Nick Smith, Stacey Rand, Sarah Morgan, Karen Jones, Helen Hogan and Alan Dargan
This paper aims to explore the content of Safeguarding Adult Reviews (SARs) from older adult care homes to understand how safety is understood and might be measured in practice.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to explore the content of Safeguarding Adult Reviews (SARs) from older adult care homes to understand how safety is understood and might be measured in practice.
Design/methodology/approach
SARs relevant to older adult care homes from 2015 onwards were identified via the Social Care Institute of Excellence SARs library. Using thematic analysis, initial inductive coding was mapped to a health-derived safety framework, the Safety Measurement and Monitoring Framework (SMMF).
Findings
The content of the SARs reflected the dimensions of the SMMF but gaining a deeper understanding of safety in older adult care homes requires additional understanding of how this unique context interacts with these dimensions to create and prevent risks and harms. This review identified the importance of external factors in care home safety.
Originality/value
This study provides an insight into the scope of safety issues within care homes using the SARs content, and in doing so improves understanding of how it might be measured. The measurement of safety in care homes needs to acknowledge that there are factors external to care homes that a home may have little knowledge of and no ability to control.
Details
Keywords
Unique among European Union (EU) economic governance entities and multilateral banks, the European Investment Bank (EIB) possesses a dual nature, as an EU body and a bank. The EIB…
Abstract
Purpose
Unique among European Union (EU) economic governance entities and multilateral banks, the European Investment Bank (EIB) possesses a dual nature, as an EU body and a bank. The EIB has been ever evolving to adapt to policy and market developments and to reflect the geo-economic landscape. In 2019, in association with the EU's Green Deal, the bank announced its metamorphosis into a “Climate Bank,” ending its fossil fuel lending after 2021. Additionaly, upon the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its attendant health and economy crisis, EU decision-makers have solicited the bank to support both urgent needs for tackling and countering the spread of the disease and the post-pandemic economic recovery. Nevertheless, devastated economic actors in need of assistance fall within many sectors, including some less green ones.
Design/methodology/approach
This article is grounded on agency theory for developing a generic stakeholder framework, which is then subsequently applied in investigating the EIB, in interaction with its main stakeholders.
Findings
This article investigates the EIB stakeholders in pursuing these two seemingly contradictory objectives of exclusively restricting its activity to green funding and expanding its action for achieving a broad impact in the real economy. By exploring this tension, the article argues that by prioritizing the post-COVID restart, the EIB risks to deviate from its strict green commitment.
Practical implications
The analysis of the EIB's divergent stakeholder stances demonstrates some ambivalence in future EIB activity in an effort to equipoise climate finance with a post-pandemic boost. The same ambivalence might equally occur with other major economic governance actors. The stakeholder framework developed and applied in the case of the EIB can be useful for studying also the stakeholder dynamics of other organizations.
Social implications
The analysis demonstrates a tension between selective climate-related funding for “building back better” and the need for a wide broaching of countercyclical stimulus, with implications for economic and social actors alike.
Originality/value
The approach is novel, as it develops a new analytical framework for understanding stakeholder dynamics and tests it empirically on the EIB. This constitutes the first study of EIB stakeholder management.
Details
Keywords
Abstract
Details
Keywords
Ioan Mihangel Charnley-Parry, Elias Keller, Ivan Sebalo, John Whitton, Linden J. Ball, Beth Helen Richardson and John E. Marsh
Nuclear energy is a contested topic, requiring trade-offs in energy independence, ethicality and uncertainty. Anthropogenic climate change complicates these decisions further…
Abstract
Purpose
Nuclear energy is a contested topic, requiring trade-offs in energy independence, ethicality and uncertainty. Anthropogenic climate change complicates these decisions further, with nuclear energy competing with other low-carbon and sustainable energy sources. Decisions about nuclear energy’s role, as part of a sustainable energy system, must be made in cooperation with all stakeholders. However, it is unclear how the public is involved in these decisions in the UK. This study aims to address this gap, exploring the degree to which public participation has occurred in the UK.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper conducted a scoping review of public participation in UK nuclear energy decision-making in the context of sustainable energy transitions, where the government retains and promotes nuclear energy as part of a sustainable energy system. Following a systematic literary search, this paper reviewed 28 academic and grey literature documents.
Findings
Public participation has primarily been conducted as consultations rather than active participation. There is limited evidence that consultations have meaningfully contributed to politically and socially responsible (i.e. individuals and groups working together for community benefit) decision-making, with public opinion on nuclear energy’s role being divided and is influenced by how it is framed.
Originality/value
Social aspects of nuclear energy development have historically received less attention than environmental and economic elements; the role of engagement and participation is relatively rare. Modern literature reviews in this context are largely absent, a gap this paper originally contribute to. This paper suggest ways in which how effective, inclusive engagement process could contribute to a fairer, responsible decision-making process and energy system in the UK.