Spillover Effects From Next Generation EU

Calandra

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

et al. 2021

397

127

Background/Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) in the healthcare sector is receiving attention from researchers and health professionals. Few previous studies have investigated this topic from a multi-disciplinary perspective, including accounting, business and management, decision sciences and health professions. Methods The structured literature review with its reliable and replicable research protocol allowed the researchers to extract 288 peer-reviewed papers from Scopus. The authors used qualitative and quantitative variables to analyse authors, journals, keywords, and collaboration networks among researchers. Additionally, the paper benefited from the Bibliometrix R software package. Results The investigation showed that the literature in this field is emerging. It focuses on health services management, predictive medicine, patient data and diagnostics, and clinical decision-making. The United States, China, and the United Kingdom contributed the highest number of studies. Keyword analysis revealed that AI can support physicians in making a diagnosis, predicting the spread of diseases and customising treatment paths. Conclusions The literature reveals several AI applications for health services and a stream of research that has not fully been covered. For instance, AI projects require skills and data quality awareness for data-intensive analysis and knowledge-based management. Insights can help researchers and health professionals understand and address future research on AI in the healthcare field.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a structured literature review

Calandra

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

et al. 2021

397

127

“…In the current context, stakeholder stances related to the EIB double-axis activity for addressing both climate and pandemic crises are diverging, in the same fashion as not-for-profit organizations and, in particular, public banks. In the case of the EIB in particular, the stakeholder interests diverge for a broad variety of reasons, such as: i) sectoral and geographic asymmetries triggered by the pandemic (Bunte et al 2021;Carney, 2020;Das et al, 2021;Eurostat, 2021); ii) funding preferences for concessional funding in the form of EU grants provided under the new Recovery and Resilience Facility as well as pre-existing programs, instead of EIB loans which have to be repaid and come with strict conditions; iii) macroeconomic context, as countries with fiscal surpluses are benefiting from the timing of the NGEU funds-outflow, given that payouts will be effective in 2023, while countries with short-term requirements, mostly those that hit by the global financial crisis, can only bridge their funding needs with loans from the EU, which have to be repaid in 2028-2058, and additional EIB loans; iv) capital market conditions, as the EC becomes an important EIB competitor (Ainger & Nardelli, 2021) through its new 30-year Eurobonds which are to be issued for a planned EUR 1 trillion over the next five years in order to fund the EU loans mentioned above to the countries with no fiscal surpluses; v) paucity of funds, as the European financial response package falls short of the economic recovery needs (Picek, 2020), provoking a rally among countries and project promoters for securing financing for urgent short-term survival needs rather than long-term funding for climate-related transformations; vi) fund-distribution mechanisms, favoring predominantly the EIB's existing network of partner financial institutions which intermediate the channeling of EIB funds to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Clifton et al, 2020), continuing the path of favoring opaqueness (Clifton et al, 2020;Griffith-Jones & Naqvi, 2020), while increasing competition among EIB's peers addresses the -need to level the playing field‖ (Mertens et al, 2020, p. 8) and the need to develop novel approaches for tackling the twin crises (Carney, 2020); vii) financialization of COVID-19 related investments through intermediation via the banking sector, which has been criticized as inappropriate for public goods sectors such as health (Clifton et al, 2020; Counter Balance (CB), 2021).…”

Section: Applying the Stakeholder Governance Framework To The Eibmentioning

confidence: 99%

Green Economy in the Post-pandemic Period: A Framework for Organizational Stakeholder Analysis

Kavvadia

2022

BER

In the current geo-economic landscape, the satisfaction of green economy goals and post-pandemic economic recovery dominate public discussion. Although climate change consequences are increasingly evidenced, economic actors devastated by the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis are tempted to prioritize some “less green” activity, as demonstrated at the fall 2021 G20 summit and the United Nations COP26 summit in Rome and Glasgow, respectively. This tendency is reflected in the indecision of economic actors in setting future goals, partly as a result of diverging stakeholder forces applied to organizations. Although stakeholders’ views are often not publicly known, they shape organizational policies. To understand the stance of organizations on the dilemma of “climate versus recovery,” it is therefore important to decipher the stance of their stakeholders concerning the two alternative priorities. This article provides a framework for analyzing stakeholders’ positions on this predicament based on how public or private their goals, consultations, and deliberations are. The validity of the proposed framework is tested in a case study approach through the examination of stakeholder preferences shaping the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) decision-making. The European Union’s (EU) bank has been chosen as a case study because it announced its “pivot” to become the first public international climate bank in 2019, and formed an important part of the Union’s first response to the COVID-19 pandemic resilience and stimulus initiatives.

“…59 Already in the Multiannual financial framework (2021–2027) and Next Generation EU Fund 60 we notice the first signs of greater European fiscal integration, for example, revenues deriving from the constituent carbon tax at the border have already been budgeted. Picek ( 2020 ), who conducted an analysis of the economic effects of the reconstruction plan Next Generation EU, highlights the need for a coordinated fiscal policy response to the economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic to optimize the effectiveness of measures to stimulate the economy. These represent the first cries of a European financial collection and its redistribution.…”

Section: Flexibility In Calculating Emissions: Charge On Added Emissions 51mentioning

confidence: 99%

Market Mechanisms for Reducing Emissions and the Introduction of a Flexible Consumption Tax

Gerbeti

2021

Glob J Flex Syst Manag

Since its founding institutions the European Economic Community and Eratom, the European Union has paid great attention to energy issues. However, its powers have been updated in relatively recent times. Similarly, the EU has promoted in the post-Kyoto Protocol environmental issues with a leading by example approach and implementing an ambitious plan to decarbonize the economy with the energy transition and emission limitation through a market instrument, the emission trading system. The European emissions trading system has been the most ambitious management of negative externalities related to GHG set-up at the international level. The EU now considers that the costs of ecological industrial transition could limit the ability of European industries to compete in the globalized market with industries not subject to similar limits and costs. The EU intends to adopt a carbon adjustment tax at the border, to limit the phenomenon of reallocation and compensate for environmental costs. This paper analyses the various proposals and their advantages and disadvantages. The focus is on the charge on emissions mechanism, which is one of the three proposals the European Economic and Social Committee suggested to the European Commission for further investigation in view of the current competitive asymmetry now recognized by the EU Commission itself. The charge on emissions would value industrial emissions directly within the VAT and use the blockchain to track the emissive supply chain of products.