1 Introduction

The austerity faced by public organizations, including those operating in areas subject to especially strict financial conditions, such as culture heritage, have made the application of the sustainability principle ever more urgent (Cepiku et al., 2016). Though the term ‘sustainability’ was introduced more than 30 years ago by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland & Khalid, 1987), there is a dearth of research on how it is understood and achieved (Guthrie & Farneti, 2008; Kibert, 1999; Niemann & Hoppe, 2018). However, the United Nation Organization has boosted sustainability within public policies at international, national and local levels in relation to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (hereafter SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda. This calls for action to end poverty, protect the planet and improve the lives and prospects of everyone, everywhere. The means by which the SDGs may be achieved by local governments and their management are the subject of the interdisciplinary discussion (Brown et al., 2015). Moreover, the 2030 Agenda encourages the implementation of sustainable managerial practices such as partnerships, strategic planning, long-term impact assessment and related data dissemination. The interdisciplinary debate has underlined how, on the one hand, accounting is able to create a sense of community identity (Bergmans et al., 2014), and on the other, sustainability can be embedded in the habitus of the organizational field (Bourdieu, 1983). Hence, recent literature has underlined how accounting has been studied more in its technical nature and less in its potential for enabling and disabling actions and behaviours in organizations and society (Christensen, 2004). Through this lens, accounting is recognised as a social practice in creating, sustaining, changing, and communicating social reality, and as a moral practice in reflecting human interactions (Carnegie et al., 2021). Although the role of accounting practices in pursuing organizational changes has been acknowledged by academics and professionals, “sustainability practices for public services have been neglected by scholars and others as a subject of theoretical research and in-depth investigation” (Guthrie et al., 2010: 450). However, the incorporation of sustainability in accounting and accountability is still included in the research agenda (Lai & Stacchezzini, 2021).

Scholars have called for further investigations into the contribution of accountants in achieving the sustainability agenda in the public sector (Hidalgo, 2019; Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018; Osborne et al., 2014). In this regard, SDG#11—‘Sustainable Cities and Communities’—promotes, among other targets, strengthened efforts to achieve sustainability in the field of cultural heritage. This is aligned with the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Council of Europe, 2005), that recognizes the role of cultural heritage in the construction of a peaceful and democratic society, in the processes of sustainable development and in the promotion of cultural diversity. In addition, the Council of Europe recommends the definition and promotion of principles for sustainable management through partnerships among public, institutional and private actors (art. 1—Aims of the Convention). Notwithstanding, a recent literature review on public–private partnership, underlines how “these research contributions rarely integrate the sustainability concept” (Pinz et al., 2018: 16).

From practical perspective, cultural heritage is acknowledged as an important common resource, like the environment, the sustainable management of which contributes to making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Nonetheless, accounting practices are often interpreted in a rhetorical manner and, mainly, neglected by public organizations in charge of cultural heritage management (Bonini Baraldi & Ferri, 2019; Zan et al., 2015). So far, sustainability has been studied by adopting the Triple Bottom Line approach for assessing the impact of the cultural initiatives (Stylianou-Lambert et al., 2014).

This study instead takes a step backwards, in order to extend knowledge concerning the ways in which public organizations have come to use accounting and accountability practices that support management in the sustainable use of cultural heritage as part of the common good (Courtney, 2018). Precisely, the research aims at broadening our understanding of how public organizations are able to acquire or improve the managerial skills necessary to achieve Sustainable Development Goals, such as the sustainable management of the cultural heritage of a city (Egan & Tweedie, 2018; Farneti, et al., 2019; Manes Rossi et al., 2020). In so doing, the study attempts to answer calls in the literature for more research on organizational sustainability, considered a precondition for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (Guthrie et al., 2010; Leuenberger, 2006; Osborne et al., 2014). Organizational sustainability, as conceptualized in this study, is based on social connectedness and concerns the ability of an organization to connect with others, to cope with the challenges posed by the Sustainable Development Goals (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018).

From this reasoning, the study attempts to build knowledge on the antecedents of the sustainable use of cultural heritage of a city, by answering the following research question: RQ: what challenges does the SDG#11 pose for the public management of urban cultural heritage?

By seeking an answer, this research contributes to broadening our understanding of how local governments, especially those of cities, can address the challenges of the 2030 Agenda, with particular regard to urban cultural heritage management. The study aims to further knowledge concerning organizational processes able to facilitate public managers in institutionalizing sustainability accounting and accountability practices. In order to achieve this aim, the conceptual framework of organizational sustainability in public settings (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018), combined with the Deutero-learning process (Bateson, 1972; Eilertsen & London, 2005; Mariotti, 2012), was considered suitable for investigating the research object. It was represented by an urban cultural heritage project run by an Italian Smart City—Pavia (in Lombardy)—in order to embed sustainability in the management of this common good.

Thus, the research is outlined as follows. Section 2 highlights the academic debate on sustainability in cultural heritage management, leading to organizational changes and to the adoption of the Deutero-learning process as the theoretical model (Bateson, 1972; Eilertsen & London, 2005) to achieve the research aim. Section 3 explains the Action Research methodology and the protocol adopted (Eden & Achermann, 2018; Gummesson, 2000). Action Research was found suitable for carrying out this investigation in so far as it provides a twofold insight into the role of the researcher: in contributing to the resolution of practical issues, and in advancing knowledge of sustainable accounting practices within public organizations in charge of urban cultural heritage (Kemmis, 2006). Precisely, the Action Research was underpinned by the ‘Pavia Network Project’, carried out by the Civic Museums in collaboration with other public organizations of Pavia (Lombardy, Italy), to improve the sustainable management of its urban cultural heritage. Section 4 highlights the findings of the 3-Steps of the Action Research applied to the Pavia Network Project according to the Lewin’s Planned approach to change model (Lewin, 1946). From the critical interpretation of these results, the study contributes to broadening our understanding of the antecedents of sustainable accounting and accountability knowledge, embedded in the public organization in charge of the cultural heritage of the city. The conceptual model, arising from the discussion, seeks to provide insights into the organizational processes. They allow public managers to embed sustainability in managing common resources and in implementing accounting and accountability practices according to the SDGs. Section 5 contains the final remarks on the theoretical and practical implications of the study, highlighting the potential of Action Research for broadening knowledge of sustainability in managerial practices and theory. Given the limitations of the study, a call is made for further investigations into the organizational and inter-organizational learning process triggered by the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Sustainability and cultural heritage management

Since the 1980s, academics and professionals in different fields have evoked sustainability as a pillar for the development aimed at meeting the needs and aspirations of current generations without compromising those of future generations (Brundtland & Khalid, 1987). This notion, originally referred mainly to environmental issues, has since been extended to other topics, such as society and the economy, in relation to developed and developing countries (Becker et al., 1999; Pérez & del Bosque, 2014). In fact, the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development emphasizes the concept of intergenerational equity (Zeemering, 2018). More precisely, at the macro-level, sustainability has been recognised as having three pillars: environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity (Agyeman & Evans, 2003; Fiorino, 2010; Hasna, 2007). At the meso-level, the Triple Bottom Line approach, from corporate social responsibility conceptualization, has been adopted when referring to organizations that—internally and externally—engage in sustainable organizational practices such as shared leadership, strategic orientation and being proactive in achieving societal and environmental goals (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018). Hence, organizational sustainability refers to an organization’s ability to connect with others to achieve sustainable goals as a precondition of meeting the needs of current and future generations (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018; Osborne et al., 2014).

