Literature on the relationship between sustainability and human resource management (HRM) is just emerging. This chapter examines the role of the HRM function in advancing the sustainability agenda in the hotel industry. Drawing on 18 interviews with human resource managers (specialists), managers and employees drawn from 12 large and medium hotels in the Netherlands, this chapter reveals that HR professionals perform five different roles - of a coach, facilitator, architect, leader and custodian of sustainability conscience. These roles are based on Ulrich and Beatty’s (2001) model of HRM. It further shows that the propensity of human resource professionals to perform such roles is influenced by two major organisational contextual factors such as: a.) the sophistication of the HRM function and its relative position within the hotel’s decision-making structures; and b.) the stage of development of the hotel’s sustainability agenda. The chapter then concludes by highlighting implications for theory and practice.
Purpose: Self-managed institutional homeless programmes started as an alternative to regular shelters. Using institutional theory as a lens, we aim to explore the experiences of stakeholders with the institutional aspects of a self-managed programs.Method: The data we analysed (56 interviews, both open and semi-structured) were generated in a longitudinal participatory case-study into JES, a self-managed homeless shelter. In our analysis we went back and forth between our empirical data and theory, using a combination of systematic coding and interpretation. Participants were involved in all stages of the research.Results: Our analysis revealed similarities between JES and regular shelters, stemming from institutional similarities. Participants shared space and facilities with sixteen people, which caused an ongoing discussion on (enforcement of) rules. Participants loathed lack of private space. However, participants experienced freedom of choice over both their own life and management of JES and structures were experienced more fluid than in regular care. Somestructures also appeared stimulated self-management.Conclusion: Our analysis showed how an institutional context influences self-management and suggested opportunities for introducing freedom and fluidity in institutional care.
A decade ago many gushed at the possibilities of 3D printers and other DIY tech. Today makers are increasingly shaking off their initial blind enthusiasm to numerically control everything, rediscovering an interest in sociocultural histories and futures and waking up to the environmental and economic implications of digital machines that transform materials. An accumulation of critique has collectively registered that no tool, service, or software is good, bad, or neutral—or even free for that matter. We’ve arrived at a crossroads, where a reflective pause coincides with new critical initiatives emerging across disciplines.What was making? What is making? What could making become? And what about unmaking? The Critical Makers Reader features an array of practitioners and scholars who address these questions. Together, they tackle issues of technological making and its intersections with (un)learning, art and design, institutionalization, social critique, community organizing, collaboration, activism, urban regeneration, social inequality, and the environmental crisis.
MULTIFILE
