Monthly Archives: April 2026

Prioritise Grid Readiness to Minimise the Cost of EV and V2G Expansion

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) chargers allow electric vehicles to function as a distributed battery network, enabling electricity to be stored and returned to the grid when needed. This capability has the potential to smooth fluctuations in demand throughout the day, for example, by supplying power during evening peaks and recharging overnight. In principle, such systems could improve efficiency for utilities while offering incentives to EV owners, such as reduced charging costs or financial compensation for supplying energy back to the grid.

However, modelling from an international team of researchers indicates that V2G alone cannot fully offset the additional strain that widespread EV adoption places on existing electricity infrastructure. Even with advanced charging technologies, current grid systems are not equipped to handle the projected growth in electricity demand. As a result, relying on V2G to delay or substitute for grid upgrades may not be sufficient or cost-effective in the long term.

The researchers instead recommend prioritising early investment in grid infrastructure, with upgrades designed to meet long-term demand projections. Their analysis suggests that planning for future electricity needs—looking as far ahead as 2050—can reduce total system costs by avoiding repeated, incremental upgrades. While V2G technology remains valuable, it is most effective when deployed alongside a grid that has already been strengthened to accommodate increased loads.

The study examined detailed data from California’s Bay Area, where EV adoption is already high. Using census data and projections, the team modelled when households are likely to adopt EVs, where charging would occur, and how factors such as rooftop solar installations and rising baseline energy demand would influence electricity use. They compared different charging strategies, ranging from basic chargers to more advanced systems capable of flexible timing and bidirectional energy flow.

Their findings highlight that infrastructure lifespans play a crucial role in determining cost efficiency. Grid components such as transformers can last up to 40 years, whereas EV chargers typically have a lifespan of about a decade. This means that delaying major grid upgrades in favour of incremental improvements can lead to higher cumulative costs, as equipment may need to be replaced or upgraded multiple times. In contrast, undertaking larger, forward-looking upgrades early can avoid these inefficiencies.

The research also underscores that the benefits of V2G increase as EV adoption and renewable energy generation expand. In areas with significant solar power, for instance, EVs can store excess energy generated during the day and release it when demand rises, reducing pressure on transmission systems. This makes V2G particularly valuable in a mature energy ecosystem, rather than as a stopgap solution during early adoption phases.

Overall, the study concludes that the most cost-effective pathway is to upgrade the grid first and introduce V2G capabilities more gradually. By initially deploying simpler, lower-cost chargers and transitioning to advanced V2G systems later, utilities can better align infrastructure investments with evolving demand. This staged approach ensures that both grid capacity and charging technology develop in tandem, maximising efficiency while minimising long-term costs.

More information: Liangcai Xu et al, Proactive grid investment enables V2G for 100% adoption of electric vehicles in urban areas, Joule. DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2026.102393

Journal information: Joule Provided by University of Michigan

Evidence Suggests Sugary Drink Taxes Are Less Effective in Fast-Food Settings

Leave a Reply

A new study led by Brian Elbel and Pasquale Rummo from NYU Grossman School of Medicine has found that taxes on sugary drinks may not reduce the number of beverage calories people purchase at fast-food restaurants in the United States. The findings were published on April 2 in the open-access journal PLOS Medicine.

Taxes on sugary drinks have been introduced in several U.S. cities as a public health measure aimed at reducing sugar intake and encouraging healthier choices. Previous research has shown that these taxes can lead to about a 15% drop in sugary drink sales in grocery stores. However, less is known about whether the same effect occurs in restaurant settings, where purchasing habits may differ.

To explore this, researchers analysed six years of sales data, from 2015 to 2020, covering more than 7,300 Taco Bell locations across the country. The study focused on drive-through orders, which make up a large share of fast-food transactions. The researchers compared beverage calories per transaction in 60 restaurants located in areas with sugary drink taxes to similar restaurants in areas without such taxes.

The cities included in the analysis were Albany, Cook County, Oakland, Philadelphia, and Seattle. Each of these locations has implemented a tax on sugary beverages. Their results were compared with matched restaurants in places without such policies to assess any differences in consumer behaviour.

Overall, the study found no meaningful link between sugary drink taxes and the number of beverage calories purchased per order in fast-food settings. This suggests that taxes of the current size, or taxes alone, may not be enough to change how people choose drinks when ordering fast food significantly.

The researchers suggest that the nature of fast-food purchasing may explain these findings. Customers often choose bundled meals or prioritise convenience and habit over price differences. As a result, they may be less sensitive to small price increases caused by taxes. The authors also note that the taxes in place may be too modest to influence behaviour in these settings, or that consumers respond differently in restaurants compared to grocery stores.

