Economy

Education and Learning

Politics

Student Experience

Corporate Social Responsibility

External

Off

IB African Business Careers Club claimed top honours at the Cambridge Africa Together Conference, defeating Oxford, Cambridge, and LSE in a landmark debate on foreign investment in Africa.

Main image: Students from IB African Business Careers Club with Dean Peter Todd | 91��ɫ Business School

3 minute read

From AI to climate: Global experts explore the power of contracts at 91��ɫ

Lou Lee — Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:15:24 +0000

From AI to climate: Global experts explore the power of contracts at 91��ɫ

Lou Lee Mon, 14/04/2025 - 10:15

15 July 2026 News

Business School academic nominated for second term on UK's fiscal watchdog

14 July 2026 News

Celebrating the Dean’s Community Award winners

9 July 2026 News

91��ɫ Business School achieves 91% average positivity score in National Student Survey

7 July 2026

The two-day conference welcomed researchers, policymakers and business leaders to explore how contracts shape issues as varied as AI, environmental conservation, corporate governance and workplace relationships.

Co-organised by 91��ɫ Business School’s Professors Renáta Kosová, Professor of Economics and Consul for the Faculty of Engineering and the Business School, and Patrick Bolton, Professor of Finance and Economics, alongside colleagues from the University of Bristol, the conference reflects an interdisciplinary approach to understanding how contracts influence business, markets and society.

A highlight of this year’s programme was the keynote lecture, “Citizen Investors” delivered by Professor Luigi Zingales from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He challenged the long-standing view that companies should focus only on maximising shareholder value and prioritising financial returns. Instead, he argued, businesses should consider shareholders’ broader values as citizens through maximising shareholder welfare. His talk explored how this shift could help tackle major societal challenges including climate change, inequality and the responsible use of corporate power.

“We want to create a forum where cutting-edge research is informed by real-world challenges and where those insights can, in turn, influence business practice and public policy.”

Professor Renáta Kosová

Professor of Economics and Consul for the Faculty of Engineering and the Business School

Other sessions explored industrial policy, corporate bonds, trade, copyright, environmental policy and workplace management. A panel on AI and firm governance brought together experts to discuss one of the biggest challenges facing organisations today. While speakers recognised AI's enormous potential, they also warned that without effective governance, its benefits could become concentrated among a small number of organisations, widening inequality and increasing economic and political imbalances.

Professor Renáta Kosová said: “When people hear the word ‘contracts’, they often think of the legal documents or pages of small print. But contracts are everywhere around us – they also exist as everyday agreements and understandings that shape decisions within organisations, markets and society. By bringing together theorists, applied researchers, lawyers and practitioners, we want to create a forum where cutting-edge research is informed by real-world challenges and where those insights can, in turn, influence business practice and public policy.”

The 2026 conference marked another milestone for a series that has quickly gained an international profile. With the continued involvement of Sir Oliver Hart, Professor at Harvard University and winner of the 2016 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his pioneering work in contract theory, the conference continues to grow as a leading forum for interdisciplinary exchange, reinforcing 91��ɫ Business School’s role at the centre of a growing international conversation on the role of contracts in addressing today’s economic and societal challenges.

Subscribe for research and events from the Business School

Academic area

Centre for Climate Finance and Investment

Off

External

Off

Leading academics from around the world gathered at 91��ɫ Business School for the latest Theory and Applications of Contracts Conference, a biennial event bringing together cutting-edge research and real-world challenges.

2 minute read

Climate resilience in focus at London Climate Action Week

Lou Lee — Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:15:24 +0000

Climate resilience in focus at London Climate Action Week

Lou Lee Mon, 14/04/2025 - 10:15

15 July 2026 News

Business School academic nominated for second term on UK's fiscal watchdog

14 July 2026 News

Celebrating the Dean’s Community Award winners

9 July 2026 News

91��ɫ Business School achieves 91% average positivity score in National Student Survey

29 June 2026

Delivered in collaboration with General Atlantic, the event reflected the Centre for Climate Finance and Investment's (CCFI) growing role as a convenor of interdisciplinary expertise on climate risk and finance. Discussions explored how climate-related risks such as extreme weather are increasingly affecting economic stability, infrastructure, and investment decisions, and how organisations are adapting their approach to managing these risks over the long term.

