Search results

The “Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer” obliges industrial countries to reimburse developing countries ‐ through new and additional resources ‐ all agreed incremental costs incurred by them in their efforts to save the ozone layer. To this end, a multilateral fund was established in 1990. The fund’s decision‐making procedures grant developing countries the same voting powers as industrial countries ‐ an almost revolutionary precedent in North‐South relations. In this article, the work of the Multilateral Ozone Fund is being analysed, with special emphasis on the development and implementation of the notion of “all agreed incremental costs” between industrial and developing countries. Since comparable institutional settings have been stipulated in the more recent treaties on climate change and biological diversity, in the concluding section five “lessons” are drawn from ozone politics for other international environmental agreements, in particular the emerging climate regime.

With the irresistible growth in digitization, data backup policies become essential more than ever for organizations seeking to improve reliability and availability of organizations' information systems. However, since backup operations do not come free, there is a need for a data-informed policy to decide how often and which type of backups should be taken. In this paper, the authors present a comprehensive mathematical framework to explore the design space for backup policies and to optimize backup type and interval in a given system. In the authors' framework, three separate cost factors related to the backup process are identified: backup cost, recovery cost and data loss cost. The objective function has a multi-criteria structure leading to a backup policy minimizing a weighed function of these factors. To formalize the cost and objective functions, the authors get help from renewal theory in reliability modeling. The authors' optimization framework also formulates mixed policies involving both full and incremental backups. Through numerical examples, the authors show how the authors' optimization framework could facilitate cost-saving backup policies.

The methodology starts with designing different backup policies based on system parameters. Each constructed policy is optimized in terms of backup period using renewal theory. After selecting the best back-up policy, the results are demonstrated through numerical studies.

Data backup polices that are tailored to system parameters can result in significant gains for IT (Information Technology) systems. Collecting the necessary parameters to design intelligent backup policies can also help managers understand managers' systems better. Designed policies not only provides the frequency of back up operations, but also the type of backups.

The original contribution of this study is the explicit construction and determination of the best backup policies for IT systems that are prone to failure. By applying renewal theory in reliability, the authors present a mathematical framework for the joint optimization of backup cost factors, i.e. backup cost, recovery time cost and data loss cost.

When considering a price decrease in response to competitive pressures or stagnating demand, management may ask how much additional volume must be sold at the new price to match the current profit level. This “iso‐profit” pricing problem has been studied extensively for single items manufactured using one resource. This paper solves three realistic extensions of the problem: when two or more items share a resource, when multiple items share multiple resources, and when resource vendors offer quantity discounts. Findings are summarized in 12 points, many of which are counterintuitive.

Use of the cumulative average cost start‐up formula as the standard (instead of the traditional incremental cost or unit cost formula) allows the derivation of cumulative total costs and marginal unit costs. Accurate incremental costs can also be obtained by taking the difference between cumulative total costs at the upper and lower points of the increment. Furthermore, look‐up tables (commonly used with the traditional approach) are no longer needed.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how a substantial organization gradually builds a management accounting system from scratch, changing its accounting routines by learning processes. The paper uses the experiential learning theory and the concept of learning style to investigate the learning process during management accounting change. The study aims to expand the domain of management accounting change theory to emphasize the learning-related aspects that can constitute it.

The paper provides an interpretation of management accounting change based on the model of problem management proposed by Kolb (1983) and the theory of experiential learning (Kolb, 1976, 1984). The study is based on a 14-year longitudinal case study (1994‐2007). The case examined can be considered a theory illustration case. Data were obtained from a broad variety of sources including interviews, document analysis and adopting an interventionist approach during the redesign of the costing system.

The paper contributes to two important aspects of management accounting change. First, it becomes apparent that the costing information change was not a discrete event but a process of experience and learning conducted through several iterations of trial-and-error loops that extended over the years. Second, the findings reveal that the learning process can alter management accounting system design in a radical or incremental way according to the learning style of the people involved in the process of change.

