How Americans really feel about deporting immigrants – 3 charts explain the conflicting headlines from recent polls

A protest in San Diego against the Trump administration’s mass deportation plan, Jan. 31, 2025. Carlos Moreno/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Leo Gugerty, Clemson University

President Donald Trump’s signature promise during his campaign was to carry out the “largest deportation” operation in U.S. history, targeting all migrants “who violated the law coming into this country.”

Since anyone living in the U.S. without legal permission has broken civil immigration law, Trump would have to deport all of the 11 million to 12 million immigrants living without legal authorization in the U.S., not just people who have committed serious crimes. Most immigrants living in the country illegally have been here longer than 10 years, so many longer-term residents would be deported.

Trump has claimed that his election victory gives him a “powerful mandate” for such actions. But what do the American people really think about mass deportation?

News outlets like CBS and Scripps News have been reporting since mid-2024 that a majority of Americans support Trump’s plans to deport most or all undocumented immigrants.

These stories rely on some polls during 2024 that showed majority support for mass deportation. Meanwhile, other polls in 2024 found public support for deportation below 40%.

I am a psychologist with expertise in survey research and the influence of political ideology on people’s beliefs about news events. And I believe the key to making sense of these conflicting polls lies in understanding the psychological principles that underlie opinion polling.

Conflicting polls

Extensive psychological research research demonstrates that people make better decisions about complex, high-stakes problems when they think about and compare multiple courses of action, instead of narrowing in on one option.

When it comes to deportation, the main policy alternative offered by presidents as far back as George W. Bush has been allowing immigrants to become legal permanent residents if certain conditions are met, like passing a background check.

Because of this, Pew Research, a prominent pollster, suggests that the best way to determine how people feel about issues like mass deportation is to give them a question that forces them to choose between deportation and something else – in this case, legalization.

For example, one July 2024 poll using a “forced-choice” question asked people whether they’d rather see “a way for undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements … to stay here legally” or “a national effort to deport and remove all illegal immigrants” from the U.S.

Another type of question used by pollsters focuses people’s attention on only one choice by asking them how much they support a policy like deportation, but without mentioning alternatives. Polls that follow this approach ask people’s opinion of deportation in one question, and their opinion of legalization in another.

This is not ideal because research shows it can lead people to exaggerate their support for the named policy.

What the polls say

In total, I found 14 polls conducted during the past eight years that measured Americans’ opinions on both mass deportation and legalizing status. I dropped two from my analysis because they had questions worded in biased language.

The findings from the remaining 12 polls are representative of the diverse demographics of the U.S.

Graph 1 present the results from the eight polls that used a single forced-choice question. I believe these polls give the best picture of how Americans as a group feel about the two immigration policies.

These polls suggest that over the past eight years, Americans’ overall support for mass deportation has increased from around 22% to around 44%. Meanwhile, support for legalizing immigrants’ status has decreased from about 77% to 55%.

However, all four polls conducted in 2024 find support for legalizing status to be above 54% and support for deportation below 45%.

Graph 2 shows the results of the four polls that used separate questions to assess opinions about deportation and legalization.

This chart clearly demonstrates the problem with asking people to rate their support for deportation and legalization in separate questions. Two polls, both taken in the past year – one by Gallup, the other by Times/Siena – found that a majority of respondents supported deportation and that the same group of respondents supported legalization in equal or even greater numbers.

Consider the October 2024 poll where 57% of respondents supported deportation and 57% supported legalization. These percentages add up to more than 100% because many people in the group said they supported both policies. Since mass deportation and general legalization are polar opposites, people who support both policies should not be considered to strongly support either policy.

For this reason, the separate questions technique does not yield good absolute information about the percentage of people who support either deportation or legalization. However, it does give useful relative information like which policy a group supports more and how opinions change over time.

Keeping this in mind, the results of the 12 polls I analyzed indicate that people favored legalizing immigrants’ status over deportation. Eleven polls, including five taken since 2024, showed this pattern. Overall public support for deportation has actually increased since 2016, while support for legalization has decreased.

However, these changes in opinion over time do not hold true for all Americans.

Americans are polarized about immigration

The poll results I’ve discussed so far are averages calculated based on the responses of everyone who responded to the poll. But group averages don’t tell the whole story on any issue – especially when opinions differ widely within a group, as they do with immigration. So let’s look at the results for Republicans and Democrats separately.

