Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of characteristics of the institutional environment on the disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

This is a quantitative and descriptive research. The dependent variables used were environmental dimension (ED) and social dimension (SD) that together compose the corporate social performance (CSP). The independent variables that will be used are the characteristics of the institutional environments of Brazil and the UK. Thus, for this end, variables of the national business system of both countries will be used: corruption transparency, access to credit by countries, quality of the education system and labor relations. After their collection, the data were submitted to descriptive and inferential statistics and hierarchical regression.

Data show that UK companies make more disclosure in CSR than Brazilian companies. Through linear regression, it can be seen that the institutional environment affects disclosure in CSR. In the UK, a country with better educational, labor, political and financial indicators than Brazil, it presented better CSR practices. The findings reveal that the better an institutional environment, the more firms act in CSR. The findings of the research confirm the premise of institutional theory: different institutional fields can modify business performance.

The study analyzed only the disclosure practices of companies in the public sector. Thus, the results should be carefully analyzed, without generalizations for all industry sectors. Therefore, it is suggested that future research looks at other industry sectors as well as other institutional contexts, i.e. other countries.

Multinational companies may have different CSR practices according to the institutional environment in which they operate. For example, companies in developed countries, such as the UK, have greater stakeholder pressure. Given this, managers must adapt their environmental strategies according to the institutional environment in which they operate.

This research contributes to CSR studies in various institutional contexts. There is a consensus in the literature that institutional environments affect firms' CSR practices. However, few empirical studies show results between the national business system and CSR. Thus, the present study intends to fill this research gap.

This paper aims to examine the use of coproduction to create a film “Do You See Me?”, to amplify the voices of a “hard to reach” group: older lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) victim-survivors of domestic abuse (DA).

Qualitative methods were used as part of the co-production, which included two practitioner focus groups and 14 narrative interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning persons or the community (LGBTQ+) victim-survivors.

Despite differences in gender, sexualities, roles and “lived experiences” across stakeholders, there was a shared aim to ensure victim-survivors had a sense of ownership in this endeavour. Consequently, a positive reciprocity existed that helped to foster effective communication, allow for capacity building and subsequent knowledge exchange. The collaboration produced a nuanced meta-narrative making visible the “lived experiences” of LGB victim-survivors’ perceptions of perpetrator behaviours.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is original in two ways, firstly, providing insights into the “lived experiences” of an invisible group; older LGBTQ+ victim-survivors, and secondly, in involving them in the co-production of a film. The paper aims to reveal how interdependencies that developed between stakeholders helped to disrupt understandings, develop new ways of knowing and build levels of trust. Group interactions helped to dismantle hierarchies, so those with experiential knowledge: the survivors, had greater control throughout the research process. The paper is significant in providing a critical reflection on the ethical, methodological and resource challenges involved in co-production. It also makes recommendations for researchers and funders about the value of using co-production as a method to engage with hard-to-reach groups.

This paper analyzes two external costs often associated with port development, cost to fisheries from marine dredge disposal and damages from air pollution, using estimates of development and operation for a proposed (but since cancelled) container port as a case study. For dredge disposal, a bio-economic model was used to assess short- and long-term and indirect (joodweb) damages to fisheries from marine disposal of clean sediments. In the case of air pollution, estimates of annual activity levels and emission coefficients are used to estimate incremental annual emissions of three key pollutants (NOx, HC and CO) for trucks, trains, yard vehicles, and vessels. These estimates allow for phasing in of strict new air pollution regulations. For both external costs, sensitivity analyses are used to reflect uncertainty. Estimates of shadow values in year 2002 dollars amount from $0.094 per cubic yard to $0.169 per cubic yard of clean dredged material for the selected disposal site and from $0.0584 per mile (jor current control standards) to $ 0. 0023 per mile (after phasing in of new regulations) for air pollution from heavy trucks.

This research should help determine whether development should focus on individual firms or will raising the national development level act like a rising tide and raise the performance of all corporations.

The comparative data used in this study come from 150 Australian (ASX200 index listed) firms and 150 Sri Lankan (Colombo Stock Exchange listed) firms. The research questions are answered via a quantitative research design that uses primary and secondary data.

The findings demonstrate that capital budgeting practices are more influenced by contingency features and sophistication in Australia and Sri Lanka. Also, Australian firms tend to use capital budget models with good-to-strong predictive power (except for ROE) and Sri Lankan firms tend to use capital-budget models with fair-to-poor predictive power. Further, the analysis of Australian firms yielded much stronger and more statistically significant results than the analysis of Sri Lankan firms.

In complex real-world situations, reconciling the outputs of a multifaceted approach to capital budgeting methods is more likely to give the depth and width of input needed to achieve an optimal capital investment plan.

The results of this study can provide rich information for stakeholders about new findings in capital budgeting (CB) practices and their contributions to firm performance in a comparative perspective.

This study analyses the literature on artificial intelligence (AI) and its implications for the agri-food sector. This research aims to identify the current research streams, main methodologies used, findings and results delivered, gaps and future research directions.

This study relies on 69 published contributions in the field of AI in the agri-food sector. It begins with a bibliographic coupling to map and identify the current research streams and proceeds with a systematic literature review to examine the main topics and examine the main contributions.

Six clusters were identified: (1) AI adoption and benefits, (2) AI for efficiency and productivity, (3) AI for logistics and supply chain management, (4) AI for supporting decision making process for firms and consumers, (5) AI for risk mitigation and (6) AI marketing aspects. Then, the authors propose an interpretive framework composed of three main dimensions: (1) the two sides of AI: the “hard” side concerns the technology development and application while the “soft” side regards stakeholders' acceptance of the latter; (2) level of analysis: firm and inter-firm; (3) the impact of AI on value chain activities in the agri-food sector.

This study provides interpretive insights into the extant literature on AI in the agri-food sector, paving the way for future research and inspiring practitioners of different AI approaches in a traditionally low-tech sector.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of firm-, finance- and country-specific indicators to the performance of companies under the COVID-19 outbreak.

The study uses a regression performance model for enterprises during the COVID-19 crisis. The investigation is based upon a data set of 5,730 firms from 13 countries collected by the World Bank through enterprise surveys. The author combined the analysis of traditional performance measurements with the testing of relatively novel variables.

This study confirms the significance of multiple factors for company performance: sector, size, participation in exports and market demand for firms’ products. Robust financing solutions during the coronavirus pandemic period include equity contributions, followed by firms’ cash balances and debt. Support by a government, however, has not yet been confirmed as a significant source of finance. This paper also suggests the importance of country-specific factors for the performance of enterprises, including the level of economic development and the corporate governance infrastructure.

The research outcomes might assist regulatory bodies, policymakers and companies in their formulation of public and corporate governance strategies concerning future emergency preparedness and responses.

This paper is among the first empirical studies in the management realm that addresses the impact of COVID-19 on company performance, with cross-national empirical data.