In any sector, a prerequisite for sustainability is the capacity of the decision makers to formulate strategies and plans and to envisage positive long-term cultural, social, economic and environmental impact on the community (Steurer et al., 2005). How to build this capacity is already under discussion (Castro, 2004; Kibert, 1999; Pérez & del Bosque, 2014). This organizational issue pertains, first of all, to public decision makers, who take responsibility for Sustainable Development Goals relating to welfare, healthcare, and eco-system protection, as well as education and creating an inclusive and peaceful society (Ortiz-Rodríguez et al., 2015). In this respect, the 2030 Agenda has stimulated local government to self-embed sustainability to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (SDG #11). In this regard, recent studies have highlighted how ‘cities’ strive for sustainable development while seeking to strengthen their ‘green’ or ‘smart’ credentials, in order to ‘gain a competitive edge in the global knowledge economy’, or simply to maintain their ‘social licence to operate’ (Niemann & Hoppe, 2018: 203). Consistently, local governments are challenged by the fourth of the seven targets of this SDG, which aims ‘to strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage’ (SDG#11.4). In this perspective, the Council of Europe, with the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro, 27.X.2005), has recognized the role of cultural heritage in the construction of a peaceful and democratic society, in the processes of sustainable development and in the promotion of cultural diversity. Moreover, the same Convention recommends the definition and promotion of principles for sustainable management (art. 9—Sustainable use of the cultural heritage), and increased synergy of competencies among public, institutional and private organizations (art. 1—Aims of the Convention).

In praxis, local government manages cultural heritage according to its own administrative culture (Bozeman, 2007; Zan et al., 2015) which often fails to encompass sustainability (Loach et al., 2017). This has led research to focus on this specific target of the 2030 Agenda (SDG#11.4). In this vein, the literature calls for explorations of how to make cultural heritage management sustainable, considering the relative impact on the urban environment, civil society and community welfare (Courtney, 2018; Roders & van Oers, 2011; Pencarelli et al., 2017).

Whereas the literature on cultural heritage has focused on the Triple Bottom Line of sustainability of cultural initiatives (Piber et al., 2019; Stylianou-Lambert et al., 2014), public management scholars have focused on the self-sustainability of organizations, as a precondition of having a positive impact on the society, the economy and the environment (Bowman, 2011; Guthrie et al., 2010; Osborne et al., 2014). In this field of study, research has focussed on the role of accounting in stimulating organizational changes to pursue Sustainable Development Goals (Bebbington & Unerman, 2018; Kaur & Lodhia, 2019). Indeed, accounting is conceived as not only a universal narrative, but also a pluralistic expression of public interest (Bozeman, 2007; Byrch et al., 2015; Egan & Tweedie, 2018). Indeed, it is able to create spaces for individuals and groups to deal critically with sustainable development issues and to participate actively in the (re)construction of their world(s) (Thomson & Bebbington, 2005). It is not surprising that sustainability, in association with accounting, accountability and reporting, has been thoughtfully explored (Argento et al., 2019; Bebbington et al., 2014; Guthrie et al., 2010) while less attention has been paid to the antecedents of these managerial processes and practices in public settings (Greco et al., 2015; Niemann & Hoppe, 2018). Precisely, how local governments embed sustainability in their management deserves more attention (Farneti et al., 2019; Pinz et al., 2018; Zeemering, 2018).

This study provides a contribution to filling the gaps in the literature on sustainability and management of urban cultural heritage. More specifically, the research aims at exploring what challenges the SDG#11 poses for the public management of urban cultural heritage. Assuming the implementation of the 2030 Agenda is a strategic priority for the decision makers, this study attempts to shed light on the organizational processes activated by public managers in meeting the challenges posed by the Sustainable Development Goals. To achieve this research aim, the study focuses on the specific target of SDG#11.4, reporting on the sustainable management of cultural heritage, whose impact in revitalizing cities has been ascertained within the interdisciplinary debate (Hidalgo, 2019; Stylianou-Lambert et al., 2014).

2.2 The conceptual framework

Recent research has added some insights into organizational sustainability in the public service context, particularly with regard to cultural heritage. Accordingly, public organizations’ capacity in sustainable management, maximizing their social value now and across generations, relies on their social connectedness, supported by the following pillars: bonding and bridging organizational ties, participation and audience diversity, institutionalized public outreach (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018). The former concerns inter-organizational relationships based on information exchanges, resource sharing and project collaborations. Creating ties with other cultural organizations as well as the community, associations and other stakeholders enables a sustainable management of cultural service (Courtney, 2018). Moreover, organizational sustainability requires diverse audience engagement in order to fulfil the public’s cultural needs, while contributing to increase the social capital of the environment (Bourdieu, 1986; Bergmans et al., 2014; Schneider, 2009). To this end, public managers need to adopt different stakeholders’ engagement practices and forms of dialogue suitable for any “habitus” (Bourdieu, 1983). Consistently, institutionalised public outreach refers to the dissemination of cultural knowledge through bonding and bridging ties and audience participation in the sustainable cultural project. Although public management literature has highlighted the pillars of social connectedness, further investigation is called for into which organizational processes are able to drive to Sustainable Development Goals (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018).

Focusing on organizational sustainability, research has hitherto focused attention on organizations as “relational entities” (Carlsson, 2003; O’Reilly, 1991), considering their ability to connect with other organizations in the shared environment to achieve their mission. This capacity is constructed by means of the organizational learning process, based on knowledge sharing among organizations, which join common objectives and exchange questions and solutions (Wenger et al., 2002). Accordingly, knowledge sharing is developed at the organization level, spanning many units, or at the inter-organizational one, comprising members of different organizations. This is the case of public managers, who interact with academics or professionals within a research project (Verburg & Andriessen, 2011). The product of such knowledge sharing is the “community of practices” generated by the organizations’ interacting through mutual engagement, skills sharing and learning (McDermott, 1999).

Organizational learning, underpinning interaction among individuals within or across organizations, is an ongoing social accomplishment (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000; Mariotti, 2012). Indeed, knowledge is not given, but created in a shared space of relations; as such, it is socially constructed (Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Verburg & Andriessen, 2011). This theoretical claim led this study to resort to the Deutero-learning model (Bateson, 1972; Senge, 1990), in order to broaden knowledge of the organizational changes adopted by public managers to achieve sustainable development objectives.

