scholarly journals Sustainable Development of Operations: Actors’ Involvement in the Process of Energy Efficiency Improvements

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6121
Author(s):  
Naghmeh Taghavi
Keyword(s):  
Energy Efficiency ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Operational Decisions ◽  
Integrative Framework ◽  
Strategic Goals ◽  
Secondary Information ◽  
Inside Out

This study empirically investigates the involvement of actors in the process of energy-efficiency improvements in operations to align strategic sustainability goals across and within operations. The study analyzes development efforts stemming from actors’ decisions and actions that contribute to the process of energy efficiency improvements using semi-structured interviews and secondary information. Data is analyzed using thematic coding. The study deepens the understanding of how firms undertake the transition towards integrating strategic goals for energy efficiency into operations by strategizing for energy efficiency improvements through actors’ involvement. By exploring actors at both strategic and operational levels, and their decisions and actions, the study includes examples of different approaches, namely, top-down vs. bottom-up and inside-out vs. outside-in, thereby conceptualizing the process of energy-efficiency improvements in terms of a framework that outlines the entities of this process. The study further provides an integrative framework for the development efforts by different actors and presents propositions for incorporating energy-efficiency improvements in daily strategic and operational decisions and actions instead of regarding it as a separate or an add-on process.

Exploring destination brand disengagement in a top-down policy context

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narcís Bassols ◽  
Thomas Leicht
Keyword(s):  
Place Branding ◽  
Field Work ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Brand Strategy ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Depth Study

Purpose This paper aims to analyze the case of Cartagena, Colombia, as a case of a failed destination branding. It also broadens the findings by connecting them to the extant literature about place branding, thus making this paper more explanatory. It tries to fit the fieldwork’s findings into the two main streams of branding research (bottom-up vs top-down). This paper also gives practical insights into the destination’s network of stakeholders and discusses ways to improve the destination’s management and branding. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a mixed methodology approach. Field work consisted of online questionnaire to hospitality employees in the city plus semi-structured interviews conducted with 18 “expert” stakeholders in the destination. This paper is of empirical nature. Findings The main cause of the destination’s brand failure is found to be the top-down approach to the place brand strategy. The literature shows that cases such as this one are more common than assumed, and a possible way out of the problem is the application of bottom-up or “mixed” approaches, as these may circumvent the problems found. Research limitations/implications Cases like this one illustrate very well a local context but might be difficult to transfer to other contexts, so the generalization power of this paper is limited to similar places in the sociopolitical sense of the term. Practical implications For place branding practitioners and destination management organizations , this paper is a call for participative approaches which include all of the stakeholders of a place. Originality/value This paper offers an in-depth study of a branding case in Latin America, a part of the world relatively unexplored in the branding literature. On the basis of the presented case, this paper pitches top-down versus bottom-up approaches. Finally, it explains the findings by connecting the place to its broad geographical context.

Sectoral energy efficiency improvements in Taiwan: Evaluations using a hybrid of top-down and bottom-up models

Energy Policy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. 1241-1255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi-Hua Wu ◽  
Chia-Hao Liu ◽  
Ming-Lung Hung ◽  
Tzu-Yar Liu ◽  
Toshihiko Masui
Keyword(s):  
Energy Efficiency ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up

The promotion of sustainable development in higher education institutions: top-down bottom-up or neither?

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 1429-1450
Author(s):  
Gisele Mazon ◽  
João Marcelo Pereira Ribeiro ◽  
Carlos Rogerio Montenegro de Lima ◽  
Brenda Caroline Geraldo Castro ◽  
José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Strategic Role ◽  
Exploratory Factorial Analysis

Purpose This paper aims to analyze the sustainability approach within higher education institutions. Universities, as institutions of knowledge, play an important and strategic role in maximizing social and economic benefits in a hands-on way. However, some studies on sustainable development and HEIs reveal a distancing between students and the application of sustainable initiatives in universities. This fact differs from the premises of the Talloires Declaration, which points to students as a community and as global leaders and ambassadors for sustainability. Design/methodology/approach This paper mapped the approaches, present in the literature, used to develop sustainable campuses and in particular the apparent dichotomy between the changes indicated as top-down or bottom-up in HEIs. To that end, scientific articles focused on sustainable actions in HEIs were analyzed to identify implementation approaches for sustainable development and student involvement in the process. Findings Results have shown that sustainability promotion models in universities generally occur in a top-down manner, where students are receptors and not sources of development for sustainable policies in universities. Thus, the authors highlight the importance of students becoming central players in sustainable initiatives. Originality/value The article becomes original when it identifies the dichotomy between top-down and bottom-up approaches. It does so through multidimensional scaling and exploratory factorial analysis in scientific articles on the topic Sustainability Funding in Higher Education. These findings show that, unlike what is discussed in the literature, sustainability promotion in universities generally occurs in a top-down manner, where students are receptors and not active agents in promoting sustainability. In response to this, the authors discussed the importance of the bottom-up approach, where they are key players.

