Chinese textile and apparel manufacturers' moral duty positions, goals and structures toward sustainability

PurposeUsing the moral responsibility theory of corporate sustainability (MRCS) framework , the study examined Chinese textile and apparel (T&A) manufacturers' moral duty positions, goals and structures toward sustainability, with a goal of creating a spectrum of corporate sustainability (CS) performance.Design/methodology/approachAn online survey method was employed to investigate participants' views on their companies' perceptions, goals and structures toward each of the listed sustainability-related activities.FindingsThe results showed that all participants expressed their companies have moral responsibilities toward some aspects of sustainability. Particularly, they viewed that their companies emphasize labor relations (LR) and righteous operation (RO) activities over environmental protection (EP) or public welfare involvement (PW) activities when fulfilling their sustainability responsibilities. After analyzing each response by following MRCS, 41 companies were categorized as occasionally sustainability corporations. The remaining 259 responses were categorized as consistently sustainability corporations in selective areas.Originality/valueThe study for the first time revealed the sustainability-related activities that most respondents in Chinese T&A manufacturing industry perceived as perfect or imperfect duties. Findings add knowledge to the area of corporate moral responsibility toward sustainability and show a spectrum of Chinese textile and apparel manufacturers' sustainability performance, empirically supporting MRCS.

Do We Believe in Consequences? Revisiting the “Incoherence Objection” to Penal Substitution

Summary Among recent assessments of penal substitutionary accounts of atonement one significant critique is Mark Murphy’s “incoherence objection.” In this essay I express general agreement with Murphy’s critique of penal substitution, yet I suggest that there is a way to reconceive the doctrine of atonement such that it is conceptually coherent, is commensurate with scripture, and is a version of penal substitution. I call this view: The Penal-Consequence View of Atonement. This is a view of atonement that makes use of a distinction between what I call “penal consequences” and “mere consequences.” The view is defended with special reference to the topics of corporate moral responsibility and union with Christ.