According to this theoretical model, there are three different types of organizational learning: single-loop, double-loop, and triple-loop learning (Eilertsen & London, 2005). The former occurs when organizational members learn new techniques or skills to improve their actions, without modifying existing policies, goals and assumptions. This mode of learning is appropriate for detecting errors and solving them by doing what is already being done, but doing it better (‘learning by assimilation’). Hence, learning is based on ‘how’ to achieve a performance, or, in other words, which actions produce the desired consequence (single-loop). Double loop learning, however, occurs when organizational members challenge their mental models and skills in order to change existing policies, goals and assumptions. In this case, organizations reshape not only their actions, but also their patterns of thinking in order to remain in harmony with changes occurring in the external environment (‘learning by accommodation’). Hence, learning is based on questions of ‘why’ or ‘then what’, that enable organizations to improve their understanding of the consequences of actions, while creating new knowledge (double-loop). Finally, the third mode of learning encompasses both single and double-loop learning. Indeed, organizational members challenge the existing learning framework as well as mental models and assumptions in order to improve their actions (single-loop), understanding how it is better to change (double-loop) and transform organizations by building their capacity to ‘learn how to learn’ (triple-loop). This theoretical model has also been adopted in relation to inter-organizational learning in complex systems such as networks.

According to this extending conceptual model, inter-organizational learning has been framed in the Deutero’s model in three categories of processes, namely: learning to collaborate, learning to share knowledge, learning to create knowledge (Mariotti, 2012). The first process, “learning to collaborate”, consists in exchanging knowledge about network members’ capabilities in order to identify stakeholders to cooperate with (Lorenzoni & Lipparini, 1999). This can be stimulated by preliminary joint interventions and collaborative activities. In the process of “learning to share”, network members develop capabilities for exchanging knowledge within networks. This means that, being more aware of the collaboration output and outcome, advantage can be taken of common repertories of practices and experiences. These conditions are fundamental for enhancing inter-organizational values such as trust and consensus and creating a participatory sphere that is the basis for the generation of new knowledge (MacDonald, 2012).

This theoretical model fits with the call for a reorientation of public studies toward sustainability education of public managers (Cohen, 2011). Sustainability can develop competences associated with professionals working in environmental, social and accounting fields and, conversely, public administration can contribute to sustainability management through a reflection upon the sustainable future (Zeemering, 2018). Thus, this study attempts to explore whether and how sustainability is able to trigger inter-organizational learning processes with specific regard to urban sustainable initiatives.

All this considered, the Deutero-learning model was chosen to explore the organizational challenges faced by public managers in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (Zeemering, 2018).

3 Action research: methodology and design

The research question advocates a methodology often adopted in social sciences to bring about, analyse and understand behavioural changes at the group, organizational or societal level of relations (Burnes, 2004a). This methodology refers to Action Research (hereafter AR) as framed by Kurt Lewin in his pioneering article on “Action research and minority problems” (Lewin, 1946). In that work, the author has attempted to provide a contribution for solving social issues through behavioural change, whether in organizations or in a wider social context. Precisely, change requires actions that, in order to be successful, rely on situational analysis, the identification of alternative solutions, and the choice of the one most suitable for the circumstances (Burnes, 2004a). In order to provoke changes, AR has to be a participative and collaborative process, involving all of those concerned (Lewin, 1946). Accordingly, a successful change project follows the three main steps of unfreezing (Step 1), moving (Step 2) and refreezing (Step 3).

Step 1- Unfreezing—occurs when a profound psychological dynamic process alters the stability of human or organizational behaviour, based on a quasi-stationary equilibrium. This is supported by a complex field of driving and restraining forces. The seminal work on organizational defences (Argyris, 1990) shed light on how personal psychological defences, or group norms embedded in the organizational or community culture, overcome the driving force to maintain the equilibrium. For change to occur, the equilibrium needs to be unfrozen, old behaviour discarded (unlearnt), and new behaviour successfully adopted (Burnes, 2004b). The dynamic psychological processes able to trigger unfreezing are identified in the disconfirmation of the validity of the status quo, the induction of guilt or survival anxiety and in creating physiological safety (Schein, 1996). According to this research approach (Schein, 1996: 61):

“The key to effective change management, then, becomes the ability to balance the amount of threat produced by disconfirming data with enough psychological safety to allow the change target to accept the information, feel the survival anxiety and become motivated to change”.

Step 2—Moving—refers to the learning approach, or in other words, in the approach of research, action and more research which enables groups and individuals to move from an old behaviour to a more acceptable set of behaviour. Indeed, if the unfreezing creates motivation to learn, it does not predict or control the direction of learning. At this stage, the organizational members motivate to change their behaviours search or scan, also by hiring consultants or talking with stakeholders, a variety of information that might reveal the solution to the problem. This step represents the learning approach promoted by the Action Research, which takes into account all the available options. Precisely, Schein (1996: 63) argues:

“Once some cognitive redefinition has taken place, the new mental categories are tested with new behaviour which leads to a period of trial and error and either reinforces the new categories or starts a new cycle of disconfirmation and search”.

Step 3—Refreezing—seeks to stabilize the human or organizational behaviour at the new quasi-stationary equilibrium, based on the changes brought about within the organizational culture, norms, politics, and practices. Accordingly, the new behaviour must be refrozen to make the change stable. Conversely, organization members may attempt to learn things that will not survive, because they do not fit the culture of the learning system. Indeed, unless the new behaviour is also transformed into routines, organizational changes will not last. On this step, Schein (1996: 63) points out:

“The main point about refreezing is that new behaviour must be, to some degree, congruent of the behaviour, personality and environment of the learner or it will simply set off new rounds of disconfirmation that often lead to unlearning the very thing one has learned”.

The 3-Steps model, well known as the “Planned approach to change”, has been applied to build a model of change processes in empirical research. Precisely, AR represents an approach to investigation that aims at both undertaking an action and creating knowledge and theory about that action (Coughlan & Coghlan, 2002). This research methodology focuses on research in action, rather than about action, requiring participation and cooperation between organization members and action researchers engaged in developing a common project, and the desired outcome is not only to solve a problem, but also to learn from outcomes while contributing to scientific knowledge (Gummesson, 2000).

Accordingly, as the positivist theory states, the knowledge created by AR is not universal but situational, bound by the specific context of the analysis (Kippenberger, 1998; McCutcheon & Jung, 1990). This is the main criticism of Lewin’s model, even though it has been re-appraised within the complexity theories focused on non-linear systems (Burnes, 2004b).

Hence, AR has been applied in sustainability-based research (Sharma & Starik, 2002) as well as in public settings, such as education enquiries (Kemmis, 2006; Tekin & Kotaman, 2013). In these contexts, AR demonstrated its effectiveness as an alternative approach to traditional quality research methodology: it involves a cyclical process of research, reflection and action, which are relevant phases of long-lasting project development. The first cycle consists of (Eden & Ackermann, 2018; Somekh, 2008): 1—Pre-understanding the background; 2—Understanding action focused intervention; 3—Elaborating theory from practice. More specifically, the former step refers to the action of investigating the current situation from both theoretical (background methods-tools) and empirical (organizational culture, partnership, and planning changes) perspectives. Afterwards, the second step aims at achieving an understanding of the action based on interventions, by trying out new practices according to the aim of the project and monitoring the impact of these changes. Lastly, the third step includes the analysis and the interpretation of the data gathered previously by different qualitative methods (i.e. focus groups, questionnaires, interviews, etc.), in order to generate actionable knowledge or, in other words, to infer theory from practice (MacDonald, 2012). Each step takes the results of the actions as its starting point and develops reflections on them that allow new practices to be transformed into routines and, at the same time, theoretical knowledge to be advanced.

