Search results

Previous research demonstrates a consistent association between the media and body and eating related issues in children. Recent research has highlighted a role for “fat talk” to describe discourses around body size and food. One key source of media information is Disney animation films, yet to date no research study has explored the verbal content of this genre.

The present study used a content analysis to examine fat talk in Disney animation films (1937–2021; n = 53) with a focus on the frequency of fat talk, changes over time and differences between the genders and heroic statuses of the givers and receivers of fat talk. Fat talk was defined as relating to both body size and food and could be either positive or negative.

Results revealed that there was more negative than positive fat talk per film; no significant changes over time; males were the givers of significantly more positive and negative fat talk than females and were also the receivers of more negative fat talk; good characters were the givers and receivers of more positive and negative fat talk and more self-directed negative fat talk than bad characters.

The results are discussed in terms of possible legislation and parenting interventions to minimise the harm of this genre on young children.

Disney animation films may not be as benign as often thought.

Avoided emissions refer to greenhouse gas emission reductions that are a result of using a product or are emission removals due to a decision or an action. Although there is no uniform standard for calculating avoided emissions, market actors have started referring to avoided emissions as “Scope 4” emissions. By default, making a claim about Scope 4 emissions gives an appearance that this Scope of emissions is a natural extension of the existing and accepted Scope-based emissions accounting framework. The purpose of this study is to explore the implications of this assumed legitimacy.

Via a desktop review and interviews, we analyse extant Scope 4 company reporting, associated accounting methodologies and the practical implications of Scope 4 claims.

Upon examination of Scope 4 emissions and their relationship with Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions, we highlight a dynamic and interdependent relationship between quantification, commensuration and standardization in emissions accounting. We find that extant Scope 4 assessments do not fit the established framework for Scope-based emissions accounting. In line with literature on the territorializing nature of accounting, we call for caution about Scope 4 claims that are a distraction from the critical work of reducing absolute emissions.

We examine the implications of assumed alignment and borrowed legitimacy of Scope 4 with Scope-based accounting because Scope 4 is not an actual Scope, but a claim to a Scope. This is as an act of accounting territorialization.