Search results

Research on green certificate rankings in the MENA region primarily focuses on building scale, relying on the certified project count. This assessment approach overlooks the spatial factor, failing to capture their influence on the urban built environment, thus potentially undermining other efforts not reflected by the project count. This research aims to rank countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region based on their ongoing efforts regarding green neighbourhood certification.

This study employs a three-phase methodology to rank MENA countries' adoption of green neighbourhood certification systems: content analysis, multicriteria analysis (MCA) using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and spatial analysis.

Based on the content analysis, four major performance indicators were identified and the conventional ranking using projects count was presented. Using AHP, the MCA could rank the countries in the region according to their unique performance indicators score, clarifying the differences between conventional and AHP-based rankings. Finally, the spatial analysis phase uncovers shortcomings in the traditional ranking method, revealing inaccuracies and misrepresentations for several countries.

The study presents an innovative ranking methodology to monitor the green neighbourhood actions of countries in future development and establish a pioneering framework to evaluate the impact of green certifications within the region.

Rankings are widely regarded as particularly well-suited for capturing the public eye, which is considered a reason why they have become ubiquitous. However, we know little about how rankings direct media attention, as well as how media in turn shape and help sustain careers of specific rankings in the public over longer periods of time. To advance our understanding of the discursive dynamics at the intersection of rankings and the press, this study examines the media career of the Global Slavery Index (GSI) by analyzing 361 newspaper and magazine articles, published between the release of index’s inaugural edition in 2013 and until the end of 2019. To interpret the media coverage, the study draws attention to GSI’s universality, highly rationalized character, and a pledge to spotlight violation of the global moral order. The examination of the media coverage points to the following properties of the index as having shaped and helped sustain its career in the public: (1) repeated publication; (2) broad conceptualization of modern slavery; and (3) the construction thereof as a measurable global burden. The study finds that, throughout the period, the media were remarkably consistent in amplifying the most dramatic elements of the index. Over time, however, the index was increasingly more invoked for other purposes, usually either to lend credibility to a story or as a way of embedding local and situational concerns into global narratives.

The topic of CSR and sustainability has gained great popularity in the past 20 years, especially among companies. While companies already have some experience with various approaches and their respective results, the same have not been assessed on national level. This chapter aims at providing an answer to the question “Which governmental approach to CSR leads to better results – active or neutral?”

In the chapter, the concepts of “active” and “neutral” governmental approaches are defined and explored. Having defined and distinguished between the approaches of governments, all EU countries have been assessed and assigned an “active” or “neutral” role. As a second dimension of the study, a sustainability ranking is taken, which compares the results of the countries in fields, often addressed by CSR. The ranking of the EU countries was then compared to their role in search of dependencies.

Clear links between the sustainability results and the government approach to CSR were not established in this study. Some relationships were found between the neutral governmental role and lower sustainability results. Nevertheless, assuming an active approach does not guarantee a top position of the country.

Some of the major limitations of this work were related to the existing sustainability rankings of countries and the limited assessment of the results of governmental actions in the field of CSR. The current rankings and assessment are based on indictors, which sometimes cannot be related to governmental actions or policies, rather to the resources of the country. Additionally, there are hardly any publicly available assessments of the actions or policies of member-state governments.

A comparison of such type can be a useful guideline for governmental decision-making. A more detailed analysis of potential CSR approaches and their effectiveness can be transformed into specific recommendations to public authorities in the EU.

The topic of CSR by definition is driven by social needs and opinions. The current study can be a useful tool in public discussions of governmental policies and their potential outcomes.

This is a novel study which assigns roles to EU governments and cross-references them to existing sustainability results in an attempt to draw conclusions about policy effectiveness.

The visualization of ranking information in global public policy is moving away from traditional “league table” formats and toward dashboards and interactive data displays. This paper explores the rhetoric underpinning the visualization of ranking information in such interactive formats, the purpose of which is to encourage country participation in reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals. The paper unpacks the strategies that the visualization experts adopt in the measurement of global poverty and wellbeing, focusing on a variety of interactive ranking visualizations produced by the OECD, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation and the ‘Our World in Data’ group at the University of Oxford. Building on visual and discourse analysis, the study details how the politically and ethically sensitive nature of global public policy, coupled with the pressures for “decolonizing” development, influence how rankings are visualized. The study makes two contributions to the literature on rankings. First, it details the move away from league table formats toward multivocal interactive layouts that seek to mitigate the competitive and potentially dysfunctional pressures of the display of “winners and losers.” Second, it theorizes ranking visualizations in global public policy as “alignment devices” that entice country buy-in and seek to align actors around common global agendas.