Graph 3 breaks down the results by party for the eight polls that used the best practice: forced choice question.

During Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020, just over half of Republicans supported legalization; just under half supported deportation. Only within the past year has Republican opinion shifted, with about 70% now supporting deportation.

In contrast, Democrats’ opinions have remained steady for eight years, with about 90% supporting legalization and 10% favoring deportation.

In other words, the apparent shift toward greater support for deportation shown in Graphs 1 and 2 occurred only among Republicans – not for Americans as a whole.

A mandate to legalize

Despite the recent uptick in Republican support for mass deportation, a clear majority of people in the U.S. would rather give undocumented immigrants a path to legal status than have them deported. This has remained true for eight years.

Polls that seem to contradict this conclusion by showing majority support for mass deportation have used the less reliable separate-questions technique. These results are questionable because these poll respondents voiced equal or stronger support for legalizing immigrants’ status.

If Trump has a “powerful mandate” on immigration, my research shows, it’s for getting legal authorization for immigrants who’ve lived in the U.S. a long time without it – not deporting them.

Leo Gugerty, Professor Emeritus in Psychology, Clemson University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

3 ways the Trump administration could reinvest in rural America’s future

Rural America can be idyllic, but many communities still need support. Mint Images via Getty Images

Randolph Hubach, Purdue University and Cody Mullen, Purdue University

Rural America faces many challenges that Congress and the federal government could help alleviate under the new Trump administration.

Rural hospitals and their obstetrics wards have been closing at a rapid pace, leaving rural residents traveling farther for health care. Affordable housing is increasingly hard to find in rural communities, where pay is often lower and poverty higher than average. Land ownership is changing, leaving more communities with outsiders wielding influence over their local resources.

As experts in rural health and policy at the Center for Rural and Migrant Health at Purdue University, we work with people across the United States to build resilient rural communities.

Here are some ways we believe the Trump administration could work with Congress to boost these communities’ health and economies.

1. Rural health care access

One of the greatest challenges to rural health care is its vulnerability to shifts in policy and funding cuts because of rural areas’ high rates of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

About 25% of rural residents rely on Medicaid, a federal program that provides health insurance for low-income residents. A disproportionate share of Medicare beneficiaries – people over 65 who receive federal health coverage – also live in rural areas. At the same time, the average health of rural residents lags the nation as a whole.

Rural clinics and hospitals

Funding from those federal programs affects rural hospitals, and rural hospitals are struggling.

Nearly half of rural hospitals operate in the red today, and over 170 rural hospitals have closed since 2010. The low population density of rural areas can make it difficult for hospitals to cover operating costs when their patient volume is low. These hospital closures have left rural residents traveling an extra 20 miles (32 km) on average to receive inpatient health care services and an extra 40 miles (64 km) for specialty care services.

The government has created programs to try to help keep hospitals operating, but they all require funding that is at risk. For example:

• The Low-volume Hospital Adjustment Act, first implemented in 2005, has helped numerous rural hospitals by boosting their Medicare payments per patient, but it faces regular threats of funding cuts. It and several other programs to support Medicare-dependent hospitals are set to expire on March 31, 2025, when the next federal budget is due.

• The rural emergency hospital model, created in 2020, helps qualifying rural facilities to maintain access to essential emergency and outpatient hospital services, also by providing higher Medicare payments. Thus far, only 30 rural hospitals have transitioned to this model, in part because they would have to eliminate inpatient care services, which also limits outpatient surgery and other medical services that could require overnight care in the event of an emergency.

Rural emergency hospitals can get extra funding, but there’s a catch: They have no inpatient beds, so people in need of longer care must go farther. AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis

Services for pregnant women have also gotten harder to find in rural areas.

Between 2011 and 2021, 267 rural hospitals discontinued obstetric services, representing 25% of the United States’ rural obstetrics units. In response, the federal government has implemented various initiatives to enhance access to care, such as the Rural Hospital Stabilization Pilot Program and the Rural Maternal and Obstetric Management Strategies Program. However, these programs also require funding.

Expanding telehealth

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth – the ability to meet with your doctor over video – wasn’t widely used. It could be difficult for doctors to ensure reimbursement, and the logistics of meeting federal requirements and privacy rules could be challenging.

