Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T03:17:24.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The wicked problem of climate change and interdisciplinary research: Tracking management scholarship's contribution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2020

Franz Wohlgezogen ,
Angela McCabe Open the ORCID record for Angela McCabe [Opens in a new window] ,
Tom Osegowitsch  and
Joeri Mol
Franz Wohlgezogen
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Angela McCabe*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Sport and Tourism, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Tom Osegowitsch
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Joeri Mol
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Taking urgent action to combat climate change is a pivotal Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). Since it is closely intertwined with the other 16 goals, it is frequently characterized as a ‘wicked problem par excellence.’ Interdisciplinary research, i.e., research crossing disciplinary boundaries, offers promise for grappling with wicked problems, but also entails significant challenges to researchers. In this study, we use bibliometric methods to understand how management scholars have, over the course of four decades, straddled disciplinary boundaries and what impact their efforts have had on top-tier climate change research appearing in Science and Nature. We find that management scholarship on climate change (1) has grown significantly since the mid-2000s, (2) features substantial engagement with an interdisciplinary knowledge base, and (3) fails to attract the attention of climate change research within top-tier interdisciplinary journals. We discuss these findings with reference to the ongoing discourse on raising management scholarship's relevance and impact.

Keywords

climate changeinterdisciplinary researchinterdisciplinaritywicked problemsimpact of management researchrigor and relevance
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 26 , Special Issue 6: Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development Goals , November 2020 , pp. 1048 - 1072
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Amel, E., Manning, C., Scott, B., & Koger, S. (2017). Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 356, 275–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ang, J. B., & Gupta, S. K. (2018). Agricultural yield and conflict. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 92, 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansari, S., Gray, B. & Wijen, F. (2011). Fiddling while the ice melts? How organizational scholars can take a more active role in the climate change debate. Strategic Organization, 9(1), 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, J., Atkins, B., Thomson, I., & Maroun, W. (2015). “Good” news from nowhere: Imagining utopian sustainable accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 651–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, R. (1997). Bill and Al's global warming circus. Forbes, 160(10), 356.Google Scholar
Berger, L., Emmerling, J., & Tavoni, M. (2017). Managing catastrophic climate risks under model uncertainty aversion. Management Science, 63(3), 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beske, P., & Seuring, S. (2014). Putting sustainability into supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(3), 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billi, M., Blanco, G. & Urquiza, A. (2019). What is the ‘social’ in climate change research? A case study on scientific representations from Chile. Minerva, 57, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjurström, A., & Polk, M. (2011). Climate change and interdisciplinarity: A co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Scientometrics, 87(3), 525–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonaccorsi, A., & Vargas, J. (2010). Proliferation dynamics in new sciences. Research Policy, 39(8), 1034–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., & Seuring, S. (2014). Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, J. (2014). The science is clear, but the way forward is not. The Monthly, August.Google Scholar
Brown, R. R., Deletic, A., & Wong, T. H. (2015). Interdisciplinarity: How to catalyse collaboration. Nature News, 525(7569), 315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A. & Russell, J.Y. (Eds.) (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. London, Washington: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (2009). Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 535–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castree, N., Adams, W. M., Barry, J., Brockington, D., Büscher, B., Corbera, E., … Newell, P. (2014). Changing the intellectual climate. Nature Climate Change, 4(9), 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesney, M., Lasserre, P., & Troja, B. (2017). Mitigating global warming: A real options approach. Annals of Operations Research, 255(1–2), 465–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, B. C., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education, and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364.Google ScholarPubMed
Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Daddi, T., Todaro, N. M., De Giacomo, M. R., & Frey, M. (2018). A systematic review of the use of organization and management theories in climate change studies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(4), 456–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. F. (2015). Editorial essay: What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Schouten, G. (2018). Harnessing wicked problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science (New York, N.Y.), 302, 1907–1912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emanuel, K. (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436, 686–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filar, J. A., & Haurie, A. (2010). Uncertainty and environmental decision making: A handbook of research and best practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fildes, R., & Kourentzes, N. (2011). Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change. International Journal of Forecasting, 27(4), 968–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1173–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folland, C. K., Owen, J. A., Ward, M. N., & Colman, A. W. (1991). Prediction of seasonal rainfall in the Sahel region using empirical and dynamical methods. Journal of Forecasting, 10(1–2), 21–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forman, J., & Markus, M. L. (2005). Research on collaboration, business communication, and technology. Journal of Business Communication, 42(1), 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Karunakaran, A. (2014). Boundaries, breaches, and bridges: The case of Climategate. Research Policy, 43(1), 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, A. J., Ke, Q., Varol, O., & Barabási, A. L. (2019). Nature's reach: Narrow work has broad impact. Nature, 575, 32–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geertz, C. (1980). Blurred genres: The refiguration of social thought. American Scholar, 49(2), 165–179.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Stockholm: Sage.Google Scholar
