Reproducing vulnerabilities in agri‐food systems: Tracing the links between governance,financialization, and vulnerability in Europe post 2007–2008

Interconnected sets of vulnerabilities have emerged in the European food system since 2007–2008, raising concerns about food security in a region with arguably some of the most advanced and prosperous economies and environmental governance frameworks. Historically, this is suggesting the current “double jeopardy” problem in food system vulnerability—with systemic declines both in sustainability (the ability of the food system to ecologically renew itself) and food security (the ability of a population to access sufficient nutritional foods and feed itself). By focusing on both drivers and impacts of food system vulnerabilities in the European Union and United Kingdom, this paper explores a grounded and relational approach to financialization—recognized as a key expression of recent growing vulnerabilities. Through the prism of the current socio‐economic pressures facing food producers, and the emergence of potentially “stranded assets” in the agri‐food system more generally, the analysis seeks to show how the combined relationships between neo‐liberalized governance and the market volatilities encouraged by new rounds of financialization are creating “nested” vulnerabilities. As we conclude, a critical, grounded, and systemic understanding of food system vulnerabilities thus becomes a key feature and precursor for potentially developing more resilient agri‐food systems—both regionally and globally.     

Investing for the old age: pensions, children and savings

In the last century, most countries have experienced both an increase in pension spending and a decline in fertility. We argue that the interplay of pension generosity and development of capital markets is crucial to understand fertility decisions. Since children have traditionally represented for parents a form of retirement saving, particularly in economies with limited or nonexistent capital markets, an exogenous increase of pension spending provides a saving technology alternative to children, thus relaxing financial (saving) constraints and reducing fertility. We build a simple two-period OLG model to show that an increase in pensions is associated with a larger decrease in fertility in countries in which individuals have less access to financial markets. Cross-country regression analysis supports our result: an interaction between various measures of pension generosity and a proxy for the development of financial markets consistently enters the regressions positively and significantly, suggesting that in economies with limited financial markets, children represent a (if not the only) way for parents to save for old age, and that increases in pensions amount effectively to relaxing these constraints.     

PERSPECTIVE: Establishing an NPD Best Practices Framework

Achieving NPD best practices is a top‐of‐mind issue for many new product development (NPD) managers and is often an overarching implicit, if not explicit, goal. The question is what does one mean when talking about NPD best practices? And how does a manager move toward achieving these? This article proposes a best practices framework as a starting point for much‐needed discussion on this topic. Originally presented during the 2004 Product Development Management Association (PDMA) Research Conference in Chicago, the article and the authors' presentation spurred a significant, expansive discussion that included all conference attendees. Given the interest generated, the decision was made to move forward on a series of rejoinders on the topic of NPD best practice, using the Kahn, Barczak, and Moss framework as a focal launching point for these rejoinders. A total of five rejoinders were received and accompany the best practices framework in this issue of JPIM. Each rejoinder brings out a distinct issue because each of the five authors has a unique perspective. The first rejoinder is written by Dr. Marjorie Adams‐Bigelow, director of the PDMA's Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS), PDMA Foundation. Based on her findings during the CPAS study, Adams comments on the proposed framework, suggesting limitations in scope. She particularly points out discrepancies between the proposed framework and the framework offered by PDMA's emerging body of knowledge. Dr. Elko Kleinschmidt, professor of marketing and international business at McMaster University, wrote the second rejoinder. Based on his extensive research with Robert G. Cooper on NPD practices, he points out that best practices really raise more questions than answers. Thomas Kuczmarski, president of Kuczmarski and Associates, is the author of the third rejoinder. Kuczmarski highlights that company mindset and metrics are critical elements needing keen attention. Where do these fit—or should they—in the proposed framework? The fourth rejoinder is written by Richard Notargiacomo, consultant for the integrated product delivery process at Eastman Kodak Company. Notargiacomo compares the proposed framework to a best practices framework Kodak has used for new product commercialization and management since 1998. The distinction of the Kodak framework is the inclusion of a product maturity model component. Dr. Lois Peters, associate professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), is the author of the fifth rejoinder. She brings out issues of radical innovation, a natural focal issue of RPI's radical innovation project (RRIP). It is highlighted that radical innovation may require unique, distinctive process characteristics a single framework cannot illustrate. Multiple layers of frameworks may be more appropriate, each corresponding to a level of innovation desired. The overall hope is that the discourse on best practices in this issue of JPIM generates more discussion and debate. Ultimately, the hope is that such discourse will lead to subsequent continued study to help discern what NPD best practice means for our discipline.     

The MultiJurisdictional Disclosure System: Model for Future Cooperation?

This study investigates whether the MultiJurisdictional Disclosure System (MJDS) was successful in meeting its stated objectives, namely, facilitating cross-border offerings and reporting by Canadian firms. The MJDS is a bilateral agreement implemented in July 1991 between Canadian and US market regulators. It is hypothesized that facilitating crossborder offerings via the MJDS will lead to an increase in the number of US listings by Canadian firms and reduced costs of US listing for extant Canadian listers. Data evaluated include changes in US exchange listings from 1987 to 1995 and questionnaires to two subgroups of Canadian firms: (1) the population of Canadian firms listing their securities in US and Canadian markets and (2) a sample of Canadian firms listing only on Canadian exchanges. We conclude that for most Canadian firms, the MJDS provides no significant benefit. Further, few firms reported that the MJDS affected their decision to list in the United States. Our results suggest that the MJDS has not, overall, provided the benefits originally envisioned under it, and we question whether it is an appropriate model for future cooperation between national regulatory groups.     

Corporate sustainability in action

Recent developments in management have highlighted the need for research on corporate sustainability strategies at the value chain level and in particular in the context of franchising. Although franchising is a widespread phenomenon, there is little empirical evidence of how companies approach the issue. By employing a multi-method research approach, this study explores the importance that franchisors assign to sustainability and the way they deal with it. Our findings show that franchisors adopt three main different sustainability strategies, with an increasing relevance of social sustainability as an enabler of environmental sustainability. The study sheds some light also on the interplay between the franchisor–franchisee relationship features and the company's approach toward sustainability. Preliminary propositions are presented as a starting point for further research in this area.     

The AACN Synergy Model for Patient Care: a nursing model as a Force of Magnetism

One of the 14 Forces of Magnetism requires a health care organization to have a professional model of care. The eligibility requirements stipulate that this model must be utilized throughout the health care system and that the same philosophy must be used throughout the system. The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Synergy Model for Patient Care describes nursing practice based on eight patient characteristics, and also describes eight nurse competencies. The core concept of the model is that the needs or characteristics of patients and families influence and drive the characteristics or competencies of nurses. Synergy results when the needs and characteristics of a patient, clinical unit, or system are matched with a nurse's competencies. The synergy model is an excellent framework to organize the work of patient care throughout the health care system. It can be used and applied in various ways and provides a comprehensive framework for assuring success in building a philosophy that supports the Forces of Magnetism.