ICTs and ethical consumption: the political and market futures of fair trade

This paper addresses the relationship between information and communication technologies (ICTs) and ethical consumption as part of a cause for the insurance of a sustainable future. It homes in on fair trade as an ethical market, politically progressive cause and, crucially, form of participation where citizens can engage in the formation of an alternative future and the broader issue of food security. An three-dimensional analysis of agencies and uses of digital structures and content is informed by a case study approach, as well as interviews with fair trade activists, and ethically consuming citizens in the British metropolis. Through this, the argument which primarily rises distinguishes between the dimensions of durability (in terms of time and duration) and sustainability (in terms of time, duration and environmental concerns) of engagement in fair trade as a form of participation. Ethical consumption, then, is part of a durable market which has developed despite general market fluctuation, but is still very much bound in traditional physical economic spaces; in other words, ethical consumption has been integrated in the business as usual paradigm. Additionally, ICTs have not challenged the way in which information about ethical consumption is communicated or the spaces in which it is conducted. ICTs have been employed by fair trade activists, but they have not contributed to the development of fair trade as a political or economic project. Over a period of over five decades since the inception of the cause, their use has not significantly altered the way in which citizens engage with fair trade in the alternative or mainstream marketplace

Hand-rolled cigarette smoking patterns compared with factory-made cigarette smoking in New Zealand men

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes have increased in popularity, yet their comparative potential toxicity is uncertain. This study compares smoking of RYO and factory-made (FM) cigarettes on smoking pattern and immediate potential toxicity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>At a research clinic, 26 RYO and 22 FM volunteer male cigarette smokers, (addicted and overnight-tobacco-abstinent) each smoked 4 filter cigarettes, one half-hourly over 2 hours, either RYO or FM according to usual habit, using the CReSSMicro flowmeter. First cigarette smoked was their own brand. Subsequent cigarettes, all Holiday regular brand, were RYOs (0.5 g tobacco with filter), or FM with filter. Cravings on 100 mm visual analogue scale, and exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) were measured before and after each cigarette smoked.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Smokers reported similar daily cigarette consumption (RYO 19.0, FM 17.4, p = 0.45), and similar time after waking to first cigarette. (RYO 6.1 minutes, FM 8.6 minutes, p = 0.113). First cigarette's RYO tobacco (0.45 g) weighed less than for FM (0.7 g, p < 0.001); less tobacco was burnt (0.36 g, FM 0.55 g, p < 0.001) but smoking patterns were no different. RYO smokers smoked subsequent cigarettes more intensively; inhaled 28% more smoke per cigarette (RYO 952 mL, FM 743 mL, p = 0.025); took 25% more puffs (RYO 16.9, FM 13.6, p = 0.035); puffed longer (RYO 28 seconds, FM 22 seconds, p = 0.012), taking similar puffs (RYO 57 mL, FM 59 mL). Over four cigarettes, RYOs boosted alveolar CO (RYO 13.8 ppm, FM 13.8 ppm), and reduced cravings (RYO 53%, FM 52%) no differently from FM cigarettes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In these smokers, RYO smoking was associated with increased smoke exposure per cigarette, and similar CO breath levels, and even with filters is apparently no less and possibly more dangerous than FM smoking. Specific package warnings should warn of RYO smoking's true risk. RYOs are currently taxed much less than FM cigarettes in most countries; similar harm merits similar excise per cigarette.</p

How Global are Global Brands? An Empirical Brand Equity Analysis

The term 'global brand' has become widely used by the media and by consumers. Business week publishes annually its widely known ranking of the 'Best Global Brands' (with Coca-Cola as number 1 in the past years) and consumers on summer vacations purchase brands such as Heineken or Marlboro they are familiar with from their home country. Although media and consumers call these brands 'global' and centralized marketing departments manage these brands globally - are these 'global brands' really global? Are they really perceived everywhere in the same way by the customers? Can we talk about truly global brand equity? And if there were brand image differences between countries, which factors causes them? The authors conducted an empirical research during May and June 2009 with similarly aged University students (bachelor students at business school) in Germany (n=426) and Mexico (n=296). The goal was to identify if brand awareness rates differ between Germans and Mexicans, if the brand image of Apple iPod is perceived in the same way in Germany and in Mexico and what influencing factors might have an impact on any brand image discrepancy between the countries. Results prove that brand recall rates differ between the two countries (with higher rates in Mexico) as well as brand image attributes vary significantly (28 out of 34 brand image attributes are significantly different between Germany and Mexico), with Mexico showing higher levels of favorable brand image attributes. Key influencing factors on the different brand image perceptions are perceived quality, satisfaction and the influence of reference groups (such as friends and family). The results suggest that so-called 'global brands' are not perceived the same way in Germany and Mexico. As a consequence, brand management using standardized marketing instruments for its presumable 'global brands' might be better off with a more differentiated approach that takes account a specific local brand image