Author Archives: support

New data shows AI uses less energy than expected

Recent analysis suggests that the environmental impact of artificial intelligence is less significant than many assume, and in some cases, AI may even deliver ecological and economic benefits. A new study challenges the prevailing belief that rapid AI growth inevitably leads to a significant increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the authors argue that AI’s overall contribution to global energy demand is modest, and that its potential to support cleaner technologies could outweigh its direct energy use.

The research, undertaken by teams at the University of Waterloo and the Georgia Institute of Technology, assessed the scale of energy consumption associated with AI within the United States. To do this, the researchers combined detailed economic data with estimates of AI adoption across sectors. By modelling how AI-driven automation might expand over the coming years, they aimed to understand the broader effects on energy demand and emissions. Their approach treated AI as part of the wider economic system, rather than isolating it as a standalone technology, allowing them to capture its indirect influences on productivity and energy use.

A key finding of the study is that, although AI in the United States consumes an amount of electricity comparable to Iceland’s total energy use, this still represents only a tiny fraction of national and global energy consumption. The U.S. economy remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels—around 83 per cent of national energy demand is met by petroleum, coal, and natural gas. Against this backdrop, the additional electricity required to power AI systems barely registers globally. However, the researchers emphasise that this does not mean the impact is uniform. AI-related energy use is concentrated in regions where data centres are located, and these areas may face significant local grid pressures.

Dr Juan Moreno-Cruz of the University of Waterloo notes that local communities hosting data centres could experience a doubling of electricity demand, particularly in areas where power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels. While the national impact remains minimal, these local effects warrant careful attention, as they may lead to increased emissions and strain on infrastructure. The researchers also note that their work did not examine these local economic and environmental dynamics in detail, highlighting an area for future study.

Despite these concerns, the study offers a more optimistic viewpoint for those worried that AI represents a new and unavoidable source of carbon emissions. The authors argue that AI can play a constructive role in advancing environmental progress. It has the potential to accelerate the development of green technologies, improve energy efficiency, optimise industrial processes, and support climate modelling and mitigation strategies. Rather than viewing AI as inherently damaging, the researchers suggest that its broader benefits outweigh its direct energy requirements when deployed responsibly.

To deepen their understanding, the authors plan to extend their analysis to other countries, recognising that the effects of AI adoption will vary depending on national energy systems and economic structures. Countries with cleaner electricity grids may see even lower environmental impacts from AI growth, while those reliant on coal or gas may face more significant challenges. By comparing different regional contexts, future research could provide a more comprehensive picture of AI’s global environmental footprint.

Overall, the study invites a more measured and evidence-based discussion of AI’s environmental role. While acknowledging that localised impacts matter, it challenges the notion that AI poses a significant threat to climate goals. Instead, it proposes that AI could become an essential tool in the transition to a more sustainable future—provided its growth is managed with foresight and attention to regional conditions.

More information: Anthony Harding et al, Watts and bots: the energy implications of AI adoption, Environmental Research Letters. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ae0e3b

Journal information: Environmental Research Letters Provided by University of Waterloo

Researchers uncover £90K ‘golden threshold’ for crowdfunding triumph

Leave a Reply

A new study from the University of East Anglia (UEA) has shed light on what motivates investors to back start-ups through crowdfunding. Drawing on data from more than 1,000 successful campaigns hosted on the investment platform Seedrs, the researchers set out to identify which elements most strongly influence the amount of money raised. The findings point to a delicate balance of financial realism, persuasive language, and team composition that determines whether a campaign captures investor interest or fails to gain momentum. Their analysis suggests that success in crowdfunding is not random but built upon a combination of credible targets, transparent offers, and emotionally resonant messaging.

One of the most striking revelations is the existence of a £90,000 “sweet spot” for funding targets. According to the research, campaigns that aimed to raise around this amount were significantly more likely to succeed than those that set higher goals. Investors appeared to perceive £90,000 as an attainable figure that indicated both ambition and realism. In contrast, projects seeking substantially more were often viewed with scepticism, perhaps because such targets imply unrealistic expectations or heightened risk. This “sweet spot” acts as a psychological threshold, balancing investor enthusiasm with confidence in the entrepreneur’s ability to deliver results. By pitching within this range, start-ups position themselves as both promising and pragmatic.

The percentage of equity offered in return for investment emerged as another critical factor. Campaigns that offered a higher equity share attracted greater interest, whereas those with lower offers deterred investors. This finding runs counter to earlier research that suggested offering too much equity signals weakness or desperation. Professor Peter Moffatt, co-author of the study and Professor of Econometrics at UEA, explained that equity levels send an essential message about how much entrepreneurs value external investors. If a company offers too little equity, it might appear to undervalue the role of backers or suggest that the business’s self-assessment is overly inflated. In contrast, a higher equity percentage may signal transparency and partnership, giving investors the sense that their contribution is genuinely significant to the venture’s success.

