Do land ownership types matter in manufacturing firms’ location choice? Using Beijing as a case study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daquan Huang ◽  
Shihao Zhu ◽  
Tao Liu ◽  
Pingping Ma
2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 73-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Kuemmerle ◽  
J. Kozak ◽  
V. C. Radeloff ◽  
P. Hostert

Author(s):  
Vanessa Johnston ◽  
Ben France-Hudson

This article considers what Australian responses to climate change may teach us about the concept of ownership. Through a close analysis of laws aimed at encouraging specific land uses in order to mitigate emissions, it argues that these laws support the increasingly uncontroversial claim that ownership of estates or interests in land places obligations and responsibilities on owners to exercise the resulting rights for the benefit of others. However, although land ownership is flexible enough to support the environmental objectives of these laws, their failure to adequately accommodate the practicalities of ownership, such as anticipating the position of successors in title, increases the risk of conflict between owners of estates and interests in land, and compromises the ability of both environmental and property law regimes to achieve their intended objectives.


2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 810-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sambit Lenka ◽  
Vinit Parida ◽  
David Rönnberg Sjödin ◽  
Joakim Wincent

Purpose The dominant-view within servitization literature presupposes a progressive transition from product to service orientation. In reality, however, many manufacturing firms maintain both product and service orientations throughout their servitization journey. Using the theoretical lens of organizational ambivalence, the purpose of this paper is to explore the triggers, manifestation and consequences of these conflicting orientations. Design/methodology/approach A multiple case study method was used to analyze five large manufacturing firms that were engaged in servitization. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 respondents across different functions within these firms. Findings Servitizing firms experience organizational ambivalence during servitization because of co-existing product and service orientations. This paper provides a framework that identifies the triggers of this ambivalence, its multi-level manifestation and its consequences. These provide implications for explaining why firms struggle to implement servitization strategies due to co-existing product and services orientations. Understanding organizational ambivalence, provides opportunity to manage related challenges and can be vital to successful servitization. Originality/value Considering the theoretical concept of ambivalence could advance the understanding of the effects and implications of conflicting orientations during servitization in manufacturing firms.


Heliyon ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. e03734
Author(s):  
N. Shahrubudin ◽  
P. Koshy ◽  
J. Alipal ◽  
M.H.A. Kadir ◽  
T.C. Lee

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document