Search results

The effects of country-of-origin (COO) cues on product evaluations are well documented. However, research on the relative effects of COO compared to other geographical indicators, such as region-of-origin (ROO), on food purchases is still limited. This study investigates how geographical origin labels influence consumers' perceptions of product value and authenticity of foreign food, as well as subsequent purchase intention (PI) and willingness to pay premium prices (WTPPP). The moderating role of health consciousness on these relationships is also examined due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

This study uses a between-subjects experimental design conducted with 300 middle- and high-income Chinese consumers aged between 25 and 50 years. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modelling.

Whilst under both COO and ROO cues, all five product values positively influenced consumers' WTPPP, only functional, economic and novelty values influenced PI. The ROO cue performed significantly better than the COO cue in eliciting functional, economic and novelty value perceptions, which triggered stronger PI and willingness to pay a premium price. These relationships were mediated by product authenticity (PA) and moderated by consumers' health consciousness (HC).

Because food labels provide salient product information that facilitates consumers' evaluation of products, marketers should assess which product value perceptions they wish to enhance and then choose the appropriate geographical indicators for their labelling strategies.

This study identifies the effects of COO and ROO cues on product values, authenticity, PI and WTPPP. It also provides valuable insights into the role of HC on consumers' purchase decisions, which also aids in understanding the impact of global crises on food purchases.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to science communication literature by further highlighting the underexplored role of organizational and corporate perspectives in science communication.

The paper takes the form of a conceptual article that uses two illustrative vignettes to highlight the power of corporate science communication.

The key argument is that corporate science communication is a compound ideology that results from merging the hegemonic corporate voice with the ultimate/god-term science (see the work of Kenneth Burke) to form a mega-ideological construct and discourse. Such communication can be so powerful that vulnerable publics and powerful advocates speaking on their behalf have little to no recourse to effectively challenge such discourse. While critiques of corporate science communication in practice are not new, what the authors offer is a possible explanation as to why such discourse is so powerful and hard to combat.

The value of this paper is in the degree to which it both sets an important applied research agenda for the field and fills a critical void in the science communication literature. This conceptual article, in the form of a critical analysis, fills the void by advocating for the inclusion of organizational perspectives in science communication research because of the great potential that organizations have, via science communication, to shape societal behavior and outcomes both positively and negatively. It also coins the terms “compound ideology” and “mega-ideology” to denote that while all ideologies are powerful, ideologies can operate in concert (compound) to change their meaning and effectiveness. By exposing the hegemonic power of corporate science communication, future researchers and practitioners can use these findings as a foundation to combat misinformation and disinformation campaigns wielded by big corporate science entities and the public relations firms often hired to carry out these campaigns.

Nature’s contribution to people (NCP) is a concept that specifically recognizes the relationship of “humans and the natural environment” similarly to concepts of “cultural landscapes” and consistent to “heritage.” These concepts are essential in incorporating a diverse range of stakeholders from different scales, which is important for policy and practice. The paper aims to review the existing peer-reviewed papers in the Philippines, using meta-analysis and systematic review. We addressed the significant interlinkages that help facilitate the transition and strengthen the correlation of cultural ecosystem services (CES) and NCP in a cultural landscape setting.

To distinguish and support claims for NCP from CES, we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review based on the 30-existing peer-reviewed articles on the Philippine cultural ES in the lenses of “heritage” and “cultural landscape.”

The results generated a few numbers of the Philippine CES studies, yet it has increased cumulatively year by year consistent with previous international studies. We found that most studies are focused on topics associated with “Indigenous People, Ancestral Domains, Protected Areas/Landscapes, and Indigenous and Local Knowledge” on the linkages concurrently distinguishing NCP to CES, and may signify stronger economic valuation in uncovering the sociocultural dimensions of these scholarships through its relational values in the lenses of cultural landscape and heritage.

The authors limited the search to peer-reviewed journal articles published from online databases and did not consider Philippine University based and local publications to have a systematic review. This is to prevent underestimating the vast amount of CES literature and avoid gray literature that is not peer-reviewed; hence, being able to analyze and produce focused, yet, credible data.

In a generalizing perspective, NCP 1, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 have the most realized positive correlations of the reporting categories to the Philippine CES studies. The majority of the context-specific perspective NCP has strong conceptual claims in the existing Philippine CES literature through the studies’ variables aside from NCP 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11 that are still mostly in the nature of generalizing perspective.

In conclusion, our results imply that the previous and existing CES studies in the Philippines harbor more attributes presented by the NCP reporting categories. This is deemed more suitable, and may signify stronger economic valuation in uncovering the sociocultural dimensions of these scholarships through its relational values in the lenses of cultural landscape and heritage.

Sustainability has long been known to present an epistemic challenge. In the corporate setting, this challenge translates into the difficulties experienced by managers not only in devising solutions to corporate sustainability problems, but even in developing the awareness of the latter. The paper explores how these difficulties may be overcome by corporate stakeholder management policies.

The paper develops a conceptual framework that reconstructs the Hayekian theory of market process in the context of Williamson's (1996) distinction between autonomous and cooperative adaptation.

Applying the Hayekian theory of market process to the process of engagement and collaboration of corporate stakeholders, the paper shows how the latter process may address the epistemic challenge of corporate sustainability and derives implications for the design of business models for sustainability.

The paper informs stakeholder theory in two ways: first, stakeholder theory is given a novel justification in terms of reflecting the growing prominence of cooperative adaptation and second, corporate stakeholder management is shown to be crucial for maximizing not only economic but also sustainability performance.

Transaction cost economics sees a broad spectrum of governance structures spanned by two types of economic adaptation: autonomous and cooperative. Stakeholder theorists have drawn much inspiration from transaction cost economics but have not paid explicit attention to the centrality of the idea of adaptation in this literature. This study aims to address this gap.

The authors develop a novel conceptual framework applying the distinction between the two types of economic adaptation to stakeholder theory.

The authors argue that the idea of cooperative adaptation is particularly useful for describing the firm’s collaboration with primary stakeholders in the joint value creation process. In contrast, autonomous adaptation is more relevant for firms interacting with secondary stakeholders who are not directly engaged in joint value creation and may not have formal contractual relationships with the firm. Accordingly, cooperative adaptation can be seen as vital for resolving team production problems affecting joint value creation, whereas autonomous adaptation addresses how the firm maintains legitimacy within the larger stakeholder environment.

Similar to its significance for transaction cost economics, the distinction between the two types of adaptation equips stakeholder theory with a new systematic understanding of a potentially broad spectrum of firm–stakeholder collaboration forms.