Sustainability learnings from the COVID-19 crisis. Opportunities for resilient industry and business development
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
ISSN: 2040-8021
Article publication date: 4 November 2020
Issue publication date: 26 August 2021
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to identify sustainability learnings from origins of epidemics such as COVID-19 and deduct conclusions for businesses to create sustainable futures in three industries, which are strongly affected by Covid-19. Two main questions guide the discussion: How can we break the paths of viral epidemics through accounting for sustainability issues in the supply chain? How can we learn from sustainable supply chain failures to transform industries for sustainable futures?
Design/methodology/approach
This viewpoint provides a conceptual discussion of opportunities and the necessity to develop resilient businesses for three indsutries, which have been particularly affected by the Covid-19 crises.
Findings
To defeat future pandemics, three paths how epidemics develop need to be broken in order to create sustainable development structural transitions beyond degrowth are needed.
Practical implications
The practical implications for this paper are the learnings for management to develop more resilient businesses.
Social implications
By breaking the three paths of pandemic development and by contributing to sustainable futures of sectors, the likelihood of future pandemics can be reduced.
Originality/value
By considering origins and the past of pandemics and with sustainability transformations of businesses, contributions can be made for more sustainable futures of industries.
Keywords
Citation
Schaltegger, S. (2021), "Sustainability learnings from the COVID-19 crisis. Opportunities for resilient industry and business development", Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 889-897. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2020-0296
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited
This viewpoint looks into the past and the future to develop sustainability learnings for industries and businesses. From the origins of many epidemics, it concludes possible opportunities for transforming businesses and their business models towards sustainability. The key contribution is to learn from past experiences of how pandemics are caused and to link this learning to the practical and policy considerations required to manage future development of industry and businesses. Two main questions guide the following discussion: How can we break the paths of viral epidemics through accounting for sustainability issues in the supply chain? How can we learn from sustainable supply chain failures to transform industries for sustainable futures?
Past: origins of epidemics like COVID-19
While virus and bacterial illnesses have existed for millennia (Schultz, 1983), scientific analyses of origins of epidemics such as COVID-19 conclude that the majority that affect humans are related to zoonoses (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020; Zhang et al., 2020), i.e. the transfer of viruses from animals to humans. Zoonoses originate from mixing, destroying or ignoring eco-systems or parts of eco-systems. This happens through three paths (Schaltegger, 2020):
we fetch the viruses;
we go to the viruses; and
we create viral epidemics.
We fetch viruses by mixing animals (or plants) from different ecosystems: one key source of zoonoses (Can et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2020) is bringing together animals with viruses from different eco-systems (e.g. in markets trading wild animals from different ecosystems like in the Chinese city of Wuhan). COVID-19, SARS and other epidemics were incubated on wild animal markets in Asia where they got into touch with humans.
We go to viruses when destroying ecosystems: by invading into virgin eco-systems (e.g. by irrigating wetlands, clear-cutting rainforest, poaching and hunting and eating wild animals) and by settling in these regions with cattle, etc. we go to places where viruses exist which our immune system does not know (Gibb et al., 2020). Illnesses such as Ebola originate from settling and farming in areas with flying dogs, AIDS originates from zoonoses from apes and MERS from bats and dromedary camels as intermediate hosts.
With industrial meat and milk production that ignores the natural ecosystems of animals, we create pathogens: by ignoring the natural habitat and ecosystem of animals in modern livestock farming, we create incubators for bacterial, viral and other illnesses and increase the likelihood to infect humans. Large parts of modern meat production (e.g. mass production of pork, beef, chicken and salmon) take place in artificial “eco-systems” to breed and fatten these animals at high speed. The high animal density and the artificiality of these breeding and fattening systems have a high potential to cause illnesses and, therefore, require huge application of medication, including antibiotics (Landers et al., 2012). Large parts of the global antibiotics application is in meat production and not for treating humans. While origins of influenza and the Spanish flue have been linked to the mass production of pork in the USA (García‐Sastre and Whitley, 2006; Chauhan and Gordon, 2020), the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and Bovine Spongiforme Enzephalopathie desease (BSE) have been linked to non-natural beef feed and unnaturally high animal density (Smith and Bradley, 2003).
