Search

The figure of the influencer has generated an increase in their presence on social networks. Their ability to create content, their credibility and their identification with the consumer represent an added value in commercial communication. However, their disclosures are controversial due to the lack of transparency and differentiation between their commercial and opinion content. The absence of a clear definition of an influencer, the need to regulate their actions and the difficulty of identifying the commercial content of their publications are evidence of the concern to regulate their activity. The aim of this paper is to analyze, in the European context, the specific regulations on commercial disclosures by influencers, as well as to ascertain the point of view of the agents involved. To this end, a content analysis of the guidelines, regulations and/or laws of 24 European Union countries is carried out, complemented by an ad hoc questionnaire that brings together different aspects that can be defined and delimited. The results show a lack of unanimity in the rules and regulations governing influencers, as well as a manifest concern on the part of professionals in the sector to determine their communications. Only two countries, France and Spain, have specific legislation on the subject, limiting commercial disclosure to the existence of consideration and/or number of followers. It is clear that the existing guidelines are, in most cases, more comprehensive in terms of transparency guidelines for identifying advertising than the regulatory texts. The findings question whether the path of legislation is the right one, or whether efforts should instead focus on media and advertising literacy for both influencers and consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on Article 17(1) of the 1999 Montreal Convention (MC99) regarding the liability of international air carriers for death or bodily injury to passengers. The interpretational principles and methods applied by the CJEU are examined, accounting also for the particularities of the EU legal order. Furthermore, the results reached by the CJEU are compared with the case law of other jurisdictions, mainly the US, and doctrinal writings. Nonetheless, this paper does not explore the pertinent issues from a de lege ferenda perspective. The paper concludes that the judgments of the CJEU on Art. 17(1) MC99 have interpreted the notions of “passenger,” “accident,” and “bodily injury” broadly, in a passenger-friendly way. Although the interpretation of ‘passenger’ does not differ from the established case law in other jurisdictions, some aspects of the interpretation of “accident” and the interpretation of “bodily injury” significantly depart from the view currently prevailing among courts internationally. The CJEU has yet to rule on the scope of the exclusivity of the MC99, under Art. 29 thereof, regarding personal injury of passengers. However, the expansive interpretations of “accident” and “bodily injury” by the CJEU limit the practical effect of Article 29 compared to other jurisdictions. Given the regulatory influence that the EU exercises worldwide, the CJEU judgments might guide courts also outside the EU. Although this would bolster passenger protection, it would exacerbate the already fragmented application of the MC99 internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past ten years, the language of crisis has become increasingly common in discourse about migration governance at the European Union (EU) level, and policy responses have been oriented by an emergency rationale that prioritizes short-term solutions over long-term planning. EU migration and asylum law incorporates several crisis response mechanisms, and the addition of a new set of instruments has recently been proposed. This paper offers a critical legal mapping of what counts as a "crisis" in EU migration and asylum law, and the mechanisms for responding to such crises. It exemplifies a complex system in which the tension between the imperative to address threats purportedly arising from unwanted migration is intricately intertwined with the necessity of granting Member States flexibility to respond to contingencies without compromising the integrity of the common EU asylum and migration system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until 2005, service sector innovation had been a far less popular area of scholarly interest than studies on the industrial sector, the publication in 2005 of the methodological guidelines known as the Oslo Manual, in which it was noted that in addition to technological advancements in the economy, non-technological innovations might also be pursued in economic practice. Since then, although the popularity and dynamics of dedicated research have successively increased, this field of inquiry has not yet been sufficiently explored. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify and assess the degree of homogeneity among EU countries in terms of innovation activity in the service sector. The hypothesis adopted for this study stated that there are countries within the EU that can be divided into clusters with respect to service sector innovation activity. Bearing in mind the objective and seeking to verify the hypothesis, this research used a critical review of literature, indicatororiented analysis as well as quantitative statistical methods, among others, while relying on the most up-to-date data from the Eurostat database on innovation activity (as of 5.07.2022). The objective was accomplished using fifteen indicators which describe the effects of innovation activity, which were classified into four groups: innovation activity, types of implemented innovations, types of product innovation, and types of business process innovation. The research proceeded in three stages: identification of groups (clusters) in the area of the surveyed European countries which demonstrated the homogeneity of analysed indicators using Ward's agglomerative clustering method; identification of significant differences between the defined groups for each indicator carried out, using Student's ttest; an assessment of the degree of homogeneity in the scope of the surveyed EU countries with respect to innovation activity in the service sector by means of the methods outlined above. On the basis of the conducted investigations and the adopted methodology, it may be concluded, first, that the service sectors of the surveyed EU countries can be divided into three homogeneous groups in terms of innovation activity. Second, the similarity within each group was confirmed by Levene's test, the results of which demonstrated homogeneity of variance for thirteen out of the fifteen analysed indicators. Thirdly, statistical analysis of the findings made it possible to identify significant differences between the defined groups of countries, with