Our paper is among the first to measure the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism industry. Using panel structural vector auto-regression (PSVAR) (Pedroni, 2013) on data from 1995 to 2019 in 185 countries and system dynamic modeling (real-time data parameters connected to COVID-19), we estimate the impact of the pandemic crisis on the tourism industry worldwide. Past pandemic crises operated mostly through idiosyncratic shocks' channels, exposing domestic tourism sectors to large adverse shocks. Once domestic shocks perished (zero infection cases), inbound arrivals revived immediately. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, is different; and recovery of the tourism industry worldwide will take more time than the average expected recovery period of 10 months. Private and public policy support must be coordinated to assure capacity building and operational sustainability of the travel tourism sector during 2020–2021. COVID-19 proves that pandemic outbreaks have a much larger destructive impact on the travel and tourism industry than previous studies indicate. Tourism managers must carefully assess the effects of epidemics on business and develop new risk management methods to deal with the crisis. Furthermore, during 2020–2021, private and public policy support must be coordinated to sustain pre-COVID-19 operational levels of the tourism and travel sector.
The COVID-19 crisis has caused major supply chain disruptions, and these can be traced back to basic supply chain risks that have previously been well identified in literature. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a pathway for closing the gap between supply chain resilience research and efforts in industry to develop a more resilient supply chain.,Based upon virtual roundtables with supply chain executives, supplemented with interviews and publicly available datapoints about COVID-19 impact on the supply chain, we explore challenges in industry and suggest opportunity areas where research can support efforts in industry to improve supply chain resilience.,During the COVID-19 crisis, participating supply chain executives are experiencing textbook supply, demand and control risks in the supply chain. They also observe a lack of preparedness, shortcomings of current response plans and the need for greater supply chain resilience. Focus areas in improving resilience mirror generic recommendations from literature and provide a rich opportunity to reduce the gap between research findings and efforts in industry.,More empirical, event-based and less conceptual research into supply chain resilience has been called for several times during the last two decades. COVID-19 provides a very rich opportunity for researchers to conduct the type of research that has been called for. This research may contribute to the structurally de-risking of supply chains. Areas of research opportunity include decision models for supply chain design that avoid overfocusing on costs only, and that consider the value of flexibility, short response times and multiple sources as well as methods for enriching supplier segmentation and evaluation models to reduce a focus on savings and payment terms only.,Key levers for de-risking the supply chain include the need to balance global sourcing with nearshore and local sourcing, the adoption of multiple sources and a greater utilization of information technology to drive more complete and immediate information availability. Perhaps most importantly, talent management in supply chain management needs to promote a focus not just on costs, but also on resilience as well as on learning from current events to improve decision-making.,There is a great opportunity for supply chain managers to grow their contribution to society beyond risk response into the proactive reduction of risks for the future. Researchers can serve society by informing this progress with impactful research.,This article offers initial empirical exploration of supply chain risks experienced in the context of COVID-19 and approaches considered in industry to improve supply chain resilience. Opportunities for empirical, event-based and less conceptual research that has been called for years, are identified. This research can help close the gap between supply chain resilience research and efforts in industry to improve supply chain resilience. Hopefully the research opportunities identified can inspire the flurry of research that can be expected in response to the multiple special issues planned by journals in our field.
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most severe supply chain disruptions in history and has challenged practitioners and scholars to improve the resilience of supply chains. Recent technological progress, especially industry 4.0, indicates promising possibilities to mitigate supply chain risks such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of the link between industry 4.0 and supply chain resilience. To close this research gap, we present evidence from a systematic literature review, including 62 papers from high-quality journals. Based on a categorization of industry 4.0 enabler technologies and supply chain resilience antecedents, we introduce a holistic framework depicting the relationship between both areas while exploring the current state-of-the-art. To verify industry 4.0’s resilience opportunities in a severe supply chain disruption, we apply our framework to a use case, the COVID-19-affected automotive industry. Overall, our results reveal that big data analytics is particularly suitable for improving supply chain resilience, while other industry 4.0 enabler technologies, including additive manufacturing and cyber-physical systems, still lack proof of effectiveness. Moreover, we demonstrate that visibility and velocity are the resilience antecedents that benefit most from industry 4.0 implementation. We also establish that industry 4.0 holistically supports pre-disruption resilience measures, enabling more effective proactive risk management. Both research and practice can benefit from this study. While scholars may analyze resilience potentials of under-explored enabler technologies, practitioners can use our findings to guide industry 4.0 investment decisions.
Abstract Decision-making is a critical step in safety and risk analysis. Decision-making is conducted according to the different sources of information often elicited from filed matter and subject matter experts. Many team-based decision-making methods are developed to identify hazards, determine intervention actions, and to prioritize the efforts to reduce the risk in given conditions. However, the majority of decision-making methods are based on idealistic assumptions such as risk contributing factor in a complex system and independency between the factors. In reality, there is strong interaction among the risk factors and also among the sources of information used in decision-making procedure. There is a requirement to use a decision-making framework that captures the dependency of the risk factors and the source of information. This is achieved by integrating DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) methodology with Best-Worst method (BWM) and Bayesian network (BN). The integration is considered at two different stages in the DEMATEL methodology. Application of the integrated DEMATEL is illustrated by adopting a case study of safety management in the high-tech industry.