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, A. H. (2008). Why have the leading journals in management (and other social sciences) failed to respond to climate change? Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 408–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Cantú, S. M., & Van Vugt, M. (2012). The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: Implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grübler, A., Nakicenovic, N., Riahi, K., Wagner, F., Fischer, G., Keppo, I., … Tubiello, F. (2007). Integrated assessment of uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions and their mitigation: Introduction and overview. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(7), 873–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, M. (1995). Environmental management and its impact on the operations function. International. Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(8), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, J., Hambrick, D. C. (1994). What if the Academy actually mattered. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11–16.Google Scholar
Härtel, C., & Pearman, G. (2010). Understanding and responding to the climate change issue: Towards a whole-of-science research agenda. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(1), 16–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2016). Climate change research in view of bibliometrics. PLoS ONE, 11(7), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–118.Google Scholar
Head, B. W. (2014). Evidence, uncertainty, and wicked problems in climate change decision making in Australia. Environment and Planning C Government and Policy, 32(4), 663–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, B. W. (2019). Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 38(2), 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfat, C. E. (2007). Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization, 5(2), 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellsten, I., & Leydesdorff, L. (2016). The construction of interdisciplinarity: The development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal climatic change, 1977–2013. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2181–2193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, P., & Levin, D. (1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P. J., Hooten, A. J., Steneck, R. S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., … Hatziolos, M. E. (2007). Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science (New York, N.Y.), 318, 1737–1742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, A. J. (2011). Talking past each other? Cultural framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change debate. Organization & Environment, 24(1), 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, J. K., & Just, R. E. (2013). Economics of additionality for environmental services from agriculture. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George, G. (2014). Climate change and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 615–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Z., Wei, Y., Wang, K., & Liao, H. (2017). Energy economics and climate policy modeling. Annals of Operations Research, 255, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, Y., & Alfaro-Barrantes, P. (2015). Pro-environmental behavior in the workplace: A review of empirical studies and directions for future research. Business and Society Review, 120(1), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.Google Scholar
Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2007). Towards strategic stakeholder management? Integrating perspectives on sustainability challenges such as corporate responses to climate change. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 370–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolstad, C. D. (1996). Learning and stock effects in environmental regulation: The case of greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, D. B., Hartter, J., Boag, A. E., Jain, M., Stevens, K., Ann Nicholas, K., … Liu, J. (2017). Top 40 questions in coupled human and natural systems (CHANS) research. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09429-220244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, R. M. (2009). Developing conditions for environmentally sustainable consumption: drawing insight from anti-smoking policy. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(3), 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leathard, A. (1994). Going inter-professional: Working together for health and welfare. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lempert, R. J., Groves, D. G., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2006). A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Management Science. 52(4), 514–528.Google Scholar
Liao, L., Luo, L. & Tang, Q. (2014). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydesdorff, L., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Interdisciplinarity at the journal and specialty level: The changing knowledge bases of the journal Cognitive Science. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(1), 164–177.Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydesdorff, L., Rafols, I., & Chen, C. M. (2013). Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal-journal citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2573–2585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnenluecke, M., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Beyond adaptation: Resilience for business in light of climate change and weather extremes. Business and Society, 49(3), 477–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., & Crutzen, N. (2016). Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, E., & Rayner, S. (2001). Role of the research standpoint in integrating global-scale and local-scale research. Climate Research, 19(2), 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A., & Zickfeld, K. (2009). The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature, 459, 829–832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metzger, N., & Zare, R. N. (1999). Science policy: Interdisciplinary research: From belief to reality. Science (New York, N.Y.), 283, 642–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel-Kerjan, E., & Kunreuther, H. (2011). Redesigning flood insurance. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333, 408–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miles, M. B., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
Mooney, H. A., Duraiappah, A., & Larigauderie, A. (2013). Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global change research programs. PNAS, 110(Suppl. 1), 3665–3672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munasinghe, M. (2001). Exploring the linkages between climate change and sustainable development: A challenge for transdisciplinary research. Conservation Ecology, 5(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) (U.S.) (2011). Advancing the science of climate change. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nyberg, D., & Wright, C. (forthcoming). Climate-proofing management research. Academy of Management Perspectives. Retrieved from https://journals.aom.org/doi/epdf/10.5465/amp.2018.0183.Google Scholar