scholarly journals Transformational Communities: A Programmatic Ambivalence as a Learning Path for the Cognitive Planet

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 152
Author(s):  
Paulo Castro Seixas ◽  
Nadine Lobner
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Learning Experiences ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
2030 Agenda ◽  
Learning Path ◽  
Development Goals

The following article outlines a proposal of a Programmatic Ambivalence as learning path, built from bottom-up and top-down Agendas (Minimalist/Maximalist) of the Sustainable Development Goals. This discussion is placed in the framework of the 2030 Agenda, as well as in the challenge of the Anthropocene. The idea of a Lobby of People is referred for the replication of learning experiences as transformational plans everywhere. To contribute to the importance of a circulation between bottom-up and top-down construction, challenging exploratory models through transformed Communities of Practices are presented.

scholarly journals Navigating the social world_July 24 2020

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Abele-Brehm ◽  
Naomi Ellemers ◽  
Susan Fiske ◽  
Alex Koch ◽  
Vincent Yzerbyt
Keyword(s):  
Social Evaluation ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Integrative Framework ◽  
Relationship Context ◽  
Stereotype Content ◽  
Subjective Weight ◽  
Agency Beliefs ◽  
New Research ◽  
Regulation Model

Social evaluation occurs at personal, interpersonal, group, and intergroup levels, with competing theories and evidence. Five models engage in adversarial collaboration, to identify common conceptual ground, ongoing controversies, and continuing agendas: Dual Perspective Model (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007); Behavioral Regulation Model (Leach et al., 2007); Dimensional Compensation Model (Yzerbyt et al., 2005); Stereotype Content Model (Fiske et al., 2002); and Agency-Beliefs-Communion Model (Koch et al., 2016). Each has distinctive focus, theoretical roots, premises, and evidence. Controversies dispute dimensions: number, organization, definition, and labeling; their relative priority; and their relationship. Our first integration suggests two fundamental dimensions: Vertical (agency, competence, “getting ahead”) and Horizontal (communion, warmth, “getting along”), with respective facets of ability and assertiveness (Vertical) and friendliness and morality (Horizontal). Depending on context, a third dimension is conservative versus progressive Beliefs. Second, different criteria for priority favor different dimensions: processing speed and subjective weight (Horizontal); pragmatic diagnosticity (Vertical); moderators include number and type of target, target-perceiver relationship, context. Finally, the relation between dimensions has similar operational moderators. As an integrative framework, the dimensions’ dynamics also depend on perceiver goals (comprehension, efficiency, harmony, compatibility), each balancing top-down and bottom-up processed, for epistemic or hedonic functions. One emerging insight is that the nature and number of targets each of these models typically examines alters perceivers’ evaluative goal, and how bottom-up information or top-down inferences interact. This framework benefits theoretical parsimony and new research.

scholarly journals Network orchestration: new role of business incubators?

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luiz Guilherme Rodrigues Antunes ◽  
Cleber Carvalho de Castro ◽  
Andrea Ap da Costa Mineiro
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Network Models ◽  
Business Networks ◽  
Business Incubators ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Network Orchestration

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the performance of incubators in the stages of formation and development of incubated business networks, especially in bottom-up and top-down network models. Design/methodology/approach The research is defined as qualitative and descriptive, with the application of multiple case studies, in which two networks of incubated businesses were investigated, one being top-down and the other bottom-up, which emerged within the incubation process of two business incubators (CIETEC and INCIT). To make the study operational, 11 semi-structured interviews were carried out and the thematic analysis of content was developed. Findings The results pointed out that in the top-down network the incubator performs a new assignment, the network orchestration, which corresponds to the actions of formation, coordination and governance of the group. In the bottom-up network, it was found that the role of the incubator was to expand the value offers usually practiced. Research limitations/implications As a limitation of the research, the very limitation of case studies is pointed out that is they do not allow for generalizations. Practical implications The research contributes to reflections on the effectiveness of the incubator and sheds light on the complementarity of networks in incubation processes, providing gains for incubators, incubated businesses and society. Originality/value The originality of this document is the new role of the incubator, which is orchestration, and its categorization. The results allow us to understand the effects of providing networks and relationships for incubated businesses. In addition, this study broadens the focus of traditional analyses of the incubator–incubated duo to consider the incubator–network–incubated trio.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document