Search results

The purpose of this column is to examine the matter of college textbook affordability and the library's role in the discussion.

The paper is a literature review and commentary on this topic that has been addressed by professionals, researchers and practitioners.

There are a number of issues to address when approaching the continuing impact of textbook affordability on students and it appears that there will be little finality on the horizon for some time. There must continue to be thoughtful and productive discussion on this topic among stakeholders in their efforts to reach a satisfactory resolution.

The value in addressing this issue is to acknowledge the library's position as a stakeholder in the exchange of ideas on textbook affordability.

The paper aims to investigate the different forms of retaliatory responses towards unsatisfactory service encounters experienced by Australian consumers. It further compares demographic and psychographic profiles of complainers versus non‐complainers.

In total, 1,200 mail surveys were sent out through a random list of addresses obtained from the White Pages. Data from 237 usable surveys (29.1 per cent) were analysed using a series of statistical techniques including factor analysis to profile psychographic factors and discriminant analysis to identify complainers from non‐complainers.

It is found that both complainers and non‐complainers engage in some form of retaliatory responses. Complainers have a high sense of justice, are less conservative and have a more positive attitude towards complaining than their non‐complaining counterparts. Gender, income and education have no effect on complaining behaviour for both complainers and non‐complainers.

The high number of retaliations through “exit” is a concern for Australian firms. Firms have to make an effort to identify exactly the conditions in which each occurs and the strategies best available to rectify them. Mechanisms can be put in place to reduce these occurrences to improve the business as a whole.

The paper matches the demographic and psychographic profiles of complainers and non‐complainers with potential types of products and services and the related retaliatory responses.

Human rights has emerged in the past several years as an important issue of our times and the personal freedoms of citizens of many countries has become a concern of the American government. Since the Helsinki agreement in 1975 (the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe), the compliance of the Soviet government with the Helsinki accords—with respect to guarantees of individual freedoms of its citizens— has been watched anxiously by human rights groups all over the world.

The article aims to cast a novel light on the extended theoretical conceptualisation of corporate citizenship, in as far as it criticises the insufficient embedding of international corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate social performance (CSP) and sustainability initiatives in the geopolitical reality and conflictuality of the global business environment.

The article offers a unique interdisciplinary take on relevant research in international CSR, political science, international relations and philosophy. Its methodology is based on a literature review of these different fields.

The article argues that the rules‐based nature of international CSR is based on experience in the relatively benign market context of high‐income economies. However, the transposition of the code‐and‐compliance approach to the more conflictual context of emerging markets leads to the failure of international CSR. Its insufficient catering to the particular pressures exerted on operation in these markets reveals an idealist bias. This explains the implicit endorsement of “end‐of‐history” scenarios and other neo‐liberal assumptions in international CSR. The article argues that this disposition does not pay credit to the need to find adequate responses to the situation. Quite to the contrary, the firm entrenchment of (neo‐)liberalism in the mental mapping of CSR blocks the way to an exploration of realist alternatives. The article concludes by suggesting a shift in the CSR research agenda, from rules to institutions and agency. It proposes historical material on leadership in emergency situations and a new reading of Machiavelli to illustrate possible avenues.

The article is based on a qualitative review and discussion of the literature, which it presents in a new light. It does not present empirical or quantitative research data. It points to a conceptual abyss separating the theory and reality of international CSR. This is particularly problematic in the light of recent deliberative models positing a “new political role” for the corporation. While this article follows the new model in its criticism of the traditional separation of politics and business, it advocates that further research is necessary to elucidate how a more realistic apprehension of global conflict and its impact on business can be combined with the “arms reach principle”. Furthermore it urges that a new model must factor in the frequent “dirty hands” problems occurring in international business.

The article argues that, contrary to the dominant liberal discourse in business ethics and CSR, an increasing potential for Machiavellian behavior in the corporate sector is to be expected. This is due to the absence of arbitrages, in an environment experiencing a rapid expansion of global corporate activity. This renders “code‐and‐compliance” CSR ineffective. The article recommends the “reframing” of CSR, to specifically include “dirty hands” issues.

One stumbling block to a correct understanding of the contemporary challenges impacting international business operations is the (neo‐)liberal globalisation paradigm ‐ a narrative in whose manufacture business schools and management scholars are complicit.

The article contributes to the discussion on “systemic CSR”. The fundamental nature of the critique, as well as its interdisciplinary orientation and original recommendations, make the contribution unique.

This paper focuses on an analysis of the factors that contribute to differences in political attitudes and political participation of Russian capital owners. Such factors may include different size and type of capital, the degree of past political socialization, the respondents’ age and generational experiences, past/present well-being comparisons and education. The paper begins with a discussion of different theories that make hypotheses about the political behavior of capital owners. These hypotheses were tested in a small, exploratory study of Russian capital owners that I conducted in Russia in the late 1990s. The results of the study are then analyzed within two different but closely interrelated contexts: the wider historical context of social, political and economic changes of the first decade of post-Soviet transformation, and the micro-context of the respondents personal political, economic and social history. In the end, I return to the analyses of the original hypotheses and conclude with a discussion of which theory comes closest to predicting and explaining the results of the study.

Analyzing how the post-Soviet transition interacts with the crisis of market finance exhibits a new “greed-based economic system” in the making. Asset grabbing is at its core and hinders capital accumulation. All the various privatization schemes have triggered off asset grabbing, asset stripping, and asset tunneling. A global contagion of such behavior has spread the power and cohesion of managers/shareholders (oligarchs) worldwide. Financial asset grabbing is less straightforward, though much widespread, and operates in financial markets through new financial products, securitization, firms buying their own shares, hedge funds, stock price manipulation, short selling, and the distribution of stock options.Shadow banking, and more generally a global informal economy, results from grabbing strategies in financial markets that breach the formal rules of capitalism. In alleviating and circumventing the rules, the oligarchy paves the way for economic malpractices and crime, calling capitalist laws into question.In such context, systemic greed underlies unconstrained maximization of relative wealth, for which asset grabbing is a rational means, in a winner-take-all economy. At the present stage of our research, a greed-based economy cannot yet be theoretically defined as a transition either to a new phase of capitalism or to another different system.