This view into the past and origins of many epidemics allows for some key learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to break the three sketched paths of viral epidemics. Taking account for sustainability issues in the supply chain (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2014) could unveil the sources of epidemics. Firstly, trade of wild animals, particularly rare wild animals, who carry both more and more dangerous illnesses for humans than other species (Can et al., 2019), needs to be banned more effectively. This includes stopping invasive species and climate change that fosters large migrations of insects and other animals into new ecosystems. Another key to combat pandemics is better management of freight and container transportation and mass transportation of people. Some countries purge containers by gas; however, this is still both patchy on a global scale and often linked to using toxic gases and gases with high greenhouse gas impact. Businesses, governments and research are, therefore, challenged to address the issue by developing effective and sustainable barriers for viral, bacterial and other illnesses. Accounting can support the assessment of different approaches to creating barriers for pathogens, both with regard to their effectiveness and with regard to the side effects (e.g. the greenhouse gas effect of purging gases into containers) and costs.
A second conclusion is that virgin ecosystems need to be protected more effectively to reduce contact with humans, cattle herds, etc. This includes that food production, including animals and plants, should match the local ecosystems. Organic farming takes this as a key principle as animals and plants have much less illnesses in ecosystems which are close to their original ecosystems. Sustainability accounting for supply chains could support the sustainability transformation towards more regional food production and consistency approaches towards sustainable food systems (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2014).
A third learning is that current meat production needs change towards breeding and fattening animals in much more natural ecosystems. Free-range animal husbandry and animal feed from what animals would eat in nature, too, should become the standard. As BSE has shown, feeding animals with fodder that is far away from the natural nutrition can be a major source creating illnesses. Here accounting can support the sustainability transformation of the agricultural and food sector by unveiling the external costs of conventional farming and by supporting economic approaches of organic and free-range farming.
While combatting sources of viral and other illnesses is paramount, large parts of the economy are not in the agricultural sector or trading animals. This raises the question of what other industries could learn from the COVID-19 pandemic. Crises also entail opportunities for companies that are not directly causing zoonoses. Those who learn deeply from the crisis can strengthen their business to become more resilient with regard to lowering or even eliminating their sustainability impacts. COVID-19, but also other shocks such as “Dieselgate” or social events such as the Fridays-for-future movement, makes obvious that fit-for-future can only mean to become fundamentally more sustainable (Adams and Zutshi, 2004; Hart and Milstein, 2003; Narayanan and Adams, 2017; Schaltegger et al., 2017).
Transforming for sustainable futures: structural transition beyond degrowth
COVID-19 makes the necessity for sustainability transformation obvious and offers a basis to discuss whether degrowth is a sufficiently effective approach for sustainable development and what industries could learn to restructure themselves towards sustainability. The COVID-19 crises presents companies with new, surprising and profound problems and businesses are still suffering in nearly all sectors – no doubt: the economy is “corona-infected”, too. The coronavirus has imposed sacrifices on all of us, including a substantial decrease of consumption. We are experiencing enforced economic degrowth (The Guardian, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic can therefore be seen as an involuntary degrowth experiment. Degrowth and the related concept of sufficiency have been proposed as an important approach for the economy and society to become more sustainable (Kallis, 2011; Kallis et al., 2012; Sekulova et al., 2013): everything that is not consumed does not have to be produced and, therefore, neither requires resources nor causes pollution. Without ignoring the huge number of deaths related to the pandemic, this raises the question whether the COVID-19 epidemic forcing an economic lockdown in many countries, including the unprecedented interruption of supply chains and international transports, is at least helping to combat climate change and beneficial for sustainable development.
Globally, a 5.8% reduction of CO2-emissions, ranging from −10.3% for China to −4.2% for the USA, has been estimated for the first quarter of 2020 compared to 2019 (Liu et al., 2020). Le Quéré et al. (2020) found in their international study that at the peak in April and May, carbon emissions in individual countries decreased by −26% on average.
