Search results

This study aims to investigate the determinants of United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar consumers’ perceptions of organic food.

Using a survey approach and focusing on six known determinants identified from empirical studies, data were analysed using a mean difference analysis and a multi-regression model.

Citizens in both countries had similar access to organic food products, yet consumer perceptions differed significantly. Given the geographical, cultural and topographical proximity and similarities of these countries, differences in the mean values indicate that targeted or bespoke marketing is required to attract customers.

One limitation of this study its sample size that may limit the generalizability of its results. However, the highly statistically significant results offset this to some extent as the differences the authors have demonstrated are likely to be real. These do require confirmation by further similar studies. The study relied on a random sample of respondents who might have exhibited bias in answering questions.

The two countries central to this research study, the UAE and Qatar, have vested interests in supporting the organic food product market that mainly concern supporting and promoting the health of their citizens and the environment. As shown in this paper, the key obstacles preventing consumers’ accessing organic products are availability and price. With appropriate governmental subsidies and logistics support, however, these barriers can be overcome.

If governments are sincere in their declarations that the health and welfare of their citizens is of prime importance, they will support attempts to promote the sale and consumption of organically grown food. The results of this study can help to inform such policies.

This study provides insights into the most important factors that influence consumers’ attitudes towards organic foods. This study fills a gap in the existing research on consumer buying behaviour for organic food in two Middle Eastern countries.

The present study aims to examine the scope and contribution of behavioural investigative advice (BIA) reports from the National Crime Agency (NCA).

The 77 BIA reports reviewed were written between 2016 and 2021. They were evaluated using Toulmin’s (1958) strategy for structuring pertinent arguments, current compliance with professional standards, the grounds and backing provided for the claims made and the potential utility of the recommendations provided.

Consistent with previous research, most of the reports involved murder and sexual offences. The BIA reports met professional standards with extremely high frequency. The 77 reports contained a total of 1,308 claims of which 99% were based on stated grounds. A warrant and/or backing was provided for 73% of the claims. Most of the claims in the BIA reports involved a behavioural evaluation of the crime scene and offender characteristics. The potential utility of the reports was judged to be 95% for informative behavioural crime scene analysis and 40% for potential new lines of enquiry.

The reports should serve as a model for the work of behavioural investigative advisers internationally.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate BIA reports commissioned by the NCA; it adds to previous similar studies by evaluating the largest number of BIA reports ever reviewed, and uniquely provides judgement of overall utility.

This article investigated whether the executives' compensation and corporate governance attributes are aligned with stakeholders' demands for higher corporate voluntary disclosures. Moreover, the study also examined the moderating role of the auditor's reputation in the direction of association among executive compensation, corporate governance attributes, and voluntary disclosures.

The study used a sample of S&P BSE index constituents' 90 Indian firms for 2017–2019. The voluntary disclosure scores were fetched from the India Disclosure Index Report published by FTI Consulting. This analysis was carried out in two parts by applying four panel-data regression models in the agency and signalling theories framework. First, the study examined the association between executive compensation, board strength, composition, gender diversity, and voluntary disclosures. Second, the article investigated the moderating role of the “Big 4” in the direction of association among executive compensation, corporate governance attributes, and voluntary disclosures.

The willingness of executives to share private information with stakeholders depends on the compensation they receive from their employer. The higher compensation paid to executives leads to a higher “tone from the top,” which is better aligned with stakeholder interests. Further, the research also found that bigger board sizes, a higher proportion of independent and woman directors (indicators of good governance), and an auditor's reputation are associated with increased voluntary disclosure.

The findings showed that the executives' compensation and corporate governance attributes are aligned with stakeholders' demand for higher voluntary information from firms. Moreover, the study also found that the “Big 4” play a moderating role in this direction. The choice of a reputed auditor indicates the firms' long-term positive future perspectives, which strengthens investor confidence in the financial market.

The study suggests that fair executive compensation can address the agency problem.

This research furnishes managers and different stakeholders with significant implications of executives' compensation, corporate governance, and auditor's reputation in the best interests of a firm through reducing potential risks of information asymmetry.