The event opened with a keynote from Abigail Ng, Chief Sustainability Officer at the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), who highlighted climate resilience as a key part of protecting economic security. This was followed by a panel discussion chaired by Rowan Douglas CBE, Honorary Practice Fellow at CCFI, and featuring Kemal Erçevik (Bank of England), Natasha Fowlie (General Atlantic), Paul Munday (S&P Global), Julian Wentzel (HSBC).

A central theme throughout the conversation was the need to integrate climate and nature risks into the core functioning of financial systems, rather than treating them separately. Speakers highlighted the importance of better data, shared standards, and clearer ways of measuring risk in order to improve decision-making across banking, insurance, regulation and investment.

“This is what CCFI is all about: a platform that brings together scholarly excellence and leading market participants to deliver effective solutions at scale.”

Dr Enrico Biffis

Academic Director of CCFI and Professor of Actuarial Finance

Rowan Douglas commented: “We now have our resilience priorities confirmed and an excellent community of financial-sector partners to mobilise with CCFI and 91��ɫ’s School of Convergence Science. Our mission is to help retrain the invisible hand to value resilience and better protect exposed assets and communities in the years and decades ahead.”

In closing remarks, Dr Enrico Biffis, Director of CCFI and Professor of Actuarial Finance and Academic, said: “This is what CCFI is all about: a platform that brings together scholarly excellence and leading market participants to deliver effective solutions at scale.”

The event underscored CCFI’s role within 91��ɫ Business School as a bridge between academic research and industry practice, and highlighted ongoing collaboration with MAS and other partners to strengthen resilience in the face of growing climate challenges.

Panel speakers (from left to right): Natasha Fowlie (General Atlantic), Kemal Ercevik (Bank of England), Julian Wentzel (HSBC), Paul Munday (S&P Global), and Rowan Douglas (91��ɫ Business School).

Subscribe for research and events from the Business School

Banking

Sustainability and climate change

91��ɫ Centre

Centre for Climate Finance & Investment

Academic area

Off

External

Off

The Centre for Climate Finance and Investment (CCFI) brought together leaders from finance, insurance, law, technology, policy and academia for an event on Climate Resilience & Economic Security during London Climate Action Week (20-28 June).

Abigail Ng and Rowan Douglas at London Climate Action Week

2 minute read

“Markets are really sociology with bond maths,” says London Stock Exchange CEO at 91��ɫ Business School

Shamita Harsh — Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:15:24 +0000

“Markets are really sociology with bond maths,” says London Stock Exchange CEO at 91��ɫ Business School

Shamita Harsh Mon, 14/04/2025 - 10:15

15 July 2026 News

Business School academic nominated for second term on UK's fiscal watchdog

14 July 2026 News

Celebrating the Dean’s Community Award winners

9 July 2026 News

91��ɫ Business School achieves 91% average positivity score in National Student Survey

17 March 2026

What does generosity look like in global finance? This question framed the conversation between Dame Julia Hoggett, CEO of the London Stock Exchange and Peter Todd, Dean of 91��ɫ Business School, at this year’s Joan Woodward Memorial Lecture.

As part of this year’s theme “Give to Gain”, the event, which marked International Women’s Day, focused on how generosity in leadership, mentorship and opportunity can shape stronger institutions and more inclusive markets.

The event honoured Joan Woodward, one of 91��ɫ’s earliest female professors and a pioneering scholar, whose research showed that organisational structures must adapt to their social and technological context.

A sociologist in finance

Opening the discussion, the Dean noted that Woodward’s insight on organisations being fundamentally social systems remains highly relevant today.

“Joan Woodward brought a sociologist’s eye to questions of power, structure and technology – and demonstrated that management is, above all, a social practice.” he said. “It was therefore especially fitting that our speaker this year should be Dame Julia, someone who has carried that social and political science perspective into the heart of global finance. It was a great pleasure to have her with us.”

