Background and Aim: Caregivers in the home environment have an important role in timely detecting and responding to abuse. The aim of this review was to provide insight into both the existing tools for the assessment of and interventions for elder abuse by formal and informal caregivers in the home environment, and to categorize them according to a public health perspective, into primary, secondary, tertiary or quaternary prevention. Methods: We selected the assessment tools and interventions that can be used by caregivers in the home environment included in previous reviews by Gallione et al (2017) and Fearing et al (2017). To identify published studies after these reviews, a search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Database, CINAHL and Web of Science. Results: In total, fifteen assessment tools and twelve interventions were included. The number of assessment tools for elder abuse for use in the home environment is increasing; however, tools must be validated over different cultures and risk groups. In addition, the tools lack attention for the needs of vulnerable older persons such as persons with dementia. Existing interventions for caregivers in the home environment lack evidence for addressing elder abuse and do not address potential adverse effects (quaternary prevention). Conclusion: Assessment tools for elder abuse need further testing for validity and reliability for use by caregivers in the home environment. For interventions, meaningful outcome measures are needed. Important to note is that quaternary prevention requires more attention. This argues for taking into account perspectives of (abused) older persons and caregivers in the development of assessment tools and interventions protocols.
Living labs are complex multi-stakeholder collaborations that often employ a usercentred and design-driven methodology to foster innovation. Conventional management tools fall short in evaluating them. However, some methods and tools dedicated to living labs' special characteristics and goals have already been developed. Most of them are still in their testing phase. Those tools are not easily accessible and can only be found in extensive research reports, which are difficult to dissect. Therefore, this paper reviews seven evaluation methods and tools specially developed for living labs. Each section of this paper is structured in the following manner: tool’s introduction (1), who uses the tool (2), and how it should be used (3). While the first set of tools, namely “ENoLL 20 Indicators”, “SISCODE Self-assessment”, and “SCIROCCO Exchange Tool” assess a living lab as an organisation and are diving deeper into the organisational activities and the complex context, the second set of methods and tools, “FormIT” and “Living Lab Markers”, evaluate living labs’ methodologies: the process they use to come to innovations. The paper's final section presents “CheRRIes Monitoring and Evaluation Tool” and “TALIA Indicator for Benchmarking Service for Regions”, which assess the regional impact made by living labs. As every living lab is different regarding its maturity (as an organisation and in its methodology) and the scope of impact it wants to make, the most crucial decision when evaluating is to determine the focus of the assessment. This overview allows for a first orientation on worked-out methods and on possible indicators to use. It also concludes that the existing tools are quite managerial in their method and aesthetics and calls for designers and social scientists to develop more playful, engaging and (possibly) learning-oriented tools to evaluate living labs in the future. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mari-genova-17a727196/?originalSubdomain=nl
From the article: "After 1993, the concept of strategic alignment is evaluated from the connection between IT and business to much broader definitions in which the connection between all business functions, horizontally and vertically, and later also with projects and stakeholders is mentioned. To achieve stategic alignment there must be a coordination between the strategy of organizations and those who contribute to the implementation of the strategy and the actual performance of an organization. This process is called Human Oriented Performance Management (HOPM). The HOPM model consists of four dimensions: strategy translation, information and visualization, dialogue and action orientation, and continues improvement and organizational learning. To measure the effect of strategic alignment a range of financial performance indicators are used. Based on a literature review this paper explores which financial performance indicators could be used to measure the effect of HOPM. The literature was selected over a period from 1996 – 2015. The research is not only focused on the top of the strategy map, but also on the cause-effect relationships in the strategy map. The underlying performance indicators in the strategy map can show on which figures the dialogue in the HOPM model about strategy implementation must be based. This dialogue is the input to action in which strategic alignment comes about. The goal of the research is to optimize this dialogue by looking for performance indicators that can show the effect of HOPM" The article is used for the course: 'corporate policy' minor MSMM (Masterclass Strategic Marketing Management).
