We are currently in a transition moving from a linear economy grounded on economic value maximization based on material transformation to a circular economy. Core of this transition is organising value preservation from various yet interlinked perspectives. The underlying fundamental shift is to move away from mere financial value maximization towards multiple value creation (WCED, 1987; Jonker, 2014; Raworth, 2017). This implies moving from mere economic value creation, to simultaneously and in a balanced way creating ecological and social value. A parallel development supporting this transition can be observed in accounting & control. Elkington (1994) introduced the triple bottom line (TBL) concept, referring to the economic, ecological and social impact of companies. The TBL should be seen more as a conceptual way of thinking, rather than a practical innovative accounting tool to monitor and control sustainable value (Rambaud & Richard, 2015). However, it has inspired accounting & control practitioners to develop accounting tools that not only aim at economic value (‘single capital’ accounting) but also at multiple forms of capital (‘multi capital’ accounting or integrated reporting). This has led to a variety of integrated reporting platforms such as Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRC), Dow Jones Sustainable Indexes (DJSI), True Costing, Reporting 3.0, etc. These integrated reporting platforms and corresponding accounting concepts, can be seen as a fundament for management control systems focussing on multiple value creation. This leads to the following research question: How are management control systems designed in practice to drive multiple value creation?
MULTIFILE
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to find determinants about risk resilience and develop a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises. This approach creates the ability to respond resiliently to major environmental challenges and changes in the short term and adjust the management of the organization, and to learn and transform to adapt to the new environment in the long term while creating multiple value creation. Design/methodology: The authors present a new risk resilience approach for multiple value creation of (agricultural) enterprises, which consists of a main process starting with strategy design, followed by an environmental analysis, stakeholder collaboration, implement ESG goals, defining risk expose & response options, and report, learn & evaluate. In each step the organizational perspective, as well as the value chain/area perspective is considered and aligned. The authors have used focus groups and analysed literature from and outside the field of finance and accounting, to design this new approach. Findings: Researchers propose a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises, based on a narrative about transforming to multiple value creation, founded determinants of risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience. Originality and value: This study contributes by conceptualizing risk resilience for (agricultural) enterprises, by looking through a lens of multiple value creation in a dynamic context and based on insights from different fields, actual ESG knowledge, and determinants for risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to find determinants about risk resilience and develop a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises. This approach creates the ability to respond resiliently to major environmental challenges and changes in the short term and adjust the management of the organization, and to learn and transform to adapt to the new environment in the long term while creating multiple value creation. Design/methodology: The authors present a new risk resilience approach for multiple value creation of (agricultural) enterprises, which consists of a main process starting with strategy design, followed by an environmental analysis, stakeholder collaboration, implement ESG goals, defining risk expose & response options, and report, learn & evaluate. In each step the organizational perspective, as well as the value chain/area perspective is considered and aligned. The authors have used focus groups and analysed literature from and outside the field of finance and accounting, to design this new approach. Findings: Researchers propose a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises, based on a narrative about transforming to multiple value creation, founded determinants of risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience. Originality and value: This study contributes by conceptualizing risk resilience for (agricultural) enterprises, by looking through a lens of multiple value creation in a dynamic context and based on insights from different fields, actual ESG knowledge, and determinants for risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience.
DOCUMENT
The transition towards an economy of wellbeing is complex, systemic, dynamic and uncertain. Individuals and organizations struggle to connect with and embrace their changing context. They need to create a mindset for the emergence of a culture of economic well-being. This requires a paradigm shift in the way reality is constructed. This emergence begins with the mindset of each individual, starting bottom-up. A mindset of economic well-being is built using agency, freedom, and responsibility to understand personal values, the multi-identity self, the mental models, and the individual context. A culture is created by waving individual mindsets together and allowing shared values, and new stories for their joint context to emerge. It is from this place of connection with the self and the other, that individuals' intrinsic motivation to act is found to engage in the transitions towards an economy of well-being. This project explores this theoretical framework further. Businesses play a key role in the transition toward an economy of well-being; they are instrumental in generating multiple types of value and redefining growth. They are key in the creation of the resilient world needed to respond to the complex and uncertain of our era. Varta-Valorisatielab, De-Kleine-Aarde, and Het Groene Brein are frontrunner organizations that understand their impact and influence. They are making bold strategic choices to lead their organizations towards an economy of well-being. Unfortunately, they often experience resistance from stakeholders. To address this resistance, the consortium in the proposal seeks to answer the research question: How can individuals who connect with their multi-identity-self, (via personal values, mental models, and personal context) develop a mindset of well-being that enables them to better connect with their stakeholders (the other) and together address the transitional needs of their collective context for the emergence of a culture of the economy of wellbeing?
The Dutch Environmental Vision and Mobility Vision 2050 promote climate-neutral urban growth around public transport stations, envisioning them as vibrant hubs for mobility, community, and economy. However, redevelopment often increases construction, a major CO₂ contributor. Dutch practice-led projects like 'Carbon Based Urbanism', 'MooiNL - Practical guide to urban node development', and 'Paris Proof Stations' explore integrating spatial and environmental requirements through design. Design Professionals seek collaborative methods and tools to better understand how can carbon knowledge and skills be effectively integrated into station area development projects, in architecture and urban design approaches. Redeveloping mobility hubs requires multi-stakeholder negotiations involving city planners, developers, and railway managers. Designers act as facilitators of the process, enabling urban and decarbonization transitions. CARB-HUB explores how co-creation methods can help spatial design processes balance mobility, attractiveness, and carbon neutrality across multiple stakeholders. The key outputs are: 1- Serious Game for Co-Creation, which introduces an assessment method for evaluating the potential of station locations, referred to as the 4P value framework. 2-Design Toolkit for Decarbonization, featuring a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to guide sustainable development. 3- Research Bid for the DUT–Driving Urban Transitions Program, focusing on the 15-minute City Transition Pathway. 4- Collaborative Network dedicated to promoting a low-carbon design approach. The 4P value framework offers a comprehensive method for assessing the redevelopment potential of station areas, focusing on four key dimensions: People, which considers user experience and accessibility; Position, which examines the station's role within the broader transport network; Place-making, which looks at how well the station integrates into its surrounding urban environment; and Planet, which addresses decarbonization and climate adaptation. CARB-HUB uses real cases of Dutch stations in transition as testbeds. By translating abstract environmental goals into tangible spatial solutions, CARB-HUB enables scenario-based planning, engaging designers, policymakers, infrastructure managers, and environmental advocates.
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.
