Abstract
Orientation: The havoc created by COVID-19 reaffirmed the pervasive effects of pandemics on companies’ sustainability, which has become an increasingly important consideration for stakeholders.
Research purpose: This study determined the sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics.
Motivation for the study: Pandemics’ recurring nature is evidenced by history. Knowledge of pandemics’ effects on sustainability may assist companies in preparing for and reporting on pandemics, while such information to stakeholders may be important when considering a company’s sustainability.
Research design and method: The study followed a systematic review. The final sample constituted 30 records, which were thematically analysed.
Main findings: A list of sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics is provided. Government-imposed restrictions led to supply and demand shocks, severely threatening companies’ financial performance and socio-economic targets. Pandemics also present opportunities to improve business models by increasing focus on relationships, nature and digitalisation.
Practical implications: This study may assist companies to minimise the effects of future pandemics on sustainability by urging them to recognise the interplay between sustainability’s components. Companies should have some financial leeway and consider the composition of its product/service range (essential versus non-essential) and the delivery thereof (traditional vs. e-commerce), consider and reduce its impact on nature, become more human-centric and finally, revisit their strategy through strong governance.
Contribution: Current literature describes some effects of a single pandemic on companies within a specific industry, whereas this study’s scope is broadened to consider all pandemics and industries to derive an extensive list of affected sustainability elements. Current sustainability frameworks do not specify pandemic-related disclosure requirements, making the list useful as a reporting guideline.
Keywords: COVID-19; pandemic; systematic review; sustainability; companies.
Introduction
Orientation
This study falls under the sustainability domain. Conventionally, the key issues in business history involved wealth creation (Bergquist 2017:1), which was communicated to shareholders in financial statements. Environmental research followed, based on the impact that wealth creation had on the planet (Bergquist 2017:1). Subsequently, environmentalists and societies pressured entities to disclose non-financial sustainability matters along with these financial statements (Kannenberg & Schreck 2019:515–516; Velte & Stawinoga 2017:276), which caught momentum in large entities from the 1980s onwards (Bergquist 2017:1; KPMG 2020). Stakeholders increasingly focus on companies’ sustainability (Hughen, Lulseged & Upton 2014:57), which is pervasively affected by pandemics.
Research purpose and objectives
As part of Neal’s presidential address to the Economic History Association in 2000, he emphasised that research efforts on shocks are much more valuable than research on extended times of normal economic change (Brainerd & Siegler 2003:2). Consequently, this study focuses on pandemic ‘shocks’. Previous studies on pandemics focused on limited effects of a single pandemic within a single industry (e.g. Çiftçi 2022; Gow & Grant 2010; Norouzi et al. 2020; Van Der Merwe, Saayman & Jacobs 2021), whereas this study’s scope is broadened by considering various pandemics, all industries and all the components of sustainability. Furthermore, the disclosure requirements of nine sustainability frameworks were scrutinised, and although they all require comprehensive disclosure, none of these frameworks required pandemic-related disclosure. The sustainability frameworks comprised three well-known South African frameworks (the International Integrated Reporting Framework, the King Code and the Financial Times Stock Exchange/Johannesburg Stock Exchange Responsible Investment Index Series) and six widely accepted international frameworks (the Global Reporting Initiative Standards, the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines, the Communication on Progress, ISO 26000 and International Financial Reporting Standards 7). The aim of this study is, therefore, to determine the sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics, which could be useful as a reporting guideline.
Literature review
Subsequent to corona virus disease (COVID-19) becoming a public health emergency of international concern (World Health Organization 2020), companies from all countries, of all sizes and industries have been severely affected (Fernandes 2020:2; Lynch, Lynch & Cullinan 2020:1). In South Africa, liquidations increased with 78.6% for the 3 months ended April 2021 when compared with the same 3 months the year before (Stats SA 2021:2). The South African Revenue Services estimated tax revenue losses of 15% – 20% for the 2020–2021 fiscal year (Ajam & Davis 2020). An American airline company, United Airlines, reported average daily revenue losses of US$100 million in March 2020 versus the same month in 2019 (Kenny 2020). Consequently, economists estimated that COVID-19 may result in a global loss of USD5.5 trillion within 2 years (Goodman 2020).