The pandemic changed that. Improving technology allowed telehealth to quickly expand, reducing people’s contact with sick patients, and the government issued waivers for Medicare and Medicaid to pay for telehealth treatment. That opened up new opportunities for rural patients to get health care and opportunities for providers to reach more patients.

However, the Medicare and Medicaid waivers for most telehealth services were only temporary. Only payments for mental and behavioral health teleheath services continued, and those are set to expire with the federal budget in March 2025, unless they are renewed.

One way to expand rural health care would be to make those waivers permanent.

Increasing access to telehealth could also support people struggling with opioid addiction and other substance use disorders, which have been on the rise in rural areas.

2. Affordable housing is a rural problem too

Like their urban peers, rural communities face a shortage of affordable housing.

Unemployment in rural areas today exceeds levels before the COVID-19 pandemic. Job growth and median incomes lag behind urban areas, and rural poverty rates are higher.

Rural housing prices have been exacerbated by continued population growth over the past four years, lower incomes compared with their urban peers, limited employment opportunities and few high-quality homes available for rent or sale. Rural communities often have aging homes built upon outdated or inadequate infrastructure, such as deteriorating sewer and water lines.

Rental homes in older towns can become run down. Community maintenance of pipes and other services also requires funding. LawrenceSawyer/E+ via Getty Images

One proposal to help people looking for affordable rural housing is the bipartisan Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, which calls for creating a new federal tax credit to spur the development and renovation of family housing in distressed urban, suburban and rural neighborhoods.

Similarly, the Section 502 Direct Loan Program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which subsidizes mortgages for low-income applicants to obtain safe housing, could be expanded with additional funding to enable more people to receive subsidized mortgages.

3. Locally owned land benefits communities

Seniors age 65 and older own 40% of the agricultural land in the U.S., according to the American Farmland Trust. That means that more than 360 million acres of farmland could be transferred to new owners in the next few decades. If their heirs aren’t interested in farming, that land could be sold to large operations or real estate developers.

That affects rural communities because locally owned rural businesses tend to invest in their communities, and they are more likely to make decisions that benefit the community’s well-being.

A farmer carries organic squash during harvest. Young farmers often struggle to find land to expand their operations. Thomas Barwick/Stone via Getty Images

Congress can take some steps to help communities keep more farmland locally owned.

The proposed Farm Transitions Act, for example, would establish a commission on farm transitions to study issues that affect locally owned farms and provide recommendations to help transition agricultural operations to the next generation of farmers and ranchers.

About 30% of farmers have been in business for less than 10 years, and many of them rent the land they farm. Programs such as USDA’s farm loan programs and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program help support local land purchases and could be improved to identify and eliminate barriers that communities face.

We believe that by addressing these issues, Congress and the new administration can help some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens. Efforts to build resilient and strong rural communities will benefit everyone.

Randolph Hubach, Professor of Public Health, Purdue University and Cody Mullen, Clinical Professor of Public Health, Purdue University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

8 maneras de vivir de manera más saludable en 2025

Tome medidas para limitar el riesgo de enfermedad cardiovascular

En la última década se ha producido un aumento de factores de riesgo cardiovascular, como la hipertensión arterial no controlada, la diabetes y la obesidad, cada uno de los cuales aumenta el riesgo de desarrollar enfermedades cardíacas y accidentes cerebrovasculares. Estas tendencias están llevando a los investigadores a concluir que la prevalencia de las enfermedades cardiovasculares (ECV) seguirá aumentando.

Más del 60 % de los adultos estadounidenses tendrán algún tipo de ECV para 2050, según las proyecciones previstas de la American Heart Association, que celebra 100 años de servicio salvando vidas como la principal organización mundial sin fines de lucro dedicada a la salud del corazón y el cerebro de todos. Además, se espera que los costos totales relacionados con las ECV casi se tripliquen en ese período hasta alcanzar más de 1.8 trillones de dólares.

El aumento será impulsado por una población más anciana y diversa, pero estos factores de riesgo están aumentando incluso entre niños y adultos.

“Reconocemos que el panorama de la salud cardiovascular cambiará en las próximas tres décadas debido al tsunami que se avecina de aumentos en los costos de la atención médica, una población de mayor edad que vive más tiempo y un número cada vez mayor de personas de poblaciones de pocos recursos”, dijo la voluntaria de la American Heart Association, Karen E. Joynt Maddox, M.D., M.P.H., FAHA. “Aun así, estas siguen siendo las principales causas de muerte y discapacidad en Estados Unidos”.