Because of the adopted research approach, results could be extended only to other organizations presenting similar characteristics. Several further areas of research are suggested by the findings of this paper. In particular, it would be of interest to investigate the links between learning styles and communication and its effect on management accounting change.

The paper includes implications for the management of learning during management accounting change, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this process.

This paper is one response to the call for an interdisciplinary research approach to the management accounting change phenomena using a “method theory” taken from the discipline of management to provide an explanation of the change in management accounting. In respect of the previous literature, it provides two main contributions, namely, the proposal of a model useful both to interpret and manage learning processes; the effect of learning style on management accounting routines change.

Traditionally, firms have been dependent on internal sources such as their own employees – and up to a certain extent, on some external sources, their customers – for innovation. However, in the current scenario of technological dynamism, firms are exploring multiple sources to generate ideas for innovation. Therefore, there is a need to understand the relative effect of various sources of innovations on a firm’s performance.

We offer a conceptual framework where we identify six distinct sources of innovations – firm, customers, external network, competition, macro-environment, and technology and how they create value for focal firms especially their brand equity. We introduce a taxonomy of various costs and benefits related to innovations. We then argue using our proposed taxonomy to understand the relative strengths of various sources of innovation affecting a firm’s brand equity.

We discuss and compare the relative effects of these sources of innovations on a firm’s brand equity by rank-ordering the sources. The customers and the technology as a source of innovation have the maximum impact on the firm’s brand equity followed by the marginal impact of macro-environment and external network of a firm. The firm itself has a moderate impact on its brand equity, while competition has the minimal impact. Further, we also discuss how the relationship is moderated by different innovation characteristics (nature and type of innovations).

The main practical implication is to create awareness among managers about various costs and benefits of the proposed six sources of innovations and their effects on brand equity. Managers would be able to prioritize their sources of innovation based on firms’ current needs, and whether to focus on lower costs or building higher brand equity in the scarce resource environment.

We offer a comprehensive list of six sources of innovation, build a conceptual framework wherein we discuss the relative strengths of these sources affecting brand equity.

Climate finance is regularly not only seen as a tool to efficiently combat global warming but also to solve development problems in the recipient countries and to support the attainment of sustainable development goals. Thereby, conflicts between distributive and allocative objectives arise, which threaten the overall performance of such transfer schemes. Given the severity of the climate change problem, this study aims to raise concerns about whether the world can afford climate transfer schemes that do not focus on prevention of (and adaptation to) climate change but might be considered as a vehicle of rent-seeking by many agents.

Future designs of international transfer schemes within the framework of the Paris Agreement are to be based on experience gained from existing mechanisms. Therefore, the authors examine different existing schemes using a graphical technique first proposed by David Pearce and describe the conflicts between allocative and distributional goals that arise.

In line with the famous Tinbergen rule, the authors argue that other sustainability problems and issues of global fairness should not be primarily addressed by climate finance but should be mainly tackled by other means.

As there is still ongoing, intense discussion about how the international transfer schemes addressed in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement should be designed, the research will help to sort some of the key arguments.

There are prominent international documents (like the Paris Agreement and the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) seeking to address different goals simultaneously. While synergies between policies is desirable, there are major challenges for policy coordination. Addressing several different goals using fewer policy instruments, for example, will not succeed as the Tinbergen Rule points out.

The integration of co-benefits in the analysis allows for taking into account the social effects of climate policy. As the authors argue, climate finance approaches could become overstrained if policymakers would consider them as tools to also solve local sustainability problems.

In this paper, the authors will not only examine what can be learnt from the clean development mechanism (CDM) for future schemes under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement but also observe the experiences gained from a non-CDM scheme. So the authors pay attention to the Trust Fund of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) which was established with global benefit orientation, i.e. – unlike the CDM – it was not regarded as an additional goal to support local sustainable development. Yet, despite its disregard of local co-benefits, the authors think that it is of particular importance to include the GEF in the analysis, as some important lessons can be learnt from it.