Coastal ecosystem services (ESs) exhibit obvious sea–land gradient characteristics. However, their specific patterns and evolutionary mechanisms remain unclear. Therefore, we developed an analytical framework integrating this gradient perspective. In the case of the Yellow River Delta, we systematically revealed the sea–land gradient evolution pattern of ESs from multiple dimensions, including spatiotemporal trends, multi-scenario responses, interrelationships, and interaction mechanisms. Key findings include: (1) From 1980 to 2050, coastal areas exhibit higher ESs stability than inland zones. The water yield (WY) persistently increases by 20.10% of the study area, whereas habitat quality (HQ) degrades in 45.98% of inland regions. (2) ESs display distinct spatial patterns across the sea–land gradient. HQ declines with increasing distance from the coastline. Other ESs display fluctuating patterns, with poorer performance in nearshore areas (0–5 km). (3) Trade-offs dominate WY–HQ and WY–carbon storage (CS), while synergies prevail among other ESs. (4) Spatially, ESs interactions exhibit high heterogeneity and a clear sea–land gradient variation. (5) When the distance from the coastline is also considered, the influence of factors is significantly enhanced. This study provides a forward-looking research framework for coastal risk management by revealing the complex dynamics and underlying mechanisms of ESs under the influence of sea–land interactions.
Michael Osinakachukwu Ezeh, Adindu Donatus Ogbu, Augusta Heavens Ikevuje
et al.
Effective contract management is critical for the energy sector, where complex agreements and regulatory requirements demand precision and oversight. Leveraging technology for improved contract management can transform how energy companies manage their contracts, enhancing efficiency, compliance, and strategic alignment. This paper explores the impact of technological advancements on contract management processes in the energy sector, emphasizing digital solutions and automation. The energy sector deals with multifaceted contracts involving various stakeholders, including suppliers, contractors, regulatory bodies, and customers. Traditional contract management methods, often characterized by manual processes and paper-based documentation, are prone to errors, delays, and inefficiencies. Technology, particularly contract lifecycle management (CLM) software, offers comprehensive solutions to these challenges by digitizing and automating contract management processes. CLM software facilitates the entire contract lifecycle, from drafting and negotiation to execution and renewal. These platforms provide centralized repositories for all contract documents, ensuring easy access and retrieval. Advanced features such as automated alerts and notifications for key dates and obligations help companies stay compliant with contractual and regulatory requirements, reducing the risk of penalties and legal disputes. Moreover, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) capabilities integrated into CLM solutions enable intelligent contract analysis and risk assessment. AI-driven tools can extract critical data from contracts, identify potential risks, and suggest mitigative actions. This predictive insight enhances decision-making, allowing energy companies to proactively address issues before they escalate. Blockchain technology also holds significant potential for contract management in the energy sector. Smart contracts, enabled by blockchain, offer a secure and transparent way to automate contractual obligations. These self-executing contracts reduce the need for intermediaries and enhance trust among parties, ensuring that terms are met efficiently and without dispute. In addition to these technologies, cloud-based platforms offer scalability and flexibility, allowing energy companies to manage contracts remotely and collaboratively. This is particularly beneficial in an industry where projects span multiple locations and jurisdictions. In conclusion, leveraging technology for contract management in the energy sector results in streamlined processes, improved compliance, and enhanced strategic alignment. By adopting digital solutions and automation, energy companies can mitigate risks, reduce costs, and drive operational efficiency, ultimately contributing to their sustainability and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving market. Keywords: Leveraging, Technology, Energy Sector, Contract Management, Improved.
This paper explores how antifragility principles can be applied in the cosmetics industry to turn uncertainty and crises into opportunities for growth, innovation, and long-term resilience. Unlike traditional risk management, which focuses on minimizing disruption, antifragile business models thrive under volatility by embracing proactive adaptation, decentralized supply chains, sustainable innovation, and digital transformation. Drawing on case studies from leading firms such as L’Oréal, Estée Lauder, Shiseido, P&G, and Coty, the study identifies key decision-making approaches - including scenario planning, agile strategy shifts, and crisis response mechanisms - that support business agility in uncertain environments. Extending the analysis to emerging economies, particularly Moldova and Eastern Europe, the research examines how firms facing limited capital, regulatory uncertainty, and market constraints can adapt global antifragility strategies to their local contexts. The findings emphasize the importance of supply chain diversification, digitalization, and sustainability-focused consumer engagement in enhancing competitiveness. By offering a structured framework grounded in industry practices and secondary data, this study contributes to the literature on resilience, crisis management, and business strategy. Future research should validate these findings through empirical studies and comparative analyses. Ultimately, the paper argues that antifragile firms are not only more adaptive, but also better positioned for sustainable success in a complex global economy.
Zhiqiang Mao, Chieh-Hung Chen, Horng-Yuan Yen
et al.
At 23:58:08 UT on April 2, 2024, an M7.4 earthquake occurred near Hualien, Taiwan region, triggering geomagnetic variations. Seismic waves typically induce geomagnetic disturbances that exhibit time delays that are dependent on epicentral distance in previous studies. In this study, simultaneous perturbations in three-component geomagnetic field were observed within 114 km of the epicenter. The out-of-phase perturbations in the Z-component between the geomagnetic stations near the epicenter suggest a local electric current triggered by the earthquake. The height and orientation of the currents were estimated to be approximately 99 km and 247 ° (southwest), respectively. The magnetic field and high-frequency Doppler sounder observations indicate that acoustic waves are triggered by the earthquake. This was consistent with the sound propagation of the NRLMSISE−00 atmospheric model. The acoustic waves propagate from the ground to ionosphere, causing plasma to move across the Earth’s magnetic field, which leads to the generation of electric current. This study suggests that earthquake-triggered acoustic waves can change the dynamics of the ionosphere. These findings provide new insights into earthquake-ionosphere coupling, indicating that earthquakes can trigger temporal ionospheric currents near the epicenter.
