Purpose: The main purpose of this thesis to explore the possible application of blockchain technology in solving issues and concerns of members and stakeholders in multi-stakeholder cooperatives, which prevent effective collaboration in governance.Design: This study is performed using an extensive literature study on blockchain technology, relevant business cases solving issues and concerns comparable to these in multi-stakeholder cooperatives and six semi-structured interviews with blockchain experts, using the business case of multi-stakeholder cooperative Gebiedscoöperatie Westerkwartier.Findings: Findings reveal blockchain-based solutions can contribute to solving existing issues and concerns in multi-stakeholder cooperatives, by implementing its main characteristics: creating transparency, immutability and distributed consensus. This results in increased trust, increased efficiency and accuracy in decision-making, decreased administrative costs due to self-executable smart contracts and enables product traceability in supply chains. However, information is retained in supply chains, preventing blockchain from reaching its full potential. In addition, smart contracts are not legally binding in all countries yet and blockchain, as most technologies, is subject to human or technical error.Value: Overall, this study contributes to understanding issues and concerns existing in multistakeholder cooperatives and the potential application and benefit of blockchain technology to solve existing issues preventing effective collaboration. Expert and participation: Jan Veuger
MULTIFILE
Inter-organizational arrangements that aim to address social and environmental “grand challenges” often take the form of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) (also cross-sector partnerships or collaborations). Grand challenges -- problems characterized by knowledge uncertainty, dynamic complexity and value conflict -- require diverse organizations to join forces to resolve them. MSIs are complex and dynamic arrangements due to the constant change occurring in the external environment and in the dynamics of the collaboration, as each participating organization may have very different frames of reference and interests that impede action and continuity. Scholars have long recognized the tensions of conflicting logics that are inherent in MSIs and the challenges that MSIs face in reconciling incongruent organizational identities, goals or shared visions. Accordingly, MSIs need facilitators (i.e., ‘orchestrators’) to navigate the persistent and pervasive challenges of both reconciling conflicting logics and using complementary logics in such a way that the collaboration achieves collective goals. Our study examines how MSI orchestrators work to meet this challenge by shaping and shifting cognitive frames in the context of a mature organizational field. We investigate the mechanisms used to enable cognitive shifts in logic and highlight the role of orchestration in enacting frame shifts. Empirically, we examine an MSI in the apparel industry that aims to guide retailers and fashion brands in the implementation of recommerce and rental business models, thereby pushing the textile and apparel industry from linear to regenerative and circular use of textile resources. We identify several frames from the perspective of diverse stakeholders and uncover the four mechanisms that orchestrators use to influence frame shifts. We also see from our findings that orchestrators efforts to influence and navigate frame shifting is both emergent and planned as they attempt to navigate and manage the tensions and complexity that arise in multi-stakeholder initiatives focused on sustainability challenges.
LINK
Inter-organizational arrangements that aim to address social and environmental “grand challenges” often take the form of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) (also cross-sector partnerships or collaborations). Grand challenges -- problems characterized by knowledge uncertainty, dynamic complexity and value conflict -- require diverse organizations to join forces to resolve them. MSIs are complex and dynamic arrangements due to the constant change occurring in the external environment and in the dynamics of the collaboration, as each participating organization may have very different frames of reference and interests that impede action and continuity. Scholars have long recognized the tensions of conflicting logics that are inherent in MSIs and the challenges that MSIs face in reconciling incongruent organizational identities, goals or shared visions. Accordingly, MSIs need facilitators (i.e., ‘orchestrators’) to navigate the persistent and pervasive challenges of both reconciling conflicting logics and using complementary logics in such a way that the collaboration achieves collective goals. Our study examines how MSI orchestrators work to meet this challenge by shaping and shifting cognitive frames in the context of a mature organizational field. We investigate the mechanisms used to enable cognitive shifts in logic and highlight the role of orchestration in enacting frame shifts. Empirically, we examine an MSI in the apparel industry that aims to guide retailers and fashion brands in the implementation of recommerce and rental business models, thereby pushing the textile and apparel industry from linear to regenerative and circular use of textile resources. We identify several frames from the perspective of diverse stakeholders and uncover the four mechanisms that orchestrators use to influence frame shifts. We also see from our findings that orchestrators efforts to influence and navigate frame shifting is both emergent and planned as they attempt to navigate and manage the tensions and complexity that arise in multi-stakeholder initiatives focused on sustainability challenges.