Olsen, D. S., Borlaug, S. B., Klitkou, A., Lyall, C., & Yearley, S. (2013). A better understanding of interdisciplinary research in climate change (NIFU Working paper 15/2013). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2358611.Google Scholar
Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016). Climate-smart soils. Nature, 532, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary research: Meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2010). The role of the board of directors in disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 391–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O'Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinarity. The case of innovation studies and business and management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, W. V., Chen, D., Goldfarb, L., Hackmann, H., Lee, Y. T., Mokhele, K., … Whyte, A. (2010). Earth system science for global sustainability: Grand challenges. Science (New York, N.Y.), 330(6006), 916–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to Public and Private Politics: Corporate Disclosure of Climate Change Strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1157–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 176–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, C., & Parry, M. (1994). Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature, 367, 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynes, S. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2005). Academy of management journal editors’ forum: Public policy and the public interest: What if we mattered more? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 925–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Schindler, D. E., & Hilborn, R. (2015). Prediction, precaution, and policy under global change. Science (New York, N.Y.), 347, 953–954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1995). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 25–40.Google Scholar
Shardul, A., & Carraro, M. (2010). Assessing the role of microfinance in fostering adaptation to climate change (OECD Environmental Working Paper No. 15). OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Shimi, A., Parvin, G., Biswas, C., & Shaw, R. (2010). Impact and adaptation to flood. A focus on water supply, sanitation and health problems of rural community in Bangladesh. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19(3), 298–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. M., Cusack, S., Colman, A. W., Folland, C. K., Harris, G. R., & Murphy, J. M. (2007). Improved surface temperature prediction for the coming decade from a global climate model. Science (New York, N.Y.), 317, 796–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, G. E., Carley, S., & Porter, A. L. (2016). How multidisciplinary are the multidisciplinary journals science and nature? PLoS ONE, 11(4), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strathern, M. (2004). Laudable aims and problematic consequences, or: The ‘flow’ of knowledge is not neutral. Economy and Society, 33(4), 550–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinacher, M., Joos, F., & Stocker, T. F. (2013). Allowable carbon emissions lowered by multiple climate targets. Nature, 499, 197–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stott, P., Stone, A., & Allen, M. (2004). Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature, 432, 610–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutton, R. T., & Hodson, D. L. R. (2005). Atlantic Ocean Forcing of North American and European summer climate. Science (New York, N.Y.), 309, 115–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Termeer, C., Dewulf, A., & Breeman, G. (2013). Governance of wicked climate adaptation problems. In Knieling, J. & Filho, W. L. (Eds.), Climate change governance (pp. 27–41). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudel, R., Argo, J. J., & Meng, M. D. (2016). The Recycled Self: Consumers' Disposal Decisions of Identity-Linked Products. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 246–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations (2019a). Special edition: progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Report of the Secretary-General. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24978Report_of_the_SG_on_SDG_Progress_2019.pdf.Google Scholar
United Nations (2019b). Summary by the President of the Economic and Social Council of the high-level political forum on sustainable development convened under the auspices of the Council at its 2019 session. Retrieved from https://undocs.org/E/HLPF/2019/8.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T., & Tijssen, R. (2000). Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: Analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Noorden, R. (2015). Interdisciplinary research by the numbers: An analysis reveals the extent and impact of research that bridges disciplines. Nature, 525, 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victor, D. G. (2015). Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature, 520, 27–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Z., Zhao, Y., & Wang, B. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of climate change adaptation based on massive research literature data. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 1072–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weart, S. (2013). Rise of interdisciplinary research on climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 1), 3657–3664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weaver, C., Mooney, S., & Allen, D. (2014). From global change science to action with social sciences. Nature Climate Change, 4, 656–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, P. J., Holland, G. J., Curry, J. A., & Chang, H. R. (2005). Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration and intensity in a warming environment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 309, 1844–1846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, T., & von Braun, J. (2013). Climate change impacts on global food security. Science (New York, N.Y.), 341, 508–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winn, M. I., Kirchgeorg, M., Griffi, A., Linnenluecke, M. K., & Günther, E. (2011). Impacts from climate change on organizations: A conceptual foundation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(3), 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2017). An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Academy of Management Journal, 60(5), 1633–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yearley, S. (2009). Sociology and climate change after Kyoto: What roles for social science in understanding climate change? Current Sociology, 57(3), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar