Analysis – Page 564 – MIL Submissions Engine

July 11, 2025

What would it take for a new British left-wing party to succeed?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colm Murphy, Lecturer in British Politics, Queen Mary University of London

Last week, the MP for Coventry South, Zarah Sultana, made an audacious decision. Having already lost the Labour party whip for opposing the two-child benefit cap, Sultana announced she would co-lead a new left-wing party with Jeremy Corbyn, who was expelled from Labour in 2024.

From one angle, her decision may seem simple. Discontent with Keir Starmer’s Labour government, on everything from welfare cuts to Gaza, has never been higher, and Sultana is a vocal critic. Yet, launching a (still unnamed) new party is bold. It tackles head-on an old and vexing question for socialist critics of capitalism in the UK.

In 1976, the socialist theorist Ralph Miliband (yes, Ed and David’s dad) described the faith in Labour’s capacity to become a socialist vehicle as “the most crippling of all illusions”. But socialists who agree with Miliband senior then have an almighty problem.

Writing months after the 2019 defeat of Corbyn’s Labour party, the veteran “New Left” academics Colin Leys and Leo Panitch echoed Miliband in their book Searching for Socialism. But they also saw few immediate alternatives with “any prospect of electoral success”. This, they wrote, is the “central dilemma” for British democratic socialists.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

The reaction to Sultana’s announcement from the British left has been accordingly mixed. Leaks revealed that Corbyn’s team was caught off guard. Responses from prominent potential supporters were reserved. Momentum, the left-wing grassroots organisation, hastily distributed the pamphlet Why Socialists Should Be in the Labour Party.

It’s too early to know whether these issues are teething problems or portents. But the barriers to Sultana’s venture are formidable. What would it take for a new left-wing party to succeed? What would “success” even look like?

A careful reading of political history can help us answer these questions. This is not the first time that new parties have emerged from Labour factionalism. Many readers will be aware of the 1981 departure of the “gang of four” Labour figures, who founded the Social Democratic party (SDP) that later merged with the Liberal party to form the Liberal Democrats.

Nor is it the first time that smaller parties have appeared on Labour’s left. Between 1920 and 1991, the Communist party of Great Britain was a potent force in the trade union movement. From the 1990s to the 2010s, several vehicles contested local and national elections against Labour, from the Socialist Alliance to Left Unity.

Challenges for a new party

Each of these iterations had its historical peculiarities. But stepping back, we can identify three recurring challenges that any left-wing insurgent party must confront.

First, they must agree on an electoral strategy and purpose, given the institutional brutality of British democracy. The UK has some proportional elections, including in Scotland and Wales (expected to be next contested in 2026). Councils are also possible avenues of influence.

But there is no avoiding the fact that legislative and executive power is hoarded in the House of Commons, elected by first past the post. Labour will discourage possible defectors by warning that a split in the left vote will let in the right. Neil Kinnock, Labour’s former leader who found himself fighting off the SDP while trying to evict Thatcher in the 1980s, dubbed Sultana and Corbyn’s venture the “Farage assistance party”.

Left of Labour parties are often aware of the risk. Indeed, far left activists have in the past advocated voting Labour, with “varying degrees of (un)enthusiasm”.

Advocates of a new party will note that Labour is only polling in the low 20s, suggesting a pool of ex-Labour voters potentially interested in shopping around. However, there are others it could torpedo too.

One recent poll on support for a hypothetical Corbyn-led party – which we should take with some salt – found that its 10% support comes partly from eating into the Green vote. An electoral arrangement with the Greens, on the other hand, may require shared policy platforms, raising the question of why a separate party is needed.

A poll from More in Common conducted specifically about a Sultana-Corbyn party found 9% of Labour voters and 26% of current Green voters saying that would vote for such a party.

The Socialist Labour party (SLP) – founded in 1996 by the prominent trade unionist Arthur Scargill in reaction to Tony Blair’s New Labour – is the obvious cautionary tale. Scargill wanted a purer, better Labour party. Yet, Labour looked set to kick out an 18-year-long Conservative government.

Scargill could not convince many sympathetic activists to join. As historian Alfie Steer argues, the SLP instead became dominated by socialists hostile to the Labour party. The party could not overcome the resultant contradictions in its purpose and collapsed into acrimony.

The SLP also illustrates the second key consideration: timing. The SLP struggled partly because it launched just as Labour was sweeping triumphantly into power. Sultana’s timing is arguably more astute. She has waited for Starmer’s bubble to burst and for disillusionment to fester.

However, the broad left within Labour has also just found its voice by rebelling against government policy. The temptation for a risk-averse Labour activist may be to leap onto this critical bandwagon without taking the more dangerous step of defecting.

Starmer and Corbyn side by side — Keir Starmer, then shadow Brexit secretary, accompanies then-Labour leader Corbyn to Brussels in 2019.
Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock

The final challenge is securing institutional durability without debilitating splits. It is telling that Sultana felt compelled to include Corbyn’s name despite his reported reservations.

Sultana herself has an impressive political profile, especially on TikTok. Any new party will rely heavily on prominent spokespeople to force it into the national conversation. Yet, such vehicles can become trapped by their dependence on individuals. The Respect party of the 2000s, for example, was reliant on the charismatic but polarising figure of George Galloway.

The fledgling party will also need a lasting structure that determines how candidates are selected and policy is formed. This risks dragging it into dreaded constitutional debates. It is already reportedly divided over the existence of co-leaders.

Intra-party democracy is off-putting to outsiders. But as constitutional scholar Meg Russell argues, it speaks to fundamental questions about the extent, and limits, of democracy. Such disputes have frequently wracked the left (and the radical right, as Reform’s recent constitutional changes show).

To what extent should policy be “democratically” decided? Should a new party limit who can join, and if so, on what criteria? How will leaders be selected? From the CPGB to the SLP, these questions have proven divisive in the past. They could easily prove so again.

The new party faces severe challenges, but it would be unwise to write it off completely. In a volatile context, it has a chance to make its mark if it is clear in its strategic electoral purpose, cultivates an institutional and activist base and times its interventions astutely. But the obstacles to success are enormous – and with Reform currently polling top, the risks are high.

Colm Murphy is currently a member of the Labour Party, but he is writing purely in an academic capacity.

– ref. What would it take for a new British left-wing party to succeed? – https://theconversation.com/what-would-it-take-for-a-new-british-left-wing-party-to-succeed-260599

July 11, 2025

My artwork, A Virtuous Woman, has become the centre of a protest – it shows how our polarised society can affect art

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Layla Khoo, PhD Candidate, Public Participatory Contemporary Art, University of Leeds

My project A Virtuous Woman is both an artwork and a piece of ongoing research into the role of participatory artwork in heritage sites. As such, the artwork was always intended to be dynamic, responding to the ways in which people wanted to take part.