Si bien se necesitan cambios sistemáticos continuos en la ciencia, las políticas y la atención de salud, la mayoría de las ECV se pueden prevenir a nivel individual. Usted puede ayudar a cambiar el rumbo de las terribles perspectivas de la ECV y, al mismo tiempo, mejorar su propia salud siguiendo y alentando a otros a seguir los “Life’s Essential 8” de la American Heart Association.

Coma mejor. Intente seguir un patrón de alimentación saludable en general que incluya alimentos integrales, frutas y verduras, proteínas magras, frutos secos, semillas y cocinar con aceite de oliva y de canola.

Manténgase activo. Los adultos deben realizar 2 horas y media de actividad física moderada o 75 minutos de actividad física vigorosa por semana. Los niños deben tener 60 minutos cada día, incluidos juegos y actividades estructuradas.

Deje el tabaco. El uso de productos que suministran nicotina por inhalación, que incluyen cigarrillos tradicionales, cigarrillos electrónicos y vaporizadores, es la principal causa de muerte evitable en los EE. UU.

Duerma bien. La mayoría de los adultos necesitan dormir entre 7 y 9 horas cada noche. Los niños de 5 años o menos necesitan entre 10 y 16 horas, incluidas las siestas; de 9 y 12 horas, en niños de 6 y 12 años, y entre 8 y 10 horas, entre los 13 y 18 años.

Controle el peso. Lograr y mantener un peso saludable tiene muchos beneficios. El índice de masa corporal es un indicador útil. El IMC óptimo es menor de 25, pero menor de 18.5 se considera bajo peso. Puede calcularlo en línea o consultar a un profesional de la salud.

Controle el colesterol. Los niveles altos de colesterol no HDL, o “malo”, pueden provocar enfermedades cardíacas. Su profesional de atención médica puede considerar el colesterol no HDL como el número preferido para monitorear, en lugar del colesterol total, porque se puede medir sin ayuno previo y se calcula de manera confiable entre todas las personas.

Controle el nivel de azúcar en sangre. La mayor parte de los alimentos que consume se convierten en glucosa (o azúcar en sangre) que su cuerpo utiliza como energía. Con el tiempo, los niveles altos de azúcar en sangre pueden dañar el corazón, los riñones, los ojos y los nervios.

Controle la presión arterial. Mantener su presión arterial dentro de rangos aceptables puede ayudarle a mantenerse saludable por más tiempo. Los niveles inferiores a 120/80 mmHg son óptimos. La presión arterial alta se define como una presión sistólica de 130 a 139 mm Hg (el número superior en una lectura) o una presión diastólica de 80 a 89 mm Hg (el número inferior).

Encuentre más formas de cuidar su salud en el nuevo año y más allá en heart.org.

 

SOURCE:
American Heart Association

Property and sovereignty in space − as countries and companies take to the stars, they could run into disputes

As travel to the Moon grows more accessible, countries may have to navigate territorial disputes. Neil A. Armstrong/NASA via AP

Wayne N White Jr, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Private citizens and companies may one day begin to permanently settle outer space and celestial bodies. But if we don’t enact governing laws in the meantime, space settlers may face legal chaos.

Many wars on Earth start over territorial disputes. In order to avoid such disputes in outer space, nations should consider enacting national laws that specify the extent of each settler’s authority in outer space and provide a process to resolve conflicts.

I have been researching and writing about space law for over 40 years. Through my work, I’ve studied ways to avoid war and resolve disputes in space.

Property in space

Space is an international area, and companies and individuals are free to land their space objects – including satellites, human-crewed and robotic spacecraft and human-inhabited facilities – on celestial bodies and conduct operations anywhere they please. This includes both outer space and celestial bodies such as the Moon.

Space objects include landers, rovers, satellites and other objects on the surface of or in orbit around a celestial body. Stocktrek Images/Stocktrek Images via Getty Images

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits territorial claims in outer space and on celestial bodies in order to avoid disputes. But without national laws governing space settlers, a nation might attempt to protect its citizens’ and companies’ interests by withdrawing from the treaty. They could then claim the territory where its citizens have placed their space objects.

