Search results

The growing awareness of climate risks associated with food safety issues has drawn the attention of stakeholders urging the food industry to carry out a sustainable food safety management system (FSMS). This study aims to investigate whether the critical success factors (CSFs) of sustainable FSMS can contribute to achieving climate neutrality, and how the adoption of FSMS 4.0 supported by the Industry Revolution 4.0 (IR 4.0) technologies moderates the impact of the CSFs on achieving climate neutrality.

Survey data from 255 food production firms in China and Vietnam were utilised for the empirical analysis. The research hypotheses were examined using structural equations modelling (SEM) with route analysis and bootstrapping techniques.

The results show that top management support, human resource management, infrastructure and integration appear as the significant CSFs that directly impact food production firms in achieving climate neutrality. Moreover, the results demonstrate that the adoption of FSMS 4.0 integrated with the three components (ecosystems, quality standards and robustness) significantly moderates the impact of the CSFs on achieving climate neutrality with lower inputs in human resources, infrastructure investment, integration and external assistance, and higher inputs in strengthening food safety administration.

This study provides empirical findings that fill the research gap in understanding the relationship between climate neutrality and the CSFs of sustainable FSMS while considering the moderating effects of the FSMS 4.0 components. The results provide theoretical and practical insights into how the food production sector can utilise IR 4.0 to attain sustainable FSMS for achieving climate neutrality.

The purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape.

Leveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the Journal of Service Marketing Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors.

Acknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse.

This viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.

Librarianship’s dominant conception of the freedom to read is governed by a liberal principle of noninterference, wherein free readers are those who face no intentional intervention in their choice of materials. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how this account fails to adequately capture systemic threats that impoverish people’s reading lives.

This conceptual paper deploys informal argumentation to expose a flaw in the dominant account of the freedom to read. The author uses a case study of comparative titles or comps, an editorial decision-making and justificatory convention that reproduces racial inequality in Anglophone trade publishing.

Comps present one example of how everyday norms and practices of literary production render people’s reading lives pervasively unfree, even absent some intent to interfere in them. The going account of the freedom to read calls, at best, for a greater diversity of book-commodities from which consumers may choose. However, the comp case suggests that this distributive remedy will be insufficient without relevant changes to the institutional arrangements that condition readers' choices in the first place.

This paper draws together insights from Library and Information Science, political philosophy and print culture studies to illuminate limitations in librarianship’s standard conception of the freedom to read. This reveals the need for an alternative, structural account of that freedom with significant implications for practice.

This paper explores the collaborative dynamics and dimensions within a virtual multi-cultural and interdisciplinary workplace. The study focusses on the use of online communication technologies to enhance social inclusion and networking within academia.

This study uses an autoethnographic approach to draw on the personal experiences of a team of four scholars, including three early-career researchers and a senior scholar. Their reflections on their academic positionality and the institutional constraints reveal both the strengths and vulnerabilities of collaborating in a virtual workplace.

The findings offer insights into the complexities of navigating social dynamics, such as delegating responsibilities, organising meetings across various time zones and encouraging continuous collaboration, inclusivity and effective communication during an extensive timeline. As a result, their experiences revealed that a virtual workplace culture with similar and different attributes to a “normal” workplace emerged.

The paper demonstrates how to create an effective and inclusive virtual workplace by exemplifying best practices in academia and providing practical guidance for individuals and institutions based on honest, co-produced autoethnographic reflections of the authors’ lived experiences.

Replication is a primary self-correction device in science. In this paper, we have two aims: to examine how and when the results of replications are used in management and organization research and to use the results of this examination to offer guidelines for improving the self-correction process.

Study 1 analyzes co-citation patterns for 135 original-replication pairs to assess the direct impact of replications, specifically examining how often and when a replication study is co-cited with its original. In Study 2, a similar design is employed to measure the indirect impact of replications by assessing how often and when a meta-analysis that includes a replication of the original study is co-cited with the original study.

Study 1 reveals, among other things, that a huge majority (92%) of sources that cite the original study fail to co-cite a replication study, thus calling into question the impact of replications in our field. Study 2 shows that the indirect impact of replications through meta-analyses is likewise minimal. However, our analyses also show that replications published in the same journal that carried the original study and authored by teams including the authors of the original study are more likely to be co-cited, and that articles in higher-ranking journals are more likely to co-cite replications.

We use our results to formulate recommendations that would streamline the self-correction process in management research at the author-, reviewer- and journal-level. Our recommendations would create incentives to make replication attempts more common, while also increasing the likelihood that these attempts are targeted at the most relevant original studies.

This editorial aims to organise the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into seven ServCollab service research themes to provide a way forward for service research that improves human and planetary life.

A conceptual approach is used that draws on observations from the scholarly experience of the editors.

This editorial offers seven research themes for service researchers: services that enable the WELL-BEING of the human species; services that provide OPPORTUNITY for all humans; services that manage RESOURCES for all humans; ECONOMIC services for work and growth for all humans; services from INSTITUTIONS that offer fair and sustainable living for all humans; service ecosystems with the PLANET; and COLLABORATION services for sustainable development partnerships.

Service scholars are urged to pursue collaborative research that reduces suffering, improves well-being and enables well-becoming for the sustainability and prosperity of Planet Earth.

This editorial provides service scholars with a new framework synthesising the SDGs into research themes that help focus further service research.

When is it more profitable for multinational manufacturers to manufacture in high-cost environments and when in low-cost environments? While the literature offers many cues to answer this question, too little empirical research directly addresses this. In this study, we quantitatively and empirically investigate the financial effect of companies' production footprint in low-cost and high-cost environments for different types of production networks.

Using the data of 770 multinational manufacturing companies, we analyze the relationship between production footprints and profitability during four calendar semesters in 2018 and 2019 (N = 2,940), investigating the moderating role of companies' production network type.

We find that companies with networks distinguished by both high levels of product complexity and process sophistication profit the most from producing to a greater extent in high-cost countries. For these companies, shifting production to low-cost countries would be associated with negative performance implications.

Our findings suggest that the production geography of companies should be attuned to their network type, as defined by the companies' process sophistication and product complexity. Manufacturing in low-cost countries is not always the best choice, as doing so can adversely affect profits if the products are highly innovative and the production processes are complex.

We contribute to the scarce empirical literature on managing global production networks and provide a data-driven analysis that contributes to answering some of the enduring questions in this critical area.