Search results

This article scrutinises the nature and salience of corporate heritage identities via the lens of the British Monarchy. A corporate heritage identity framework is introduced. The heritage identity construct is positioned vis‐à‐vis other related constructs such as nostalgia, tradition, and custom.

An embedded case study informed by desktop research and a literature review of the British Monarchy and by an empirical‐collaborative study on the Swedish Monarchy. The paper is also informed by the literature on heritage and other historically‐related constructs.

The notion of relative invariance is introduced. The latter is important since it explains why heritage identities can remain the same and yet have changed, namely: The Relative Invariance Notion. Corporate heritage identities and brands are invested with special qualities in that they are a melding of identity continuity, identity change and are also invested with the identities of time (times past, present and future). Heritage identities are an accretion of various identities, which are variously linked to institutions, places, cultures, and to time frames. The notion of Institutional Role Identities is introduced. The study suggested that heritage identities have multiple institutional role identities. These identities can be utilised in various contexts and for a variety of purposes: this might account for their strength. One explanation of why heritage identities are powerful is because they meet customer and stakeholder needs by encapsulating and, importantly, by giving identity. Heritage identities, potentially, are an important dimension of a group's collective memory.

A revised corporate heritage identity framework relating to the British Monarchy is introduced. The model can be adapted so as to appraise our comprehension of corporate heritage identities in more general institutional contexts. The importance of bi‐lateral institutional and stakeholder trust to the framework and the need for (institution) heritage authenticity – or perceived authenticity – and stakeholder affinity are noted.

The paper focuses on heritage identities in institutional contexts and a distinction is made between corporate heritage identities and corporate heritage brands identities.

New Towns were exemplars of Utopian social and economic visions allied to Modernist ideas of design and architecture. Initially hailed as the answer to the ailments of the historic European city and the urgent need for housing after the War, they came under considerable scrutiny when the ideas of New Urbanism on design, density and community became one of the most vocal critics on Modernist town planning.

The UK Arts and Humanities Research Council recently funded a New Town Heritage Research Network Project. Drawing on case studies from the network, this chapter will refer to the original questions posed by the above-mentioned network project: How are the Utopian social and economic visions which accompanied the New Town Movement embodied in the masterplanning, urban design and architecture of the New Towns? How can the New Town architectural and urban design heritage be evaluated? How can future planning for these towns accommodate and build on this heritage in a meaningful way, and be integrated into regeneration and growth? How can key stakeholders in New Towns create an identity and pride for their town as well as a sense of belonging, by building cultural capital through their heritage, including architecture, public art and cultural activities?

This chapter will analyse how New Towns and their associated Modernist Heritage have been perceived by different audiences and are positioned in the overall heritage discourse including the question of a shared European Heritage.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, giving a general overview of its urban context through five historical periods, as part of a research study on its modernist architectural heritage.

Designed to mimic the theatrical process which unfolds through acts and intervals, the paper combines literary, architectural, journalistic and historical sources, to sketch the key periods which characterise the city’s urban morphology.

The sequence of acts and intervals points to the dramatic historic inter-change of continuities and ruptures, in which the ruptures have often been less studied and understood. This explains the frequent conceptualising of Sarajevo through East–West binary, which synthesises it as a provincial capital from Ottoman and later Habsburg rule, a regional centre within two Yugoslav states and a capital city of a young state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This highlights the need to study the ruptures as clues to the flow of continuities, in which the care and after care for built environment provide a field of evidence and possibilities for diverse perspectives of examination.

Corroborated by secondary sources, the paper examines the accounts of urban heritage destruction in the 1990s war, as recorded by a writer, an architect and a journalist, and outlines a pattern of unbroken inter-relations between urban and architectural space (tangible) and sense and identity of place (intangible).

This discourse is relevant to the current situation where the city of Sarajevo expands again, in the complexity of a post-conflict society.

Challenged by the political divisions and the laissez-faire economy, the public mood and interest is under-represented and has many conflicting voices.

Inspired by Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities and the accounts from the siege of Sarajevo in the 1990s, this conceptual paper contributes to the formulation of a cross-disciplinary discursive prism through which the fragments of the city and its periods come together or apart, adding, subtracting and changing layers of meaning of the physical space.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relation between building conservation and circular economy (CE), which are often erroneously seen as inherently contradictory to one another.

The work draws from a comparative approach. The paper reviews a body of literature on architectural conservation and CE to establish an understanding on the state-of-the-art for both disciplines separately. Then, the relation between thereof is developed through a theoretical discourse.

Both architectural conservation and CE aim at safeguarding value, although they define “value” differently. Fabric-focused conservation and CE favor minimal intervention to material, albeit they arrive at this conclusion from different bases. Consequently, both approaches struggle with the low cost of virgin resource extraction and waste production and the high cost of human labor in contemporary Western societies. CE could be harnessed for building conservation by adopting its vocabulary and methodology, such as lifecycle assessment and material flow analysis. Transitioning toward CE can help increase the preservation of built heritage while redefining what is meant by “heritage” and “waste.”

Prior to this paper, there have been no articles addressing the relationship of the concepts explicitly and to this extent. The paper provides a theoretical basis for further discourse and outlines some implications of CE for the construction and built heritage disciplines.

