Fallacies in Sustainability: a Systematic Review

Q4 Social Sciences
Lavoisiene Rodrigues De Lima, Fátima de Souza Freire, Nilton Oliveira Da Silva
{"title":"Fallacies in Sustainability: a Systematic Review","authors":"Lavoisiene Rodrigues De Lima, Fátima de Souza Freire, Nilton Oliveira Da Silva","doi":"10.24857/rgsa.v17n10-036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To analyze the trends of academic productions on the fallacies enunciated in the sustainable discourse.   Method: The procedures of an systematic review were used, with the help of Rayyan® software in the selection and organization of articles, then, through a qualitative analysis, the themes were separated into approaches and the fallacies mentioned were verified.   Results and conclusion: Four types of fallacious approaches were identified in the context of business debate, namely: the quality of information; the identification of fallacies; fallacious behavior and impression management. This last approach being the fallacious theme most associated with corporate sustainability.   Research implications: The research aims to contribute to the improvement of preparers in disclosures, emphasizing the importance of consistent disclosure. In addition to allowing the user of the information to become aware of possible fallacious methods, the accuracy of the stakeholders in the analysis can be increased and, finally, emphasize the socio-environmental responsibility of companies before society.   Originality/value: Addressing this topic has become relevant given the non-standard scenario regarding corporate sustainable disclosures, in addition to the recent proposal under consideration for an international standard on these aspects.","PeriodicalId":38210,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Gestao Social e Ambiental","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Gestao Social e Ambiental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v17n10-036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the trends of academic productions on the fallacies enunciated in the sustainable discourse.   Method: The procedures of an systematic review were used, with the help of Rayyan® software in the selection and organization of articles, then, through a qualitative analysis, the themes were separated into approaches and the fallacies mentioned were verified.   Results and conclusion: Four types of fallacious approaches were identified in the context of business debate, namely: the quality of information; the identification of fallacies; fallacious behavior and impression management. This last approach being the fallacious theme most associated with corporate sustainability.   Research implications: The research aims to contribute to the improvement of preparers in disclosures, emphasizing the importance of consistent disclosure. In addition to allowing the user of the information to become aware of possible fallacious methods, the accuracy of the stakeholders in the analysis can be increased and, finally, emphasize the socio-environmental responsibility of companies before society.   Originality/value: Addressing this topic has become relevant given the non-standard scenario regarding corporate sustainable disclosures, in addition to the recent proposal under consideration for an international standard on these aspects.
可持续性的谬论:系统回顾
目的:分析可持续话语中谬误的学术研究趋势。方法:采用系统综述的程序,在Rayyan®软件的帮助下进行文章的选择和组织,然后通过定性分析,将主题划分为方法,并验证所提到的谬误。结果和结论:在商业辩论的背景下,发现了四种类型的谬误方法,即:信息质量;谬误的识别;谬误行为与印象管理。最后一种方法是与企业可持续性最相关的谬误主题。研究启示:本研究旨在促进财务报表编制人在披露方面的改进,强调一致性披露的重要性。除了让信息的使用者意识到可能的错误方法之外,还可以增加利益相关者在分析中的准确性,最后,强调公司在社会之前的社会环境责任。原创性/价值:考虑到企业可持续披露的非标准情况,以及最近正在考虑的关于这些方面的国际标准的建议,解决这一主题已变得相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Revista de Gestao Social e Ambiental
Revista de Gestao Social e Ambiental Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信