Environmental Protection Programmes in selected Polish communities as the first step towards sustainable development

• Authors: Kowalczyk Magdalena

Title variants

PL

Programy ochrony środowiska w wybranych polskich gminach jako pierwszy krok do zrównoważonego rozwoju

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: This paper assesses the possibility of using Environmental Protection Pro-grammes (EPPs) in Polish local government as a tool to manage and protect the environ-ment. In Poland, local government units (LGUs) at all levels are obligated by law to pre-pare EPPs in accordance with the principle of sustainable development. Methodology: A survey was used as a research tool to determine the role of EPPs in LGUs at the community level. This research attempted to answer the following question: Are environmental protection programmes merely a document that communities are obli-gated to prepare? Findings: The results of this research show that community awareness is still very low. Communities only prepare the EPPs, but they do not think about using them as a long-term management tool. Originality/value: This research contributes to showing the role of EPPs in the manage-ment of communities in Poland. Research limitations: A limitation of this research is the number of respondents, as it only included a small number of Polish communities. Another limitation is that this re-search presents only the view of one group of stakeholders – clerks.

PL

Cel: Artykuł koncentruje się na ocenie możliwości wykorzystania programów ochrony śro-dowiska (POŚ) w polskich jednostkach samorządu terytorialnego jako narzędzia zarządzania i ochrony środowiska. W Polsce jednostki samorządu terytorialnego wszystkich szczebli są prawnie zobowiązane do przygotowania programów ochrony środowiska zgodnie z zasadą zrównoważonego rozwoju. Metodyka: Jako narzędzie badawcze wykorzystano ankietę w celu określenia roli POŚ w jednostkach samorządu terytorialnego na poziomie gminy. W badaniu tym podjęto próbę odpowiedzi na pytanie: Czy programy ochrony środowiska są jedynie dokumentem, który jednostki samorządu terytorialnego są zobowiązane przygotować? Wnioski: Wyniki tego badania pokazują, że świadomość gmin jest nadal bardzo niska. Gminy przygotowują POŚ, ale nie myślą o wykorzystaniu ich jako narzędzia długotermi-nowego zarządzania. Oryginalność/wartość: Badania przyczyniają się do ukazania roli programów ochrony środowiska w zarządzaniu gminami w Polsce. Ograniczenia badawcze: Ograniczeniem jest liczba respondentów, ponieważ badania objęły niewielką część gmin. Kolejnym ograniczeniem jest to, że w badaniach przedstawio-no poglądy tylko jednej grupy interesariuszy – urzędników.

Keywords

EN

environmental protection programmes; community; stakeholder theory; sustainable development; reporting

PL

programy ochrony środowiska; gmina; teoria interesariuszy; zrównoważony rozwój

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Księgowych w Polsce (SKwP), Zarząd Główny, Rada Naukowa
• Journal: Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości
• Year: 2022
• Issue: 46(2)
• Pages: 137-155

Contributors

author

Kowalczyk Magdalena

• Poznań University of Economics and Business, Department of Management Accounting