Sheng-Huai Wang, Johnson Hsin-Chung Cheng, Kuan Chung Huang
et al.
Background/Purpose: Risk management in the health-care industry is a systematic approach for mitigating potential risks and enhancing patient safety. This study examined orthodontists’ perceptions of and attitudes toward risk management in Taiwan. The results provide clinical references informing policies for health-care institutions in Taiwan. Materials and methods: During the 2021 Taiwan Association of Orthodontics (TAO) annual meeting, a structured questionnaire was distributed to 143 randomly selected orthodontists. This questionnaire comprised 23 questions on demographics (5 questions), knowledge of risk management (5 questions), execution of and attitude toward risk management (8 questions), and adverse event experiences (7 questions). After the frequency distribution of each question was examined, demographics and participants’ preferences were analyzed through chi-square and multiple regression tests. Results: Goodness-of-fit testing revealed no significant differences in sex or age between the participants and TAO members. Most of the orthodontists were employees (68.31%). Additionally, most of the orthodontists (90.14%) believed that a favorable doctor–patient relationship and high-quality orthodontic treatment are essential for mitigating the risks associated with orthodontic care. Moreover, 30.28% of the orthodontists reported AEs, and 38.73% reported foreign body ingestion by patients. No significant correlation was observed between demographics and risk management. Conclusion: The majority of orthodontists in Taiwan have a positive understanding of and attitude toward risk management. Factors such as sex, age, and clinical experience have a minimal influence on the implementation of risk management practices by Taiwanese orthodontists. These findings provide valuable clinical references for governmental organizations aiming to formulate policies related to orthodontic practice and risk management.
The new age economy is primarily driven by Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0, which facilitate smartification of organizations by helping them integrate and automate decision making. Recent advances in information and communication technologies, such as the cloud, big data, Internet of things, and artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, have accelerated the adoption of Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0. Because of these advancements, organizations are now facing new challenges in the form of cybersecurity risks that are partly caused by these technologies. In recent years, there has been a spike in the number of cyberattacks, and organizations are taking steps to minimize the impacts of these attacks. To address this critical issue, in this article, we discuss possible future research directions that production and operations management (POM) researchers can undertake to help organizations, supply chains, and governments develop robust strategies for reducing the number of attacks and their repercussions. In particular, we identify several avenues for future research in the following domains of POM: (1) global operations strategy, (2) healthcare operations management, (3) public policy, (4) management of technology, (5) supply chain management, and (6) disruptive technologies. Research on the topic of cybersecurity is not only an opportunity for operations management researchers but also critical for industry and society to overcome the challenges of cybersecurity risks.
Groundwater contamination through potentially harmful metals (PHMs) is an environmental hazard in Pakistan with significant human health risk reports. The current research was conducted in Sheikhupura District, which is a major industrial site in Punjab, Pakistan. According to the Punjab Directorate of Industries in Pakistan, there are a total of 748 industries in this area. These industries produce a lot of waste and effluent, which contaminate the environment with harmful and toxic materials. Continuous irrigation with industrial effluent and sewage sludge may make groundwater sources vulnerable. Therefore, we collected 243 groundwater samples from community tube wells to investigate the groundwater quality cconcerning PHM contaminations in the study area. This research presents the values of pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), and potentially harmful metals (PHMs) like arsenic (As), manganese (Mn), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and iron (Fe). PHMs such as As (91%), Mn (14%), Pb (97%), Fe (45%), Zn (15%), in these samples were beyond the permitted limit recommended by the world health organization (WHO). Principal component analysis (PCA) results with total variability of (60%) reveal that the groundwater sources of the study area are contaminated about 30.9, 31.3, and 37.6% of contaminations of groundwater sources of this study are resulted from geogenic sources, anthropogenic sources, or both geogenic and anthropogenic sources, respectively. Such sources may include rock-water interaction, mining actions, agricultural practices, domestic sewage, and industrial effluent in the study area. Saturation indices show that the aquifers of the study area are saturated with lead hydroxide, zinc hydroxide, and goethite minerals, indicating that these minerals have a vital role in the contamination of groundwater. Health risk assessment results predicted that the non-carcinogenic risk (HQ) values of PHMs were found within the permissible limit (<1), except As (1.58E+00) for children, while carcinogenic risk (CR) values of all selected PHMs were lower than the maximum threshold CR value (1 × 10−4).
In a recent report by risk assessment experts on the identification of food safety priorities using the Delphi technique, foodborne viruses were recognized among the top rated food safety priorities and have become a greater concern to the food industry over the past few years. Food safety experts agreed that control measures for viruses throughout the food chain are required. However, much still needs to be understood with regard to the effectiveness of these controls and how to properly validate their performance, whether it is personal hygiene of food handlers or the effects of processing of at risk foods or the interpretation and action required on positive virus test result. This manuscript provides a description of foodborne viruses and their characteristics, their responses to stress and technologies developed for viral detection and control. In addition, the gaps in knowledge and understanding, and future perspectives on the application of viral detection and control strategies for the food industry, along with suggestions on how the food industry could implement effective control strategies for viruses in foods. The current state of the science on epidemiology, public health burden, risk assessment and management options for viruses in food processing environments will be highlighted in this review.
