Purpose: Digitalisation has been identified as a driving force behind retail sector transformation. The purpose of this paper is to provide a deeper understanding of how omni-channel strategies link to the digitalisation phenomenon. The study is explorative in nature and aims to expand existing knowledge by using a business model (BM) perspective. Design/methodology/approach: The study uses a qualitative approach. Data collection involved a questionnaire answered by 13 firms from three retail segments (i.e. fashion, consumer electronics and bookstores and media) and a group discussion with senior managers. The data were complemented with information from websites, applications and available online reports. Findings: The findings present empirical insights about different strategic and BM approaches to omni-channel retailing and highlight examples of pioneering retailers from the Italian market. The proposed framework consolidates earlier studies and puts forward three dimensions for a successful transition to omni-channel retailing BMs: a seamless customer experience, an integrated analytics system and an effective supply chain and logistics. Practical implications: Managers can employ an overview of mobile commerce usage to manage the process of integrating channels, within their BMs, alongside the customer journey. Particular attention should be paid to development and the use of data analytics tools as one of the dimensions with a significant impact on omni-channel management. Originality/value: First, this paper applies a BM perspective as a novel approach for analysing a transition to omni-channel retailing. Second, it is based on empirical analysis of three retail segments, which provide new insights into omni-channel strategies in the retailing literature.

This paper examines the distribution of greenfield operations vis-a-vis takeover as mode of entry for Swedish multinational finns between 1965 and 1990. The traditional view that takeovers are less risky than greenfield operations but have a lower expected rate of return, is here replaced by the perspective that different entry modes require different skills. An estimation based on the logit model finds that relatively more organizational skill, as captured by company size, number of affiliates and diversification, favours takeover. On the other hand, relatively more technological skill, reflected in R&D intensity, favours greenfield operations.

The use of cash in Sweden peaked in the end of 2007 and has been decreasing ever since (Table 1.1). The decrease in 2017 has been remarkable when looking at value of cash in circulation. The value of Swedish cash in the end of October 2017 was 26% (!) lower than in the end of 2016. The decrease since the peak in 2007 is over 50%. And it should be noted that this decrease is mainly a result of how the so-called market—banks, merchants, and consumers—supplies and demands cash. The main action by the state—or rather the Riksbank—in this period is to have decided that new bills and coins are introduced in the period from 2015 to 2017. When studying Table 5.1, it seems that the introduction of new bills and coins has had a negative effect on the use of cash where some of the decline is caused by the fact that all old cash is simply not returned to the central bank at all. There were cash with a total value of 8 billion SEK that had not been returned to the Riksbank by October 31, 2017, and thereby no longer were legal tender. This means that around a third of the decrease of cash in circulation was bills and coins that lost their status as legal tender in June 2017 but that nevertheless were not returned to the central bank. Despite this large temporary reduction due the new bills and coins, the decline was strong and critical.

The Energy Efficiency First (EE1st) principle has become an important element of European Union energy and climate policy, requiring energy efficiency to be considered and prioritised where it is more cost-effective or socially beneficial than supply-side alternatives. However, EE1st is primarily a top-down policy, planning and investment principle, not simply a measure of public support for energy efficiency. This article therefore examines a more focused question: how do households perceive, prioritise and evaluate residential energy measures that are relevant to the implementation context of EE1st? Drawing on a structured cross-national survey of 1,014 respondents in Germany, the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Denmark and Estonia, the article explores household attitudes toward selected building-related energy efficiency and decarbonisation measures, including insulation, energy-efficient windows, heating systems, heat pumps and renewable energy options. The six countries represent different institutional, welfare and energy-policy contexts, allowing for an exploratory comparison of public perceptions across diverse European settings. Findings show broad support for several residential energy measures, but also reveal important constraints. High upfront costs emerge as the most consistent barrier, while willingness to invest or tolerate disruption varies across measures and countries. Rather than demonstrating that EE1st has become embedded as a shared European norm, the results indicate that household acceptance of EE1st-relevant policy choices depends on how citizens perceive the differentiated costs, disruption, technology options and the balance between efficiency and supply-side solutions. The article contributes to the EE1st literature by clarifying the conditions of household-level acceptance that enable or impede the practical implementation of energy efficiency-oriented residential policy.

Investments in sustainability are critical given the myriad environmental and societal challenges the world confronts. However, accessing and analyzing reliable information when making informed investment decisions has proven challenging. This article, therefore, aims to identify and explore the challenges faced by investors when making sustainable investments, and to outline potential solutions to overcome them. The article utilizes a combined-method approach of interviews and complementary data from company websites, sustainability reports, and sustainability information provided by quantitative rankings and indexes. It validates results from previous studies on the lack of coherence among the various rankings and indexes via correlation analysis, and studies why reliable sustainability data are not easily accessible and why reliable analysis and investment decision-making are difficult. The article highlights a need for continuous dialogue on sustainability reporting between companies and their stakeholders, as well as for stronger regulation and research to develop better and more widely shared standards for reporting sustainability data.