That perspective has shaped Hoggett’s own career. In 2024, she was awarded a Damehood for services to business and finance, recognising both her industry leadership and her work championing more inclusive workplaces.

“Markets are really sociology with money,” she told the audience. “They’re about how large groups of people think, behave and organise themselves.”

“It was... especially fitting that our speaker this year should be Dame Julia, someone who has carried... [a] social and political science perspective into the heart of global finance.”

Peter Todd

Dean, 91��ɫ Business School

Trust and access to capital

Exchanges, Hoggett argued, act as essential conveners in the global financial system.

“Stock exchanges bring together those who have capital with those who need it,” she said. “Trust has been at the heart of every transaction in this city for 300 years, and it still is. Maintaining it requires institutions that prioritise trustworthiness.”

“What the world needs is not more trust,” Hoggett said, echoing philosopher Onora O'Neill. “The world needs more trustworthiness.”

That principle has also shaped her views on access to capital: “One of the reasons I care so passionately about public markets is that they are inherently democratising.” she said.

By contrast, she suggested that private markets can concentrate opportunity among already wealthy investors. Supporting companies as they move from private to public funding, she said, helps broaden wealth creation across the economy.

Leadership through generosity

For early-career professionals in the audience, Hoggett emphasised that leadership is about generosity – giving time, mentorship and opportunity to others.

Her advice: “You can lead from any seat in an organisation. Leadership starts when you understand your role in the wider system and take full ownership of it. Master your brief, understand the context and seek to shape outcomes, and you can do far more than you think.”

That spirit reflects the legacy of Woodward herself: a scholar whose work reshaped how organisations are understood and whose influence continues to inspire new generations of leaders to rethink how markets truly work.

Subscribe for research and events from the Business School

Alumni Events

Culture and Inclusion

Academic area

Off

External

Off

Speaking on the theme “Give to Gain” at the Business School's annual Joan Woodward memorial lecture, Dame Julia Hoggett, London Stock Exchange CEO, highlighted why trust and culture matter for markets – and why access to capital matters for the country

Main image: 91��ɫ Business School

2 minute read

How protectionism risks undermining the US economy

Jonathan Haskel — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:39:25 +0000

How protectionism risks undermining the US economy

Jonathan Haskel Tue, 25/02/2025 - 10:39

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

10 April 2025

Donald Trump’s announcement of wide-ranging tariffs has threatened to upend the rules of global trade that have been in place for decades, impacting supply chains and businesses across the world.

The US President’s plan has been designed, in his words, to be reciprocal. What could be fairer than this? The theory is that the US will charge its trading partners in response to what they charge them.

What this means in practice is that the US will charge a country based on it having a goods trade surplus with the US. Some countries that do not have a notable surplus will still be hit with a universal baseline tariff of 10 per cent. For example, countries in the European Union will be subject to a 20 per cent tariff, while the UK will face the baseline 10 per cent tariff.

As the consequences of these tariffs will have major consequences for the global economy, it is worth considering the logic that has informed this decision and whether it stands up to scrutiny from an economic perspective.

Let’s say a country, for example the UK, is running a goods trade deficit with Costa Rica of £100 worth for bananas. From an economics point of view such a deficit makes perfect sense: the UK does not grow very good bananas, but we are good at education and financial services, which we export by accepting Costa Rican students, and providing secure banking for Costa Rican residents. Therefore, we run a deficit on goods, balanced by a surplus on services.

President Trump's reciprocal tariff calculation asks: what would the British tariff have to be on Costa Rican bananas to rebalance trade in bananas? He appears to have done this by assuming the tariff would raise an import price by a certain percentage, which in turn would cause British consumers to switch away from imported bananas by another percentage, which would then reduce banana imports. Select those percentages and work out the tariff that would entirely wipe out all imports. Then take half of that number (for obscure reasons) and that is the alleged tariff rate which Costa Rica is charging the UK.

