Search results

This chapter addresses one of the most crucial areas for critical thinking: the morality of turbulent markets around the world. All of us are overwhelmed by such turbulent markets. Following Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2004, 2010), we distinguish between nonscalable industries (ordinary professions where income grows linearly, piecemeal or by marginal jumps) and scalable industries (extraordinary risk-prone professions where income grows in a nonlinear fashion, and by exponential jumps and fractures). Nonscalable industries generate tame and predictable markets of goods and services, while scalable industries regularly explode into behemoth virulent markets where rewards are disproportionately large compared to effort, and they are the major causes of turbulent financial markets that rock our world causing ever-widening inequities and inequalities. Part I describes both scalable and nonscalable markets in sufficient detail, including propensity of scalable industries to randomness, and the turbulent markets they create. Part II seeks understanding of moral responsibility of turbulent markets and discusses who should appropriate moral responsibility for turbulent markets and under what conditions. Part III synthesizes various theories of necessary and sufficient conditions for accepting or assigning moral responsibility. We also analyze the necessary and sufficient conditions for attribution of moral responsibility such as rationality, intentionality, autonomy or freedom, causality, accountability, and avoidability of various actors as moral agents or as moral persons. By grouping these conditions, we then derive some useful models for assigning moral responsibility to various entities such as individual executives, corporations, or joint bodies. We discuss the challenges and limitations of such models.

Pyramid schemes create an unusual situation, where the victims might be effectively turned into offenders, as their role is to recruit more victims to the pyramid scheme. This paper aims to investigate the prevalence of pyramid schemes, their modern forms and why people join them.

This paper has developed from a structured literature review carried out as part of a wider study into policing pyramid schemes.

This paper identifies a range of reasons why people join pyramid schemes. Some of these reasons are “participant dominant”, including the vision of high reward for little work and the attraction to a better lifestyle. Other reasons are “organiser dominant”, including the exploitation of specific groups and high-pressure sales. These findings suggest significant differences in levels of culpability of pyramid schemes victims and perpetrators. This complexity is accompanied by conceptual, regulatory and institutional challenges.

Despite the profound and pervasive impact of pyramid schemes, researchers know very little about why some people participate in pyramid schemes. Limited research is largely American and specific to illegal multi-level marketing schemes. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to provide an overview of a mix of strategies of participants of pyramid schemes to recruit new victims and reasons why people are joining pyramid schemes.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how novel homicide defences predicated on contemporary neuroscience align with legal insanity.

Doctrinal analysis, systematic investigation of relevant statutes and cases, was used to elucidate how the law of insanity is evolving. Cases represent the first recorded instance of a particular neuroscientific defence. US appellate cases were categorised according to the mechanism of action of neurotransmitter relied upon in court. A case study approach was also used to provide a contextualised understanding of the case outcome in depth.

Findings broadly depict how the employment of expert testimony runs parallel with our contemporary understanding of key neurotransmitters and their function in human behaviour. Generally, medico-legal evidence concerning neuromodulating agents and violent behaviour was inconclusive. However, the outcome of defence strategy may depend on the underlying neurotransmitter involved.

This study shows that as more discoveries are made about the neurobiological underpinnings of human behaviour; this new knowledge will continue to seep into the US court system as innovative defence strategies with varying success. Medical and legal practitioners may gauge the success of a defence depending on the neuromodulating agent.

Many scholars have focused on the role of neuroimaging as neuroscientific evidence and how it is used is shaping US criminal jurisprudence. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no study has incorporated the true origin of neuroscientific evidence as being underpinned by the understanding of neurotransmitters.

Despite growing interest in misconduct spillovers – where unimplicated bystanders’ stock prices, reputations, resources, and opportunities are positively or negatively affected by others’ misconduct – theory about spillovers’ antecedents has largely focused on industry or product similarity, and has used the same characteristics to argue for both positive and negative spillovers. Furthermore, limited research has considered both positive and negative spillovers together, instead focusing on one kind of spillover or the other in isolation, thereby creating a lack of theoretical integration within the literature. In this chapter, we draw on attribution theory and expectancy violations theory to explain when and how misconduct incurs positive and negative spillovers. We argue that a spillover’s valence depends on the locus of attributions made by stakeholders, where the misconduct’s causes are attributed to the perpetrator alone (i.e., an isolated attribution) – resulting in positive spillovers – or the misconduct’s causes are perceived as indicative of a systemic problem shared among a broader set of organizations (i.e., a systemic attribution), leading to negative spillovers. We further suggest that the misconduct’s nature and misconduct prevalence within a perpetrator and among other firms influences stakeholders’ attributions, and ultimately the spillover’s valence. Our theory contributes to the organizational misconduct literature by providing a unifying theoretical framework to understand both positive and negative spillovers.

This case investigation used firsthand statements, reports, testimony and regulatory records. While widely publicized in the popular press, this case is based on primary documents. On their website, many documents were obtained from Wells Fargo’s Corporate newsroom, such as the internal audit report shared with shareholders and press releases. Most other sources were from US regulatory websites (.gov) or congressional testimony. In a few places, quotes and comments came from reliable journalistic sites that cite their sources and follow a journalist’s code of ethics and conduct, ensuring that the reported remarks and data were verified.

