Suchergebnisse

Abstract The resolution of humanitarian crises in, for example, ethnic conflict regions, is dependent on the interaction of different actors. They need to collectively engage to change the conflicting parties' perception of one another and their ways of interacting. The efforts of these institution-changing networks can be seen as an integral element of a change process to transform harmful societal practices which have become institutionalized over decades into socially and economically conducive practices. Located at the cross-roads of sociological institutionalism and critical entrepreneurship discourse this study borrows from both the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing rooted business network mobilization approach and organizational legitimacy discussion. It provides processual and contextual understanding of how individual actors act in the process of forming collectives for institutional change as an early stage of a peace-building process. The data of this study consists of a set of conversations with governmental, non-governmental and private sector actors and observations and secondary data about the peace-building and democratization process in Myanmar/Burma. These were used to produce insight into individual actors' acting for forming institution-changing networks. Pluralism, non-linearity and non-teleology were identified as characteristics of institutional entrepreneurial acting in turbulent and unpredictable contexts generally. Exploring the pluralist characteristic further, the study identifies in Myanmar/Burma's peace-building context reticence, adaptability, incentivization, and perseverance as ways of acting to instigate the forming of networks and the creation of legitimacy therein. Due to the underlying non-linearity and non-teleology of these ways of acting the formation of networks is referred to as process of becoming. Theoretically this study responds to the need for processual conceptualizations of networks changing over time through a rich and locally contextualized understanding of network forming processes. Methodologically, it advocates for a network- or meso-level approach to help transcending the distinction between individual and structure levels of analysis which allows viewing institutional entrepreneurship processes where they are enacted. Practically, this study gives guidance to business actors about balancing the conduct of business and building society at the same time. ; Tiivistelmä Humanitaaristen kriisien ratkaisu esimerkiksi alueilla, joissa on etnisiä konflikteja, riippuu eri toimijoiden vuorovaikutuksesta. Heidän täytyy pyrkiä verkostoissa vaikuttamaan konfliktin osapuolten vuorovaikutustapoihin ja näkemyksiin toisistaan. Näiden instituutioita muuttavien verkostojen pyrkimykset voidaan nähdä keskeisenä osana prosessia, joka muuttaa ajan saatossa institutionalisoituneita haitallisia yhteiskunnallisia käytäntöjä sosiaalisesti ja taloudellisesti hyödyllisiksi käytännöiksi. Tämä tutkimus sijoittuu sosiologisen institutionalismin ja kriittisen yrittäjyyden diskurssin yhtymäkohtiin. Se pohjaa keskusteluun organisatorisesta legitimiteetistä sekä liiketoimintaverkostojen mobilisoinnin lähestymistapaan, joka juontaa juurensa teollisten markkinoiden tutkimuksesta. Tämä tutkimus tarjoaa prosessuaalisen ja kontekstuaalisen näkökulman yksittäisten toimijoiden toimintaan kollektiivien muodostumisen prosessissa, joka tähtää institutionaalisen muutoksen aikaansaamiseen rauhanrakentamisprosessin varhaisessa vaiheessa. Tutkimuksessa hyödynnettiin kansalaisjärjestöjen, yksityissektorin ja valtiollisten toimijoiden haastattelujen lisäksi havaintoja ja sekundaariaineistoa rauhanrakentamisen ja demokratisointisoinnin prosesseista Myanmarissa/Burmassa. Aineiston pohjalta syvennettiin ymmärrystä yksittäisten toimijoiden toimimisesta instituutioita muuttavien verkostojen muodostumisessa. Pluralismi, epälineaarisuus ja epäteleologisuus tunnistettiin institutionaalisen yrittäjämäisen toimimisen ominaispiirteiksi turbulenteissa ja arvaamattomissa konteksteissa. Pluralistisia ominaisuuksia tarkasteltiin syvemmin ja Myanmarin/Burman rauhanrakennusprosessin kontekstissa pidättyväisyys, sopeutumiskyky, kannustimien asettaminen ja pitkäjänteisyys tunnistettiin tavoiksi käynnistää verkostojen muodostuminen ja niiden legitimiteetin luominen. Näiden toimintatapojen epälineaarisuuden ja epäteleologisuuden takia verkostojen luomiseen viitataan muodostumisen prosessina. Teoreettisesti tämä tutkimus vastaa tarpeeseen käsitteellistää muuttuvia verkostoja prosessuaalisesti luomalla moninaisen ja paikallisesti kontekstualisoidun ymmärryksen verkostojen muodostumisen prosessista. Metodologisesti tutkimus edistää verkosto- ja mesotason lähestymistapaa, joka auttaa ylittämään yksilön ja rakenteen tasojen erotuksen ja mahdollistaa institutionaalisen yrittäjämäisen prosessin tarkastelun sen toteuttamistasolla. Käytännössä tämä tutkimus antaa neuvoja liike-elämän toimijoille samanaikaisesti tapahtuvaan liiketoiminnan harjoittamiseen ja yhteiskunnan rakentamiseen.

