Over the past several years, there have been intensive discussions about the importance of knowledge management (KM) in our society. Nowadays, it is commonly accepted that many KM disciplines and practices are relevant to the social‐level knowledge‐based development. In this context, the new theme of “knowledge cities” came to the front. This paper attempts on the one hand to define the concept in a coherent way – presenting also its main implications and benefits – and on the other hand, to examine – on a worldwide scale – the different models of knowledge cities as well as modes of practice. The authors were based on a broad range of published works, including papers, books, reports and Web sites. The main approach was to briefly present the existing views of the concept, accompanied by some criteria determining a knowledge city. The authors also tried to provide a meaningful and concise review of existing cases, avoiding to get into many confusing details. This review provided valuable input for the definition of the key success factors and main benefits related to knowledge cities. This new concept is currently a main topic of interest for the research community and practitioners. It becomes clear that it has important benefits and in this way, focused research is needed towards many directions, in order for it to become a part of our life in near future. This integrated review is a very useful source of information for academics and practitioners who want to be acquainted with the knowledge cities concept.

Purpose: During the last 15 years, knowledge management (KM) has changed from one generation to the next through constant improvements and new perspectives. A myriad researchers have presented methodologies, frameworks, technologies and have discussed various KM theoretical and practical issues. However, KM still needs extensive development – it is in its infancy. This paper aims to explore the world of KM in a different way; to review the current status quo and analyze the main agreements and disagreements among researchers and practitioners in order to highlight the key issues which need to be further researched.Design/methodology/approach: The authors attempt to review and analyze in a coherent way the main agreements and disagreements among researchers and practitioners – in the field of KM – based on a wide range of published works, including papers, books, reports and web sites.Findings: Based on the key agreements among researchers and practitioners and having in mind the remaining disagreements, the third KM generation should proceed to further investigation of several KM issues and to further research.Research limitations/implications: The key issues highlighted here need to be researched further. Following on from the individual‐knowledge focus of the 1970s/1980s and the group‐knowledge focus of the 1990s/2000s, the third KM generation should: develop criteria for evaluating frameworks, methodologies and approaches, and systems for measuring knowledge, intellectual capital and other assets; include double‐loop learning; analyse investments and costs of KM Systems; use modern technologies for transfer of explicit knowledge; and apply KM to other areas of social life. There is also a need to clarify the meanings of differences between the various concepts discussed here.Originality/value: The distinguishing feature of this study is that it emphasizes placing KM in a broader context of researchers/practitioners’ discussions so that the key issues can be better recognized and understood.

This study introduces a framework for assessing the resilience of different European countries against the problem of energy poverty. The proposed framework is established upon two major implementation pillars: capturing stakeholder knowledge and employing a multi-criteria analysis framework in order to provide valuable insights and objective results. The implicated evaluation criteria have been identified by the group of stakeholders and incorporate several socio-economic aspects of the problem beyond the energy dimension. The proposed methodology is largely dependent on the engaged stakeholders’ assessments, thus introducing nuggets of subjectivity into the whole analysis. However, it significantly differs from other energy poverty-based approaches, its novelty lying in that it directly attempts to evaluate a country according to its potential to deal with the problem as a whole, rather than deconstructing it in components and partial indicators. The proposed framework is demonstrated in countries in both Southern/Eastern and Northern/Western Europe (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain), exploiting diversities and particularities associated with their context.

In alignment with the European Union’s legislation, Greece submitted its final 10-year National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) in December 2019, setting more ambitious energy and climate targets than those originally proposed in the draft version of the document. Apart from higher penetration of renewable energy sources (RES), the final NECP projects also zero carbon use in power generation till 2030. Although decarbonization has long been regarded beneficial for economies that base their energy production on coal, as it is the case with Greece, the macroeconomic and societal ramifications of faster transitions to carbon-free economies remain highly unexplored. Under this context, in this paper, we soft-link energy models, namely Times-Greece and Primes, with a macroeconomic model, namely Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), to measure the effects of the final and draft NECPs on the Greek economy and evaluate the impact of higher decarbonization speeds. We find that the faster transition scenario displays both economic and societal merits, increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and household income by about 1% and 7%, respectively.