Antarctic Special Protected Area 161 as a Reference to Assess the Effects of Anthropogenic and Natural Impacts on Meiobenthic Assemblages

The Antarctic region is usually considered a pristine area. Nevertheless, regional warming effects and increasing human activities, including the presence of several research stations, are inducing considerable environmental changes that may affect the ecosystem’s functions. Therefore, during the XXXIII Antarctic expedition, we carried out an investigation in Terra Nova bay (Ross Sea), close to the Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) n.161. In particular, we compared the effects of two different types of impacts on the meiobenthic assemblages: anthropogenic impact (AI), associated with the activity of Mario Zucchelli Research Station (MZS), and natural impact (NI) attributable to a large colony of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) in Adelie Cove. For each impacted site, a respective control site and two sampling depths (20 and 50 m) were selected. Several environmental variables (pH, dissolved oxygen, major and minor ions, heavy metals, organic load, and sediment grain size) were measured and analysed, to allow a comprehensive characterization of the sampling areas. According to the criteria defined by Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA 2009), heavy metal concentrations did not reveal critical conditions. However, both the MZS (AI20) and penguin colony (NI20) sites showed higher heavy metal concentrations, the former due to human activities related to the Italian research station, with the latter caused by the penguins excrements. Meiobenthic richness and abundance values suggested that the worst ecological condition was consistently related to the Adélie penguins colony. Furthermore, the higher contribution of r-strategists corroborates the hypothesis that the chronic impact of the penguin colonies may have stronger effects on the meiobenthos than the human activities at the MZS. Food is not limited in shallow Antarctic bottoms, and microscale differences in primary and secondary production processes can likely explain the greater spatial heterogeneity, highlighted both by the univariate and multivariate attributes of meiobenthic assemblage (i.e., richness, diversity, abundance, whole structure assemblage, and rare taxa) at the deeper stations. As reported in other geographical regions, the assemblage structure of rare meiobenthic taxa is confirmed to be more susceptible to environmental variations, rather than the whole assemblage structure

In situ recordings of large gelatinous spheres from NE Atlantic, and the first genetic confirmation of egg mass of Illex coindetii (Vérany, 1839) (Cephalopoda, Mollusca)

In total, 90 gelatinous spheres, averaging one meter in diameter, have been recorded from ~ 1985 to 2019 from the NE Atlantic Ocean, including the Mediterranean Sea, using citizen science. More than 50% had a dark streak through center. They were recorded from the surface to ~ 60–70 m depth, mainly neutrally buoyant, in temperatures between 8 and 24°C. Lack of tissue samples has until now, prohibited confirmation of species. However, in 2019 scuba divers secured four tissue samples from the Norwegian coast. In the present study, DNA analysis using COI confirms species identity as the ommastrephid broadtail shortfin squid Illex coindetii (Vérany, 1839); these are the first confirmed records from the wild. Squid embryos at different stages were found in different egg masses: (1) recently fertilized eggs (stage ~ 3), (2) organogenesis (stages ~ 17–19 and ~ 23), and (3) developed embryo (stage ~ 30). Without tissue samples from each and every record for DNA corroboration we cannot be certain that all spherical egg masses are conspecific, or that the remaining 86 observed spheres belong to Illex coindetii. However, due to similar morphology and size of these spheres, relative to the four spheres with DNA analysis, we suspect that many of them were made by I. coindetii

The politics of vibrant matter: consistency, containment and the concrete of Mussolini’s bunker

This article explores the idea of how vibrancy can be produced. Specifically, the attempt is to investigate the multiplicities of vibrancy by considering one of Mussolini’s bunkers. The author examines the location of the bunker in the EUR (Esposizione Universale Romana) neighbourhood in Rome, the bunker’s materiality, and the context and social meaning of the bunker through a contemporary art exhibition called ‘Confronti’ (Confrontations) that took place in the bunker in 2009. The article argues that while emphasizing matter’s inherent vibrancy may be useful in some cases, there is also merit in further unpacking the ways in which vibrancy is produced. In this example, the concrete bunker expresses vibrancy through the processes involved in the emergent material form, and in the sustained politics and social considerations embedded in valuing tangible urban heritage

International entrepreneurship in SMEs: a study of influencing factors in the textile industry