Language was also shown to have a measurable effect on funding outcomes. The study found that pitches using terms such as “health,” “healthy,” and “organic” were notably more successful, whereas those using words like “entertainment” or “information” tended to perform poorly. This indicates that investors may be drawn to sectors they perceive as socially valuable, sustainable, or aligned with personal well-being. Words that evoke positive associations, ethical responsibility, or long-term societal benefits appear to create a deeper emotional connection. Such language not only conveys a business’s mission but also influences how trustworthy and forward-thinking it seems to potential backers. In essence, carefully chosen phrasing can subtly shift a campaign’s appeal from merely interesting to genuinely investable.

Team size proved to be another decisive factor. The researchers found that around 19 team members offered the best balance between expertise and manageability. Smaller teams often struggled with limited skills or capacity, while huge groups risked conflict and inefficiency. This optimum number suggests that diversity of talent and competence is attractive to investors, but only when combined with cohesion and clarity of leadership. A well-structured team signals reliability and preparedness, qualities that are essential when individuals are deciding where to place their money. Investors tend to view strong collaboration and balanced expertise as indicators of stability, making team composition a critical yet often overlooked component of crowdfunding success.

The study, conducted in collaboration with the University of Manchester and published in the Bulletin of Economic Research, analysed 1,189 campaigns. The researchers collected data on each campaign’s target amount, funds raised, equity offered, team size, and language choice in the one-paragraph project description. Using advanced econometric methods, they identified the variables most closely associated with successful fundraising outcomes. Their findings offer valuable insights for entrepreneurs seeking to refine their crowdfunding strategies. By setting realistic financial goals, offering investors a meaningful stake, using persuasive yet authentic language, and building balanced teams, start-ups can significantly improve their chances of securing investment. The study underscores that while innovation remains essential, clarity, strategy, and communication are equally powerful tools in transforming an idea into a fully funded enterprise.

More information: Xuerui Ma et al, Determinants of Amount Raised in Equity Crowdfunding Campaigns: An Application of Truncated Regression, Bulletin of Economic Research. DOI: 10.1111/boer.70015

Journal information: Bulletin of Economic Research Provided by University of East Anglia

When Technology Feels Like Magic, It Becomes Easier to Accept

Leave a Reply

It is commonly assumed that people who are confident with technology are the ones most eager to adopt artificial intelligence. However, recent research published in the Journal of Marketing challenges this view. The study, led by Stephanie Tully, Chiara Longoni, and Gil Appel, finds that consumers with lower levels of AI understanding are actually more willing to use AI-powered tools. Rather than analysing how the systems work, they tend to experience AI as something wondrous and almost magical, which encourages curiosity and openness rather than hesitation.

When AI is presented as capable of producing results beyond ordinary human effort—such as creating expressive art, writing poetry, or offering compassionate support—less tech-savvy users feel a sense of awe. Tully explains that limited AI knowledge does not necessarily lead to mistrust; instead, it can create space for fascination. Those who know less about how the systems operate are often more excited to explore them. In contrast, consumers who understand AI more deeply tend to approach it with a critical eye. Longoni notes that greater technical literacy often brings attention to AI’s limitations and ethical risks, which can slow down adoption.

The implications of this pattern are significant for companies and communicators promoting AI-driven products. Tools that emphasise creativity, emotional resonance, or seemingly extraordinary abilities are particularly appealing to users who are less familiar with the underlying technology. Highlighting these capabilities can make AI feel accessible and inspiring. At the same time, the researchers caution against overselling AI’s power. If marketing leans too heavily into the idea of magic, it can lead to disappointment or mistrust when users encounter real constraints. Appel stresses that honesty and clarity are essential to maintaining credibility while still encouraging enthusiasm.

The study also points to a broader challenge: how to increase public understanding of AI without diminishing the curiosity that drives early engagement. The researchers suggest that education need not eliminate wonder. Instead, thoughtful communication can help people appreciate the real possibilities of AI while still recognising its limits. In this balance between excitement and awareness lies the path to responsible, sustainable adoption.

More information: Stephanie Tully et al, Lower Artificial Intelligence Literacy Predicts Greater AI Receptivity, Journal of Marketing. DOI: 10.1177/00222429251314491

Journal information: Journal of Marketing Provided by American Marketing Association

Gaps in the Literature: The Minimised Dangers of Multi-Level Marketing Schemes

Leave a Reply

Many people continue to be persuaded by new versions of network marketing and multi-level marketing schemes, even when these organisations closely resemble pyramid structures. The promise is nearly always the same. Individuals are encouraged to believe they can earn an excellent income by selling specialised products or joining a unique business opportunity. Yet the model usually depends less on selling products and more on recruiting new members, creating a system in which only a very small number of people at the top have any real chance of profit. Two researchers, Claudia Groß from Radboud University and William Keep from the College of New Jersey, have examined how these business models are treated in academic writing. They found that many scholarly publications, especially in marketing, describe MLMs in surprisingly favourable terms. Their findings, published in the Journal of Marketing Management, raise questions about why risks are often downplayed.

