The Introduction locates transparency in the global governance of agriculture and mineral supply chains. It proposes an analytical focus on the mediations of transparency to tackle the paradox of transparency, a process of mediation that incorrectly understands itself to be a process of disintermediation. This helps to investigate transparency beyond the normative and substantive assessment of its implementation. Rather than assuming that transparency is itself transparent, we ask: What are the technological practices, material qualities, and institutional standards producing transparency? How is transparency standardized, regimented by “ethical” and “responsible” businesses, or valued by traders and investors, from auction rooms to sustainability reports? Acknowledging that transparency is a global value, we question how transparency projects materially organize and semiotically regiment the global production and circulation of commodities across local settings. Focusing on moments and processes of mediation toward disclosure, immediacy, trust, and truth, we introduce how the chapters render transparency observable across sites, actors, institutions, and technologies.

This introduction situates the volume within contemporary debates surrounding Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). It traces the historical evolution of the ESG movement—originally conceived as a voluntary form of regulation—from its origins in the early 2000s, associated with the launch of the UN’s Who Cares Wins initiative, to current developments marked by political backlash in the United States and regulatory consolidation in Europe. The authors argue that the widespread tendency to reduce ESG to issues of financial materiality—a view they describe as “mainstream ESG”—risks undermining its ethical and social foundations. Against this backdrop, the book advances the claim that ESG cannot be meaningfully developed without serious ethical reflection. The second part of the introduction presents the chapters included in this collection along three main lines: debates about the purpose(s) of ESG; discussions concerning the tensions between profitability and sustainability; and analyses of ESG as a form of voluntary or mandatory disclosure.

There are three ways of becoming a shareholder: by subscribing to a new issue of shares in a company; by purchasing shares from an existing shareholder; or by transmission of ownership in shares due to the operation of law (for example, where shares are transferred to the beneficiary under a will). In this chapter, we focus on the first method: the issuing of shares and securities as a means of fundraising, commonly referred to as ‘raising capital’ or ‘equity raising’. The term ‘subscription’ describes the relationship where a company issues shares directly to a shareholder. The legal relationship between the company that issues and the shareholder who subscribes for new shares can be analysed using the contractual rules of offer and acceptance.

Our primary focus in this chapter is the issue of securities by public companies. Generally speaking, only public companies are permitted to raise capital by issuing securities to a broad cross-section of the public.

First, this chapter canvasses the history of the fiduciary obligation as it applies to the director–company relationship. The fiduciary obligation includes two duties: a duty of loyalty and a duty to account for benefits gained—more informally termed the ‘no conflict’ and ‘no profit’ rules. This chapter then discusses examples of the ‘no conflict’ and ‘no profit’ rules from case law, and the modern exceptions to this general principle on the basis of commercial realities, such as the business opportunity rule. It then considers ss 182–3 of the Corporations Act which deal with a director’s misuse of information or position to gain an advantage for themselves or others, or to cause detriment to the company. While there is a clear relationship between these sections and the ‘no profit’ rule, they have developed differently since enactment as legislative provisions. This chapter then considers the requirements for directors to disclose their material personal interests under ss 191–195, and the inconsistent treatment of the disclosure requirements with the ability of a fiduciary to seek the fully informed consent of the company in general meeting. Finally, this chapter considers the protection afforded to members of a public company under ch 2E of the Corporations Act for related party transactions.

As discussed in earlier chapters, a company has the legal powers and capacity of an individual, in addition to any specific powers conferred by law. The two key decision-making organs that can act as the company in exercising these powers are the board of directors and the members in general meeting. The general law and Corporations Act divide the company’s powers and responsibilities between these two groups. This chapter discusses this division of powers. It also discusses how meetings of members and directors are held, and the requirements on companies to prepare and disclose key information, including financial reports.

In this chapter of Complex Ethics Consultations: Cases that Haunt Us, the author describes a case wherein surgical instruments were reused after a prion disease case at a time when the protocol would have been to discard them. Given that there are no interventions available for this prion disease questions arose regarding disclosure, in particular when it would be required and who would be in a position to provide that disclosure.

The chapters in this Part VII of Complex Ethics Consultations: Cases that Haunt Us are a powerful reminder that healthcare ethics consultation does not involve clinical ethics consultation alone. Organizational ethics issues can also weigh heavily on healthcare providers causing deep moral distress. The four chapters in this section reinforce enduring themes, but time and experience allow a reexamination. The first theme is the lesson of truth-telling, error disclosure, and organizational responsibility. The second is the importance of transparency in organizational decision making along with the importance of communication and coordination of care. These themes are explored in the part they played in real cases, looking at the lessons they teach; current dilemmas; the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion; and finally, the meanings for future practices. As the field of ethics consultation progresses, so too will moral distress and the need for the profession to protect its practitioners, as well as the ethicists to emotionally protect themselves. The successful future practice of ethics consultation depends on it.

