Purpose – This paper aims to examine the definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as propagated by ISO 26000, the global comprehensive guidance standard for CSR, compare it to and position it vis-à-vis other contemporary interpretations of CSR and formulate a critique on the standard’s definition of CSR. Methodology/Approach – This paper aims to examine the definition of CSR as propagated by ISO 26000, the global comprehensive guidance standard for CSR, compare it to and position it vis-à-vis other contemporary interpretations of CSR and formulate a critique on the standard’s definition of CSR. Findings – ISO 26000’s definition of CSR is ‘out of the ordinary' when compared to instrumental CSR definitions that are currently dominant, as it propagates an explicit moral perspective on corporate responsibilities towards society. While it resembles aspects of earlier definitions of CSR, this paper argues that the standard, being the end result of a global stakeholder dialogue, tries to make a strong plea for the return of morality in the CSR debate. Also, it is concluded that the ISO 26000 definition of CSR has several shortcomings, especially on the subject of corporate governance, which are addressed. Practical/implications – While the main gist of this paper is of a theoretical nature, it may have implications for practice as well. For instance, it may inform critical examinations of corporate commitments to CSR through adopting ISO 26000, and may inform future revisions of the standard. Originality/Value – This paper is the first to examine the ISO 26000 definition of CSR in a structured and detailed way.
LINK
BACKGROUND: The available opinions regarding participation do not appear to be applicable to adults with visual and severe or profound intellectual disabilities (VSPID). Because a clear definition and operationalization are lacking, it is difficult for support professionals to give meaning to participation for adults with VSPID.AIMS: The purpose of the present study was to develop a definition and operationalization of the concept of participation of adults with VSPID.METHODS: Parents or family members, professionals, and experts participated in an online concept mapping procedure. This procedure includes generating statements, clustering them, and rating their importance. The data were analyzed quantitatively using multidimensional scaling and qualitatively with triangulation.RESULTS: A total of 53 participants generated 319 statements of which 125 were clustered and rated. The final cluster map of the statements contained seven clusters: (1) Experience and discover; (2) Inclusion; (3) Involvement; (4) Leisure and recreation; (5) Communication and being understood; (6) Social relations; and (7) Self-management and autonomy. The average importance rating of the statements varied from 6.49 to 8.95. A definition of participation of this population was developed which included these seven clusters.CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the developed definition, the clusters, and the statements in these clusters, derived from the perceptions of parents or family members, professionals, and experts, can be employed to operationalize the construct of participation of adults with VSPID. This operationalization supports professionals in their ability to give meaning to participation in these adults. Future research will focus on using the operationalization as a checklist of participation for adults with VSPID.
The research proposal aims to improve the design and verification process for coastal protection works. With global sea levels rising, the Netherlands, in particular, faces the challenge of protecting its coastline from potential flooding. Four strategies for coastal protection are recognized: protection-closed (dikes, dams, dunes), protection-open (storm surge barriers), advancing the coastline (beach suppletion, reclamation), and accommodation through "living with water" concepts. The construction process of coastal protection works involves collaboration between the client and contractors. Different roles, such as project management, project control, stakeholder management, technical management, and contract management, work together to ensure the project's success. The design and verification process is crucial in coastal protection projects. The contract may include functional requirements or detailed design specifications. Design drawings with tolerances are created before construction begins. During construction and final verification, the design is measured using survey data. The accuracy of the measurement techniques used can impact the construction process and may lead to contractual issues if not properly planned. The problem addressed in the research proposal is the lack of a comprehensive and consistent process for defining and verifying design specifications in coastal protection projects. Existing documents focus on specific aspects of the process but do not provide a holistic approach. The research aims to improve the definition and verification of design specifications through a systematic review of contractual parameters and survey methods. It seeks to reduce potential claims, improve safety, enhance the competitiveness of maritime construction companies, and decrease time spent on contractual discussions. The research will have several outcomes, including a body of knowledge describing existing and best practices, a set of best practices and recommendations for verifying specific design parameters, and supporting documents such as algorithms for verification.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
The project Decolonising Education: from Teachers to Leading Learners (DETeLL) aims to develop a multi-site approach for interventions towards inclusion and decolonisation in order to change the hierarchical nature of higher education in the Netherlands. DETeLL identifies the model of the ‘traditional teacher’ as embodying the structural exclusions and discriminations built into the classroom and proposes the figure of a ‘Leading Learner’ as a first step towards a radical change in the educational system. In collaboration with the education departments in the Theatre and Dance Academy at ArtEZ, the post-doc will build up a research and teaching programme that engages with students and teachers in the faculty to create a prototype of an inclusive and diverse educational practice. RELEVANCE: Education should be the critical space in which changes occur in order to shape best possible futures. In DETeLL’s acceptation, decolonisation refers to a complete change in the way of thinking and behaving. It does not refer only to the urgency of dealing with historical colonial legacies embedded in society, but also to the subversion of the deeply oppressive colonial culture that (also unconsciously) regulates public and private living, whether this is related to gender, race, class or sexuality issues. RESULTS: 1) Create a theory and practice-based scientific base-line of decolonisation and art education; 2) Provide a definition of ‘Artist educator as Leading Learner’ following a practice- based methodology of intervention; 3) Design and Pilot a new teaching programme for theatre education at ArtEZ to be then upscaled to all educational departments in a follow-up project); 4) Produce a strong interdisciplinary and international output plan: 3 academic publications, 2 conferences, 4 expert group workshops. NETWORK: ArtEZ; University of Amsterdam (UvA); Ghent University; UCHRI; Hildesheim University; Cape Town University. The partners will serve as steering committee through planned expert group meetings.
