This paper introduces a new measure, based on a study by Trucost and Dr Robert Repetto, combining external environmental costs with established measures of economic value added, and demonstrates how this measure can be incorporated into financial analysis. We propose that external environmental costs are relevant to all investors: universal investors are concerned about the scale of external costs whether or not regulations to internalise them are likely; mainstream investors need to understand external costs as an indication of future regulatory compliance costs; and SRI investors need to evaluate companies on both financial and social performance. The paper illustrates our new measure with data from US electric utilities and illustrates how the environmental exposures of different fund managers and portfolios can be compared. With such measures fund managers can understand and control portfolio-wide environmental risks, demonstrate their environmental credentials quantitatively and objectively and compete for the increasing number of investment mandates that have an environmental component. Copyright (c) 2007 The Authors; Journal compilation (c) 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The ideology of ethno-nationalism creates a new world disorder. States and international organizations must find a way to deal with group conflicts to prevent ethno-nationalism from transmogrifying into ethnic cleansing and genocide. Minorities need protection against harm. The problem of minorities dominates many political conflicts.The judiciary can provide a critical means of protection. Agreement comes readily over the general role for the courts in minority protection. Disagreement abounds over their specific role. Should courts, for instance, protect individuals but not specific groups? Should courts protect the identity of minority groups? The role of the judiciary becomes more tractable with a reorientation of our thinking by giving priority to the negative aspect of the minorities’ problem: the problem of injustice. Since group harm, and not group identity, lies at the heart of the difficulty, this is where the courts should look. Jurists become diverted in trying to define a minority in some positive terms when the harms that confront any minority are readily apparent.

No abstract

No abstract

The issue of the admissibility into scientific discourse of teleological terms such as ‘function', ‘goal-direction, ‘purpose’ and ‘goal’ has not received widespread attention in recent years. In a provocative book, On Purposeful Systems, Ackoff and Emery claim that “the lack of more recent debate seems…no more than scholarly collusion in agreeing not to raise embarrassing questions” ([11], p. 15). Most of those who have attended to teleological problems have attempted to show that these teleological terms are eliminable in favor of non-teleological terms. ‘Function’ has been analyzed in this manner by Nissen [12], Nagel [11], Canfield [6], Hempel [8] et al. ‘Goal-direction’ and ‘purpose’ have been given similar treatment by Braithwaite [4], Nagel [11], Sommerhoff [21][22], inter alia. Notable exceptions to these reductionist analyses occur in the works of C. Taylor [23] and Wright [27].