This paper explores the nature of the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and competitiveness. We start with the commonly held view that firm competitiveness is defined by the market. That is, the question of what are the critical competitiveness factors is answered by looking at how companies and financial analysts describe and evaluate a firm. To analyze this, we review the current state of the art on the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Second, CSR criteria used by financial analysts (...) is identified and compared with company valuation methods. Third, the results of a multi-stakeholder dialogue on CSR and competitiveness of the European financial sector are presented. As a conclusion, we argue that CSR and competitiveness relate through a learning and innovation cycle, where corporate values, policies and practices are permanently defined and re-defined. Thus, we propose that learning takes place as CSR is embedded in business processes, and that once it has been integrated, in turn, it generates innovative practices, and finally, competitiveness. At the end of the paper, we propose that CSR in practice consists of managing inherent paradoxes generated by the tension between CSR and business policies. (shrink)

Las nociones epistémicas modales se definen como aquellos conceptos epistémicos que, como el de cognoscibilidad o el de indudabilidad, incluyen una nota modal. Segun se defiende en este trabajo, la semántica de mundos posibles y algunas de sus extensiones (especialmente las llevadas a cabo para logica temporal, logica epistemica y logica condicional) son instrumentos adecuados para deshacer el nudo de las intensionalidades superpuestas en estas nociones especialmente esquivas al análisis. Para mostrarlo, se proporcionan una serie de análisis sucesivos de la (...) nocion de cognoscibilidad que a partir de una interpretación naif van salvando una serie de presuposiciones, problemas y paradojas hasta dar con una analisis que se presume satisfactorio.“Modal epistemic notions” are those epistemic concepts which in some way or another has a modal element. These modal epistemic notions, although they could appear intuitively clear, they turn out to be particularly obscure, slippery, when one subjects them to a formal analysis. In this paper we will try to show that possible world semantics (and its extensions for epistemic, temporal and conditional logic) is an appropriate instrument for the explanation ofthese notions. Four successive analysis of the notion of “knowability” are given, ranging from a naive account to an analysis that gets to the bottom ofthe problem. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Working with Patience:An Insight into Dealing with Difficult EmotionsDavid VilanovaAs the most trusted professionals in the nation, nurses are expected to care for their patients with empathy and freedom from bias. The reality is that nurses are human, and some form of implicit bias is inevitable. In my own experience, this issue has reared its head on several occasions. My nursing background is prominently in cardiac and intensive care. (...) Seeing patients at their most vulnerable has become a regular part of my practice. Among some of the most challenging cases for me have been when I assume care of a patient withdrawing from alcohol. As an adult child with close alcoholic family members, many instances of abuse and pain stick with me today and these are brought to the surface when I care for patients with alcohol use disorder. In most cases, I easily find a healthy balance between remaining an understanding-and-empathetic provider and protecting my emotional and mental health as I navigate ethical and moral issues. However, with this patient population, walking that fine line is especially challenging. How do I navigate and manage intensely personal emotions and biases while providing the high-quality care I vowed to deliver regardless of my patient's life choices, addictions, and illnesses? How do I maintain an appropriate level of neutrality and clarity as this patient's behavior and attitude spark emotional triggers? In other words, how do I take care of someone I don't like?Mrs. H was a middle-aged Hispanic woman, barely coherent, but speaking clearly enough that I could understand her slurred speech. Immediate dread washed over me as I realized my assignment included a patient withdrawing from alcohol. The patient's affect, incoherence, and aggression were all too reminiscent of a traumatic past I still work to heal from. My coworkers couldn't understand her insults and obscenities and were therefore unphased except for noting her unruly and erratic behavior. On the other hand, I could understand much of what she was yelling at me and any other staff who bravely walked into her room. My immediate thoughts were that this woman clearly did not want our help. My every attempt to enter her room, speak with her, and provide care were met with an all too familiar rejection and denial that she even had a problem. Yet here she was in a hospital room, and I was her nurse. She verbalized denial of drinking too much when told that she was being treated for alcohol withdrawal. She stated this denial more to herself than to the health care providers in the room, and it was reminiscent of the denial I have seen in my loved ones. This was ironic, I always thought, as the need for such self-deception in and of itself points to the fact that something may be wrong and worth addressing.But denial or not, today, this patient—Mrs. H, was entrusted into my care. She refused treatments and medications, and this put me in a complex ethical predicament—treating a patient that I do not like for the personal issues she reminds me of, and the treatment of a patient against their refusal, as she was deemed incapable of making her own decisions. The latter of these two issues was easiest to put aside. Legally, this patient needed to be treated through her alcohol withdrawal. Once her mental status cleared up, she could sign out against medical advice or choose to remain until a safe discharge plan was in place. There was a protocol and legal guidelines for this situation. However, no guidelines [End Page 10] truly exist when it comes to the management of a patient that you simply do not like. The result can be a near-instantaneous dread each time you must answer that patient's bed alarm, call light, or most basic needs. A negative bias takes over, and it would be an understatement to say that this affects the quality of care. Patients in situations like this—with providers who judge them as I have been guilty of—can easily become subject to derogatory remarks, health inequities, and biased labeling... (shrink)

1. Le fe por la palabra -- 2. Topía y Utopía -- 3. Luz en la caverna.

El propósito de este artículo es mostrar las diferencia entre las verdades lógicas y el resto de verdades analíticas, y en especial mostrar los distintos tratamientos formales.

