Search results

China’s foreign aid efforts in Africa remain contentious. Chinese foreign aid tends to be different from “traditional” development assistance in that it frequently involves firms as the implementing agents of projects. Firms bring unique resources to public–private partnerships (PPPs) formed with government agencies, but their possible self-interested nature also gives rise to concerns over their development impact. Yet, on a larger scale, little is known about the characteristics of Chinese PPPs in foreign aid. Using project-level data available for 1,308 Chinese aid projects in 50 countries across Africa, the author characterizes the projects undertaken by firms and government agencies in a PPP and contrasts them to those executed by Chinese government agencies without firm involvement. This exploratory data analysis suggests that important differences apply, as Chinese PPPs tend to target different sustainable development goals (SDGs), work on the basis of distinct aid conditions, and implement projects that tend to be larger than those that are solely run by government agencies. Such observations raise important questions of an ethical, theoretical, and international nature, and warrant further research. The author develops a research agenda that aims at issues particularly important for business ethics scholars, organization theorists, and international business scholarship.

The global economy is facing a steep challenge from volatility, risk and uncertainty associated with climate change, pandemics, regional conflicts and trade wars which are unprecedented and overlapping. These crises are leading to macro- and microeconomic imbalances. The immediate effects like rising inflation, shortage of energy and fertiliser, food insecurity, loss of jobs and poverty are looming large, leading to existential threat. It is evident that decades of progress are at risk and pursuing sustainable development goals (SDGs) requires dedicated and customised efforts by the governments and other relevant actors, especially in the low- and middle-income countries (LMICS). The concept of circular economy is considered to bring a paradigm shift by reducing the dependence on natural resource extraction and decoupling economic growth from use of natural resources. Bioeconomy is another emerging field which deals with the use of renewable biological resources such as biomass to produce renewable biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower for economic, environmental and social benefits. Circular bioeconomy (CBE) lies at the intersection and is defined as the production of recoverable biological (waste) resources and the conversion of these resources into high-value-added products, such as food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy. It has been estimated that the economic opportunity for the sector to complement or even substitute conventional ones is estimated to be USD 7.7 trillion by 2030 for food and feed waste products, and energy. CBE is perceived as a pathway for development and has the potential to target different SDGs directly like 6, 7 and 12 and SDGs 2, 3, 11, 12, 13 and 15 indirectly. This study explores the linkages of CBE with the SDG goals and provides recommendations to stimulate the sector.

This chapter seeks to understand the intersection between eGovernment, social media, and digital inequalities by examining the disparate flow of information during the COVID-19 pandemic. Developed economies are increasingly transitioning to digital interfaces for information dissemination and provision of services. The authors explore the potential of, and challenges facing eGovernment by looking at the use of social media during the COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter employs a case study approach to probe the dynamics of government-initiated efforts at information dissemination through the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) website and social media account on Twitter. The analysis in this chapter uses NodeXL to examine communication roles played by government and non-governmental actors within this slice of the Twittersphere centered around CDC@gov. As the findings demonstrate, non-governmental actors played key roles in the dissemination of public health messaging. The authors analyze these data with an eye to the potential of social media for public health communication and extrapolate that understanding to the use of digital access and social media for the provision of accurate, official information in other circumstances. While the COVID-19 pandemic was a global health crisis, individuals and households face individual or local crises every day. This angle of vision allows the chapter to conclude with recommendations pertaining to government-led information dissemination for the public good during crisis and non-crisis situations alike. In the concluding section, the authors probe the degree to which eGovernment can also address digital inequalities including connectivity, device, and literacy gaps. The authors offer solutions needed for eGovernment initiatives in light of challenges posed by digital inequalities to ensure that digital information sharing and services are accessible to all.

Introduction: This chapter examines the impact of Financial Technology (Fintech) on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals to promote a sustainable financial system. Digital payment platforms, blockchain applications, and AI-powered analytics have revolutionised the financial landscape in recent years. These advancements have made integrating ESG principles into investment decisions and business practices easier.

Purpose: The main aim of this chapter is to analyse the connections and possibilities that Fintech offers to achieve ESG goals. Understanding how Fintech can facilitate sustainable finance practices is crucial for promoting investment in Fintech.

Methodology: A series of indexes have been examined, including the Global FinTech Index (GFI) in Global and Regional Rank, the Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index, and performing the Green Growth Index, the Green Economic Opportunity Index, the Global Green Finance Index (GGFI), and the Financial Inclusion Index.

Findings: Through comparative analysis, it can be concluded that the countries with the highest rankings are Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and Germany. Sweden ranks highly in the GFI. These results show that these countries rank highly in achieving ESG objectives. Balkan countries, specifically Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, have the weakest results compared to other countries. Policymakers can benefit from the study’s findings to design better regulations and frameworks that promote responsible fintech practices and foster sustainable finance.

Practical Implications: Regulators and agencies responsible for measuring fintech and ESG should strive to align the indexes associated with these two domains as closely as possible. In addition, businesses can utilise the findings of this study to increase awareness about the diverse solutions that fintech offers to achieve the objectives of ESG.

This chapter focuses on critical thinking as a new, powerful, and specialized tool and technique for understanding and analyzing the subtle operations of the free enterprise capitalist market system and its ethics and morality. Everything in the world of consumers and market enterprise systems are determined by our supply–demand system that in turn are determined by our presumed limitless production–distribution and consumption (LDPC) systems. From a critical thinking viewpoint, we study the free enterprise capitalist system (FECS) as a dynamic, interconnected organic system and not as a discrete or compartmentalized body of disaggregate parts. Systems thinking with critical thinking calls for a shift of our mindset from seeing just parts to seeing the whole reality in its structured dynamic unity; both mandate that we see ourselves as active participators or partners of FECS and not as mere cogs in its wheels or as mere factors of its production processes. Critical thinking seeks to identify the “structures” that underlie complex situations in FECS with those that bring about high- versus low-leveraged changes in various versions of capitalism. Specifically, this chapter applies critical thinking to FECS as defined by its founder, Adam Smith, in 1776 to its fundamental and structural assumptions, and as supported or critiqued by serious scholars such as Karl Marx, Maynard Keynes, C. K. Prahalad and Allen Hammond (inclusive capitalism), John Mackey and Rajendra Sisodia (conscious capitalism), and others.

This chapter focuses on the intricacies of marginalized communities in Bangladesh. It provides an in-depth understanding of these communities, considering their sociocultural backgrounds and the challenges they face. This chapter introduces the empowerment paradigm, highlighting the importance of empowering marginalized groups as a catalyst for positive change. It further explores various strategies and initiatives designed to uplift these communities, emphasizing the pivotal role of family planning in this process. By examining the transformative impact of family planning on marginalized communities, this chapter underscores how it can lead to improved health, education, economic opportunities, gender equality, and overall community development in the Bangladeshi context.