Apart from a rebound to pre-pandemic levels resulting from a fast economic recovery in many countries, to combat climate change effectively, emission reductions of 55% or more are needed (United Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP], 2018). This makes two aspects clear: Firstly, the reason for the emission reduction is everything but sustainable when people die and lose their economic existence. Secondly, COVID-19 also had negative effects on sustainability transformation of industries. The pandemic, for example, affected global supply chains of low-carbon energy as closed borders lead to shortages of components with the effect of less production of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, etc. (Goldthau and Hughes, 2020).
Thirdly, sacrifice – even when enforced and as radical like in April and May 2020 – does reduce emissions, but clearly not enough. Rather than sacrifice while sticking to the current production and consumption patterns, a structural change of the economy is needed – in addition to sufficiency. To illustrate this point, to merely reduce the consumption of electricity through less industrial production while continuing to generate electricity with coal fired power stations, as has happened during the COVID-19-pandemic, is clearly insufficient. We need a consequent energy transition where not just less energy is needed but where (the remaining consumption of) electricity is generated with renewable energy systems such as solar, wind and hydropower. Such an energy transition, including all uses of energy beyond the current applications of electric devices requires an intelligent sustainability transition of businesses (Köhler et al., 2019; Schaltegger et al., 2016).
If degrowth is insufficient and restructuring needed, what does this mean for different industries and businesses? Addressing the necessary structural change of industry in its breadth, this viewpoint proposes approaches to develop opportunities for sustainable futures for three industries, which have been affected particularly strongly by the COVID-19-crises: automotive, retail and tourism. For these three industries, historically large economic stimulus packages have been launched and could help to expedite the anyhow necessary structural sustainability transformation in many industries. By sketching business model consequences for three large industries with regard to the value propositions and value creation, this viewpoint aims to emphasise that a sustainability transition is not only necessary for the energy industry but paramount for the whole economy and all industries.
Automotive industry: accelerating the begun sustainability transition
Stimulus packages focussing on new, more sustainable mobility technologies can help foster change. A particularly high number of COVID-19 fatalities has been observed in regions with high air pollution (Wu et al., 2020), whereas car traffic is contributing considerably to high pollution levels in urban areas (Zhang and Batterman, 2013). Every Euro spent for with economic stimulus programme supporting combustion engines is, therefore, a fall-back. Astonishingly, the German government has, maybe for the first time in history, not given in to the pressure of the national automotive association to subsidise petrol cars, but only supports the purchase of electric and hydrogen technology (Delhaes et al., 2020), besides investments in public transport. The support programmes aim to consider sustainability features of the car manufacturers’ value proposition. Although this principle is to be applauded as a right step into the right direction, a loophole still exists for less convincing plug-in hybrids, and the support of electric charging stations and modern mobility services including carsharing have, however, not been considered with clear stimuli. Nevertheless, the main stimuli provide signals to the industry that transformation needs to accelerate.
COVID-19 is not the only trigger challenging the current, outdated, business model of the conventional automotive industry. Ever more stringent emission and safety standards, the Dieselgate scandal, limited parking spaces, increasing traffic jams, etc. are strong signals showing that a fundamental transformation towards more resilient business models (Schaltegger et al., 2016) and approaches are needed, which create value based on combinations of individual and public mobility that cause considerably less negative environmental and social impacts. New value propositions based on product-service-systems (Tukker and Tischner, 2006), such as car sharing, ride sharing and ride pooling may have to play a key role in this transformation. One challenge for car manufacturers to change to product-service-systems is how to earn from services instead of selling products.
