Search results

This chapter explores the relationships between organisational type, rationales and the barriers that prevent community food projects from increasing the scale of their operations. From a broad survey of community food projects, organisations were divided according to their primary rationale (e.g. rural economic development and distribution), and then subdivided – by form – as a non-profit, private business, governmental agency or cooperative. Data from the interviews and surveys were coded using a qualitative grounded theory approach, to reveal the barriers experienced by each. Overall, access to long-term stable income is a recurrent theme across all types of projects. However, income sources dramatically change how these organisations prioritise barriers. Similarly, the organisation’s primary rationale and experiences influence the interpretation and approach to collaboration and education. Despite these differences, our results suggest a large degree of convergence that cuts across organisational forms and rationales, and offer a base for broader regional food system conversations.

This introduction provides an overview of the discourse on alternative agrifood movements (AAMs) to (1) ascertain the degree of convergence and divergence around a common ethos of alterity and (2) context the chapters of the book. AAMs have increased in recent years in response to the growing legitimation crisis of the conventional agrifood system. Some agrifood researchers argue that AAMs represent the vanguard movement of our time, a formidable counter movement to global capitalism. Other authors note a pattern of blunting of the transformative qualities of AAMs due to conventionalization and mainstreaming in the market. The literature on AAMs is organized following a Four Questions in Agrifood Studies (Constance, 2008) framework. The section for each Question ends with a case study to better illustrate the historical dynamics of an AAM. The literature review ends with a summary of the discourse applied to the research question of the book: Are AAMs the vanguard social movement of our time? The last section of this introduction provides a short description of each contributing chapter of the book, which is divided into five sections: Introduction; Theoretical and Conceptual Framings; Food Sovereignty Movements; Alternative Movements in the Global North; and Conclusions.

Boards of Directors and other organisational leaders make decisions about the information security governance systems to implement in their companies. The increasing number of cyber-breaches targeting businesses makes this activity inescapable. Recently, researchers have published comprehensive lists of recommended cyber measures, specifically to inform organisational boards. However, the young cybersecurity industry has still to confirm and refine these guidelines. As a starting point, it would be helpful for organisational leaders to know what other organisations are doing in terms of using these guidelines. In an ideal world, bespoke surveys would be developed to gauge adherence to guidelines, but this is not always feasible. What we often do have is data from existing cybersecurity surveys. The authors argue that such data could be repurposed to quantify adherence to existing information security guidelines, and this paper aims to propose, and test, an original methodology to do so.

The authors propose a quantification mechanism to measure the degree of adherence to a set of published information security governance recommendations and guidelines targeted at organisational leaders. The authors test their quantification mechanism using a data set collected in a survey of 156 Italian companies on information security and privacy.

The evaluation of the proposed mechanism appears to align with findings in the literature, indicating the validity of the present approach. An analysis of how different industries rank in terms of their adherence to the selected set of recommendations and guidelines confirms the usability of our repurposed data set to measure adherence.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, a quantification mechanism as the one proposed in this study has never been proposed, and tested, in the literature. It suggests a way to repurpose survey data to determine the extent to which companies are implementing measures recommended by published cybersecurity guidelines. This way, the proposed mechanism responds to increasing calls for the adoption of research practices that minimise waste of resources and enhance research sustainability.

The purpose of this paper is to identify common inclusive concepts that might help define the boundaries of a general theory of behavioral finance.

A cross disciplinary review of relevant natural and social sciences is conducted to identify common foundational concepts.

The overall findings are that a general theory must include assumptions of subjective perception, indeterminacy, and a financial decision process that is both logical and affective.

Optimal financial decisions are not possible and significant market unpredictability will continue because of the dynamic complexity associated with disequilibrium.

The current financial paradigm is based upon radically incorrect assumptions and a general theory of behavioral finance cannot arise from minor corrections to the current financial paradigm.

This paper is the first to attempt identifying foundational attributes of a behavioral financial paradigm.