Biodiversity and ecosystem services in supply chain management in the global forest industry

Lähtinen, Katja; Guan, Yucong; Li, Ning; Toppinen, Anne

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.006

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Integrating stakeholder "counter accounts" can provide information of activities on the ground (Boiral, 2013;Ehrnström-Fuentes & Kröger, 2017) and expose issues and disputes not disclosed by businesses in reports or surveys (Boiral, 2016;Cho et al, 2015;Lähtinen, Guan, Li, & Toppinen, 2016). Contrasting corporate perspectives with stakeholder opinions and experiences can build a more comprehensive understanding of corporate perceptions and drivers to act regarding biodiversity.…”

Section: Understanding Corporate Reporting and Action On Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate reporting and conservation realities: Understanding differences in what businesses say and do regarding biodiversity

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Businesses are increasingly called on to participate in tackling biodiversity loss, but the extent of corporate commitments to act is unclear. We have a limited understanding of differences in perceptions and actions regarding biodiversity across business sectors. Doubts also remain concerning the reliability of corporate reporting as a window into business involvement in biodiversity. This paper tackles these uncertainties by using formal corporate reporting and interviews with managers and stakeholders about actions regarding biodiversity as the evidence base. Taking the cases of forestry and salmon farming in Chile, it finds sectoral differences are influenced by distinct regulatory settings and forms of stakeholder engagement. Whilst reporting serves as a partial window into each sector, manager interviews and stakeholder accounts indicate firms in both sectors perceive biodiversity primarily as a reputational risk rather than a core responsibility. In both cases, businesses have used formal corporate reporting to mask negative impacts, and it has failed to leverage fundamental reform.The findings indicate that formal reporting can only ever play a partial role in understanding and motivating business action on biodiversity. Stakeholder views and the particularities of local contexts must be more clearly articulated to ensure businesses undertake substantive rather than symbolic action on their impacts. The paper concludes by reflecting on implications for Natural Capital reporting and identifies limitations and avenues for future research.

show abstract

Section: Understanding Corporate Reporting and Action On Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate reporting and conservation realities: Understanding differences in what businesses say and do regarding biodiversity

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, more quantitative-oriented ecological research is needed to further investigate dependencies and impacts at the company or sector level. This information can also feed into future development of voluntary corporate sustainability reporting guidelines, which would benefit from further reporting on ecosystem services information, including positive and negative communications, as well as direct and indirect impacts [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This offers a solid research setting for investigating how forest companies should control their dependencies and impacts on ecosystem services in a changing environment [19,20]. As one of the fastest-growing economies, China plays a major role in the global forest sector [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest Company Dependencies and Impacts on Ecosystem Services: Expert Perceptions from China

Wan

D'amato

Toppinen

et al. 2017

Forests

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global awareness of sustainability issues is growing rapidly, and business organizations are called to address wider social and environmental concerns along with economic performance. However, limited systematic knowledge exists on the interactions between forest industries and natural ecosystems. We thus investigated the role of ecosystem services in the context of China's forest sector. A qualitative research approach was used to elicit company external expert viewpoints on the topic. Our analysis focused on three themes: (1) forest company dependencies and impacts on ecosystem services; (2) business risks arising from dependencies and impacts; and (3) risk response strategies. The interviewed 20 experts identified a series of forest company dependencies and impacts (including negative and positive impacts) on several ecosystem services. The extent of dependencies and impacts is largely influenced by the business portfolio of the company. The perceived business risks include intense competition and the consequently increasing price for natural resources, which would affect forest company business plans, costs and outputs. The suggested strategies for turning risks into opportunities include outsourcing wood, changing production focus, promoting industrial upgrading and implementing regular assessments of corporate dependencies and impacts on ecosystem services. The findings of our study can guide companies' decision-making in managing forest ecosystems sustainably.

show abstract

“…Wilting et al (2017) proposed a method to quantify the biodiversity footprint in a global SC. Lähtinen, Guan, Li, and Toppinen (2016) studied biodiversity in the global forest industry and pinpoint biodiversity management as a strategic asset in competitive markets. Although many authors concerned about biodiversity in SC and develop approaches to its management, to the best of our knowledge, no study aimed at measuring how much of the supplies required by an SC could come from biodiversity assets.…”

Section: Despite the Criticism The Brundtland Report Still Representmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socio‐biodiversity supply chain: Sustainable practices of a Brazilian cosmetic company

Cassol

Sellitto

2020

Environmental Quality Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to analyze and describe sustainable practices based on biodiversity assets adopted by one of the largest global cosmetics company, located in Brazil. The company occupies the 19th position of the Global Ranking 100 Sustainability. The research method is bibliographic research that employed open, non-classified documents publicized by the company. The main findings of the study underscore the relevance of the rural communities in developing a supply chain based on biodiversity as well as the importance of the relationships among the tiers to implement a sustainable business model. The company relies on high-quality products associated with environmental development. Currently, biodiversity suppliers account for 80% circa of natural raw materials, the so-called biodiversity asset, which represents the core of the sustainable business model of the company. The findings can be generalized by helping other supply chains to develop and implement sustainable business models supported by biodiversity. Such type of a model can help companies achieve expressive business performance and, at the same time, social relevance to peripheral or vulnerable rural communities.

show abstract

Biodiversity and ecosystem services in supply chain management in the global forest industry

Cited by 29 publications

References 32 publications

Corporate reporting and conservation realities: Understanding differences in what businesses say and do regarding biodiversity

Corporate reporting and conservation realities: Understanding differences in what businesses say and do regarding biodiversity

Forest Company Dependencies and Impacts on Ecosystem Services: Expert Perceptions from China

Socio‐biodiversity supply chain: Sustainable practices of a Brazilian cosmetic company

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About