The Transition of Dutch Social Housing Corporations to Sustainable Business Models for New Buildings and Retrofits
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Transition to a Sustainable Business Model
2.2. Sustainability in the Housing Corporation Sector
2.3. Factors Influencing the Transition towards Sustainable Business Models
3. Methods and Materials
3.1. Methods
3.2. Operationalization
3.3. Data Collection
3.4. Data Analysis
3.5. Methodological Issues
4. Results
4.1. Collaboration
“We cannot do this alone, suppliers cannot do it alone and contractors and consultants cannot do it alone. We really need to do that together.”(Corporation A)
“We can only do this by working together in the supply chain, learning from each other and stimulating each other.”(Corporation B)
“What we have done in recent years is to try to extend that chain of suppliers further and further, so that we can also enter into direct dialogue with the supplying industry, so that we can also put our question clearly in the spotlight there.”(Corporation C)
“We’re really putting our money where our mouth is. Collaboration, bundling and how we can [...] bring the parties together to make this scaling up possible and take smart things out of the market and then scale them up.”(Corporation C)
4.2. Vision
“But we want [...] to show that at least we’re not going to sit back. 2050, that’s so far away, then you can also say we’ll wait and see what’s happening around us and then hook on. No, by bringing that deadline forward, we show that we really want to take steps now.”(Corporation A)
“We have very ‘slow’ products [housing]. They last 50 years, that’s different from a packet of bread. So, we need a consistent course of action.”(Corporation B)
“We focus very explicitly on the very long term and are critical of intermediate goals in the shorter term that may conflict with that goal in the longer term.”(Corporation C)
“At the city level, we are very active in bringing the Utrecht corporations together in the vision on sustainability. So to let it not be the vision of an individual corporation, but the joint vision of the Utrecht corporations.”(Corporation C)
“That is always an art, to get residents enthusiastic for it [transition to sustainability].”(Corporation A)
4.3. Continuous Innovation
“We need solutions that aren’t there yet. We’re asking for something that isn’t there yet.”(Corporation C)
“I really think that we’re still ahead of that innovation curve, so really innovating is incredibly important so that we can scale up successfully later. And we would like to contribute to that.”(Corporation C)
“We’ve just been putting a lot of effort into innovations and experiments lately. And really the next step is to work on that upscaling. So we are now very much looking at how we can organize this upscaling.”(Corporation A)
“[It is] stated in the coalition agreement that we are the starter motor, so that we can get the innovation going. Then we can get the production going, so that the costs go down, then you make it affordable. Maybe also for the private individual. Therein lies another huge task.”(Corporation B)
“The corporate sector has an important role to play in posing open demand to the market. And we have an important role in society to drive that innovation, because we are the party par excellence to do so. So part of our social task… is to drive innovation in the construction industry. We can do that because we have the size and the know-how to be able to do an experiment for once.”(Corporation C)
4.4. Profitability
“Stakeholders and society as a whole are certainly an important argument for us to invest in sustainability. .... Taking care of the earth, the environmental lens. The moral side is certainly one of them. The latter two are stronger than the business side.”(Corporation A)
“The great thing is, if you invest smartly, you can kill two birds with one stone. You can do something for the environment and for your tenant’s wallet. And that’s what I would like to invest in as a corporation.”(Corporation C)
“There is a clear intrinsic motivation to invest in sustainability as well. We really see this as part of our task.”(Corporation C)
“We have a duty to handle our money very efficiently and effectively, because every euro we don’t spend on something else can be spent on that public housing task. Ultimately, that’s what it’s all about, that money has to flow back to that public housing task. There is a social component in this and a sustainability component. In order to be able to do that, we must also be able to operate in an economically sound manner. Otherwise it just stops.”(Corporation C)
“It was already clear at the time of the project assignment that it was becoming expensive. That it really was a substantial investment. And during the definition phase, it became even more expensive than expected beforehand. [...] And then we said that we would stick our necks out for once. We’ll do it anyway.”(Corporation B)