Abstract The last decade has seen a sharp increase in nematicide research in the agricultural industry. As a result, several new synthetic nematicides have become available to growers, and several more are expected in the near future. This new interest in nematicides is directly related to the growing demand for safer and more selective products, and the increasing regulatory pressure on many of the traditional nematicides. This has led to a ban of several widely used fumigant (e.g. methyl bromide) and non-fumigant (e.g. aldicarb) nematicides. The loss of traditional nematicides, combined with a lack of replacement products and awareness of the damage that nematodes can cause, has not only raised concern among growers, but has also created new opportunities for the crop protection industry. Nematicides have become a priority, and many companies are now allocating significant research dollars to discover new nematicides. The new nematicides are very different from previous products: (i) they are more selective, often only targeting nematodes, and (ii) they are less toxic, and safer to use. This review article describes these new developments by discussing the challenges that are associated with finding new nematicides, reviewing the nature, characteristics, and efficacy of new nematicides, and discussing the impact they could have on future nematode management.
Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were born out of similar concerns, such as the reaction to scandal and the restraint of irresponsible actions by individuals and organizations. However, these fields of knowledge are seldom explored together. This article attempts to explain the motives behind the gap between bioethics and CSR, while arguing that their shared agenda – combined with their contrasting principles and goals – suggests there is potential for fruitful dialogue that enables the actualization of bioethical agendas and provides a direction for CSR in health-related organizations.
INTRODUCTION
Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) seem to be cut from the same cloth: the concern for human rights and the response to scandal. Both are tools for the governance of organizations, shaping how power flows and decisions are made. They have taken the shape of specialized committees, means of stakeholder inclusion at deliberative forums, compliance programs, and internal processes. It should be surprising, then, that these two fields of study and practice have developed separately, only recently re-approaching one another.
There have been displays of this reconnection both in academic and corporate spaces, with bioethics surfacing as part of the discourse of CSR and compliance initiatives. However, this is still a relatively timid effort. Even though the bioethics-CSR divide presents mostly reasonable explanations for this difficult relationship between the disciplines, current proposals suggest there is much to be gained from a stronger relationship between them.
This article explores the common history of bioethics and corporate social responsibility and identifies their common features and differences. It then explores the dispute of jurisdictions due to professional and academic “pedigree” and incompatibilities in the ideological and teleological spheres as possible causes for the divide. The discussion turns to paths for improving the reflexivity of both disciplines and, therefore, their openness to mutual contributions.
I. Cut Out of the Same Cloth
The earliest record of the word “bioethics” dates back to 1927 as a term that designates one’s ethical responsibility toward not only human beings but other lifeforms as well, such as animals and plants.[1] Based on Kantian ethics, the term was coined as a response to the great prestige science held at its time. It remained largely forgotten until the 1970s, when it resurfaced in the United States[2] as the body of knowledge that can be employed to ensure the responsible pursuit and application of science. The resurgence was prompted by a response to widespread irresponsible attitudes toward science and grounded in a pluralistic perspective of morality.[3] In the second half of the twentieth century, states and the international community assumed the duty to protect human rights, and bioethics became a venue for discussing rights.[4] There is both a semantic gap and a contextual gap between these two iterations, with some of them already being established.
Corporate social responsibility is often attributed to the Berle-Dodd debate. The discussion was characterized by diverging views on the extent of the responsibility of managers.[5] It was later settled as positioning the company, especially the large firm, as an entity whose existence is fomented by the law due to its service to the community. The concept has evolved with time, departing from a largely philanthropic meaning to being ingrained in nearly every aspect of a company’s operations. This includes investments, entrepreneurship models, and its relationship to stakeholders, leading to an increasing operationalization and globalization of the concept.[6]
At first sight, these two movements seem to stem from different contexts. Despite the difference, it is also possible to tell a joint history of bioethics and CSR, with their point of contact being a generalized concern with technological and social changes that surfaced in the sixties. The publishing of Silent Spring in 1962 by Rachel Carson exemplifies this growing concern over the sustainability of the ruling economic growth model of its time by commenting on the effects of large-scale agriculture and the use of pesticides in the population of bees, one of the most relevant pollinators of crops consumed by humans. The book influenced both the author responsible for the coining bioethics in the 1971[7] and early CSR literature.[8] By initiating a debate over the sustainability of economic models, the environmentalist discourse became a precursor to vigorous social movements for civil rights. Bioethics was part of the trend as it would be carried forward by movements such as feminism and the patients’ rights movement.[9]
Bioethics would gradually move from a public discourse centered around the responsible use of science and technology to academic and government spaces.[10] This evolution led to an increasing emphasis on intellectual rigor and governance. The transformation would unravel the effort to take effective action against scandal and turn bioethical discourse into governance practices,[11] such as bioethics and research ethics committees. The publication of the Belmont Report[12] in the aftermath of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, as well as the creation of committees such as the “God Committee,”[13] which aimed to develop and enforce criteria for allocating scarce dialysis machines, exemplify this shift. On the side of CSR, this period represents, at first, a stronger pact between businesses and society due to more stringent environmental and consumer regulations. But afterward, a joint trend emerged: on one side, the deregulation within the context of neoliberalism, and on the other, the operationalization of corporate social responsibility as a response to societal concerns.[14]
The 1990s saw both opportunities and crises that derived from globalization. In the political arena, the end of the Cold War led to an impasse in the discourse concerning human rights,[15] which previously had been split between the defense of civil and political rights on one side and social rights on the other. But at the same time, agendas that were previously restricted territorially became institutionalized on a global scale.[16] Events such as the European Environment Agency (1990), ECO92 in Rio de Janeiro (1992), and the UN Global Compact (2000) are some examples of the globalization of CSR. This process of institutionalization would also mirror a crisis in CSR, given that its voluntarist core would be deemed lackluster due to the lack of corporate accountability. The business and human rights movement sought to produce new binding instruments – usually state-based – that could ensure that businesses would comply with their duties to respect human rights.[17] This rule-creation process has been called legalization: a shift from business standards to norms of varying degrees of obligation, precision, and delegation.[18]
Bioethics has also experienced its own renewed identity in the developed world, perhaps because of its reconnection to public and global health. Global health has been the object of study for centuries under other labels (e.g., the use of tropical medicine to assist colonial expeditions) but it resurfaced in the political agenda recently after the pandemics of AIDS and respiratory diseases.[19] Bioethics has been accused from the inside of ignoring matters beyond the patient-provider relationship,[20] including those related to public health and/or governance. Meanwhile, scholars claimed the need to expand the discourse to global health.[21] In some countries, bioethics developed a tight relationship with public health, such as Brazil,[22] due to its connections to the sanitary reform movement. The United Kingdom has also followed a different path, prioritizing governance practices and the use of pre-established institutions in a more community-oriented approach.[23] The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Rights followed this shift toward a social dimension of bioethics despite being subject to criticism due to its human rights-based approach in a field characterized by ethical pluralism.[24]
This scenario suggests bioethics and CSR have developed out of similar concerns: the protection of human rights and concerns over responsible development – be it economic, scientific, or technological. However, the interaction between these two fields (as well as business and human rights) is fairly recent both in academic and business settings. There might be a divide between these fields and their practitioners.