These bizarre counterfactual calculations have nothing to do with the actual tariffs which are imposed. True, our bananas trade is likely affected by tariffs and safety standards on agricultural products. But fundamentally the pattern of trade is determined by the patterns of comparative advantage across different countries. To repeat, if the UK is good at financial services and education and Costa Rica is better at bananas, both are better off with free trade.

What then follows from this?

Firstly, these numbers should not be taken as an estimate of the type of tariffs which the US or any other country faces. Average tariff rates which the UK imposes on the US are well below five per cent when calculated properly - that is, zero per cent on the vast majority of goods, and higher percentages on goods like agricultural products.

We should also not assume that the UK has been given special treatment by having a lower rate than other countries. The US has a slightly lower trade deficit with the UK than with Europe, so the simple maths of this calculation would lead to a smaller ‘reciprocal’ tariff.

Thirdly, we should remember that the US is a relatively closed economy. British imports are around 30 per cent of GDP, American imports are around 15 per cent, so we must not overstate the impact of unilateral American restrictions on trade on the world.

Unless we descend into a full trade war, the economy most hurt by these measures is the American economy.

The right response to these tariffs is to carry on trading and let the US sink under the weight of its own bad policies.

More narrowly, what does this mean for the UK? The effects of this policy will of course be concentrated in certain export sectors, such as the car industry, and I would expect policies to be forthcoming to mitigate that adverse shock. But more broadly, we should stay focused on what will get the UK economy growing: policy to encourage science, clusters and startups.

Sign up to our newsletter

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Jonathan Haskel takes a closer look at why "reciprocal" tariffs misunderstand the real nature of global trade

Credit: Nuthawut Somsuk / iStock via Getty Images Plus

3 minute read

Off

Lessons in leverage: How monetary policy could cause financial instability

Ali Uppal — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:29:10 +0000

Lessons in leverage: How monetary policy could cause financial instability

Ali Uppal Mon, 17/02/2025 - 15:29

More blogs

26 May 2026 Knowledge

How resilient brands keep customers in volatile markets

20 January 2026 Knowledge

Does influencer marketing really work in 2026?

27 October 2025 Knowledge

Swatch: 8 actionable lessons from a pioneering brand

3 March 2025

The chief tool in the central bank arsenal is interest rates. Traditionally, monetary policy uses interest rates to control inflation, as raising rates helps curb inflation spikes. However, the global financial crisis taught us that controlling inflation alone is not enough to prevent a financial crash.

As a result, since 2008 there have been growing calls to use interest rates in a way that supports the stability of the financial system, in addition to controlling inflation. However, my research questions the effectiveness of this approach.

Understanding leverage

Bank leverage is the ratio of a bank’s assets to its equity, or how much it borrows relative to how much it has. After the 2008 crisis, central banks across the world broadly agreed that, given its role in financial crises, bank leverage should be a major focus of financial stability.

To understand leverage, think of buying a house. If you buy a house with a one per cent deposit, you will be more leveraged than if you bought the same house with a 10 per cent deposit – you’re borrowing more relative to the equity that you’re putting in. Intuitively, we understand that this is a more financially risky position to be in.

Now, imagine a bank operating under similar conditions: the more it borrows compared to its equity, the riskier it becomes. Therefore, bringing bank leverage down should reduce their riskiness and, in turn, reduce the chances of collapses that trigger a financial crash.

Here’s where interest rates come into play. According to theory, unexpected rate increases can reduce leverage by making borrowing more expensive. Just as higher rates might discourage you from taking out a big loan, banks might borrow less, reducing their leverage and making them less risky.

On the flip side, lower interest rates encourage borrowing and increase leverage, potentially raising risks. This is why theoretical models claim that central banks could make the banking system safer by raising rates.

The evidence

While it may seem intuitive that monetary policy can support financial stability through reducing leverage, the theory has not been empirically tested. My research fills this gap, and reveals a surprising result: raising interest rates unexpectedly does not only fail to reduce leverage, it actually has the opposite effect of increasing bank leverage, thereby increasing risk.

