Search results

The main purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of global carbon budget (GCB) as a key concept that should be introduced as a reference when countries formulate their mitigation contributions in the context of the Paris Agreement and in all the monitoring, reporting and verification processes that must be implemented according to the decisions of the Paris Summit.

A method based on carbon budget accounting is used to analyze the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) submitted by the 15 countries that currently head the ranking of global emissions. Moreover, these INDCs are analyzed and compared with each other. Sometimes, inadequate methodologies and a diverse level of ambition in the formulated targets are observed.

It is found that the INDCs of those 15 countries alone imply the release into the atmosphere of 84 per cent of the GCB for the period 2011-2030, and 40 per cent of the GCB available until the end of the century.

This is the first time the INDCs of the top 15 emitters are analyzed. It is also the first analysis made using the GCB approach. This paper suggests methodological changes in the way that the future NDCs might be formulated.

While the university as an institution is a great success story, one hears the constant chatter of the crises in higher education usually associated with the organizational transformation of universities. Regardless of one’s normative assessment of these observations, the institutional success of the university has been accompanied by the emergence of universities as organizational actors. I reflect on how these changes could alter the university as an institution, using the Australian higher education sector as an example. In doing so, I explore how universities as organizational actors, in responding to the demands of their external environment, set in motion a series of changes that redefine highly institutionalized categories, and, in doing so, radically remake the university as an institution.

Status distinctions matter among heterogeneous organizations within a socio-environmental field. This is exemplified in the food waste field, where six types of organizations employ different excess strategies to address the issue. Theoretically, we propose that status is constructed internally through advice relationships and externally through evaluations. We posit that organizations conducting evaluations and advocating legitimate principles based on expertise (i.e., Others) are status winners. Our mixed-method study confirms that Others hold privileged positions and identifies status inconsistencies. By critically illuminating these status dynamics, we contribute to a better understanding of the roles of organizations and status in tackling socio-environmental issues.

Open source software (OSS) communities devoted to the development of electronic medical records (EMRs) have grown in recent years. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the challenge the leaders of these communities face in terms of building perceptions of psychological ownership among community members.

Surveys (n = 50) and brief interviews (n = 56) with individual members of an open source EMR community (most of whom are based in African nations) were used.

Among community members, normative commitment (in comparison to extrinsic motivation and affective commitment) was the strongest predictor of psychological ownership. Interviews revealed that community members tended to feel a greater sense of ownership toward the end user (i.e. hospitals and clinics) than toward the community itself.

To foster engagement and retention – and enhance the worldwide impact of their community on healthcare practices – leaders of open source EMR communities can offer incentives related to certifications and status-based rewards, hold annual meetings to allow members to develop a better understanding of the community and encourage members to “pay it forward” by involving end users (i.e. hospital and clinic employees) within the community, thus furthering public health initiatives.

OSS communities experience unique challenges compared to traditional organizations. This necessitates a reconsideration of the applicability of commonly accepted principles, tenets and recommendations from the management literature.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of procedural justice, training opportunities and innovation on job satisfaction and affiliation commitment via the mediating effect of organizational identification. The authors also explored the moderating role of satisfaction with supervisor on the relationship between the antecedents and organizational identification as well as its moderating effect on the mediational chain.

The authors used structural equation modeling techniques, using MPLUS 7.4, to analyze data collected from 247 full-time employees who were recruited by undergraduate students attending a private university in the Southeast region of the USA.

Results demonstrated that the indirect effects for procedural justice and training opportunities as predictors were significant, while none of the paths for innovation as a predictor were significant. Satisfaction with supervisor moderated the relationships between procedural justice and organizational identification and innovation and organizational identification.

This research expands the nomological network concerning antecedents and consequences of organizational identification. It also explores the role of satisfaction with one’s supervisor, as this can affect identification with the organization. This research provides support for the notion that stronger employee–organization relationships lead to positive individual and organizational outcomes.