Search

Actors, including economists, carry a responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof seems obvious. In economics and among large numbers of economists this notion that economists should be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof is not shared widely, as the financial crisis of 2007–8 and its aftermath indicated. We address related issues: economics has not really allowed conceptual space for the concept of responsibility. Responsibility, as commonly understood, is a duty or obligation of one particular individual towards others, such as individuals or institutions including the state. Individuals can thus be ‘held responsible’ for how their (lack of) actions affect others in a broad sense. We define responsibility as one’s self-limiting and self-assumed obligation towards others to be aware of how one’s actions have consequences for others–consequences which one is obliged to factor in when deciding upon an action. In this sense, we build on the work of Young ([2006]. Responsibility and Global Justice–a social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23 (1), 102–130.). Failure to factor in the consequences of one’s actions on others trying to avoid damage to others, even more than seeking others’ benefit, is a failure to behave responsibly. We discuss what this entails for the discussion about a professional code of conduct for economists. A code of conduct (rather than a law), i.e. a set of agreed upon rules to guide preferred behaviours of economists about what it means to act responsibly, will only prescribe to the extent that economists choose to have it affect their behaviour.

Efficient knowledge and information transfer within as well as across organizational boundaries are of a proven importance for survival and growth of firms. At the same time, however, on the one hand, knowledge available within organizations is not always used to its full capacity, at times at the considerable detriment of organizations involved. Furthermore, on the other hand, despite the recognized importance of an efficient interorganizational knowledge transfer, many collaborations have not delivered on their promises. Merges and acquisitions deals, for instance, are prone to fail. The goal of this article is to propose and illustrate a conceptual argument why knowledge and information transfer that crosses departmental and firm boundaries, and in doing so often also domain or disciplinary boundaries, is challenging.

The 2008 crisis has highlighted the need for a more active industrial policy, and the lockdown and the collapse of supply chains due to the 2020 pandemic only reinforced this process. In this chapter, we show that the effectiveness of practical industrial policy solutions requires taking into account their geographical and sectoral aspects. Of particular importance are activities in the area of R&D support policy, which not only contribute to increased competitiveness of industry, but also determine the possibility of its transformation toward climate neutrality, especially in the renewable energy sector. We are well aware of the potential threats associated with the spending of public funds as they may interfere with the free market, but with an appropriate industrial policy these actions are likely to have more beneficial than potential negative effects. Taking into account the areas where firms source their inputs and the areas where they sell their products and services (they may do both locally and globally), we propose categorizing firms into four groups or cells. For each category, we propose a catalog of industrial policy tools. In our opinion, only actions that reflect the specificity of firms stand a chance of delivering the planned results. We suggest a generic way, from an institutional economic point of view, to analyse government policy in general and industrial policy in particular.

The Stage-Gate process is a tool used by innovation managers to rationalize resource allocation the innovation process by breaking the innovation process into different stages, and determining progress and prospects at gates using pre-determined criteria. This study determines the performance impact of investing financial resources relatively heavily in the front-end or early stages of new product development (NPD) projects. Data was collected for NPD projects for one of the largest consumer electronics firms in the world. Investing relative more resources in front-end activities positively affects performance. The degree of newness of an NPD project positively moderates this relationship.

PurposeAll firms' business models are based on their interdependencies with other parties in their ecosystems. The Internet of Things (IoT) is beginning to fundamentally disrupt the agri-food industry, forcing the ecosystem to change. When an ecosystem is transforming, the interdependencies among its actors can create friction. Technology providers and core actors should consider these interdependencies as they update their strategies for value creation and capture. The purpose of the present research is to consider what it might take for agri-food firms to capitalize on these interdependencies by moving from traditional business models to business models based on collaboration and open innovation.Design/methodology/approachThe present paper draws on data from four online focus groups that we created to discuss how to co-create the business models agri-food firms need in a constantly changing environment. The paper presents an application of phenomenon-driven research (PDR), an engaged methodology. The study method enables novel pathways to develop and implement innovative solutions. This study draws on the interaction of theory and practice and involves multiple stakeholders with varying roles in the agri-food ecosystem.FindingsThe authors found that any open innovation setup in agri-food needs to constantly reconfigure itself to balance the needs of farmers and the needs of the market. This interplay can only support the IoT-enabled ecosystem if continuous interaction and negotiation occur among various stakeholders of the food system. When the farmers' needs and the market's needs are aligned, the space for developing a collaborative and open business model is prepared.Originality/valueThe insights gained from this study inspire action and commitment to common goals when developing collaboration-based business models (CBMs). The paper offers insights for players in the agri-food industry who are considering CBMs in the course of digital transformation.

This Special Issue presents the seven best papers from the 30th IFAMA 2020 World Congress, reflecting the richness and quality of the agri-food business and management scholarship that IFAMA facilitates and promotes. They reveal the diversity of research topics and current practices related to the most pressing agri-food business and management issues. Whether the papers discuss vegetable producers cooperatives in Cambodia, innovation intermarries and enhancing collaboration in Sweden, or information nudges in ornamental plant labeling in the United States, the papers in this Special Issue illustrate the need for variegated professional and academic skills and expertise represented in IFAMA.