Search

Aquaculture products are presently becoming a crucial part of consumers' diets. However, asymmetric information regarding farmed fish exposes consumers to ambiguity and often makes them confused. Therefore, this study aims to ascertain the levels of ambiguity tolerance (AT) and confusion avoidance (CA) related to farmed fish and to test if consumers' AT and CA influence their purchase intent (PI) of such fish. The impact of demographics on consumers' CA and AT is also explored. The data were obtained through a survey conducted on a randomly selected sample of 1053 households who either purchase and have purchased fish. The collected data were analyzed employing explorative factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and a simple regression model. The study demonstrates that AT had a positive and significant impact on the PI of farmed fish, and also reduced CA. However, the current high level of CA does not influence the PI of farmed fish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does Prado and Hoffman's concept of an international institutional bypass have explanatory force when applied to transnational non-state regulation? Drawing on three cases studies (Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, Equator Principles, ISEAL Alliance), this article submits the concept to a rigorous test. Specifically, it asks whether these three transnational regulatory regimes would count as international institutional bypasses according to the concept's six requirements. More importantly, it considers whether the concept illuminates—or fails to illuminate—the distinctive features of these institutions. This exercise demonstrates the explanatory power of the concept, but it also identifies some important vulnerabilities—the most important of which is the concept's attempt to eliminate the possibility of normative conflict among competing legal orders. This vulnerability can be corrected, but it requires a greater theoretical tolerance of ambiguity and a willingness to accept and embrace a legal pluralist reality that the concept implicitly disavows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]