After the endorsement of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011, 15 March 2024 marked another milestone for transnational corporate governance. That day, a qualified majority of the member states of the European Union (EU) voted in favour of the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) setting human rights and environmental obligations for large companies in their global value chains.1 The CSDDD is the first region-wide due diligence legislation, yet it is also a political compromise among EU member states, which civil society and business have been watching closely. This piece explains the main elements of the CSDDD and outlines some of its implications beyond the EU.

The social welfare function (SWF) framework converts the possible outcomes of governmental policy choice into vectors (lists) of interpersonally comparable well-being numbers, measuring the lifetime well-being of each individual in the population of interest. The SWF proper is a rule for ranking these vectors. The utilitarian SWF adds up well-being numbers. A prioritarian SWF adds up well-being numbers plugged into a strictly increasing and strictly concave transformation function. Governmental policies are conceptualized as probability distributions over well-being vectors. A recent literature applies the SWF framework to health policy. This article first provides a brief overview of the SWF framework and then reviews some of the key concepts and findings that have emerged from this literature. One such concept is the “social value of risk reduction” (SVRR): the marginal social value (as calculated by the SWF) per unit of reduction in fatality risk for a given individual. The SVRR is the analogue, within the SWF framework, to the value-of-statistical-life (VSL) concept within benefit–cost analysis. This article explicates the SVRR concept and reports on recent theoretical findings and simulations that illustrate the properties of utilitarian and prioritarian SVRRs and their differences from VSL.

The business and human rights (BHR) framework has regularly been considered the superior legal regime of corporate accountability for business-related human rights abuses, which must be both protected from and incorporated into investment treaties. However, investment treaties have surpassed the BHR framework in an important respect: certain investment treaties impose strict international legal obligations, including human rights-related obligations, directly on investors, thereby going beyond the normatively ambiguous corporate responsibility to respect. Investment treaty reform initiatives, including those seeking to align investment treaties with the BHR agenda, should, therefore, take care to avoid inadvertently undoing this advance towards investors’ legal accountability.

While nonspeech communication and “metaphorical” silence (in opposition to voice) have benefited from a considerable academic attention, less is known about quiet environments and the intentional practice of silence. We theorize these silences as potential catalysts of internal and collective reflection. Such silences can strongly impact individual and organizational processes and outcomes, notably in the workplace. The meaning, valence, and effects of these silences are highly context- and perspective-dependent. By characterizing and studying these silences and their effects, we show how they are functional or dysfunctional to individuals or organizations. These silences can notably serve as emotion regulators and generate an environment favorable to individual and collective decision making. Examining what is lost by individuals and organizations due to a lack of these silence and what can be gained with a better harnessing of their power is promising.

We highlight an important but overlooked characteristic of financial fragility: “Fragile” stocks command higher liquidity. This reduces their sensitivity to corporate actions with price impact and affects the firms’ incentives to engage in such actions. We show that fragile firms have lower share repurchases, issue more equity, and invest more. We establish causality by relating changes in corporate actions to exogenous changes in fragility induced by mergers of asset managers. Our results suggest that financial fragility has direct but unexpected real implications for corporate actions.

The American craft beer industry’s creation narrative is rooted in countercultural food politics. Popular stories describe how plucky brewers pioneered complex and hoppy beers that revolutionized a bland American beer industry dominated by industrial lagers. Hops are now the most celebrated ingredient in the craft beer industry and serve as visual representations of the artisanal and revolutionary values of small brewers that contrasts with the industrial and bland products of the nation’s massive lager brewers. The history of hops and brewing presented here, however, demonstrates the connections between big and small brewers and the environmental impacts of craft brewers’ hoppy beers otherwise obscured by their preferred dichotomous narrative. Craft beer grew in tandem with the modern hop industry and became enmeshed with big business and industrial agricultural practices to access their signature commodity, hops. By integrating environmental and business history, this article explores how brewers, scientists, farmers, and nonhumans influenced each other to create the modern craft brewing industry. This approach demonstrates the often-obscured connections between big and small firms by examining the environments, organisms, and supply chains they depend upon.