Table 3. Clusters’ positioning and... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3.

Clusters’ positioning and thematic criticalities

	Features
Label	2000–2015	2016–2021	Criticalities
Natural resource management	– High centrality – High density – Low impact	– Low centrality – Low density – Low impact	• Stakeholders’ scepticism and erosion of corporate social legitimacy due to the use of impression management techniques by companies (Adler et al., 2017; Lafreniere et al., 2013) • Poor integration of knowledge related to the several disciplinary sectors of the biodiversity accounting research (Mouysset et al., 2011)
Biodiversity economic evaluation	– Low centrality – Low density – Low impact	– n/a – n/a – n/a	• High complexity for companies in economically assessing biodiversity due to the changing evaluation purposes (Mace, 2019), need of institutional coordination, heterogeneity of data requirements and methodologies (Brandon et al., 2021) • Inadequacy of most indicators in considering the specificities of the interconnection among human beings, natural resources, territories and nature (Sobkowiak et al., 2020)
Natural capital accounting	– High centrality – Low density - Low impact	– Low centrality – Low density – Low impact	• Disconnection between natural capital information and corporate practices (Vola et al., 2021) • Stakeholders’ scepticism and erosion of corporate social legitimacy due to the use of impression management techniques by companies (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017; Boiral, 2016; Bansal and Kistruck, 2006; Bansal and Clelland, 2004)
Biodiversity accountability	– High centrality – High density – High impact	– High centrality – High density – High impact	• Lack of corporate non-financial tools to plan, control and assign responsibility in accountability processes (Raar et al., 2020; Cuckston, 2013; Carnegie and West, 2005) • Weak ecological knowledge due to the lack of interdisciplinary collaboration among scholars and practitioner in crafting accountability practices for biodiversity (Smith et al., 2020; Russell et al., 2017; Polasky et al., 2015)
Biodiversity disclosure and reporting	– n/a – n/a – n/a	– High centrality – Low density – Low impact	• Inadequacy of corporate tools to disclose and report on biodiversity (Bordt, 2018; Pascual et al., 2015; Edens and Hein, 2013) • Stakeholders’ scepticism and erosion of corporate social legitimacy due to the use of impression management techniques and evocative symbols by companies (Talbot and Boiral, 2015; Islam and Deegan, 2010)

	Features
Label	2000–2015	2016–2021	Criticalities
Natural resource management	– High centrality– High density– Low impact	– Low centrality– Low density– Low impact	• Stakeholders’ scepticism and erosion of corporate social legitimacy due to the use of impression management techniques by companies (Adler et al., 2017; Lafreniere et al., 2013)• Poor integration of knowledge related to the several disciplinary sectors of the biodiversity accounting research (Mouysset et al., 2011)
Biodiversity economic evaluation	– Low centrality– Low density– Low impact	– n/a– n/a– n/a	• High complexity for companies in economically assessing biodiversity due to the changing evaluation purposes (Mace, 2019), need of institutional coordination, heterogeneity of data requirements and methodologies (Brandon et al., 2021)• Inadequacy of most indicators in considering the specificities of the interconnection among human beings, natural resources, territories and nature (Sobkowiak et al., 2020)
Natural capital accounting	– High centrality– Low density- Low impact	– Low centrality– Low density– Low impact	• Disconnection between natural capital information and corporate practices (Vola et al., 2021)• Stakeholders’ scepticism and erosion of corporate social legitimacy due to the use of impression management techniques by companies (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017; Boiral, 2016; Bansal and Kistruck, 2006; Bansal and Clelland, 2004)
Biodiversity accountability	– High centrality– High density– High impact	– High centrality– High density– High impact	• Lack of corporate non-financial tools to plan, control and assign responsibility in accountability processes (Raar et al., 2020; Cuckston, 2013; Carnegie and West, 2005)• Weak ecological knowledge due to the lack of interdisciplinary collaboration among scholars and practitioner in crafting accountability practices for biodiversity (Smith et al., 2020; Russell et al., 2017; Polasky et al., 2015)
Biodiversity disclosure and reporting	– n/a– n/a– n/a	– High centrality– Low density– Low impact	• Inadequacy of corporate tools to disclose and report on biodiversity (Bordt, 2018; Pascual et al., 2015; Edens and Hein, 2013)• Stakeholders’ scepticism and erosion of corporate social legitimacy due to the use of impression management techniques and evocative symbols by companies (Talbot and Boiral, 2015; Islam and Deegan, 2010)

Source: Authors’ elaboration