Retail: combining online and offline
Conventional retail with shops in city centres has been affected strongly by COVID-19, whereas online retail is booming. Both systems have their weaknesses. Online shopping can cause high transport emissions if the ordered products do not fit and are sent back. Often returned products are destroyed by the online retailer, even though they have never been used. Offline shopping in town, on the other hand, requires parking and shop space, causes traffic, which may be in vain if s.b. does not find the respective product, size, colour in the visited shops. Thus, instead of thinking in binary terms of either/or, physical shops in cities – and as both online and offline have their weaknesses and strengths – retailers could innovate their business models, seek more consequently for complementarities than currently to combine the strengths of both systems and to contribute to a more sustainable retail. Firstly, with regard to the value proposition, products could be ordered online and sent to a shop (Niu et al., 2019), where customers could tested the product, maybe with different sizes and colours, etc. For value creation this means that no individual return shipping would be needed, and the online retailer would not have to destroy returned goods, as the shops can offer the products to other customers in the shop and bundle transportation if s.th. needs to be returned to a supplier. Secondly, customers can check and try goods in a shop and if the colour or size does not fit then an online order with the most likely right features can be placed in the shop. The product is delivered home and the customer does not have to visit the shop again. This requires less traffic, provides a service to customers, secures survival of shops in city centres and reduced the amount of waste as the goods are more likely to fit the customers’ requirements.
The COVID-19 crisis has hit offline retail strongly, and online retailers have profited considerably. However, not too long ago computer viruses covered front pages in media and digital safety remains a challenge. Although physical and virtual viruses are fundamentally different, both can hit one or the other form of retail. Retailers are, therefore, challenged to develop more resilient business models beyond either online or offline thinking. A smart combination of online and offline retail that reduces traffic, express package mailing and waste streams is, therefore, needed. To support such a transition, governments might think about requirements that online retailers must have shops in city centres when they exceed a certain amount of sales in a region.
Tourism: creating virtual experiences
Why are touristic operators not expanding their value proposition by offering online services for sports, relaxation, nature experience, cultural and language exchange? This may appear odd, but the C-induced lockdown has shown that virtual value creation for leisure and experiences functions in more areas then expected at first glance. Cyclists and runners all over the world are meeting in virtual communities with computer programmes such as Zwift (www.zwift.com) connected to their home trainers and treadmills. In groups, synchronised or asynchronously, cyclists cross mountains and deserts on the screen or follow tracks of professional races such as the Tour de France. Nature experiences, such as crossing the Amazon forest or the Andes, can be witnessed in 3D-films and with online discussions with people involved in filming or who live in the respective region. Commercial offers such as Babbel connect native speakers with people who want to learn a language first hand. Such offers are currently made by organisations outside the touristic sector. Touristic companies still have a huge development potential for virtual offers. Already before COVID-19-pandemic many people started complaining about negative aspects of mass tourism with overtaxed traffic infrastructure, long queues, etc. One development reacting to these problems of traffic jams and crowding in the peak season is the emergence of “Centerparks” creating a subtropical atmosphere in halls with beaches and lakes, etc. (www.centerparcs.com). Such recreational centres could be complemented with virtual nature, language and sports experiences.
While it would be an illusion that tourism could be fully replaced by virtual offers, some substitution effects may be achieved if the virtual offer is sufficiently well developed and attractive. As the value of a journey can in many cases be increased through additional knowledge virtual offers could also inform about more regional destinations making them more attractive. This would reduce carbon emissions and waste in tourism regions but could also help to increase economic value of the touristic sector without additional travelling, if virtual offers are complementary and extend experiences for travellers beyond their actual visits abroad. Of course, these online offers need to be innovative enough to create value for customers and not increase physical travelling activities. Lockdowns as experienced in spring 2020, however, show that more resilient tourism business needs to be based on less travelling, less mass of people travelling at the same time and experiences that can be enjoyed at home. Although the COVID-19 pandemic provides a spark to rethink tourism, experimenting and further development of virtual touristic experiences is needed to explore opportunities and understand the limitations of different approaches.
