Search results

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to scientifically test the credibility (proof or refutation) of the existing argument for a technological leap in the COVID-19 pandemic and the post-pandemic period.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The conducted review of existing sources of research literature showed that they have formed an insufficient scientific background for a clear understanding of digital deprivation of services, social contradictions and conflict management as components of technological leap amid the COVID-19 pandemic and in the post-pandemic period. To fill the identified gap in the system of scientific knowledge, this work uses the method of comparative analysis of statistical data. Some countries of the world, the EU countries and the United States, which are characterized by the largest population and the largest contribution of investments to the digitalization of value chains and the development of innovations, were selected as objects for this study.

Findings: Research has shown that rapid digitalization is impacting all aspects of life, including not only how value is created and exchanged, but also how we interact, operate, purchase and receive services. In this process, data and its international flows are becoming increasingly important for development. The usual digital gap associated with connectivity, reflecting significant differences between and within countries in readiness to use the power of data, is exacerbated by what might be termed the data gap. Countries with limited opportunities to transform digital data into digital analytics and entrepreneurial opportunities, and to use them for economic and social development, are obviously at a disadvantage.

Originality/Value: Digital data have been proven to be one of the top strategic assets for creating both private and public value. Our ability to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2015) depends a lot on how these data are applied. The idea of sustainable development arose, as it is known, for overcoming significant fluctuations in the positive transformation of society, and for the alignment in the pace and results of the transition of various countries to the post-industrial scenario of progress. There are many obstacles on the path of sustainable development, which hinder the transition to this vector of transformation. First, the gap in economic and social development between the countries of the ‘golden billion’ and many other countries has not been reduced. Second, the digital gap continues to deepen. But a new and extremely threatening danger on the path to the transition to sustainable development has become the global crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that emerged in early 2020 and is still ongoing.

Determining the right course for the future is a difficult task, but its solution cannot be postponed. Data are multidimensional, and their use has an impact not only on trade and economic development but also on human rights, peace and security. In addition, measures should be taken to reduce the risk of misuse and unauthorized use of digital data by states, non-states or the private sectors to avoid the possibility of global social conflict.

For sociological perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – and possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

For perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic, and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – find possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

This study aims to assess the efficiency of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS) countries in achieving sustainable development by analyzing their ability to convert resources and technological innovations into sustainable outcomes.

Using data envelopment analysis (DEA), the study evaluates the economic, environmental and social efficiency of BRICS countries over the period 2010–2018. It ranks these countries based on their sustainable development performance and compares them to the period 2000–2007.

The study reveals varied efficiency levels among BRICS countries. Russia and South Africa lead in certain sustainable development aspects. South Africa excels in environmental sustainability, whereas Brazil is efficient in resource utilization for sustainable growth. China and India, despite economic growth, face challenges such as pollution and lower quality of life.

The study’s findings are constrained by the DEA methodology and the selection of variables. It highlights the need for more nuanced research incorporating recent global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical shifts.

Insights from this study can inform targeted and effective sustainability strategies in BRICS nations, focusing on areas such as industrial quality improvement, employment conditions and environmental policies.

The study underscores the importance of balancing economic growth with social and environmental considerations, highlighting the need for policies addressing inequality, poverty and environmental degradation.

This research provides a unique comparative analysis of BRICS countries’ sustainable development efficiency, challenging conventional perceptions and offering a new perspective on their progress.

The core deficits associated with ASD pose significant obstacles to achieving social competence; indeed, the deficits, in many cases, define social incompetence. The diagnostic criteria for autism include qualitative impairment in social interactions and verbal and non-verbal communication, including delay in the acquisition of expressive language (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2000). A pattern of narrow, restricted interests and stereotyped behavior are also requirements of the diagnosis. The diagnostic criteria for Asperger's Disorder also include impaired social interaction and restricted interests without delay in language acquisition and with average to above average intelligence (APA, 2000). In sum, ASD is defined by significant impairment in social functioning that is qualitatively distinctive from both typical social functioning and from social functioning deficits associated with other diagnoses.

Extreme events undermine progress toward social sustainability and require an immediate response from the private sector. The authors propose a two-dimensional framework (response time and the scope of activities to the various stakeholders) to benchmark firms’ effectiveness in mitigating the threats to social sustainability post-disaster. This framework allows establishing a taxonomy of corporate emergency responses. Within such a framework, the authors group 218 corporate actions from 111 companies operating in Spain during the COVID-19 pandemic into four corporate relief strategies: symbolic, selective, reactive, and supportive. The authors show how companies can use this framework as a guide to foster social sustainability in times of shock in an efficient way. Also, stakeholders can use this framework as a reference to distinguish corporate initiatives aiming to propel community resilience from corporate “covidwashing.”

Catholic theologians and ethicists date the modern entrance of the Church into the area of social justice and social economics by the publication of Pope Leo XIII's landmark encyclical, Rerum Novarum, 15 May, 1891. He began the letter with these words:

As hybrid organisations operating at the intersection of opposing institutional logics, social enterprises (SEs) pursue the creation of social value w hile functioning as businesses, which generates tensions between social and business concerns. Limited knowledge exists, however, of how hybridity is managed at the intra-individual level. Drawing on regulatory focus theory (RFT), this paper investigates the role of self-regulation in managing hybridity tensions in SEs.

