PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the challenges faced by corporations in incorporating ethics into their strategic management processes.Design/methodological approachThe research is based on a survey of the issues and the literature published in Europe, North America and Asia.FindingsFindings indicate a definite gap between the implementation of strategy and the moral and ethical obligations of corporations. Given the decline in business ethics and recent corporate scandals it is proposed that ethics be brought back to the forefront of strategic management and integrated into the strategic management process.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper serves as a instrument for debate and future research in that the ethical issues faced by corporations will continue to gather momentum as will the issues faced by traditional strategists.Originality/valueThis paper allows researchers and practitioners to gain an understanding of the issues and shortcomings in strategy and ethical integration, which allows for future research.
Case study and journal record methods are described and positive outcomes for learners are noted. A "live" case, along with journal records, was used in teaching adolescent psychology. Evaluation indicates benefits to both college students and involved teenagers. Suggestions for future research are discussed. Hoover (1980) described the case study as an account of a realistic problem or situation experienced by a n individual or a group. Included in the case method were a statement of the problem and a description of perceptions and attitudes of those facing it. Hoover said that cases may be either fictitious accounts of realistic situations or recordings of events that have actually happened.The case study as a teaching tool was first used at Harvard Law School in 1870. The method has since been applied in many different courses, including business, social studies, speech communication, home economics, science, technology, theology, and human relations. Gilliland (1982) and Vande Kemp (1980) provided examples of using the case method in psychology courses. Hoover (1980) described seven case study formats, ranging from short incidents to lengthy novels. Cases usually focus on one or more problems that students attempt to resolve. The problem-solving process results in many benefits to student learning. Graham and Cline (1980) described positive outcomes of the case study method as follows:1. Decision-making skills are developed in students.2. Course concepts are integrated better as students evaluate, make inferences, and see relationships through a case study.3. Indirect experiences of students are made more real.4. Abstract, theoretical information becomes concrete and easier to understand.
Introduction Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a protein produced in the lung, is essential for pulmonary host defense and alveolar integrity. Prior studies suggest potential benefits in several pulmonary conditions, including acute respiratory distress syndrome and viral infections. This trial evaluated the effect of the addition of inhaled sargramostim (yeast-derived, glycosylated recombinant human GM-CSF) to standard of care (SOC) on oxygenation and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxemia. Materials and Methods A randomized, controlled, open-label trial of hospitalized adults with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia (oxygen saturation <93% on ≥2 L/min oxygen supplementation and/or PaO2/FiO2 <350) randomized 2:1 to inhaled sargramostim (125 mcg twice daily for 5 days) plus SOC versus SOC alone. Institutional SOC before and during the study was not limited. Primary outcomes were change in the alveolar–arterial oxygen gradient (P(A–a)O2) by day 6 and the percentage of patients intubated within 14 days. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events. Efficacy analyses were based on the modified intent-to-treat population, the subset of the intent-to-treat population that received ≥1 dose of any study treatment (sargramostim and/or SOC). An analysis of covariance approach was used to analyze changes in oxygenation measures. The intubation rate was analyzed using the chi-squared test. All analyses are considered descriptive. The study was institutional review board approved. Results In total, 122 patients were treated (sargramostim, n = 78; SOC, n = 44). The sargramostim arm experienced greater improvement in P(A–a)O2 by day 6 compared to SOC alone (least squares [LS] mean change from baseline [SE]: −102.3 [19.4] versus −30.5 [26.9] mmHg; LS mean difference: −71.7 [SE 33.2, 95% CI −137.7 to −5.8]; P = .033; n = 96). By day 14, 11.5% (9/78) of sargramostim and 15.9% (7/44) of SOC arms required intubation (P = .49). The 28-day mortality was 11.5% (9/78) and 13.6% (6/44) in the sargramostim and SOC arms, respectively (hazard ratio 0.85; P = .76). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 67.9% (53/78) and 70.5% (31/44) on the sargramostim and SOC arms, respectively. Conclusions The addition of inhaled sargramostim to SOC improved P(A–a)O2, a measure of oxygenation, by day 6 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxemia and was well tolerated. Inhaled sargramostim is delivered directly to the lung, minimizing systemic effects, and is simple to administer making it a feasible treatment option in patients in settings where other therapy routes may be difficult. Although proportionally lower rates of intubation and mortality were observed in sargramostim-treated patients, this study was insufficiently powered to demonstrate significant changes in these outcomes. However, the significant improvement in gas exchange with sargramostim shows this inhalational treatment enhances pulmonary efficiency in this severe respiratory illness. These data provide strong support for further evaluation of sargramostim in high-risk patients with COVID-19.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.