During the AR cycle, all the participants interact, thus refocusing their understanding of what is happening, what is important and improving knowledge through action (Somekh, 2008). It is worth stressing that an action researcher is not an ethnographic observer, but an engaged participant who works with the practitioners on the issue to be solved or improved. This interaction is required to build new theory based on practice (Shank, 2006; Silverman, 2000). Hence, AR is used to generate in-depth understanding of the ways in which theoretical knowledge is transferred in practice, generating changes in actions that will lead to a development of the theory, the theoretical knowledge of the organization taking part in the study (Ellis & Kiely, 2000). It enables researchers to gather data about what people do and say in a project and how, in that context, theory is used and consistent with the need to take action (Eden & Huxham, 2002).

All these considered, AR has been deemed suitable to the task of broadening our understanding of the organizational challenges faced by public managers in achieving Sustainable Development Goals, with regard to urban cultural heritage. In fact, this research methodology commonly focuses on a project involving a group of people cooperating to improve their work processes, i.e., a community of practitioners and researchers (Thompson & Perry, 2004: 401). Both these distinct points of view (practical and academic) permit the investigation of the social process of learning within a project whose goals include organizational changes. Thus, the final report of this project has two distinct audiences: practitioners interested in the analytical AR findings; and academics more interested in the theory built by the AR.

Hence, this research methodology has been considered suitable for thoroughly investigating the organizational processes, which allow public managers to use sustainability in managing cultural heritage according to SDG#11. Indeed, the object of the study is the 3-year experience of the “Pavia Network Project” (hereafter the Project) carried out by a research team, including the authorship of this paper, able to collaborate with this Action Research. Another motivation for this methodological choice is the fact that the Project was aimed at developing the sustainable use of the cultural heritage of the city of Pavia (Lombardy, Italy). Pavia boasts a more-than-two-thousand-year history and an artistic and scientific culture of primary importance, evidenced by the rich and varied heritage of its Civic Museums, the collections of the University of Pavia, and by its Romanesque churches. Founded as a Roman municipium in the first century BCE, it was the capital of the Early Medieval Lombard Kingdom and Italic Kingdom, later becoming a centre of art and culture in the Visconti-Sforza era (1360–1515) (Scarpa, 2018). Statues of well-known scientists, their careers stretching back to the fourteenth century (such as Alessandro Volta, Camillo Golgi, Lazzaro Spallanzani, Girolamo Cardano, Luigi Valentino Brugnatelli), can be admired in the courtyards of the University of Pavia, where they taught (Mantovani, 2012). This urban cultural heritage is managed by the Pavia Museum System, founded by an agreement signed in 2004 by the Municipality, the University of Pavia, the Pavia Diocese, and the Lombardy Region. Ten years later, the inconsistency of this system, which existed in theory rather than in practice, led the local government to make an effort to revitalize it in order to enhance and promote the cultural heritage of the city. Moreover, the 2030 Agenda, which had just been enacted, encouraged the local government to integrate its urban innovation strategy, whose development made Pavia a full member of the Italian Smart Cities Network, with its project for the sustainable use of the cultural heritage. In particular, the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) set up the Smart City National Observatory, with the purpose of collecting, analysing, connecting and promoting smart city project initiatives under development in various Italian cities. In addition to the 7 pillars proposed in the literature by the Vienna University of Technology (Economy, Energy, Environment, Government, Living, Mobility, People), ANCI has introduced a new one: “Planning”, concerning the planning and strategic management processes of cities to be recognised as “smart”. The Pavia has been a part of this network since 2014–15 thanks to shared urban action concerning social innovation, digital agenda and urban governance. A strong boost to the innovation process of the smart city (Giffinger & Gudrun, 2010) was given by the implementation of an e-government platform adopted as a means of dialogue with the community and subsequently to facilitate citizens’ engagement in the various practices of participatory democracy developed by the local government.

In relation to the 8th pillars of Italian Smartness, Pavia has also been distinguished by the planning of smart infrastructures and heritage policies, including the Project under investigation.

The proposal to bring about change in urban cultural heritage management, shared with other cultural organizations and local institutions, was based on a twofold awareness: firstly, of the inability of public managers to enhance the urban cultural heritage and, secondly and consequently, of their inability to develop the relative high potentials for the socio-economic and cultural benefit of the current and future community. Hence, the local government arranged the Pavia Network Project (2014–2017), joined by an institutional partnership, with the goal of building public managers’ capacity to make sustainable use of the cultural heritage of the city.

The Project, financed by the Local Bank Foundation, engaged a partnership of ten units belonging to local public organizations such as the University of Pavia (2 units), the Pavia Chamber of Commerce (1 unit), the Foundation of Local Government Studies (3 units), and the Civic Museums (4 units) as the project leader. These partners were chosen by the local government of Pavia on the basis of their specific competences in relation to the Project goals, such as training in sustainability and sustainable accounting and accountability (University), creative and cultural enterprises engagement (Pavia Chamber of Commerce), and the coordination and organization of the Project’s workings, meetings and reporting (Foundation of Local Government Studies). The Civic Museums’ manager and staff were charged by the City Council with achieving the Sustainable Development Goals of the Project, consisting in the creation of a Pavia Urban Cultural Heritage Network able to produce long-lasting outcomes under the Triple Bottom Line approach to sustainability. These outcomes included the development of sustainable management practices for urban cultural heritage and raising the level of accountability of local government and of the community regarding the results of the relative actions. For this reason, the Civic Museums charged the University units with developing the Project in terms of AR.

The AR started with the engagement of the academics and practitioners in the project team and lasted 3 years (2014–2017). Over this time, the researchers had the task of educating public managers and staff about sustainability and contributing to the creation of a “community of practices” aimed at measuring the performance of cultural initiatives carried out under the coordination of the Civic Museums by the network of urban cultural partners. In doing this, researchers initially studied the modus operandi of the urban cultural partners. During focus groups, they observed how the cultural organizations of the city exchanged knowledge necessary for the creation of the network. Finally, the researchers shared their knowledge with Civic Museums’ managers and staff for the creation of economic, social and cultural sustainability indicators in relation to the exhibitions arranged during the Project.

The contribution to develop sustainable management of urban cultural heritage while, extending knowledge on how sustainability can be embedded in the public management of local government, represents the rationale for the AR described below (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Action research cycles adopted. Source: our elaboration based on (Eden & Achermann, 2018; Mariotti, 2012)

Full size image

AR assumes that the action researchers have instruments to generate data. Consequently, they have begun with a pure inquiry, investigating what was going on by observing and listening carefully and neutrally at Step 1. The lack of sustainable managerial competences, as perceived by the cultural heritage sector of Pavia Municipal Council, stimulated the unfreezing process envisaged by this preliminary phase of AR. During this Step, the research actions were aimed at understanding the knowledge of sustainability of public managers in charge of the urban cultural heritage through meetings with the director and staff. Workshops were jointly arranged by the researchers and practitioners, aimed at learning about how sustainability is applied to the management of cultural heritage. The engagement of the Civic Museums’ staff in this learning process was the object of observation by the researchers.