Nations enforce territorial claims through military force, which would likely cost money and lives. An alternative to territorial claims, which I’ve been investigating and have come to prefer, would be to enact real property rights that are consistent with the Outer Space Treaty.

Territorial claims can be asserted only by national governments, while property rights apply to private citizens, companies and national governments that own property. A property rights law could specify how much authority settlers have and protect their investments in outer space and on celestial bodies.

The Outer Space Treaty

In 1967, the Outer Space Treaty went into effect. As of January 2025, 115 countries are party to this treaty, including the United States and most nations that have a space program.

The Outer Space Treaty is the main international agreement governing outer space. However, it is not self-executing.

The Outer Space Treaty outlines principles for the peaceful exploration and use of outer space and celestial bodies. However, the treaty does not specify how it will apply to the citizens and companies of nations that are parties to the treaty.

For this reason, the Outer Space Treaty is largely not a self-executing treaty. This means U.S. courts cannot apply the terms of the treaty to individual citizens and companies. For that to happen, the United States would need to enact national legislation that explains how the terms of the treaty apply to nongovernmental entities.

One article of the Outer Space Treaty says that participating countries should make sure that all of their citizens’ space activities comply with the treaty’s terms. Another article then gives these nations the authority to enact laws governing their citizens’ and companies’ private space activities.

This is particularly relevant to the U.S., where commercial activity in space is rapidly increasing.

UN Charter

It is important to note that the Outer Space Treaty requires participating nations to comply with international law and the United Nations Charter.

In the U.N. Charter, there are two international law concepts that are relevant to property rights. One is a country’s right to defend itself, and the other is the noninterference principle.

The international law principle of noninterference gives nations the right to exclude others from their space objects and the areas where they have ongoing activity.

But how will nations apply this concept to their private citizens and companies? Do individual people and companies have the right to exclude others in order to prevent interference with their activities? What can they do if a foreign person interferes or causes damage?

The noninterference principle in the U.N. Charter governs relations between nations, not individuals. Consequently, U.S. courts likely wouldn’t enforce the noninterference principle in a case involving two private parties.

So, U.S. citizens and companies do not have the right to exclude others from their space objects and areas of ongoing activity unless the U.S. enacts legislation giving them that right.

US laws and regulations

The United States has recognized the need for more specific laws to govern private space activities. It has sought international support for this effort through the nonbinding Artemis Accords.

The Artemis Accords outline a framework for the peaceful exploration of outer space. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

As of January 2025, 50 nations have signed the Artemis Accords.

The accords explain how important components of the Outer Space Treaty will apply to private space activities. One section of the accords allows for safety zones, where public and private personnel, equipment and operations are protected from harmful interference by other people. The rights to self-defense and noninterference from the U.N. Charter provide a legal basis for safety zones.

Aside from satellite and rocket-launch regulations, the United States has enacted only a few laws – including the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 – to govern private activities in outer space and on celestial bodies.

As part of this act, any U.S. citizen collecting mineral resources in outer space or on celestial bodies has a right to own, transport, use and sell those resources. This act is an example of national legislation that clarifies how the Outer Space Treaty applies to U.S. citizens and companies.

Property rights

Enacting property rights for outer space would make it clear what rights and obligations property owners have and the extent of their authority over their property.

All nations on Earth have a form of property rights in their legal systems. Property rights typically include the rights to possess, control, develop, exclude, enjoy, sell, lease and mortgage properties. Enacting real property rights in space would create a marketplace for buying, selling, renting and mortgaging property.

Because the Outer Space Treaty prohibits territorial claims, space property rights would not necessarily be “land grabs.” Property rights would operate a little differently in space than on Earth.

Property rights in space would have to be based on the authority that the Outer Space Treaty gives to nations. This authority allows them to govern their citizens and their assets by enacting laws and enforcing them in their courts.

Space property rights would include safety zones around property to prevent interference. So, people would have to get the property owner’s permission before entering a safety zone.

If a U.S. property owner were to sell a space property to a foreign citizen or company, the space objects on the property would have to stay on the property or be replaced with the purchaser’s space objects. That would ensure that the owner’s country still has authority over the property.

Also, if someone transferred their space objects to a foreign citizen or company, the buyer would have to change their objects’ international registration, which would give the buyer’s nation authority over the space objects and the surrounding property.