Unfortunately, COVID-19 is neither the first pandemic humankind has faced nor will it be the last. Cirillo and Taleb (2020:608) have a record of pandemics commencing as early as 429 BC. Well-known previous pandemics include the Black Plague and the Spanish flu, with HIV/AIDS being an ongoing pandemic (Cirillo & Taleb 2020:608–609; Johnson & Mueller 2002:105). Furthermore, future pandemics are expected, increasing in severity and frequency (Barry 2010; Jones et al. 2008; Oppenheim et al. 2019; Osterholm 2005:1839). The increase in emerging infectious diseases is mainly driven by environmental, socio-economic and ecological aspects, including the combination of an extraordinary number of people and animal numbers, viruses’ continuous genetic changes, exponential increases in foreign travel, increased susceptibility to diseases and climate change (Jones et al. 2008:990–991; Osterholm 2005:1842). As the population increases and companies require more environmental resources, deforestation and a loss in biodiversity occur, which increase the risk of pandemics (Dharani et al. 2020; Singh 2020; Tollefson 2020). The influenza virus is prone to cause pandemics and Barry (2010:11–12) warned against complacency against future pandemics and less than a decade later, COVID-19 emerged.
Jordá, Sanjay and Taylor (2020) performed a study, proving that pandemics’ effects are not merely short-lived, but can be seen for longer than 20 years. In addition to the negative impacts of pandemics on the sustainability of companies (Littman & Littman 1973:16; Quantec 2020), research displays pandemics’ favourable effects, such as a drop in real interest rates and increases in real wages (Jordá et al. 2020:15). Be it good or bad, it is evident that pandemics impact companies’ sustainability, a consideration that is becoming increasingly important to stakeholders (European Commission 2020; eds. Ihlen, Bartlett & May 2011:7; Roberts 1992:599).
Reporting on more than mere financial matters is in line with the stakeholder theory, which was introduced by E Merrick Dodd after the Great Depression (Elson & Goossen 2017). This theory requires consideration of the interest of not only shareholders, but all stakeholders, during decision-making. Any individual affected by an entity’s operations should be considered (Freeman 1984, as quoted by Roberts 1992:597), including the surrounding community, employees, suppliers, customers, the government and public (Adegboyegun et al. 2020:5). The legitimacy theory should also be observed as, in accordance with this theory, companies are not entitled to resources, but are merely one of the parties of society that need to earn access to resources (Deegan 2019:2315). One of the strategies used by entities to prove that they are acting in terms of societal norms is disclosures (Deegan 2002:313, 2019:2310, 2315; Lanis & Richardson 2013:77).
The works of Bossel (1999), being well-accepted (Lektauers, Trusins & Trusina 2010:4), set out three key subsystems to sustainability, namely human (individual, social and government), support (economic and infrastructure) and natural (environment and resource). This formed the basis of what is currently referred to as environmental, social and governance (ESG) data. Consequently, ESG data focuses purely on non-financial matters (Hayat & Orsagh 2015:4). These components are comparable with the three components of triple bottom line reporting set by John Elkington in 1994, being profit, people and planet, which are also widely considered as elements of sustainability (Hourneaux, Da Silva Gabriel & Gallardo-Vázquez 2018:415; Kenton 2021; Lacy et al. 2010:52). Evidently, sustainability consists of both financial and non-financial matters. Consequently, the theoretical underpinning of this study is that sustainability is driven by the stakeholder and legitimacy theory and that an entity’s sustainability is influenced by financial, as well as ESG matters.
Research design
The research presented in this study engaged a systematic review methodology, requiring the selection and detailed examination of extant research relevant to a focused research question (Christofi, Leonidou & Vrontis 2017:631; Christofi, Vrontis & Cadogan 2019a:3). In principle, a systematic review enables researchers to discover significant findings through the analysis of relevant literature and empirical results, by means of a systematic, transparent process (Tranfield, Denyer & Smart 2003), which is repeatable, scientific and thorough, to eliminate bias (Christofi et al. 2017:630–631, 2019a:2; Dada 2018:207; Jones et al. 2020:37). Consequently, this methodology improves the reliability and generalisability of the study’s findings (Christofi et al. 2017:631, 2019a:2, 2019b; Dada 2018:207).
The methodology, as described by Tranfield et al. (2003) and Christofi et al. (2017), was used during this systematic review:
- Planning and conducting the review.
- Reporting and dissemination of findings.
Stage 1: Planning and conducting the review
The research objective of this study is to review the extant literature for sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics. Setting out a clear research objective is important as the systematic review’s search strategy is derived from it (Christofi et al. 2019b). To minimise bias, exact conceptual boundaries, as well as inclusion and exclusion criteria were set out.
Conceptual boundaries and inclusion criteria
The systematic review commenced by detailing the conceptual boundaries in terms of the research question (Christofi et al. 2019b). The focus was on the sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics. Therefore, studies related to effects on individuals and the economy in general were excluded.
