Prostata Ca: Wie geht „Mann“ damit um?

Diagnose Prostatakrebs - Die Diagnose trifft die meisten M?nner v?llig unvor bereitet, die Zukunft erscheint ungewiss. In dieser Situation sollen Betroffene dann noch einen klaren Kopf bewahren und Therapieentscheidungen treffen, Nebenwirkungen und Prognosen abw?gen? Kein Wunder, dass viele damit überfordert sind. Pflegekr?fte auf der Urologie sind hier gefordert.     

Antitrust Versus Regulatory Merger Review: The Case of Electricity

This paper focuses on the implications of multi-agency review of electricity mergers. It highlights fundamental differences between regulatory and antitrust merger enforcement procedures–ranging from standards of review to data collection, economic analysis, and remedies. Such disparities potentially introduce costly and potentially conflicting redundancy into the merger review process. Illustrative examples are drawn from a number of cases, including apparent inconsistencies across applicant-filed analyses in FERC merger cases. Absent the delegation of competition analysis to the antitrust agencies, the paper makes the case for harmonizing review across regulators and antitrust enforcers.     

Climate Change and the Polanyian Counter-movement: Carbon Markets or Degrowth?

In the midst of a wave of market expansion, carbon markets have been proposed as the best way to address global climate change. While some argue that carbon markets represent a modern example of a Polanyian counter-movement to the environmental crisis, we adopt a structural interpretation of Polanyi to refute this claim. Carbon markets represent a further expansion of markets that fails to address the underlying contradictions related to the commodification of nature. In addition, they increase risks to society and the domination of economic elites. While carbon markets further subject social and ecological relations to market mechanisms, we examine degrowth as a possible response to climate change that prioritises social and environmental goals over economic growth. While degrowth continues to be dismissed as impractical or impossible, a growing number of scholars, scientists and activists argue it is the only way to address global climate change. In contrast to carbon markets, we argue degrowth could represent a genuine Polanyian counter-movement in response to climate change. In addition, degrowth could help all those disenfranchised by market fundamentalism by addressing the triple crises related to the commodification of land, labour and money.     

Media governance and corporate social responsibility of media organizations: an international comparison

Media companies are increasingly becoming aware of the importance of their reputation. In order to legitimate themselves, they are starting to present themselves as ‘good corporate citizens’ by engaging in media governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. The communication of those activities is crucial for the building of reputation. However, to date, no comprehensive studies have been conducted to evaluate the communication of media governance and CSR activities of media organizations. This study aims to fill this gap and examined websites and reports of selected media organizations in Germany, Italy, France, Austria, and Switzerland. Results indicate that public service media organizations communicate proportionally more on media governance than private media organizations, which may be due to the fact that public service media organizations feel more accountable to the public as they have a public service obligation. Concerning the communication of their CSR activities, media organizations focus on society‐oriented measures.     

The Political Economy of Geoengineering as Plan B: Technological Rationality,Moral Hazard,and New Technology

Geoengineering would mask and reproduce capital’s contradictory needs to self-expand, on the one hand, and maintain a stable climate system, on the other. The Plan B frame, which presents geoengineering as a back-up plan to address climate change in case there is a failure to sufficiently reduce emissions (Plan A), is one means to depict this condition to the public and is a product of, and appeals to, a prevalent ‘technological rationality’. Despite its misleading simplicity, logical flaws, and irrational rationality, the Plan B frame is a relatively valid representation of geoengineering in current political-economic conditions. Although the Plan B frame will gain traction because Plan A is too expensive in the short term and does not serve powerful interests, there are alternative social futures in which technology could be used to address climate change in ways that preserve the environment and reduce social risks.     

Stakeholding: Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the Conceptual Terrain

The paper has three main objectives. The first aim is to examine and clarify the burgeoning stakeholder literature that currently seeks to inform management practice, corporate governance and public policy with particular emphasis on the UK. We do this by continuing the process of clarification started by Donaldson and Preston (1995), focusing mainly on the political and practitioner literature generated within the UK. We begin this task by setting out a critique of stakeholding and develop this by using four key themes of enquiry. First, we examine stakeholding’s conceptual confusion; second, we outline and develop criticism of its underlying pluralist assumptions; third, we consider the problems of implementation; and finally, we assess some of the key arguments concerning its potential impact on business performance and competitiveness. The second aim is to develop and examine the central criticisms of stakeholding from both the neo‐liberal and Marxist/radical perspectives. By so doing we identify the key theoretical and practical issues which stakeholder proponents must address if they are to convince sceptics of the model’s validity. The third aim is to develop a conceptual framework capable of illustrating the different stakeholder perspectives and assumptions on which they are based. This consists of five continuums: the first locates authors on a left–right political continuum; the second distinguishes between those authors who use stakeholding primarily for analysis and those who use it to formulate and prescribe specific courses of action; the third differentiates between intrinsic (good in itself) and instrumental (means to an end) motives; the fourth identifies the various levels of proposed intervention; and the fifth illustrates the different degrees of enforcement advocated. We believe that this framework provides a clear illustration of our arguments and serves as a useful instrument for clarifying the stakeholder concept. In addition, it is used to position or map the work of key authors within the stakeholder debate and we believe it may provide a more coherent basis for future research and debate.