“So we did the next 40 houses, even though we knew that our return requirement would not be met there. That’s fine. For such a one-off experiment, that’s totally okay. It’s a tuition fee that you pay in order to be able to make other choices.”(Corporation C)
4.5. Sustainable Foundation
“We have three core tasks, availability, affordability and quality. And sustainability is mainly in the affordability and quality of the homes in my view.”(Corporation C)
4.6. External Factors
“Subsidies can make the difference between something that is feasible and something that is not.”(Corporation A)
“There are many corporations where it is no problem at all to pay the landlord levy. They wouldn’t invest much more if they didn’t have to pay it. In terms of capacity of the organization or in terms of necessity.”(Corporation B)
“You may also have a building code for existing buildings, but it does not include sustainability requirements so much.”(Corporation B)
“I think there should be a lot more attention for retrofits. [...] A lot more needs to be done there. The 1% of new construction we do each year is on the whole negligible.”(Corporation C)
“A simple example, until not long ago there was a STEP subsidy [incentive scheme for energy performance]. It was abolished quite suddenly. That did cause us problems. [...] Then there came a new scheme that was terminated quite abruptly, the RVV [landlord levy reduction scheme]. That makes it difficult for us, that kind of ambiguity. To us, seen from a distance, it looks like ad hoc decisions.”(Corporation A)
“There are more and more subsidies, so they try to trigger everyone, but I sometimes miss the actual vision.”(Corporation B)
“If the municipality focuses on making a neighborhood free of natural gas and loses sight of the perspective of CO2 neutrality in the long term, then you sometimes have a very complicated conversation.”(Corporation C)
“You can also see that the national government is only just starting to meet the Paris objectives for 2050, but locally you often see that the municipality wants to be climate-neutral as early as 2030. They also realize that this may not be very realistic, but they do pursue that ambition. They want us to achieve this by means of performance agreements.”(Corporation B)
“At the moment, there is simply too little knowledge at the municipality, really in-depth knowledge.”(Corporation C)
“Within these performance agreements, you see of course that they look at how the sustainability ambition can be included. So this is a unique instrument for the housing corporation sector. This also means that the housing corporation sector in general is taking steps faster than others.”(Corporation C)
4.7. Other Factors
“The construction is organized very conservatively anyway. We are still building houses like they were built 100 years ago, while all other things have been solved industrially. So why isn’t that happening yet?.”(Corporation A)
“The companies that think very circularly or apply innovation in this are often small startups. They have not yet proven themselves or are not yet able to deliver on a large scale, so they are not yet really linked to the slightly larger construction companies.”(Corporation B)
“Construction costs have risen very rapidly in recent years, and still do, so an expensive investment becomes even more expensive.”(Corporation C)
“Practice shows that the extra costs you have to incur for this, both in investment and management, makes it not really an interesting business case.”(Corporation C)
“People who do not have an EPF are better off in terms of housing costs. This is not such a good idea for the tenant.”(Corporation C)
“For many residents, sustainability does not play a role.”(Corporation A)
“Unfortunately, at the first flat, we were going to do that, the support for the energy solution was not achieved, so in the end we just did a traditional label-B renovation.”(Corporation A)
“Also in our projects we generally have no problems at all with the consent of tenants.”(Corporation B)
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Constructs | Operationalization | Questions | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Four-phase model | Vision on sustainability | Holistic, strategic | How important is sustainability for your organization? What is your definition of sustainability? What is the role of sustainability within your organization? What business objective serves sustainability? What is your organization’s vision on sustainability and what are its long-term plans? | [12,14,36] |
Business case elements | Costs, customers, legislation, reputation, identity, continuity | To what extent is sustainability part of your business model? | [12,14] | |
