D. Li

This study investigates crisis-period environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure research by examining how ESG disclosure protects firm value during major global public crises. The pandemic is a severe exogenous shock generating synchronized global uncertainty. Using panel data regression analysis of U.S. public firms, we find that superior ESG disclosure significantly enhances firm value during systemic crisis. This protective impact is amplified in companies that have a greater proportion of long-term institutional ownership, confirming investor time horizons as critical moderators. In addition, economic policy uncertainty (EPU) systematically dampens ESG disclosure's value-protective capacity through resource constraints and market sentiment channels. These results reconceptualize ESG disclosure as a conditional strategic asset whose efficacy depends on institutional investor composition and macroeconomic uncertainty levels. This study advances ESG literature by demonstrating that the value-protective role of ESG disclosure during crisis is intensified by long-term institutional ownership, while EPU serves as a catalyst for reversing the insurance effects of ESG disclosure. Our work pioneers invest in temporal heterogeneity and EPU as critical boundary conditions. The findings challenge generalized ESG benefit assumptions while offering actionable guidance for embedding ESG disclosure within crisis resilience frameworks.

Dynamical systems model physical processes, but also computing, informational inquiry, or interaction in games. Some attractive modal logics exist for analyzing high-level behavior of dynamical systems, such as Dynamic Topological Logic. Adding to these, we focus on the fine-structure of states, associating them with assignments of values to variables. We present a logic with a perspicuous syntax for reasoning about dependencies over time. We study the properties of this system by presenting an effective reduction to a basic modal logic of functional dependence. This can be seen as justifying a common intuition that temporal dependence is a special case of general dependence when we follow the course of time. We also consider the addition of standard temporal modalities to this logic, where the reductive intuition no longer holds in general. On this base, we then introduce topological structure, and investigate the logic of continuous dependence given a continuous transition function, which can also be seen as modelling not just dependence but monotonic dependence for patterns of growth. Finally, we briefly discuss some further logical structures in dynamical systems such as term equalities, independence and non-deterministic choice.

Motivated by managers’ ethical dilemma between their loyalty to shareholders and their self-interests, we examine how waiving the managerial duty of loyalty can discharge their duty of care as takeover targets. Exploiting the staggered introduction of corporate opportunity waivers (COWs), which reduce the loyalty requirement for fiduciary duties, as quasi-exogenous shocks, we find that the likelihood of receiving takeover bids becomes significantly lower following the legislation. However, conditional on receiving a takeover bid, both deal premiums and target announcement returns are higher following the legislation. The evidence above suggests that exempting managers from the duty of loyalty creates more space for target managers to discharge the duty of care by carefully considering the various conflicting interests of various parties. However, it may give rise to economic inefficiencies because of a less efficient takeover market. Our paper reveals an underexplored but far-reaching channel through which COWs can have important implications for shareholder wealth and society: serving as an antitakeover provision and hindering the disciplinary role of the market for corporate control.

The logic of the hide and seek game $$\textbf{LHS}$$ was proposed to capture interactions between agents in pursuit-evasion environments. In this paper, we explore a hybrid extension of $$\textbf{LHS}$$ and show that such an extension is beneficial in several aspects. We will show that it improves the technical properties of the resulting logical system, and expands the potential applications of the system. Specifically, we will investigate the expressive power of the hybrid logic of the hide and seek game $${\mathcal {H}}(\textbf{LHS})$$ and its crucial fragment $${\mathcal {H}}(\textbf{LHS}^{-})$$, at both model and frame levels. We will present complete Hilbert-style proof systems for both the logics $${\mathcal {H}}(\textbf{LHS}^{-})$$ and $${\mathcal {H}}(\textbf{LHS})$$, which in fact provides a solution to a known open problem.