The artwork was inspired by the embroideries of the ancient noble women commissioned by one of the most notable women in Elizabethan court and society, Bess of Hardwick, four of which are on display at the National Trust property, Hardwick Hall. The new work was intended to be a reimagining of the missing fifth embroidery, made from recycled fabrics donated by the National Trust staff and volunteers.

Visitors to the hall could take part in sewing, cutting and adding their own expressions through embroidery. But after two participants added the name of author J.K. Rowling to the piece and another embroidered a line of stitches through both instances, things became complicated.

A protest was staged at Hardwick Hall and the artwork became the centre of a media storm. I have been subject to accusations and abuse online for displaying the work complete with these conflicting pieces of participation and the National Trust have received a barrage of complaints. So where does this leave participatory arts, the artists who create and facilitate them and the sites which commission and host them?

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Participatory arts have to consider not only the freedom of expression of the artist, but of every person who participates. Both the National Trust and I had to attempt to balance the expressions of participants in a political polarised climate, while witnessing a media fallout when groups and individuals disagree with the choices made.

Participation with the artwork took place between April and November 2024. Throughout this time, the work prompted discussion and debate around the subject of virtues and the women that visitors felt upheld these values.

Thousands of people added their embroideries. In total 186 words of virtue or value, and 804 names were added to the piece. Some were embroidered by more than one person (a few stitches, or a letter each), some participants embroidered more than one contribution, and many virtues and names were repeated multiple times.

The Hardwick Hall team and I had previously agreed that no names would be censored or removed from the work, and that participants would not be allowed to unpick each other’s embroidery. However, while not encouraged, participants would be allowed to interact with and adapt the embroidery of other participants.

In August 2024, a complaint was raised after two people added Rowling’s name to the piece. The author has sparked controversy in the last few years as a result of her “gender critical” views, which many see as transphobic (a claim which Rowling denies), while others see her as a figurehead for women’s rights. A participant then embroidered a line of stitches through both instances of the name on two separate panels (in the colours of the trans pride flag), while leaving the name clearly visible.

We now needed to consider whether staff, volunteers and visitors might feel offended, unsafe or unwelcome when encountering the recognition of a person seen by some as harmful. We also needed to think about the dismissal of someone admired by others for their cultural influence and beliefs.

At the request of the National Trust, the project was “paused” for a month while advice was taken on the most appropriate way forward. Staff were prepared through workshops run by the National Trust team on how to deal with potentially difficult interactions with participants.

I was asked by the National Trust team if I was willing to remove any embroidered names from the work, including repetitions. I said I was not, as participants had taken part in good faith and were expecting to see their contribution in the completed work.

The Hardwick Hall team and I agreed that all names would remain, and all subsequent names added would not be subject to censorship. We agreed that the lines stitched through Rowling’s name would also remain. I felt that removing them would remove an act of protest – a valid act of participation – and that leaving it on display would demonstrate the difficulties and friction involved in creative expression and participation in our often-polarised society.

Many participants saw Rowling’s crossed out name while embroidery was still taking place, and some responded by adding her name again. Participants discussed cancel culture, polarised views and the complexity of the people they admire.

When the artwork was complete, Rowling’s name appeared seven times – twice with a line stitched through, five times unaltered. The completed artwork was placed on display at Hardwick Hall in January this year.

On May 24, the Women’s Rights Network (WRN) posted a thread on X detailing a visitor complaint regarding the crossing out of Rowling’s name. They called for the National Trust to add a statement to the artwork, explaining why the crossing out remains on display. Members of the WRN subsequently carried out a protest on site and created a short film explaining their position.

On May 31, two visitors to Hardwick Hall cut away the line of stitches and posted images and video of themselves doing so on X.

The subsequent mainstream media coverage, blog posts and widespread social media attention resulted in threats of further activism.

The National Trust initially covered the work to protect it, but then removed it from display on June 4, as there was now also a risk to other artworks and collection items at Hardwick Hall, and to the staff and volunteers on site.

The National Trust released a statement on X, which appeared to do little to answer questions being raised. There are now growing calls for commentary from me, as the artist responsible for the work, to explain what has happened, how decisions were made and where I stand both on the actions taken and the wider gender debate this speaks to.

Limitations in creative expression

I believe that the arts are in a unique position to tackle difficult subjects, and participatory arts can provide an opportunity for more voices to be heard. But with this approach comes the inevitable balancing act of where freedom of expression ends and causing harm begins.

Consideration must be given to intention versus impact. Making these editorial and ethical choices creates a changing power dynamic. The participants have been invited to take part and do so in a way that is meaningful to them in what they believe to be the overall context of the work.

In participatory arts, the artist is part author, part facilitator of the expressions of others. The commissioning body or hosting site then holds the ultimate control, in being able to choose whether to display the work created.

My part in the decision to allow the stitching through of Rowling’s name essentially comes from a shared belief in singer Nina Simone’s view that “an artist’s duty … is to reflect the times”.

In my opinion, the acts of protest and activism in the crossing out of the name and the removal of that crossing out epitomise the lack of tolerance for other people’s views and beliefs that is becoming prevalent in our increasingly polarised society. As such, I think it is entirely appropriate to display these actions in the artwork. This polarisation and intolerance has been compounded in the subsequent outpouring of online vitriol and demands for what this work should and should not represent.

Both acts of activism changed the artwork, and disregarded the previous participant’s contribution. The difference is that the crossing out took place while participation was invited and expected – the removal of that crossing out was not. As the artist responsible for the artwork I have faced increasing demands not just to clarify the events leading to this point, but also to openly share my views on the actions taken by all parties. However, an artist sharing their opinion is not simple, or necessarily safe.

In its recent report, Freedom of Expression in the Arts (a five-year project aiming to tackle the culture of fear and intimidation some artists face for expressing their views) found that artists are increasingly afraid to express themselves on dangerous topics for fear of backlash from the public and cancellation of work opportunities by commissioning bodies.

My own experience has shown that social media is neither the place for nuanced, balanced, nor reasonable debate. I have been accused of transphobia for allowing the inclusion of Rowling’s name in the first place, and called (among other things) a “gender traitor” for allowing her name to be crossed out. But when a commissioning body or host site cancels a work which speaks to these debates, how else are artists able to speak out?

In a comment sent to The Conversation, a National Trust spokesperson said: “A Virtuous Woman is formed of people’s views from a variety of age groups, life experiences and beliefs … We understand that everyone may not agree on all the names included, but they are the choices of individual participants. Everyone is welcome at the National Trust, and the artwork reflects the diversity of the community and individuals we serve. Our approach is to make space for a variety of creative and personal responses to the collections and to encourage conversation.”

