What motivates manufacturing companies to make costly investments in producing in an environmentally clean manner? The traditional argument is that such behaviour is value reducing, and that therefore, firms must be forced by regulation to invest in "green" production processes. A counter-argument is that firms have an incentive to make environmental investments in an attempt to attract "green" consumers and investors, hence gaining competitive advantage over their rivals. In this paper, we employ a game-theoretic approach that demonstrates that competing firms' (...) incentives to make voluntary investments in environmental "clean-up" are affected by the size of the investment costs and the extent of consumer and investor "green" awareness. We argue that an increase in green behaviour can be induced by a combination of governmental subsidies for firms that invest in environmentally clean production processes, together with an education program that promotes "green" awareness amongst consumers, investors and the managers themselves. (shrink)

The pressure on companies to practice corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gained momentum in recent times as a means of sustaining competitive advantage in business. The pharmaceutical industry has been acutely affected by this trend. While pharmaceutical product recalls have become rampant and increased dramatically in recent years, no comprehensive study has been conducted to study the effects of announcements of recalls on the shareholder returns of pharmaceutical companies. As product recalls could significantly damage a company's reputation, profitability and brand (...) integrity, this paper investigates the effect on shareholder wealth and the extent to which the adoption of CSR practices by pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States (U.S.), the two largest markets for pharmaceutical products in the world, affected market reactions surrounding product recall announcements. The analysis of product recall announcements from 1998 to 2004 compiled from The Pharmaceutical Journal and U.S. Food and Drug Administration enforcement reports revealed marked differences in the way market participants in the two countries responded to news of product recalls. U.S. investors penalised firms according to the severity of product defects while U.K. investors were indifferent. While U.K. investors rewarded product recalls by firms which were not usually CSR-active, U.S. investors punished non-CSR active firms that performed recalls. These observations could pose strategic challenges to pharmaceutical firms operating in both countries. (shrink)