Pritchard sostiene que la condición de habilidad y la condición de seguridad le imponen demandas independientes al conocimiento, i.e., que la satisfacción de una no implica la satisfacción de la otra y que, por lo tanto, ninguna de ellas es suficiente por sí misma para ofrecer una caracterización adecuada de esta noción. Argumento, por el contrario, que no hay buenas razones para pensar que la condición de seguridad es insuficiente. Empleando algunos conceptos de Greco y Pritchard y Kallestrup para caracterizar (...) a las habilidades cognitivas y el caso del mentiroso consistente de Lackey, argumento que TEMP, el caso clave de Pritchard para mostrar que puede haber seguridad sin habilidad, no funciona porque el proceso cognitivo relevante constituye una realización legítima, aunque anómala, de una habilidad. Pritchard maintains that the ability and the safety conditions impose independent demands on knowledge, i.e., that satisfying only one of them is not sufficient to acquire knowledge. I argue that there are no good reasons to suppose that the safety condition is not sufficient. I claim that TEMP, the key case proposed by Pritchard to show that there can be safety without ability, fails because therelevant cognitive process constitutes a legitimate, although anomalous, realization of a cognitive ability. (shrink)

Tras una breve presentación / explicación de la noción de similaridad intermundana que se utiliza en lógica condicional, se explican cuatro nociones intuitivas, pre-teóricas, de similaridad, así como las implicaciones formales que posee su adopción como correlato informal para la noción técnica de similaridad entre mundos: parecido entre objetos, magnitud del cambio, semejanza estructural, y probabilidad / posibilidad de eventos. Por ultimo, se retoman dos problemas tradicionales de la lógica condicional a la luz de los conceptos recién definidos: la asunción (...) de unicidad (vinculada al tercio excluso condicional), y el principio de comparabilidad (vinculada al principio de monotonía racional). (shrink)

En este artículo se examinan críticamente dos propuestas de solución a losargumentos escépticos, la del Wittgenstein de “Sobre la Certeza” y la másreciente de Crispin Wright, y se propone una alternativa. Tras describir losaspectos positivos de ambas propuestas, se las acusa de un defecto que lasinvalida, al que se denomina “fundamentalismo” (básicamente, el de no permitirla revisión de los sistemas epistémicos) y se propone una estrategia desolución del problema.

In this paper I critically evaluate the Implicit Definition Theory and its possibility of resolution of two main problems concerning logical knowledge: the explication and the justification. I point at five results that can be obtained: apriority, factuality, normativity applicability and non-circularity. I argue that in case of explication all mentioned results can be obtained but in case of justification the circularity is inevitable. In the last paragraph I propose a solution of this problem.

En este trabajo se evalúa críticamente el papel de la Teoría de las Definiciones Implícitas en la resolución de dos problemas en torno al conocimiento de la lógica: el problema de la explicación, y el problema de la justificación. Se fijan cinco resultados a alcanzar: aprioricidad, factualismo, normatividad, aplicabilidad y no circularidad viciosa. Se argumentará que, aunque dichos resultados se pueden alcanzar respecto al problema de la explicación, no se evita la circularidad viciosa en el problema de la justificación.

Se examina el problema de la circularidad argumental en la fundamentación del conocimiento desde la teoría de la argumentación. Los argumentos dirigidos a probar que sabemos son sospechosos de dos falacias: petición de principio y apelación a la ignorancia. Se examinan las definiciones clásicas de ambas falacias y se dictamina que bajo tales definiciones los argumentos fundamentadores serían falaces. A continuación se proporcionan nuevas definiciones de ambas falacias, más acordes con el trabajo reciente en teoría de la argumentación y se (...) sostiene que, bajo estas definiciones, no todos los argumentos fundamentadores son falaces. In this paper I examine the problem of circularity in the justification of knowledge from the point of view of argumentation theory. I introduce the expression founding argument for the arguments we use to try to prove that we know, and explain the classical account of the two fallacies that may be committed: ad ignorantiam and petitio principii. A new definition of both fallacies, based on recent work in the theory of argumentation, is used to show that not every founding argument is fallacious. (shrink)

Fitch´s problem and the "knowability paradox" involve a couple of argumentations that are to each other in the same relation as Cantor´s uncollected multitudes theorem and Russell´s paradox. The authors exhibit the logical nature of the theorem and of the paradox and show their philosophical import, both from an anti-realist and from a realist perspective. In particular, the authors discuss an anti-realist solution to Fitch´s problem and provide an anti-realist interpretation of the problematic statement "It is knowable that r is (...) known and yet unknown". Then, it is argued that the knowability paradox has a solution even if one adopts a realist point of view. The authors provide a solution that takes into account the ambiguity of the term 'knowability' by deploying a temporal possible world semantics for epistemic modalities. (shrink)