Step 2 required different approaches to data gathering, from the analysis of documents to meetings between the researchers and all members of the Project partnership, to focus groups conducted with additional stakeholders such as citizens, individuals and associations. New ideas, processes, and contents were subsequently put forward and moves made to arrange joint cultural initiatives in the city. During this Step, the research actions focused on the sharing of knowledge on cultural management among urban cultural organizations and the Civic Museums, in order to start building a real urban cultural network. The researchers observed this learning process by attending the workshops, focus groups and meetings arranged by the Civic Museums. Moreover, their interventions were directly requested by the Civic Museums in crafting performance measurement indicators based on sustainable accounting and accountability system for the city’s cultural heritage management. This step of moving occurred during the project time span (2014–2017).

Step 3 involved action researchers in the design of the sustainable accounting and accountability practices adopted. These changes have been refrozen in the organizational learning process within the city’s cultural heritage management. During this Step, research actions were focused on the observation of the urban network’s application of new practical knowledge to the management of cultural heritage, and the follow-up on the learning process related to the measurement of performance achieved using the sustainable accounting and accountability system. The interventions of the researchers consisted in meeting with the Civic Museums’ manager and staff for follow-up on the application of this performance measurement system. Although AR is carried out in real time (Gummesson, 2000), this study presents its outcome in terms of the sustainable management of urban cultural heritage over time. It was therefore deemed appropriate to carry out this study a few years after the conclusion of the Project to understand if these changes have generated an effective refreezing of new sustainable accounting and accountability practices in Pavia’s cultural heritage management.

4 Findings and discussion

The research methodology chosen allowed the researchers to identify the antecedents of the sustainable accounting and accountability system adopted by an Italian Smart City—Pavia—from both professional and theoretical viewpoints. The reliability of the findings described below per step is based on a triangulation of methods (ethnographic observations, focus group and interviews) (Lune & Berg, 2016).

The results of each step of the AR have been highlighted from the action researchers and the practitioners’ viewpoints. The action researchers were the University units involved in the Project for their sustainable management knowledge and competences. The practitioners were the manager of the Civic Museums, in charge of the urban cultural heritage, and their relative staff. Moreover, the findings have been interpreted and discussed, taking into consideration the Deutero-learning model combined with the 3-Steps of AR above-mentioned (Fig. 1). Indeed, any organizational change underpins a learning process, based on knowledge sharing (Verburg & Andriessen, 2011; Wenger et al., 2002) that, in the case of this study, is among organizations. Such knowledge sharing stands alongside such Project goals as the creation of the urban cultural network. The Deutero-learning model, applied in this complex organizational system, makes it possible to identify how public managers can embed sustainability in managing the cultural heritage of the city.

Step 1—Unfreezing: The kick-off event was the workshop “New models for urban cultural networks” held on November 4th, 2014. This was the occasion on which the action researchers and the public managers in the partnership first presented the Project objectives to the stakeholders (community, enterprises, associations, etc.), motivating the need to effectively create a Pavia Cultural Heritage Network.

In order to achieve this objective, the Project, structured in research actions, sought to determine the prerequisites for a sustainable management of the urban cultural heritage. This underpinned the awareness of the Civic Museums’ manager and staff of the need to apply managerial changes in order to valorise the urban cultural heritage, according to the Triple Bottom Line approach of sustainability. Therefore, the research action were entrusted to the accounting research team of the University of Pavia, which attempted to define and implement a model of performance measurement and assessment based on the principles of sustainability. More specifically, the Civic Museums, coordinator of the Project team, engaged the researchers in co-designing a sustainable accounting and accountability system for managing the cultural heritage of the city. Before doing so, the researchers arranged meetings with the Civic Museums’ manager and staff, in order to understand their background and their modus operandi from the sustainability point of view. The need to increase their knowledge of this matter led urban cultural organizations to attend a workshop on sustainability in cultural heritage management, opened to the entire community. This event enabled the Civic Museums and their stakeholders to appreciate the relevance of managing the cultural heritage of the city for current and future generations. Moreover, it highlighted both the existing weaknesses and the opportunities for sustainable development of these common resources for social and economic environment. This debate was continued a few months later, with two working groups (March 25th and April 8th, 2015) which involved not only the action researchers, the public managers and staff of the Civic Museums and the other institutional partners, but also the public officials and managers of other Italian smart cities such as Pesaro in the Central Italy. The topics under discussion regarded respectively “Sustainability and social reporting” and the “Strategic planning for urban cultural heritage”. These working groups triggered the organizational learning process within the Civic Museums of Pavia. Their output was recorded by the action researchers in the Project’s first official report, allowing the public managers and staff of Civic Museums, together with the other partners, to co-plan sustainable actions. In practical terms, this step in the action research was the precondition for unfreezing the old attitudes toward urban cultural heritage management. It was not enough to create temporary exhibitions or to outsource them: it was also necessary to create a cultural heritage offering, including city cultural tours and other connected services for tourists as well as for the community.

In summary, to achieve the goal of embedding sustainability in the management of urban cultural heritage, the Civic Museums have questioned their way of operating by understanding the opportunities and advantages that the development of partnerships for the management of these common goods could generate for the economy of the city and the quality of life of current and future generations (Zeemering, 2018).

To evaluate these advantages ex-ante, it was necessary to co-design public value in partnership (Pinz et al., 2018). This implied learning accounting knowledge, applied to cultural heritage management. This awareness, completely taken for granted in organizations with an administrative culture, is an antecedent of the above-mentioned unfreezing step. In developing this phase of the “Planned approach to change”, the Civic Museums of Pavia have boosted social connectedness by constructing successful relationships both within and without the sector (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018). Organizational change, stimulated by “learning to collaborate” (Mariotti, 2012), is envisaged in managing the cultural heritage of the city in partnership, by planning an urban cultural heritage network.

According to the AR approach (Gummesson, 2000; McCutcheon & Jung, 1990), the actions in this step were relevant, on the one hand (practical viewpoint) for transferring theoretical knowledge to the practitioners and hence improving the cultural heritage actions (Eilertsen & London, 2005). On the other hand (theoretical viewpoint), this step was crucial for reflecting critically on managerial accounting as fundamental practical knowledge for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (Byrch et al., 2015; Egan & Tweedie, 2018; Kemmis, 2006). The discussion on sustainability from the point of view of the outputs and outcomes achieved by cultural initiatives, led the Civic Museums’ management to turn to accounting and accountability researchers. The workshops allowed a public space to be opened for discussion of these technical aspects of sustainability (Bebbington et al., 2014).

Step 2 – Moving: The ideas arising from the focus groups among the Project partners and the stakeholders (April 29th 2015—June 16th 2015) were transformed into joint events arranged by the Civic Museums in synergy with the other cultural organizations of the city.

These actions regarded the Pavia Music Festival (December 2015) and the temporary exhibitions arranged during the same year (such as “Japan Now! A contemporary Japanese Art Exhibition, 28 February—12 April 2015; “The masterpieces of the Johannesburg Art Gallery. From Degas to Picasso”, 21 March—19 July 2015).