Transparency | Complete openness | To what extent does your organization share knowledge about and experiences with sustainability with other organizations? | [12,14] | |
Reporting | Sustainability integrated with strategy | How does your organization report on sustainability? | [12,14] | |
Stakeholders | Company | How does your organization see its social position in the field of sustainability? | [12,14] | |
Supply chain approach | Cocreation | How do you see the role of suppliers in sustainability? | [12,14] | |
Dominant functional discipline | Management and governance | Who determines the sustainability policy within your organization? | [12,14] |
Constructs | Operationalization | Questions | |
---|---|---|---|
Eight archetypes of a sustainable business model | Efficiency | Energy demand of dwellings (e.g., insulation and low temperature heating) and material consumption (e.g., modular construction, prefabricated) | Is your organization trying to maximize the efficiency of materials and energy consumption? If so, how? |
Waste | Circularity and reuse of materials (e.g., urban mining) | Is your organization trying to create value from waste? If so, how? | |
Substitution | Renewable energy (e.g., solar panels, wind generation, residual heat) | Is your organization trying to use renewable energy and natural processes? If so, how? | |
Functionality instead of ownership | Supplier remains owner and guarantees performance (lease structures for solar panels, white goods, etc.), partial economy (cars, etc.). | Does your organization focus on the delivery of functionality instead of a product? If so, how? | |
Sufficiency | Energy advice to tenants, awareness, insight into consumption, renovating instead of demolishing (life extension) | Is your organization trying to encourage (energy) efficiency? If so, how? | |
Repurpose for society/environment | Nonprofit, focused on social benefits | Does your organization prioritize social and environmental benefits over economic ones? If so, how? | |
Scalable solutions | Searching for economies of scale in order to maximize social benefits (e.g., through collaborative approaches, open innovation and crowdsourcing). | On what scale does your organization take sustainable initiatives? |
Construct | Operationalization | Questions | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Factors influencing organizational change | Supply chain collaboration | Information exchange | How do you exchange information with chain partners? | [61] |
Decision synchronisation | How is the decision-making process conducted? | |||
Incentive alignment | How are costs, risks and benefits shared? | |||
Vision on sustainability | Holistic, strategic | How important is sustainability for your organization? What is your definition of sustainability? What is the role of sustainability within your organization? Which business objective serves sustainability? What is your organization’s vision on sustainability and what are its long-term plans? | [12,14,36] | |
Continuous innovation | Open innovation Collaborative models | In what way is your organization engaged in innovation? | [2,43] | |
Experiment | ||||
Profitability | Strategic motives for sustainability initiatives | To what extent does your organization invest in sustainability because of its desire to improve its ‘bottom line’ (cost reduction, risk reduction, profit margin, reputation, attractiveness as an employer, etc.)? To what extent does your organization invest in sustainability because stakeholders and society as a whole demand it? To what extent does your organization invest in sustainability for moral reasons and a belief that this is the right thing to do? | [62] | |
Sustainable foundation | Organizational culture | What are the core values of your organization? Is sustainability part of these core values? What are the main characteristics of your organizational culture? | [30] | |
External factors | Government | What role does the government play in your transition to a sustainable business model? | [82] |
References
- Levin, K.; Cashore, B.; Bernstein, S.; Auld, G. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci. 2012, 45, 123–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocken, N.M.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dentchev, N.; Baumgartner, R.; Dieleman, H.; Jóhannsdóttir, L.; Jonker, J.; Nyberg, T.; Rauter, R.; Rosano, M.; Snihur, Y.; Tang, X.; et al. Embracing the variety of sustainable business models: Social entrepreneurship, corporate intrapreneurship, creativity, innovation, and other approaches to sustainability challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Morioka, S.N.; De Carvalho, M.M.; Evans, S. Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 190, 712–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. The European Green Deal. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 21 December 2020).