This chapter examines the ability to obtain government information through the operation of freedom of information legislation in relation to AI data in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation provides a potential avenue of obtaining crucial information about the software used to automate decisions, the circumstances in which it was created or purchased, the materials that were used to train it, and any tests run to gauge its accuracy.

In academia, as in any profession, one of the toughest decisions facing an autistic person is whether and when to disclose their diagnosis. On the one hand, disclosure can bring awareness, understanding, and support. On the other, it can bring misunderstanding, stigma, and discrimination. In this chapter participants reflect on their decisions to disclose (or not to disclose) to employers, colleagues, staff, and students – and the impacts of these decisions. This chapter also addresses the issue of masking (hiding their autistic characteristics), including when and why participants feel the need to mask and the impact this has on them.

Chapter 16 concludes. Section 16.1 discusses the concentration effect of decentralised finance, Section 16.2 the supervisory challenges, Section 16.3 the impact of digital finance regulation on centralised finance, while Section 16.4 summarises four key challenges, and Section 16.5 concludes by formulating five key policy options.

Chapter 5 discusses the “whitepaper” or prospectus regime in Titles II–IV MiCA and compares it to the Prospectus Regulation. Following an introduction to the objectives, applicable legislation, and the risk-based differentiation of the prospectus rules, Section 5.3 covers the scope of MiCA’s prospectus rules. Section 5.4 explains the prospectus procedure, including the obligation to publish a prospectus, obliged entities, the approval and publication processes, along with expiration, updating, modification, and supplementing of the prospectus. Section 5.5 addresses the content and form of the prospectus, Section 5.6 the liability for information in the prospectus, and finally, Section 5.7 covers the EU-wide application of the prospectus (EU passport).

Climate change is humanity’s greatest challenge for the XXIst century. Its effects will be felt for generations to come. In light of the enormity of the challenge, bank regulators are moving, yet reforms are neither homogeneous nor comprehensive. The EU is clearly more committed to the effort than any other player, and even within the EU, attitudes are cautious towards Pillar 1 (prudential requirements) and macroprudential measures, and bolder towards Pillar 3 (market discipline through disclosures) and Pillar 2 (supervisory review), though more uneven on the latter. This does not follow a scientific logic (due to the high uncertainty of climate risk) but a policy logic, since legislators and regulators tend to follow a path of minimum resistance, and undertake first the reforms that require them a lower epistemic burden.

During the Trump presidency in the United States of America, the social media network Twitter (now known as X) became a new, unofficial media channel through which the former president issued many political statements and informed the public about planned activities and new decisions. At the same time, however, he also continued to use this venue for more personal information, most frequently somehow connected to his office, for example on the size of his ‘nuclear button’ in comparison to that assumed to be the North Korean leader’s one after a news report. This type of communication was until then unknown as a general communication strategy at least for most public officials. Press conferences and bulletins were the typical means of informing the public and professionally interested parties about the standpoints of the government, its actions and its plans. Also, government information was typically delivered in a rather neutral and down-to-earth tone and was carefully drafted and revised, rather than being spur-of-the-moment ideas frequently dismissing other ideas using direct, sometimes offensive language.

We review work on disclosure to others about one’s chronic illness condition and challenges in the management of illnesses, focusing on the period of adolescence and emerging adulthood. Adolescents and young adults with a chronic illness who self-disclose to others (beyond parents) that they have a chronic illness are often quite strategic as to how much to disclose and to whom. We then review work on routine disclosures about challenges in the management of chronic illnesses that often occur between parents and adolescents and young adults and romantic partners that can elicit support. We focus our treatment on the illness context of type 1 diabetes, as there is little research on routine disclosure with other illness conditions. We conclude by linking this work to broader models of disclosures for health decisions, recommend that interventions that ease the burden of disclosure may be beneficial, and suggest directions for future research.

Parents commonly induce feelings of guilt and shame in adolescents as part of the socialization process. Preliminary evidence indicates that parental guilt induction and shaming are associated with less routine disclosure and greater secrecy among adolescents. However, little research has explored these associations, and it has focused entirely on psychologically controlling forms of guilt induction. The present chapter highlights distinctions between parental guilt induction and shaming, including their overlap with related constructs such as parental psychological control and inductive discipline. We then outline empirical and conceptual links between parental guilt induction or shaming and adolescent information management, focusing on how these associations likely depend on the extent to which the parenting practice feels psychologically controlling to youth. As part of this discussion, we highlight individual, cultural, relational, and situational factors that may impact these perceptions and associations. We end with suggestions for future research in this area.