Businesses have traditionally been seen as reluctant participants in equality policy initiatives. However, emerging governance guidelines increasingly advocate for gender mainstreaming, encouraging active business engagement. Our research examines this potential transformation, focusing on the role of businesses adopting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices compared to traditional equality policy actors – governments, equality organizations, and academia – within the Colombian context. Using a collaborative governance framework and participatory decision-making techniques, we identify potential role shifts toward proactivity and specific contributions from each actor group. Our findings highlight discordant mutual expectations, or “role mismatch”, and divergent perceptions within the business sector, which may undermine traditional actors. These insights emphasize the risks inherent in business participation in equality policy. By delineating contributions and clarifying self-perceptions and mutual expectations, we offer a practical approach to designing participatory processes that foster mutual recognition, trust, and shared responsibility as foundations for advancing equality policies.

The police are required to establish probable cause before engaging in custodial interrogation. Much custodial interrogation relies on a fraudulent epistemic environment (FEE) in which the police knowingly use deception and dishonesty to gain an advantage over a suspect regarding a material issue, injuring the interests of the suspect. Probable cause, then, is a sort of evidentiary and epistemic standard that legally justifies the police’s use of deceptive and dishonest custodial interrogation tactics that are on par with fraud. However, there are both deontological and consequentialist considerations that show why the police’s use of an FEE is often unjustified. Accordingly, the paper argues that even if the use of an FEE is based on probable cause, there are other (non-epistemic) reasons to think evidence with probative value (such as a confession) should be excluded when derived from an FEE and there is no acute threat of harm to others.

Policymakers around the world are increasingly regulating creators’ (copy)rights in their work. This includes economic rights and moral rights. While the former type of rights is recognized and protected in most jurisdictions, the approach to the latter – moral rights – differs. How allocation and protection of copyrights affects creators’ choices depends on their preferences. Yet, creators’ preferences are almost not researched empirically. This paper uses a conjoint experiment, applied for the first time in this context, on representative samples in the UK (general population and professionals) and the USA (professionals) designed to reveal people’s preferences with respect to different rights derived from copyrights laws. We find that moral rights are valued more than economic rights, yet participants were willing to trade this right. Such findings might suggest reconsidering existing regulations in particularly with regards to the question of whether the right of attribution can and should be “traded”.

Monetary sanctions in law enforcement, including fines, forfeitures, and related fees, are susceptible to exploitation by agencies for self-serving profit motives. However, a key challenge in addressing this issue is disentangling the agencies’ profit-driven motives from their genuine commitment to upholding law and order. Against this backdrop, this study examines a novel policy design proposal: redirecting revenues from law enforcement to fund local nonprofits. This approach seeks to eliminate conflicts of interest without restricting the use of monetary sanctions as a tool for law enforcement, while simultaneously channeling revenues toward community benefits. Experimental evidence based on a representative sample of US adults (n = 1,030) further highlights this approach’s potential to improve public perceptions of, and attitudes toward, law enforcement agencies. The study concludes by discussing the broader implications of this proposal for the political economy of law enforcement, as well as key considerations and potential challenges for its implementation.