Structure and understanding: Some observations on current activities in the field of structural modeling

Structural modeling has been under study in recent years as a method for dealing with complex societal problems, and is growing in acceptance as a tool for understanding complex social phenomena. Structural models demonstrate the interactions of the separate elements of a system and their combined overall effect. Thus, the nature of the problem for which this method of analysis is appropriate is different from complex problems of the traditional disciplines which lend themselves to reductionist approaches. This is because complex policy problems of society cannot be “solved” with precise analysis. Kenneth Boulding suggests that there are two ways to cope with a complex policy problem, either to “slice” the problem into partial equilibrium sections or “squeeze” it by aggregating numerous variables into a single index or macho variable. Structural modeling is an approach which comes under the general strategy of squeezing the problem and is promising because of the ability to include a range of macro variables which provide insights about social change. The articles in this issue treat several interesting aspects of this approach. In this article we wish to recall for consideration a central purpose for developing such methods. We have taken a historical approach to indicate some of the roots of the concern for the effect of technological process on social change. Within this context, we discuss the nature of the contributions made by the articles in this issue and what promise the methods offer to addressing the historical concern.     

“I don’t Care that People don’t Like What I Do” – Business Codes Viewed as Invisible or Visible Restrictions

Research about codes of corporate ethics has hitherto taken a hypothetical, correct meaning of codes for granted. The article problematises the dichotomous categories intrinsic and subjective meanings of codes. I address the question if professionals in finance accept codes of business. The particular mentality of stockbrokers and traders constructs the way they judge restrictions such as company codes of ethics. While neglecting dimensions of ethics beyond known rules, brokers and traders distrust good ethics as a possible end in itself. Many professionals in the financial market perceive efforts to integrate ethical reasoning in work as only means for maximising business opportunities.     

On the Sensitivity of Premiums and Reserves to Changes in Valuation Elements

Upon differentiating the Thiele differential equations and the equivalence condition with respect to some parameter appearing in the equations, one obtains differential equations for the derivatives of the state-wise reserves and the premium level with respect to the parameter. The solution to these equations measures the impact on premiums and reserves of a change in the parameter. Typically only numerical results can be obtained, but the method applies quite generally to multi-state policies and to virtually any parameter, and so represents a panacea in (the vast majority of) situations where analytical results are out of reach. Extensions to higher order derivatives and higher order conditional moments are straightforward. A difference method for computation is devised, and numerical results are reported for some practical cases.     

Discussion of the paper by Aven and Myre

The paper is an interesting contribution to the development of actuarial statistics. Loss of profits insurance presents some peculiar problems that have received little attention from actuaries and—as far as I know—the model framework proposed by the authors has not formerly been applied to actuarial problems.     

CSR politics of non‐recognition: Justification fallacies marginalising criticism,society, and environment

Business is frequently criticized for not taking social and environmental responsibility. Large companies respond with CSR activities and some also with formulating justifications for their actions. This could indicate that business opens up to the criticism. I do, however, not observe such openness in the current study, but how companies use “CSR justifications” to fend off criticism. While companies use justifications as tool for creating legitimacy, I distinguish five justification fallacies. These failures in dealing with criticism cause a marginalisation of criticism, society, and environment. The fallacies found are neglecting criticism, shareholder primacy, organisation‐centricity, conflict avoidance, and progressivism. I contribute to the use of Habermasian ethics in the business ethics literature by showing how CSR justifications could play a part in a rational discourse. The concept justification fallacy, and the five fallacies can provide a framework for analysing corporate rhetoric more generally. Managers have fundamental difficulties in handling ethics and do not reflect on their reasons for working with CSR. They should be more careful when formulating justifications. In our situation of increasing affective polarisation, business needs to be more constructive than merely to marginalise criticism.     

The consumer monoculture

‘Development’ and the globalization of consumption is leading to a breakdown of biological and cultural diversity, erosion of food security, an increase in violence and devastation for the global biosphere. We urgently need to shift away from economic globalization and homogenization towards localization and diversification.