Search results

Surveys measuring consumers’ preferences for sustainable food might suffer from socially desirable responding. Social desirability stems in part from social norms about sustainable lifestyles, when respondents need approval from others and when privacy is not guaranteed during survey completion. While various studies showed this phenomenon through laboratory experiments and by comparing different modes of survey administration, no research adopted factorial survey experiments (FSEs) to measure which factors are perceived by consumers as critical for socially desirable answering. The purpose of this paper is to fill this gap, at least for young consumers in a case study with organic fruit.

In total, 143 under-30 respondents were involved in an FSE. Each respondent evaluated six hypothetical scenarios (n=858) describing a consumer surveyed about his/her preferences for organic fruit. Respondents indicated whether they believed participants would have answered honestly or not to the survey described in each scenario. Generalized linear mixed models were used to model how scenario attributes were perceived to influence honest answering.

Respondents believe that people are more prone to bias their answers the more they seek approval from others. Moreover, the presence of acquaintances during survey completion is another critical driver of survey misreporting.

This study, by using a novel robust quasi-experimental approach, confirms that social desirability could lead consumers to misreport their preferences when surveyed about an organic fruit. This confirms that well-designed surveys, adopting proper remedies for social desirability should be adopted even for those food products, like fruit, which are usually deemed to be less subjected to misreporting. It also introduces FSEs as a flexible tool for collecting insights from consumers about potential antecedents of their behavior.

The relation between sport and sustainability is a topic that has recently raised a lot of interest among both academics and practitioners. However, in the academic literature, very few studies have investigated which solutions are implemented in football, despite its popularity, to reduce the environmental impact of its events. This study contributes to filling this gap by exploring how stadium managers tackle environmental issues for football events.

The authors have analyzed 94 sustainability reports of major sports events and conducted 6 case studies in 6 different major league stadiums around Europe in the framework of research supported by UEFA and three EU National Football Associations.

The heterogeneity of practices and goals at both the governance and operational level denote that stadium managers pursue environmental objectives mainly voluntarily and under local pressures. Efforts toward environmental improvement appear to depend on an economic and efficiency rationale, which translates into the adoption of technologies and operational practices characterized by short-term economic returns (i.e. energy and resources savings). As a result, operational practices outnumber governance-level practices.

The analysis clearly highlights that the fragmentation of operational practices derives from a lack of maturity of governance structures, especially when multiple actors have different – yet mutually influencing – responsibilities on the infrastructures or the planning and staging of football events.

Building on the notion of the holistic approach to environmental sustainability in sport management the research differentiated environmental practices according to the operational and governance dimensions. While operational practices tackle environmental aspects directly associated with football events (e.g. waste, energy consumption, water usage, etc.), governance-level practices relate to the systemic allocation of environmental roles and responsibilities within the management structure underlying football events.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how sustainable entrepreneurs (SEs) address the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive institutional pillars when operating in conservative contexts. It aims to study in depth the use of sustainable innovation (SI) as a means of increasing legitimacy within the institutions, thus triggering an institutional change.

The paper opted for an exploratory study on the Tuscan geothermal heat pumps market, which presents a promising but still largely unexploited sustainability potential despite its low institutional support, using the open-ended approach of grounded theory. The data include interviews and archive data, such as newspapers, magazines.

The paper provides empirical insights on how sustainable institutional entrepreneurs (SIEs) have developed innovative business models based on direct relationship with the final customers and strategic partnerships as a means of increasing legitimacy within the normative and cultural-cognitive institutions, and subsequently in the regulative institutions, through: innovative value propositions aimed at changing industry norms and social beliefs; increasing the private benefit of innovative sustainable business models in order to trigger imitation dynamics; inter-sector strategic partnerships sharing the same sustainability objectives; the inclusion of the relevant actors in relation to the social norms and cultural-cognitive barriers in a value proposition. On the basis of these findings a model has been developed.

The study enriches the sustainable entrepreneurship research stream by providing empirical evidence on how SEs foster changes in the three institutional pillars with SI. It also contributes to the institutional entrepreneurship research by extending the results of previous studies regarding institutional tactics.

The paper could help SIEs prioritizing changes in value propositions and strategic partnerships to create market-based coalitions, as a means of institutional legitimization for SI.

The study illustrates the relationship between the sustainable institutional entrepreneurial practices and each institutional pillar, including the cultural-cognitive institutions, which have been neglected in previous research. This allows formulating five key propositions that guide SEs in succeeding as both sustainable and institutional entrepreneurs.

This paper aims to investigate the interlinks between different forms of organisational culture (OC), supply chain (SC) integration, green supply chain management (GSCM) practices. It adopts a green human resource management (GHRM) perspective on knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) dynamics to shed light on the drivers that facilitate the implementation of green practices along with the SC.

The study adopts a quantitative approach through a survey administered to 381 formally appointed Italian SC managers, combining two methodological approaches, namely, the collection of self-reported information regarding the perceived OC, SC integration and GSCM practices in respondent’s organisations and an experimental design aimed at collecting the expected links between GHRM and the firm’s performance in different neutral conditions.

The results highlight that it is necessary to observe the disaggregated paths that link the different types of OC and dimensions of SC integration to benefit from a path-specific rationale for each GSCM practice. Insights on how different dimensions of SC integration mediate the relations between different OCs and GSCM practices, in the light of the role played by KSAs in the pursuit of the firm’s sustainable performance, reveal the relative importance of establishing strong relationships with customers and among the actors involved in the production process.

This paper provides directions for collaboration among SC and HR managers in the pursuit of GSCM.

This paper adopts an original classification of both OC and SC integration, identifying the existence of previously unrevealed nexuses. Additionally, it provides an original contribution to the extant literature by separately analysing each GSCM practice and, thus, offering detailed insights on their drivers.

Among world’s economies, the circular economy (CE) has become popular especially in the European Union and China, which opens several opportunities for sustainability leaders to gain a first-mover advantage and, consequently, to pursue organizational sustainability and growth. In spite of public policy support, since CE often requires entrepreneurial innovation among complex networks of companies, most companies are still learning how to manage knowledge dynamics at the inter-organization level. The chapter starts by defining the key characteristics of CE and identifying the peculiarities in terms of inter-firm cooperative and competitive relations, which help in delineating contributions from the green supply chain literature. The second section shows – through the discussion of term maps – how multiple- and inter-disciplinary streams of research are increasingly linked by hard (i.e., information communication technologies based) and soft (i.e., relational and organizational) aspects of knowledge management. The third section provides a discussion on key hard and soft factors that characterize four knowledge dynamics, i.e., knowledge creation, knowledge storage, knowledge transfer, and knowledge sharing that can improve the adoption and integration of circular processes within inter-organizational coopetitive strategies. Particular attention is here given to the cross-analysis of outcomes from theoretical papers, case studies, and quantitative empirical researches that contribute to shaping relations between internal and external factors that might play as predictors of a successful implementation of CE principles. Finally, the last section concludes with recommendations for improving organizational and managerial capabilities to manage inter-firm knowledge dynamics while pursuing CE objectives in international business environments. Beside this guidance for practitioners, directions for further research are suggested for each pillar of the emerging conceptual model.

The chapter presents recent development in the field of entrepreneurship education of several European universities – partners within Erasmus+ project on blended learning entrepreneurship course development, covering subjects from everyday instructional and practical approaches to support (under)graduate entrepreneurship and theoretical connections with modern worldwide educational and socioeconomic policies. Theoretical overview of the subject of entrepreneurship education is presented in the first part, and in the second part, good practice of BLUES Entrepreneurship course is discussed (BLUES Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union: Blended-learning international entrepreneurship skills programme; European Entrepreneurship Experience project). The chapter discusses the needs of universities and university professors and entrepreneurship instructors by highlighting how blended learning addresses some challenges of entrepreneurship education implementation while also brings some new challenges in managing such a course. Blended learning is suggested as a conducive environment for entrepreneurial learning in both academic and nonacademic settings. Based on the presented methodology entrepreneurship professors are able to implement and/or adjust the BLUES methodology within their own course, parts of it or the whole course that is provided through online massive open online courses (MOOCs) and toolkit for face-to-face exercises in class. Chapter provides a systematic and integrated perspective with relevance for business students, educators and policymakers.

