Search results

This chapter reflects on the understanding of the phenomenon known as Smart Industry, Industry 4.0, fourth industrial revolution, and many other labels. It does so by reflecting on the issue of terminology, as well as the existing diversity regarding the description of the phenomenon. The issue of meaning is addressed by assessing the results from Culot, Nassimbeni, Orzes, and Sartor (2020) and Habraken and Bondarouk (2019) which are, subsequently, used to develop a workable description. Findings from the two assessed studies raise the question of whether a workable construction of the phenomenon is to be understood as the key technologies or the distinctive developments? A question without a definitive answer, but I will present my view by taking inspiration from the manner in which the prior industrial revolutions are commonly understood. This leads to a, still multifaceted though, more focused understanding of the phenomenon. The insights, formulated proposition and developed model stemming from the reflection of terminology and meaning of the phenomenon helps move the current technology-related phenomenon forward. They assist with the establishment of well-documented papers. A critical aspect if we aim to understand how management will look like in the era of this phenomenon.

The recent debate on smart cities research is challenged by the arrival of brand-new technologies and new ideas on their social impact. Beyond the hype and the expectations, the next generation smart cities research has to be grounded on the lessons learnt and the experience of the current extensive implementations of smart cities projects worldwide. Additionally, it is required to revisit the basic assumptions for the added value of smart cities research to the strategic blueprints around the world. This chapter is aiming to communicate a new agenda for future smart cities research including social, economic, technological, and community factors. The main contribution is organized around a framework that intends to integrate the technology sophistication, the human and social dynamics, and the strategy orientation of smart cities.

Organization and management scholars are increasingly interested in understanding how “fluid” forms of organizing contribute to the tackling of grand challenges. These forms are fluid in that they bring together a dynamic range of actors with diverse purposes, expertise, and interests in a temporary and nonbinding way. Fluid forms of organizing enable flexible participation. Yet, they struggle to gain and sustain commitment. In this case study of the SDG2 Advocacy Hub, which supports the achievement of zero hunger by 2030, we explore how the temporality of narratives contributes to actors’ commitment to tackling grand challenges in fluid forms of organizing. In our analysis, we identify three types of narratives – universal, situated, and bridging – and discern their different temporal horizons and temporal directions. In doing so, our study sheds light on the contributions by the temporality of narratives to fostering commitment to tackling grand challenges in fluid forms of organizing. It suggests the importance of considering “multitemporality,” i.e., the plurality of connected temporalities, rather than foregrounding either the present or the future.

This chapter addresses the question of what normatively binding claims can be associated with the principle of sustainability. It proposes a theoretical reading of justice that requires a new level of morality, namely a global (spatial), intergenerational (temporal) and ecological (material) extension of the scope of responsibility. This makes it plausible that responsibility for those who are distant in space and time, as well as for nature, becomes a matter of conscience. At the same time, it is shown how the binding claims resulting from the principle of sustainability can be internalised in the course of a conscience formation and how the gap between knowledge and action in questions of sustainable development can be closed by means of an emotional underpinning. Finally, it is proposed to transfer the question of conscience to spatial units and tourism through the model of ‘Destination Conscience’ and to institutionalise the idea of ‘inner commitment’ or self-commitment. One suggestion is the creation of committees that could be a collective ethical conscience for the future issues.

The production of the ‘good life’ or the ‘less bad-life’ (Berlant, 2007, 2011), especially among generations of the Marcos dictatorship and the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue revolutions (henceforth, EDSA revolutions) in the Philippines, is animated by the ‘mobility imperative’ (Farrugia, 2016). The mobility imperative includes processes that encourage or demand mobility (Farrugia, 2016) for individuals and institutions. It figures in various ‘systems of practice’ (Levitt, 1998, 2001) among families in migrant-sending communities, government and corporations that magnify how migration is the ticket to better life (McKay, 2012) or its glorification as a heroic act (de los Reyes, 2013, 2014). Among the generations of the Martial Law and the EDSA revolutions, therefore, the ‘good life’ is hinged upon departure as professionals (e.g. nurses and engineers), workers in elementary occupations (e.g. construction and domestic workers) or mail-order brides or pen pals. Put simply, the good life in these generations is a function of remittances.

This chapter examines how the contemporary generation of young people construct the ‘good life’ in differential and new terms (de los Reyes, 2023; McKay & Brady, 2005) from previous generations. Using interviews and vision boards of left-behind children (15–18 years old), it argues that left-behind children critically appraise the ‘mobility imperative’. The chapter shows that there is a growing imagination of alternatives to the migration-induced good life among left-behind children, and therefore, they gradually refuse the ‘mobility imperative’. For them, the aspired good life consists of potentially being employees or entrepreneurs in their own villages and living a life with their own families (de los Reyes, 2019, 2020).