Search results

The objective of this paper is to examine the country of origin (COO) research as it applies to services. This stream of research has seemed to focus on products since the 1960s, but has been applied to services in only a very few areas. This dearth of research is surprising as trade in international services has increased greatly in recent years and continues to grow. This study thoroughly examines the related journal articles and attempts to answer the question: “Does COO research apply to services?” Our investigation found three classes of literature focusing on services, and details the studies in each. The study concludes with recommendations for future research.

Hypothesizes that the whole concept of “insider trading” is being overplayed. Is the “average” share purchaser disadvantaged? After analysing the case law, the legislation (and proposed legislation) and the financial theory of efficient markets, concludes that insider trading exists only in the strong market hypothesis and only when a fiduciary duty is established. This is not a zero‐sum game in which one wins and the other loses – everyone can win, some maybe more than others. No one is being cheated; there is no way to establish parity of information nor would most investors know how to use it if it could be established. It appears that we could be embarking on a counter‐productive campaign that will punish those who achieve what their profession requires, all the necessary information on which to make an investment decision; particularly if they achieve it first.

In the face of increasing resource insecurity, environmental degradation and climate change, more governments and businesses are now embracing the concept of the circular economy. This chapter presents some historical background to the concept, with particular attention paid to its assumed opposite, the ‘linear’ or growth economy. While the origins of the circular economy concept are to be found in 1960s environmentalism, the chapter draws attention to the influence of the then ‘new’ sciences of ecology and ‘cybernetics’ in shaping the public environmental discourse of the period. It also draws attention to the background of the present linear economy in postwar policies that encouraged reconstruction and a social and economic democratisation across the West, including an expansion of mass-consumption. It emphasises the role of the 1960s counterculture in generating a popular reaction against this expansionary growth-based agenda, and its influence in shaping subsequent environmentalism, including the ‘metabolic’ and ecological economic understanding of the environmental crisis that informs the concept of the circular economy. Reflecting upon this historical preamble, the chapter concludes that more attention should be paid to the economic, cultural and social contexts of consumption, now more clearly the main driver of our global environmental crisis. Without now engaging more directly with the ‘consumption problem’, the chapter argues, it seems unlikely that the goals of the circular economy can be met.

The scope of this undertaking is to categorize that sector of the environment affecting managerial decision making that makes up the “legal environment.” The term legal environment encompasses the federal and state legislative and regulatory powers, plus the common law or court‐developed law that impacts an organization's domain. I have set out to divide the project into three chapters with each chapter emphasizing a major regulatory impact on corporate direction; some predictable, some unpredictable. Moreover, predictability will be dealt with as to controlling the legal environment. Historically, the legal environment crosses over two of the sectors: the government sector, city, state, federal laws and regulations, the court system, and political processes; the sociocultural sector, affirmative action, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, values, beliefs, etc. Certain regulatory powers were anticipated by the frames of the Constitution in order to maintain a system of prosperity and strength. However, many of our regulatory agencies have come into being at the behest of the very industries that are regulated, such as antitrust. Furthermore, many of the regulatory laws came about due to the negligence of the business community in not self‐regulating and thereby permitting intolerable conditions for the sociocultural sector.

This chapter focusses on the links between economic ideas, sustainability and the circular economy. Economics begins with the view that all resources are scarce and careful and informed choices must be made to ensure resources are used efficiently and not wasted. Given the fundamental importance of markets to human resource allocation decisions, unless economic concepts, especially markets and prices, are used to help transition towards the circular economy, a sustainable economic growth process is unlikely to be achieved. Economists have long grappled with the problems of resource depletion, unsustainable growth and intergenerational equity. Their ideas and views about the interconnection between markets, the environment and resource use have been in existence for several centuries. While frequently overlooked, some of these ideas have important insights for sustainable development and the implementation of a circular economy. The chapter will consider how economic concepts could be used to help society transition to a circular economy. It will also argue that difficulties with the implementation of a circular economy lie less with the application of economic instruments, and more with the political and institutional constraints that reduce our ability to think creatively and innovatively about ‘cradle-to-cradle’ processes.

This paper aims to investigate overlaps, complementarities and divergences between the literature on circular economy (CE) models and related literature in non-linear production models and frameworks, including CE, reverse logistics, closed-loop, industrial symbiosis and industrial ecology.

A systematic literature review was conducted focussing on the benefits of non-linear modes adoption.

The results show a high degree of convergence in findings, gaps and weaknesses of these literatures. Negative environmental, economic and operational impacts are understudied. There is a scarcity of studies identifying practices resulting in empirically tested benefits. The business and society case for non-linear production is still largely built upon conceptual studies, modelling and a few case studies. Despite a normative focus, there is very little use of theory, in particular, management theories.

First, the authors use only one, albeit highly recognized database, Scopus. This database may have omitted some relevant research, journals such as the Journal of Cleaner Production and Resources Conservation & Recycling that are more likely to publish such research and also have a more interdisciplinary approach. This is an important gap and interesting result to claim for more interdisciplinary research. Second, the filtering process used and the focus on Association of Business Schools top journals may have also omitted some relevant research, such as a large stream of literature in specialist journals such as Resources Conservation and Recycling and the Journal of Cleaner Production.

There are contradictions, tensions and epistemological ambiguity that needs to be critically addressed. Such tensions may be associated with the knowledge field that gave rise to these different non-linear production approaches. Many of them appeared at the same time, but from different sciences and disciplines with their own perspectives. Then in doing so, they create confusion in the definitions of CE, assumptions underlying modelling and business choices arising from this complexity. This can be minimized through the critical interpretation of knowledge to elucidate epistemological quandaries to improve the understanding of the economic, social and environmental impacts of practices.

In some way, this result makes sense, as the authors have limited the search to management, business and accounts journals, especially talking about Operations Management journals. This is an important gap and interesting result to claim for more interdisciplinary research.

In addition to gaps previously described, the authors identified areas of tensions where the literature offers inconclusive – often contradictory – findings requiring further exploration. A better understanding of these tensions is required to understand the impacts of non-linear production and develop policy guidelines for industry and policymakers to scale-up CE.

The purpose of this study is to deepen the understanding of consumers value collaboration with a service provider, specifically, how consumer self-determination affects value co-creation outcomes.

Self-determination theory (SDT) need-based motivational factors were operationalized in co-creation as commitment to resources (autonomy), feedback (competence) and collectives (relatedness). A between–within factorial experimental design (3 × 2 × 4) was conducted using online scenarios depicting value co-creation in a destination resort setting. Respondents were randomly and equally assigned to strong and weak SDT factor conditions. Next, they were exposed to scenarios depicting four types of value co-creation: co-innovation, co-creation of marketing, co-creation of experience and co-recovery, followed by an assessment of their co-created value (CCV), well-being, satisfaction and service advantage perceptions.

Results revealed that overall strong SDT conditions produce better outcomes. Consumers’ relatedness showed the strongest difference between strong and weak SDT conditions on the CCV dimensions. Further analysis revealed that autonomy and relatedness are crucial for collaboration. CCV meaningfulness is central for customers to improve their well-being, satisfaction and competitive advantage perceptions through co-creation.

The study contributes to a line of research on successful voluntary value co-creation processes between consumers and a company. The integration of service-dominant logic (SDL), axiology of value (AOV) and SDT, uniquely operationalized as commitment to resources as autonomy, feedback as competence and co-creation collective as relatedness offers a better understanding of how customers appraise the dimensions of CCV and outcomes of well-being, satisfaction and competitive advantage.