At the time of writing, I have been told that the redisplay of a projection of the artwork and explanatory panels is under review and is unlikely to take place until September 2025. Participatory arts hold up a mirror first to those who take part, and then again in the reception and judgement of subsequent viewers. The difficulty comes when we don’t like what it reflects.

Layla Khoo receives funding from the Frank Parkinson Scholarship for her PhD research.

– ref. My artwork, A Virtuous Woman, has become the centre of a protest – it shows how our polarised society can affect art – https://theconversation.com/my-artwork-a-virtuous-woman-has-become-the-centre-of-a-protest-it-shows-how-our-polarised-society-can-affect-art-260349

July 11, 2025

Why Trump blames decisions on others – a psychologist explains

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

It was US president Harry S. Truman who, in the years just after the second world war, kept a little wooden sign on his desk which read: “The buck stops here!”. It emphasised his willingness to accept ultimate responsibility for his decisions and actions as president, even the ones that didn’t quite work out.

This phrase has since become emblematic of presidential accountability and leadership. Truman wasn’t interested in trying to pass the buck, not as a man and certainly not as president.

Interestingly, the sign was made in the Federal Reformatory (prison) at El Reno, Oklahoma, suggesting an implicit moral dimension to this issue of responsibility and accountability. We’re all accountable for our actions, whoever we are, but the president above all.

But how things seem to have changed with Donald Trump in the White House.

Trump continually takes personal credit for any perceived successes as president – fixing global tariffs, Nato members paying more, the Middle East (even taking credit for things that were completed before he took office). But he makes sure that any failures are immediately attributed elsewhere.

He frequently positions himself as surprised or “blindsided” by unpopular decisions, which are always somebody else’s doing, somebody else’s fault. Subordinates are held responsible. He is not averse to pointing the finger directly at them, and often in public, high-profile settings.

That great loyal Trump supporter, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, for example, has recently been in the firing line for being personally responsible for pausing the delivery of missile shipments to Ukraine. US defence officials had apparently become concerned that weapons stockpiles were becoming low, as they needed to divert arms to Israel to help in the war with Iran.

But the pause in supplying some weapons to Ukraine announced by the Pentagon on July 2 was a hugely unpopular decision that resonated around the world. Hegseth was blamed.

Some have suggested that having loyalists such as Hegseth in critical positions like secretary of defense is highly strategic, and not just for the more obvious reasons. You could argue that having loyal supporters with delegated but overlapping authority is highly advantageous when it comes to the blame game.

Trump can publicly distance himself when things go wrong (as he did here), claim a degree of surprise, and swiftly change course. That way he is publicly reasserting his role as leader without admitting fault.

It is also noteworthy that Trump often reverses these decisions made by his subordinates in high-visibility environments, which suggests a determined pattern of strategic image management.

It’s a simple set of moves – you allow a subordinate to initiate a controversial decision, then you rein it in publicly and reassert your authority, thus showcasing your resolve. In other words, delegation to loyal insiders like Hegseth becomes a useful buffer against political fallout.

Loyal insiders still stay loyal (for the foreseeable future at least). They won’t sling mud, like some might in their position. So Trump can appear masterful.

Are you going to send weapons to Ukraine? President Trump reverses a policy and decides he will.

But of course, there’s more to this than everyday political shenanigans. Personality plays a major role. Some psychologists have argued that not internalising failure is psychologically beneficial.

If you take credit for success but externalise failure, that makes you resilient (and happy). But there are clearly limits to this, and there’s a darker side.

People with high levels of narcissism (“I like to be the centre of attention”; “I am an extraordinary person” – both items on the narcissism personality inventory, a method of measuring personalities) often avoid accountability because they perceive themselves as superior to others. But only, it should be noted, in certain “key” aspects of life.

In the words of Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, authors of The Narcissism Epidemic: “Narcissists think that they are smarter, better looking and more important than others, but not necessarily more moral, more caring or more compassionate.”

Narcissistic individuals tend to externalise blame to protect their fragile self-esteem and maintain their self-image. They may refuse to admit fault because doing so threatens their grandiose concept of self.

Individuals exhibiting Machiavellian traits, characterised by manipulativeness and a lack of empathy, are also more prone to shifting blame. They may deflect responsibility to serve their self-interest, which is clearly a highly manipulative manoeuvre. You just do whatever is required.

Research also indicates that individuals with low conscientiousness, one of what are considered the “big five” personality traits, are less likely to accept responsibility for their actions. They may be somewhat careless or irresponsible in their work or actions, and when mistakes do occur – which they will – they blame external factors or other people.

In other words, certain personality traits are associated with a tendency to avoid accountability and responsibility.

It has been said that Trump’s inner circle consists of loyal sycophants who, even when it’s cringeworthy for outsiders, publicly praise him to amplify and protect his self-image. He needs this from them.

But they have another use as well. When things don’t go so well, they take it on the chin for him. That’s almost part of the job description. When things go wrong, his inner circle all understand the buck really stops with them.

Geoff Beattie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why Trump blames decisions on others – a psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/why-trump-blames-decisions-on-others-a-psychologist-explains-260877

July 11, 2025

Vuelve Superman, un superhéroe para su tiempo

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By David Moriente Díaz, Profesor de Historia y Teoría del Arte, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Fotograma de ‘Superman’, la versión de 2025 de James Gunn. FilmAffinity

En junio de 1938 el dibujante Joseph “Joe” Shuster y el guionista Jerome “Jerry” Siegel presentaron, en el primer número de la revista Action Comics, a Superman. Este personaje, además de convertirse en celebérrimo, abriría la puerta a un nuevo género que continúa hasta hoy: el de las aventuras de superhéroes.

Portada de una revista en la que un hombre vestido de azul y con capa roja levanta un coche por encima de su cabeza. — Portada del primer número de *Action comics* con Superman haciendo de las suyas.
RTVE/Heritage Auctions

En su icónica portada y en apenas once páginas, los autores del cómic desplegaron el origen extraterrestre del personaje, su llegada a la Tierra, sus habilidades sobrehumanas y su dedicación al bien. De hecho, en el último minuto salvaba a una mujer acusada injustamente de haber cometido un asesinato de ser ejecutada en la silla eléctrica.

Con apenas 24 años y con formaciones casi autodidactas, Shuster y Siegel marcaron los inicios de un mito que alcanza hasta hoy.