References

• Adams C.A., Muir S., Hoque Z. (2014), Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector. Sustainability Accounting, “Management and Policy Journal”, 5 (1), pp. 46–67.
• Alonso A.D., Sakellarios N., Alexander N., O'Brien, S. (2018), Corporate social responsibility in a burgeoning industry: A stakeholder analysis, “Journal of Strategy and Management”, 11 (1), pp. 112–130. Andade Ch. (2020), The limitations on online surveys, “Indian Journal of Psychological Medi-cine” 42 (6), pp. 575–576.
• Angiola N., Bianchi P., Corvino A. (2015), The integration of best environmental management practices in corporate strategy: Empirical evidence from Italian local governments, “International Journal of Public Administration”, 38 (7), pp. 510–520.
• Armstrong M., Baron M. (1998). Performance management handbook, IPM, London.
• Babbie E. (2008), Podstawy badań społecznych, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
• Ball I. (2012), New development: Transparency in the public sector, “Public Money and Management”, 32 (1), pp. 35–40.
• Ball A., Bebbington J. (2008), Accounting and reporting for sustainable development in public service organizations, “Public Money and Management”, 28 (6), pp. 323–326.
• Bellringer A., Ball A., Craig R. (2011), Reasons for sustainability reporting by New Zealand local governments, Sustainability Accounting, “Management and Policy Journal”, 2 (1), pp. 126–138.
• Burritt R.L., Schaltegger S. (2010), Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend? Accounting, “Auditing and Accountability Journal”, 23 (7), pp. 829–846.
• Carvalho D.S., Fidélis T. (2009), Confronting environmental perceptions of local populations and local authorities, “Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal”, 20 (5), pp. 538–550.
• Dahlman C.J. (1979), The problem of externality, “The Journal of Law and Economics”, 22 (1), pp. 141–162.
• Debbarma J., Choi Y. (2022), A taxonomy of green governance: A qualitative and quantitative analysis towards sustainable development, “Sustainable Cities and Society”, 79, article number 103693.
• De Vries M., Nemec J. (2013). Public sector reform: An overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths, “International Journal of Public Sector Management”, 26 (1), pp. 4–16.
• Donaldson T., Preston L.E. (1995), The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications, “The Academy of Management Review”, 20 (1), pp. 65–91.
• Farneti F., Guthrie J. (2009), Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report, “Accounting Forum”, 33, pp. 89–98.
• Fauchald O.K., Gulbrandsen L.H. (2012), The Norwegian reform of protected area management: a grand experiment with delegation of authority?, “Local Environment”, 17 (2), pp. 203–222.
• Gaia S., Jones M.J. (2019), Biodiversity reporting for governmental organisations: Evidence from English local councils, “Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal”, 33 (1), pp. 1–31.
• Hood C. (1991), A public management for all seasons?, “Public Administration (Gestión Pública)”, 69, pp. 3–19.
• Hossain M.M. (2018), Sustainability reporting by Australian local government authorities, “Local Government Studies”, 44 (4), pp. 577–600.
• Johnson V.E., Brennan, L.L. (2015), Examining the impact of technology on social respon-sibility practices, [in:] In Re-Imaging Business Ethics: Meaningful Solutions for a Global Economy, vol. 4, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 107–123.
• Kamal M., Weerakkody V., Irani Z. (2011), Analyzing the role of stakeholders in the adoption of technology integration solutions in UK local government: An exploratory study, “Government Information Quarterly”, 28 (2), pp. 200–210.
• Khojastehpour M., Shams S.M.R. (2019), Addressing the complexity of stakeholder management in international ecological setting: A CSR approach, “Journal of Business Research”, 119 (C), pp. 302–309.
• Kloot L. (1999), Performance measurement and accountability in Victorian Local Government, “International Journal of Public Sector Management”, 12 (7), pp. 565–583.
• Kowalczyk M. (2018), Mierniki niefinansowe w pomierze dokonań jednostek samorządu terytorialnego w Polsce, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu, Poznań.
• Kowalczyk M. (2021), Zrównoważony rozwój miast na prawach powiatu w Polsce w świetle wybranych wskaźników środowiskowych, “Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, 45 (2), pp. 69–83.
• Kraosodomska J., Zarzycka E. (2020), Niefinansowe kluczowe wskaźniki efektywności: regulacje i wytyczne a praktyka przedsiębiorstw, “Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, 108 (164), pp. 115–132.
• Kulin J., Johansson Sevä I. (2019), The role of government in protecting the environment: Quality of government and the translation of normative views about government responsibility into spending preferences, “International Journal of Sociology”, 49 (2), pp. 110–129.
• Laihonen H. (2017), Principles of performance dialogue in public administration, “International Journal of Public Sector Management”, 30 (5), pp. 414–428.
• Laszlo C., Zhexembayeva N. (2011), Embedding sustainability. The next big competitive advantage, Stanford Business Book, Stanford.
• Lehmann C., Delbard O., Lange S. (2022), Green growth, a-growth or degrowth? Investigat-ing the attitudes of environmental protection specialists at the German Environment Agency, “Journal of Cleaner Production”, 336, article number 130306.
