Social return on investment & positie MKB. Welke condities vergroten voor het MKB de kans op gunning van (semi-)overheidsopdrachten met een social return doelstelling?
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is constantly gaining ground, both at domestic and international level. New forms of dispute settlement with a mix of public and private components are emerging in fields where this was not the case until recent times, as some contributions to this Zoom-out have attempted to demonstrate. In the field of investment law we have witnessed a somehow opposite trend. Traditionally, disputes in this field have been settled by means of arbitral tribunals established mostly on the basis of bilateral or multilateral investment agreements (IAs) under a variety of arbitration facilities, which are collectively referred to as investor-to-State dispute settlement (ISDS). Traditional ISDS presents many characteristics of ADR, starting from the strong role that private parties play in it (for example when it comes to the appointment of arbitrators). The practice has shown that the system has clear advantages but also undeniable disadvantages. The prevailing opinion in recent years has been that the latter considerably outweigh the former, resulting in what has been termed the backlash against investment arbitration in a volume appeared a few years ago. In this contribution, how-ever, I will not dwell on the details of the crisis that has affected investment arbitration, nor will I engage in a discussion of whether that backlash is entirely justified. My focus will be much more modest. One of the most tangible consequences of this growing dissatisfaction towards investment arbitration is the launch on the part of the EU of a court-like system to settle investment disputes –the now famous investment court system (ICS) –as a replacement to old-fashioned ISDS. The ICS now features in all EU IAs, and has become the standard position of the EU when it comes to dispute settlement in this field. Recently, the ICS has also received the green light of the European Court of Justice (ECJ),raising doubts as to whether traditional ISDS has conclusively been sent to oblivion, at least in the EU. From a political and policy perspective, it is undoubtful that there is a strong stance on the part of the EU and of its Member States against traditional ISDS. This article, however, will focus exclusively on the legal dimension, by examining whether the ECJ’s decision should be read as meaning that investment arbitration is incompatible with the EU legal system. While itis clear that Opinion 1/17 means that the ICS is compatible with EU law, it remains to be seen whether the Court’s finding allows an a contrario reading. Namely, whether it entails the incompatibility with EU law of traditional ISDS. The analysis will start with a brief summary of the events and developments that preceded the creation of the ICS and eventually led to the current situation (Section 2), followed by an examination of the relevant parts of Opinion 1/17 (Section 3). This part will be followed by an appraisal of the possible legal implications of the decision (Section 4). Some conclusions will be offered in the closing section (Section 5) in the attempt to look beyond the boundaries of EU law. Part of topic "The blurring distinction between public and private in international dispute resolution"
MULTIFILE
In this handbook we would like to inform (future) social and public professionals about the results of our extensive comparative research on welfare state reforms in Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands and UK. The research reveals how reforms take place in local practice and gives insights on the implications of social policies on people’s lives. Social policies are defined as social investment in human lives. We evaluated the implementation of social investment policies in practice and studied 20 innovative cases, 2 in each of the above-mentioned countries. Starting from these professional practices, we would like to give (future) professionals more insights in the realities of system change and the new perspectives that come out of it.
A-das-PK; een APK-straat voor rijhulpsystemen Uit recent onderzoek en vragen vanuit de autobranche blijkt een duidelijke behoefte naar goed onderhoud, reparatie en borging van de werking van Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), vergelijkbaar met de reguliere APK. Een APK voor ADAS bestaat nog niet, maar de branche wil hier wel op te anticiperen en haar clientèle veilig laten rijden met de rijhulpsystemen. In 2022 worden 30 ADAS’s verplicht en zal de werking van deze systemen ook gedurende de levensduur van de auto gegarandeerd moeten worden. Disfunctioneren van ADAS, zowel in false positives als false negatives kan leiden tot gevaarlijke situaties door onverwacht rijgedrag van het voertuig. Zo kan onverwacht remmen door detectie van een niet bestaand object of op basis van verkeersborden op parallelwegen een kettingbotsing veroorzaken. Om te kijken welke gevolgen een APK heeft voor de autobranche wil A-das-PK voor autobedrijven kijken naar de benodigde apparatuur, opleiding en hard- en software voor een goed werkende APK-straat voor ADAS’s, zodat de kansrijke elementen in een vervolgonderzoek uitgewerkt kunnen worden.