- Veenstra, J.; Koolma, H.M.; Allers, M.A. Scale, mergers and efficiency: The case of Dutch housing corporations. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2017, 32, 313–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crilly, M.; Lemon, M.; Wright, A.J.; Cook, M.B.; Shaw, D. Retrofitting homes for energy efficiency: An integrated approach to innovation in the low-carbon overhaul of UK social housing. Energy Environ. 2012, 23, 1027–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaveh, B.; Mazhar, M.U.; Simmonite, B.; Sarshar, M.; Sertyesilisik, B. An investigation into retrofitting the pre-1919 owner-occupied UK housing stock to reduce carbon emissions. Energy Build. 2018, 176, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boelhouwer, P.; Priemus, H. Demise of the Dutch social housing tradition: Impact of budget cuts and political changes. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2014, 29, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nieboer, N.; Gruis, V. The continued retreat of non-profit housing providers in the Netherlands. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2016, 31, 277–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Long, T.B.; Looijen, A.; Blok, V. Critical success factors for the transition to business models for sustainability in the food and beverage industry in the Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Visser, W. CSR 2.0: Transforming Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Van Tilburg, R.; Van Tulder, R.J.M.; Francken, M.; Rosa, A. Realising Sustainable Entrepreneurship; The Partnerships Resource Centre (PrC): Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E.G. Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 6, 95–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scanlon, K.; Arrigoitia, M.F.; Whitehead, C. Social Housing in Europe; Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- AEDES, Association of Housing Corporations. Hoe Ontwikkelt de Woningvoorraad van Woningcorporaties zich? [How Does the Housing Stock of Housing Corporations Develop?] The Hague. 2017. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/y3rryj8k (accessed on 30 June 2019).
- Schilder, F.; Van Middelkoop, M.; Van den Wijngaart, R. Energy Saving in the Housing Stock; Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Visscher, H.J. The Progress of Energy Renovations of Housing in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the World Sustainable Built Environment Conference (WSBE17): Transforming Our Built Environment through Innovation and Integration: Putting Ideas into Action, Hong Kong, China, 5–7 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Faber, A.; Hoppe, T. Co-constructing a sustainable built environment in the Netherlands—Dynamics and opportunities in an environmental sectoral innovation system. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 628–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hal, A.; Coen, M.; Stutvoet, E. Energy performance fee to cover investments in the energy efficiency of affordable housing: The Netherlands. In Affordable Housing Governance and Finance; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018; pp. 243–258. [Google Scholar]
- Boerenfijn, P.; Kazak, J.; Schellen, L.; van Hoof, J. A multi-case study of innovations in energy performance of social housing for older adults in the Netherlands. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 1762–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazhar, M.U.; Kaveh, B.; Sarshar, M.; Bull, R.; Fayaz, R. Community Engagement as a Tool to help deliver Smart City Innovation: A Case Study of Nottingham, United Kingdom. In European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) Summer Study Proceedings 2017; ECEEE: Stockholm, Sweden; Presqu’île de Giens, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Cramer, J. The transition towards sustainable cities: The Dutch experiences. In Eco-Cities: Sharing European and Asian Best Practices and Experiences; Konrad Adenauer Stiftung: Singapore, 2014; pp. 169–177. [Google Scholar]
- Stutvoet, E. Energy transition: Embrace complexity. In A+ BE| Architecture and the Built Environment; TU Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1–348. [Google Scholar]
- Filippidou, F.; Nieboer, N.; Visscher, H. Are we moving fast enough? The energy renovation rate of the Dutch non-profit housing using the national energy labelling database. Energy Policy 2017, 109, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomsen, A.F. Paradigm shift or choke? The future of the Western European housing stock. In Proceedings of the Housing: The Next 20 Years-CCPHR Conference 2010, Cambridge, UK, 16–17 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Konstantinou, T.; Dimitrijević, B. Sustainable refurbishment for an adaptable built environment. Sustainable and Resilient Building Design. In Reviews of Sustainability and Resilience of the Built Environment for Education, Research and Design; TU Delft Open: Delft, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 207–227. [Google Scholar]
