Hoe bereiden we studenten voor op een economie die niet alleen financiële waarde creëert, maar ook maatschappelijke en ecologische impact heeft? Het Centre for Economic Transformation van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam (HvA) introduceert steward-ownership - een docentenhandleiding & teaching case.Steward-ownership scheidt economische rechten (winst) van stemrechten (besluitvorming), zodat een onderneming duurzaam kan blijven opereren zonder afhankelijk te zijn van kortetermijnwinsten voor aandeelhouders. Grote bedrijven zoals Patagonia kozen recentelijk voor dit model om hun maatschappelijke missie veilig te stellen. Maar wat betekent dit in de praktijk? En welke alternatieven bestaan er voor traditionele aandeelhouderschapsmodellen?In deze teaching case maken we studenten bewust van de rol die eigenaarschap van ondernemingen speelt in de transitie naar een eerlijke en duurzame economie. We bekijken de traditionele vorm van aandeelhouderschap en ontdekken hoe steward-ownership een alternatief biedt voor winstmaximalisatie voor enkelen ten koste van welzijn en welvaart van velen. Met behoud van ruimte voor ondernemerschap.Deze teaching case biedt een toegankelijke introductie in steward-ownership en is speciaal ontwikkeld voor studenten in het economische en maatschappelijke domein. Docenten kunnen direct aan de slag met:- Een docentenhandleiding met uitleg en lesdoelen.- Een geanimeerde infographic die het concept helder uitlegt.- Zes interactieve werkvormen, waaronder groepsdiscussies, rollenspellen en een pressure cooker.- Een hoofdtekst voor studenten, aangevuld met verdiepende hoofdstukken, afgestemd op hr, sociaal ondernemerschap en juridische vraagstukken.De case past bij uiteenlopende opleidingen in het economisch en maatschappelijk domein van HBO en WO vanaf derde jaar Bachelor t/m Masterniveau. De opgedane kennis is actueel en relevant voor studenten die gaan werken in het bedrijfsleven of zelf gaan ondernemen. Zij herkennen de voor- en nadelen van klassieke vormen van eigenaarschap. Ook zijn ze zich bewust van alternatieve mogelijkheden van eigenaarschap die naadloos aansluiten bij een nieuwe economie.Met deze les bereid je studenten voor op een toekomst in de nieuwe economie, en laat je ze ervaren hoe steward-ownership een deel van de oplossing kan zijn! Je kunt de case kosteloos downloaden en morgen inzetten in je les.
MULTIFILE
Purpose: Business case (BC) analyses are performed in many different business fields, to create a report on the feasibility and competitive advantage of an intervention within an existing organisation to secure commitment from management to invest. However, most BC research papers on decisions regarding internal funding are either based on anecdotal insights, on analyses of standards from practice, or focused on very specific BC calculations for a certain project, investment or field. A clear BC process method is missing. Design/methodology/approach: This paper aims to describe the results of a systematic literature review of 52 BC papers that report on further conceptualisation of what a BC process should behold. Findings: Synthesis of the findings has led to a BC definition and composition of a 20 step BC process method. In addition, 29 relevant theories are identified to tackle the main challenges of BC analyses in future studies to make them more effective. This supports further theoretical development of academic BC research and provides a tool for BC processes in practice. Originality/value: Although there is substantial scientific research on BCs, there was not much theoretical development nor a general stepwise method to perform the most optimal BC analysis.
This paper seeks to make a contribution to business model experimentation for sustainability by putting forward a relatively simple tool. This tool calculates the financial and sustainability impact based on the SDG’s of a newly proposed business model (BM). BM experimentation is described by Bocken et al. (2019) as an iterative-multi-actor experimentation process. At the final experimentation phases some form of sustainability measurement will be necessary in order to validate if the new proposed business model will be achieving the aims set in the project. Despite the plethora of tools, research indicates that tools that fit needs and expectations are scarce, lack the specific focus on sustainable BM innovation, or may be too complex and demanding in terms of time commitment (Bocken, Strupeit, Whalen, & Nußholz, 2019a). In this abstract we address this gap, or current inability of calculating the financial and sustainability effect of a proposed sustainable BM in an integrated, time effective manner. By offering a practical tool that allows for this calculation, we aim to answer the research question; “How can the expected financial and sustainability impact of BMs be forecasted within the framework of BM experimentation?