More information: Pasquale Rummo et al, Impact of sugary drink taxes on beverage calories purchased in a national fast food restaurant chain: A quasi-experimental study, PLOS Medicine. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004642

Journal information: PLOS Medicine Provided by PLOS

Negative emotions on the job aren’t always harmful—empathetic leadership matters most

Leave a Reply

During a widespread crisis, negative emotions do not simply disappear when the workday begins. Employees carry worry, fear, and uncertainty with them into their roles, shaping how they think, behave, and interact with others. For a long time, organisational research has tended to assume that these negative emotions inevitably lead to harmful outcomes at work. However, emerging evidence suggests that this assumption is too simplistic and does not fully reflect what actually happens in real-world settings.

Recent research led by David Lebel, an associate professor of business administration, challenges this conventional view. Working with doctoral researcher Jordan Sanders and Jochen Menges, Lebel examined emotional dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their findings revealed that only about half of the observed relationships between negative emotions and workplace outcomes were harmful. In many cases, negative emotions had no measurable effect, and in some situations, they were even associated with positive outcomes.

The study, published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, also highlighted the crucial role of leadership in shaping these outcomes. Leaders who expressed positive emotions such as compassion, hope, and empathy were able to buffer or even reverse the negative effects typically associated with stress and uncertainty. For example, organisations whose leaders communicated genuine care and concern for employees saw stronger performance indicators during the early stages of the pandemic. Similarly, leaders in public roles who conveyed empathy and confidence were linked to better societal outcomes, including fewer adverse consequences during the crisis.

At the organisational level, employees responded positively when supervisors acknowledged emotional realities rather than ignoring them. Expressions of empathy and understanding were associated with higher levels of engagement and commitment, suggesting that people are more willing to invest in their work when they feel seen and supported. Importantly, these findings reinforce the idea that emotions are not inherently disruptive; rather, their impact depends heavily on how they are recognised and managed within a workplace context.

That said, not all emotional expressions from leaders are beneficial. The research found that when leaders openly displayed anxiety in ways that amplified organisational fear, it was linked to poorer perceptions of ethical leadership and increased reports of negative supervisory behaviours. However, there is a meaningful distinction between broadcasting anxiety and sharing it constructively. Leaders who acknowledged their own concerns in a measured and relatable way—such as expressing that they too felt uncertain—were better able to build trust and connection with their teams.

Ultimately, while negative emotions can sometimes drive short-term performance, they are not sustainable motivators. Prolonged exposure to fear, stress, or anxiety tends to result in burnout, disengagement, and declining wellbeing. Supportive organisational practices, such as flexible working arrangements and socially responsible human resource policies, can help mitigate these effects and allow employees to find greater meaning in their work. As Lebel suggests, in times of uncertainty, the goal is not to eliminate negative emotions, but to respond to them with empathy and care, recognising that they are already present and must be managed thoughtfully rather than intensified.

More information: David Lebel et al, Beyond positivity: A review of the functional outcomes of negative emotions at work, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000422

Journal information: Journal of Occupational Health Psychology Provided by University of Pittsburgh

The Unexpected Freedom of a Cancelled Meeting

Leave a Reply

Unless you happen to work for Lumon Industries—where, like in Severance, the workday never truly ends—a cancelled meeting can feel like an unexpected gift of time, that sudden opening in your schedule often feels larger than it really is, as though the day has briefly expanded and given you room to breathe.

A study from Rutgers University, published in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, helps explain this phenomenon. Researchers found that when people unexpectedly gain time, it alters how long that time feels, which in turn shapes how they choose to use it. In simple terms, a free hour that appears out of nowhere does not feel like an ordinary hour.

“An hour gained feels longer than 60 minutes, and that deviation from expectation creates a unique sense of opportunity,” said Gabriela Tonietto, associate professor of marketing at Rutgers Business School and lead author of the study. Her broader research has explored time management challenges such as over-scheduling, the experience of “time famine,” and even the surprising value of having nothing to do.

To investigate further, Tonietto and colleagues from Ohio State University, the University of Toronto, and Peking University conducted seven surveys with more than 2,300 participants. In the first set of surveys, people compared unexpected free time with time that had always been available. The findings showed that gained time feels subjectively longer, likely because it is mentally contrasted with having no free time at all.

The researchers then examined how people actually use this so-called “windfall time.” Across additional surveys, participants consistently chose longer activities than they otherwise would. Whether productive or leisurely, people tended to stretch their choices—opting for a longer task, a slower coffee break, or a more relaxed use of their time simply because it felt more abundant.

The takeaway is that a sense of time abundance makes more feel possible, but it does not always lead to greater productivity. In fact, when time is freed up unexpectedly—especially at the last minute—people are more likely to drift towards leisure. So when a meeting is cancelled, it may feel like a small gift; how you use it, however, still depends on how you choose to spend that unexpected space in your day.