Companies such as Herbalife and Tupperware are commonly associated with this sales approach. The way people are recruited has changed in recent years, particularly through social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Influencers and online mentors now present MLM involvement as a path to financial freedom, personal development or entrepreneurial success. They may promote online trading, dropshipping, or expensive coaching programmes. The marketing is usually polished and highly persuasive, presenting stories of dramatic success and independence. However, most participants do not earn a significant income. In fact, many lose funds by purchasing products they cannot sell or by investing in training or advertising that yields little return. Groß warns that young people are especially vulnerable, as they may be unfamiliar with how business models work and easily impressed by glamorous online lifestyles.

Groß and Keep reviewed both legal and marketing scholarship to understand how academics discuss MLMs. From the legal publications they examined, they noted that the risks of MLMs are clearly recognised. These works often describe misleading income promises, the structural similarity to pyramid schemes, and the financial disadvantage most participants face. A recurring point is that profit mainly comes from recruiting new members rather than from selling products, making the system unsustainable for the majority. Legal studies also highlight the questionable claims sometimes made about the products themselves, such as supplements claimed to cure serious illnesses. These legal analyses make clear that MLMs can create financial harm, spread misinformation, and exploit trust.

However, the marketing research they reviewed told a very different story. Many marketing articles presented MLMs in a positive light, focusing on themes such as personal growth, empowerment, and potential earnings. Instead of addressing financial losses, structural problems or misleading statements, these publications often emphasised success stories or motivational aspects. Some papers even included claims that appeared to minimise the risk or dismiss the typical pattern of financial failure. This contrast between legal and marketing scholarship was striking. It suggested not only a difference in research focus but also in tone, interpretation, and underlying assumptions about what MLMs represent and how they affect participants.

Groß and Keep found a likely explanation for this difference. Out of the 68 marketing publications they reviewed, 40 had direct ties to the MLM industry. This included research funded by lobbying organisations or authors who held fellowships or advisory positions with groups that promote direct selling. Although the exact nature of these connections was not always clearly described, the links were significant enough to suggest that industry influence may shape how MLMs are presented in academic writing. The researchers argue that this influence can create a misleading impression that MLMs are safer, more profitable, or more empowering than they actually are, especially for the majority who lose money. This situation resembles past cases in other industries, such as the tobacco industry’s use of sponsored research to downplay health risks.

The concern raised by Groß and Keep is not only about MLMs themselves, but about how financial interests can shape academic research. Suppose marketing scholarship repeatedly promotes a positive view of MLMs while legal scholarship highlights the harm. In that case, it becomes difficult for the public, policymakers and potential recruits to gain a clear understanding of the real risks involved. Industry influence makes it easier for MLM companies to claim legitimacy and to argue that no additional regulation is required. As a result, harmful practices can continue with limited oversight. The researchers suggest that greater transparency in funding, more independent studies, and stronger consumer education are needed to prevent vulnerable individuals from being misled. Their work invites readers to question not only the promises of MLMs, but also the sources that appear to endorse them.

More information: Claudia Groß et al, The law and consumer harm in multi-level marketing: a review, Journal of Marketing Management. DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2025.2578617

Journal information: Journal of Marketing Management Provided by Radboud University Nijmegen

Research reveals ethical fallout from inflating prices on basic necessities

Leave a Reply

When companies raise the prices of necessities such as staple foods, prescription drugs, or medical devices, they may see their profits rise quickly. Yet the gain can come with a cost that is less visible but more enduring. The research proposed by Margaret C. Campbell at UC Riverside demonstrates that when people depend on something essential and then feel priced out of it, they do not respond only with frustration or disappointment. Instead, they experience the situation as a kind of harm, because access to these goods is tied to health, dignity, and daily functioning. When consumers feel that a company has knowingly profited from their vulnerability, the company’s reputation suffers in a way that can last for many years and ultimately become more damaging than any short-term revenue boost.

The study highlights that consumers do not evaluate prices for essential items with the same logic they might apply to non-essential goods. For luxury items or those seen as optional, people may accept high prices as part of market dynamics. But when the product in question is necessary for physical well-being or basic participation in society, such as hearing aids, insulin, eyeglasses, or lifesaving allergy devices, the emotional stakes are entirely different. Campbell explains that consumers look at such pricing not only in economic terms but also in moral ones. They ask themselves whether the company is being fair. If they conclude that the company is taking advantage of their need, they will often withdraw their goodwill and avoid future purchases, even if doing so inconveniences them. In effect, the firm loses trust, and once lost, it is difficult to regain.