the exception of country clusters I and II with respect to three product innovation indicators, as well as country groups II and III relative to three business process innovation indicators, where no significant differences occurred. The conclusions from the study warrant confirmation of the baseline hypothesis, which assumed that the surveyed EU countries could be divided into clusters in terms of service sector innovation activity. The research and the analyses indicated that a homogeneous division of the surveyed EU countries into individual groups in terms of innovative activities in the service sector might offer a point of departure for further, in-depth analysis of the issues addressed in the study. Some of the compelling directions for future investigations include the determination of homogeneity and differences across the industries of the sector in question, as well as the creation of a ranking of countries in line with the analysed indicators. Approaching the issue in this manner will enable a detailed assessment of the innovation activity in the service sector and its internal structures, as well as provide grounds for validating the cluster division presented in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent so called Mediterranean refugee crisis has ignited concerns about the magnitude of the flows of asylum seekers to Europe. This paper examines the determinants of the destination choice of first time non-EU asylum applicants to the EU, between 2008–2020. It investigates the role played by policies related to employment rights, processing of asylum applications, attractiveness of the welfare system, economic factors and networks on the destination of asylum seekers within the EU. We find that the strongest pull factor for asylum seekers to a destination is social networks both in terms of previous asylum applicants as well as stock of previous migrants. Our findings also suggest that employment bans are not a strong deterrence for asylum seekers given their modest association to asylum flows. • This paper examines the pull factors for asylum seekers to EU destination countries. • We focus on non-EU first time asylum applicants between 2008-2020. • The results suggest that social networks are the strongest pull factor. • Policies in destinations are modestly associated to asylum flows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The study aims to highlight opportunities for educational and non-governmental institutions in European Union member states to undertake initiatives that enhance and certify the digital skills of citizens and workers. Methods: The article is based on an exploratory research approach and presents mixed research methods and techniques. The first part presents a descriptive analysis of digital competencies in EU policy based on a review of literature and EU legislation. This was followed by a qualitative analysis based on data from Eurostat’s online database to diagnose the current level of digital competencies in the EU and trends in this area in recent years. Finally, a case study of an international educational project aimed at contributing to the achievement of the Union’s goals for improving the digital competencies of citizens and workers is presented. Results: The results obtained and their analysis indicate an urgent need to intensify educational efforts to improve digital competence in Europe. The case study can be used to raise and certify the level of digital competence for different target groups. Conclusions: From the point of view of the priorities set by the European Union, the digital competence of its citizens is unsatisfactory, and large discrepancies between countries in this area have been identified, which requires the implementation of more educational initiatives to develop digital resilience. Project-based learning initiatives generating open and free online tools for certifying existing and acquired digital skills in the EU are recommended. Developing a unified system of EU standards to prove the digital competence of citizens and workers can help on the way to achieving better competitiveness and sustainability of the European market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of the article is to examine the influence of environmental policy stringency on the eco-innovation level, measured by a number of patents, in European Union countries. Research Design & Methods: The research method was quantitative. The study used ordinary least squares (OLS) panel regression analysis based on data covering 18 EU countries (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden) and a period from 2013 to 2020 (144 observations). In estimated models, gross domestic product per capita, material import dependency, and human resources in science and technology served as control variables. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the European Innovation Scoreboard, Eurostat, and the World Bank were the data sources. Findings: Higher stringency of technology support and market-based instruments positively influences ecoinnovation-related patents in EU countries whereas more strict non-market-based instruments do not impact the eco-innovation level. Technology support instruments are more effective in stimulating eco-innovation than market-based instruments. Individual technology support instruments differ in their impact on eco-innovation with R&D subsidies being the most important. The stringency of feed-in tariffs and auctions is a significant factor triggering eco-innovation in the case of wind energy technologies, but not in the case of solar ones. Implications & Recommendations: This study suggests that stringent technology support and market-based instruments are effective in stimulating eco-innovation in EU countries considered in the research sample. The environmental policy aimed at fostering eco-innovation should concentrate on increasing R&D subsidies for clean technologies. Further tightening emission standards aiming to enhance eco-innovation level is not recommended. Contribution & Value Added: This study contributes to the literature on the importance of environmental policy stringency in fostering eco-innovation and provides new empirical evidence by examining not only instruments that may have an indirect impact on eco-innovation (i.e. market and non-market ones) but also technology support instruments, which have received less attention in previous studies. The analysis used data on the recently updated and improved OECD environmental policy stringency index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Luridica is the property of Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Annals of the Polish Association of Agricultural & Agribusiness Economists is the property of Polish Association of Agricultural & Agribusiness Economists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)