More information: Gabriela Tonietto et al, Gained Time Is Expanded: Examining the Psychological and Behavioral Consequences of Gaining Time, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research. DOI: 10.1086/740288

Journal information: Journal of the Association for Consumer Research Provided by Rutgers University

When Private Solutions Fall Short on Climate Change

Leave a Reply

When dealing with climate change, focusing too much on private solutions instead of public action can create serious problems. Private measures—such as building local flood defences or protecting specific communities—may help in the short term, but they do not reduce the overall level of greenhouse gas emissions. When governments prioritise these private approaches over wider public efforts, global progress slows down. This can make climate change worse for everyone, especially for poorer countries and vulnerable populations who have fewer resources to protect themselves.

This situation is often described as the “private solution trap.” It happens when wealthier countries concentrate on protecting their own citizens instead of contributing enough to global solutions. While this may seem sensible from a national perspective, it can actually increase inequality and leave others at greater risk. In the end, this approach weakens the collective effort needed to address climate change effectively on a global scale.

An international study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences explored this issue in detail. Researchers, including those from the University of Bologna, conducted an experiment involving more than 7,500 participants from 34 different countries. The goal was to understand how people decide to use their resources when faced with the challenge of climate change.

In the study, participants were placed into small groups and asked to decide how to allocate their resources. They could choose between investing in a public solution, such as reducing emissions, or a private solution that only protects their own situation. Some participants were given more resources, representing wealthier countries, while others had fewer resources, representing poorer nations. The results showed a clear pattern: those with more resources were much more likely to invest in private solutions and less likely to support shared public efforts.

This behaviour reflects a broader issue in real life. Societies often rely on public systems—like healthcare, education, and transport—to address common challenges. However, private alternatives also exist, such as private insurance or private schools. In the context of climate change, both public and private actions are important. The key challenge is finding the right balance. If too many resources are directed towards private protection, the global problem remains unsolved.

The study also found that cultural values can influence decisions. People from countries that emphasise fairness and community were more likely to support public solutions, while those from more hierarchical societies tended to prefer private approaches. However, over time, most groups still fell into the same trap. One encouraging finding was that groups that acted quickly and worked together on public solutions were more successful overall. This suggests that coordinated global efforts—such as cooperation between countries or shared investment strategies—are essential for tackling climate change effectively.

More information: Eugene Malthouse et al, The private solution trap in collective action problems across 34 nations, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2504632123

Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Provided by Università di Bologna

When confidence turns costly: CEOs who avoid delegating at critical moments

Leave a Reply

A new study finds that overconfident CEOs are less likely to delegate responsibilities to their teams, particularly in complex, high-stakes settings such as major mergers and acquisitions. This reluctance can be especially consequential when transactions involve intricate negotiations, unfamiliar industries, or significant financial risk—situations where diverse expertise could strengthen decision-making.

“Organisations have only grown more complex over time, often operating across multiple countries and sectors,” says Jared Smith, co-author of the study. “As a result, it is increasingly important to bring more voices to the table. Drawing on varied expertise and experience can help companies navigate today’s complex business environment.” Delegation, he notes, is not simply a managerial preference but a strategic tool that allows CEOs to incorporate specialised knowledge while freeing up their own capacity to address broader organisational challenges.

To examine the relationship between CEO overconfidence and delegation, researchers analysed 3,690 mergers and acquisitions conducted by publicly traded firms between 2000 and 2019. The study focused on transactions valued at $50 million or more and representing at least 1% of the acquiring company’s equity. In total, these deals involved 1,634 CEOs, providing a substantial dataset for evaluating leadership behaviour in high-pressure contexts.

The researchers assessed CEO confidence using an established method based on executives’ stock option exercise patterns, which can signal overconfidence in future firm performance. Delegation, meanwhile, was measured by examining press releases, news coverage, and “background of the merger” documents submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Mentions of non-executive participants in these materials were treated as evidence that responsibilities had been shared beyond the C-suite. Cross-referencing these sources helped validate whether those individuals were actively involved in the deal-making process.

The findings show that 41% of CEOs in the sample were classified as overconfident. Compared to their peers, these leaders were 10–15% less likely to delegate responsibilities during mergers and acquisitions. The tendency was even more pronounced in situations where delegation would arguably be most valuable. For instance, when companies pursued acquisitions in unfamiliar industries, overconfident CEOs were especially unlikely to involve additional expertise—despite the heightened need for specialised knowledge.

Perhaps most strikingly, the study found that as organisational complexity increased, overconfident CEOs became even less inclined to delegate. Firms with multiple business segments—where leaders face more complex information environments—saw a sharper decline in delegation among overconfident executives. This runs counter to conventional expectations that greater complexity should encourage leaders to seek broader input. While confidence remains an important leadership trait, the findings suggest that excessive confidence may limit collaboration and hinder a company’s ability to navigate complex strategic decisions.

More information: Matthew Josefy et al, Leave It to Me: Overconfident CEOs’ Lower Propensity to Delegate Acquisition Responsibility, Journal of Management Studies. DOI: 10.1111/joms.70095

Journal information: Journal of Management Studies Provided by North Carolina State University