent in the nature of the text.