Ambos, de origen judío-lituano, eran norteamericanos de segunda generación que vivían en el barrio judío de Glenville (Cleveland). Se habían criado en el seno de familias muy humildes que habían llegado a Estados Unidos huyendo del creciente antisemitismo en Europa, de igual modo que otros nombres axiales para la industria cultural del cómic de los años cincuenta y sesenta –la denominada “edad de oro”– como, por ejemplo, Jack Kirby o Will Eisner.

Leer más:
De ‘Superman’ a ‘Maus’, los creadores judíos son parte esencial de la historia del cómic

Shuster y Siegel no crearon a Superman de la nada, sino que absorbieron la influencia de numerosos elementos que conformaban el ambiente de la cultura popular del momento, que se transmitía a través, principalmente, del pulp (publicaciones de papel barato). Así, por ejemplo, bebieron del virtuosismo de un personaje como Doc Savage (Henry Rawlston y John Nanovic, 1933), quien en sus peripecias buscaba eliminar “las injusticias y castigar a los malvados”, como rezaban los lemas de la época. O se inspiraron, un poco después, en la sólida brújula moral y la identidad secreta en la figura cuasifantástica de The Phantom (Lee Falk y Ray Moore, 1936).

Superman tiene ‘algo más’

Sin embargo, el matiz diferencial de Superman –y que sería la clave de su éxito– es que introducía el superpoder, una característica que lo hacía entroncar directamente con los mitos de los semidioses: podía volar, y tenía una fuerza y resistencia inmensurables, además de facultades como proyectar rayos ópticos o despedir un aliento helado.

Ahora se estrena la última adaptación cinematográfica de la historia del personaje, de la mano del director James Gunn. Tras su exitosa trilogía dedicada a los personajes de la editorial Marvel, los Guardianes de la Galaxia, Gunn ha sido contratado por DC Comics para ordenar el mundo cinematográfico del Universo DC –el de Superman y Batman, entre otros– y competir con la compañía rival Marvel Studios.

Gunn ha decidido no ahondar en los inicios del mito de Superman, que ya han sido tratados infinidad de veces en la gran pantalla. Así, los espectadores dan por sabida su historia: Superman –de nombre original Kal-El– es el único superviviente de la destrucción del planeta Krypton causada por la explosión de su sol. Lo hace gracias a que su padre lo manda a la Tierra siendo un bebé en una pequeña cápsula. Lo encuentran los Kent, un humilde matrimonio de granjeros de Kansas, quienes lo crían inculcándole el valor supremo de hacer el bien.

Una década convulsa

A finales de la década de los treinta, cuando se publicó el cómic, la sociedad estadounidense trataba de olvidar la brutal recesión del país acaecida a consecuencia del crack del 29. La crisis había sido atajada gracias a las medidas del New Deal propuestas por el presidente Roosevelt, que reforzaban la necesidad de premiar el trabajo duro y el heroísmo cotidiano de la clase trabajadora, un estrato al que pertenecían los padres adoptivos de Superman.

Simultáneamente, esa sociedad encaraba con incertidumbre un futuro cuyo escenario prebélico ya era palpable en Europa tras el ascenso de los nazis al poder en 1933. Como nota curiosa, durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y con toda la maquinaria propagandística al servicio del ejército de Estados Unidos, Superman se enfrentó con personajes inspirados en la Alemania nazi, aunque nunca “zurró” directamente a Hitler (como sí hizo, por ejemplo, el Capitán América).

El héroe y su punto débil

¿Qué significa el héroe (uso deliberadamente el género masculino) como sujeto narrativo?

La voz procede del griego hḗrōs, un concepto usado para referirse a los semidioses, es decir, los hijos habidos de la unión entre dioses y mortales. Estos seres, en términos generales, se situaban a medio camino entre lo humano y lo divino. Según esto, el valor, el sacrificio y la empatía se atribuían a la humanidad, mientras que la superioridad moral y las habilidades sobrenaturales serían de origen celestial. La combinación de ambas, entonces, conformaba el perfecto modelo a seguir.

Los héroes procedentes de la mitología de todas las culturas, de Gilgamesh a Hércules pasando por Kintaro o Beowulf, encarnan el prototipo de lo bello, lo bueno y lo verdadero.

No obstante, Superman –al igual que, por ejemplo, Aquiles– también tenía un punto débil: la kriptonita, un material procedente de su mundo natal que podía anular sus superpoderes y lo transformaba en un mortal como el resto de nosotros.

Quién somos y quién queremos ser

La RAE define a un “supermán” como un “hombre de capacidades y cualidades sobrehumanas”.

Sin embargo, el triunfo de su impronta en la sociedad como mito moderno hay que buscarlo en la doble faz del personaje. Tenemos, por un lado, al tímido, torpe y algo estúpido Clark Kent que con sus gafas permitía a cualquiera –siempre que fuera caucásico y occidental– identificarse con él. Pero además, existía la posibilidad de que esa envoltura endeble albergase un otro yo capaz de enfrentarse a todo. Alguien que, como el Übermensch (superhombre) de Friedrich Nietzsche, hubiese alcanzado un estado supremo.

Un chico con traje, pelo rizado y gafas mira hacia arriba, fuera de campo. — Tal vez no todos podamos ser Superman, pero sí podemos ser Clark Kent.
IMDB

Tras numerosas adaptaciones al medio fílmico en los últimos años, quizá haya que destacar que, a diferencia de la penúltima visión de Zack Snyder y su Man of the Steel (2013), la de Gunn recupera la esencia más humanista –más clásica incluso– y bondadosa de un personaje. Tal vez estos sean los ideales necesarios para subsistir en los Estados Unidos de hoy, con un ambiente casi distópico. Como se suele decir: la realidad supera a la ficción.

David Moriente Díaz no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Vuelve Superman, un superhéroe para su tiempo – https://theconversation.com/vuelve-superman-un-superheroe-para-su-tiempo-260658

July 11, 2025

Raison d’être : une nouvelle arme stratégique pour les conseils d’administration européens ?

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Rodolphe Durand, Professeur, stratégie et Politique d’Entreprise, HEC Paris Business School

Comme des centaines de grandes entreprises européennes, le groupe Véolia s’est doté d’une raison d’être. Shutterstock

Une étude menée auprès de 21 très grandes entreprises européennes comme Accor, Barclays, Decathlon, Enel, L’Oréal, Michelin, Philips ou RTL Group, révèle une approche nuancée du corporate purpose par les conseils d’administration des entreprises européennes interrogées. Quatre approches se dégagent: la raison d’être comme slogan, guide, style et boussole, chacune avec ses avantages.

Le 24 avril dernier, l’assemblée générale de Veolia a voté à plus de 99 % l’inscription de la raison d’être dans les statuts de la société. Ce qui veut dire que le conseil d’administration de Veolia plus encore qu’avant devra suivre la mise en œuvre de sa raison d’être par la direction générale de l’entreprise. Quelle sera son approche ?