- Lozano, R. Are Companies Planning their Organisational Changes for Corporate Sustainability? An Analysis of Three Case Studies on Resistance to Change and their Strategies to Overcome it. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 20, 275–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhulst, E.; Boks, C. Employee empowerment for sustainable design. J. Corp. Citizsh. 2014, 55, 73–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhulst, E.; Lambrechts, W. Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antikainen, M.; Valkokari, K.; Korhonen, H.; Wallenius, M. Exploring networked innovation in order to shape sustainable markets. In Proceedings of the ISPIM Conference Proceedings, Helsinki, Finland, 16–19 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lambrechts, W.; Gelderman, C.J.; Semeijn, J.; Verhoeven, E. The role of individual sustainability competences in eco-design building projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 1631–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leising, E.; Quist, J.; Bocken, N. Circular Economy in the building sector: Three cases and a collaboration tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 976–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Leeuw, L.; Groenleer, M. The regional governance of energy-neutral housing: Toward a framework for analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stoughton, A.M.; Ludema, J. The driving forces of sustainability. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2012, 25, 501–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crews, D.E. Strategies for implementing sustainability: Five leadership challenges. SAM Adv. Manag. J. 2010, 75, 15. [Google Scholar]
- Matschoss, K.; Heiskanen, E.; Atanasiu, B.; Kranzl, L. Energy Renovations of EU Multifamily Buildings: Do Current Policies Target the Real Problems? In Proceedings of the ECEEE 2013, Stockholm, Sweden, 3–8 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hunt, M.; de Laurentis, C. Sustainable regeneration: A guiding vision towards low-carbon transition? Local Environ. 2015, 20, 1081–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boo, E.; Dallamaggiore, E.; Dunphy, N.; Morrissey, J. How innovative business models can boost the energy efficient buildings market. Int. J. Hous. Sci. Appl. 2016, 40, 73–83. [Google Scholar]
- Beerepoot, M.; Beerepoot, N. Government regulation as an impetus for innovation: Evidence from energy performance regulation in the Dutch residential building sector. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 4812–4825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weissbrod, I.; Bocken, N.M. Developing sustainable business experimentation capability—A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2663–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stubbs, W.; Cocklin, C. Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 103–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E.G. Business Cases for Sustainability and the Role of Business Model Innovation: Developing a Conceptual Framework; Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM), Leuphana Universität: Lüneburg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, M.; Purchase, D. Building or bodging? Attitudes to sustainability in UK public sector housing construction development. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 14, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumgartner, R.J. Organisational culture and leadership: Preconditions for the development of a sustainable corporation. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 17, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hemel, C.; Cramer, J. Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 439–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Economidou, M. Overcoming the split incentive barrier in the building sector. In Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport, Workshop Summary; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Swan, W.; Ruddock, L.; Smith, L. Low carbon retrofit: Attitudes and readiness within the social housing sector. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2013, 20, 522–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Azcarate-Aguerre, J.; Konstantinou, T.; Klein, T.; Steensma, S.; Guerra-Santin, O.; Silvester, S. Investigating the business case for a zero-energy refurbishment of residential buildings by applying a pre-fabricated façade module. In Proceedings of the ECEEE, Stockholm, Sweden, 29 May–3 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mullins, D.; Milligan, V.; Nieboer, N. State directed hybridity?–the relationship between non-profit housing organisations and the state in three national contexts. Hous. Stud. 2018, 33, 565–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laukkanen, M.; Patala, S. Analysing barriers to sustainable business model innovations: Innovation systems approach. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2014, 18, 1440010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veenstra, J.; Allers, M.; Garretsen, J. Evaluation Landlord Levy; COELO: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, R.K. Case study methods. In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 111–122. [Google Scholar]
- Lambrechts, W.; Caniëls, M.C.; Molderez, I.; Venn, R.; Oorbeek, R. Unraveling the Role of Empathy and Critical Life Events as Triggers for Social Entrepreneurship. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 3054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vereecke, A.; Muylle, S. Performance improvement through supply chain collaboration in Europe. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2006, 26, 1176–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, M.; Zhang, Q. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fawcett, S.E.; McCarter, M.W.; Fawcett, A.M.; Webb, G.S.; Magnan, G.M. Why supply chain collaboration fails: The socio-structural view of resistance to relational strategies. Supply Chain Manag. 2015, 20, 648–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Emmett, S.; Crocker, B. The Relationship-Driven Supply Chain: Creating a Culture of Collaboration Throughout the Chain; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Simatupang, T.M.; Sridharan, R. The collaboration index: A measure for supply chain collaboration. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2005, 35, 44–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Massa, L.; Bocken, N.; Brent, A.; Musango, J. Business Models for Shared Value; Network for Business Sustainability: South Africa, 2016; Available online: https://sustainablebusinessmodel.org/2016/11/29/business-models-for-shared-value/ (accessed on 29 November 2016).