The purpose of this paper is to provide both theorists and practitioners with a conceptual framework that links sustainability strategies more closely with Porter’s generic strategies. The intent of this approach is to establish sustainability, fundamentally, as a strategic process. The proposed models set a strategic context to tie sustainability, to mediating variables, such as innovation and technology, while also linking them to generic strategies (low cost leader, differentiation, and focus) and firm financial performance in a causal chain. The proposed model gives rise to conclusions about the effectiveness of sustainability strategies that are consistent with emerging research about the role of radical innovation in sustainability.

The paper proposes two conceptual frameworks designed to link sustainability with business strategy. These models are rooted in evolving understandings of business strategy arising from Porter’s original explanations of generic strategies and sources of competitive advantage. The first model is a causal model that links drivers, such as type of competitive strategy and mode of innovation, to competitive outcomes and firm financial performance. The second model describes how different modes of technology development, in sustainability initiatives, cause changes in firm competitive and financial outcomes.

The conclusions arising from the model-based insights suggest that conventional continuous and incremental improvement sustainability practices hold the potential to pose strategic risks to some firms – depending on their core business strategy. By contrast, the model provides a logical, yet, less known, rationale that suggests radical innovation in sustainability practices may pose fewer strategic risks. It may also offer relatively more competitive and financial advantages than well-established programs relying on incremental innovation.

Although the proposed conceptual frameworks are rooted in strategic management theories, the proposed models and expected outcomes have not yet been empirically tested or validated. However, initially, these models appear to have more face validity in explaining breakthrough sustainability success stories, such as Nike, than do competing explanations. Most importantly, the counter-intuitive finding that radical innovation is likely to be more effective in driving both sustainability and financial outcomes is a topic for future investigation.

The proposed models and accompanying rationale have direct implications for practitioners. They provide practitioners with a road map to logically and deductively frame sustainability strategies based on their current business strategy. Practitioners are often hindered by the lack of high-level guidance for making the transition from operationally focused sustainability tactics to strategies than are congruent with current business strategies. The current paradigm of using incremental sustainability strategies on an ad hoc basis does not always provide neutral outcomes regarding financial effects and competitive advantage – they may yield negative effects.

The importance of sustainability strategies and management practices cannot be overstated. On a global scale, evidence indicates that most corporate sustainability programs are ineffective at slowing the rate of global forces offsetting sustainability. The proposed models and strategic management approach are intended to dramatically increase the effectiveness of sustainability improvement by closely aligning them with corporate strategies. Historically, companies have struggled to make the leap from randomly using eco-efficiency tools to making sustainability a key component of their business strategy.

This paper integrates a number of diverse lines of inquiry from the strategic management literature into a counter-intuitive approach for integrating sustainability into a firm’s core business strategy. The proposed conceptual frameworks can be used, prospectively, to design new sustainability strategies, or it can be used, analytically (retrospectively), to understand reasons for failure or under-performance in sustainability initiatives.

The article seeks to assist managers in low‐margin markets to grow profitability by applying principles of profit leverage.

The paper identifies a series of principles for targeting market segments and growing profits.

Gross margins are usually taken for granted by managers, but are actually key indicators of the types of marketing strategies – what the author calls “gross profit strategies” – that managers should use to leverage the growth of gross profit. Two general classes of gross profit strategies are identified – volume‐driven, and price/bundling gross profit strategies. The latter is particularly applicable to managers in low‐margin markets. The paper also discusses four subsidiary gross profit strategies and illustrates with examples of real‐world firms and situations.

The paper defines market‐driven costing and stresses the importance of measuring “true” gross margins, by measuring costs based on the cost to serve the customer, including opportunity costs. Finally, the paper explicates the relationship between true gross margins and managers' perceptions of their competitive ability to compete in the marketplace.

Discusses the problem of the cancellation of summer classes in a university. Evaluates the comparative costs of cancelling classes or teaching them. Suggests that decisions need to be based on consideration of long‐term and intangible benefits as well as short‐term costs.