Search

The closing of the aging nuclear power plant of Fessenheim was eventually concretized in June 2020 after many years of controversy, reflecting the sensibility of closing nuclear power plants in France, the world's second largest producer of nuclear power. This paper provides insight into how this highly policy vexed issue was discussed on the local level during 2017, a period when the decision regarding the shutdown was still at stake. Here, I examine the discursive strategies mobilized by key actors lobbying for the shutdown or maintenance of the nuclear power plant to enhance their argumentations. Using political discourse analyses combined with the logics approach, the article shows that the argumentation of proponents and advocates of a shutdown is structured around the same concept of sustainability. However, economic growth, social prosperity, and environmental "cautiousness" are not articulated with the same chain of equivalence and do not activate the same fantasmatic logics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the recent past, European states have adopted mandatory due diligence (MDD) laws for holding companies accountable for the environmental and human rights impacts of their supply chains. The institutionalization of the international due diligence norm into domestic legislation has, however, been highly contested. Our contribution analyzes the discursive struggles about the meaning of due diligence that have accompanied the institutionalization of MDD in Germany and France. Based on document analysis and legal analysis of laws and law proposals, we identify a state‐centric, a market‐based, and a polycentric‐governance discourse. These discourses are based on fundamentally different understandings of how the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights should be translated into hard law. By outlining these discourses and comparing the related policy preferences, we contribute with a better understanding of different ways in which MDD is institutionalized, with important consequences for the possibilities to enhance corporate accountability in global supply chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Scottish Government introduced a free Baby Box scheme for all new parents in 2017, modelled on the Finnish scheme, to give every baby 'an equal start in life'. There is little evidence that it results in better health outcomes, but there has been limited research into different perspectives and discourses on such schemes. Methods: Four focus groups were conducted with 21 parents in North‐East Scotland. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, anonymized and analysed thematically with NVivo 12 software. Our thematic analysis was both inductive and deductive—remaining open to themes identified by participants themselves but also informed by the social policy literature on universalism and social cohesion. Results: Across all the focus groups, we found a high degree of positivity about the principle of the Baby Box scheme, and for the most part the practical value of the contents. This was remarkably consistent across different communities and backgrounds. There was little evidence of the strongly polarized views present in media reporting. Parents seemed considerably less focused than the media on safety and health outcomes, and more focused on practical, material and social impacts. They reported little in the way of feeling patronized or monitored by the government. Conclusion: Our findings have important implications for future economic evaluations of the baby box. Such evaluations should broaden the valuation space beyond health outcomes to allow for the value of feelings of inclusion, solidarity and being part of a community. Patient or Public Contribution: This small project was designed in response to parent views already collected in the early roll‐out of the Baby Box scheme in Scotland, about their priorities and responses to the scheme. Additional views were sought on the topic guide for the focus groups, and local community groups advised us on recruitment and the best timing and location for the focus groups to be held. The focus groups themselves were conducted as research, but with the intent of ensuring parent views featured more prominently in a debate that has been largely dominated by clinical and public health perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In France, the fosterage of children arriving from war zones is rather marginal and does require the consideration of two major issues: emotions and commitment, both at stake among the foster carers. These issues can be apprehended through the way in which professionals conceive their work, their relationship with the child, but also the singular and specific nature of these children's situation. We, therefore, conducted a qualitative study in the field of Educational Sciences using semi‐structured interviews to gather the experience of 11 foster carers preparing to welcome French children coming from war zones. The analysis of their discourses shows that this exceptional situation reinforces their involvement and their emotional bond. The time devoted to the preparation of the child's reception is precious as it gives meaning to the work, arouses ambivalent emotions and builds an imaginary child. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]