In Step 2—moving—of the AR, the Civic Museums’ management engaged the University’s researchers of the Project to design a performance management system for assessing the socio-economic and cultural impact of events arranged by the Pavia Cultural Heritage Network. Precisely, the action researchers participated in many staff meetings (October–December 2015) at the Civic Museums in order to design a visitor satisfaction questionnaire for the temporary exhibitions planned over the duration of the Project. This intervention was required by the Civic Museums’ management and by the city Councillor in charge of the Culture and Tourism Sectors, in order to improve the performance management of the urban cultural heritage. The joint effort (involving both the University researchers and Civic Museums’ manager and staff) consisted of the formulation of questionnaires addressed to different types of audience (local visitors and foreign visitors), in order to gain feedback about the social and cultural impact of the cultural initiatives.

After one year, the Project partnership drafted a reflection on the outcomes of the actions developed by the Pavia Cultural Heritage Network and on what was learnt by public management in applying the sustainable managerial practices (e.g. visitor satisfaction analysis).

The cultural activities of the partnership were further expanded (i.e. a new digital library, the “Bibliotech@di Corte”, located in the Civic Museums in collaboration with local cultural cooperatives; the temporary exhibition, “1525–2015. Pavia, la Battaglia, il Futuro’, in collaboration with the Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture of the University of Pavia, etc.).

The Civic Museums’ manager and staff improved their capacity to operate in a network as well as to assess the social and cultural impact of their joint actions through the adoption of the visitor satisfaction analysis. Moreover, the Civic Museums’ management perceived the need to measure not only visitor satisfaction, but also the ‘value for money’ of the urban cultural heritage management.

The researchers were invited to co-design Key Performance Indicators to measure the effectiveness, the efficiency and the economy of the cultural activities developed through the Pavia Cultural Heritage Network.

Concisely, the sustainability perspective in managing urban cultural heritage in partnership has led the Civic Museums to perceive the need to control performance by using ad hoc accounting tools (e.g. Key Performance Indicators and visitor satisfaction analysis). Indeed, the partnership-based management of urban cultural heritage has required an accounting system capable of taking into account the boosted social connectedness (Argento et al., 2019) within the urban cultural network as well as the way in which engagement has been enlarged to various audiences and targets of the community in the “learning to share” process (Mariotti, 2012). In doing this, the organizational change of the Civic Museums regards the role of “focal actor” in steering and controlling the Pavia Cultural Heritage Network in action. The learning process has stimulated the Civic Museums, at this stage, to move from an administrative to a managerial culture (Bozeman, 2007; Zan et al., 2015).

This step of the AR was a relevant exercise for the researchers as well as the practitioners, in terms of actionable knowledge (Egan & Tweedie, 2018). The action researchers had the opportunity to design new performance indicators from the perspective of sustainability, taking into consideration the digital data archive (i.e. the number of visitors per temporary exhibition, annual takings, annual costs, ticketing revenues, bookshop revenues, workshop fees and relative costs, etc.) of the Civic Museums of Pavia. Their manager and staff had the chance to reflect on these indicators and on the results achieved at the meetings arranged with the researchers during the final stage of the Project, in order to gauge the effectiveness of the sustainable accounting system crafted and implemented in terms of the usability of the information produced. This discussion was relevant for the reliability of the outcome of the Project from both the academic and professional perspective.

The moving step of the AR cycle enabled them to engage with their stakeholders, including visitors, in assessing the sustainable impact of the cultural actions carried out by the Pavia Cultural Heritage Network, while challenging their mental and behavioral assumptions within the organizational learning process (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018).

Step 3—Refreezing: The results from the implementation of sustainability accounting (e.g. Key Performance Indicators) and accountability practices (e.g. visitors’ satisfaction analysis) was followed up in two further research meetings between the action researchers and the Civic Museums (November 11th and December 10th, 2016).

The AR cycle ended with the final report, “The Socio-cultural accountability report. The value created and disseminated by the Civic Museums of the Visconti Castle in Pavia”, which represented a benchmark among Italian public museums at that time (in 2015, only the 14.3% of Italian museums had carried out systematic visitor-based-research over the previous 5 years).

This Report was structured according to the Italian standard issued by the GBS (2007), the Study Group for the Social Report (Biondi & Bracci, 2018). Therefore, the report provides information on the identity of the cultural organization (Civic Museums), the creation and allocation of the added value, and social impact based on visitor satisfaction analysis. This social reporting standard fitted, indeed, with the sustainability accounting and accountability practices crafted by the Civic Museums’ manager and staff together with the action researchers of the Project.

The Report was presented to the partners and the stakeholders at the final working group (July 7th, 2017). Moreover, it was recognized, as an example of best practice, by “Federculture”, the Italian Federation of companies and organizations for the management of culture, tourism, sport and leisure. This working group was the final intervention of the AR.

The organizational changes induced by the learning process has been potential at this stage. Five years after the conclusion of the Project, the partnership based-management has engaged many other stakeholders and researchers with multidisciplinary skills (urban planning, technological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) to achieve all the SDG#11 targets (safe and affordable housing, affordable and sustainable transport systems, inclusive and sustainable urbanization, reductions in the environmental impact of cities, and access to safe and inclusive green and public spaces). It was possible through the concomitant implementation process of citizens’ engagement in the policy choice, based on the adoption of the participatory budgeting (Aleksandrov et al., 2018; Bartocci et al., 2022). This process, carried out by the University researchers, in collaboration with Pavia Municipality and the Foundation of Local Government Studies, has stimulated a bottom-up planning: the projects have been presented by the stakeholders (such as single citizen, association, public institution, enterprises) in workshops arranged by the Foundation abovementioned after a preliminary assessment of their feasibility by the Municipality technicians. Those feasible projects were placed on an e-government platform (“Pavia participa”) which allowed all the citizens to choose those most suited to the needs of the community by assigning a score. The projects carried out are those, which have been considered as priorities (with the highest score) by the local community. The implementation of the participatory budgeting according to the AR approach has produced changes in terms of social innovation, consisting in the digital transition of the various phases of the co-creation of public value (co-design, co-implantation, co-evaluation) which represents the main activities ascribed, for definition, to the urban living lab (Bulkeley et al., 2019; Soerio, 2021). Therefore, the Network of Cultural Heritage of Pavia was the forerunner of a new city governance approach based on the concept of the Urban Living Lab, as a public space that allows different stakeholders to design, test and learn from socio-technical innovations (von Wirth et al., 2019).

