Search results

Our study examines multinational enterpris (MNE) decisions to withdraw from the Russian market on moral grounds in reaction to the Russo–Ukrainian war. We investigate to what extent these decisions reflect the normative organizational resilience of MNEs under institutional pressures in Russia. We test the impact of various macro- (home democracy, institutional quality, stakeholder pressure) and micro-variables (ESG criteria) that define the organizational identities of MNEs in relation to their withdrawal decisions. Our sample comprises 1,648 companies from 55 countries doing business in Russia before the start of the conflict.

To test our hypotheses, we perform a nuanced analysis using both latent constructs and regression analysis on data for 1,648 MNEs.

Our results are in line with the foreign divestment literature, suggesting that MNEs are likely to exit normatively distant countries.

In this study, we explore the impact of organizational values on normative responses of MNEs to a geopolitical crisis. We introduce a normative organizational resilience construct to demonstrate how MNEs respond to institutional pressures in a host country, in this case Russia. Making exit decisions on moral grounds, MNEs have acted as social actors endowed with moral sense and intentionality, in conformity with their organizational values.

To elaborate the nature of fact-checking in the domain of political information by examining how fact-checkers assess the validity of claims concerning the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and how they support their assessments by drawing on evidence acquired from diverse sources of information.

Descriptive quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 128 reports written by the fact-checkers of Snopes – an established fact-checking organisation – during the period of 24 February 2022 – 28 June, 2023. For the analysis, nine evaluation grounds were identified, most of them inductively from the empirical material. It was examined how the fact-checkers employed such grounds while assessing the validity of claims and how the assessments were bolstered by evidence acquired from information sources such as newspapers.

Of the 128 reports, the share of assessments indicative of the invalidity of the claims was 54.7%, while the share of positive ratings was 26.7%. The share of mixed assessments was 15.6%. In the fact-checking, two evaluation grounds, that is, the correctness of information and verifiability of an event presented in a claim formed the basis for the assessment. Depending on the topic of the claim, grounds such as temporal and spatial compatibility, as well as comparison by similarity and difference occupied a central role. Most popular sources of information offering evidence for the assessments include statements of government representatives, videos and photographs shared in social media, newspapers and television programmes.

As the study concentrated on fact-checking dealing with political information about a specific issue, the findings cannot be extended to concern the fact-checking practices in other contexts.

The study is among the first to characterise how fact-checkers employ evaluation grounds of diverse kind while assessing the validity of political information.

This paper aims to examine the dynamic conditional correlation (DCC) and hedging ratios between Dow Jones markets and oil, gold and bitcoin. Using daily data, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine war. We employ the DCC-generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) and asymmetric DCC (ADCC)-GARCH models.

DCC-GARCH and ADCC-GARCH models.

The most of DCCs among market pairs are positive during COVID-19 period, implying the existence of volatility spillovers (Contagion-effects). This implies the lack of additional economic gains of diversification. So, COVID-19 represents a systematic risk that resists diversification. However, during the Russia–Ukraine war the DCCs are negative for most pairs that include Oil and Gold, implying investors may benefit from portfolio-diversification. Our hedging analysis carries significant implications for investors seeking higher returns while hedging their Dow Jones portfolios: keeping their portfolios unhedged is better than hedging them. This is because Islamic stocks have the ability to mitigate risks.

Our paper may make a valuable contribution to the existing literature by examining the hedging of financial assets, including both conventional and Islamic assets, during periods of stability and crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine war.

This paper explores how conflicting institutional logics shape the behaviors of macro- and micro-level actors in their use of a calculative practice. Thereby, this paper explains how quantification can undermine the intended purpose of a governance system based on a single number.

The study draws upon the literature on calculative practices and institutional logics to present the case of how a single number—specifically the conversion factor for Atlantic Cod, established by macro-level actors for the purposes of governance within the Norwegian fishing industry—is interpreted and used by micro-level actors in the industry. The study is based on documents, field observations and interviews with fishers, landing facilities, and control authorities.

The use of the conversion factor, while intended to protect fish stock and govern industry actions, does not always align with the institutional logics of micro-level actors. Especially during the winter season, these actors may seek to serve their interests, leading to potential system gaming. The reliance on a single number that overlooks seasonal nuances can motivate unintended behaviors, undermining the governance system’s intentions.

Integrating the literature on calculative practices with an institutional logics perspective, this study offers novel insights into the challenges of using quantification for the governance of complex industries. In particular, the paper reveals that when the logics of macro- and micro-level actors conflict in a single-number governance system, unintended outcomes arise due to a domination of the macro-level logics.