II. A Tale of Jurisdictions
It can be argued that CSR and business and human rights did not face jurisdictional disputes. These fields owe much of their longevity to their roots in institutional economics, whose debates, such as the Berle-Dodd debate, were based on interdisciplinary dialogue and the abandonment of sectorial divisions and public-private dichotomies.[25] There was opposition to this approach to the role of companies in society that could have implications for CSR’s interdisciplinarity, such as the understanding that corporate activities should be restricted to profit maximization.[26] Yet, those were often oppositions to CSR or business and human rights themselves.
The birth of bioethics in the USA can be traced back to jurisdictional disputes over the realm of medicine and life sciences.[27] The dispute unfolded between representatives of science and those of “society’s conscience,” whether through bioethics as a form of applied ethics or other areas of knowledge such as theology.[28] Amid the civil rights movements, outsiders would gain access to the social sphere of medicine, simultaneously bringing it to the public debate and emphasizing the decision-making process as the center of the medical practice.[29] This led to the emergence of the bioethicist as a professional whose background in philosophy, theology, or social sciences deemed the bioethicist qualified to speak on behalf of the social consciousness. In other locations this interaction would play out differently: whether as an investigation of philosophically implied issues, a communal effort with professional institutions to enhance decision-making capability, or a concern with access to healthcare.[30] In these situations, the emergence and regulation of bioethics would be way less rooted in disputes over jurisdictions.
This contentious birth of bioethics would have several implications, most related to where the bioethicist belongs. After the civil rights movements subsided, bioethics moved from the public sphere into an ivory tower: intellectual, secular, and isolated. The scope of the bioethicist would be increasingly limited to the spaces of academia and hospitals, where it would be narrowed to the clinical environment.[31] This would become the comfort zone of professionals, much to the detriment of social concerns. This scenario was convenient to social groups that sought to affirm their protagonism in the public arena, with conservative and progressive movements alike questioning the legitimacy of bioethics in the political discourse.[32]
Even within the walls of hospitals and clinics, bioethics would not be excused from criticism. Afterall, the work of bioethicists is often unregulated and lacks the same kind of accountability that doctors and lawyers have. Then, is there a role to be played by the bioethicist?
This trend of isolation leads to a plausible explanation for why bioethics did not develop an extensive collaboration with corporate social responsibility nor with business and human rights. Despite stemming from similar agendas, bioethics’ orientation towards the private sphere resulted in a limited perspective on the broader implications of its decisions.
This existential crisis of the discipline led to a re-evaluation of its nature and purpose. Its relevance has been reaffirmed due to the epistemic advantage of philosophy when engaging normative issues. Proper training enables the bioethicist to avoid falling into traps of subjectivism or moralism, which are unable to address the complexity of decision-making. It also prevents the naïve seduction of “scientifying” ethics.[33] This is the starting point of a multitude of roles that can be attributed to the bioethicists.
There are three main responsibilities that fall under bioethics: (i) activism in biopolicy, through the engagement in the creation of laws, jurisprudence, and public policies; (ii) the exercise of bioethics expertise, be it through the specialized knowledge in philosophical thought, its ability to juggle multiple languages related to various disciplines related to bioethics, or its capacity to combat and avoid misinformation and epistemic distortion; (iii) and, intellectual exchange, by exercising awareness that it is necessary to work with specialists from different backgrounds to achieve its goals.[34]
All of those suggest the need for bioethics to improve its dialogue with CSR and business and human rights. Both CSR and business and human rights have been the arena of political disputes over the role of regulations and corporations themselves, and the absence of strong stances by bioethicists risks deepening their exclusion from the public arena. Furthermore, CSR and business and human rights are at the forefront of contemporary issues, such as the limits to sustainable development and appropriate governance structures, which may lead to the acceptance of values and accomplishment of goals cherished by bioethics. However, a gap in identifying the role and nature of bioethics and CSR may also be an obstacle for bridging the chasm between bioethics and CSR.
III. From Substance to Form: Philosophical Groundings of CSR and Bioethics
As mentioned earlier, CSR is, to some extent, a byproduct of institutionalism. Institutional economics has a philosophical footprint in the pragmatic tradition[35], which has implications for the purpose of the movement and the typical course of the debate. The effectiveness of regulatory measures is often at the center of CSR and business and human rights debates: whatever the regulatory proposal may be, compliance, feasibility, and effectiveness are the kernel of the discussion. The axiological foundation is often the protection of human rights. But discussions over the prioritization of some human rights over others or the specific characteristics of the community to be protected are often neglected.[36] It is worth reinforcing that adopting human rights as an ethical standard presents problems to bioethics, given its grounding in the recognition of ethical pluralism.