This study investigates the variables that play a role in the purchase intention of a hot beverage at a vending machine (1) served in a 100% recyclable plastic single-use cup, (2) served in a biodegradable paper single-use cup and (3) served in personal, reusable cups brought by customers. The variables considered are perceived environmental benefits (PEBs), perceived contamination risk (PCR), social norms (SNs), value for money (VM), gender and age. The secondary objective is to investigate respondents’ perceptions of these cups using the first four variables and to assess the existence of significant differences among them.

For the first purpose, three separate logistic regression models on purchase intention were created, considering PEBs, PCR, SNs, VM, gender and age as independent variables. For the second purpose, the analysis relied on Friedman’s nonparametric test. The entire survey was conducted in Italy on a sample of 1,006 consumers.

SNs and VM are the variables with the greatest influence on final purchase intention. PEBs seem to have an effect only in the case of the plastic and paper single-use cups, while PCR only in the case of the reusable cup. Neither gender nor age seem to play a significant role in final purchase intention. Friedman’s test revealed significant differences among the three cup types in terms of perceptions, but not in the case of the PCR variable.

The study is the first to compare new single-use cups with reusable cups from vending machines in terms of consumers’ perceptions and preferences.

There is currently a wide range of methods for measuring social impact. Each method uses specific indicators, mainly because of the diverse characteristics of social enterprises (SEs) and the type of impact that is analysed, thus hindering the definition of a single, shared measurement system and, at the same time, prompting the proliferation of countless alternative methods. Many enterprises experience difficulties in selecting the best method to carry out the measurement process correctly. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to filling in conceptual gaps inherent to measuring impact and value creating in the domain of social entrepreneurship (SE), as well as equipping the social entrepreneur with better knowledge of the methodologies available for measuring impact and supporting their decision-making process.

The aims of this paper are, therefore, threefold: to identify the common conditions of how to measure social impact (literature); to analyse how measurement is actually undertaken in practice (process); and to compare the four main methodologies, among the numerous ones, that have been developed to measure the impact generated by SEs so far (methods and comparison). The authors compared four of the most commonly used methodologies in the field of social impact measurement, analysing advantages, disadvantages and application fields. They evaluated whether a method can be considered preferable to others in each case.

The paper demonstrated the high fragmentation that characterised the existing literature concerning the measurement of social impact and the wide range of methodologies used, thus leading to a great confusion in regard to the selection of the most appropriate methodology for the pursuit of one's own ends. This often discourages the undertaking of the measurement process. The analysis used in this paper leads us to conclude that the social return on investment method is more popular than the other three alternatives.

There are significant deficiencies in methodologies adopted, and researchers must use innovative, situated approaches that fit with the SE literature. The authors concluded that for the future, there is a need to do a SLR in a disciplined way. Further research is strongly recommended in this area, to provide more comparative studies of existing methods. It is hoped that enterprises can be directed towards using a limited range of formal methods that can capture the diversity of the various application cases, thus making it possible to compare different situations: a limited range of formal methods that can capture the diversity of the SEs considered and the impacts generated will be promoted.

The authors also want to analyse how the SEs concretely realise the measurement of their impact that often do not use the formal methodologies presented in the literature but rather tools created by the ad hoc companies on the basis of their specific needs.

This paper makes a theoretical contribution to the literature of the theory on social value within the SE field by having regard to how to measure social impact. It partially responds to Choi and Majumdar’s (2014) and Hlady-Rispal and Servantie’s (2016) calls for the development of a theory of measuring social value.