« Previous |
31 - 35 of 35
|
Next »
Search Results
32. Social responsibility programs can pay dividends in better labor relations
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Karst, Tom (author)
- Format:
- Journal article
- Publication Date:
- 2021-03
- Published:
- USA
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 202 Document Number: D12127
- Journal Title:
- Packer
- Notes:
- Online via the publication. 3 pages., Findings of a poll by The Packer indicated that "properly administered social responsibility programs do exactly that, or at least can be a significant factor in helping accomplish that goal." They can help ensure that workers are treated well according to health and safety standards and compensated fairly. Such programs also provide to the wider company a greater sense of purpose that workers' jobs contribute to something greater than profits.
33. Social responsibility revolves around people: What does social responsibility mean to you?
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Karst, Tom (author)
- Format:
- Research summary
- Publication Date:
- 2021-02
- Published:
- USA
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 203 Document Number: D12165
- Journal Title:
- Packer
- Notes:
- Online from publisher. 4 pages., Article features findings of a Packer survey about social responsibility. The summary includes brief responses by 11 leaders in the produce industry about the meaning of social responsibility.
34. The moral complexity of agriculture: a challenge for corporate social responsibility
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- de Olde, Evelien M. (author) and Valentinov, Vladislav (author)
- Format:
- unknown
- Publication Date:
- 2019-06
- Published:
- Germany: Springer
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 203 Document Number: D12251
- Journal Title:
- Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics
- Journal Title Details:
- Vol. 32, Iss. 3
- Notes:
- 18 pages, Over the past decades, the modernization of agriculture in the Western world has contributed not only to a rapid increase in food production but also to environmental and societal concerns over issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, soil quality and biodiversity loss. Many of these concerns, for example those related to animal welfare or labor conditions, are stuck in controversies and apparently deadlocked debates. As a result we observe a paradox in which a wide range of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, originally seeking to reconnect agriculture and society, frequently provoke debate, conlfict, and protests. In order to make sense of this pattern, the present paper contends that Western agriculture is marked by moral complexity, i.e., the tendency of multiple legitimate moral standpoints to proliferate without the realistic prospect of a consensus. This contention is buttressed by a conceptual framework that draws inspiration the contemporary business ethics and systems-theoretic scholarship. From the systems-theoretic point of view, the evolution of moral complexity is traced back to the processes of agricultural modernization, specialization, and diferentiation, each of which suppresses the responsiveness of the economic and legal institutions to the full range of societal and environmental concerns about agriculture. From the business ethics point of view, moral complexity is shown to prevent the transformation of the ethical responsibilities into the legal and economic responsibilities despite the ongoing institutionalization of CSR. Navigating moral complexity is shown to require moral judgments which are necessarily personal and contestable. These judgments are implicated in those CSR initiatives that require dealing with trade-ofs among the different sustainability issues.
35. Socially beneficial rationality: the value of strategic farmers, social entrepreneurs, and for-profit firms in crop planting decisions
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Hu, Ming (author), Liu, Yan (author), and Wang, Wenbin (author)
- Format:
- Journal article
- Publication Date:
- 2019-08
- Published:
- United States: Informs PubsOnline
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 203 Document Number: D12265
- Journal Title:
- Management Science
- Journal Title Details:
- v. 65, iss. 8
- Notes:
- 19 pages, 19 pages, The price fluctuation in agricultural markets is an obstacle to poverty reduction for small-scale farmers in developing countries. We build a microfoundation to study how farmers with heterogeneous production costs, under price fluctuations, make crop-planting decisions over time to maximize their individual welfare. We consider both strategic farmers, who rationally anticipate the near-future price as a basis for making planting decisions, and naive farmers, who shortsightedly react to the most recent crop price. The latter behavior may cause recurring overproduction or underproduction, which leads to price fluctuations. We find it important to cultivate a sufficient number of strategic farmers because their self-interested behavior alone, made possible by sufficient market information, can reduce price volatility and improve total social welfare. In the absence of strategic farmers, a well-designed preseason buyout contract, offered by a social entrepreneur or a for-profit firm to a fraction of contract farmers, brings benefit to farmers as well as to the firm itself. More strikingly, the contract not only equalizes the individual welfare in the long run among farmers of the same production cost, but it also reduces individual welfare disparity over time among farmers with heterogeneous costs regardless of whether they are contract farmers or not. On the other hand, a nonsocially optimal buyout contract may reflect a social entrepreneur's over-subsidy tendency or a for-profit firm's speculative incentive to mitigate but not eliminate the market price fluctuation, both preventing farmers from achieving the most welfare.
- « Previous
- Next »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4