Pragmatism adopts an anti-essentialist view, arguing that concepts derive from their practical consequences instead of aprioristic elements.[37] Therefore, truth is transitory and context dependent. Pragmatism embraces a form of moral relativism and may find itself in an impasse in the context of political economy and policymaking due to its tendency to be stuck between the preservation of the status quo and the defense of a technocratic perspective, which sees technical and scientific progress as the solution to many of society’s issues.[38]
These characteristics mean that bioethics has a complicated relationship with pragmatism. Indeed, there are connections between pragmatism and the bioethics discourse. Both can be traced back to American naturalism.[39] The early effort in bioethics to make it ecumenical, thus building on a common but transitory morality,[40] sounds pragmatic. Therefore, scholars suggest that bioethics should rely on pragmatism's perks and characteristics to develop solutions to new ethical challenges that emerge from scientific and technological progress.
Nonetheless, ethical relativism is a problem for bioethics when it bleeds from a metaethical level into the subject matters themselves. After all, the whole point of bioethics is either descriptive, where it seeks to understand social values and conditions that pertain to its scope, or normative, where it investigates what should be done in matters related to medicine, life sciences, and social and technological change. It is a “knowledge of how to use knowledge.”
Therefore, bioethics is a product of disillusionment regarding science and technology's capacity to produce exclusively good consequences. It was built around an opposition to ethical relativism—even though the field is aware of the particularity of its answers. This is true not only for the scholarly arena, where the objective is to produce ethically sound answers but also for bioethics governance, where relativism may induce decision paralysis or open the way to points of view disconnected from facts.[41]
But there might be a point for more pragmatic bioethics. Bioethics has become an increasingly public enterprise which seeks political persuasion and impact in the regulatory sphere. When bioethics is seen as an enterprise, achieving social transformation is its main goal. In this sense, pragmatism can provide critical tools to identify idiosyncrasies in regulation that prove change is needed. An example of how this may play out is the abortion rights movement in the global south.[42] Despite barriers to accessing safe abortion, this movement came up with creative solutions and a public discourse focused on the consequences of its criminalization rather than its moral aspects.
IV. Bridging the Divide: Connections Between Bioethics and CSR
There have been attempts to bring bioethics and CSR closer to each other. Corporate responsibility can be a supplementary strategy for achieving the goals of bioethics. The International Bioethics Committee (IBC), an institution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), highlights the concept that social responsibility regarding health falls under the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR). It is a means of achieving good health (complete physical, mental, and social well-being) through social development.[43] Thus, it plays out as a condition for actualizing the goals dear to bioethics and general ethical standards,[44] such as autonomy and awareness of the social consequences of an organization’s governance. On this same note, CSR is a complementary resource for healthcare organizations that already have embedded bioethics into their operations[45] as a way of looking at the social impact of their practices.
And bioethics is also an asset of CSR. Bioethics can inform the necessary conditions for healthcare institutions achieving a positive social impact. When taken at face value, bioethics may offer guidelines for ethical and socially responsible behavior in the industry, instructing how these should play out in a particular context such as in research, and access to health.[46] When considering the relevance of rewarding mechanisms,[47] bioethics can guide the establishment of certification measures to restore lost trust in the pharmaceutical sector.[48] Furthermore, recognizing that the choice is a more complex matter than the maximization of utility can offer a nuanced perspective on how organizations dealing with existentially relevant choices understand their stakeholders.[49] However, all of those proposals might come with the challenge of proving that something can be gained from its addition to self-regulatory practices[50] within the scope of a dominant rights-based approach to CSR and global and corporate law.
It is evident that there is room for further collaboration between bioethics and CSR. Embedding either into the corporate governance practices of an organization tends to be connected to promoting the other.[51] While there are some incompatibilities, organizations should try to overcome them and take advantage of the synergies and similarities.
CONCLUSION
Despite their common interests and shared history, bioethics and corporate social responsibility have not produced a mature exchange. Jurisdictional issues and foundational incompatibilities have prevented a joint effort to establish a model of social responsibility that addresses issues particular to the healthcare sector.
Both bioethics and CSR should acknowledge that they hold two different pieces of a cognitive competence necessary for that task: CSR offers experience on how to turn corporate ethical obligations operational, while bioethics provides access to the prevailing practical and philosophical problem-solving tools in healthcare that were born out of social movements. Reconciling bioethics and CSR calls for greater efforts to comprehend and incorporate the social knowledge developed by each field reflexively[52] while understanding their insights are relevant to achieving some common goals.
-
[1]. Fritz Jahr, “Bio-Ethik: Eine Umschau Über Die Ethischen Beziehungen Des Menschen Zu Tier Und Pflanze,” Kosmos - Handweiser Für Naturfreunde 24 (1927): 2–4.
[2]. Van Rensselaer Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 14, no. 1 (1970): 127–53, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1970.0015.
[3]. Maximilian Schochow and Jonas Grygier, eds., “Tagungsbericht: 1927 – Die Geburt der Bioethik in Halle (Saale) durch den protestantischen Theologen Fritz Jahr (1895-1953),” Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics 21 (June 11, 2014): 325–29, https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02807-2.
[4] George J. Annas, American Bioethics: Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
[5] Philip L. Cochran, “The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Business Horizons 50, no. 6 (November 2007): 449–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.06.004. p. 449.