Outlook
The COVID-19 pandemic highlights both that many viral epidemics originate in unsustainable economic and societal practices and that this should make governments and managers rethink their policies and business to become more resilient. One first necessity is to break the three paths of epidemic development. With regard to how we can break these paths, mainly public policy on national and international levels is needed, but companies are needed to support this change. Banning wildlife markets and trade, improving barriers against international migration of viruses and introducing regulations that support businesses to pursue more sustainable, resilient business models could provide a first starting point.
By sketching possible consequences for three large industries beyond the agricultural and food sector, this viewpoint emphasises that combatting the sources of epidemics is not a topic for the agricultural and food industry only but requires fundamental sustainability transition of the whole economy and society. Depending on the key issues, the sustainability transformation will be very different in every industry. Key learnings reveal that sustainable supply chain management is an important approach to support the transformation of industries for their sustainable futures.
Secondly, and related to redesigning supply chains, management is challenged to redefine and further develop their business and business models to become more resilient to epidemic shocks. Possible starting points with regard to value proposition and creation are offered for the automotive industry, retail and tourism, all strongly affected large industries, which currently are addressed by economic stimulus programmes in many countries. Becoming more resilient means in essence, to reduce negative sustainability impacts considerably by fundamentally innovating the value proposition and the value creation from a sustainability perspective. This mostly means to redefine the business model with what is offered and how the offer is created.
References
Adams, C. and Zutshi, A. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility: why business should act responsibly and be accountable”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 34, pp. 31-39.
Burritt, R. and Schaltegger, S. (2014), “Accounting towards sustainability in production and supply chains”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 327-343.
Can, Ö.E., D'Cruze, N. and Macdonald, D.W. (2019), “Dealing in deadly pathogens: taking stock of the legal trade in live wildlife and potential risks to human health”, Global Ecology and Conservation, Vol. 17, p. e00515.
Chauhan, R. and Gordon, M. (2020), “A systematic review analyzing the prevalence and circulation of influenza viruses in swine population worldwide”, Pathogens, Vol. 9 No. 5, p. 355, doi: 10.3390/pathogens9050355.
Delhaes, D. Hubik, F. Menzel, S. Murphy, M. and Specht, F. (2020), “autoindustrie ist enttäuscht über fehlende kaufprämie für autos mit verbrenner“, handelsblatt, 4 June 2020”, available at: www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/konjunkturpaket-autoindustrie-ist-enttaeuscht-ueber-fehlende-kaufpraemie-fuer-autos-mit-verbrenner/25887374.html?ticket=ST-7826761-CddhChiz0CjysymtqqL2-ap3
García‐Sastre, A. and Whitley, R.J. (2006), “Lessons learned from reconstructing the 1918 influenza pandemic”, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 194 No. 2, pp. S127-S132.
Gibb, R., Redding, D., Chin, K., Donnelly, C., Blackburn, T., Newbold, T. and Jones, K. (2020), “Zoonotic host diversity increases in human dominated ecosystems”, Nature , 05 August Vol. 584 No. 7821, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2562-8.
Goldthau, A. and Hughes, L. (2020), “Protect global supply chains for low-carbon technologies”, nature”, available at: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02499-8, (accessed 2 September 2020).
Hart, S.L. and Milstein, M.B. (2003), “creating sustainable value”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 56-67.
Johnson, C., Hitchens, P., Pandit, P., Rushmore, J., Evans, T., Young, C. and Doyle, M. (2020), “Global shifts in mammalian population trends reveal key predictors of virus spillover risk”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 08 April, 10.1098/rspb.2019.2736.
Kallis, G. (2011), “In defence of degrowth”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 873-880.
Kallis, G., Kerschner, C. and Martinez-Alier, J. (2012), “The economics of degrowth”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 84, pp. 172-180.
Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M., Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D. and Wells, P. (2019), “An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 31, pp. 1-32.
Landers, T.F., Cohen, B., Wittum, T.E. and Larson, E.L. (2012), “A review of antibiotic use in food animals: perspective, policy, and potential”, Public Health Reports, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 4-22.
Le Quéré, C., Jackson, R., Jones, M., Smith, A., Abernethy, S., Andrew, R., De-Gol, A., Willis, D., Shan, Y., Canadell, J., Friedlingstein, P., Creutzig, F. and Peters, G. (2020), “Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 647-653.