Nations could likely avoid some territorial disputes if they enact real property laws in space that clearly describe how national authority over property changes when it is sold. Enacting property rights could reduce the legal risks for commercial space companies and support the permanent settlement of outer space and celestial bodies.

U.S. property rights law could also contain a reciprocity provision, which would encourage other nations to pass similar laws and allow participating countries to mutually recognize each other’s property rights.

With a reciprocity provision, property rights could support economic development as commercial companies around the world begin to look to outer space as the next big area of economic growth.

Wayne N White Jr, Adjunct Professor of Aviation and Space Law, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Guía práctica para participar en ensayos clínicos

Los ensayos clínicos ayudan a los investigadores que estudian enfermedades crónicas a responder preguntas importantes sobre las enfermedades y sus opciones de tratamiento. Sin embargo, la incertidumbre sobre qué esperar y la falta de conocimiento sobre cómo comenzar pueden impedir que los pacientes participen en un ensayo clínico.

Elegir participar en un ensayo clínico significa ayudar a un equipo de estudio a determinar si un nuevo método de diagnóstico, tratamiento o prevención es eficaz. Si vive con una enfermedad crónica, como la enfermedad de Crohn o la colitis ulcerosa, y desea ayudar a encontrar respuestas para otras personas que comparten su experiencia, un ensayo clínico es una opción a considerar.

Una vez que identifique un estudio que le interese, querrá hablar con los profesionales involucrados en su tratamiento en curso, un coordinador de investigación clínica y su familia a fin de reunir la información necesaria para determinar si el ensayo clínico es una buena opción.

Para encontrar información adicional sobre ensayos clínicos y comenzar a explorar ensayos en su área, visite crohnscolitisfoundation.org y considere estos pasos para participar en un ensayo.

1. Hablar con su médico
Su gastroenterólogo y otros proveedores de atención médica pueden ayudarlo a determinar si un ensayo clínico es adecuado para usted y pueden ayudar a orientarlo hacia los ensayos recomendados. Es importante preguntar si su médico seguirá involucrado en su atención médica si participa en un ensayo y de qué manera.

2. Encontrar un estudio
Si necesita ayuda más allá de su equipo de atención para identificar oportunidades de ensayos clínicos en su área, las organizaciones dedicadas a su condición pueden ser un buen recurso. Por ejemplo, la Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation ofrece un Buscador de ensayos clínicos en línea para personas con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal.

3. Hablar con el coordinador de investigación
Un coordinador de investigación de ensayos clínicos puede proporcionar detalles específicos a sus circunstancias y necesidades. Puede analizar los posibles beneficios y riesgos, por qué se realiza el ensayo y quiénes forman parte del equipo de atención médica. Puede hablar sobre tratamientos anteriores y cómo este estudio puede diferir de sus experiencias previas. Otras preguntas que podría hacer incluyen cuáles son sus opciones si el ensayo no funciona, los costos que podría esperar y cuál será su compromiso personal.

4. Evaluar lo que se adapta a usted
Una vez que tenga la información necesaria, podrá considerar si está listo para continuar con el registro para la prueba. Deberá sopesar factores como su compromiso de tiempo, la distancia del viaje y si el ensayo afectará sus obligaciones personales o profesionales. 

SOURCE:
Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation

Corporate social responsibility disclosures are a double-edged sword, new research suggests

Vivek Astvansh, McGill University

Hoping to win over customers, businesses from Amazon to Zoom have taken to touting their good deeds in corporate social responsibility reports.

CSR reports let companies spotlight what they’ve done for workers, consumers, communities and the environment – essentially all their goals beyond simply making a profit. Research shows that CSR statements are linked to rising sales.

As a marketing professor, I thought that raised an interesting question: When companies find success with CSR disclosures, are they bringing in new customers – or are their extra sales coming from their existing base alone?

In a recent study of several hundred Chinese companies, a colleague and I put the question to the test. We found that a CSR disclosure lowers a business’s dependence on current customers by 2.1%.

That’s welcome news for businesses. It means those additional sales are coming from new customers, who are indeed impressed by the company’s CSR efforts.

But the findings weren’t all positive.

To sell more products, companies generally need to buy more supplies. So a logical follow-up question is: Does a company’s CSR disclosure lead it to source purchases from new suppliers?

In fact, we found the opposite. Companies that released CSR disclosures seemed to scare away new suppliers. This is probably because suppliers often bear the costs when a company chooses to prioritize social responsibility.