Postmodernist contestations of modernist economic and organizational rationalities have made immense contributions to organizational analysis. A current direction in critical theory now, working through the postmodernist critique, seeks new conceptions of organizations and sources for the revitalization of organizational life. In particular, feminist criticism drawing on, and contributing to, postmodern forms of inquiry and interpretation, offers new visions of critical organizational analysis. This article addresses feminist postmodern critiques, and particularly discusses two feminist contributions developed out of serious critical engagement with postmodernist thought: eco‐feminism and conceptions of “relational autonomy”, of agentic, social subjectivity.

The purpose of this paper is to advance the general understanding of the corporate heritage domain. The paper seeks to specify the requisites of corporate heritage and to introduce and explicate the corporate heritage marketing and total corporate heritage communications notions.

As befits an opening article of the first special edition specifically devoted to corporate heritage, this article is largely conceptual in character and draws on the extant literature on corporate heritage brands and identities. In illuminating key points, it also makes reference to extant corporate heritage entities/brands.

A provisional theory of corporate heritage sustainability is articulated, as is the enumeration of key corporate heritage traits. The notions of corporate heritage marketing and total corporate heritage communications are introduced and articulated. Key corporate heritage traits requisites encompass omni‐temporality; institution trait constancy; external/internal tri‐generational hereditary; augmented role identities; ceaseless multigenerational stakeholder utility and unremitting management tenacity. Corporate heritage marketing consists of eight dimensions: corporate heritage character/communications/covenant/conceptualisations/culture/constituencies/custodianship/context. Total corporate heritage communicates consists of primary/secondary/tertiary and legacy communications.

The paper notes the need for assiduous management attention to be accorded to organisations with a bona‐fide corporate heritage. Managers are custodians – as are organisational members guardians – of a corporate heritage. Corporate heritage institutions because they are sui generis require distinct approaches vis‐à‐vis their preservation and management.

Corporate heritage identities and corporate heritage brands confer not only corporate but also temporal, territorial, social, cultural and ancestral identities to multi‐generational groups of customers and other stakeholders. As such, they are of importance not only as corporate entities but also as perennial social identities as well. This is of importance to policy makers, managers and owners of corporate heritage identities and corporate heritage brands.

The unveiling of corporate heritage marketing and of total corporate heritage communications perspective and the articulation of key corporate heritage entity traits is original and is of value to corporate communications/corporate marketing scholars and practitioners alike.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an alternative understanding of knowledge transfers in developing contexts by drawing on recent deconstructions of the development sciences in anthropology and postcolonial studies to analyze transfers of management knowledge in Malaysia. Contrary to most mainstream research that conceives of transfers as a literal or objective process of skills deployment and acquisition, it refers attention to the modernist assumptions, concepts and practices of knowledge/power that are attached to knowledge transfers.

The study is based on primary and secondary data from two electronics multinational and statutory agencies in Malaysia. Primary data were collected via interviews with training officials and managers; observations were based on training and training‐related events like orientation. Secondary data include multinational and statutory agency literature, quality control circle reports and a corporate orientation video. Data analysis included discourse analysis and deconstruction.

Findings highlight the importance of situating knowledge transfers within the discursive and socially organized terrain (local and global) – economic, institutional, disciplinary – that transfers are embedded in, and the significance of knowledge transfers and the attendant focus on training as sites for cultivating and producing the modern market subjects needed to have and to sustain neoliberal forms of development and globalization. The paper re‐situates interests in knowledge transfers in terms of a need by state officials and foreign multinationals to actively produce and reconstitute local subjects into modern market citizens that are able and capable of contributing – as required – to the development and organizational needs of said institutions.

By extrapolating insights from recent deconstructions of the development sciences and postcolonial studies, the paper provides an alternative way of researching the process, and understanding the significance of transfers: one that showcases the close imbrications between knowledge, power, subjectification, and interconnections between local institutions/constituents (e.g. statutory agencies, government ministries, training personnel) and global capital (e.g. multinationals).

In Januari 1699 Jules Hardouin Mansart, Superintendent of Buildings and “Premier Architecte” to Louis-le-Grand, king of France, put his signature to the design for what we now know as the Place Vendome. (fig.1) His design included a monumental façade wall of exquisite proportions in the neo−classical manner. The square, including the façade wall, was subsequently built by the city of Paris on request of the King. But no buildings were behind the façade. The land behind was for sale. In the next decade noblemen, bankers, tax farmers, and other prominent and wealthy citizens who served the king in various administrative and financial functions built their houses there with their own architects. These buildings kept changing and adapting over time. But the façade as Mansart built it is still what we see today.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest an approach to cultural heritage management as an inhabited cultural landscape in a context of urban planning.

The paper provides a review of academic literature on the topic of cultural heritage conservation.

This paper supports an approach to management of cultural heritage as a cultural landscape, defining it as a multivalent social phenomenon with tangible and intangible dimensions, spatial, and temporal scales. The cultural landscape approach continues the discourse on heritage values and emphasises the importance of recognition of social value and hence a wider stakeholder participation in the process of heritage management. This approach allows enhancing both intangible and tangible dimensions of cultural heritage and, therefore, encourages a more inclusive consideration of diverse cultural heritage values (encompassing social and environmental categories, e.g. well-being, health).

The proposed cultural landscape approach to heritage management, as a culturally significant, inhabited, and changing landscape, enables a more comprehensive view on the interrelations of cultural heritage with other social and environmental categories and enhances the understanding of different values of cultural heritage. This approach could be particularly useful for strategic development at city planning level and in large construction or infrastructural projects.