• Lima Ribeiro V. P., Aibar Guzman C. (2010), Determinants of environmental accounting practices in local entities: Evidence from Portugal, “Social Responsibility Journal”, 6 (3), pp. 404–419.
• Long K., Wang, Y., Zhao Y., Chen L. (2015), Who are the stakeholders and how do they respond to a local government payments for ecosystem services program in a developed area: A case study from Suzhou, China, “Habitat International”, 49, pp. 1–9.
• Mensah J. (2019), Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review, “Cogent Social Sciences”, 5 (1).
• Malakar K., Lu Ch. (2021), Measuring sustainability as distance to ideal position of econo-my, society and environment: application to China's provincial water resources, “Journal of Environmental Management”, 292, article number 112742.
• Miles S. (2017), Stakeholder theory classification: Definitions and essential contestability, Springer Netherlands, pp. 21–47.
• Ministry of the Environment (2015), Guidelines for the development of voivodeship, poviat and communal environmental protection programs, pp. 1–30.
• Mir M.Z., Chatterjee B., Taplin R. (2015), Political competition and environmental reporting: Evidence from New Zealand local governments, “Asian Review of Accounting”, 23 (1), pp. 17–38.
• Montecalvo, M., Ferenti, F., de Villiers, C. (2018). The potential of integrated reporting to enhance sustainability reporting in the public sector, “Public Money and Management”, 38 (5), pp. 365–374.
• Moynihan D. P., Padney S. K. (2010), The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?, “Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory”, 20 (4), pp. 849–866.
• Otto-Zimmermann K. (2012), From Rio to Rio +20: the changing role of local governments in the context of current global governance, “Local Environment”, 17 (5), pp. 511–516.
• Panya N., Poboon Ch., Phoochinda W., Teungfung R. (2018), The performance of the envi-ronmental management of local governments in Thailand, “Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences”, 39, pp. 33–41.
• Peters B. G. (2002), The changing nature of public administration: From easy answers to hard questions, “Asian Journal of Public Administration”, 24 (2), pp. 153–183.
• Pickvance C. (2002), Local economic situation, local environmental mobilization and local government environmental policy in Hungary, “Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning”, 4 (1), pp. 87–99.
• Pollitt C. (2018), Performance management 40 years on: A review. Some key decisions and consequences, “Public Money and Management”, 38 (3), pp. 167–174.
• Qian W., Burritt R. (2007), Environmental accounting for waste management: A study of local governments in Australia, “Environmentalist”, 27 (1), pp. 143–154.
• Radin T.J. (2015), From imagination to realization: A legal foundation for stakeholders theory, in Re-Imaging Business Ethics: Meaningful Solutions for a Global Economy, “Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations”, 4, pp. 31–49.
• Ribeiro V.P.L., Guzmán C.A., da Silva Monteiro S.M., Guzmán B.A. (2012), Determining factors of environmental management practices in Portuguese local entities, “Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal”, 23 (5), pp. 486–502.
• Richter U. H., Dow K.E. (2017), Stakeholder theory: A deliberative perspective, “Business Ethics”, 26 (4), pp. 428–442.
• Rose J., Flak L.S., Sæbø Ø. (2018), Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core, “Government Information Quarterly”, 35 (3), pp. 362–374.
• Rowley J. (2014), Designing and using research questionnaires, “Management Research Review”, 37 (3), pp. 308–330.
• Russel S., Milne M. J., Dey C. (2017), Accounts of nature and the nature of accounts, Accounting, “Auditing and Accountability Journal”, 30 (7), pp. 1426–1458.
• Savage A., Gilbert E., Rowlands J., Cataldo A.J. (2001), Environmental disclosure in annual reports: A legitimacy theory perspective, “South African Journal of Accounting Research”, 15 (1), pp. 19–48.
• Sobol A. (2008), Governance barriers to local sustainable development in Poland, “Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal”, 19 (2), pp. 194–203.
• Suškevičs M., Tillemann K., Külvik M. (2013), Assessing the relevance of stakeholder analysis for national ecological network governance: The case of the Green Network in Estonia, “Journal for Nature Conservation”, 21 (4), pp. 206–213.
• Synówka-Bejenka E. (2017), Potencjał turystyczny województw Polski, “Wiadomości Statystyczne”, 7 (674), pp. 78–92.
• Taherdoost H. (2016), Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research, “International Journal of Academic Research in Management”, 5 (3), pp. 28–36.
• Tevapitak K., Helmsing A.H.J. (2019), The interaction between local governments and stakeholders in environmental management: The case of water pollution by SMEs in Thailand, “Journal of Environmental Management”, 247, pp. 840–848.
• Upadhyay N., Brinkmann R. (2010), Green local governments in Florida: Assessment of sustainability performance, “Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy”, 6 (1), pp. 18–27.
• Uyar A., Kuzey C., Kilic M. (2019), Testing the spillover effects of sustainability reporting: Evidence from the public sector, “International Journal of Public Administration”, 44 (3), pp. 231–240.
• Williams B.R. (2015), The local government accountants' perspective on sustainability, “Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal”, 6 (2), pp. 267–287.
• Zeemering E.S. (2018), Sustainability management, strategy and reform in local government, “Public Management Review”, 20 (1), pp. 136–153.