Becoming dependent on suppliers comes at a cost to businesses. When suppliers know a company depends on them, they tend to demand payment in cash rather than credit. That can hurt a company, because it now has less cash for investments.

So while CSR reports impress customers, they appear to antagonize suppliers – and that comes at a price.

Why it matters

Prior research has shown that CSR disclosures can boost sales, but it’s long been unclear whether these additional sales are sourced from old customers or newly acquired ones. Our work brings clarity that businesses can use in making decisions.

The findings are also of interest to lawmakers, regulators and corporate responsibility advocates who are debating making CSR reports mandatory.

The U.S. doesn’t require businesses to release CSR reports, but some countries do. One is China, which in 2008 mandated that all public companies submit annual CSR reports starting in 2009. This created the conditions for the nearly natural experiment we conducted.

Interestingly, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has reportedly considered making some form of corporate social responsibility reporting mandatory. In the absence of requirements, many American corporations will continue to voluntarily report their CSR.

In other words, the need for empirical evidence on the cost and benefits of CSR disclosure is greater than ever.

What’s next

The increasing incidence of extreme weather events and weather-related fatalities and injuries has piqued my interest in environmental responsibility. I have two ongoing research projects.

First, I’m using a company’s public disclosures to measure its environmental risks and the activities it has undertaken to mitigate them. Second, I am researching how CEO incentives shape a company’s environmental disclosure, activities and spending – or the lack thereof.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Vivek Astvansh, Associate Professor of Quantitative Marketing and Analytics, McGill University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

A Game Day Checklist: Ensure you're ready with tailgating essentials

Preparing for game day means gathering the right gear to ensure the pregame parking lot festivities are as exciting as the game that follows.

Elevate your game-day experience with this ultimate guide of essential tailgating gear to keep your squad happy no matter the score at the end of the day.

Comfort and Convenience Items
Comfort is key for a long day of tailgating, so be sure to bring the right gear to keep everyone safe and comfortable, including:

• Folding chairs and tables
• Pop-up tent or canopy
• Blankets
• Portable heater
• Sunscreen
• Insect repellant
• First aid kit
• Tool set
• Hand-washing station or hand sanitizer
• Trash bags

Cooking and Grilling Equipment
No tailgate is complete without a feast, and to cook up a storm, you’ll need the right equipment, such as:

• Portable grill, smoker or griddle
• Propane or charcoal
• Lighter and lighter fluid
• Grilling tools (tongs, spatula, grill brush)
• Meat thermometer
• Cooler with ice
• Disposable tableware, cups and utensils
• Storage containers
• Aluminum foil

Food and Beverages
A successful tailgate is powered by delicious food and refreshing beverages. Stock up on crowd-pleasers like these:

• Burgers
• Sausages or hot dogs
• Ribs
• Wings
• Veggie burgers
• Coleslaw
• Potato salad
• Chips
• Dips
• Nuts
• Pretzels
• Sandwiches or wraps
• Condiments, including ketchup, mustard, mayo and relish
• Cookies
• Brownies
• Fruit skewers
• Water
• Soda
• Sports drinks
• Beer
• Wine

Games and Entertainment
While the game is the main event, tailgate games are a staple for pregame festivities. Consider bringing options such as:

• Cornhole
• Ladder toss
• Horseshoes
• Football
• Frisbee
• Portable Bluetooth speaker
• Portable TV or projector
• Portable generator
• Coloring books and crayons
• Small children’s toys

Find more tips and ideas to make your tailgate a hit at eLivingtoday.com.

SOURCE:
eLivingtoday.com

Consejos de expertos para mantener saludables a tus seres queridos este invierno

El invierno puede traer muchas oportunidades para reuniones acogedoras con nuestros seres queridos y estos momentos pueden ser momentos que iluminan nuestros días durante los meses fríos. Sin embargo, pasar más tiempo en espacios interiores durante el invierno aumenta las probabilidades de que los virus respiratorios se propaguen.

Los virus de la gripe, el COVID-19 y el VRS pueden enfermar a las personas lo suficiente como para que necesiten ir al doctor o al hospital. “Enfermarse a causa de estos virus puede ocurrir con más frecuencia en los meses de invierno”, dijo el Dr. Manisha Patel, director médico principal del Centro Nacional de Inmunización y Enfermedades Respiratorias de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés). “Las vacunas contra la gripe y el COVID-19 de esta temporada, así como la vacuna contra el VRS, son la mejor manera de evitar enfermarse gravemente para que las personas puedan pasar tiempo con amigos y familiares”.