One of the most significant ideas to emerge from the research is what Campbell and her colleagues call the “moral harm model of price fairness.” Across eight controlled experiments involving more than 3,000 participants, the researchers examined how people infer harm from prices that limit access to essential goods. To capture this response, they developed a measure called “inferred harm,” which represents the psychological and emotional costs consumers feel when they believe someone is being prevented from accessing something necessary. The idea is that the price itself becomes a sign of how a company views human need: as either something to respect or something to exploit. This does not require the company to be intentionally cruel; consumers may still feel the effect even when the company insists it is merely following standard market logic.

The study also found that consumers view not only price increases as unfair but also situations where companies fail to lower prices when their production costs fall. This was demonstrated in an experiment involving eyeglasses. When participants were told that the cost of producing the glasses had decreased but the company continued charging the same amount, many interpreted the pricing as unethical, even though the company had not raised its price. The moral element became even stronger when the hypothetical retailer served low-income communities. The idea that a company could reduce harm but chose not to do so deepened the sense of wrongdoing. This demonstrates that fairness is not only about the amount charged but also about what consumers believe the company could have done differently.

Interestingly, the research shows that consumers are not opposed to pricing differences when they believe those differences support fairness rather than undermine it. In one experiment, participants who were placed in the role of retailers chose to lower prices for vulnerable customers, even at personal cost. In another, participants viewed senior discounts positively, even when it resulted in slightly higher prices for others, including themselves. These responses suggest that consumers are not simply looking for the lowest price; instead, they are looking for signs that the company recognises human need and is willing to act with care. When companies act in ways that demonstrate sensitivity to vulnerability, they strengthen trust. When they act in ways that disregard it, they weaken the social contract that allows businesses to function sustainably.

Campbell notes that these ideas map onto real-life controversies such as the pricing of insulin and the dramatic price increase of the EpiPen several years ago. When the price of a two-pack of EpiPens rose from $100 to $600, public response was immediate and fierce, prompting media scrutiny, lawsuits, and congressional hearings. The company eventually introduced a lower-cost generic version to ease the backlash, but the reputational damage had already been done. The lesson, according to Campbell, is that pricing is not just about numbers or market calculations. When the product is essential and the price affects people’s well-being, consumers see the decision through an ethical lens. If they believe a company is causing harm or failing to prevent it when it easily could, they will turn away. Ultimately, fairness in pricing is not only a financial matter. It is a reflection of values, and values are remembered far longer than price tags.

More information: Margaret C Campbell et al, Painful Prices: The Moral Harm Model of Price Fairness, Journal of Consumer Research. DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucaf045

Journal information: Journal of Consumer Research Provided by University of California – Riverside

Firms that offload assets before acquiring new ones gain an average shareholder uplift of $234 million, research shows

Leave a Reply

Companies that sell parts of their businesses to raise money for upcoming acquisitions tend to secure better deals and stronger investor backing, according to recent research from the University of Surrey. The study, which appears in The Journal of Financial Research, shows that firms which divest major assets before purchasing another company are more likely to use cash to complete the deal. This matters because investors consistently respond more favourably to acquisitions funded by clear and deliberate cash sources than to those financed by debt, internal reserves, or new share issues. The findings suggest that how an acquisition is financed carries signals about management intentions and the quality of decision-making, which shareholders closely monitor.

The research analysed more than 21,000 acquisition announcements made by US companies between 1990 and 2019. This large dataset allowed the authors to study patterns that hold across different industries, economic cycles and market conditions. One striking result was that firms that had recently sold sizeable assets were 26 per cent more likely to complete a takeover entirely in cash than firms that did not sell first. These companies also enjoyed significantly more positive market reactions at the time of the announcement. On average, the increase in share price added $234 million in value to the typical firm that had sold assets before its acquisition. In other words, the market did not simply approve of the purchase itself, but seemed to reward the strategic preparation that enabled it.

A key explanation for this effect is how investors interpret the source of financing. Cash raised from selling an asset is seen as direct, transparent and purposeful. It indicates that the firm has taken time to evaluate what it owns, to decide what no longer contributes to its long-term direction, and to reallocate capital to where it can produce more value. By contrast, funding a takeover through debt can raise concerns about future financial strain, while issuing new shares can dilute existing shareholders’ stakes. Using internal reserves may also be viewed as stretching the company too thin. When the money comes from divestment, however, the funding appears cleaner and more disciplined, reassuring investors that management is acting with clear strategic priorities rather than with opportunism or pressure.

The study also addresses a significant misconception. Selling parts of a business can sometimes signal weakness or retrenchment, especially if a company appears to be shrinking its scope. However, in the context of preparing for a well-targeted acquisition, divestment is interpreted quite differently. Investors view this sequence of actions as evidence of careful planning. It signals that the company is pruning its portfolio to build a more coherent, valuable shape, rather than either unquestioningly expanding or clinging to legacy units that no longer fit. The sale is therefore not a retreat, but a step taken to clear space and free resources for stronger, more promising opportunities.