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
Digitale marketing in e-commerce heeft zich sterk ontwikkeld. Consumenten hebben brede toegang via hun eigen, persoonlijke apparaten en door de snelle ontwikkeling van machine-learning-technologieën kan gerichte communicatie geautomatiseerd worden. Toch staat het huidige e-commerce bedrijfsmodel ter discussie, vooral door de impact op het milieu. Het retourzenden van producten is volledig gebruikelijk geworden onder consumenten. Dit soepele retourbeleid roept milieuzorgen op, omdat het de ecologische voetafdruk vergroot en financiële lasten met zich meebrengt voor bedrijven, namelijk de kosten voor het afhandelen van retouren wordt geschat op €12,50 tot €19,50 per retour. Om bij te dragen aan de oplossing van het retourprobleem, richt dit project zich op het onderzoeken van hoe gepersonaliseerde digitale marketinginterventies het consumentengedrag kunnen veranderen en productretouren kunnen verminderen. Dit gebeurt aan de hand van een casestudy in samenwerking met MKB-partner BBB Cycling en zal gebaseerd zijn op diepgaande inzichten in de specifieke doelgroep van consumenten die vatbaarder zijn voor het retourneren van producten. Anders dan andere onderzochte oplossingen, zoals het herzien van het retourbeleid, het implementeren van pastools en het stimuleren van consumenten via prijsvergelijkingen en pop-upberichten over de milieueffecten, neemt dit project een unieke invalshoek door specifiek te focussen op de psychologische kenmerken van consumenten en de psychologische triggers achter hun retourbeslissingen. Het project omvat vier werkpakketten: 1) Inzichten verkrijgen over consumenten die geneigd zijn producten te retourneren; 2) Gepersonaliseerde digitale marketinginterventies co-creëren om het retourpercentage te verlagen; 3) De gepersonaliseerde digitale marketinginterventies testen in een real-life online omgeving; 4) De kennis verspreiden naar e-commercebedrijven, consumenten en onderwijs voor een bredere maatschappelijke impact. Dit wordt uitgevoerd door alle partners: Thuiswinkel.org via zijn e-commerce bedrijfsnetwerk, Consumentenbond via zijn communicatie met consumenten, en het Lectoraat Purposeful Marketing van De Haagse Hogeschool, via zijn samenwerkingsactiviteiten in het onderwijs.
The purpose of this project was to create a roadmap with selected mechanisms to assist destination management organisations to optimize the benefits generated by tourism for their destination communities and ensure that it is shared equitably. By providing tools to identify and address inequality in terms of access to the benefits and value tourism generates, it is envisaged that a more equitable tourism model can be implemented leading to the fair distribution of benefits in destination communities, potentially increasing the value for previously excluded or underserved groups. To produce the roadmap, the study team will explore the range of challenges that hinder the equitable distribution of tourism-induced benefits in destinations as well as the enabling factors that influence the extent to which this is achieved. The central question the research team has set out to answer is the following: What does an equitable tourism model look like for destination communities?Societal issueHowever, while those directly involved in tourism will gain the most, the burden of hosting visitors is widely felt by local communities. This imbalance has, unsurprisingly, sparked civil mobilisations and protests in destinations around the world. It’s clear that placemaking and benefit-sharing must be part of the future of destination management to maintain public support. This project addressed issues around equity (environmental, economic, spatial, cultural and tourism experience). In line with the intentions set out in the CELTH Agenda Conscious Destinations.Benefit to societyBased on 25 case studies around 40 mechanisms were identified that can grow or better distribute the value from tourism, so that more people in destination communities benefit. These mechanisms are real-world practices already in use. DMOs and NTOs can consider introducing the mechanisms that best fit their destination context, pulling levers such as: taxes and revenue sharing, business incubation and training, licencing and zoning, community enterprises and volunteering, and product development..This report also outlines a pathway to an Equity-Driven Management (EDM) approach, which is grounded in participatory decision-making principles and aims to create a more equitable tourism system by strengthening the hand of destination governance and retaining control of local resources.Collaborative partnersNBTC, the Travel Foundation, Destination Think, CELTH, ETFI, HZ.
