碳削减国际象棋:供应链弹性低碳投资战略

IF 13.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Ahmed Mohammed
{"title":"碳削减国际象棋:供应链弹性低碳投资战略","authors":"Ahmed Mohammed","doi":"10.1002/bse.70178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research presents a novel empirical and analytical method for strategizing low‐carbon investment strategies (LCIS) in supply chains, viewed through the lens of sustainable and resilient efficiency. The study develops a clear, actionable framework for identifying, evaluating, and implementing LCIS by using a mixed‐methods design. This design integrates focus groups and surveys with 27 industry experts and validates the findings through semistructured interviews. It identifies critical LCIS and tailored success factors that are central to assessing sustainability and resilience outcomes. Key factors derived from expert insights, such as collaborative agility, regulatory adaptability, and support for technological innovation, are highlighted as essential enablers of success. The results indicate that strategies like circular economy practices and the transition to renewable energy are immediate priorities for achieving sustainability and resilience efficiency. In contrast, other strategies, such as lifecycle emission analysis and carbon offsetting programs, demonstrate more sector‐specific or specialized impacts, necessitating tailored approaches in practice. Furthermore, the orientation of evaluation, whether prioritizing sustainability, resilience, or overall performance, should be explicitly aligned with the organization's strategic objectives. This is important because the relative ranking of each strategy may vary depending on the chosen performance focus, thus emphasizing the need to define strategic priorities early on.A significant finding is the misalignment between expert perceptions and quantitative assessments, particularly in cases where specific strategies (e.g., carbon offsetting) received lower empirical rankings despite being highly regarded by practitioners. This emphasizes the value of integrating expert judgment with analytical methods to enhance strategic relevance and prioritization. Finally, the research provides practical recommendations for supply chain professionals and policymakers, advocating for the adoption of adaptable, context‐sensitive LCIS that foster long‐term resilience in the face of climate challenges and global market uncertainty.","PeriodicalId":9518,"journal":{"name":"Business Strategy and The Environment","volume":"122 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Carbon‐Cutting Chess: Strategizing Resilient Low‐Carbon Investments for Supply Chains\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Mohammed\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bse.70178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This research presents a novel empirical and analytical method for strategizing low‐carbon investment strategies (LCIS) in supply chains, viewed through the lens of sustainable and resilient efficiency. The study develops a clear, actionable framework for identifying, evaluating, and implementing LCIS by using a mixed‐methods design. This design integrates focus groups and surveys with 27 industry experts and validates the findings through semistructured interviews. It identifies critical LCIS and tailored success factors that are central to assessing sustainability and resilience outcomes. Key factors derived from expert insights, such as collaborative agility, regulatory adaptability, and support for technological innovation, are highlighted as essential enablers of success. The results indicate that strategies like circular economy practices and the transition to renewable energy are immediate priorities for achieving sustainability and resilience efficiency. In contrast, other strategies, such as lifecycle emission analysis and carbon offsetting programs, demonstrate more sector‐specific or specialized impacts, necessitating tailored approaches in practice. Furthermore, the orientation of evaluation, whether prioritizing sustainability, resilience, or overall performance, should be explicitly aligned with the organization's strategic objectives. This is important because the relative ranking of each strategy may vary depending on the chosen performance focus, thus emphasizing the need to define strategic priorities early on.A significant finding is the misalignment between expert perceptions and quantitative assessments, particularly in cases where specific strategies (e.g., carbon offsetting) received lower empirical rankings despite being highly regarded by practitioners. This emphasizes the value of integrating expert judgment with analytical methods to enhance strategic relevance and prioritization. Finally, the research provides practical recommendations for supply chain professionals and policymakers, advocating for the adoption of adaptable, context‐sensitive LCIS that foster long‐term resilience in the face of climate challenges and global market uncertainty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Business Strategy and The Environment\",\"volume\":\"122 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Business Strategy and The Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70178\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Strategy and The Environment","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70178","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究通过可持续和弹性效率的视角,提出了一种新的供应链低碳投资战略(LCIS)的实证和分析方法。该研究通过使用混合方法设计,为识别、评估和实施LCIS开发了一个清晰、可操作的框架。该设计整合了焦点小组和27位行业专家的调查,并通过半结构化访谈验证了调查结果。它确定了关键的LCIS和量身定制的成功因素,这些因素对评估可持续性和复原力结果至关重要。来自专家见解的关键因素,如协作敏捷性、监管适应性和对技术创新的支持,被强调为成功的基本促成因素。结果表明,循环经济实践和向可再生能源过渡等战略是实现可持续性和弹性效率的当务之急。相比之下,其他策略,如生命周期排放分析和碳抵消计划,则显示出更多针对特定行业或专业的影响,因此需要在实践中采用量身定制的方法。此外,评估的方向,无论是优先考虑可持续性、弹性还是整体绩效,都应该明确地与组织的战略目标保持一致。这很重要,因为每个策略的相对排名可能会根据所选择的性能重点而变化,因此强调需要尽早定义战略优先级。一个重要的发现是专家的看法和定量评估之间的不一致,特别是在特定战略(例如碳抵消)尽管受到从业者的高度重视,但获得较低的经验排名的情况下。这强调了将专家判断与分析方法相结合以提高战略相关性和优先次序的价值。最后,该研究为供应链专业人士和政策制定者提供了实用建议,倡导采用适应性强、对环境敏感的LCIS,以培养面对气候挑战和全球市场不确定性的长期弹性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Carbon‐Cutting Chess: Strategizing Resilient Low‐Carbon Investments for Supply Chains
This research presents a novel empirical and analytical method for strategizing low‐carbon investment strategies (LCIS) in supply chains, viewed through the lens of sustainable and resilient efficiency. The study develops a clear, actionable framework for identifying, evaluating, and implementing LCIS by using a mixed‐methods design. This design integrates focus groups and surveys with 27 industry experts and validates the findings through semistructured interviews. It identifies critical LCIS and tailored success factors that are central to assessing sustainability and resilience outcomes. Key factors derived from expert insights, such as collaborative agility, regulatory adaptability, and support for technological innovation, are highlighted as essential enablers of success. The results indicate that strategies like circular economy practices and the transition to renewable energy are immediate priorities for achieving sustainability and resilience efficiency. In contrast, other strategies, such as lifecycle emission analysis and carbon offsetting programs, demonstrate more sector‐specific or specialized impacts, necessitating tailored approaches in practice. Furthermore, the orientation of evaluation, whether prioritizing sustainability, resilience, or overall performance, should be explicitly aligned with the organization's strategic objectives. This is important because the relative ranking of each strategy may vary depending on the chosen performance focus, thus emphasizing the need to define strategic priorities early on.A significant finding is the misalignment between expert perceptions and quantitative assessments, particularly in cases where specific strategies (e.g., carbon offsetting) received lower empirical rankings despite being highly regarded by practitioners. This emphasizes the value of integrating expert judgment with analytical methods to enhance strategic relevance and prioritization. Finally, the research provides practical recommendations for supply chain professionals and policymakers, advocating for the adoption of adaptable, context‐sensitive LCIS that foster long‐term resilience in the face of climate challenges and global market uncertainty.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.50
自引率
19.40%
发文量
336
期刊介绍: Business Strategy and the Environment (BSE) is a leading academic journal focused on business strategies for improving the natural environment. It publishes peer-reviewed research on various topics such as systems and standards, environmental performance, disclosure, eco-innovation, corporate environmental management tools, organizations and management, supply chains, circular economy, governance, green finance, industry sectors, and responses to climate change and other contemporary environmental issues. The journal aims to provide original contributions that enhance the understanding of sustainability in business. Its target audience includes academics, practitioners, business managers, and consultants. However, BSE does not accept papers on corporate social responsibility (CSR), as this topic is covered by its sibling journal Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. The journal is indexed in several databases and collections such as ABI/INFORM Collection, Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, BIOBASE, Emerald Management Reviews, GeoArchive, Environment Index, GEOBASE, INSPEC, Technology Collection, and Web of Science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信