Why does this happen? In a nutshell, banks are not households. When interest rates go up, banks, like individuals, borrow less. But, unlike individuals, banks also lend money out to others in the form of loans, credit cards and mortgages.

When interest rates rise unexpectedly many borrowers—homeowners, businesses, and individuals—struggle with higher loan payments, leading to defaults. This shrinks banks’ assets and equity at the same time. Instead of making banks safer, this chain reaction raises their leverage. Think of it like taking out a smaller mortgage while your home’s value plummets. Even though you’re borrowing less, your financial position worsens. I refer to this as the "loan-loss mechanism", and I show that this mechanism captures the overall response of banks to interest rate changes from as early as 1984.

For their leverage to decrease, banks would have to see their assets fall and/or their equity rise. But my results show that what actually happens when interest rates rise is that both come down. Conventional theory does not account for this loan-loss mechanism.

And in fact, the latter effect – the fall in equity due to loan defaults – dominates, meaning that losses are so large the net effect is an increase in bank leverage. Going back to the house purchase example, this would be like borrowing less on your mortgage but simultaneously seeing the value of your house drop. Your loan-to-value ratio would worsen even though you are borrowing less.

The role of variable-rate loans

To explain why loan losses occur, it’s important to consider the role of variable-rate loans. When interest rates rise, banks face higher deposit costs because they must pay more interest to depositors. To offset this interest rate risk, banks issue variable-rate loans that adjust with rising rates. This allows them to earn more from borrowers when rates go up, hedging against interest rate risk.

While this strategy works in theory, in reality it shifts the risk onto borrowers. Higher rates make loans more expensive, increasing the likelihood of defaults and posing a credit risk for the bank. In essence, banks are engaging in risk transformation: they trade one type of risk (interest rate risk) for another (credit risk). My research shows that it is indeed banks with the highest proportion of variable-rate loans that experience the most borrower defaults during rate hikes.

Implications for policymakers

For central banks and regulators, these findings are significant. They suggest that trying to achieve both low inflation and financial stability using interest rate hikes alone might backfire. Unexpected rate increases can inadvertently raise bank leverage, making the system more fragile instead of safer.

The lesson here is clear: monetary policy must account for unintended consequences, such as the loan-loss mechanism, that can undermine financial stability. Central banks may need to rely on other tools, such as macroprudential regulation, to directly reduce risks in the banking sector.

Do higher interest rates make the banking system safer?

Read Ali Uppal's research

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Healthcare management and policy

Why raising interest rates might make banks riskier, not safer

Credit: lerbank via iStock / Getty Images Plus

4 minute read

Off

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

Carol Propper — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

Carol Propper Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

23 June 2026

Article at a glance:

Over the past 20 years, governments have turned to market reforms and competition to curb costs and raise standards in healthcare.
Patient choice has increased, but more support is needed to help those who are less able to exercise this choice.
Proactive scrutiny of mergers, alongside quality incentives and openness to new providers and modes of care, could ensure integration improves care rather than re-establishing local monopolies.

Healthcare functions differently from other product markets due to the importance of maintaining equity in access to care and quality of care. As a result, government intervention is high and healthcare markets are heavily regulated.

However, the cost of healthcare has steadily risen worldwide. In 2000, the average healthcare expenditure in the OECD was 8.1 per cent of GDP, which has since risen to 9.3 per cent of GDP. In the UK, this has risen from around 7 per cent in 2000 to over 11 per cent in recent years. In a bid to reduce these cost increases, governments have introduced reforms to make use of markets in healthcare.

These focus on increasing the role of patient choice and promoting competition between providers, such as hospitals and primary care settings. But does choice and competition actually improve quality of care for patients? Our research reviews the evidence on market reforms in healthcare to shed light on this.

This is important as, even though market reforms featured more prominently in healthcare policy discussions in the past two decades, current priorities such as digitisation and moving healthcare into the community may also rely on competition and patient choice to succeed. Similarly, plans around integrated care and consolidation may benefit from a nuanced understanding of how competition and monopolies affect patient outcomes.

