4.7 Review

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

期刊

BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 705-720

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bse.2649

关键词

biodiversity accounting; reporting; extinction accounting; reporting; species; sustainable development; systematic literature review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the first systematic literature review on biodiversity and species extinction accounting publications, analyzing 40 articles from 2013 to 2020. The research found that research contributions peaked in 2018, legitimacy theory is the most applied theoretical framework, global studies and developed country specific research received the greatest attention, and content analysis is the preferred methodology. The paper provides potential opportunities for future research.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据