Stefan Paul Jaworski and Don Fosher
The power of culture, ethos, and just “being” within the living Brand of a nation is something each citizen on earth experiences every day. Yet, few stop to consider that, since…
Abstract
The power of culture, ethos, and just “being” within the living Brand of a nation is something each citizen on earth experiences every day. Yet, few stop to consider that, since the dawn of time, human beings have been radically affected by the Brands they live within – and verce versa. From the hunter‐gatherer group on the Serengeti, the ancient Egyptian nation built on the Nile, France Under Napoleon, newly emerging open‐society China, to today’s United States of America, human beings live within Brands and Branded systems that shape the way they act, think, and are perceived.
Details
Keywords
Stephen L. Vargo, Robert F. Lusch, Melissa Archpru Akaka and Yi He
Anthropologists have long discussed the ways in which their discipline has been entangled, consciously and unconsciously, with the colonized populations they study. A foundational…
Abstract
Anthropologists have long discussed the ways in which their discipline has been entangled, consciously and unconsciously, with the colonized populations they study. A foundational text in this regard was Michel Leiris' Phantom Africa (L'Afrique fantôme; Leiris, 1934), which described an African ethnographic expedition led by Marcel Griaule as a form of colonial plunder. Leiris criticized anthropologists' focus on the most isolated, rural, and traditional cultures, which could more easily be described as untouched by European influences, and he saw this as a way of disavowing the very existence of colonialism. In 1950, Leiris challenged Europeans' ability even to understand the colonized, writing that “ethnography is closely linked to the colonial fact, whether ethnographers like it or not. In general they work in the colonial or semi-colonial territories dependent on their country of origin, and even if they receive no direct support from the local representatives of their government, they are tolerated by them and more or less identified, by the people they study, as agents of the administration” (Leiris, 1950, p. 358). Similar ideas were discussed by French social scientists throughout the 1950s. Maxime Rodinson argued in the Année sociologique that “colonial conditions make even the most technically sophisticated sociological research singularly unsatisfying, from the standpoint of the desiderata of a scientific sociology” (Rodinson, 1955, p. 373). In a rejoinder to Leiris, Pierre Bourdieu acknowledged in Work and Workers in Algeria (Travail et travailleurs en Algérie) that “no behavior, attitude or ideology can be explained objectively without reference to the existential situation of the colonized as it is determined by the action of economic and social forces characteristic of the colonial system,” but he insisted that the “problems of science” needed to be separated from “the anxieties of conscience” (2003, pp. 13–14). Since Bourdieu had been involved in a study of an incredibly violent redistribution of Algerians by the French colonial army at the height of the anticolonial revolutionary war, he had good reason to be sensitive to Leiris' criticisms (Bourdieu & Sayad, 1964). Rodinson called Bourdieu's critique of Leiris' thesis “excellent’ (1965, p. 360), but Bourdieu later revised his views, noting that the works that had been available to him at the time of his research in Algeria tended “to justify the colonial order” (1990, p. 3). At the 1974 colloquium that gave rise to a book on the connections between anthropology and colonialism, Le mal de voir, Bourdieu called for an analysis of the relatively autonomous field of colonial science (1993a, p. 51). A parallel discussion took place in American anthropology somewhat later, during the 1960s. At the 1965 meetings of the American Anthropological Association, Marshall Sahlins criticized the “enlistment of scholars” in “cold war projects such as Camelot” as “servants of power in a gendarmerie relationship to the Third World.” This constituted a “sycophantic relation to the state unbefitting science or citizenship” (Sahlins, 1967, pp. 72, 76). Sahlins underscored the connections between “scientific functionalism and the natural interest of a leading world power in the status quo” and called attention to the language of contagion and disease in the documents of “Project Camelot,” adding that “waiting on call is the doctor, the US Army, fully prepared for its self-appointed ‘important mission in the positive and constructive aspects of nation-building’” a mission accompanied by “insurgency prophylaxis” (1967, pp. 77–78). At the end of the decade, Current Anthropology published a series of articles on anthropologists’ “social responsibilities,” and Human Organization published a symposium entitled “Decolonizing Applied Social Sciences.” British anthropologists followed suit, as evidenced by Talal Asad's 1973 collection Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. During the 1980s, authors such as Gothsch (1983) began to address the question of German anthropology's involvement in colonialism. The most recent revival of this discussion was in response to the Pentagon's deployment of “embedded anthropologists” in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East. The “Network of Concerned Anthropologists” in the AAA asked “researchers to sign an online pledge not to work with the military,” arguing that they “are not all necessarily opposed to other forms of anthropological consulting for the state, or for the military, especially when such cooperation contributes to generally accepted humanitarian objectives … However, work that is covert, work that breaches relations of openness and trust with studied populations, and work that enables the occupation of one country by another violates professional standards” (“Embedded Anthropologists” 2007).3 Other disciplines, notably geography, economics, area studies, and political science, have also started to examine the involvement of their fields with empire.4
Zijun Lin, Chaoqun Ma, Olaf Weber and Yi-Shuai Ren
The purpose of this study is to map the intellectual structure of sustainable finance and accounting (SFA) literature by identifying the influential aspects, main research streams…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to map the intellectual structure of sustainable finance and accounting (SFA) literature by identifying the influential aspects, main research streams and future research directions in SFA.
Design/methodology/approach
The results are obtained using bibliometric citation analysis and content analysis to conduct a bibliometric review of the intersection of sustainable finance and sustainable accounting using a sample of 795 articles published between 1991 and November 2023.
Findings
The most influential factors in the SFA literature are identified, highlighting three primary areas of research: corporate social responsibility and environmental disclosure; financial and economic performance; and regulations and standards.
Practical implications
SFA has experienced rapid development in recent years. The results identify the current research domain, guide potential future research directions, serve as a reference for SFA and provide inspiration to policymakers.
Social implications
SFA typically encompasses sustainable corporate business practices and investments. This study contributes to broader social impacts by promoting improved corporate practices and sustainability.
Originality/value
This study expands on previous research on SFA. The authors identify significant aspects of the SFA literature, such as the most studied nations, leading journals, authors and trending publications. In addition, the authors provide an overview of the three major streams of the SFA literature and propose various potential future research directions, inspiring both academic research and policymaking.