Search results

Social media usage is becoming ubiquitous across the world and communicators, either corporate, independent or activist are increasingly adopting the new medium. This chapter focuses on the uses of social media for marketing communications, in particular for public relations and corporate social responsibility (CSR) by Pfizer’s European offices. In doing so it evaluates the relationship between public relations and CSR as well as reviews some of the uses of social media for healthcare communications and CSR.

Using a deductive approach and a methodology that combines qualitative content analysis aimed at identifying communication themes and social media audits on brand integration and communication coherence, this chapter aims to identify how Pfizer’s European offices use social media to communicate online.

To establish the corporate line and branding general guidelines for Pfizer, we have recorded from the company’s official website (www.pfizer.com) its corporate overview and corporate responsibility information, embedded into the ‘About us’ section of the website. From the home page, social media links were then sought. To ensure all links were recorded the researchers used two gateways, one using the social media links on the website and one through each country’s website and their social media links on their home page. The Pfizer official accounts were excluded from this analysis, the interest being on the country uses of social media and not Pfizer’s official general channels.

General traffic and engagement data automatically reported by each social media platforms such as number of tweets, followers, fans, and number of views were recorded manually. For more insight into Twitter activity FollerMe was then used to capture and record each account’s most recent activity as it enabled the discovery of each account’s creation date and the most frequently used words and hashtags in its tweets. It also helped assess the levels of performance of each country on Twitter by looking at the reported ratios of replies, mentions, tweets with links, hashtags or media to the last 100 tweets sent from the each account. For Facebook and YouTube data, only the publicly reported data was recorded. The text in the Twitter bios and about sections was also recorded and compared with the company’s corporate and CSR descriptions included on the main website.

Out of the 20 countries that do have a Pfizer country office, only 10 of them have a social media presence. Turkey and Spain have four social media channels each and Belgium has three. All the other countries are present on only one social media platform. They show an overall integration and coordination of messages with themes mirrored from one platform to another. The channels also show an overall compliance and consistency with the brand, most of them displaying bespoke backgrounds, bios and links to the country website.

When it comes to social media integration, the accounts are poorly integrated and interlinked. Moreover, although social media provides a platform for dialogue, two out of the three platforms analysed have very little user interaction. This high concern for message control can be indicative of a variety of elements: a lack of certainty/security in handling social media, a risk-averse attitude towards social media, a lack of training of staff about how to handle social media or perhaps a lack of resources.

The platforms used have all different functions and address different target audiences. YouTube proves to excel as a public information/CSR medium for the general public, the most popular content fitting into those categories. Twitter is a corporate communications environment by excellence, a true mouth-piece of the organization. Finally, Facebook is Pfizer’s user engagement environment but within Pfizer’s own comfort and rules, the presence of a policy document making the boundaries of communication very clear.

Although looking only at one company and its social media communication practices and although it uses only publicly reported data, this chapter raises a variety of questions about the use of social media by big, multinational corporations, the resources they allocate and the amount to which they perceive these channels as anything more than just another company mouth-piece. It also raises questions about how companies choose to portray themselves on social media in comparison to joining conversations, commenting on current trends and celebrating their partners and employees. Perhaps future research could explore these aspects in more depth.

Pfizer who declares itself the ‘world’s largest research-based pharmaceutical company’ is currently among the most influential companies in the world, occupying currently the 148th position in the Global Fortune 500 list. Due to its position within the industry, Pfizer has been the subject of previous research materials including marketing and health communications; however, no study yet has analysed Pfizer’s uses of social media. By analysing the social media communications of Pfizer in Europe and by pointing to the inconsistencies between country accounts, this chapter raises further questions about social media strategy and its implementation by corporations.

This chapter examines the potential and limitations of criminal law as a policy tool for fighting against the trade in counterfeit goods in Tanzania. It uncovers major challenges involved in tackling the counterfeiting business in Tanzania using criminal law. The chapter shows that counterfeit goods have infiltrated many supply chains in Tanzania. Both law-related and non-law factors drive the counterfeit goods trade. The counterfeiting business affects consumers, traders, the economy and the general society in Tanzania. The counterfeiting business presents serious societal risks during the crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic owing to the possible infiltration of counterfeit pharmaceuticals into the medical supply chain. Criminal law is part of Tanzania's legal embodies for fighting against the counterfeit goods trade. Both law-related and non-law limitations and challenges undermine the efficacy of criminal law in tackling the trade in counterfeit goods in Tanzania. The chapter recommends policy, legal and institutional reforms that will help to augment the efficacy of the anti-counterfeiting legal regime in Tanzania.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” When Sir Walter Scott penned these words, he probably did not have diversity or universities on his mind. Those of us that are genuinely engaged in diversity, inclusion, equity, social justice, and/or multicultural education work can ruminate on his words and think of how university campuses tout their diversity initiatives and sometimes brag about being the “most diverse” are in actuality deceiving themselves and the constituents they serve. Even though diversity awareness has become an important topic in academe in recent years, so many campuses have largely failed to address it in any substantive way, thus creating an environment where students and even employees sometimes become disengaged. Davies (2007) argues that “university leaders who claim openness to diversity do not acknowledge the presence or participation of Others in activities that are characteristic of a free and democratic society” (p. 154).