The purpose of this paper is to measure and rank nation‐states' governance effectiveness and quality on a quantifying scientific basis, by means of data envelopment analysis.

The principles are first analyzed from a theoretical and normative standpoint, linking to earlier literature. One dimension of the approach is adding the equality in income distribution as an output. Another dimension boils down to environmental performance.

The addition of the Gini index affects the ranking of the developing countries in a more significant manner. Similar results are obtained when the authors add the environmental performance as an input. Another interesting result suggests that conventional ranking methods (i.e gross domestic product per capita or human development index) could be used for representing the country's efficiency only for developed countries.

Future research may be aimed at applying the developed methodology to more countries, both developed and developing, as well as considering inclusion of additional ranking parameters.

The obtained procedure may be regarded as a comprehensive, holistic, mostly objective, and quantifiable method of ranking countries according to their governmental performance accomplishments. The addition of the Gini index and the environmental performance influences the ranking and is a significant improvement as compared to contemporary procedures.

The innovation in this paper is that the authors suggest to measure efficiency of countries not only by their income, but also, looking on wider aspects of efficiency as equity and environmental performance.

This study aims to analyse and evaluate the methodology followed by the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings (THE-IR), as well as the coverage obtained and the data offered by this ranking, to determine if its methodology reflects the degree of sustainability of universities, and whether their results are accurate enough to be used as a data source for research and strategic decision-making.

A summative content analysis of the THE-IR methodology was conducted, paying special attention to the macro-structure (university score) and micro-structure (sustainable development goals [SDG] score) levels of the research-related metrics. Then, the data published by THE-IR in the 2019, 2020 and 2021 edition was collected via web scraping. After that, all the data was statistically analysed to find out performance rates, SDGs’ success rates and geographic distributions. Finally, a pairwise comparison of the THE-IR against the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-WUR) was conducted to calculate overlap measures.

Severe inconsistencies in the THE-IR methodology have been found, offering a distorted view of sustainability in higher education institutions, allowing different strategic actions to participate in the ranking (interested, strategic, committed and outperformer universities). The observed growing number of universities from developing countries and the absence of world-class universities reflect an opportunity for less-esteemed institutions, which might have a chance to gain reputation based on their efforts towards sustainability, but from a flawed ranking which should be avoided for decision-making.

University managers can be aware of the THE-IR validity when demanding informed decisions. University ranking researchers and practitioners can access a detailed analysis of the THE-IR to determine its properties as a ranking and use raw data from THE-IR in other studies or reports. Policy makers can use the main findings of this work to avoid misinterpretations when developing public policies related to the evaluation of the contribution of universities to the SDGs. Otherwise, these results can help the ranking publisher to improve some of the inconsistencies found in this study.

Given the global audience of the THE-IR, this work contributes to minimising the distorted vision that the THE-IR projects about sustainability in higher education institutions, and alerts governments, higher education bodies and policy makers to take precautions when making decisions based on this ranking.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this contribution is the first providing an analysis of the THE-IR’s methodology. The faults in the methodology, the coverage at the country-level and the overlap between THE-IR and THE-WUR have unveiled the existence of specific strategies in the participation of universities, of interest both for experts in university rankings and SDGs.

This study aims to examine decision factors for global sourcing, differentiated into transcontinental and continental sourcing to obtain insight into locational aspects of sourcing decisions and global trends. This study analyzed various country perceptions to reveal their influence on sourcing decisions. The country of origin (COO) theory explains why certain country perceptions and images influence purchasing experts in their selection of suppliers.

This study used a two-study approach. In Study 1, the authors conducted discrete choice card experiments with 71 purchasing experts located in Europe and the USA to examine the importance of essential decision factors for global sourcing. Given the clear evidence that location is a factor in sourcing decisions, in Study 2 the authors investigated purchasers’ perceptions and images of countries, adding country ranking experiments on various perceived characteristics such as quality, price and technology.

