Margherita Pongiglione, Chiara Calderini and George Bradley Guy
In seismic-prone areas, post-event operability is an important issue for steel warehouses. Even if surviving earthquakes with minimal probability of collapse, these structures…
Abstract
Purpose
In seismic-prone areas, post-event operability is an important issue for steel warehouses. Even if surviving earthquakes with minimal probability of collapse, these structures might suffer so much damage, that their repair costs would be prohibitive. Strategies for limiting the building's damaged zones to specific parts (or “fuses”) can reduce repair costs. However, the replaceable part is limited to a small portion of the structure, whereas the rest cannot be disassembled. This is an issue for structures whose life span depends more likely on economics rather than on structural performances. Therefore, making them easily disassembled would be an advantage not only in seismic areas but also in any industrialized area. The purpose of this paper is to explore the “Design for Disassembly” (DfD) approach to complement seismic design and find a compromise between them.
Design/methodology/approach
In this work, one single type of structures was analysed (the moment-resisting frame), focusing on the design of a “disassemblable” seismic-resistant steel connection. The design process involved several iterations until an “optimum” compromise between seismic design and DfD was met.
Findings
This study shows that a compromise between seismic design and DfD is possible. In this case, the compromise was achieved at the expenses of more complex design calculations and a greater number of components than standard connections. However, this would be compensated for by a higher residual value for the entire structure.
Originality/value
Eventually, it was proved that a metric for assessing DfD steel connections is possible, but structural analyses are needed to validate it.
Details
Keywords
Chiara Andreoli, Chiara Cremasco, Camilla Falivena and Sandro Brunelli
As financial firms incorporate impact strategies more extensively into their operations, they are asked to sustain their impact claims and thus face increased risks of regulatory…
Abstract
Purpose
As financial firms incorporate impact strategies more extensively into their operations, they are asked to sustain their impact claims and thus face increased risks of regulatory scrutiny and lawsuits from private and public parties. The lack of reliable frameworks to measure impact gives rise to phenomena like impact washing, leading to litigations. This article aims to explore the main factors contributing to the impact litigation risk and the mechanisms employed by practitioners in the impact investing field to navigate and address this challenge.
Design/methodology/approach
We conducted semi-structured interviews involving three impact investors and three impact lawyers with specific knowledge of ESG and impact controversies, adopting the Gioia Methodology for the analysis. We triangulated such information with the analysis of secondary data.
Findings
The “great noise” around the impact investing world and the rise of impact washing, the lack of shared standards for measuring impacts and the misalignment of interests among actors involved in the initiatives constitute a potential “litigation bomb”. Such a scenario is detrimental to an investment strategy, which has the potential to tackle societal issues.
Originality/value
This study represents an initial effort to connect the academic debate on impact litigation with the expert’s active “on-field” standpoints. The identified and validated drivers of impact litigations provide valuable insight to enhance the governance and accountability of impact investing. Implementing Impact Measurement and Management (IMM) tools, participatory governance models, clear impact-focused contracts and a proactive approach could serve as prospective solutions to mitigate the risk of disputes.