Search results

This brief reflective piece considers the experience of academics in the field of comparative and international education in Hong Kong. It begins by examining the state of international higher education and the continued dominance of Western contexts and perspectives in publishing in comparative education even in the so-called global era. It contrasts Western-oriented historical and contemporary views of the field with the situation in East Asia and particularly Hong Kong, where lively international dialogue has always been a key theme of academic and intellectual life. Against pronouncements in recent decades of “the death” of Hong Kong, the paper asserts that comparative and international education remains a thriving domain in Hong Kong since the handover and provides further reflections on the history and state of the field today as well as its future promise.

After a decade of comparative and international education research, evaluation, reflection, and introspection, there still may not be a clear answer to the question: What difference does an annual review of comparative and international education make? Bereday’s questions regarding the field from the 1960s largely remain unanswered and what answers there are remain relatively unchanged from the initial review of the field in 2013. In this reflective piece, the editor of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education provides a retrospective look at what the Annual Review of the field has produced as well as what has not been accomplished over the first 10 years of the Annual Review’s publication. Key points are that (1) comparative and international education continues to be an affiliation-oriented rather than independent, well defined field of study and practice; (2) annual reflection on the field is meaningful even when the field seems resistant to change; (3) comparative and international education scholars and professionals alike tend to under emphasize reflective scholarship and practice and over emphasize critique or critical commentary; (4) there is promise for the field related to unity, debate, clarification, understanding, and encouragement; (5) the field is persistently under-professionalized; (6) the state of the field is largely unchanged since the 1960s; and (7) the organization and content of the Annual Review itself – much like the field itself – is subject to reflection and change.

After a decade of comparative and international education research, evaluation, reflection, and introspection, there still may not be a clear answer to the question: What difference does an Annual Review of Comparative and International Education make? Bereday’s questions regarding the field from the 1960s largely remain unanswered, and what answers there are remain relatively unchanged from the initial review of the field in 2013. In this reflective piece, the editor of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education provides a retrospective look at what the Annual Review of the field has produced as well as what has not been accomplished over the first 10 years of the Annual Review’s publication. Key points are that (1) comparative and international education continues to be an affiliation-oriented rather than independent, well defined field of study and practice; (2) annual reflection on the field is meaningful even when the field seems resistant to change; and (3) comparative and international education scholars and professionals alike tend to under emphasize reflective scholarship and practice and over emphasize critique or critical commentary; (4) there is promise for the field related to unity, debate, clarification, understanding, and encouragement; (5) the field is persistently under-professionalized; (6) the state of the field is largely unchanged since the 1960s; and (7) the organization and content of the Annual Review itself – much like the field itself – is subject to reflection and change.

This study aims to comprehend luxury brands' corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies. In addition to facing a demand for new CSR strategies (consumer-centric CSR), changes in CSR discourse among luxury brands are observed. This study examines how CSR-related and luxury-related agendas relate in the news media, especially concerning the difference between traditional and new luxury brands.

A total of 117,171 fashion-related news articles were collected from January 2016 to December 2020. The word2vec method was used to determine the relationship between CSR and luxury agendas.

The results indicate that company-centric CSR is more prominent with traditional luxury brands, while consumer-centric CSR is more relevant for new luxury brands. In addition, specific CSR attributes and luxury-related attributes are associated with media discourse, which means that CSR and luxury are compatible.

Studies on CSR in the luxury industry are not extensive in the literature. This study addresses this gap through a unique framework that combines agenda-setting theory and existing CSR literature and applies them to the luxury industry. Specifically, this study captures the development of each construct (company-centric CSR to consumer-centric CSR and traditional luxury to new luxury) and identifies the specific relationships between them. This result provides a novel view of the luxury industry indicating that it has evolved to encompass CSR-related values. The empirical results also offer practical implications for luxury marketing.

Prior studies mostly tested the association between carbon emissions and firm value in certain contexts. This study aims to advance the existing literature by concentrating on three indicators of greening in corporations namely resource use, emissions and eco-innovation, and examining their value relevance in the stock market at the global level. Furthermore, we deepen the investigation by exploring the moderating role of eco-innovation and the CSR committee between greening in corporations and market value.

The data for the study were retrieved from the Thomson Reuters Eikon database for the years between 2002 and 2019 and contain 17,961 firm-year observations which are analyzed through fixed-effects regression.

The results reveal that while resource usage is viewed as value-relevant by the market, the emissions and eco-innovation are not. However, despite eco-innovation per se not being value-relevant, its interaction with resource usage and emissions is value-relevant. Furthermore, CSR committees undertake a very critical role in translating greening practices into market value.

While the results for emissions support the cost-concerned school, the findings for resource usage confirm the value creation school. Furthermore, the interaction effect of eco-innovation and CSR committee confirms the resource-based theory and stakeholder theory, respectively.

Investors regard eco-innovation-induced pro-environmental behaviors as value-relevant. These results propose firms replace eco-innovation at the focal point in developing environmental strategies and connecting other greening efforts to it. Moreover, CSR committees are critical to corporations in translating greening practices into firm value by developing and implementing disclosure and communication strategies.

The study’s originality stems from investigating the synergetic effect that eco-innovation and CSR committees generate in translating greening practices to greater market value at a global scale.