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0242-3International entrepreneurship is an incipient research area with a rapidly increasing body of knowledge and contributions. An important part of this literature has focused on the analysis of the contributing factors to IE development. From these studies, this work attempts to analyse and validate through an integrative model the effect on this construct in SME of some of the main factors proposed by the literature such as Skills and Competences, Attitude and Proactiveness, Creativity and Innovation, Networking, Employees and Activity. To proceed with this aim, we conducted an empirical research focused on 174 textile SME in Spain. The results obtained confirm a positive relationship between the studied factors and the IE development. In consequence, this work agrees with previous literature that point out the need to use multi-theoretical perspectives, combining multiple factors.Gil Pechuán, I.; Expósito Langa, M.; Tomas Miquel, JV. (2013). International entrepreneurship in SMEs: a study of influencing factors in the textile industry. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 9(1):45-57. doi:10.1007/s11365-012-0242-3S455791Akgün, A., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2012). Organizational emotional memory. Management Decision, 50(1), 95–114.Andersén, J. (2011). Strategic resources and firm performance. Management Decision, 49(1), 87–98.Anderson, A. R., Dodd, S. D., & Jack, S. L. (2012). Entrepreneurship as connecting: some implications for theorising and practice. Management Decision, 50(5), 958–971.Appelbaum, S. H., Roy, M., & Gilliland, T. (2011). Globalization of performance appraisals: theory and applications. Management Decision, 49(4), 570–585.Arribas, I., Hernández, P., Urbano, A., & Vila, J. E. (2012). Are social and entrepreneurial attitudes compatible? A behavioral and self-perceptional analysis. Management Decision, 50(10), 1739–1757.Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5), 755–764.Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 909–924.Bannon, L. (1998). Mattel plans to double sales abroad. Wall Street Journal, February 11, (A3 and A8).Battistella, C., Biotto, G., & De Toni, A. (2012). From design driven innovation to meaning strategy. Management Decision, 50(4), 718–743.Bell, J., McNaughton, J., Young, R., & Crick, D. (2003). Towards an integrative model of small firm internationalization. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 339–362.Bonzo, P., Valadares de Oliveira, P., & McCormarck. (2012). Planning, capabilities, and performance: an integrated value approach. Management Decision, 50(6), 1001–1021.Bossak, J., & Nagashima, S. (1997). Corporate strategies for a borderless world: sharpening your competitive edge. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.Cambra-Fierro, J., Florin, J., Perez, L., & Whitelock, J. (2011). Inter-firm market orientation as antecedent of knowledge transfer, innovation and value creation in networks. Management Decision, 49(3), 444–467.Cantarello, S., Nosella, A., Petroni, G., & Venturini, K. (2011). External technology sourcing: evidence from design-driven innovation. Management Decision, 49(6), 962–983.Chang, Y. Y., Hughes, M., & Hotho, S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49(10), 1658–1676.Chaston, I., & Scott, G. J. (2012). Entrepreneurship and open innovation in an emerging economy. Management Decision, 50(7), 1161–1177.Coviello, N. E., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 485–508.Coviello, N. E., & McAuley, A. (1999). Internationalization and the smaller firm: a review of contemporary empirical research. Management International Review, 39, 223–256.Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 7–25.Davis, D., Morris, M., & Allen, J. (1991). Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(1), 43–51.Dean, C. C., Thibodeaux, M. S., Beyerlein, M., Ebrahimi, B., & Molina, D. (1993). Corporate entrepreneurship and competitive aggressiveness. A comparison of U.S. firms operating in eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States with U.S. firms in other high-risk environments. Advances in International Comparative Management, 8, 31–54.Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of privately held firms and conglomerate business units. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 265–273.Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 677–695.Díaz-Casero, J. C., Díaz-Aunión, A., Sánchez-Escobedo, M. C., Coduras-Martinez, A., & Hernández-Mogollón, R. (2012). Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity. Management Decision, 50(9), 1686–1711.Dimitratos, P., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2003). Theoretical foundations of an international entrepreneurial culture. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 187–215.Dubini, P., & Aldrich, H. (1991). Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 305–313.Felício, J. A., Rodrigues, R., & Caldeirinha, V. R. (2012). The effect of intrapreneurship on corporate performance. Management Decision, 50(10), 1717–1738.Goktan, A. B., & Miles, G. (2011). Innovation speed and radicalness: are they inversely related? Management Decision, 49(4), 533–547.Gómez-Haro, S., Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2011). Differentiating the effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. Management Decision, 49(10), 1677–1693.Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, L. D. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation [Special Issue]. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6), 479–492.Hotho, S., & Champion, K. (2011). Small businesses in the new creative industries: innovation as a people management challenge. Management Decision, 49(1), 29–54.Hu, Y.-S. (1995). The international transferability of competitive advantage. California Management Review, 37(4), 73–88.Huarng, K. H., & Yu, T. H. K. (2011). Entrepreneurship, process innovation and value creation by a non-profit SME. Management Decision, 49(2), 284–296.Jones, M. V. (1999). The internationalization of small UK high technology based firms. Journal of International Marketing, 7, 15–41.Jones, M. V., & Coviello, N. E. (2005). Internationalization: conceptualising and entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3):284–303.Khandwalla, P. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organization capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 124–141.Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., & Shoham, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504–523.Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 93–107.Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–172.McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 902–908.McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviatt, B. M. (1994). Explaining the formation of international new ventures: the limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 469–487.McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., & Venkataraman, S. (1995). Global dimensions of new competencies. In S. Birley & I. C. MacMillan (Eds.), International entrepreneurship. New York: Routledge.McNaughton, R. B. (2001). The export mode decision-making process in small knowledge- intensive firms. Market Intelligence and Planning, 19, 12–20.McNaughton, R. B. (2003). The number of export markets that a firm serves: process models versus the born-global phenomenon. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 297–311.Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1984). Organizations: a quantum view. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Morrow, J. F. (1988). International entrepreneurship: a new growth opportunity. New Management, 3, 59–61.Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Research, 36, 15–23.Naman, J. L., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 137–153.Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55–72.Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1999). A framework for understanding accelerated international entrepreneurship. In R. Wright (Ed.), Research in global strategic management (pp. 23–40). Stamford: JAI Press.Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internalization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(5), 537–554.Peiris, I.K., Akoorie, M.E.M., & Sinha, P.N. (2012). International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis of studies in the past two decades and future directions for research. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Article in press.Pinchot, G., III. (1985). Intrapreneuring: why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become entrepreneur. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Collier-Macmillan.Renko, M., Shrader, R. C., & Simon, M. (2012). Perception of entrepreneurial opportunity: a general framework. Management Decision, 50(7), 1233–1251.Sandulli, F. D., Fernandez-Menendez, J., Rodriguez-Duarte, A., & Lopez-Sanchez, J. I. (2012). Testing the Schumpeterian hypotheses on an open innovation framework. Management Decision, 50(7), 1222–1232.Santos, F. J., Romero, I., & Fernández-Serrano, J. (2012). SMEs and entrepreneurial quality from a macroeconomic perspective. Management Decision, 50(8), 1382–1395.Shama, A. (1995). Entry strategies of U.S. firms to the former Soviet Bloc and Eastern Europe. California Management Review, 37(3), 90–109.Simon, H. (1996). Hidden champions: lessons from 500 of the world’s best unknown companies. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Singh, S., Darwish, T. K., Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2012). Measuring HRM and organisational performance: concepts, issues, and framework. Management Decision, 50(4), 651–667.Smart, T. (1996). GE’s Welch: ‘Fighting like hell to be No. 1’. Business Week, July 8, 48.Snow, C., & Hrebiniak, L. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 317–336.Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.Styles, C., & Seymour, R. G. (2006). Opportunities for marketing researchers in international entrepreneurship. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 126–145.Turner, R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2012). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: tailoring the practices to the size of company. Management Decision, 50(5), 942–957.Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801–814.Vlasic, B. (1998). The little car that could carry Chrysler overseas. Business Week, 19, 39.Welbourne, T. M., Neck, H., & Meyer, G. D. (2012). The entrepreneurial growth ceiling: using people and innovation to mitigate risk and break through the growth ceiling in initial public offerings. Management Decision, 50(5), 778–796.Williamson, P. J. (1997). Asia’s new competitive game. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 55–67.Yeoh, P. L. (2004). International learning: antecedents and performance implications among newly internationalizing companies in an exporting context. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 511–535.Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship. An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–285.Zahra, S. A. (1993a). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance. A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340.Zahra, S. A. (1993b). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: a critique and extensión. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5–21.Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). International entrepreneurship: the current status of the field and future agenda. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: creating a new mindset. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: the state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 45–63.Zhou, L. (2007). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and foreign market knowledge on early internationalization. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 281–293