Dans cet article, plutôt qu’une fois encore se poser la question du management de la raison d’être de l’entreprise (ou corporate purpose) par la direction de l’entreprise, nous nous demandons comment les conseils d’administration des grandes entreprises européennes orchestrent… leur administration. Pour rappel, le conseil d’administration organise les pouvoirs de décision, définit la stratégie de la société, et s’assure de sa mise en œuvre.

La récente étude menée par HEC Paris et Oxford University auprès de 21 très grandes entreprises européennes comme Accor, Barclays, Decathlon, Enel, L’Oréal, Michelin, Philips ou RTL Group, révèle une approche nuancée du corporate purpose par les conseils d’administration des entreprises européennes interrogées . Elle révèle une vision de la raison d’être comme un principe organisateur qui structure la prise de décision, définit les activités et contours identitaires de l’entreprise.

En Europe, au sein des conseils d’administration, quatre approches existent, que nous avons appelé: slogan, guide, style et boussole, chacune avec ses avantages et ses inconvénients. Le maître mot ? Ajuster l’approche de la raison d’être par le conseil d’administration avec les objectifs et les moyens donnés à la direction générale et au management pour sa bonne mise en œuvre.

Quatre approches de la raison d’être

Notre étude identifie ces quatre approches au niveau des conseils d’administration des grandes entreprises européennes. L’approche change selon deux dimensions : si le conseil, et ses comités associés se réfèrent à la raison d’être de façon implicite ou explicite et si les mesures, valeurs et comportements associés à la raison d’être sont abordés de façon générale – abstraite – ou précise – détaillée.

Types de mode d’administration de la raison d’être au sein des conseils des grandes entreprises européennes. Motto signifiant slogan.
Fourni par l’auteur

L’une des conclusions les plus frappantes concerne l’importance cruciale de l’alignement entre l’orchestration au niveau du conseil et la mise en œuvre opérationnelle par le management. Les entreprises qui échouent à synchroniser ces deux niveaux risquent de dysfonctionner. Soit elles engagent trop de ressources, alors que leur mode d’administration ne le requiert pas. Soit elles engagent trop peu de ressources, alors que leur mode d’administration l’exigerait.

Le défi principal ne réside pas tant dans la formulation du corporate purpose, que dans sa traduction opérationnelle au sein des conseils d’administration, à l’interface des représentants des actionnaires – les administrateurs – et de ceux qui agissent pour le développement de l’entreprise – les managers.

Slogan : l’agilité au prix de la cohésion ?

L’approche « Slogan », implicite et abstraite, est la version la plus libre et fluide des quatre approches. Dans cette celle-ci, la raison d’être demeure implicite, car elle n’est pas inscrite dans des pratiques formalisées. Elle est invoquée sous forme de rappel lors de certaines décisions, sans processus formel au sein des comités. Prenons l’exemple d’une des entreprises interrogées.

« La raison d’être est partie intégrante de qui nous sommes et alimente la prise de décision, tant au sein du conseil qu’à l’intérieur de l’entreprise ». rappelle la présidence d’un comité interviewé

Cette approche permet une grande agilité, sans brider la capacité à innover rapidement. En laissant aux équipes de management la liberté d’interpréter la raison d’être selon leur contexte culturel et concurrentiel, elle autorise une forte résonance locale à la raison d’être. Elle séduit particulièrement les entreprises opérant dans des environnements complexes ou multiculturels. Cette flexibilité peut toutefois virer à la dispersion. Lorsque chaque filiale ou business unit s’approprie à sa manière les valeurs et la finalité de la raison d’être de l’entreprise, le risque existe de perdre la cohésion d’ensemble. Le sens commun s’effiloche, et avec lui, l’alignement stratégique.

Abonnez-vous dès aujourd’hui !

Chaque lundi, recevez gratuitement des informations utiles pour votre carrière et tout ce qui concerne la vie de l’entreprise (stratégie, RH, marketing, finance…).

Style : les valeurs comme moteur, au risque de l’ambiguïté ?

L’approche « Style » correspond à une compréhension implicite de la raison d’être par le corps social de l’entreprise corrélée à un suivi par le conseil d’un certain nombre d’indicateurs. Cette approche valorise la confiance et l’autonomie des dirigeants dans les propositions stratégiques qu’ils soumettent au conseil. En retour, le conseil suit des indicateurs d’engagement des salariés, de cohérence des valeurs dans les décisions, notamment au sein de comités spécifiques traitant de la stratégie ou de la rémunération des dirigeants.

Pour le management, le caractère implicite permet de s’appuyer sur la force de cultures professionnelles. Le suivi détaillé d’indicateurs fournit des appuis pour décliner des pratiques managériales au sein des unités opérationnelles. Comme pour l’approche « slogan », l’absence de cadre explicite peut générer des interprétations ambiguës de la raison d’être et mener à des incohérences. Chacun y projette son propre sens, au risque de créer de la confusion stratégique. Si des mécanismes de suivi trop lourds sont mis en place, cette approche se retrouve piégée dans une logique d’exécution… plus que d’inspiration.

Guide : des principes affichés, mais pas infaillibles ?

L’approche « Guide » rend explicites les valeurs de la raison d’être sans pour autant imposer un suivi détaillé d’indicateurs par le conseil d’administration. Ce mode d’orchestration renforce la coordination entre les équipes, installe une culture d’entreprise partagée par le plus grand nombre, ce qui favorise l’engagement des collaborateurs. Le conseil peut mobiliser la raison d’être au sein de comités, notamment le comité stratégique au sujet des cessions et des acquisitions. La raison d’être sert de guide informel pour orienter le management dans ses plans de développement de l’entreprise.

Du point de vue de la direction générale, cette approche peut s’avérer difficile à suivre en l’absence de critères détaillés. La culture forte de l’entreprise peut, avec le temps, devenir une fin en soi, voire réduire la raison d’être à un symbole plutôt qu’un véritable moteur stratégique. En période de crise, en l’absence d’indicateurs suivis précisément par les comités du conseil, le « guide » peut être oublié pour se tourner vers les solutions plus immédiatement lucratives. Et le management pourrait prendre des décisions déconnectées de la raison d’être initiale, semant les graines de dilemmes futurs.

Boussole : aligner mais sans étouffer

Le modèle « Boussole » combine une explicitation de la raison d’être avec un suivi détaillé de nombreux indicateurs. Dans cette configuration, l’espace de jeu entre le conseil et le management est réduit : ils sont conjointement tenus responsables de la réalisation de la raison d’être.