Abstract Purpose: This study aims to understand how the coevolution of multinational enterprises (MNEs) and emerging economy institutions affects social and economic (in)equality in an ambiguous, emerging economy context from a political actor perspective. Design/methodology/approach: Qualitative in nature, the study builds on conversations with 20 political actors involved in the peacebuilding process in Myanmar/Burma. It analyzes their perceptions of interaction of MNEs and host economy institutions from a social constructionist viewpoint. Findings: The study identifies four coevolution patterns which portray the evolving interaction between MNE activities and different elements of their host institutional environment as well as their consequences for social and economic (in)equality. Originality/value: This study contributes to critical international business research on emerging economies by emphasizing the different and partly conflicting host institutions of various stakeholder groups involved in the coevolution of MNEs and host institutional environments. The more nuanced conceptualization of the complex institutional environment enables the analysis of inequality as a direct and indirect outcome of MNE–institution interaction. Thus, the study connects to the business and human rights discussion and provides insight into the consequences of MNEs' adoption of social and environment standards.

Executive summary We are witnessing an emerging digital revolution. For the past 25–30 years, at an increasing pace, digital technologies—especially the internet, mobile phones and smartphones—have transformed the everyday lives of human beings. The pace of change will increase, and new digital technologies will become even more tightly entangled in human everyday lives. Artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), 6G wireless solutions, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (XR), robots and various platforms for remote and hybrid communication will become embedded in our lives at home, work and school. Digitalisation has been identified as a megatrend, for example, by the OECD (2016; 2019). While digitalisation processes permeate all aspects of life, special attention has been paid to its impact on the ageing population, everyday communication practices, education and learning and working life. For example, it has been argued that digital solutions and technologies have the potential to improve quality of life, speed up processes and increase efficiency. At the same time, digitalisation is likely to bring with it unexpected trends and challenges. For example, AI and robots will doubtlessly speed up or take over many routine-based work tasks from humans, leading to the disappearance of certain occupations and the need for re-education. This, in turn, will lead to an increased demand for skills that are unique to humans and that technologies are not able to master. Thus, developing human competences in the emerging digital era will require not only the mastering of new technical skills, but also the advancement of interpersonal, emotional, literacy and problem-solving skills. It is important to identify and describe the digitalisation phenomena—pertaining to individuals and societies—and seek human-centric answers and solutions that advance the benefits of and mitigate the possible adverse effects of digitalisation (e.g. inequality, divisions, vulnerability and unemployment). This requires directing the focus on strengthening the human skills and competences that will be needed for a sustainable digital future. Digital technologies should be seen as possibilities, not as necessities. There is a need to call attention to the co-evolutionary processes between humans and emerging digital technologies—that is, the ways in which humans grow up with and live their lives alongside digital technologies. It is imperative to gain in-depth knowledge about the natural ways in which digital technologies are embedded in human everyday lives—for example, how people learn, interact and communicate in remote and hybrid settings or with artificial intelligence; how new digital technologies could be used to support continuous learning and understand learning processes better and how health and well-being can be promoted with the help of new digital solutions. Another significant consideration revolves around the co-creation of our digital futures. Important questions to be asked are as follows: Who are the ones to co-create digital solutions for the future? How can humans and human sciences better contribute to digitalisation and define how emerging technologies shape society and the future? Although academic and business actors have recently fostered inclusion and diversity in their co-creation processes, more must be done. The empowerment of ordinary people to start acting as active makers and shapers of our digital futures is required, as is giving voice to those who have traditionally been silenced or marginalised in the development of digital technology. In the emerging co-creation processes, emphasis should be placed on social sustainability and contextual sensitivity. Such processes are always value-laden and political and intimately intertwined with ethical issues. Constant and accelerating change characterises contemporary human systems, our everyday lives and the environment. Resilience thinking has become one of the major conceptual tools for understanding and dealing with change. It is a multi-scalar idea referring to the capacity of individuals and human systems to absorb disturbances and reorganise their functionality while undergoing a change. Based on the evolving new digital technologies, there is a pressing need to understand how these technologies could be utilised for human well-being, sustainable lifestyles and a better environment. This calls for analysing different scales and types of resilience in order to develop better technology-based solutions for human-centred development in the new digital era. This white paper is a collaborative effort by researchers from six faculties and groups working on questions related to digitalisation at the University of Oulu, Finland. We have identified questions and challenges related to the emerging digital era and suggest directions that will make possible a human-centric digital future and strengthen the competences of humans and humanity in this era.