A new green revolution or agribusiness as usual? Uncovering alignment issues and potential transition complications in agri-food system transitions

Agri-food system transitions are a considerable challenge requiring stakeholder alignment on what changes need to be made and how. When stakeholders do not agree on the goals or methods of a transition, this can be a serious obstacle to success. This paper analyzes 42 vision documents for the future of Dutch agriculture from a broad range of stakeholders to determine stakeholder alignment using an inductive coding approach. We identified 23 issues as the main challenges for the transition in these documents. We are the first to categorize them according to a recently proposed problem-solution space for wicked problems. Stakeholders were fully aligned in recognizing the problem for the majority of issues, but showed agreement on solutions for less than a quarter. For the issues of international orientation, sector size, and farm business models, we found a lack of consensus on the problem, indicating fundamental disagreement about the type of agricultural sector desired by stakeholders. The apparent consensus on environmental and social issues provides clear societal expectations for agronomic development and innovation, while the divergence on economic issues highlights the rift between growth-oriented paradigms and more holistic paradigms like agroecology. The crucial empirical novelty of this paper is that progress on environmental and social matters is restricted by divergent views on the economic characteristics of a future agri-food system, adding further complexity to mission-oriented transition and innovation policies.

Accounting at your service: university survival recovery and revolution from COVID-19

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the roles of accounting for university survival, recovery and revolution from the COVID-19 pandemic. It constructively critiques the use of compliance and cost-centric accounting to inform crisis response and proposes roles for accounting to better serve decision-making in a crisis. Design/methodology/approach This paper discusses limitations about how accounting information was used in a university’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper describes potential roles for accounting across crisis phases. These proposals recognise requirements arising from the university’s regulatory environment and apply concepts from intellectual capital accounting and service-dominant logic. Findings This paper proposes that in the survival phase, accounting can mitigate rash responses by clarifying the crisis’s impact and stakeholder alignment. In the recovery phase, accounting can inform resourcing decisions by balancing signals from accounting about staff expense and capital investment. In the revolution phase, accounting helps develop the business models needed to adapt to changing student needs, hybrid teaching delivery and importance of intellectual capital. Research limitations/implications The case study discusses the early stages of a university’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It does not provide a comprehensive analysis of success or failure of accounting in a crisis. The case raises directions for accounting to clarify the ambiguities in objectives and cause-and-effect relationships from the pandemic. Practical implications This paper proposes actions for accounting to support the survival, recovery and revolution of the university sector from the pandemic. The actions cover stakeholder engagement, university sector governance and strategic planning. Originality/value This paper proposes a lifecycle of accounting roles at different stages of the COVID-19 response that reflects requirements from the university’s regulatory environment and draws on intellectual capital and service-dominant logic literature.

A Boundary Tool for Multi-stakeholder Sustainable Business Model Innovation

Sustainable business model innovation cannot reach its full sustainability potential if it neglects the importance of multi-stakeholder alignment. Several studies emphasize the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration to enable sustainable business model innovation, but few studies offer guidance to companies for engaging in such a collaborative process. Based on the concept of boundary work, this study presents a tested process tool that helps companies engage with multiple stakeholders to innovate sustainable business models. The tool was developed in three iterative phases, including testing and evaluation with 74 participants in six sustainable business model innovation cases. The final process tool consists of five steps to facilitate multi-stakeholder alignment for sustainable business model innovation: (1) defining a collective ambition, (2) mapping and negotiating the changing organizational boundaries, (3) exploring opportunities and tensions for aligning stakeholders, (4) defining first interventions and (5) developing a collaboration pitch. We found that the tool enables discussions and negotiations on sensitive topics, such as power reconfigurations and mutual responsibilities to help stakeholders align. For companies, the boundary tool enriches sustainable business model innovation by offering guidance in the process of redesigning their multi-stakeholder system, assessing their own organizational boundaries, exploring, negotiating and prioritizing strategic actions based on organizational boundary changes and kick-starting new partnerships.

Facing Societal Challenges in Living Labs: Towards a Conceptual Framework to Facilitate Transdisciplinary Collaborations

Living labs are an extremely attractive open innovation landscape for collaborative research and development activities targeting the complexity of today’s societal challenges. However, although there is plenty of support for collaboration, we still lack clear guidelines to direct transdisciplinary stakeholder networks of academics and practitioners through collaboration processes in the living lab ecosystem. In other words, we lack answers to the question of “how to collaborate?” In the present paper we propose a conceptual framework defining relevant stages to initiate and facilitate transdisciplinary collaboration processes. We base our framework on collaboration challenges described in the literature, specifically the need for stakeholder alignment, as well as challenges experienced in practice, which we report through exploratory case studies. In the proposed conceptual framework, we advocate the application of co-creation methods, both at the level of the living lab (macro) and in projects (meso) within the living lab, in order to define, with all involved parties and stakeholders, the scope and strategy of the living lab and to facilitate stakeholder alignment. Additionally, we integrate an iterative approach and a feedback loop in order to account for the dynamic nature of the collaboration process and to enable reflection and evaluation.

Pandemic Considerations on Essential Oral Health Care

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic revealed a lack of consensus on the concept of essential oral health care. We propose a definition of essential oral health care that includes urgent and basic oral health care to initiate a broader debate and stakeholder alignment. We argue that oral health care must be part of essential health care provided by any health system. Essential oral health care covers the most prevalent oral health problems through an agreed-on set of safe, quality, and cost-effective interventions at the individual and community level to promote and protect oral health, as well as prevent and treat common oral diseases, including appropriate rehabilitative services, thereby maintaining health, productivity, and quality of life. By default, essential oral health care does not include the full spectrum of possible interventions that contemporary dentistry can provide. On the basis of this definition, we conceptualize a layered model of essential oral health care that integrates urgent and basic oral health care, as well as advanced/specialist oral health care. Finally, we present 3 key reflections on the essentiality of oral health care. First, oral health care must be an integral component of a health care system’s essential services, and by implication, oral health care personnel are part of the essential health care workforce. Second, not all dental care is essential oral health care, and not all essential care is also urgent, particularly under the specific risk conditions of the pandemic. Third, there is a need for criteria, evidence, and consensus-building processes to define which dental interventions are to be included in which category of essential oral health care. All stakeholders, including the research, academic, and clinical communities, as well as professional organizations and civil society, need to tackle this aspect in a concerted effort. Such consensus will be crucial for dentistry in view of the Sustainable Development Goal’s push for universal health coverage, which must cover essential oral health care.