Explore the vast range of titles available.

Drawing on the influence of primacy and recency effects in processing information about corporate social responsibility (CSR), the authors examine how internal (customer experience) and external (CSR reputation) factors impact the consumerfirm relationship in the presence of contradictory CSR information. Evaluating these factors provides a more comprehensive understanding of how consumers react to unethical and socially irresponsible actions. Contrary to recent research that suggests a reactive CSR communication strategy to be best due to recency effects, the present findings show that past customer experiences with the firm facilitate a 'primacy effect'. Thus, when corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) occurs, a customer's prior experiences mitigate negative consequences. Conversely, a firm's positive CSR reputation may provide goodwill, although it does not guarantee that consumers will process CSR information differently. Therefore, firms cannot build a strong CSR reputation and expect to be immune from the consequences of CSI. Given these new findings of how consumers process contradictory CSR information, firms should implement a strategic and deliberate communication plan that delivers different messages to different stakeholders. Specifically, these findings suggest that firms benefit most from a proactive communication strategy with their current customers and a reactive communication strategy with the general public.

This article reviews and assesses the outcome of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP-21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Paris in December 2015. It argues that the Paris Agreement breaks new ground in international climate policy, by acknowledging the primacy of domestic politics in climate change and allowing countries to set their own level of ambition for climate change mitigation. It creates a framework for making voluntary pledges that can be compared and reviewed internationally, in the hope that global ambition can be increased through a process of 'naming and shaming'. By sidestepping distributional conflicts, the Paris Agreement manages to remove one of the biggest barriers to international climate cooperation. It recognizes that none of the major powers can be forced into drastic emissions cuts. However, instead of leaving mitigation efforts to an entirely bottom-up logic, it embeds country pledges in an international system of climate accountability and a 'ratchet mechanism', thus offering the chance of more durable international cooperation. At the same time, it is far from clear whether the treaty can actually deliver on the urgent need to de-carbonize the global economy. The past record of climate policies suggests that governments have a tendency to express lofty aspirations but avoid tough decisions. For the Paris Agreement to make a difference, the new logic of 'pledge and review' will need to mobilize international and domestic pressure and generate political momentum behind more substantial climate policies world-wide. It matters, therefore, whether the Paris Agreement's new approach can be made to work.

Fascinating insights into the origins of canon law as an academic discipline and legal knowledge in the High Middle Ages Die Studie untersucht die Ordnung des mittelalterlichen Rechtswissens in vorgratianischen Sammlungen, dem Decretum Gratiani sowie den Glossen und Summen zum Dekret. Im Mittelpunkt steht also das kirchenrechtliche Wissen, das sich zwischen 1000 und 1215 grundlegend änderte: Während kirchliche Rechtsregeln um 1000 in Kanonessammlungen linear gespeichert waren, wurden sie im 12. Jahrhundert zu komplexem Rechtswissen miteinander verknüpft. Auf Basis einer umfassenden Auswertung der handschriftlichen Überlieferung wird der Wandel des Rechtswissens anhand des päpstlichen Jurisdiktionsprimats und des Zölibats analysiert. Zudem zeigt die Untersuchung den Einfluss der artes liberales und der Rhetorik bei der Ordnung kirchlicher Normen. Die Studie gibt so einen faszinierenden Einblick in die Entstehung der Kanonistik und zeigt zugleich die Vielfältigkeit und Vielschichtigkeit des juristischen Wissens im Hochmittelalter. Between 1000 and 1215, the knowledge of canon law changed fundamentally. Although ecclesiastic rules of law had been linearly collected by 1000, they had evolved into complex, highly interlinked carriers of knowledge by 1215. By carefully examining manuscript transmission, this book elucidates the evolution of legal knowledge, taking papal jurisdictional primacy and clerical celibacy as an illustrative example. Furthermore, it shows the influence the artes liberales and rhetoric had on the organisation of canon law. This study thus offers fascinating insights into the origins of canon law as an academic discipline, thereby also demonstrating the diversity and multi-layeredness of legal knowledge in the High Middle Ages. This publication is GPRC-labeled (Guaranteed Peer-Reviewed Content).

Relying on external memory aids is a common memory strategy that has long allowed us to “remember” vast amounts of information more reliably than with our internal memory alone. However, recent work has provided evidence consistent with the idea that offloading memory demands encourages a reduced engagement in intentional or top-down memory strategies/efforts, leading to lower memory performance in general. Evidence for this view comes from results demonstrating a reduced primacy effect but intact recency and isolation effects when individuals could offload memory demands (but had to unexpectedly rely on their internal memory at test). In the present investigation, we attempt a replication of these critical results, given some inconsistencies in the findings between studies. In addition, we extend the examination of offloading’s impact on memory via examining individual differences in reliance on the external store (when available) and different strategies for the use of that store. Results of the replication are generally consistent with previous research. An individual differences analysis yielded results consistent with the notion that increased reliance on an external store can compromise internal/biological memory in the absence of that store. Finally, a verbal model of offloading memory demands within a framework of effort and study time allocation is presented. Together, the results both reinforce extant research and extend it in new directions.

This article elucidates the Typological Primacy Model (TPM; Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013) for the initial stages of adult third language (L3) morphosyntactic transfer, addressing questions that stem from the model and its application. The TPM maintains that structural proximity between the L3 and the L1 and/or the L2 determines L3 transfer. In addition to demonstrating empirical support for the TPM, this article articulates a proposal for how the mind unconsciously determines typological (structural) proximity based on linguistic cues from the L3 input stream used by the parser early on to determine holistic transfer of one previous (the L1 or the L2) system. This articulated version of the TPM is motivated by argumentation appealing to cognitive and linguistic factors. Finally, in line with the general tenets of the TPM, I ponder if and why L3 transfer might obtain differently depending on the type of bilingual (e.g. early vs. late) and proficiency level of bilingualism involved in the L3 process.

