Have your cake and eat it too: how invoking post-purchase hyperopia mitigates impulse purchase regret

Marketing Letters - Impulse purchases are encouraged by retailers and can comprise a significant portion of a retailer’s sales. However, both consumers and researchers generally see impulse...     

What's wrong with executive compensation? A roundtable moderated by Charles Elson

The value that many superpaid CEO superstars supposedly created has largely disappeared, and the likelihood that it will be recovered anytime soon seems remote. On top of that, a good number of top executives treated their companies like ATMs, awarding themselves millions of dollars in corporate perks. It's hard to dispute the idea that executives were corrupted by the sums of money dangled in front of them. What's wrong with executive compensation, and what can we do about it? HBR and the University of Delaware's Center for Corporate Governance convened a round-table of compensation experts last October on the university's campus in Newark, Delaware. The 12 panelists, from CEOs to investors, from the professionals who advise them to a chief justice who rules on their disputes, provided an extraordinary diversity of viewpoints. The panelist began by debating ways to align the interests of the senior executives with the long-term interests of the company-weighing the relative benefits of stock options versus stock grants, for instance. But the discussion expanded to cover broader questions of corporate governance and company values. "The main reason compensation increases every year is that most boards want their CEO to be in the top half of the CEO peer group," said Ed Woolard,Jr., a former CEO of DuPont. And compensation lawyer Joe Bachelder pointed out the danger of structuring pay in such a way that it dampens risk taking among executives. It was a lively and wide-ranging discussion of one business's most pressing issues.     

A quantitative assessment of the insider/outsider dimension of the cultural theory of risk and place

This paper examines two hypotheses of risk perception: cultural theory's distinction between insiders and outsiders and the idea that risk perceptions and their determinants differ substantially from one place to the next for the same point‐source hazard. These hypotheses are juxtaposed in cross‐tabulations and logistic regression models with competing explanations of perceived risk in communities living with technological environmental hazards: sound management, benefits, fair facility siting and sociodemographics. The data come from a telephone survey of 455 residents in Swan Hills (n = 173), Fort Assiniboine (n = 171) and Kinuso (n = 111), Alberta, Canada who are all near a large‐scale hazardous waste treatment facility. Considerable support is found for the insider/outsider thesis in terms of the highest ranked information sources and trust to ensure safety. Place differences are clear where, for example, the least facility‐related concern is in Swan Hills (31%) 12 km away, the highest is in Kinuso (81%) 70 km away and moderately high concern is in Fort Assiniboine (62%) which is also 70 km away. This study highlights the importance of fair facility siting, the need to go beyond cultural bias analysis when studying the cultural theory of risk, and suggests further exploration of the notion of tailoring risk communication that is place specific, and emphasizes channels that may be defined as ‘outsider’ and ‘insider’.