Dr Christos Mavrovitis, Senior Lecturer in Finance and Accounting at the University of Surrey and a co-author of the study, summarises the strategic message clearly. He argues that how companies finance acquisitions speaks volumes about their approach to growth. Selling assets to fund a purchase shows that management is prepared to make hard decisions to focus the organisation and strengthen its future performance. It demonstrates a willingness to let go of underperforming or strategically misplaced parts of the business to invest in areas with greater potential. This mindset, he suggests, is what the market recognises and rewards, because it reflects thoughtful stewardship rather than impulsive expansion.

Taken together, the findings reveal that the sequence of corporate actions surrounding an acquisition can shape investor reactions just as powerfully as the acquisition itself. Growth achieved through addition alone does not impress the market as much as growth undertaken with selective refinement in advance. When firms demonstrate that they are actively shaping their identity, focusing on what matters and redirecting resources towards opportunities that align with their goals, investors respond with trust and confidence. The uplift in shareholder value observed in the study is therefore not merely a financial coincidence, but a reflection of broader market approval for disciplined strategic thinking.

More information: Christos Mavrovitis et al, Selling to buy: Asset sales, acquisition financing,and value creation, The Journal of Financial Research. DOI: 10.1111/jfir.70002

Journal information: The Journal of Financial Research Provided by University of Surrey

Hidden arrangements are inflating the cost of 401(k) retirement plans

Leave a Reply

In many workplace retirement schemes, one of the main attractions has been the idea of choice. Employees are typically encouraged to believe they are selecting from a wide range of investment funds tailored to their risk preferences and long-term goals. On average, a 401(k) plan offers about 28 different investment options, which gives the impression of control and personal decision-making. Yet this sense of autonomy can be misleading. Recent academic research suggests that the menu of available funds is not always chosen purely for the benefit of the workers who rely on these plans. Instead, financial arrangements in the background can influence which funds are included.

A key factor behind these hidden influences is the practice known as revenue sharing. In this arrangement, certain investment funds pay fees to the companies that administer retirement plans, known as recordkeepers. These payments make the funds more likely to be offered as options within a plan. In other words, a fund can effectively “buy” visibility. Employees choosing from the list of offerings would have no obvious way to know whether one fund was selected for its payments rather than its performance or cost-effectiveness. This reveals a quiet conflict of interest: the organisation managing the plan has an incentive to allocate funds that pay them, not necessarily those that will give workers the best results over time.

Research conducted by Clemens Sialm of Texas McCombs, along with collaborators Veronika Pool and Irina Stefanescu, examined the 1,000 largest 401(k) plans in the United States over several years. They found that more than half of these plans included at least one fund that shared revenue with the recordkeeper. Not only that, but revenue-sharing funds were significantly more likely to be added to a plan and less likely to be removed, compared with funds that did not offer such payments. This suggests that revenue sharing plays a major role in shaping the line-up of investment options presented to employees. The advisers and administrators may speak of offering a curated menu of strong choices, but the research indicates that financial incentives can play a quiet, persistent role in the background.

The consequences for employees can be substantial, even if they remain unaware of what is happening. Revenue-sharing funds tend to charge higher fees, and these fees come directly out of the employee’s investments. Because part of the fees collected is passed on to recordkeepers, the employee indirectly covers the cost of the compensation. Worse still, the research found that funds engaging in revenue sharing generally deliver lower returns over time. This means that workers may be paying more and earning less simply because their plan administrator chose funds that benefit the recordkeeper rather than the participant. Given that retirement savings compound over decades, even small additional fees can erode a considerable amount of final savings.

Sialm argues that transparency is crucial. Many employees already struggle to understand the fee structures attached to their retirement plans. The problem becomes worse when important information is buried in dense documents or footnotes rather than presented clearly. A difference of just one percentage point in fees, spread over 30 years of contributions and growth, could cost an employee tens of thousands of pounds in their eventual retirement balance. Workers need straightforward disclosure that allows them to compare funds easily and understand which costs are associated with administrative work and which stem from hidden revenue-sharing arrangements.

The most effective way to address the issue, according to Sialm, may be for employers to pay recordkeepers directly rather than allowing part of the fees to be deducted through investment funds. This would make the cost of plan administration transparent and remove the incentive for recordkeepers to favour higher-fee funds. While this approach could require employers to take on greater responsibility and perhaps higher upfront costs, it would result in a fairer system for employees. Instead of paying indirectly through reduced investment returns, workers would genuinely benefit from the freedom of choice their retirement plans are meant to provide. In short, a more transparent and honest structure would help ensure that retirement savings remain focused on building security for employees, not on generating extra revenue for the intermediaries who manage the plans.