« Les chiffres des budgets vus en conseil reflètent de façon précise et détaillée l’application factuelle de la raison d’être et le développement à long terme des projets qui viennent la soutenir », confie un président de conseil d’administration

Une autre présidente souligne que l’ensemble des comités (y compris celui sur les risques) se réfèrent explicitement à la raison d’être et aux indicateurs pour porter ses analyses. Cette approche crée une forte mobilisation, des comportements alignés et une cohérence globale. Cette rigueur a un prix. La mesure et le reporting de la raison d’être peuvent devenir complexes, voire paralysants selon certains dirigeants. Lorsque les résultats ne sont pas à la hauteur des attentes élevées, le risque est de susciter incompréhensions, frustrations, voire désenchantement au sein de l’entreprise.

La raison d’être s’administre autant qu’elle se manage

L’avenir du corporate purpose en Europe ne se résume pas à une compliance réglementaire ou à une stratégie de communication. Non plus à un ensemble de pratiques managériales. Pour en retirer le meilleur, il s’agit de bien aligner les pratiques du conseil d’administration et les demandes et moyens alloués au top management pour mettre en œuvre la raison d’être. Quatre approches existent, chacune avec ses forces et ses faiblesses.

Nous pensons que cette conception européenne du corporate purpose, ancrée dans l’histoire du continent et tournée vers l’avenir, dépasse désormais la simple question du management. Elle concerne la définition, le rôle et les responsabilités des membres des conseils d’administration et plus généralement de la gouvernance des entreprises, au service d’une compétitivité repensée dans ses dimensions, sa finalité, et sa temporalité.

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

– ref. Raison d’être : une nouvelle arme stratégique pour les conseils d’administration européens ? – https://theconversation.com/raison-detre-une-nouvelle-arme-strategique-pour-les-conseils-dadministration-europeens-256615

July 11, 2025

Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nick Draper, Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canterbury

The widely held view among rugby players, coaches and officials is that headgear can’t prevent concussion. If so, why wear it? It’s hot, it can block vision and hearing, and it can be uncomfortable.

Headgear was originally designed to protect players from cuts and abrasions. But players still hope it will offer them a degree of protection against the collisions they experience in the game. Some players adopt it after previous concussions.

We’re now seeing increasing numbers of professional players opting in. The Irish men’s team, for example, field up to five players each match sporting headgear. In Japan, it’s mandatory for juniors. And more parents in New Zealand are making their children wear it, too.

The exact specifications for rugby match kit – boots, shorts, shoulder pads and
headgear – are regulated through World Rugby’s Law 4 and Regulation 12. In 2019, the governing body launched a trial enabling players to wear headgear with new technical specifications in training and matches.

The specifications have meant manufacturers can take advantage of novel “isotropic” materials that can potentially reduce the impact forces experienced by players.

Conventional headgear is composed of soft foams that flatten when a player’s head collides with the ground or another player. As such, they can only minimally absorb those collision forces.

Isotropic materials behave differently. They can absorb impacts from multiple directions and may offer a level of protection against the effects on a player’s head of a tackle or other collision event.

Given these changes, and in light of recent research, we may need to change the narrative around rugby headgear: while it may not prevent concussion, it might reduce the total contact “burden” experienced by players in a game and over a whole season. And this could have benefits for long-term brain health.

Impacts across seasons and careers

Contact in rugby – through tackles, at the breakdown, and in scrums and lineouts – leads to players experiencing a number of collisions or “head acceleration events”. This contact is most commonly head to ground, head to body or head to head.

By having players use “smart” mouthguards with embedded micro-accelerometers and gyroscopes to capture head movements, researchers can now measure each collision and each player’s contact load in a game – and potentially over a career.

A player’s total contact load is found by adding together the magnitude of the impacts they experience in a game. These are measured as “peak linear accelerations” or “peak rotational accelerations”.

While past research and media attention has focused on concussion, it has become clear the total contact burden in training and matches – the total “sub-concussive knocks” through head acceleration events – may be as important, if not more so.

One of our own research projects involved following 40 under-16 players wearing smart mouthguards for all training and matches across one season. Peak Linear accelerations are measured as a g-force (g). Activities such as such as running, jumping and shaking the head would measure under 8g, for example, whereas heading a soccer ball might measure 31g.

The results of our study showed the players differed greatly in their cumulative exposure over a whole season, from 300g to nearly 14,000g. These differences would be amplified further over an entire rugby career.

Some of the variation is likely due to a player’s team position, with loose forwards having a greater burden than others. But it also seems some players just enjoy the contact aspects of the game more than others.

Rugby is an impact sport: the Ireland and England women’s teams clash in 2025.
Getty Images

Potential benefits of new headgear materials

Researcher Helen Murray at the University of Auckland has highlighted the need for more research into the burden of collisions, rather than just concussions, over a rugby career. In particular, we need to know more about its effect on future brain health.

We hope to contribute to this by following our existing cohort of players through their careers. In the meantime, our research has examined the potential of existing rugby headgear and new isotropic materials to mitigate peak accelerations in rugby collisions.

Using the field data collected from male and female players over the past four seasons, we have designed laboratory testing protocols to compare the conventional and newer materials.

The results suggest the new forms of headgear do have the potential to reduce the impact burden for players.

We found 55–90% of head acceleration events do involve direct contact with the head. As such, collision-mitigation headgear could be beneficial. And our laboratory testing produced an estimated 30% reduction in peak linear accelerations with the headgear compared to without.

The nature of concussion is complex and related to the size of an impact as well as its direction and angle. For instance, we observed the concussions experienced by the junior players occurred between 12g and 62g – well below the male threshold of 70g requiring professional players to be removed from the field for a head injury assessment.

Currently, it seems unlikely headgear can prevent concussion. But it does appear new headgear materials could significantly reduce the total impact burden for players during their careers. And this may help safeguard their future brain health.

Nick Draper receives funding from the Health Research Council, Cure Kids, the Neurological Foundation, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, Pacific Radiology Group, the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and the UC Foundation.

– ref. Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career – https://theconversation.com/rugby-headgear-cant-prevent-concussion-but-new-materials-could-soften-the-blows-over-a-career-258912

July 11, 2025

What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Belinda Clarence, Law Lecturer, RMIT University

During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes.

Would that be possible, and what effects would it have?

The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is used to transport about 20% of global daily oil consumption.

Iran effectively controls this crucial shipping route because it is a coastal state bordering this narrow stretch of water. The strait is too narrow to avoid navigating waters claimed by Iran. This raises thorny legal questions about whether it is really possible for Iran to block the strait, and what recourse other states have if it does.

This geographical reality is far from new, and the legal frameworks governing international maritime activity have developed over centuries. At its heart is the lex mercatoria — the “law of merchants” — a body of transnational commercial law that emerged organically from the practices of traders operating across borders.