A mixed picture

What’s clear from the findings is that increased choice through market reforms can improve quality of care, but this is not a given. Evidence from the UK and Norway, for example, suggests that allowing patients to choose between providers (without any cost competition) can have a positive impact on patient mortality in emergency settings.

91��ɫ also suggests that patients respond to quality differences when choosing a provider. However, choice for some may be limited and there are demographic differences, with low-income patients more likely to register with poorly rated providers, partly because they lack the information networks of higher income peers.

Competition also introduces new modes of care. Deregulation has led to a rise in online provision, and in care being delivered by substitutes such as pharmacists and nurse practitioners. Evidence suggests these alternatives can provide similar outcomes to in-person care, offering greater convenience for patients and potential cost savings for providers. However, patients who use online consultations may also be more likely to require in-person follow-ups, partially offsetting those benefits.

Greater market freedom has also led to a wave of hospital mergers in some countries, reducing the number of providers and the competitive pressure between them. While concentrating some specialist services in larger centres can have benefits, mergers do not automatically improve quality, productivity or cost, and sometimes make healthcare more expensive. Without strong regulatory oversight, integration and consolidation could risk recreating the same local monopolies that market reforms aimed to reduce.

Areas for improvement

One important way to increase the benefits for patients is by improving access to clear, high-quality information. Rather than simply publishing information and hoping people read it, offering responsive, detailed comparison tools can help people to be better-informed, helping them reach decisions based on their individual needs. Community outreach programmes can help level the playing field, ensuring information does not only benefit those who are already better-informed.

On a macro level, many countries already have the power to scrutinise mergers that limit choice and offer little benefit, but this has often been underused. Using these powers more proactively would help ensure mergers add value, keep markets open to new entrants, and maintain competitive pressure on established providers.

"Increased choice through market reforms can improve quality of care, but this is not a given."

There is also a need to support integrated care while ensuring it does not recreate monopolies that deny patient choice. Regulators should prevent integrated providers from directing patients towards their own affiliated services regardless of quality. Where mergers are permitted, price regulation and quality incentives – such as shared savings models tied to measurable outcomes – can help ensure they genuinely benefit patients.

Regulation can also help keep markets open to new approaches. Allowing well-qualified substitutes such as nurse practitioners to deliver care, and new modes of care such as online consultations can expand choice and capacity, provided quality is closely monitored as the evidence base develops. This is particularly relevant in the context of the benchmarking approaches such as the updated NHS Performance Assessment Framework, where high-performing providers may be given more leeway to test innovative approaches.

Overall, market reforms have given patients greater choice and offer real potential for improvements in care. However, they have not yet fully delivered to the extent policymakers hoped. Better information for patients and stronger, more proactive regulation are the keys to changing this, preventing the re-emergence of monopolies and maximising the benefits of new options and approaches to care.

Find out more about the research

Read Professor Propper's paper

Digital transformation

Knowledge Categories

Health

Academic area

Governments intend market reforms to boost efficiencies in healthcare while improving outcomes. While this has led to greater patient choice, stronger regulation is needed to prevent monopolies, keep markets open to new entrants and maximise gains.

4 minute read

Off

Opinion: “Good science” needs purpose, accountability and an explicit ethical stance

Marisa Miraldo — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Opinion: “Good science” needs purpose, accountability and an explicit ethical stance

Marisa Miraldo Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

5 March 2026

We like to pretend that science is neutral – that our work is insulated from politics, economics and power. But it isn’t. The funding we receive, the methods we choose and, crucially, the questions we ask – and those we never ask – are shaped by funding, performance metrics, history, social norms, and our own biases. To act as if science floats above these forces is not only naïve, it’s irresponsible.

From the 19th century onwards, scientific institutions were deeply entangled with military power, industrial productivity and colonial rule. Funding priorities were set around national prestige and economic gains. Universities adapted by building reward systems around publications, citations, patents and grants. Generations of researchers were trained to see themselves as specialists accountable primarily to peers and promotion committees not to the communities affected by their work. Within this system, a comforting narrative took hold: “I just do the science; what others do with it is not my responsibility.”