Since 2016, Wells Fargo Bank has faced multiple customer mistreatment investigations and resultant fines. Public outcry and distrust resulted from Wells Fargo employees creating hidden accounts and enrolling people in bank services without their knowledge to meet desired levels of sustained shareholder growth. Over the past five years, Wells Fargo has been fined and returned to customers and stockholders over $3bn. Wells Fargo executives spent the first year of the scandal citing improper behavior by employees. Leadership did not take responsibility for setting the organizational goals, which led to employee misbehavior. Even after admitting some culpability in creating the extreme sales culture, executives and the Board of Directors tried to distance themselves from blame for the unethical behavior. They cited the organizations’ decentralized structure as a reason the board was not quicker in seeing and correcting the negative behaviors of these ‘bad apple’ employees. Wells Fargo faced multiple concurrent scandals, such as upselling services to retirees, inappropriately repossessing service members’ vehicles, adding insurance and extra fees to mortgages and other accounts and engaging in securities fraud. As time has passed, the early versions of a handful of “bad apples” seem to be only a part of the overall “poison tree.”The dilemma, in this case, is who is responsible for the misbehavior and the inappropriate sales of products and services (often without the customer’s knowledge)? Is strategic growth year-over-year with no allowances for environmental and economic factors a realistic and reasonable goal for corporations? This case is appropriate for undergraduates and graduate students in finance, human resources, management, accounting and investments.

An active case-based learning pedagogical approach is suggested. The materials include a short podcast, video and other materials to allow the faculty to assign pre-class work or to use in the classroom before a case discussion.

The participation of women in contemporary non-state armed groups is an undeniable fact. In recent years, research in international politics has provided a more complex view of both the scale and nature of their contributions, as well as why women choose to engage in political violence – when they do indeed choose to do so. This chapter offers an overview of the literature in this area, while expanding the discussion towards new and emerging questions. In particular, the chapter seeks to engage a growing literature on the legal and social aspects of women's involvement in armed conflict. Discussing women's roles as perpetrators of atrocity and war crimes – including as agents of torture, sexual violence and genocide – it addresses concerns about the meaningful integration of gender into post-conflict and transitional justice processes. This includes discussions about agency and the problematic entanglement of victim/perpetrator narratives in the cases of female ex-combatants.

This study examines how potentially irresponsible banking operations affect organisational reputation. A moderated mediation model is applied to explain how major aspects of social irresponsibility affect the relationship between consumer awareness of allegedly irresponsible operations, blame and bank reputation. The empirical context is the Swiss franc mortgage crisis that affected the banking industry in most Central and Eastern European countries.

The research study uses data collected from a large survey (N = 1,000) conducted among Polish bank consumers, including those with mortgage loans in Swiss francs. To test the proposed model, the authors use Hayes' process macro.

The findings show that blame fully mediates the effects of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) awareness on organisational reputation. Three facets of social irresponsibility moderate this relationship. Specifically, the perceived harm and intentionality of corporate culprits cause people to be more likely to blame a bank for the difficulties posed by indebted consumers. At the same time, the perceived complicity of consumers in misselling a mortgage reduces the level of blame and its subsequent adverse effects on bank reputation.

Although a strong reputation is crucial in the financial industry, few studies have attempted to address reputational risk from a consumer perspective. This study helps to understand how potentially irresponsible selling of a financial product can adversely affect a bank's reputation.

To elaborate the picture of credibility assessment by examining how participants of online discussion evaluate the informational credibility of conspiracy theories.

Descriptive quantitative analysis and qualitative content analysis of 2,663 posts submitted to seven Reddit threads discussing a conspiracy operation, that is, the damage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September 2022. It was examined how the participants of online discussion assess the credibility of information constitutive of conspiracy theories speculating about (1) suspected actors responsible for the damage, (2) their motives and (3) the ways in which the damage was made. The credibility assessments focussed on diverse sources offering information about the above three factors.

The participants assessed the credibility of information by drawing on four main criteria: plausibility of arguments, honesty in argumentation, similarity to one's beliefs and provision of evidence. Most assessments were negative and indicated doubt about the informational believability of conspiracy theories about the damage. Of the information sources referred to in the discussion, the posts submitted by fellow participants, television programmes and statements provided by governmental organizations were judged most critically, due to implausible argumentation and advocacy of biased views.

As the study focuses on a sample of posts dealing with conspiracy theories about a particular event, the findings cannot be generalized to concern the informational credibility conspiracy narratives.

The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the nature of credibility assessments by focussing on information constitutive of conspiracy theories.

The lack of legal framework on corporate criminal liability (CCL) in Mauritius is a matter of concern with the growing number of corporate crimes. The purpose of the paper is therefore to provide a critical overview of the existing framework on CCL in Mauritius with the aim of underlining its deficiencies and lacunas. As a consequence, an attempt is made to compare the Mauritian model with the French one, so that salient features and characteristics of the French model of CCL can be borrowed into the Mauritian legal framework.

This paper adopts the black-letter approach and the comparative research methodology. The legislative framework of Mauritius on CCL will be compared to the related laws of France with the goal of drawing lessons and inspirations for Mauritius, given that the French model of CCL is well established and highly effective.

The mandatory application of the identification principle in CCL, inspired from the British common law, is a serious impediment towards successful criminal prosecution of companies responsible for criminal offences. In addition, the lack of clear legal provisions on substantive and procedural aspects of CCL is a matter of concern and demonstrates the dire need for legal amendments and action from the legislator as the paper discusses.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this paper will be among the very first one tackling this area of law from a comparative perspective. The issue of CCL has indeed receive very little academic attention and this paper will help in filling the literature gap on this matter. It will also help future research on the matter for students, academics and corporate law practitioners.