Determinants of Unlawful File Sharing: A Scoping Review

We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the strength of evidence within these areas and note patterns of results. There is good evidence for influences on UFS within each of the identified determinants, particularly for self-reported measures, with more behavioral research needed. There are also indications that the reasons for UFS differ across media; more studies exploring media other than music are required

Is the meiofauna a good indicator for climate change and anthropogenic impacts?

Our planet is changing, and one of the most pressing challenges facing the scientific community revolves around understanding how ecological communities respond to global changes. From coastal to deep-sea ecosystems, ecologists are exploring new areas of research to find model organisms that help predict the future of life on our planet. Among the different categories of organisms, meiofauna offer several advantages for the study of marine benthic ecosystems. This paper reviews the advances in the study of meiofauna with regard to climate change and anthropogenic impacts. Four taxonomic groups are valuable for predicting global changes: foraminifers (especially calcareous forms), nematodes, copepods and ostracods. Environmental variables are fundamental in the interpretation of meiofaunal patterns and multistressor experiments are more informative than single stressor ones, revealing complex ecological and biological interactions. Global change has a general negative effect on meiofauna, with important consequences on benthic food webs. However, some meiofaunal species can be favoured by the extreme conditions induced by global change, as they can exhibit remarkable physiological adaptations. This review highlights the need to incorporate studies on taxonomy, genetics and function of meiofaunal taxa into global change impact research