Search results

Contracts and trust are mechanisms to coordinate processes in supply chains. However, contracts are incomplete and trust takes time to develop. The aim of this paper is to show how Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) can help to manage supply chains (in particular small and medium‐sized companies as its partners) by solving the problem of incomplete contracts as well as replacing trust in new partnerships, especially with respect to intangible performance indicators.

Supply chain management (with an emphasis on coordination) and corporate social responsibility (with an emphasis on codes, especially SA8000) are briefly described, based on a literature review. These descriptions led to three research propositions. In the second part, four cases describe the practice of SA8000. The richness of the cases provides both literal and theoretical replication. Finally, the theoretical and empirical results are compared, with specific regard to the research propositions.

Codes facilitate coordination between immediate partners in a supply chain, especially when the most powerful one enforces the code. However, indirect coordination with second‐ or third‐tier partners is hardly influenced. Chain directors can impose SA8000 certification in the supply chain and the latter can benefit from reduced information asymmetry. Transaction costs are reduced without a loss in flexibility.

The three propositions introduced are supported. Further research could further strengthen the validity of the propositions or show the need for refinements in them. The results show managers that certification can facilitate coordination of intangible aspects of performance to reduce information asymmetry with at least no negative results.

Firms that use SA8000 should take more advantage of it because it reduces information asymmetry and transaction costs, not only between direct partners but also further up‐ and downstream in the chain. Chain directors can use codes to complement incomplete contracts. Third‐party monitoring should be strengthened, especially with respect to second‐ and third‐tier partners.

The originality of the paper is in the analysis of the position of the second‐ and third‐tier participants in the chain, questioning whether codes like SA8000 are a sufficient instrument to make them real partners in the chain. SA8000 increases traceability of proper processes by customers and partners in the chain, which facilitates the coordination and the management of the chain.

The organizational learning literature distinguishes different levels of learning (zero learning and single, double and triple loop learning) in order to understand the complexity and dynamics of changes in policies, objectives, mental maps, and structures and strategies for learning. This article explores the case of an emerging new organizational design, the circular organization, in order to understand the role of triple loop learning. The circular model was developed on the basis of ideas about the relationship between organizational structure and behavior taken from theories of dynamic systems. Circular design precepts appear to provide a structural facilitation of single and double loop learning. In this respect, the circular design tends to act as a facilitating infrastructure for triple loop learning, that is, exploring the structural opportunities and key competences people need to participate in making well‐informed choices about policies, objectives and other issues.

Purpose: Risk is a multifaceted concept, and its identification requires complex approaches that are often misunderstood. The consequence is that decisions are based on limited perception rather than the full value and meaning of what risk is, as a result, the way it is being tackled is incorrect. The individuals are often limited in their perceptions and ideas and do not embrace the full multifaceted nature of risk. Regulators and individuals want to follow norms and checklists or overuse models, simulations, and templates, thereby reducing responsibility for decision-making. At the same time, the wider use of technology and rules reduces the critical thinking of individuals. We advance the automation process by building robots that follow protocols and forget about the part of risk assessment that cannot be programed. Therefore, with this study, the objective of this study was to discover how people define risk, the influencing factors of risk perception and how they behave toward this perception. The authors also determine how the perception differed with age, gender, marital status, education level and region. The novelty of the research is related to individual risk perception during COVID-19, as this is a new and unknown phenomenon. Methodology: The research is based on the analysis of the self-administered purposely designed questionnaires we distributed across different social media platforms between February and June 2020 in Europe and in some cases was carried out as a interview over communication platforms such as “Skype,” “Zoom” and “Microsoft Teams.” The questionnaire was divided into four parts: Section 1 was designed to collect demographic information from the participants; Section 2 included risk definition statements obtained from literature and a preliminary discussion with peers; Section 3 included risk behavior statements; and Section 4 included statements on risk perception experiences. A five-point Likert Scale was provided, and participants were required to answer along a scale of “1” for “Strongly Agree” to “5” for “Strongly Disagree.” Participants also had the option to elaborate further and provide additional comments in an open-ended box provided at the end of the section. 466 valid responses were received. Thematic analysis was carried out to analyze the interviews and the open-ended questions, while the questionnaire responses were analyzed using various quantitative methods on IBM SPSS (version 23). Findings: The results of the analysis indicate that individuals evaluate the risk before making a decision and view risk as both a loss and opportunity. The study identifies nine factors influencing risk perception. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that we can continue to develop models and rules, but as long as the risk is not understood, we will never achieve anything.

Various devices have been identified to support research as a way of improving on observations; those in the social sciences appearing to be less effective than those in the physical sciences. To make the former more effective, it often is tried to “involve” the user ‐ as a participant observer, as a co‐researcher, as a commissioner. A clarification of the multiplicity of such attempts seems in order. Formulates a framework to summarize the most important aspects of research. Explores instances of this framework with regard to their ability to include users. One instance is applied in a “practical” situation, the improvement of a social service. This instance distinguishes sharply between two kinds of users, each using a different language to promote transfer and interaction: users inside a collective and users outside that collective.

Gordon Pask developed not only a conversation theory, but also a (less well‐known) interaction of actors theory, partly in response to demands during the time he worked in Amsterdam. The paper aims to clarify how this theory intended to minimise the effects of use on scientific results, while maximising the help of such results to improve on actions. This would facilitate empirical study of what changes user values, as well as the preferred design of (computer supported) support systems. Results include the material and communicative support of collective and social activities. Three examples are presented.

The prevalence of anti-EU integration and anti-immigration rhetoric across the continent, the increased presence of Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament, and most importantly Brexit suggest that the European Union is having an existential crisis. This chapter debates the role of the EU citizenship regime on this crisis, by resting its central thesis that there is a fundamental mismatch between the way that EU citizenship is at present derived from Member State citizenship, and the transnational affinity of the EU citizenry that is invited by the internal market and migration. As a remedy, the chapter projects a supranational EU citizenship regime that coexists with the current EU citizenship regime. Focussing on the social and political imperatives, the chapter brings forward tangible policy recommendations for the proposed EU citizenship regime and expounds how it can be an effective policy instrument for the EU’s internal and external struggles.

The concept of sustainability in general and food sustainability, in particular, entails many aspects and many interpretations. During a conference on food sustainability a broad, multidisciplinary picture was painted and many key issues were dealt with, from ecology, economy and society. In sessions on food security – the focus in developing countries – and food safety – primarily a preoccupation in developed countries – many potential trade‐offs and opportunities for regional approaches were identified. The session on governance, therefore, focused on the interaction between multi‐level actors, including national governments, international organisations such as WTO, the food industry and consumers. Finally, transparency was identified as one of the main issues underlying good governance. In order to improve the sustainability of food production, therefore, it was considered of the utmost importance that food multinationals transfer some form of democratic control over their global environmental policies, as part of an overall multi‐level (public‐private) governance ideal.