Media releases

• Brock experts concerned by Ontario’s decision to lift mask mandate

  Thursday, March 10, 2022 | By Brock University

  MEDIA RELEASE: 10 March 2022 – R0032

  Dropping Ontario’s mask mandate on March 21 may be going too far, too soon, say Brock University experts, who are concerned with the government’s decision announced Wednesday.

  “Most people rely on the message they are getting from the government and if the government is lifting so-called restrictions, it must be because things are OK,” says Christine Daigle, a Philosophy Professor with the Interdisciplinary Humanities PhD program. “We know the pandemic is far from over, but for most people, the message they are getting is that things are improving and are going to continue to improve.”

  Associate Professor of Immunology Adam MacNeil warns there is risk of doing more harm to the public through encouraging masklessness in indoor public spaces, which will increase virus transmission, without grounding the public in clear guidance around airborne transmission.

  “All protective measures need to be assessed in the current context,” says MacNeil, who teaches Infection Control in Brock’s Master of Public Health program. “Our current context is very high community spread and thus lots of virus in circulation relative to previous waves.”

  In addition, he says, the current context includes a number of factors: serious risks to children under five years old who remain unvaccinated, most children five and over who are not fully vaccinated, immunocompromised individuals and the high-risk elderly; the new and more highly transmissible subvariant of Omicron (BA.2) that is moving toward dominance in Canada and elsewhere; and increasing understanding of the longer-term consequences of infection in Long COVID.

  Wednesday’s announcement shifts responsibility to the individual, but Daigle notes that individuals can only make an informed decision if they are informed, and many may not be following COVID-19 news closely for many reasons.

  “What we’re ignoring here is that we live in a collective and that my decision potentially impacts you and others I interact with,” says Daigle, who has been researching human vulnerability.

  MacNeil thinks it is too soon to shift focus onto individual choice.

  “In my opinion, we’re not at the ‘personal risk assessment’ time yet,” he says. “Infectious disease experts widely agree, Ontario’s move Wednesday is not grounded in science.”

  While Daigle is hopeful that people will continue wearing masks, she is concerned about increasing polarization, harassment and peer pressure towards people, especially children, who continue to wear masks.

  “I’m hoping that even with this announcement, a good number of people will continue wearing masks because they understand it is a caring gesture.”

  Daigle says there has been a failure of communication in the language government leaders and the media have used to talk about the pandemic. Words such as ‘restriction,’ ‘mandate’ and ‘lockdown’ rather than ‘protective measures’ exaggerate hardship and invite resistance.

  “This choice of words has had a very profound impact,” says Daigle. “If you call it a mandate or call it a restriction, you are soliciting resistance rather than co-operation.”

  Brock University Philosophy Professor Christine Daigle and Associate Professor of Immunology Adam MacNeil are available for media interviews.

  For more information or for assistance arranging interviews:

  * Dan Dakin, Manager Communications and Media Relations, Brock University ddakin@brocku.ca or 905-347-1970

  – 30 –

  Categories: Media releases

• Companies operating in Russia feel the heat to get out, say Brock experts

  Wednesday, March 09, 2022 | By Brock University

  MEDIA RELEASE: 9 March 2022 – R0031

  For companies continuing to do business in Russia, Joachim Scholz offers a key insight: proactive is better than reactive.

  “Don’t drag your feet,” says the Brock Assistant Professor of Augmented Reality Marketing. “Don’t wait until consumers get more and more frustrated before you take a stand, because then you move from building your brand to protecting your brand.”

  Brock Professor of Business Ethics Paul Dunn says social consensus is saying this attack against Ukraine is wrong.

  “Businesses are not only feeling that sort of pressure but are perhaps in the vanguard of opposing the war as well,” he says.

  Dunn and Scholz’s comments follow announcements Tuesday, March 8 that McDonald’s, Starbucks, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo are suspending business in Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, joining dozens of companies that have done so since the war’s start on Feb. 24.

  McDonald’s and Coca-Cola faced widespread criticism for remaining in Russia after the start of the war.

  Part of Scholz’s research focuses on how and why companies take a position on certain moral issues — body image, environmental sustainability, LGBTQ+ rights — that he calls “moral grey zones” because different groups of consumers take opposing sides of the debate.

  But Russia’s war against Ukraine is a clear-cut, “black and white” matter that’s viewed by all consumers as being unacceptable, says Scholz.

  Companies that appear to profit from the conflict — as was the case of Shell, which purchased cheap oil from Russia — come under fire quickly, he says.

  “In being opportunistic, Shell was short-sighted to buy at the bargain price, but smart enough to apologize and donate the profits, a classic public relations rescue,” he says.

  Divesting early in the conflict helps a company’s public image, says Scholz, because consumers expect companies and their brands to play a positive role in society, “to show that they care and that they are willing to act on their values.”

  What’s motivating this divestment effort is the war’s “moral intensity,” says Dunn, whose research focuses on business ethics, corporate social responsibility and corporate governance.

  “A number of factors relate to this moral intensity, including a feeling of social, cultural and psychological nearness that we have for the victims, and all the people who have relatives there,” he says.

  Companies are embracing the move to pull out of Russia, says Dunn. He refers to a March 1 letter 100 Canadian top business leaders sent to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowing to divest from Russia and calling other investors to do the same.

  But this can have huge ramifications, ranging from revenue losses for companies to unemployment in countries where the companies operate to rising gas and food prices, says Dunn.

  Companies weigh the effectiveness of divestment with the economic consequences to make their decision, he says.

  “Businesses leaders now, for the most part, are very cognizant of the ethical dimensions of their decision,” he says. “Most businesses acknowledge that they work in society, they are part of society, and most try to be good corporate citizens.”

  Not all businesses have investments in Russia. Those wanting to make a difference can set up

  programs and services to support Ukraine, Dunn says, while referencing Airbnb, for example, which is offering free shelter to Ukrainian refugees in Hungary, Poland, Romania and Germany.

  Brock University Assistant Professor of Augmented Reality Marketing Joachim Scholz and Professor of Business Ethics Paul Dunn are available for media interviews.

  For more information or for assistance arranging interviews: 

  * Maryanne St. Denis, Writer/Web Editor, Brock University mstdenis@brocku.ca or 905-246-0256

  – 30 –

  Categories: Media releases