Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, EarlyView.

Green innovation has been attracting much attention from academia and practice, but the influence of religion as an important informal institutional factor has not been fully investigated in existing studies. Taking Chinese listed companies from 2008 to 2019 as a sample, this study attempts to examine the relationship between religious atmosphere and corporate green innovation performance. The empirical results indicate that a religious atmosphere (Buddhism and Taoism as a whole) can significantly improve corporate green innovation performance, particularly high-quality green innovation. (...) The positive association between religion and green innovation performance is attenuated by pervasive formal institutions (i.e., environmental regulation), indicating that there is a substitutive effect between religion and formal institutions. We also find that Taoism mainly supports these results, while Buddhism has a limited impact, showing that there is a heterogeneous effect between different religions. We further find that the positive impact of religious atmosphere on green innovation performance is more pronounced in low-governance enterprises and low-polluting industries. This study contributes to research on the antecedents of corporate green innovation and the consequence of religion, which is of great significance to the value of religion in business practice. (shrink)

There is a long-standing debate concerning the eligibility of patients suffering from alcohol-related end-stage liver disease (ARESLD) for deceased donor liver transplantation. The question of retrospective and/or prospective responsibility has been at the center of the ethical discussion. Several authors argue that these patients should at least be regarded as partly responsible for their ARESLD. At the same time, the arguments for retrospective and/or prospective responsibility have been strongly criticized, such that no consensus has been reached. A third option was (...) proposed as a form of compromise, namely that responsibility should only be used as a tiebreaker in liver allocation. The present study provides an ethical investigation of this third option. First, we will provide an overview of the main arguments that have been offered for and against the use of responsibility as an allocation criterion. Second, we will explore the concept of responsibility as a tiebreaker in detail and discuss several types of situations, in which responsibility could be used as a tiebreaker, as well as the main ethical challenges associated with them. As we will show, an ethical justified use of responsibility as a tiebreaker is limited to a very restricted number of cases and is associated with a number of ethical concerns. For this reason, waiting time should be preferred as a tiebreaker in liver allocation, even though the criterion of waiting time, too, raises a number of equity-related concerns. (shrink)