Firms worldwide are increasingly required to disclose their carbon emissions due to the environmental damage associated with climate change. Because there has been no previous literature focusing on the determinants of corporate carbon disclosure integrating environmental legitimacy and green innovation, the present study attempted to develop an original framework to fill the research gap. This study explored the influence of environmental legitimacy on corporate carbon disclosure, and investigated the role of green innovation as a mediator. With the samples of Carbon Disclosure Project in China from 2008 to 2012, the results demonstrate that environmental legitimacy significantly negatively influences the likelihood of corporate carbon disclosure, and that green process innovation mediates the relationship, while green product innovation has no significant mediating effect. It means that environmental legitimacy not only directly affects the likelihood of corporate carbon disclosure, but also indirectly affects it via green process innovation. Hence, companies must increase both informal and formal mechanisms, i.e., external environmental legitimacy and internal green process innovation, to engage in carbon information disclosure and ensure sustainability.

From the very beginning of philosophy, people know the reality, the onto is hided in the phenomena, philosophy’s task is to find out the essence, the reality hided in the phenomena. At the time about early 20th century, there came out a kind of philosophy, called Phenomenology, ever developed ardently during last century for several decades, even now, it is still there, continue split philosophy, bring confusion to philosophy. Philosophy was produced by study the essence of object, especially the onto of everything, but in Phenomenology, there is no essence or the onto hided in the nature, it regard the phenomena as the study object, it deny the onto exists. The onto is the target object of philosophy over the past 2000 more years, but the phenomenology deny the onto, then, how could the phenomenology still regard itself as “philosophy”? Obviously, the phenomenology is not philosophy. Of course, the onto is there, longlive with the nature, the sun, the space. To get to know the onto, is the long live study for human. So, the phenomenology is wrong, at least wrong in the regard of the philosophy. Because ofphenomenology’s ridiculous study object and theme, it produced various kinds of ridiculous answer and explain, by its main study such as Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and latter, The structuralism, post structuralism and post modernism etc. Finally, philosophy was split, falling apart in everything, it seemed any kind thing or phenomena could produce a kind of philosophy, what more ridiculous is any kind of phenomena ever expected to explain the nature the world the space by its several points of view about itself. This make philosophy look like garbage, loss the glory it ever had. Now, it is high time to say that the phenomenology, since it deny the essence and the onto in the nature, is not philosophy, it shall not be called as philosophy. Philosophy’starget object is the onto, which is the root basis of everything, the root theory in the space.

Freedom is natural, Human rights come from nature, human strive for happiness, in a civilization society, how to protect human right? how to help people strive for happiness? The answer is the democracy. Democracy is not simply a kind of political system, but the essence way to protect human right, the best way to help people get the happiness. So, the democracy political system, is used to protect people’s human rights, protect equality. To assist people get happiness, it is not only the political game frame rules. So, the way to judge a country’s political system democracy or not, is to see if that system could protect peoples’s human rights, if it could assist people’s working for happiness in economy and political, if it goes in the direction of human’s civilization. To judge democracy is not by the shape, but the essence inside. So, in different place /country, probably the democracy shape is not the same, but the democracy value, the democracy essence could be the same. Only the democracy political system is the only correct political system in civilization time. The root basis theory of my democracy come from my new ontology and cognition, as following : New ontology: The Onto is the uniform contradiction being. The essence of people: The uniform contrast body within people’s body, is “ ego and nonego.“ New Cognition: Cognition course moves by the force from the contrast between the Ego and Nonego within an exist being live body. “EGO” + “Nonego” →→ Force to move(N times) →→Feeling(N times) →→ Idea(N numbers) + thinking(N times) →→Knowledge (N numbers) ≈ Object →→ ＝Object.

The May Fourth Movement has had a history of 90 years. As a great patriotic and democratic movement against imperialism and feudalism, it is of profound significance to the social and historical development of China. In reviewing the May Fourth Movement today, we need to take into account the present historical stage we are in and the historical tasks we are facing, expanding from the simple political perspective in the past to the perspective of the whole society, and rethink the direction of culture on the basis of respecting the true history as it is.

In recent years, China has initiated the concept of “building a community of shared destiny for mankind”, aiming to find a way out of the international tensions and confrontations that have plagued the world for a long time and to promote the development of globalization and the well-being of mankind by seeking a new framework for common interests and common values of mankind. However, the background of this initiative, its theoretical basis, logic and practical intentions are not as simple as they seem at the first glance. In particular, each of its basic concepts, such as “humanity”, “destiny” and “community”, needs critical deliberation and stipulation from a new perspective so that its connotation can be effectively and accurately expressed and its meaning be tested and confirmed through practice.