[6] Mauricio Andrés Latapí Agudelo, Lára Jóhannsdóttir, and Brynhildur Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 4, no. 1 (December 2019): 23, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0039-y.
[7] Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival.” p. 129.
[8] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” p. 4.
[9] Albert R. Jonsen, The Birth of Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). p. 368-371.
[10] Jonsen. p. 372.
[11] Jonathan Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice,” Health Care Analysis 24, no. 1 (March 2016): 3–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0310-2.
[12]. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research” (Washington: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, April 18, 1979), https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf.
[13] Shana Alexander, “They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies,” in LIFE, by Time Inc, 19th ed., vol. 53 (Nova Iorque: Time Inc, 1962), 102–25.
[14]. Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.”
[15]. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, “Por Uma Concepção Multicultural Dos Direitos Humanos,” Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, no. 48 (June 1997): 11–32.
[16] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.”
[17]. Anita Ramasastry, “Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability,” Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 2 (April 3, 2015): 237–59, https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2015.1037953.
[18]. Kenneth W Abbott et al., “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization, Legalization and World Politics, 54, no. 3 (2000): 401–4019.
[19]. Jens Holst, “Global Health – Emergence, Hegemonic Trends and Biomedical Reductionism,” Globalization and Health 16, no. 1 (December 2020): 42–52, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00573-4.
[20]. Albert R. Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 78, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 21–28, https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/78.1.21.
[21]. Solomon R Benatar, Abdallah S Daar, and Peter A Singer, “Global Health Challenges: The Need for an Expanded Discourse on Bioethics,” PLoS Medicine 2, no. 7 (July 26, 2005): e143, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020143.
[22]. Márcio Fabri dos Anjos and José Eduardo de Siqueira, eds., Bioética No Brasil: Tendências e Perspectivas, 1st ed., Bio & Ética (São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Bioética, 2007).
[23]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8-9.
[24]. Aline Albuquerque S. de Oliveira, “A Declaração Universal Sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos e a Análise de Sua Repercussão Teórica Na Comunidade Bioética,” Revista Redbioética/UNESCO 1, no. 1 (2010): 124–39.
[25] John R. Commons, “Law and Economics,” The Yale Law Journal 34, no. 4 (February 1925): 371, https://doi.org/10.2307/788562; Robert L. Hale, “Bargaining, Duress, and Economic Liberty,” Columbia Law Review 43, no. 5 (July 1943): 603–28, https://doi.org/10.2307/1117229; Karl N. Llewellyn, “The Effect of Legal Institutions Upon Economics,” The American Economic Review 15, no. 4 (1925): 665–83; Carlos Portugal Gouvêa, Análise Dos Custos Da Desigualdade: Efeitos Institucionais Do Círculo Vicioso de Desigualdade e Corrupção, 1st ed. (São Paulo: Quartier Latin, 2021). p. 84-94.
[26] Milton Friedman, “A Friedman Doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” The New York Times, September 13, 1970, sec. Archives, https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html.
[27] Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8.
[28] John Hyde Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics: A Sociological View, 1st ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
[29] David J. Rothman, Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making, 2nd pbk. ed, Social Institutions and Social Change (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003). p. 3.
[30] Volnei Garrafa, Thiago Rocha Da Cunha, and Camilo Manchola, “Access to Healthcare: A Central Question within Brazilian Bioethics,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27, no. 3 (July 2018): 431–39, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180117000810.
[31] Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics.”
[32] Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics. p. 75-79, 94-96.
[33] Julian Savulescu, “Bioethics: Why Philosophy Is Essential for Progress,” Journal of Medical Ethics 41, no. 1 (January 2015): 28–33, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102284.
[34] Silvia Camporesi and Giulia Cavaliere, “Can Bioethics Be an Honest Way of Making a Living? A Reflection on Normativity, Governance and Expertise,” Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 3 (March 2021): 159–63, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105954; Jackie Leach Scully, “The Responsibilities of the Engaged Bioethicist: Scholar, Advocate, Activist,” Bioethics 33, no. 8 (October 2019): 872–80, https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12659.
[35] Philip Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics,” Journal of Economic Issues, Evolutionary Economics I: Foundations of Institutional Thought, 21, no. 3 (September 1987): 1001–38.
[36] David Kennedy, “The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15 (2002): 101–25.
[37] Richard Rorty, “Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53, no. 6 (August 1980): 717+719-738.
[38]. Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics.”
[39]. Glenn McGee, ed., Pragmatic Bioethics, 2nd ed, Basic Bioethics (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2003).
[40]. Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
[41]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.”
[42]. Debora Diniz and Giselle Carino, “What Can Be Learned from the Global South on Abortion and How We Can Learn?,” Developing World Bioethics 23, no. 1 (March 2023): 3–4, https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12385.
[43]. International Bioethics Committee, On Social Responsibility and Health Report (Paris: Unesco, 2010).
[44]. Cristina Brandão et al., “Social Responsibility: A New Paradigm of Hospital Governance?,” Health Care Analysis 21, no. 4 (December 2013): 390–402, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0206-3.
[45] Intissar Haddiya, Taha Janfi, and Mohamed Guedira, “Application of the Concepts of Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Ethics to Healthcare Organizations,” Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Volume 13 (August 2020): 1029–33, https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S258984.
[46]The Biopharmaceutical Bioethics Working Group et al., “Considerations for Applying Bioethics Norms to a Biopharmaceutical Industry Setting,” BMC Medical Ethics 22, no. 1 (December 2021): 31–41, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00600-y.
[47] Anne Van Aaken and Betül Simsek, “Rewarding in International Law,” American Journal of International Law 115, no. 2 (April 2021): 195–241, https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.2.