The overall AR cycle (Fig. 2) has had a twofold outcome, clearly visible 5 years after the end of the Project. From the practitioners’ perspective, the theoretical knowledge disseminated by the action researchers was transformed into sustainable accounting and accountability practices (Key Performance Indicators, building capacity on sustainable accounting and accountability knowledge) now embedded in the managerial knowledge of the organizational members of the Civic Museums of Pavia. These sustainability practices have been refrozen, through the triple-loop learning process, into a new managerial knowledge pattern disseminated to all of the staff of Civic Museums, including those hired after the end of the Project. The fact that the sustainability practices were co-created by the public management and staff, who participated in the Project together with the action researchers, enabled internal training for the new members of the organization. In other words, AR has allowed public management and staff to understand their limits, to overcome them and to increase their skills in order to achieve the goal of a sustainable use of the urban cultural heritage. Hence, the sustainability accounting and accountability practices, adopted for the assessment of the economic and societal impact of city cultural events, have given rise to a database necessary to formulate sustainable cultural development strategies (Brown, 2009). Moreover, the socio-cultural accountability reporting (which initially allowed the Pavia Cultural Heritage Network to be accountable towards the Bank foundation, the community and the organizations themselves originally engaged in the Project) is still in use today. The action researchers’ perspective contributes to understanding the role of management accounting knowledge in the “Planned approach to change” (Coughlan & Coghlan, 2002; Lewin, 1946; Schein, 1996). In this light, accounting is not only a universal practical knowledge, but also a social construction (Thomson & Bebbington, 2005), able to bond and bridge organizational ties, as a pillar of organizational sustainability (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Action Research’s findings

Full size image

These findings, critically interpreted in relation to the three pillars (bonding and bridging organizational ties, participation and audience diversity, institutionalized public outreach) of the organizational sustainability framework, contribute to filling in the literature gap regarding the organizational processes, capable of working towards the SDGs (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018). Indeed, the awareness of the need to improve their actions in order to achieve Sustainable Development Goals triggers an organizational single, double or triple-loop learning process (Bateson, 1972; Eilertsen & London, 2005), allowing public organizations to acquire the sustainable accounting and accountability knowledge of their organizational members. These levels of learning were stimulated by the Action Research carried out on a sustainability based Project, which engaged other cultural organizations and institutions of the city, such as the University. In order to achieve the Project objectives, the public managers in charge of the urban cultural heritage management have learnt to collaborate (single—loop), to share knowledge (double—loop) and to create knowledge (triple-loop) with academics in a complex organizational system (Eilertsen & London, 2005; Mariotti, 2012). These learning processes have boosted the social connectedness of the cultural organization (Civic Museums) and, at the same time, levels of organizational sustainability throughout the institutionalization of new knowledge based on accounting and accountability applied to urban cultural heritage management.

The findings answer the research question at the heart of this study. The challenges involved in achieving Sustainable Development Goals are bound up with the sustainability-based knowledge of public management. Hence, the interconnectedness of the SDGs, organizational learning processes and sustainable accounting and accountability knowledge are framed by the following conceptual model (Fig. 3). The relative purpose is to provide insights into the organizational processes, which allow public managers to embed sustainability in managing common resources and in implementing managerial accounting and accountability practices according to the SDGs.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The antecedents of sustainable accounting and accountability. A conceptual model

Full size image

The following set of propositions highlights how this conceptual model contributes to the advancement of knowledge on the antecedents of sustainability accounting and accountability knowledge within public settings (Argento et al., 2019; Guthrie et al., 2010; Manes Rossi et al., 2020; Zeemering, 2018).

Proposition 1

The SDGs challenge public managers to acquire accounting knowledge needed not only for assessing the impacts of sustainability-based projects and actions under the Triple Bottom Line approach, but also for providing public spaces of dialogue with partners and other stakeholders.

The SDGs (e.g. SDG#11.4) are pursued by organizations that are aware of the need to plan and implement an organizational change, by building or consolidating relationships with actors of the same or other sectors in the perspective of organizational social connectedness. This awareness has to be followed by action for the sustainable management of public resources (i.e. urban cultural heritage). Such action is planned through the acquisition and application of accounting from the sustainability perspective (Triple Botton Line approach).

In the unfreezing stage of the “Planned approach to change”, sustainable accounting produces not only technical information, highlighting the impacts of certain behaviors on the economy, society and culture of the city, but also ideas and topics that strengthen the relationship of trust between professionals, academics and institutional actors involved in the same action. From a practical point of view, the engagement of stakeholders in planning how to make the city smart has certainly contributed to the effectiveness of the actions undertaken by the Urban Cultural Network. The conceptual model, in relation to this phase of the learning/change process, provides, as a theoretical contribution, the introduction of the concept of accounting not only as technical knowledge (Argento et al., 2019) but also as “social practice” (Carnegie et al., 2021) in the context of organizational sustainability (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018).

Proposition 2

The challenge posed by the SDGs to public management is to co-design and co-implement an accounting system consistent not only with the sustainability-based objectives but also with the social relations and ethics shared with partners and other stakeholders.

Planning in partnership is a prerequisite to making the city inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable through the protection and safeguarding of its cultural and natural heritage (Pinz et al., 2018; Zeemering, 2018). However, this is not enough. It is necessary to proceed to action, taking into consideration what has been learnt by engaging not only the other stakeholders of the same or other sectors, but also the citizens as users and co-creators of public value. Indeed, during this stage of the “Planned approach to change”, accounting is in action, as a shaping force of sustainability-based objectives as well as of social connectedness of the public organization. Organizational sustainability in its triple dimension impacts on accounting by highlighting its dynamism in assuming forms modeled on the organizational context to which the performance refers. Sustainable accounting is not only a social practice, in reflecting the actions performed by the numerous stakeholders engaged in the management of common goods, but becomes a “moral practice” (Carnegie et al., 2021) by reflecting the values ​​underlying the actions carried out by the actors of the partnership, shared by users and the other community targets.

Proposition 3

Pursuing SDGs over time represents a challenge for public management that can be addressed through the repeated use of combined accounting and accountability practices, which contribute to institutionalize the public outreach in terms of sustainability culture within the city management.

In the last step of the “Planned approach to change”, the created knowledge is institutionalized by sustainable accounting and accountability practices repeated over time. Their consolidation strengthens the relations between the public management and the other actors of the partnership. Dissemination leads to the involvement of new partners who add new skills, thus giving rise to a new cycle of the “Planned approach to change” which, combined with the learning process, will be the basis for the creation of a complex organizational system (e.g. urban living lab). Hence, the conceptual model, in shedding light on the antecedents of sustainable accounting and accountability knowledge, brings to the forefront “its potentiality in shaping organizational culture and, in turn, in changing to world views within communities and society” (Carnegie et al., 2021: 68).

5 Conclusions

This study has contributed to reducing the literature gap regarding the antecedents of the implementation of sustainable accounting and accountability within public organizations. This issue is particularly interesting in relation to the fact that these practices are not mandatory in such settings. Moreover, the stimulus provided by the 2030 Agenda led local governments and their management to do a “check-up” of their ability to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Focusing on the SDG#11, cities have to face challenges to be acknowledged as “smart”, also in relation to their cultural heritage management. The call for the sustainable use of cultural heritage has been stressed, also, by the Council of Europe since 2005.

Managerial studies have called for more investigations on sustainability applied to this particular public setting. Considering this literature gap, the study aimed at expanding knowledge concerning the planned changes that need to be undertaken by public managers in charge of the urban cultural heritage in order to contribute to achieving SDG#11.