In de schoonmaakbranche is de werkdruk hoog . Hierdoor worden gebouwen dagelijks niet goed genoeg schoongemaakt. Er heerst krapte op de arbeidsmarkt. Schoonmaakwerk is vooral handmatig werk en is ook zwaar werk. De schoonmaakbranche is dringend op zoek naar technologische oplossingen die het werk in de toekomst kunnen verlichten. Eén van die technologische oplossingen is de introductie van schoonmaakrobots , die op dit moment mondjesmaat op de markt worden gebracht. Schoonmaakorganisaties weten nog niet goed hoe deze robots efficiënt in te zetten, het vergt nog veel tijd om ze te kunnen gebruiken en schoonmaakmedewerkers zijn terughoudend om ermee te werken. Het project Assisted Cleaning Robots (ACR) richt zich op de volgende onderzoeksvraag: “hoe integreer je robottechnologie in het werkproces in de schoonmaakbranche, zodat een robot enerzijds zo optimaal mogelijk het werkproces ondersteunt, en anderzijds zo optimaal mogelijk met de mens samenwerkt.” Wat hierin optimaal is en hoe dit gemeten kan worden, is onderdeel van het onderzoek en is afhankelijk van de technologische mogelijkheden, de mensen die er mee werken, en de werkomgeving. In dit project werken Fontys Hogeschool Engineering, Fontys Hogeschool Techniek & Logistiek en de Haagse Hogeschool samen met schoonmaakorganisaties CSU en Hectas en andere bedrijven (toeleveranciers van schoonmaakrobots als ontwikkelaars), nationaal samenwerkingsverband Holland Robotics en brancheorganisatie Schoonmakend Nederland. Dit project kent een looptijd van twee jaar en gaat van start op 1 november 2021. In dit project worden nieuwe schoonmaakprocessen gedefinieerd en wordt op basis van deze processen technologie ontwikkeld (waar doorgaans eerst een nieuw product wordt ontwikkeld en daarna pas gekeken naar hoe dit product in te zetten). In dit project staat de mens die met de technologie in het proces moet gaan werken centraal. De technologie en het proces worden gevalideerd middels praktijktests met de betrokken schoonmaakorganisaties, op representatieve locaties. Hieruit worden lessen getrokken voor verbeteringen.
Physical rehabilitation programs revolve around the repetitive execution of exercises since it has been proven to lead to better rehabilitation results. Although beginning the motor (re)learning process early is paramount to obtain good recovery outcomes, patients do not normally see/experience any short-term improvement, which has a toll on their motivation. Therefore, patients find it difficult to stay engaged in seemingly mundane exercises, not only in terms of adhering to the rehabilitation program, but also in terms of proper execution of the movements. One way in which this motivation problem has been tackled is to employ games in the rehabilitation process. These games are designed to reward patients for performing the exercises correctly or regularly. The rewards can take many forms, for instance providing an experience that is engaging (fun), one that is aesthetically pleasing (appealing visual and aural feedback), or one that employs gamification elements such as points, badges, or achievements. However, even though some of these serious game systems are designed together with physiotherapists and with the patients’ needs in mind, many of them end up not being used consistently during physical rehabilitation past the first few sessions (i.e. novelty effect). Thus, in this project, we aim to 1) Identify, by means of literature reviews, focus groups, and interviews with the involved stakeholders, why this is happening, 2) Develop a set of guidelines for the successful deployment of serious games for rehabilitation, and 3) Develop an initial implementation process and ideas for potential serious games. In a follow-up application, we intend to build on this knowledge and apply it in the design of a (set of) serious game for rehabilitation to be deployed at one of the partners centers and conduct a longitudinal evaluation to measure the success of the application of the deployment guidelines.