More information: Veronika K. Pool et al, Mutual Fund Revenue Sharing in 401(k) Plans, Management Science. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2023.01560

Journal information: Management Science Provided by University of Texas at Austin

Far Away but Greener? Challenging Assumptions About Distance and Food Sustainability

Leave a Reply

Consumers often believe that local food is automatically better for the environment, but this is not always true. A recent survey from the University of Göttingen examined how people judge the environmental impact of everyday foods. When choosing something as simple as peppers, many shoppers assume the German-grown option is greener than the Spanish-grown one. The study suggests that this is a common but misleading perception.

The research involved about 1,000 people in Germany. Participants were asked to rate the environmental impacts of peppers, apples, and beef from Germany, other EU countries, and non-EU countries. The results showed a clear pattern: food from abroad, especially from outside the EU, was seen as more harmful to the environment. This judgement was made even when the imported food could have a lower overall carbon footprint than the local product.

A key example concerns peppers. Spanish peppers are often grown in unheated greenhouses, taking advantage of warm-weather conditions. German peppers, however, may require heated greenhouses because of colder weather. Heating these facilities uses a great deal of energy, which can lead to higher emissions. So, although the German peppers are local, they are not necessarily more environmentally friendly.

The study also highlights that many consumers place too much emphasis on transport. While food miles can be a factor in environmental impact, they are only part of a larger picture. Farming methods, energy use, fertilisers, and water consumption can have a far greater influence on total emissions. Simply knowing where a product comes from does not tell us enough about how sustainable it really is.

Because of this, the researchers argue that food labelling should change. Origin labels alone reinforce incorrect assumptions. Instead, clearer information about the actual environmental impact of production would help consumers make better choices. Climate or carbon footprint labels could make these differences more visible and reduce the chance of well-intentioned shoppers choosing products that are less sustainable than they believe.

Overall, the study encourages a more thoughtful approach to understanding food sustainability. Buying local can still be valuable for many reasons, such as supporting nearby farms and ensuring freshness. But environmental friendliness is not guaranteed simply by choosing a product grown close to home. To make genuinely climate-conscious decisions, consumers need accurate and detailed information about how their food is produced, not just where it comes from.

More information: Dorothea Meyer et al, Perceived environmental impact of food: Upgrading of domestic products and downgrading of imported products, Food Quality and Preference. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105718

Journal information: Food Quality and Preference Provided by University of Göttingen

Using hand gestures can boost your powers of persuasion, suggests new research from UBC

Leave a Reply

Words matter when we are trying to make an impression. Still, new research from the University of British Columbia suggests that our hands may play an unexpectedly decisive role. The study, conducted at the Sauder School of Business, found that when speakers use meaningful, purposeful hand gestures, they tend to come across as more confident, more persuasive and more knowledgeable. This suggests that effective communication is not purely verbal; it occurs through the body as much as through speech. The findings encourage us to think of persuasion not simply as choosing the right words, but as presenting ideas in a way that feels vivid and engaging.

To investigate how gestures influence audiences, the researchers turned to a significant and familiar source of public speaking: TED Talks. These presentations, viewed by millions online, offer a broad range of speakers from diverse backgrounds and styles. Using artificial intelligence and automated video analysis, the research team examined more than two thousand of these talks. They identified and analysed over 200,000 hand gestures, grouping them into short 10-second clips. They then compared these gestures with measures of audience engagement, such as the number of ‘likes’ the videos received online, while accounting for factors such as speaker gender, field of work, language, and the length of each talk. This careful method allowed the researchers to focus on gestures themselves rather than letting other variables cloud the results.

The study did not stop there. To understand the impact of gestures in a more controlled environment, the researchers also conducted experiments in which participants watched sales-pitch videos. In these videos, the spoken script remained identical, but the speakers varied how much and how intentionally they moved their hands. After watching, viewers rated the speakers and the products being presented. The results supported the TED Talk analysis: speakers who used more deliberate and meaningful gestures were viewed more positively. However, it also became clear that not every kind of movement is helpful. Gesturing with purpose had benefits; gesturing randomly or without relation to the message did not.

A key distinction in the study was between different types of gestures. The researchers identified “illustrators,” which are gestures that visually represent the idea being explained. For instance, someone might show the width of an object with their hands or trace the shape of a path while describing it. These gestures reinforce meaning and give the listener a second channel of understanding. The study found that illustrators had the most potent positive effect on how speakers were perceived, making them seem more knowledgeable and increasing audience comprehension. On the other hand, “highlighters,” such as pointing to an object or emphasising a single word, and unrelated, aimless movements made little difference to how persuasive the speaker appeared.