We study the primacy effects that occur when voters cast their votes because a candidate or party is listed first on a ballot. In the elections that we analyzed, there are three potential types of such effects that might occur when voters vote for (1) the first candidate listed on the ballot in single-member district (SMD) elections (candidate primacy); (2) the first party listed on the ballot in open-list proportional representation (OLPR) elections (party primacy); or (3) the first candidate on a party list in OLPR elections (list primacy). We estimated the party primacy effect (2) and established that there was no interaction between (2) and (3). A party primacy effect is especially difficult to estimate because parties’ positions on ballots are typically fixed in all multi-member districts (MMDs) and it is impossible to separate the first-position “bonus” from a party’s normal electoral performance. A rare natural experiment allowed us to estimate the primacy party bonus between 6.02 and 8.52% of all votes cast for the 2014 Polish local elections. We attribute the large size of such bonus to the great complexity of voting in the OLPR elections, especially the much longer ballots, voting in many simultaneous elections, and ballot design as a booklet rather than a sheet.

This paper examines the shareholder primacy norm (SPN) as a widely acknowledged impediment to corporate social responsibility and explores the role of business schools in promoting the SPN but also potentially as an avenue for change by addressing misconceptions about shareholder primacy and the purpose of business. We start by explaining the SPN and then review its status under US and UK laws and show that it is not a likely legal requirement, at least under the guise of shareholder value maximization. This is in contrast to the common assertion that managers are legally constrained from addressing CSR issues if doing so is inconsistent with the economic interests of shareholders. Nonetheless, while the SPN might be muted as a legal norm, we show that it is certainly evident as a social norm among managers and in business schools—reflective, in part, of the sole voting rights of shareholders on corporate boards and of the dominance of shareholder theory—and justifiably so in the view of many managers and business academics. We argue that this view is misguided, not least when associated with claims of a purported legally enforceable requirement to maximize shareholder value. We propose two ways by which the influence of the SPN among managers might be attenuated: extending fiduciary duties of executives to non-shareholder stakeholders and changes in business school teaching such that it covers a plurality of conceptions of the purpose of the corporation.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(3), 1255-1291 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. – II. Defiance. – III. Primacy of what? – IV. Pluralism in action. – V. The incoherence of pluralism. – V.1. Legal systems do not “conflict”. – V.2. Legal systems do not “overlap”. – V.3. Pluralism cannot provide a framework for consensus. – VI. Federal monism. – VII. Social monism. – VIII. Primacy: a pragmatic view. – VIII.1. Europe’s legal order. – VIII.2. MacCormick’s internationalism. – IX. Conclusion: the principle of primacy. | (Abstract) A leading position among European Union lawyers is that the primacy of EU law has a “structural” dimension. Under views known as pluralism and monism, many scholars believe that the EU has created a new legal system which either sits next to or, alternatively, above the legal systems of the member states. These views, however, are paradoxical and self-defeating. This is shown when we apply the structural theories to the question of primacy as put by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal in case K 3/21 of 7 October 2021. Neither pluralism nor monism can show that EU law prevails over a state that takes Poland’s defiant position. The correct way of understanding EU law is interpretive, not structural. It is the only way that shows that the Polish Court has acted unlawfully. The EU Treaties have not created a new “legal system”, allegiance to which remains optional. According to the best view of EU law, universally accepted in legal practice although not yet fully by legal theory, EU law is entirely continuous with the established constitutional settlement. The EU treaties are ordinary treaties of international law that create constitutional obligations in the normal way. They create bonds of cosmopolitan reciprocity that each member state is legally obliged to respect. The primacy of EU law is based on our ordinary practices concerning the status and authority of the law of nations.

Why has U.S. grand strategy persisted since the end of the Cold War? Despite shocks such as the 2008 global financial crisis and the costs of the war in Iraq—circumstances that ought to have stimulated at least a revision—the United States remains committed to a grand strategy of “primacy.” It strives for military preponderance, dominance in key regions, the containment and reassurance of allies, nuclear counterproliferation, and the economic “Open Door.” The habitual ideas of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, or the “Blob,” make U.S. grand strategy hard to change. The United States’ military and economic capabilities enable the U.S. government to pursue primacy, but the embedded assumptions of the Blob make primacy the seemingly natural choice. Thanks to the Blob’s constraining power, alternative grand strategies based on restraint and retrenchment are hardly entertained, and debate is narrowed mostly into questions of execution and implementation. Two cases—the presidency of Bill Clinton and the first year of the presidency of Donald Trump—demonstrate this argument. In each case, candidates promising change were elected in fluid conditions that we would expect to stimulate a reevaluation of the United States’ commitments. In each case, the Blob asserted itself successfully, at least on the grand strategic fundamentals. Change in grand strategy is possible, but it would require shocks large enough to shake the assumptions of the status quo and a president willing to be an agent of change and prepared to absorb the political costs of overhauling Washington’s traditional design.

Research on the sources of organizational trustworthiness remains bifurcated. Some scholars have adopted a calculative perspective, stressing the primacy of actors' rational calculations, while others have approached trustworthiness from a relational perspective, focusing on its social underpinnings. We help to reconcile these seemingly disparate views by adopting an integrative approach that allows us to clarify the boundaries of both perspectives. Based on dyadic survey data from 171 strategic alliances, we find that the calculative perspective (represented by contractual safeguards) has higher predictive power when the partner lacks a favorable reputation. In contrast, the relational perspective (represented by organizational culture) predicts trustworthiness more strongly when familiarity with the partner organization is high.