Many institutions of higher learning honestly believe that in showcasing a campus program based around food, festival, or fun, they can check the diversity box. Yet, when diversity practitioners push the campus in becoming multicultural competent by addressing diversity outside the proverbial realm of “race,” questions like, “Why are they doing this?” arise. The struggle to sustain a comprehensive and meaningful campus diversity program is real for many agents for change. In order for diversity advocates to have a seat at the table, the campus attitude and practice of “diversity need not apply” cannot continue to exist.

Leaders within academia must be cognizant of their campus culture, which governs the law of the land. More importantly, it is vital to understand that sometimes your campus culture may not be receptive to cultural differences, although university verbiage may state, “We will promote diversity and maintain an environment that celebrates and values the many perspectives, cultures, and […]” Institutions of higher learning in this new millennium (twenty-first century) are deeply entrenched in organizational culture that has become its cornerstone over time, and is resistant to change.

Campus culture is real. Stewart and Dottolo (2005) state that universities should strive to ensure that any groups that fall outside of the traditional culture do not encounter an unwelcoming and threatening institutional environment. However, not every university strives or desires to create a campus climate where diversity is welcomed, celebrated, and/or embraced. It is paramount that educational institutions that serve diverse populations strive to become proficient in multiculturalism (Roach, 2004). Institutions of higher education are socially obligated to provide a learning environment for students with varied backgrounds (Bridges et al., 2008). It is essential that universities take a very close look at how they can contribute to the greater good of society by instilling a sense of worth in all students, regardless of ethnicity and other features of student identities. Williams and Swail (2005) argue that “attending college can be a liberating, developmentally powerful experience with the potential to increase individual productivity and, to some degree, the quality of life of the larger society” (p. 222). This can only occur if or when all aspects of diversity can apply and become an integral part of the university.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states in 2018 that safeguarding “civil liberties is critical” to their official duties. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS, as its website explains,

reviews and assesses complaints from the public in areas such as: physical or other abuse; discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability; inappropriate conditions of confinement; infringements of free speech; violation of right to due process … and any other civil rights or civil liberties violation related to a Department program or activity.

My chapter tracks the centrality of deportability in shaping the civil liberties and rights that DHS is tasked with enforcing. Over the course of the twentieth century, people on US soil saw an expanding list of civil liberties and civil rights. Important scholarship concentrates on the role of the courts, state and federal governments, advocacy groups, social movements, and foreign policy driving these constitutional and cultural changes. For instance, the scholarship illustrates that coming out of World War I, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect something the Justices labeled “irresponsible speech.” The Supreme Court soon changed course, opening up an era ever since of more robust First Amendment rights. What has not been undertaken in the literature is an examination of the relationship of deportability to the sweep of civil liberties and civil rights. Starting in the second decade of the twentieth century, federal immigration policymakers began multiplying types of immigration statuses. A century later, among many others, there is the H2A status for temporary low-wage workers, the H2B for skilled labor, and permanent residents with green cards. The deportability of each status constrains access to certain liberties and rights. Thus, in 2016, when people from the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS act, they are not enforcing a uniform body of rights and liberties that applies equally to citizens and immigrants, or even within the large category of immigrants. Instead, they do so within a complicated matrix of liberties and rights attenuated by deportability, which has been shaped by the history of the twentieth century.

This paper examines the role of cultural values measured as collectivism, face-saving, and conflict-avoidance, in predicting employee voice behavior. Using data (n = 198) collected from automotive-industry employees in the United States (US) and Korea, several interesting findings emerged. First, and most notably, for a “leaver” who chooses the exit option, culture does not matter, such that none of the three cultural values have a significant association with the exit option across countries. Second, for a “stayer,” who chooses the voice, loyalty, or neglect option, culture does matter in that cultural-specific values, such as collectivism, face-saving, and conflict-avoidance were found to affect employees nonexit options in the Korean sample, but not in the U.S. sample. The results of this study suggest that these three cultural values guide and predict employee voice behavior. Additionally, the results of this study confirm that job alternatives are a significant predictor of the exit option across cultures. This study therefore presents strong empirical evidence of the effect of culture on employee voice behavior and increases our understanding of employee voice behavior across cultures.

This chapter examines the conundrum of juvenile immigration law and policy and argues that it is a present-day manifestation of “child-saving” in rhetoric, disposition, and human capital harm. In support of this thesis, the chapter reviews the pertinent human rights, law, and social science evidence, and it concludes that the maintenance of the nation’s existing immigration policy only makes sense within the context of the intentions of the 19th century child-saving movement. To substantiate this view, the political-economic drivers of contemporary US immigration policy (i.e., its child-saving dynamics) are explored. The chapter concludes by speculatively addressing the character (i.e., the form and quality) of modern-day juvenile immigration policy as child-saving informed by the philosophy and criticism of Psychological Jurisprudence (PJ).