Dr Mi Zhou, co-author of the study and an assistant professor at UBC Sauder, explains that audiences often interpret illustrative gestures as a sign of confidence and expertise. When a speaker can physically demonstrate what they are talking about, it suggests they have a firm grasp of their subject. There is also a cognitive benefit for the audience: seeing information expressed visually as well as verbally can make it easier to absorb. In this way, gestures do more than decorate speech; they become part of the explanation itself. Advances in artificial intelligence were crucial in making this insight possible, as previous research rarely had the tools to examine hand gestures on such a large scale. The technology enabled the team to map hand movements with precision and compare them directly with spoken language.

The implications of this research are wide-reaching. Marketers, educators, public speakers, and influencers may find that paying more attention to how they use their hands significantly improves how their message is received. It also opens the door to the design of digital avatars and virtual assistants, which often feel unnatural precisely because they lack the expressive movements humans use instinctively. The study suggests that even minor adjustments in how we gesture can change how others interpret our confidence and clarity. For many of us, hand movements happen without thought, but being more aware of how we use them may be a surprisingly simple way to communicate more effectively. The research reminds us that persuasion is not only about what we say, but also about how we embody the ideas we wish to share.

More information: Giovanni Luca Cascio Rizzo et al, Talking with Your Hands: How Hand Gestures Influence Communication, Journal of Marketing Research. DOI: 10.1177/00222437251385922

Journal information: Journal of Marketing Research Provided by University of British Columbia

How Dual Role Engagement Enhances Innovation Among Academic Entrepreneurs

Leave a Reply

Academic entrepreneurs — scientists who start research-based companies while keeping their academic positions — are showing that science and business can enrich one another rather than exist in conflict. New research published in the Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal reveals that these individuals often find creative “cross-fertilising” effects between their academic and entrepreneurial work. By linking the two roles, they redefine their professional identities and expand the meaning of being both a scientist and an entrepreneur. The study suggests that universities and policymakers should support this integration not only through funding or intellectual property policies, but by creating flexible environments that allow scientists to combine their academic and commercial ambitions in meaningful ways.

The study was led by Marouane Bousfiha from the University of Gothenburg and Henrik Berglund from Chalmers University of Technology. Their interest developed through their work with scientists seeking to turn research discoveries into viable commercial ventures. They noticed that many scientists were able to remain dedicated academics while also running profitable start-ups. This observation challenged the long-held assumption that academic and entrepreneurial identities are incompatible. It prompted the researchers to examine how scientists practically manage and make sense of these dual roles.

As universities worldwide increasingly encourage entrepreneurship, many researchers face the challenge of balancing academic integrity with commercial opportunity. Traditionally, academia has been associated with theory, precision, and peer recognition, while business demands quick decision-making, risk-taking, and financial return. Bousfiha and Berglund’s study found that, rather than viewing these demands as purely conflicting, many academic entrepreneurs see them as complementary. Their research highlights how skills developed in academic life often are helpful in entrepreneurship — and vice versa — blurring the boundaries between the two domains.

The researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 27 Swedish academics who were actively involved in both research and start-ups. They found that the entrepreneurs didn’t speak about their identities in abstract terms but described how their daily activities connected the two worlds. Running a successful lab helped them build strong business teams. Competing for research grants prepared them to pitch to investors. Likewise, their start-up experience gave them real-world examples that enriched their teaching. Even concrete products — such as prototypes or published papers — carried meaning in both realms: new technologies generated new research ideas, and scientific credibility bolstered commercial trust.

Interestingly, the study found that these scientists didn’t prioritise their academic identity over their entrepreneurial one. Instead, they focused on which tasks were intellectually engaging or meaningful to them. Activities that involved creativity, problem-solving, and strategic thinking — whether in research or in business — were central to their sense of self. More routine tasks, such as grading or handling payroll, were delegated whenever possible. Their professional coherence came from engaging in work that inspired them, not from maintaining rigid divisions between academic and commercial life.

Still, many participants expressed uncertainty about what was acceptable within their institutions. Questions about dual affiliations, the use of university resources, and recognition for entrepreneurial achievements often created tension. The researchers suggest that universities, incubators, and policymakers can better support academic entrepreneurs by offering clear guidelines and flexible structures that legitimise these hybrid roles. Rather than eliminating tension, Bousfiha argues, institutions should make the relationship between science and entrepreneurship more transparent and productive. When supported effectively, academic entrepreneurs can thrive in both worlds — advancing knowledge while bringing innovative ideas to the marketplace.

More information: Marouane Bousfiha et al, Micro-transitions and work identity: The case ofacademic entrepreneurs, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. DOI: 10.1002/sej.1541

Journal information: Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal Provided by Strategic Management Society

When Stock Prices Peak: The Surge of Seasoned Equity Offerings in China

Leave a Reply

The link between seasoned equity offering (SEO) filings and firms reaching new stock price highs in 2015 and 2016 shows a narrower fluctuation range compared with the 2005–2007 period. This suggests that market behaviour during those years was more stable, possibly because a strong bull market and widespread investor optimism marked 2015. During this time, fund accounts and securities firms backed by bank capital became major players in the private placement market, fuelling a rise in new equity issuances. To better understand this relationship, the researchers ran time-series regressions comparing the number of companies reaching new highs with the total number of share issuances.

