Accounting for survival of polar bears

Jonäll, Kristina; Sabelfeld, Svetlana

doi:10.4324/9780429437397-18

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research from South Africa warranted three studies (Atkins, Maroun, Atkins, & Barone, 2018; Buchling & Maroun, 2018; Maroun & Atkins, 2018) and two studies each from New Zealand (Samkin, Schneider, & Tappin, 2014; Tregidga, 2013), Australia (Adler, Mansi, Pandey, & Stringer, 2017; Bhattacharyya & Yang, 2019), Kenya (Cuckston, 2013; Sibanda & Mulama, 2018) and European studies (Rimmel, 2018: Haque & Jones, 2020). Countries such as Denmark (Van Liempd & Busch, 2013), Sweden (Rimmel & Jonäll, 2013), Bangladesh (Siddiqui, 2013), China (Zhao & Atkins, 2018), Italy (Martini, Doni, & Corvino, 2018), the Arctic region (Jonäll & Sabelfeld, 2018) and a combined study of the United Kingdom and Germany (Atkins, Gräbsch, & Jones, 2014) and the United States and Canada (Solomon & Clappison, 2018) were studied once.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A proportion of studies are identified to have a small sample. For example, contributions from book chapters Martini, Doni, and Corvino (2018) study only three companies from one industry in Italy; Jonäll and Sabelfeld (2018) investigate only two companies from a high biodiversity intensive industry. Although these short chapters provide insightful snapshots of corporate accountability for B/E, this may not reflect the overall practice of country/industry selected (Khan, Hassan, Harrison, & Tarbert, 2020).…”

Section: Critical Analysis Of Limitations and Opportunities For Futurmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In essence, companies provide rhetoric on what stakeholders would like to hear, rather than transparent, sincere reporting. For example, Jonäll and Sabelfeld (2018) find companies are using linguistic strategies to disclose their impact on polar bears. Organisations provide optimistic language and dramatise positive engagement which is a smokescreen, rather than a transparent account of actual impact (Boiral, 2016).…”

Section: Critical Analysis Of Limitations and Opportunities For Futurmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biodiversity and extinction accounting for sustainable development: A systematic literature review and future research directions

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper seeks to present the first systematic literature review (SLR) on biodiversity and species extinction accounting publications. This strand of research is gaining increased attention due to emerging scientific evidence that finds a relationship between the human destruction of biodiversity and the recent Covid‐19 crisis, causing profound economic and health impacts. This justifies the need for an SLR of 40 articles from 2013 to 2020. Descriptive results show research contributions peaked in 2018 with the most publications appearing in the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. Results show legitimacy theory is the most applied theoretical framework with global studies and developed country specific research receiving the greatest attention. In addition, content analysis is identified as the preferred research methodology. Additionally, through synthesising and analysing literature, we provide potential opportunities for future research that is underexplored. This paper will provide a valuable study for academics, policymakers and practitioners pursuing research in this field.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Critical Analysis Of Limitations and Opportunities For Futurmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Critical Analysis Of Limitations and Opportunities For Futurmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biodiversity and extinction accounting for sustainable development: A systematic literature review and future research directions

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research from South Africa warranted three studies (Atkins et al, 2018a;Buchling and Maroun, 2018;Maroun and Atkins, 2018), and two studies each from New Zealand (Tregidga, 2013;Samkin et al, 2014), Australia (Adler et al, 2017;Bhattacharyya and Yang, 2019), Kenya (Cuckston, 2013;Sibanda and Mulama, 2018), and European studies (Rimmel, 2018: Haque andJones, 2020). Countries such as Denmark (van Liempd and Busch, 2013), Sweden (Rimmel and Jonäll, 2013), Bangladesh (Siddiqui, 2013), China (Zhao and Atkins, 2018), Italy (Martini et al, 2018), the Arctic region (Jonäll and Sabelfeld, 2018), and a combined study of the UK and Germany (Atkins et al, 2014) and the USA and Canada (Solomon and Clappison, 2018) were studied once.…”

Section: Publications By Geographic Spreadmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A proportion of studies are identified to have a small sample. For example, contributions from book chapters Martini et al (2018) study only three companies from one industry in Italy, Jonäll and Sabelfeld (2018) investigate only two companies from a high biodiversity intensive industry. Although these short chapters provide insightful snapshots of corporate accountability for B/E this may not reflect the overall practice of country/industry selected (Khan et al, 2020).…”

Section: Sample Sizementioning

confidence: 99%