¿Cómo puedes proteger a tus seres queridos?
Millones de personas ya se han vacunado este otoño e invierno. De hecho, este año más personas se están vacunando contra la gripe y el COVID-19 en comparación con el año pasado en estas fechas. Las vacunas son la mejor protección contra enfermarse gravemente. Para ayudar a mantener saludables a tus seres queridos este invierno, ofrécete a llevarlos a vacunarse. Asegúrate de que sepan que es seguro recibir más de una vacuna en la misma cita.

CDC recomiendan que todas las personas a partir de los 6 meses de edad reciban las vacunas contra la gripe y el COVID-19 de esta temporada.

¿Tus seres queridos tienen alto riesgo?
Según los CDC, algunas personas tienen mayor riesgo de enfermarse gravemente a causa de los virus respiratorios, estas incluyen a:

• Personas que no están al día con sus vacunas. Las vacunas reducen aproximadamente a la mitad tu riesgo de ser hospitalizado por la gripe o el COVID-19. En 2023, el 90% de los adultos ingresados en el hospital a causa de del COVID-19 no estaban al día con su vacuna contra el COVID-19. Las personas que no se vacunaron contra la gripe tuvieron el doble de probabilidades de tener que visitar a un doctor a causa de la gripe.
• Adultos mayores. La mayoría de las hospitalizaciones y muertes a causa de la gripe, el COVID-19 y el VRS son en personas de 65 años o más. Si tú ayudas a cuidar a un amigo mayor o ser querido, hazle saber que tiene un riesgo de enfermarse gravemente por estos virus y que las vacunas pueden ayudar a protegerlo de tener que ir al hospital.
• Personas que viven en centros de cuidados a largo plazo. Los virus respiratorios pueden propagarse entre las personas que reciben cuidados a largo plazo y que pueden ser mayores o tener condiciones de salud que aumentan su riesgo de enfermarse gravemente a causa de la gripe, el COVID-19 y el VRS.
• Personas embarazadas. Las vacunas contra la gripe y el COVID-19 durante el embarazo brindan protección contra enfermarte gravemente y protegen a tu bebé durante sus primeros 6 meses. Una vacuna contra el VRS durante el embarazo protege a tu bebé de enfermarse gravemente por el VRS en sus primeros 6 meses de vida.

Anima a tus seres queridos a vacunarse ahora mismo.
Las vacunas contra la gripe, el COVID-19 y el VRS son la mejor manera de que tú, tus amigos y familiares, arriesguen menos y hagan más de lo que disfrutan este invierno. Anima a tus seres queridos a vacunarse ahora mismo para ayudar a que se protejan de enfermarse gravemente por estos virus.

Visita cdc.gov/ArriesgaMenos para aprender más sobre las vacunas contra la gripe, el COVID-19 y el VRS. Habla con un doctor sobre qué vacunas son adecuadas para ti, o visita vacunas.gov para encontrar una farmacia cerca de ti.

Grupos adicionales que tienen mayor riesgo
En los Estados Unidos, dicen los CDC, hay algunos grupos adicionales de personas que tienen mayor riesgo de contagiarse de virus respiratorios.

• Personas que viven en zonas rurales del país. Las personas que viven en áreas rurales también tienen un mayor riesgo de enfermarse gravemente a causa de la gripe, el COVID-19 y el VRS. En estas regiones, menos de la mitad de los adultos se vacunaron contra la gripe el año pasado. Menos de uno de cada cinco recibió una vacuna actualizada contra el COVID-19. Las vacunas son aún más importantes en las zonas rurales donde hay menos doctores o clínicas de atención médica.
• Latinos y afroamericanos. En el pico de la temporada de los virus respiratorios el año pasado, las personas afroamericanas tenían más probabilidades que las personas blancas o hispanas de ser hospitalizadas por la gripe, el COVID-19 o el VRS. Al final de la temporada, los hispanos tenían más probabilidades que los blancos no hispanos de haber estado en el hospital a causa de la gripe. 

SOURCE:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

ETS Restorations, Inc.