Within this broader framework sits the lex maritima, or customary maritime law, which has long adapted to the hazards of shipping across vast oceans.

The lex maritima originated from the shared practices of seafarers and merchants. Its purpose? To manage the unpredictable nature of maritime trade that demands coherent and stable rules.

One of the most enduring principles of this legal tradition is the idea of mare liberum, or “the free sea”, set out by Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1609. He argued the high seas should remain open to all for peaceful navigation and trade. This conveniently legitimised the ambitions of European colonial powers, granting them unfettered access to global maritime routes at a time when control over sea-based trade promised immense economic and strategic advantage.

The shifting boundaries of maritime law

One of the most fundamental questions in maritime law is: where do a nation’s territorial waters end, and the high seas begin?

After the second world war, a series of conferences culminated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the customary 3 nautical miles (5.56km) of territorial waters states could claim as their own was extended. This narrow limit was rooted more in historical naval range – the so-called “cannon shot rule” – than in modern geopolitical or environmental realities.

In 1959, Iran took the unusual step of unilaterally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. Two decades later, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis, Washington grew increasingly anxious about the security of oil flows from the Persian Gulf. These concerns intensified during the Iran-Iraq War, especially as Iran began using small islands in the Strait of Hormuz to deploy military forces and threaten commercial shipping.

UNCLOS and the new rules of the sea

One of the key compromises of UNCLOS was an extension of territorial waters for states that ratified the treaty. In exchange, UNCLOS replaced the older concept of “innocent passage” – which allowed only surface navigation through territorial seas – with the broader notion of “transit passage”. Under this regime, vessels and aircraft from other states are granted the right to travel not only on the surface, but also under the sea and through the air above straits used for international navigation.

While 169 states have ratified UNCLOS, both Iran and the United States remain notable holdouts. This means Iran does not enjoy the broader 12-nautical-mile limit recognised under UNCLOS, and the US cannot claim the agreement’s protections for transit passage through strategic choke points.

While the geopolitical and legal tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may seem far removed from the world of private commerce, the global economy continues to function thanks to a powerful legal tool: the contract. Contracts offer a predictable framework that allows trade across borders without parties needing to trust one another personally.

The Strait of Hormuz is bordered by active, assertive states such as Iran, which means the potential for interstate conflict is relatively high. This doesn’t mean commercial contracts are irrelevant to the recent dispute in the Strait of Hormuz — far from it. But their influence is more indirect.

What can be learned?

Without significant political change in Tehran, it’s unlikely either Iran or the US will shift its position on adopting UNCLOS. Yet despite Iran’s repeated threats to close the strait, it has never followed through — and the US Navy continues to maintain a steady presence in the region. For now, a fragile but persistent equilibrium holds.

Belinda Clarence does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-why-is-it-so-important-for-global-shipping-260920

July 11, 2025

Trump is aiming to silence public media in the US – and if he succeeds, his supporters here will take note

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

The ABC dodged a bullet in the Australian election. The Albanese government supports the ABC. In the United States, however, the 2024 presidential election severely wounded public media in America.

Fresh from his decisive victory in Congress – passage of the One Big Beautiful bill that locks in the legislation to prosecute Trump’s domestic policy agenda – Trump is demanding Congress cancel funding for public media, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). Hardliners in the US House of Representatives have already voted to end all federal funding for public media. The Senate will vote on this issue in mid-July.

We have tale of two vital and powerful media institutions in Australia and the US. What happens over there can affect what happens here.

Towards the end of Australia’s election campaign, Peter Dutton, then leader of the Liberal Party, opened up on the ABC. He looped in The Guardian for good measure. And he implied other media deserved his words:

Forget about what you have been told by the ABC, The Guardian and the other hate media.

Dutton’s words embellished previous policies under Coalition governments, with budget cuts to the ABC of over $500 million, and several inquiries into the degree of ABC’s neutrality and objectivity in its coverage of news and current affairs.

Kim Williams, chair of the ABC, said the network would “perform well” under any scrutiny from a Dutton government. Dutton himself, shortly before the election, demanded the ABC show “excellence” in order to prove to taxpayers that its almost $1.2 billion annual budget was justified.

The Coalition’s defeat aided the ABC’s victory in its longstanding quest for financial stability and future growth. The ABC can continue to build on the commitments established by the Albanese Labor government in 2023 – even though there are choppy waters for the ABC as its new leadership makes programming and staffing decisions for the years ahead.

With a new Coalition shadow cabinet in place, we will see as future budgets play out whether they have changed their tune on their approach to the ABC.

We will see how both the government and the Coalition react to Kim Williams’ powerful case he recently presented for “more investment for much-needed renewal” in the ABC.

Public media in Trump’s America

In America today, public media are facing Trump’s wrath.

Trump’s hatred of mainstream media is legendary. For the past decade, Trump has called the major media outlets the “enemy of the people” – the same label that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin used against those who dared to oppose him.

In his second term, Trump is engaged in aggressive muscling of the enemies he sees in the media. The Associated Press is barred from the pool of journalists covering the president. Trump has silenced the Voice of America. The US ABC and CBS television networks have both settled lawsuits filed by Trump to seek damages for their broadcast coverage of him and the 2024 presidential campaign. The price to help avoid regulatory punishment by the government of those two networks: $US16 million (A$24.5 million) each.

For a country that established freedom of the press under its Constitution, Trump’s attacks on news media are an ongoing assault on America’s democracy.

Trump’s attacks on PBS and NPR show the existential threat they face.

In 1967, Congress established and funded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to bring to life public television and radio across America. Money from CPB supports the stations. The stations contract with PBS and NPR to help produce the programming they air, from the PBS NewsHour, Frontline and Sesame Street on PBS to Morning Edition and All Things Considered on NPR – and much more.

Trump holds the same sentiment that Dutton expressed against the ABC – that the public broadcasters are biased toward the “extreme woke Marxist left”. Trump wrote on Truth Social that:

Jim Jordan of Ohio, one of the most influential Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, was in-your-face direct on the case against public media:

This bill’s real simple. Don’t spend money on stupid things, and don’t subsidize biased media.

In late April, Trump ordered the firing of three of CPB’s five directors. On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that will savage public media’s existence:

At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage […] The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS.“

Public media has filed red-hot lawsuits against Trump and his officials for crushing the First Amendment free-speech rights of public televion and radio stations, and for cancelling funds appropriated by Congress. The court rulings in these cases will be crucial to the outcome.

The last near-fatal threat to public broadcasting was in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan sought Congress’ approval to decimate its funding. Under Reagan conservatism, media belong in the private sector. The conservative’s political bias against public broadcasting framed the push to cancel government funding.