- Pons, O.; De la Fuente, A.; Aguado, A. The use of MIVES as a sustainability assessment MCDM method for architecture and civil engineering applications. Sustainability 2016, 8, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pujadas, P.; Pardo-Bosch, F.; Aguado-Renter, A.; Aguado, A. MIVES multi-criteria approach for the evaluation, prioritization, and selection of public investment projects. A case study in the city of Barcelona. Land Use Policy 2017, 64, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Bortel, G.; Gruis, V.; Nieuwenhuijzen, J.; Pluijmers, B. Affordable Housing Governance and Finance: Innovations, Partnerships and Comparative Perspectives; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Reindl, K.; Palm, J. Energy efficiency in the building sector: A combined middle-out and practice theory approach. Int. J. Sustain. Energy Plan. Manag. 2020, 28, 3–16. [Google Scholar]
- Lubit, R. The keys to sustainable competitive advantage. Organ. Dyn. 2001, 29, 164–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meehan, J.; Bryde, D.J. Procuring sustainably in social housing: The role of social capital. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2014, 20, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambrechts, W. Ethical and Sustainable Sourcing: Towards Strategic and Holistic Sustainable Supply Chain Management. In Decent Work and Economic Growth; Leal Filho, W., Azul, A., Brandli, L., Salvia, A.L., Wall, T., Eds.; Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; Available online: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-71058-7_11-1 (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Kotter, J.P. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Whelan-Berry, K.S.; Somerville, K.A. Linking change drivers and the organisational change process: A review and synthesis. J. Chang. Manag. 2010, 10, 175–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoekstra, J. Reregulation and Residualization in Dutch social Housing: A critical Evaluation of new Policies. Crit. Hous. Anal. 2017, 4, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- BIS. Supply Chain Analysis into the Construction Industry: A Report for the Construction Industrial Strategy; BIS Research Paper 145; Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Zuhaib, S. Attitudes and approaches of Irish retrofit industry professionals towards achieving nearly zero-energy buildings. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2017, 35, 16–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Housing Association Authority. Sector Image 2018. The Hague. Available online: https://www.ilent.nl/documenten/rapporten/2018/12/07/sectorbeeld-2018 (accessed on 18 December 2020).
- Tokede, O.; Sloan, B.; Wamuziri, S. Zero-carbon housing–state-of-the-art review. In Proceedings of the FutureBuild Conference, Bath, UK, 4–6 September 2013; pp. 2–4. [Google Scholar]
- Hoppe, T. Adoption of innovative energy systems in social housing: Lessons from eight large-scale renovation projects in The Netherlands. Energy Policy 2012, 51, 791–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoppe, T.; De Vries, G. Social innovation and the energy transition. Sustainability 2019, 11, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gruis, V.H.; Nieboer, N. Social housing investment without public finance: The Dutch case. Public Financ. Manag. 2006, 6, 122–144. [Google Scholar]
- Hartmann, A.; Reymen, I.M.; Van Oosterom, G. Factors constituting the innovation adoption environment of public clients. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 436–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mjörnell, K.; Femenías, P.; Annadotter, K. Renovation Strategies for Multi-Residential Buildings from the Record Years in Sweden—Profit-Driven or Socioeconomically Responsible? Sustainability 2019, 11, 6988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dawson, P.M. Organisational Change: A Processual Approach; Paul Chapman Publishing: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
Group | Archetype | Definition | Examples of Operationalization in SHC |
---|---|---|---|
Technological | Maximize material and energy efficiency | “Do more with fewer resources, generating less waste, emissions and pollution” [2] (p. 48) | Transformation in energy efficiency through retrofitting; zero carbon emission buildings |
