Implications of \u3cem\u3eCaritas in Veritate\u3c/em\u3e for Marketing and Business Ethics

In an effort to assess the latest thinking in the Roman Catholic Church on economic matters, we examine the newest encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) for guidance concerning marketing and business strategy. Core ethical values, consistent with historical Catholic Social Teachings (CST), are retained. However, some important nuances are added to previous treatments, and, reflecting the mind of the current Pontiff, certain points of emphasis are shifted to account for recent global developments. Key areas of consistency and differences (as we perceive them) are spelled out along with some brief commentary on the evolution of the CST position on matters of importance to business decision makers. We close our analysis with a brief discussion of how the lessons of the encyclical can be applied to selected marketing problems embedded with ethical issues, including some criteria for evaluating marketing programs. Finally, we note some editorial commentary published in the wake of the letter’s release along with our own summation

Food supply chain stakeholders' perspectives on sharing information to detect and prevent food integrity issues

One of the biggest challenges facing the food industry is assuring food integrity. Dealing with complex food integrity issues requires a multi-dimensional approach. Preventive actions and early reactive responses are key for the food supply chain. Information sharing could facilitate the detection and prevention of food integrity issues. This study investigates attitudes towards a food integrity information sharing system (FI-ISS) among stakeholders in the European food supply chain. Insights into stakeholders' interest in participating and their conditions for joining an FI-ISS are assessed. The stakeholder consultation consisted of three rounds. During the first round, a total of 143 food industry stakeholders-covering all major food sectors susceptible to food integrity issues-participated in an online quantitative survey between November 2017 and February 2018. The second round, an online qualitative feedback survey in which the findings were presented, received feedback from 61 stakeholders from the food industry, food safety authorities and the science community. Finally, 37 stakeholders discussed the results in further detail during an interactive workshop in May 2018. Three distinct groups of industry stakeholders were identified based on reported frequency of occurrence and likelihood of detecting food integrity issues. Food industry stakeholders strongly support the concept of an FI-ISS, with an attitude score of 4.49 (standard deviation (S. D.) = 0.57) on a 5-point scale, and their willingness to participate is accordingly high (81%). Consensus exists regarding the advantages an FI-ISS can yield towards detection and prevention. A stakeholder's perception of the advantages was identified as a predictor of their intention to join an FI-ISS, while their perception of the disadvantages and the perceived risk of food integrity issues were not. Medium-sized companies perceive the current detection of food integrity issues as less likely compared to smaller and large companies. Interestingly, medium-sized companies also have lower intentions to join an FI-ISS. Four key success factors for an FI-ISS are defined, more specifically with regards to (1) the actors to be involved in a system, (2) the information to be shared, (3) the third party to manage the FI-ISS and (4) the role of food safety authorities. Reactions diverged concerning the required level of transparency, the type of data that stakeholders might be willing to share in an FI-ISS and the role authorities can have within an FI-ISS

Regulating Systemic Risk: Towards an Analytical Framework

The global financial crisis demonstrated the inability and unwillingness of financial market participants to safeguard the stability of the financial system. It also highlighted the enormous direct and indirect costs of addressing systemic crises after they have occurred, as opposed to attempting to prevent them from arising. Governments and international organizations are responding with measures intended to make the financial system more resilient to economic shocks, many of which will be implemented by regulatory bodies over time. These measures suffer, however, from the lack of a theoretical account of how systemic risk propagates within the financial system and why regulatory intervention is needed to disrupt it. In this Article, we address this deficiency by examining how systemic risk is transmitted. We then proceed to explain why, in the absence of regulation, market participants cannot be relied upon to disrupt or otherwise limit the transmission of systemic risk. Finally, we advance an analytical framework to inform systemic risk regulation

Do corporations have a duty to be trustworthy?

Since the global financial crisis in 2008, corporations have faced a crisis of trust, with growing sentiment against ‘elites and ‘big business’ and a feeling that ‘something ought to be done’ to re-establish public regard for corporations. Trust and trustworthiness are deeply moral significant. They provide the ‘glue or lubricant’ that begets reciprocity, decreases risk, secures dignity and respect, and safeguards against the subordination of the powerless to the powerful. However, in deciding how to restore trust, it is difficult to determine precisely what should be done, by whom, and who will bear the cost, especially if any action involves a risk to overall market efficiency and corporate profitability. The paper explores whether corporations have a moral duty to be trustworthy, to bear the cost of being so and thus contribute to resolving the current crisis of trust. It also considers where the state and other social actors have strong reason to protect and enforce such moral rights, while acknowledging that other actors have similar obligations to be trustworthy. It outlines five ‘salient factors’ that trigger specific rights to trustworthiness and a concomitant duty on corporations to be trustworthy: market power, subordination (threat and intimidation), the absence of choice, the need to preserve systemic trust, and corporate political power which might undermine a state’s legitimacy. Absent these factors and corporations do not have a general duty to be trustworthy, since a responsible actor in fair market conditions should be able to choose between the costs and benefits of dealing with generally trustworthy corporations

The interplay of legal and social norms and the failure of the bank credit market in Bulgaria

We take up the widely held view that the observed discrepancy between law on the books and law in action has prevented economic transition and investigate its role for the failure of the Bulgarian credit market. In doing so, we focus on the role of injunctive informal institutions which have become internalized in the course of social development. Based on cross-cultural psychology, we show that a particular bundle of fundamental social norms which constitute basic value orientations have both prevented the development of stabilizing regulations and an overall compliance with prevailing laws. --

Durable Digital Objects Rather Than Digital Preservation

Long-term digital preservation is not the best available objective. Instead, what information producers and consumers almost surely want is a universe of durable digital objects—documents and programs that are as accessible and useful a century from now as they are today. Given the will, we could implement and deploy a practical and pleasing durability infrastructure within two years. Tools for daily work can embed packaging for durability without much burdening their users. Moving responsibility for durability from archival employees to information producers also avoids burdening repositories with keeping up with Internet scale. An engineering prescription is available. Research libraries’ and archives’ slow advance towards practical preservation of digital content is remarkable to outsiders. Why is their progress stalled? Ineffective collaboration across disciplinary boundaries has surely been a major impediment. We speculate about cultural reasons for this situation and warn about possible marginalization of research librarianship as a profession.