This work was led by Yu Xia from Sichuan Tourism University and Shuxin Guo from Southwest Jiaotong University. Their study, published in China Finance Review International under the title “Historical High Prices and Seasoned Equity Offerings: Evidence from China”, offers an in-depth look at how firms in China time their share issuances in relation to past stock price peaks. The research sheds light on behavioural aspects of financial decision-making, showing that market timing is not always a product of rational analysis but can also be driven by psychological anchors.

The study introduces a unique metric, the anchoring-high-price ratio, that measures how close a stock’s current price is to its previous high. This allows the researchers to explore whether company managers are influenced by past price levels when deciding to issue additional shares. By focusing on this ratio, the study moves beyond traditional market efficiency theories and highlights how behavioural biases can influence corporate financing strategies, particularly in emerging markets like China.

Using data from China’s A-share market between 1998 and 2020, the authors combine monthly and annual analyses with a range of statistical tools, including probit regressions and robustness tests. They control for key firm characteristics, such as leverage, profitability, size, and market-to-book ratio, to ensure their findings reflect genuine behavioural effects rather than other financial factors. This comprehensive approach strengthens the evidence for the anchoring effect in Chinese equity markets.

The findings reveal that firms are far more likely to issue new shares when stock prices approach historical highs. However, unlike the pattern often observed in the United States, the Chinese market tends to react negatively to these announcements, leading to deeper discounting of offerings and weaker long-term performance. The research also shows that firms issuing shares near price peaks tend to lower their leverage ratios over time, suggesting that such equity financing decisions can reshape capital structures in lasting ways.

Overall, the study offers valuable insights into how behavioural factors influence corporate finance in China’s dynamic market. For investors, tracking how close share prices are to their historical highs can offer early signals of potential equity issuances. For managers, it serves as a reminder that psychological biases, such as anchoring, can lead to costly timing mistakes. And for regulators, it highlights the need to account for behavioural tendencies when shaping policies to improve transparency, protect investors, and enhance market stability.

More information: Yu Xia et al, Historical high prices and seasoned equity offerings: evidence from China, China Finance Review International. DOI: 10.1108/CFRI-10-2023-0259

Journal information: China Finance Review International Provided by Shanghai Jiao Tong University Journal Center

The Market Sees Past Adjusted Profits

Leave a Reply

When companies adjust their earnings reports to make profits look better than they really are, investors usually see through it. That’s the main takeaway from research by John McInnis, an accounting professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business. His findings suggest that existing accounting rules already give investors enough information to make sound decisions, even when firms try to put a positive spin on their results.

McInnis examined how firms often release two versions of their earnings. The first, based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), is filed with regulators and includes all expenses. The second, known as non-GAAP earnings, appears in press releases and investor calls and often excludes certain costs. These adjustments make profits look stronger, but they can also obscure the accurate financial picture. A 2024 report found that 80% of companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average used non-GAAP reporting, showing profits about 31% higher than under GAAP.

GAAP standards, established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, ensure that all companies report earnings in a consistent, transparent way. They require that every expense — from depreciation to stock-based pay — be included. However, companies argue that some of these costs are temporary or unusual. By excluding one-off items such as restructuring costs, executives say they can better show the business’s underlying strength. McInnis notes that most non-GAAP reporting isn’t meant to mislead but to provide context.

The more contentious issue arises with recurring costs, especially stock-based compensation (SBC), which includes bonuses paid in shares or stock options. SBC can be huge — Alphabet, Google’s parent company, reported $23 billion in 2024 alone. Although GAAP rules require companies to recognise these costs, many firms still exclude them from their non-GAAP figures, effectively boosting their reported earnings. This practice raises the question: Do investors notice?

To find out, McInnis and co-author Laura Griffin analysed more than 70,000 quarterly earnings announcements by U.S. public companies between 2003 and 2021. They used automated text analysis to identify when companies excluded SBC from their reports and studied how their stock prices responded. The results showed that firms with unexpected increases in SBC experienced slightly lower short-term stock returns — about 1 to 2 percentage points — whether or not they excluded those expenses.

The study concluded that adjusted numbers don’t fool investors. They factor in recurring costs such as SBC and amortisation, even when companies exclude them from non-GAAP earnings. McInnis argues this is encouraging for regulators and accounting standard-setters: investors appear to understand what really drives a firm’s profitability. “The belief that excluding these costs earns a higher valuation,” he says, “is a myth.”

More information: Laura Griffin et al, Gone but not forgotten: Investor reaction to “excluded” recurring expenses, Journal of Accounting and Economics. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2025.101799

Journal information: Journal of Accounting and Economics Provided by University of Texas at Austin