IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sumafo/v24y2016i4d10.1007_s00550-016-0429-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forschungskooperationen zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis zum Thema „Corporate Social Responsibility“ am Beispiel von IKEA Deutschland

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Marie Schons

    (Universität Mannheim)

  • Sabrina Scheidler

    (Ruhr Universität Bochum)

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Kooperationen zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis sind häufig durch beiderseitige Skepsis geprägt. Der vorliegende Artikel beschäftigt sich am Beispiel der mit dem Wissenschaftspreis 2016 ausgezeichneten Forschungskooperation zwischen IKEA und einer Forschergruppe damit, wie solche Kooperationen ausgestaltet sein könnten, um für beide Parteien gewinnbringende Erkenntnisse zu generieren. Insbesondere wird dabei die wichtige Rolle von Feldexperimenten beleuchtet. Der Artikel schließt mit zehn Erfolgsfaktoren für eine erfolgreiche Zusammenarbeit zwischen Wissenschaft und Unternehmenspraxis.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Marie Schons & Sabrina Scheidler, 2016. "Forschungskooperationen zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis zum Thema „Corporate Social Responsibility“ am Beispiel von IKEA Deutschland," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 383-391, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sumafo:v:24:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s00550-016-0429-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s00550-016-0429-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00550-016-0429-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00550-016-0429-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:feb:artefa:0110 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. John A. List, 2011. "Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 3-16, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goda, Gopi Shah & Manchester, Colleen Flaherty & Sojourner, Aaron J., 2014. "What will my account really be worth? Experimental evidence on how retirement income projections affect saving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 80-92.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Kee, Jennifer Y. & Segovia, Michelle S. & Palma, Marco A., 2023. "Slim or Plus-Size Burrito? A natural experiment of consumers’ restaurant choice," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    5. Gionata Castaldi & Grazia Cecere & Mariangela Zoli, 2021. "“Smoke on the beach”: on the use of economic vs behavioral policies to reduce environmental pollution by cigarette littering," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(3), pages 1025-1048, October.
    6. Ofir Gefen & David Reeb & Johan Sulaeman, 2024. "Startups’ demand for accounting expertise: evidence from a randomized field experiment," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 3019-3052, December.
    7. Houdek, Petr, 2024. "Nudging in organizations: How to avoid behavioral interventions being just a façade," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    8. Bronchetti, Erin Todd & Huffman, David B. & Magenheim, Ellen, 2015. "Attention, intentions, and follow-through in preventive health behavior: Field experimental evidence on flu vaccination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 270-291.
    9. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    10. Fabio Galeotti & Valeria Maggian & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Fraud Deterrence Institutions Reduce Intrinsic Honesty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(638), pages 2508-2528.
    11. Biddle, Nicholas & Fels, Katja M. & Sinning, Mathias, 2018. "Behavioral insights on business taxation: Evidence from two natural field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 30-49.
    12. John List, 2021. "2021 Summary Data of Artefactual Field Experiments Published on Fieldexperiments.com," Artefactual Field Experiments 00749, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Ziegler, Andreas, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences and the individual change to alternative electricity contracts," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    14. Jasmijn Bol & Lisa Laviers & Jason Sandvik, 2023. "Creativity Contests: An Experimental Investigation of Eliciting Employee Creativity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 47-94, March.
    15. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With a Response to Commentors," CESifo Working Paper Series 4543, CESifo.
    16. Goette, Lorenz & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Degen, Kathrin & Fleisch, Elgar & Tasic, Vojkan & Lalive, Rafael & Staake, Thorsten, 2016. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11480, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Belot, Michèle & James, Jonathan, 2016. "Partner selection into policy relevant field experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 31-56.
    18. Catrine Jacobsen & Toke Reinholt Fosgaard & David Pascual†Ezama, 2018. "Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide To The Dishonesty Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 357-387, April.
    19. Carroll, Kathryn A. & Samek, Anya, 2018. "Field experiments on food choice in grocery stores: A ‘how-to’ guide," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 331-340.
    20. Eugen Dimant & Tobias Gesche, 2021. "Nudging Enforcers: How Norm Perceptions and Motives for Lying Shape Sanctions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9385, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sumafo:v:24:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s00550-016-0429-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.