To this aim, the AR carried out within the Pavia Network Project has provided some insights framed in the conceptual model on the antecedents of sustainable accounting and accountability knowledge (Fig. 3). That model assumed the SDG as a strategic objective of the local governments and their management. It is the starting point for unfreezing the administrative culture of city management in accordance with the 2030 Agenda (SDG#11) (Ortiz-Rodríguez et al., 2015). This pre-condition leads public organizations to understand whether and how to achieve this goal. Sustainable accounting and accountability knowledge enables public managers to monitor their performance applying the sustainability approach (the Triple Bottom Line). The lack of this kind of knowledge should trigger them to initiate an organizational learning process—the Deutero-learning model (Bateson, 1972; Eilertsen & London, 2005)—whose modes of development are bound to the 3-Steps of the “Planned approach to change” (Eden & Ackermann, 2018; Lewin, 1946). This process was developed by the Civic Museums’ manager and staff through the Project, in collaboration with the University and other institutions engaged in the cultural heritage system of the city. The achievement of public funding for developing the Project had certainly reinforced the organizational ties of the Civic Museums with these stakeholders, and favored the planned change aimed at embedding sustainability into urban cultural heritage management (Cohen, 2011; Zeemering, 2018).

The engagement of researchers with an accounting background was crucial for carrying out the AR underpinning the Project. Therefore, AR has demonstrated its validity for understanding the mechanism of up-close learning (Kiely & Armistead, 2005). The workshops and the focus groups, at the first and second steps of the AR cycle, increased the awareness of the Civic Museums’ manager and staff regarding the importance of learning how to improve the sustainable use of urban cultural heritage. The second step of the AR cycle consisted of moving ideas into actions (single-loop learning) and reflecting on their consequences in terms of sustainability (Argyris & Schon, 1996).

What theory emerged from this AR? The aims of the Project were clear: to change urban cultural heritage management by strengthening the social connectedness of the Civic Museums (Moldavanova & Goerdel, 2018). How? The research actions enabled the Civic Museums’ manager and staff to learn how to assess the social, economic and cultural impact of the urban cultural heritage management (Passetti et al., 2018). The interaction between the action researchers and the public management and staff developed a double loop learning process related to the sustainable accounting and accountability practices experimented in the urban cultural heritage management actions (Bebbington & Thomson, 2007; Bryson et al., 2014; Loach et al., 2017; Manes Rossi et al., 2020). The triple-loop of the Deuteron-learning process was observed in the third step of the cycle (refreezing). Hence, it is not surprising that five years later the Civic Museums continue to collaborate with many other stakeholders, and to adopt the Key Performance Indicators and the accountability techniques now embedded in their organizational management knowledge.

The conceptual model (Fig. 3) highlights the fact that sustainability is not a “magic concept” or a simple slogan, but is able to trigger an organizational learning process, leading to the creation of new managerial knowledge in public settings (Niemann & Hoppe, 2018). From this perspective, decisive commitment on the part of both local governments and their management is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to ensure that sustainability can initiate planned change aimed at ensuring current and future generations can equally benefit from their cultural heritage (Fiorino, 2010).

What emerged from this study is the public management’s awareness of having “to learn how to learn” accounting and accountability to achieve the SDGs (MacDonald, 2012). In this vein, AR proves be a useful means to develop a two-way learning process (from both point of view of the researchers and the practitioners). On the one hand, AR enables public managers to co-create and spread sustainability accounting and accountability knowledge in the field of cultural heritage management, and on the other, AR allows the researchers to provide advancement of theoretical knowledge, by contributing to the solution of concrete issues.

Moreover, developed some practical and theoretical implications arose from the AR. The conceptual model provides insights into the learning processes that could be developed by public organizations in order to improve the management of cultural heritage from the perspective of sustainability (Schein, 1996; Kemmis, 2006). Indeed, from a practical point of view, the AR has highlighted the main challenge posed by the SDG#11for public managers in charge of cultural heritage management: how to embed sustainability in managing these common goods. In the Italian Smart City investigated, this challenge is faced by carrying out a sustainable-based Project, which allows organizations to learn to collaborate, learn to share knowledge and learn to create knowledge. It was not only important to learn how to manage cultural heritage in networks, but also to co-create, with the collaboration of accounting researchers, an adequate performance management system to measure the sustainability of the performances achieved. Regarding this challenge, the recommendation is to embrace cross-over of knowledge required by the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda by focusing on capacity building rather than awaiting norms or rules from higher public institutions. On this matter, although UNESCO has provided thematic indicators for the role of culture in the 2030 Agenda (UNESCO, 2019), it allows any country the option of adapting them to the specific national and urban context. Hence, the suggestion to Councils and Cities, arising also from this research, to collaborate with academics and professionals to design performance measures and principles that meet the target of a particular SDG in order to stimulate a “community of practices” within an inter-organizational learning processes.

The theoretical implications instead refer to the role of accounting as a sustainability-based tool of managerial culture (Farneti et al., 2019). It represents more than just standardized “creative accounting”, since it must be suitable for meeting the cognitive needs of public management and staff engaged in the sustainable use of the cultural heritage of the city. Creative sustainability accounting and accountability can also be reconciled with standardized forms of reporting (i.e. GBS, 2007), as long as it is capable of responding to the cognitive needs of all stakeholders, including the community, in order to ensure transparency and social capital growth (Bourdieu, 1986). Through this lens, the discourse on sustainability elaborated in this study has extended the understanding of the triple notion of accounting as technical, social and moral practice (Carnegie et al., 2021). Indeed, “creative” accounting is consistent with the notion of “social practice”, considering its capacity to enable and disable actions based on the dialogue concerning the statements and insights it produces itself as a “technical practice”. Furthermore, the narrative of accounting and accountability reflects not only the engagement and the discourse between organizations and stakeholders, but also influences their behavior now and in the future. Consistently with its notion of “moral practice”, accounting provides an objective basis for moulding or changing organizational culture and lives from the perspective of sustainability.

Moreover, this research has added insights supporting the thesis of those who argue that Lewin's approach (1946) is still very effective in those contexts in which the forces resistant to change are prevalent in constituting the quasi-equilibrium conditions of the organization (Coughlan & Coghlan, 2002). AR can decisively contribute to questioning the effectiveness of these forces, especially considering national and international policies aimed at the sustainable development of the planet.

However, this study presents the inherent limitations of AR, such as the curbed generalizability of the conceptual model proposed, which arose from reflections on the findings achieved by the research, interpreted by assuming the viewpoint of the public organization—the Project leader—rather than from that of the entire partnership. Hence, further investigations taking into account all the viewpoints of the organizations belonging to the urban cultural heritage network, might contribute to broadening the validity of the proposed conceptual model. Furthermore, the robustness of the model requires inference from further ARs, concerning other targets of the same SDG or other SGDs. In fact, assuming that "there is nothing so practical as good theory" (Lewin, 1943–44: 169), this study calls for further investigations in order to enlarge both theoretical and practical knowledge of organizational sustainability. Moreover, the role of accounting in the pursuit of the 17 SDGs in 2030 for the benefit of current and future generations still deserves much more attention.