Is an Increase in the Minimum Retirement Age Always Desirable? The Case of Notional Defined Contribution Systems

Several countries have recently introduced reforms that aim to increase the neutrality of their pension system by introducing an incentives‐disincentives mechanism or by replacing their traditional defined‐benefit system with a Notional Defined Contribution method. This paper evaluates the financial effects of an increase in the minimum retirement age in countries where a Notional Defined Contribution system exists. We show that such a reform produces a positive effect on the financial situation of the pension system (by generating surpluses or by reducing deficits) in the short and in the medium run, but it becomes completely ineffective in the long run. This result implies that in countries where the pension system is sufficiently neutral such a reform is not appropriate to solve the problem of population ageing which is a long‐run problem.     

The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs: Does It Depend on the Type of Religion? A Comparison of Christian and Moslem Consumers in Germany and Turkey

Intrinsic religiosity drives ethical consumer behavior; however, previous studies regarding this connection are limited solely to a Christian cultural context. This comparative study instead includes Christian Consumers from Germany and Moslem Consumers from Turkey to determine if a specific religious community moderates the connection between intrinsic religiosity and consumer ethics. The results show that Consumers in the Turkish, Moslem subsample, exhibit an even stronger connection between religiosity and ethical consumer behavior than Consumers from the German, Christian subsample.     

“Why Don’t Consumers Care About CSR?”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Role of CSR in Consumption Decisions

There is an unresolved paradox concerning the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in consumer behavior. On the one hand, consumers demand more and more CSR information from corporations. On the other hand, research indicates a considerable gap between consumers’ apparent interest in CSR and the limited role of CSR in purchase behavior. This article attempts to shed light on this paradox by drawing on qualitative data from in-depth interviews. The findings show that the evaluation of CSR initiatives is a complex and hierarchically structured process, during which consumers distinguish between core, central, and peripheral factors. This article describes these factors in detail and explains the complexity of consumers’ assessment of CSR. These insights then serve as a basis for discussing the theoretical and managerial implications of the research findings. To this end, the article contributes to a better understanding of the role of CSR in consumption decisions.     

Is brain hemisphericity a correlate of performance in problem-solving courses? A case study from an HBCU

The authors set out to determine the brain dominance characteristics of students enrolled in business statistics courses in a historically Black university in a major southeastern Texas city. Thereafter, the authors investigated the relationship between a student’s brain hemispheric preference and academic performance in college courses, which emphasize problem solving. The results reported in this study reveal that left brain– and right brain–dominant students are at parity when it comes to performance in a problem-solving course. Moreover, both left brain– and right brain–dominant learners perform better than whole-brain dominant learners in a problem-solving course.     

Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany

Corporate social reporting, while not mandatory in most countries, has been adopted by many large companies around the world and there are now a variety of competing global standards for non-financial reporting, such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the UN Global Compact. However, while some companies (e.g., Henkel, BHP, Johnson and Johnson) have a long standing tradition in reporting non-financial information, other companies provide only limited information, or in some cases, no information at all. Previous studies have suggested that there are, country and industry-specific, differences in the extent of CSR reports (e.g., Kolk et al.: 2001, Business Strategy and the Environment 10, 15–28; Kolk: 2005, Management International Review 45, 145–166; Maignan and Ralston: 2002, Journal of International Business Studies 33(3), 497–514). However, findings are inconclusive or contradictory and it is often difficult to compare previous studies owing to the idiosyncratic methods used in each study (Graafland et al.: 2004, Journal of Business Ethics 53, 137–152). Furthermore, previous studies have relied mainly on simple measures, such as word counts and page counts of reports, to compare the extent of reporting that may not capture significant differences in the content of the reports. In this article, we seek to overcome some of these deficiencies by using textual analysis software and a more robust statistical method to more objectively and reliably compare the CSR reports of firms in different industries and countries. We examine a sample of leading companies in four countries (US, UK, Australia, and Germany) and test whether or not membership of the Global Compact makes a difference to CSR reporting and is overcoming industry and country specific factors that limit standardization. We conclude that GlobalCompact membership is having an effect only in certain areas of CSR reporting, related to the environment and workers, and that businesses from different countries vary significantly in the extent to which they promote CSR and the CSR issues that they choose to emphasize in their reports. These country differences are argued to be related to the different institutional arrangements in each country.     

Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA,UK, Australia,and Germany

Corporate social reporting, while not mandatory in most countries, has been adopted by many large companies around the world and there are now a variety of competing global standards for non-financial reporting, such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the UN Global Compact. However, while some companies (e.g., Henkel, BHP, Johnson and Johnson) have a long standing tradition in reporting non-financial information, other companies provide only limited information, or in some cases, no information at all. Previous studies have suggested that there are, country and industry-specific, differences in the extent of CSR reports (e.g., Kolk et al.: 2001, Business Strategy and the Environment 10, 15–28; Kolk: 2005, Management International Review 45, 145–166; Maignan and Ralston: 2002, Journal of International Business Studies 33(3), 497–514). However, findings are inconclusive or contradictory and it is often difficult to compare previous studies owing to the idiosyncratic methods used in each study (Graafland et al.: 2004, Journal of Business Ethics 53, 137–152). Furthermore, previous studies have relied mainly on simple measures, such as word counts and page counts of reports, to compare the extent of reporting that may not capture significant differences in the content of the reports. In this article, we seek to overcome some of these deficiencies by using textual analysis software and a more robust statistical method to more objectively and reliably compare the CSR reports of firms in different industries and countries. We examine a sample of leading companies in four countries (US, UK, Australia, and Germany) and test whether or not membership of the Global Compact makes a difference to CSR reporting and is overcoming industry and country specific factors that limit standardization. We conclude that GlobalCompact membership is having an effect only in certain areas of CSR reporting, related to the environment and workers, and that businesses from different countries vary significantly in the extent to which they promote CSR and the CSR issues that they choose to emphasize in their reports. These country differences are argued to be related to the different institutional arrangements in each country.