The project is a field study for several diverse hotel chains, including individual properties operated under the Marriott brand, Postillion Hotels. Each brand has unique values, missions, and visions. Therefore, this integration will lead to the development of company-specific sustainability strategies and processes. The study will use the model of levers of control to provide such tailor-made solutions and determine if a generic approach can be developed to match a corporate sustainability strategy with a corporate strategy and develop a supporting management control system for operationalizing the sustainability strategy. Research question: How can a hotel brand formulate and implement a sustainability strategy with a supporting management control system that not only complies with the new CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) legislation but also emphasizes the creation of substantial value in financial and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) aspects, based on double materiality, in line with the organization's corporate values and beliefs? Objective The aim is to develop a validated method, including tools, that hotels can use to create a sustainability strategy in line with the CSRD guidelines. This strategy should create value for the organization, the environment, and society, while aligning with the hotel's values and beliefs. Merely being compliant with the CSRD is not enough for hotels. Instead, they should view the implementation of the CSRD as an opportunity to stand out in terms of sustainability. By creating value in areas such as environment, safety, and governance, or through the six capitals (financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and relationship, and natural) that align with the UN-SDGs, and explicitly taking both an inside-out and an outside in perspective (double materiality), hotels can significantly enhance their sustainability reputation.
In order to achieve much-needed transitions in energy and health, systemic changes are required that are firmly based on the principles of regard for others and community values, while at the same time operating in market conditions. Social entrepreneurship and community entrepreneurship (SCE) hold the promise to catalyze such transitions, as they combine bottom-up social initiatives with a focus on financially viable business models. SCE requires a facilitating ecosystem in order to be able to fully realize its potential. As yet it is unclear in which way the entrepreneurial ecosystem for social and community entrepreneurship facilitates or hinders the flourishing and scaling of such entrepreneurship. It is also unclear how exactly entrepreneurs and stakeholders influence their ecosystem to become more facilitative. This research programme addresses these questions. Conceptually it integrates entrepreneurial ecosystem frameworks with upcoming theories on civic wealth creation, collaborative governance, participative learning and collective action frameworks.This multidisciplinary research project capitalizes on a unique consortium: the Dutch City Deal ‘Impact Ondernemen’. In this collaborative research, we enhance and expand current data collection efforts and adopt a living-lab setting centered on nine local and regional cases for collaborative learning through experimenting with innovative financial and business models. We develop meaningful, participatory design and evaluation methods and state-of-the-art digital tools to increase the effectiveness of impact measurement and management. Educational modules for professionals are developed to boost the abovementioned transition. The project’s learnings on mechanisms and processes can easily be adapted and translated to a broad range of impact areas.
Collaborative networks for sustainability are emerging rapidly to address urgent societal challenges. By bringing together organizations with different knowledge bases, resources and capabilities, collaborative networks enhance information exchange, knowledge sharing and learning opportunities to address these complex problems that cannot be solved by organizations individually. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the apparel sector, where examples of collaborative networks for sustainability are plenty, for example Sustainable Apparel Coalition, Zero Discharge Hazardous Chemicals, and the Fair Wear Foundation. Companies like C&A and H&M but also smaller players join these networks to take their social responsibility. Collaborative networks are unlike traditional forms of organizations; they are loosely structured collectives of different, often competing organizations, with dynamic membership and usually lack legal status. However, they do not emerge or organize on their own; they need network orchestrators who manage the network in terms of activities and participants. But network orchestrators face many challenges. They have to balance the interests of diverse companies and deal with tensions that often arise between them, like sharing their innovative knowledge. Orchestrators also have to “sell” the value of the network to potential new participants, who make decisions about which networks to join based on the benefits they expect to get from participating. Network orchestrators often do not know the best way to maintain engagement, commitment and enthusiasm or how to ensure knowledge and resource sharing, especially when competitors are involved. Furthermore, collaborative networks receive funding from grants or subsidies, creating financial uncertainty about its continuity. Raising financing from the private sector is difficult and network orchestrators compete more and more for resources. When networks dissolve or dysfunction (due to a lack of value creation and capture for participants, a lack of financing or a non-functioning business model), the collective value that has been created and accrued over time may be lost. This is problematic given that industrial transformations towards sustainability take many years and durable organizational forms are required to ensure ongoing support for this change. Network orchestration is a new profession. There are no guidelines, handbooks or good practices for how to perform this role, nor is there professional education or a professional association that represents network orchestrators. This is urgently needed as network orchestrators struggle with their role in governing networks so that they create and capture value for participants and ultimately ensure better network performance and survival. This project aims to foster the professionalization of the network orchestrator role by: (a) generating knowledge, developing and testing collaborative network governance models, facilitation tools and collaborative business modeling tools to enable network orchestrators to improve the performance of collaborative networks in terms of collective value creation (network level) and private value capture (network participant level) (b) organizing platform activities for network orchestrators to exchange ideas, best practices and learn from each other, thereby facilitating the formation of a professional identity, standards and community of network orchestrators.