MULTIFILE
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology which is increasingly being utilised in society and the economy worldwide, but there is much disquiet over problematic and dangerous implementations of AI, or indeed even AI itself deciding to do dangerous and problematic actions. These developments have led to concerns about whether and how AI systems currently adhere to and will adhere to ethical standards, stimulating a global and multistakeholder conversation on AI ethics and the production of AI governance initiatives. Such developments form the basis for this chapter, where we give an insight into what is happening in Australia, China, the European Union, India and the United States. We commence with some background to the AI ethics and regulation debates, before proceedings to give an overview of what is happening in different countries and regions, namely Australia, China, the European Union (including national level activities in Germany), India and the United States. We provide an analysis of these country profiles, with particular emphasis on the relationship between ethics and law in each location. Overall we find that AI governance and ethics initiatives are most developed in China and the European Union, but the United States has been catching up in the last eighteen months.
DOCUMENT
Dit eindrapport behandelt het onderzoek van CDM@Airports, gericht op Collaborative Decision Making in de logistieke processen van luchtvrachtafhandeling op Nederlandse luchthavens. Dit project, met een looptijd van ruim twee jaar, is gestart op 8 november 2021 en geëindigd op 31 december 2023. HET PROJECT CDM@AIRPORTS OMVAT DRIE WERKPAKKETTEN: 1. Projectmanagement, dit betreft de algehele aansturing van het project incl. stuurgroep, werkgroep en stakeholdermanagement. 2. Onderzoeksactiviteiten, bestaande uit a) cross-chain-samenwerking, b) duurzaamheid en c) adoptie van digitale oplossingen voor datagedreven logistiek. 3. Management van een living lab, een ‘quadruple-helix-setting’ die fysieke en digitale leeromgevingen integreert voor onderwijs en multidisciplinair toegepast onderzoek.
MULTIFILE
Our society faces many challenges, necessitating collaborative efforts among multiple stakeholders. Our students learn this in living labs. This paper explores preliminary research on introducing co-design to novices. We introduce a case study exploring how design educators can support students in developing co-design competencies. Central to this study is our Co-Design Canvas, introduced as a pivotal tool for fostering open dialogue among diverse stakeholders. This stimulates collaboration through effective teamwork and empathic formation. The research questions aim to discover effective methods for introducing the Co-Design Canvas to living lab students, and to identify the necessary prior knowledge and expertise for both novices and educators to effectively engage with and teach the Co-Design Canvas. The paper advocates for a pedagogical shift to effectively engage students in multi-stakeholder challenges. Through a series of workshops, the Co-Design Canvas was introduced to novices. We found that this required a significant cognitive stretch for staff and students. The paper concludes by presenting a, for now, final workshop format consisting of assignments that supports introducing the Canvas and thereby co design to societal impact design novices. This program better prepares students and coaches for multi stakeholder challenges within living labs.
MULTIFILE
Energy planning in the built environment increasingly takes place in local settings. Suitable planning models should therefore be able to capture local dynamics, such as stakeholder behaviour, resource availability and building characteristics. In relation to the key challenges of energy transition in the built environment, building efficiency and renewable heating, little attention has been paid to the model characteristics needed to address these challenges. This paper analyses the characteristics of available models from the scientific community and the professional practice. Secondly, the paper reviews modelling approaches for integrating social factors within techno-economic models, as many local dynamics have a non-technical nature. Based on the gaps identified in the analysis, an analytical framework is proposed for local energy planning models for the built environment. Building characteristics, social context factors, temporal dynamics and spatial characteristics have been identified as key building blocks for a new modelling approach. To be able to deal with the socio-technical context, an integrated, socio-technical approach is suggested. This model collaboration, consisting of model calculations and empirical and participatory methods, will be capable of better supporting decision-making in a local, multistakeholdercontext.
LINK
The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can be found, or so I wish to argue. My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary (social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.
DOCUMENT
This report describes the Utrecht regio with regard to sustainability and circular business models.
DOCUMENT
Ingewikkelde vraagstukken of opgaven in het sociale, pedagogische en educatieve domein beperken zich meestal niet tot één van deze domeinen. Ze vragen om een aanpak waarbij professionals uit meerdere domeinen betrokken zijn: vanuit de verschillende disciplines, organisaties of afdelingen die er elk op hun eigen manier iets mee te maken hebben. Die samenwerking tussen de domeinen is nodig om de complexe vraagstukken rond kinderen met wie deze professionals werken, succesvol op te pakken. Maar de betrokken organisaties en professionals brengen daarbij ieder hun eigen achtergronden, werkwijzen en perspectieven mee. Sociale of culturele verschillen (zoals een andere visie, andere vaktaal, een andere manier van werken) of verschillen die vooral praktisch van aard zijn (zoals verschillende werkschema’s of systemen die niet op elkaar aansluiten) maken het soms een uitdaging om écht integraal aan gezamenlijke uitdagingen werken: vanuit een gedeelde visie, met een gedeelde aanpak, aan een gedeeld doel.
DOCUMENT