A multiple-case design is useful in investigating the situated cognitive mechanisms underlying individual self-regulation in the context of managing tensions in SEs. The authors interviewed 22 managers from Belgian SEs that had been active in the home-care sector for at least five years before the COVID-19 pandemic to understand how managers handle the tensions between social and business concerns through self-regulation.

The authors show that managers in SEs experience three forms of tensioning: tensioning as intertwining, tensioning as competition and tensioning as superseding. Managers respond differently to tensions depending on their self-regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention) on social and business goals, and this is reflected in their hybridity practices (entrepreneurship, commercialisation, corporatisation and managerialisation). Informed by both social and business logics, hybridity practices serve as tactics used as part of managers' self-regulation, enabling them to handle tensions.

By studying the interactions between individual cognition and institutional logics, this study contributes to the micro-foundations of institutional logics by revealing the role of self-regulation mechanisms in managing tensions in hybrid organisations.

In economic theory, the relationship between working/earning decisions and consumption/lifestyle decisions has been conceptualised in an almost entirely unidirectional manner: income from work taken as a given governs consumption and so lifestyle. This involves a narrowly inaccurate view of the consumption–work interaction. The purpose of this paper is to argue that this economist’s way of thinking about consumption and work needs to be replaced by a conception in which not only does realised income determine one’s consumption possibilities but also the desired level of consumption is itself a choice and a key determinant of how and how much one decides to work.

The paper is designed as a conceptual contribution in which the above insight is linked to the extensive literature on sustainability.

When consumption is no longer thought of as determined by a given income constraint, it becomes possible to consider how people by modifying their consumption aspirations may be led not only to work less or differently but also to live and consume in a more sustainable manner. As a result of lesser pressure to work ever more, they may also be led to an ethical reappraisal of the way they work.

The conceptualisation suggested is rich in implications for future research, for example, on links between consumerism and corruption; and on the impact of more ethical work choices on well-being. There is an implicit critique of much of HRM theory and practice which tends to instrumentalise work. The implications of artificial intelligence for future work are noted and, in this context, are surprisingly positive. The macro level implication of the need to move away from gross domestic product to more appropriate measures of socio-economic performance and well-being such as Social Progress Index (SPI) are noted.

The link between this widened conceptualisation of the consumption–work decision and the notion of voluntary simplicity is explored in detail and the latter is shown to apply also to the types of work/job chosen. This in turn is shown to have implications for management (especially HR) practice and for government policies both at micro and macro levels.

This carries clear implications for work-life balance in people’s daily lives; and by choosing more ethical ways of working or types of job, there may be a significant pro-social impact.

This paper points to a widening of the notion of voluntary simplicity beyond merely consumption choices to apply also to work choices. In the discussion of moral philosophical underpinning of voluntary simplicity, the link is made with Buddhist wisdom of the Middle Way and sufficiency economy and with the Golden Mean of Stoicism.

Environmental degradation, economic and political threats along with ideological extremism necessitate a global redirection toward sustainability and well-being. Since the survival of all species (humans, animals, and plants) is wholly dependent on a healthy planet, urgent action at the highest levels to address large-scale interconnected problems is needed to counter the thinking that perpetuates the “folly of a limitless world.” Paralleling critical societal roles played by universities – ancient, medieval, and modern – throughout the millennia, this chapter calls for all universities and higher education institutions (HEIs) generally – estimated at over 28,000 – to take a lead together in tackling the pressing complex and intractable challenges that face us. There are about 250 million students in tertiary education worldwide rising to about 600 million by 2040. Time is not on our side. While much of the groundwork has been done by the United Nations (UN) and civil society, concerns remain over the variable support given to the UN-2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially in light of the negative impact of global biodiversity loss on achieving the UN-2030 SDGs. Ten propositions for global sustainability, ranging from adopting the SDGs at national and local levels to ensuring peaceful uses of technology and UN reforms in line with global socioeconomic shifts, are provided for consideration by decisionmakers. Proposition #7 calls for the unifying One Health & Well-Being (OHWB) concept to become the cornerstone of our educational systems as well as societal institutions and to underpin the UN-2030 SDGs. Recognizing the need to change our worldview (belief systems) from human-centrism to eco-centrism, and re-building of trust in our institutions, the chapter argues for the re-conceptualization of the university/higher education purpose and scope focusing on the development of an interconnected ecological knowledge system with a concern for the whole Earth – and beyond. The 2019 novel coronavirus has made clear that the challenges facing our world cannot be solved by individual nations alone and that there is an urgency to committing to shared global values that reflect the OHWB concept and approach. By drawing on our collective experience and expertise informed by the UN-2030 SDGs, we will be in a much stronger position to shape and strengthen multilateral strategies to achieve the UN-2030 Transformative Vision – “ending poverty, hunger, inequality and protecting the Earth’s natural resources,” and thereby helping “to save the world from itself.”