Talk:Cost externalization

No references

New paragraphs have been coming in from anons,[1] [2] but the article remains unsourced. Emana, can you provide your sources for the original text[3] and any other text you know the source for? That would be helpful. --Busy Stubber (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I thought something was missing. I thought I've pasted the sources to the bottom but apparently my computer was feeling like misbehaving. I'll find the sources again and add them. -- Emana (Talk) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Environmental or Social Costs?

I understand this is a business themed article, but these other costs are often ignored as if they did not exist. I am curious if this article is a good place to link in to social costs and environmental cost externalizations. ie: Fossil fuel externalized costs, Cuts or lack of social services, education deficiencies, lax or captured regulation, etc. Maybe would it be best to put in a paragraph and link to the underlying costs that business has not taken into account, yet we pay for with our health, taxes, and safety? Thraxarious (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater customer satisfaction is subjective

It is claimed of things like self-service checkouts:

"This can have less of a negative customer satisfaction impact because some customers actually prefer to help themselves."

This relies on the unsupported assertion that "some" customers "prefer to help themselves" and downplays the opinions of other customers who may, for example, find the arrangements less satisfactory when they are expected to work a machine they are not trained to work on and may find this confusing or in other ways infuriating; it also does not address any satisfaction which may be derived from human contact with employees.

Assertions like this surely need to be backed up all the more with references to studies on what effect such arrangements have on customer satisfaction levels, or else they undermine the neutrality of the article. The lyniezian (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not presently in great shape

Unless this article improves fairly substantially, someone should flag this article for a merge into Externality#Negative. There's just not that much value add here in the article's present condition. — MaxEnt 21:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]