[48] Jennifer E. Miller, “Bioethical Accreditation or Rating Needed to Restore Trust in Pharma,” Nature Medicine 19, no. 3 (March 2013): 261–261, https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0313-261.
[49] John Hardwig, “The Stockholder – A Lesson for Business Ethics from Bioethics?,” Journal of Business Ethics 91, no. 3 (February 2010): 329–41, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0086-0.
[50] Stefan van Uden, “Taking up Bioethical Responsibility?: The Role of Global Bioethics in the Social Responsibility of Pharmaceutical Corporations Operating in Developing Countries” (Mestrado, Coimbra, Coimbra University, 2012).
[51] María Peana Chivite and Sara Gallardo, “La bioética en la empresa: el caso particular de la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa,” Revista Internacional de Organizaciones, no. 13 (January 12, 2015): 55–81, https://doi.org/10.17345/rio13.55-81.
[52] Teubner argues that social spheres tend to develop solutions autonomously, but one sphere interfering in the way other spheres govern themselves tends to result in ineffective regulation and demobilization of their autonomous rule-making capabilities. These spheres should develop “reflexion mechanisms” that enable the exchange of their social knowledge and provide effective, non-damaging solutions to social issues. See Gunther Teubner, “Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law,” Law & Society Review 17, no. 2 (1983): 239–85, https://doi.org/10.2307/3053348.
Radhwan A. Saleh, Ahmed M. Al-Areeq, Amran A. Al Aghbari
et al.
This study addresses the challenges of flash flood susceptibility mapping in Yemen’s Qaa’Jahran Basin, characterized by complex terrain and limited hydro-meteorological data. To enhance predictive accuracy, we integrate metaheuristic feature selection with ensemble learning models. Initially, fifteen flash flood variables were retrieved using Geographic Information System (GIS) based remote sensing, setting the stage for a novel feature selection algorithm. Then, the Memo Search Algorithm (MSA), a metaheuristic approach is proposed to efficiently reduce feature space. Through comprehensive comparisons with established algorithms such as the Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) and Gray Wolf Optimizer (GWO), MSA refined the selection, identifying 'elevation’ and 'distance to streams’ as optimal factors. Statistical validations using the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests confirmed the significant superiority of MSA over competing algorithms. Ensemble classifiers (bagging, boosting, stacking) were then applied to the reduced feature space. Comprehensive evaluation revealed the boosting ensemble with MSA outperformed traditional techniques reaching 98.75% accuracy, 0.9896 Area Under the Curve (AUC), and 98.95% the harmonic mean of the precision and recall (F1-score). Precision in identifying high-risk flash flood zones was underlined via spatial prediction, confirming the integrated framework’s ability to significantly improve forecast accuracy. The findings aid disaster management with powerful geographic mapping in data-poor regions. The proposed framework is adaptable globally for flash flood-prone areas with similar constraints. As climate change is expected to increase extreme rainfall events, communities globally will need robust data-driven methodologies for flash flood susceptibility mapping. The Key recommendations of the current study include investigating hybrid feature selection methods to better enhance predictive inputs and analyzing transferability across hydro-climatic zones.
Space assets are crucial resources for a nation, and effectively managing the various risks associated with them will help maximize their benefits, enhance their contribution to national modernization and security, and improve the strength of the space industry. First, this study clarifies the definition and scope of space assets. In a narrow sense, space assets encompass all spacecraft in orbit. Broadly speaking, space assets also comprise related physical and intangible assets. Second, potential risk sources are identified from multiple dimensions and categorized into technical risks (such as collision disintegration, explosive disintegration, and load failure), military risks (including the use of spacecraft as weapons or weapon platforms), and management risks (referring mainly to mismatches in management systems, leading to loss of intangible assets). Subsequently, this study explores a quantitative assessment method for the technical risks, establishes a model for quantifying space asset values, and briefly analyzes possible risk control methods. Furthermore, a preliminary classification model for risk events is proposed along with several considerations including establishment of systems and mechanisms, formulation of response plans, responsibility allocation, and implementation and supervision of disposal actions.
Ratana Sapbamrer, Amornphat Kitro, Jinjuta Panumasvivat
et al.
Agriculture is an important aspect of Thailand's GDP and development. It ranks as the 8th largest exporter in the world, however, pesticide use associated with the agriculture is ranked 18th in the world and 5th in Asia. Previous studies have clearly stated that pesticides are a threat to human health and the environment. The government is now making efforts to address pesticide use and the health impacts of pesticide use, however, these efforts are still in need of completion. This paper aims to summarize: (1) the current situation with regard to pesticide use in Thailand; (2) the current situation with regard to pesticide poisoning in Thailand; and (3) important role of government in reducing pesticide use and risk sustainably in Thailand: current situation and recommendations. This article suggests that government is a significant driver for reducing pesticide use and risk sustainably and the establishment of push and pull policies, legislation, and strategies. The government needs to strictly adhere to international conventions. Introducing a pesticide tax is essential to reduce redundant pesticide use. Updating of the current act, specific regulations with regard to pesticides and strict enforcement are urgently required. Licensing pesticide applicators should be implemented continuously. Promotion of alternative pest management is needed by supportive production inputs, technology, and markets as well as the development of a monitoring and certification system. Educating consumers on how to choose safe agricultural products and reduce risk from pesticide residues in the products is also necessary. All approaches should be implemented simultaneously and instantly. Importantly, the government needs to cooperate with agricultural sectors, health and environmental sectors, private sectors, as well as food industries to tackle complicate issues in a sustainable manner and lower pesticide use and risk sustainably in Thailand.