Study 1 provides evidence that the purchasers’ personal relationship with the supplier plays a decisive role in the supplier selection process. While product quality and location impact sourcing decisions, the attraction of the buying company and cultural barriers are less significant. Interestingly, however, these factors seem as important as price to respondents. This implies that a strong relationship with suppliers and good quality products are essential aspects of a reliable and robust supply chain in the post-COVID-19 era. Examining the locational aspect in detail, Study 2 linked the choice card experiments with country ranking experiments. In this study, the authors found that purchasing experts consider that transcontinental countries such as Japan and China offer significant advantages in terms of price and technology. China has enhanced its quality, which is recognizable in the country ranking experiments. Therefore, decisions on global sourcing are not just based on such high-impact factors as price and availability; country perceptions are also influential. Additionally, the significance of the locational aspect could be linked to certain country images of transcontinental suppliers, as the COO theory describes.

The new approach divides global sourcing into transcontinental and European sourcing to evaluate special decision factors and link these factors to the locational aspect of sourcing decisions. To deepen the clear evidence for the locational aspect and investigate the possible influence of country perceptions, the authors applied the COO theory. This approach enabled authors to show the strong influence of country perception on purchasing departments, which is represented by the locational effect. Hence, the success of transcontinental countries relies not only on factors such as their availability but also on the purchasers’ positive perceptions of these countries in terms of technology and price.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the ranking of countries based on the World Economic Forum's (WEF') competitiveness index is changed when the underlying primitive data dimensions of this composite index are aggregated using weights that are endogenously determined for each country, instead of aggregated using the WEF's fixed set of weights applied to all countries.

The paper presents a method based on data envelopment analysis to determine weights for aggregating the underlying primitive data dimensions of any composite indicator. The approach determines endogenously the “best” weights a given observational unit (e.g. country) on the basis of its revealed performance on each primitive sub‐dimension underlying a composite index. The ranking of countries based on the values of a composite competitiveness index that uses the proposed endogenous weight method is then compared to the ranking based on the WEF's competitiveness index for the year 2006. The rankings are then compared and assessed to determine if the observed difference in the rankings are statistically significant.

A comparison of the ranking of countries on the basis of the value of each index reveals that countries do undergo a change in their competitiveness rank when endogenous weights are used. The results suggest the WEF's competitiveness index, which uses the same fixed weights applied to every country (or group of countries), creates a bias that favors countries that score high on the “technology” sub‐dimension of the index.

The study presents an alternative to the current practice of using a fixed set of weights applied uniformly to the basic unit of analysis. The method serves as a starting‐point for further research on the biases created by different weighting schemes to construct a composite indicator that aggregates primitive data, with the resulting composite index values then used to rank entities.

The method to determine endogenously the weights to be applied to each unit of analysis when constructing a composite indicator is novel and has wide applicability to the general issue of comparing performance across different units of analysis based on a composite index of performance (i.e. benchmarking).

The purpose of this paper is to devise a new index of wellbeing that includes social and political in addition to economic factors. The new index seeks to assess a country's underlying “enabling environment” – the extent to which individuals are able to live as each chooses. Country rankings using this new measure (the HENX) are compared with the ranking of countries using the UN's popular indicators of development, the human development index and the HPI‐2.

The paper describes the necessity of a new index, the subcomponents used in its construction, and the method of construction.

Country rankings are sensitive to which measure is used for the ranking. In particular, the USA and UK fare poorly when ranked by the HPI‐2 but their rankings improve dramatically when the HENX is used.

If a measure of the enabling environment of a country is deemed to be important as a measure of the wellbeing of citizens, and if political and social dimensions are deemed to be important to this environment, rankings of the most developed economies by the UN fail to adequately capture the countries' relative positions.

This paper presents a model designed to evaluate the competitiveness potential of the Latin American countries and to compare the resulting rankings with the four more widely used assessment measures of a country's competitiveness, which will in turn influence its market attractiveness for investment purposes. Included here are those produced by the World Competitiveness Report, Euromoney, Institutional Investor and the Human Development Report. The proposed model is meant to assist businesses and governments in making investment location decisions for the Latin American countries.