Science that harmed

As a professor, I am painfully aware of the historical lessons that demonstrate how damaging scientific work framed as progress can be.

One example is the many leading scientists and physicians who believed they were helping society while promoting eugenics. In practice, it justified forced sterilisation, institutionalisation, and the brutalisation of disabled people, the impoverished, and racialised communities. Meanwhile, the science was wrapped in the language of public good, making it harder to challenge. The echoes of eugenic assumptions that some lives are less desirable persists today, reminding us of the lasting harm scientists can have on society.

Today, algorithmic systems and social media recommendation systems designed to “maximise engagement” have contributed to polarisation, harassment and mental distress. Built by people who may have wanted to “connect the world” or “democratise access” these systems operate in institutional settings that reward growth, not care.

A pattern emerges: decisions are made far from those most affected and the social, historical, and political dimensions of science are often treated as secondary, if they are acknowledged at all.

Ethical science requires governance that travels with the technology – from research question to deployment – and includes the people and communities most affected.

A manifesto for socially responsible science

If good intentions are not enough, what would it take to change? A manifesto is, by definition, unfinished – it is an invitation to collective work. But I would like to start the conversation by setting out some clear commitments.

1. Name the politics of science, openly and early. Make our values explicit in the design, conduct, and communication of research.

2. Redefine excellence. Treat equity, representation, and long-term social and environmental consequences as core criteria of quality.

3. Practice convergence, not siloed brilliance. Treat lived experience, social sciences and the arts as essential intelligence, not decorative.

4. Share power with those most affected. Move beyond token consultation. Communities and groups most affected by research hold real decision-making power over priorities, methods, data governance, and evaluation of impact.

5. Build systematic processes to surface potential harms, including those that fall outside our immediate field of view.

6. Align incentives with responsibility. Push institutions and funders to reward collaborative and justice-oriented science – in hiring, promotion and grant allocation.

7. Refuse institutional silence and require them to align their investments, partnerships, and policies accordingly.

8. Protect dissent and whistleblowing within science to create a culture that produces socially responsible knowledge.

9. Educate for responsibility, not just technique. Embed history, ethics, social theory, and critical reflection into scientific training. Students must learn not just how to generate but how to situate it in the world and be transformational leaders.

10. Hold ourselves accountable. When we invoke “science for humanity,” “precision health,” or “sustainability,” we treat those words as obligations, not slogans. We measure ourselves against the lived experiences of people and ecosystems, not just against citation counts and patents.

How ethical science is embedded in practice

At a time when “science” is simultaneously invoked to defend public policy and attacked as elitist, I believe good science needs purpose, accountability and an explicit ethical stance. These do not sit only in labs and universities: they run through funders, regulators, publishers, governments and yes, businesses that decide what gets built, scaled, and sold.

Initiatives like 91��ɫ’s School of Convergence Science, where I am Co-Director, the Good Science Project, and the “Science for Humanity” strategy, create spaces that prioritise impact and values, question incentives, and redesign how we judge excellence. They will matter insofar as they shift incentives and decision-making: who sits at the table, what counts as excellence, and how harms are identified and acted on.

The question now is whether we are prepared to turn those intentions into structures, commitments, and convergent practices that make responsibility – not just discovery – the organising principle of what counts as excellent science.

Learn more about the Good Science Project

Discover the College-wide initiative

Education and Learning

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Scientific research needs to extend beyond good intentions. This is my manifesto for socially responsible science – and why it is so desperately needed

Main image: sanjeri / iStock via Getty Images

4 minute read

Off

Will European regulators shape Hollywood’s bidding war?

Tommaso Valletti — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Will European regulators shape Hollywood’s bidding war?

