Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the ongoing revival of industrial and innovation policies across developed and developing economies.

The paper compare the scale and scope of recent industrial and innovation policy initiatives across developed and developing economies. Also, it analyzes recent data regarding R&D investments and other innovation indicators.

There are enormous disparities across economies in their capacity to implement industrial policies, particularly those to support science, technology and innovation. Most developed economies, and a few developing economies, are implementing bold, ambitious and medium-term innovation policies towards bolstering R&D investments, supporting advanced manufacturing and green energies and strengthening technological capabilities. Amid lack of fiscal policy space and vulnerable debt sustainability positions, institutional deficiencies and weak innovation ecosystems, developing economies – particularly in Africa and Latin America – face enormous challenges to implement strategic industrial and innovation policies.

Under the current economic, financing and institutional conditions, together with subdued global trade and ongoing geopolitical fragmentation, the technological divide and innovation asymmetries across economies will likely widen even further, paving the ground for a “development divergence” in the coming decade.

The paper analyzes the implications of the current industrial and innovation policy trends across developed and developing countries. Under the current economic, financing and institutional conditions, together with subdued global trade and ongoing geopolitical fragmentation, the technological divide and innovation asymmetries across economies will likely widen even further, paving the ground for a “development divergence” in the coming decade.

This study aims to analyze the implications of the recent European Union Regulation 2023/1542 on the circular economy and stakeholder strategies within the electric vehicle lithium-ion battery (EV-LIB) sector. It aims to explain the policy intentions, recommend practical strategies for stakeholders and examine how the new regulation exerts pressure on stakeholders to transition from older directives to more sustainable practices and operational standards, while also highlighting policy gaps.

The research employs a dual-method approach, combining text analysis of EU legislation with semi-structured interviews of industry stakeholders. This methodology allows for a comprehensive understanding of the regulatory impacts by integrating legislative intent with practical, on-the-ground insights from key players in the EV-LIB sector.

Our findings show that the three aggregated dimensions of operational sustainability, R&D and new technologies and collaborative dynamics are the key dynamics underlying the intended outcomes. The findings also highlight the policy’s historical development, the stakeholder categories, the implications for each and practical recommendations in responding to the policy requirements. Additionally, the findings identify policy gaps, such as weak incentives and broad economic operator classifications, with examples from international markets. The regulation creates proactive stakeholders driving innovation and collaboration and reactive ones adapting to changes, where static implicit implications may affect their viability by imposing unequal burdens.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to analyze the new EU Regulation 2023/1542, offering novel insights into the strategic responses required by stakeholders to adapt to the regulatory pressures. By focusing on the latest regulatory framework and its practical implications, the study bridges the gap between policy and practice, providing valuable guidance for industry players navigating the evolving regulatory environment.

• (1)

  EU’s policy shift from Directive to Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 has extended implications on the Electric Vehicles battery sector.

• (2)

  Duel qualitative methods of text analysis and semi-structured interviews validated three aggregate dimensions and policy gaps.

• (3)

  R&D with advancing technology, Operational sustainability and safety and Collaboration dynamics are dominating the scene.

• (4)

  Emergence of Proactive vs Reactive stakeholder dynamics.

• (5)

  The broad classification of “economic operators” and insufficiently detailed incentives, hinting at potential competitive imbalances and underexplored roles of end-users in achieving circular economy goals are appearing policy’ gaps.

EU’s policy shift from Directive to Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 has extended implications on the Electric Vehicles battery sector.

Duel qualitative methods of text analysis and semi-structured interviews validated three aggregate dimensions and policy gaps.

R&D with advancing technology, Operational sustainability and safety and Collaboration dynamics are dominating the scene.

Emergence of Proactive vs Reactive stakeholder dynamics.

The broad classification of “economic operators” and insufficiently detailed incentives, hinting at potential competitive imbalances and underexplored roles of end-users in achieving circular economy goals are appearing policy’ gaps.

This study aims to explore natural resources from a public sector accounting perspective, focusing on their definitions, classifications, recognition criteria and disclosure requirements provided by different standard-setters and regulators at both international and national levels.

By reviewing accounting frameworks for natural resources, this study extrapolates accounting dilemmas around the debate on natural resource accounting, using the dialogic accounting perspective as a theoretical framework.

Natural resources cannot be defined as a single category. Various categories have different characteristics, requiring different standards to recognize multiple orientations. This avoids monetary reductionism. Furthermore, uncertainty, both in existence and measurement, may disqualify some of these resources from being considered assets. Perhaps, concentrating on the flow of services derived from natural resources is better than focusing on their valuation. This may lead to a split-asset approach (flows and underlying assets) for certain resources. This study’s findings indicate that public-sector entities should consider preparing a separate non-financial report regarding the management of natural resources with the objective of maintaining inter-generational equity.

This study contributes to the debate on natural resources from an accounting and reporting perspective, highlighting the importance of holding public-sector entities accountable for the use of natural resources.