But Congress rose up successfully against the Reagan cuts – led not only by Democrats but with Senate Republicans from rural states who understood how important public broadcasting was to their communities. Their budgets were trimmed, but PBS and NPR were not decapitated.

Lessons for the ABC

The same is true here: ABC stations in country areas are similarly held in high regard.

The cuts to public media passed the US House by one vote on June 12.

The Senate will vote in the coming days. We will see if some Senate Republicans who voted against Trump’s One Big Beautiful bill last week will stand up again and vote to buck Trump on this issue and protect public media in their states.

If Trump succeeds in silencing public media in America, the Trump echo chamber in Australia will take note. Some hard conservatives in Canberra and the Murdoch media will likely leverage Congress’ approval of Trump’s order that PBS and NPR be punished for their left-wing bias and that public media should become the province of the private sector. Defunding public media in the US will sustain the sentiment that one day, under a future government here, the scythe will be wielded at the ABC.

If the US Senate supports Trump, the fight for the ABC in Australia – not just over money, but over its role, responsibilities and standing in Australia – may not be over.

Bruce Wolpe is a (non-resident) Senior Fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. The views expressed herein are his own. Wolpe served on the staff of Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He worked on the Democratic staff in Congress on public broadcasting issues and was an executive with NPR. He is the author of two books on Trump and Australia.

– ref. Trump is aiming to silence public media in the US – and if he succeeds, his supporters here will take note – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-aiming-to-silence-public-media-in-the-us-and-if-he-succeeds-his-supporters-here-will-take-note-260584

July 11, 2025

Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is “forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other”.

Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world’s most prestigious peace prize?

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

Jasmine-Kim Westendorf has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australia Research Council.

Ali Mamouri and Ian Parmeter do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/does-donald-trump-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize-we-asked-5-experts-260801

July 11, 2025

Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jon Whittle, Director, Data61, CSIRO

There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low.

To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month. This will coincide with the release of an interim report from the Productivity Commission, which is looking at five pillars of reform. One of these is the role of data and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI).

This will be music to the ears of the tech and business sectors, which have been enthusiastically promoting the productivity benefits of AI. In fact, the Business Council of Australia also said last month that AI is the single greatest opportunity in a generation to lift productivity.

But what do we really know about how AI impacts productivity?

What is productivity?

Put simply, productivity is how much output (goods and services) we can produce from a given amount of inputs (such as labour and raw materials). It matters because higher productivity typically translates to a higher standard of living. Productivity growth has accounted for 80% of Australia’s income growth over the past three decades.

Productivity can be thought of as individual, organisational or national.

Your individual productivity is how efficiently you manage your time and resources to complete tasks. How many emails can you respond to in an hour? How many products can you check for defects in a day?

Organisational productivity is how well an organisation achieves its goals. For example, in a research organisation, how many top-quality research papers are produced?

National productivity is the economic efficiency of a nation, often measured as gross domestic product per hour worked. It is effectively an aggregate of the other forms. But it’s notoriously difficult to track how changes in individual or organisational productivity translate into national GDP per hour worked.

AI and individual productivity

The nascent research examining the relationship between AI and individual productivity shows mixed results.

A 2025 real-world study of AI and productivity involved 776 experienced product professionals at US multinational company Procter & Gamble. The study showed that individuals randomly assigned to use AI performed as well as a team of two without. A similar study in 2023 with 750 consultants from Boston Consulting Group found tasks were 18% faster with generative AI.

A 2023 paper reported on an early generative AI system in a Fortune 500 software company used by 5,200 customer support agents. The system showed a 14% increase in the number of issues resolved per hour. For less experienced agents, productivity increased by 35%.

But AI doesn’t always increase individual productivity.

A survey of 2,500 professionals found generative AI actually increased workload for 77% of workers. Some 47% said they didn’t know how to unlock productivity benefits. The study points to barriers such as the need to verify and/or correct AI outputs, the need for AI upskilling, and unreasonable expectations about what AI can do.

A recent CSIRO study examined the daily use of Microsoft 365 Copilot by 300 employees of a government organisation. While the majority self-reported productivity benefits, a sizeable minority (30%) did not. Even those workers who reported productivity improvements expected greater productivity benefits than were delivered.

AI and organisational productivity

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to attribute changes in an organisation’s productivity to the introduction of AI. Businesses are sensitive to many social and organisational factors, any one of which could be the reason for a change in productivity.

Nevertheless, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated the productivity benefits of traditional AI – that is, machine learning applied for an industry-specific task – to be zero to 11% at the organisational level.

A 2024 summary paper cites independent studies showing increases in organisational productivity from AI in Germany, Italy and Taiwan.

In contrast, a 2022 analysis of 300,000 US firms didn’t find a significant correlation between AI adoption and productivity, but did for other technologies such as robotics and cloud computing. Likely explanations are that AI hasn’t yet had an effect on many firms, or simply that it’s too hard to disentangle the impact of AI given it’s never applied in isolation.

AI productivity increases can also sometimes be masked by additional human labour needed to train or operate AI systems. Take Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology for shops.

Publicly launched in 2018, it was intended to reduce labour as customer purchases would be fully automated. But it reportedly relied on hiring around 1,000 workers in India for quality control. Amazon has labelled these reports “erroneous”.

More generally, think about the unknown number (but likely millions) of people paid to label data for AI models.

AI and national productivity

The picture at a national level is even murkier.

Clearly, AI hasn’t yet impacted national productivity. It can be argued that technology developments take time to affect national productivity, as companies need to figure out how to use the technology and put the necessary infrastructure and skills in place.

However, this is not guaranteed. For example, while there is consensus that the internet led to productivity improvements, the effects of mobile phones and social media are more contested, and their impacts are more apparent in some industries (such as entertainment) than others.

Productivity isn’t just doing things faster

The common narrative around AI and productivity is that AI automates mundane tasks, making us faster at doing things and giving us more time for creative pursuits. This, however, is a naive view of how work happens.

Just because you can deal with your inbox more quickly doesn’t mean you’ll spend your afternoon on the beach. The more emails you fire off, the more you’ll receive back, and the never-ending cycle continues.

Faster isn’t always better. Sometimes, we need to slow down to be more productive. That’s when great ideas happen.

Imagine a world in which AI isn’t simply about speeding up tasks but proactively slows us down, to give us space to be more innovative, and more productive. That’s the real untapped opportunity with AI.

Jon Whittle works at CSIRO which receives R&D funding from a wide range of government and industry clients.

– ref. Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky – https://theconversation.com/does-ai-actually-boost-productivity-the-evidence-is-murky-260690