Tommaso Valletti Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

5 February 2026

Article at a glance

The European Commission (EC) competition authority is scrutinising rival bids for Warner Bros. from Netflix and Paramount, an unusual scenario
Both bids raise different competition concerns
A frontrunner could emerge if one bidder gets cleared before the other
The EC prefers light-touch remedies
US politics, not Europe, is likely to decide the winner

A bidding saga across the Atlantic

Europe’s competition regulator is simultaneously reviewing competing bids by major US companies Netflix and Paramount to acquire entertainment company Warner Bros. This is unusual and strategically sensitive, given the current geopolitical climate. The bidding saga has attracted significant attention on both sides of the Atlantic.

Both bids raise competition concerns, but in different ways:

The Paramount deal would reduce rivalry between two major Hollywood studios.
Netflix’s acquisition of Warner Bros. would increase market dominance in streaming across Europe

Professor Tommaso Valletti, Professor of Economics at 91��ɫ Business School and former Chief Competition Economist at the EC, questions whether the EC will act boldly, given its preference for light-touch remedies and geopolitical considerations. US politics, not Europe’s regulators, may ultimately decide the winner.

What’s at stake

Netflix agreed to buy Warner Bros.’ studios and streaming assets in a transaction valued around $82.7 billion. To challenge this, rival Paramount Skydance launched a hostile takeover bid for the entire company, including news network CNN, worth $108 billion, offering shareholders a higher per-share cash price.

The Warner Bros. board backs Netflix, but competition concerns are significant and more complex than the ones associated with Paramount’s bid.

A lack of clear precedent in the EU merger control raises a key question: how will the EC proceed?

Because all three companies operate across Europe and the Americas, the European Commission must review the market implications under its EU merger control framework. A simultaneous review could shape the race. By clearing one bidder, while subjecting the other to a longer investigation, a frontrunner could emerge.

A lack of clear precedent in EU merger control raises a key question: how will the EC proceed? Historically, the regulator tends to favour light-touch remedies, like small divestitures or access commitments, over prohibitions.

Netflix: from scale to market power

Netflix’s story of scale in Europe has shifted to revenue diversification. Netflix already shows signs of pricing power: in the UK, a standard subscription rose from £6 to £13 per month over the past decade. A deal with Warner Bros. would lead to:

Further market concentration: Netflix already holds over 50 percent of Europe’s subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) market. Combining this with Warner Bros.’ studios, HBO Max and other streaming platforms would increase its dominance.
Monopolisation of streaming content: Netflix could control one of the largest content libraries and production pipelines in the world, cutting off production for cinemas and other traditional content platforms.

Netflix could address these concerns through remedies such as divesting HBO Max. Its likely defence would be that its streaming services compete with a broader digital entertainment market, including social media and video gaming. Regulators may accept this argument to some extent, although previous merger reviews have generally used a narrower, SVOD-focused market definition.

Paramount: traditional Hollywood rivalry

Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. raises more traditional competition concerns. Combining two established major Hollywood studios would:

reduce industry rivalry and lead to fewer big players in Hollywood,
increase bargaining power over distributors, advertisers and creators, and
potentially lead to fewer market players, less innovation, higher costs for consumers.

The deal would also continue the consolidation of Hollywood studios that has been ongoing for 50 years, reducing the “Big Five” studios (Disney, Warner Bros., Universal, Paramount and Sony) to four. Disney would remain number one, possibly facing stronger competition from the combined entities currently ranked number two (Warner Bros.) and number five (Paramount).

While the merger could be easier to clear overall, overlaps between the studios, for example franchises between Paramount and Warner Bros., could still raise competition concerns that may be harder to address.

Why Europe and the US may decide differently

Whether the EC’s decision will impact the deal remains uncertain. In the US, regulators face a different and more political context. Paramount’s bid would include CNN, which Netflix is not acquiring. President Trump, a vocal critic of CNN, has previously argued that the network should be sold or restructured. These dynamics may influence the outcome.

Given the current political climate, a European ban on either deal seems unlikely. While the EC can still influence the pace and outcome of the bidding war, the winner will ultimately be decided in the US.

Subscribe to our newsletter featuring faculty-led insights

IB Knowledge Newsletter Signup

Consumers

Digital Transformation

Knowledge Categories

Academic area