Technological | Create value from ‘waste’ | “The concept of ‘waste’ is eliminated by turning waste streams into useful and valuable input to other production and making better use of underutilized capacity” [2] (p. 49) | Circular buildings; ecodesign buildings |
Technological | Substitute with renewables and natural processes | “Reduce environmental impacts and increase business resilience by addressing resource constraints ‘limits to growth’ associated with nonrenewable resources and current production systems” [2] (p. 50) | Installing solar photovoltaic panels for energy use; innovative renewable energy solutions |
Social | Deliver functionality, rather than ownership | “Provide services that satisfy users’ needs without having to own physical products” [2] (p. 50) | - |
Social | Adopt a stewardship role | “Proactively engaging with all stakeholders to ensure their long-term health and well-being” [2] (p. 51) | - |
Social | Encourage sufficiency | “Solutions that actively seek to reduce consumption and production” [2] (p. 52) | Sensitizing tenants to reduce energy consumption |
Organizational | Repurpose the business for society/environment | “Prioritizing delivery of social and environmental benefits rather than economic profit (i.e., shareholder value) maximization, through close integration between the firm and local communities and other stakeholder groups. The traditional business model where the customer is the primary beneficiary may shift” [2] (p. 53) | SHC as social enterprise organization, with social impact as primary objective |
Organizational | Develop scale-up solutions | “Delivering sustainable solutions at a large scale to maximize benefits for society and the environment” [2] (p. 53) | Collaborate with stakeholders to increase (energy) efficiency and innovative approaches |
Key Elements | Phase | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Inactive | Reactive | Active | Proactive | |
Sustainability vision | No | General statements | Focus on social contribution | Holistic, strategic |
External developments orientation | No | Externally supplied, business, location | Market and products or services | Cosmopolitan, society |
Business case elements | Costs, customers and legislation | Costs, customers, legislation and reputation | Costs, customers, legislation, reputation and identity | Costs, customers, legislation, reputation, identity and long-term continuity |
Transparency | No | On request | Product and chain | Full transparency |
Reporting | No, or only legally required reporting | Separate sustainability report | Sustainability report with focus on core themes and products | Integrated and interwoven with strategy |
Stakeholders | Government, major customers | Government, customers, suppliers, some NGOs | Government, customers, suppliers, NGOs, employees | Society |
Supply chain approach | No sustainable aspects | Codes of conduct for suppliers | Commitment and comprehensive codes of conduct | Cocreation |
Dominant functional discipline | Implementation, legal affairs | Public affairs | Corporation communication and HR | Management and governance |
Size | Interviewed | Main Achievements | |
---|---|---|---|
Corporation A | L (10,000–25,000 houses) |
|
|
Corporation B | L (10,000–25,000 houses) |
|
|
Corporation C | XL (>25,000 houses) |
|
|
Corporation D (not included) | M (5000–10,000 houses) |
|
|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lambrechts, W.; Mitchell, A.; Lemon, M.; Mazhar, M.U.; Ooms, W.; van Heerde, R. The Transition of Dutch Social Housing Corporations to Sustainable Business Models for New Buildings and Retrofits. Energies 2021, 14, 631. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030631
Lambrechts W, Mitchell A, Lemon M, Mazhar MU, Ooms W, van Heerde R. The Transition of Dutch Social Housing Corporations to Sustainable Business Models for New Buildings and Retrofits. Energies. 2021; 14(3):631. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030631
Chicago/Turabian StyleLambrechts, Wim, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Lemon, Muhammad Usman Mazhar, Ward Ooms, and Rikkert van Heerde. 2021. "The Transition of Dutch Social Housing Corporations to Sustainable Business Models for New Buildings and Retrofits" Energies 14, no. 3: 631. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030631
APA StyleLambrechts, W., Mitchell, A., Lemon, M., Mazhar, M. U., Ooms, W., & van Heerde, R. (2021). The Transition of Dutch Social Housing Corporations to Sustainable Business Models for New Buildings and Retrofits. Energies, 14(3), 631. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030631