Liu, Z. Ciais, P. Deng, Z. Lei, R. Davis, S. Feng, S. Zheng, B. Cui, D. Dou, X. He, P. Zhu, B. Lu, C. Ke, P. Sun, T. Wang, Y. Yue, X. Wang, Y. Lei, Y. Zhou, H. Cai, Z. Wu, Y. Guo, R. Han, T. Xue, J. Bouche, O. Chevallier, F. Boucher, E. Wei, Y. Zhang, Q. Guan, D. Gong, P. Kammen, D. He, K. and Schnellnhuber, J. (2020), “COVID-19 causes record decline in global CO2 emissions”, UC Berkeley, available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2fv7n055
Narayanan, V. and Adams, C.A. (2017), “Transformative change towards sustainability: the interaction between organisational discourses and organisational practices”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 344-368.
Niu, B., Mu, Z. and Li, B. (2019), “O2O results in traffic congestion reduction and sustainability improvement: analysis of ‘online-to-Store’ channel and uniform pricing strategy”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 122, pp. 481-505.
Schaltegger, S. (2020), “Unsustainability as key source of epi- and pandemics. Conclusions for sustainability and ecosystems accounting”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol. 16 No. 4.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R. (2014), “Measuring and managing sustainability performance of supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 232-241.
Schaltegger, S., Etxeberria-Alvarez, I. and Ortas, E. (2017), “Innovating corporate accounting and reporting for sustainability–attributes and challenges”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 113-122.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F. and Hansen, E.G. (2016), “Business models for sustainability: a co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and transformation”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 264-289.
Schultz, M. (1983), “Emerging zoonoses”, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 308 No. 21, pp. 1285-1286, doi: 10.1056/NEJM198305263082109.
Sekulova, F., Kallis, G., Rodríguez-Labajos, B. and Schneider, F. (2013), “Degrowth: from theory to practice”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 38, pp. 1-6.
Smith, P.G. and Bradley, R. (2003), “Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and its epidemiology”, British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 185-198.
The Guardian (2020), “As Eurozone records 3.8% slump ECB chief warns of worse to come. Christine lagarde says there could be a 15% collapse after record first quarter output fall”, The Guardian, available at: www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/30/eurozone-suffers-record-slump-as-coronavirus-lockdown-reverses-growth
Tukker, A. and Tischner, U. (2006), “Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 17, pp. 1552-1556.
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2018), Emissions Gap Report 2018, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
WHO (World Health Organization) (2020), “Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), situation report 22”, available at: www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200211-sitrep-22-ncov.pdf?sfvrsn=fb6d49b1_2 (accessed 11 February 2020).
Wu, X. Nethery, R. Sabath, B. Braun, D. and Dominici, F. (2020), “Exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States”, medRxiv 2020.04.05.20054502.
Zhang, K. and Batterman, S. (2013), “Air pollution and health risks due to vehicle traffic”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 450, pp. 307-316.
Zhang, X., Chen, X., Zhang, Z., Roy, A. and Shen, Y. (2020), “Strategies to trace back the origin of COVID-19”, Journal of Infection, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. e39-e40.
Further reading
Battistini, N. and Stoevsky, G. (2020), “Alternative scenarios for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on economic activity in the euro area”, available at: www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/focus/2020/html/ecb.ebbox202003_01∼767f86ae95.en.html
Acknowledgements
The author is thankful to Carol Adams and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful feedback.
Corresponding author
About the author
Stefan Schaltegger, PhD, Dr h.c., is professor at Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany, and founder and head of the Centre for Sustainability Management and the MBA Sustainability Management. He is member of the editorial board of leading international academic journals in accounting, management and sustainability. His research interests include fundamentals of corporate sustainability management, sustainable entrepreneurship, stakeholder theory, sustainability accounting, performance measurement and management and concepts and tools of sustainability management. www.leuphana.de/csm.