In the strict sense, the word “value concept” popular nowadays should refer to the “conception of value”, because theoretically, there are differences between them. “Value concept” refers to a discipline, that is, a subfiled of philosophy. From the perspective of grammar, it can be seen that, just like material concept, movement concept, history concept, and so on, the “value concept” in this sense refers to the “view of value”—the theory taking value phenomena as the object. It is mainly a topic for scholars to conduct academic research. People can talk about value in a detached manner. These discussions themselves are not equal to people’s own value interest and attitude in life. Conception of value is not the case. It refers to people’s “desires, beliefs, feelings and thoughts” in terms of value, in a word, attitude and orientation, that is, the value feelings of the people concerned. It is actually equivalent to “social ideology” and the “mental state” of individuals. This kind of meaning is the concept that we want to discuss, which is directly related to the interests and choices of the state, society and all the people.

It is not some kind of moral philosophy that determines the moral outlook of a society. The current Chinese moral ideas are by no means the main root of many problems in Chinese reality. Therefore, the author has always disapproved of speaking of morality in terms of morality in isolation. But the current situation shows that even in the field of morality, we still have a lot of ideological theory and concept problems, as well as moral thinking mode problems, in a state of self-closure or half-hidden that needed to be theoretically combed and answered.

In the second half of 2008, a newspaper article entitled “Wenchuan earthquake: a start of a new China” published by Southern Weekend on May 22 sparkled a nationwide debate over “universal values”. It was said in this article that “the country is fulfilling its commitment of universal values to its own people and to the world with actions. This is a turning point not only for the comprehensive renewal of the ruling concept but for China’s comprehensive integration into modern civilization.” Such a statement was under severe criticism because “universal value” was regarded as a universal principle and was improperly highly proclaimed. In fact, this debate has a philosophical background that goes beyond politics and ideology, that is, human’s understanding of value has shown signs of reflection and division revealed through practical judgements. Many “moral dilemmas” and “value paradoxes” in practice indicate that the traditional logic and way of thinking of value judgement can no longer effectively solve the value conflicts in the era of pluralist subject. Therefore, profound philosophical reflection and revolution are needed. Only by seeking new value concepts and ways of thinking can we face the rapidly changing reality and the future of mankind.

It is a significant point in this era as well as an important and difficult point in the research of value theory to reasonably illustrate the value of human and to promote the realization of human value. In order to avoid falling into the purely subjective and emotional traditional thinking mode and to analyze it rationally and peacefully, we need to self-examine our thinking modes and develop the dignity of human and our understanding of human along with our affection to human on the basis of scientific theories.

The transformation from planned economy to market economy is a revolution with profound significance. The self-transformation in the field of economy is not only a choice guided by traditional values, but also a modernization of basic traditional values. Cultural transformation and economic transformation will neither be possible nor successful if basic values remain intact. Therefore, in the process of cultural transformation triggered by economic transformation, the conflict and change of values will inevitably become the flashpoint.

For Chinese people, “culture” always has multiple meanings ranging from small to large, narrow to wide. For example, in Chinese folk tradition, anyone who has once went to school, been educated, knowing how to read, can be regarded as a person “with culture”. The culture here might have the narrowest sense while academic definition of culture made by scholars usually describes it as “all the material and spiritual achievements of human beings”, covering all material culture, institutional culture and spiritual culture. This broad definition of “culture” becomes an almost all-encompassing concept while in current Chinese publicity and education documents, emphasis is placed on “culture as an ideological form” (Mao Zedong, New Democracy), which is composed of ideological theory, publicity and education, press and publication, artistic performances, leisure and entertainment, cultural relic management and other fields. This is the “medium” culture between the “smallest” and the “biggest”, that is, the “spiritual culture”. Obviously, the concept of culture in its narrowest sense or in its medium sense both belongs to the “sub-concept” of culture in its broad sense. And all of these divisions are just extensions of the concept of culture.