Inclusion criteria were established in line with the research conducted by Vrontis and Christofi (2019), Dada (2018) and Wang and Chugh (2014).
Firstly, the search boundaries were detailed. This study used a sample of records from EBSCOHost Discovery Service (EDS), a comprehensive search solution. EBSCOHost Discovery Service allows integrated content searching of more than 3.7 billion records from about 11 000 diverse publishers, consequently being the world leader in providing full-text searching. EBSCOHost Discovery Service is the foremost ‘discovery service provider for libraries’.
Secondly, the search terms were ascertained. Following Williams (2019:2715), a keyword search was conducted on abstracts to allow for highly relevant results. Boolean operators enabled the development of a single strand search string: pandemic OR epidemic; AND company OR entity OR organisation OR institution; AND sustainability; AND impact.
The EDS facility enabled the researchers to include all the databases that the researchers’ academic institution had access to. As a result of the topical nature of the research question, the researchers did not limit the type of records to academic journals, allowing for the inclusion of news articles, etc. To allow for a higher variety of sources, the researchers also did not require the records to be peer reviewed. The records were limited to English and full-text records.
Thirdly, the search period was set. Numerous devastating pandemics have been recorded over time, of which the first pandemic that resulted in the death of more than 1 million people occurred during the years 165–180 AC (Cirillo & Taleb 2020:608–609; Johnson & Mueller 2002:105; Littman & Littman 1973:255; Worldometer 2021). Sustainability is also a concept that has been in existence for several years, proven by the search conducted that identified the term in journals from 1985 onwards. Because of these factors, no period was excluded from the search. Based on the inclusion criteria, the initial search, conducted on 01 March 2021, resulted in 49 records.
Exclusion criteria
Five of the records were duplicated and consequently removed, resulting in 44 potential records. These records were screened for relevance to the research question (Kauppi, Salmi & You 2018; Vrontis & Christofi 2019), of which 14 were found irrelevant. The irrelevant records included records related to individuals or countries and not companies and how certain interventions may reduce pandemics. Consequently, the process resulted in 30 records, of which the full texts were analysed and coded (refer to Appendix 1 for a complete list of the 30 relevant records, along with its record type, source and the pandemic or epidemic that the record focus on). Figure 1 illustrates the adopted process.
 |
FIGURE 1: Illustrative representation of systematic review search strategy employed. |
|
Stage 2: Reporting and dissemination of findings
Thematic analysis was conducted on the final sample using Atlas.ti 9, qualitative data analysis software. Thematic analysis follows a structured approach (Jones et al. 2020:38) and aims to generate codes and themes contained in published records (Clarke & Braun 2014:1947; Merriam & Grenier 2019:213). Codes are either set prior to the analysis based on pre-existing theory (deductively), derived from the data (inductively) or by using a combination of the two (Terry et al. 2017:19). For this study, thematic analysis commenced with deductive coding, although most of the codes were created inductively. Following Van Den Berg, Coetzee and Mearns (2020:3), codes were considered for relatedness to explore new information and conceptualise the findings. After following this approach, four main themes were identified, corresponding to sustainability’s four components, being financial and ESG. These themes were divided into three groups depending on the effect on companies’ sustainability, being positive, negative or neutral.
Strategies employed to ensure data quality and integrity
Inter-rater reliability is a key instrument to evaluate reliability, as it measures the extent that coders allocate the same codes to the same data set (Geisler & Swarts 2019:160). Cohen’s kappa is often used as an indicator of inter-rater reliability (Geisler & Swarts 2019:162; Sun 2011:145; Warrens 2011), where a kappa statistic of > 0.8 signifies an almost perfect level of coding agreement between the coders, making the coding highly reliable (Landis & Koch 1977:165; Terry et al. 2017:19). The process involves sharing the developed code book by a minimum of two independent coders to code all or (most often) a selection of the data to determine a level of agreement between the coders (Terry et al. 2017:19). A sample of at least 10% of the data is needed to determine inter-rater reliability (Geisler & Swarts 2019:172). Following Van Den Berg et al. (2020:3), the researchers shared the developed code book with an independent coder and provided an overview of the identification and meaning of the codes and code creation practice. As the final sample constituted 30 articles, six articles’ coding was compared between the two coders, representing 20% of the population. Results indicated a percentage of agreement of 94.9% and a kappa statistic of 0.89, signifying an almost perfect level of coding agreement.
To enhance reliability, findings were triangulated with studies not included in the selected 30, including studies identified during an initial narrative literature review.
Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the North-West University’s Economic and Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee (study approval number NWU-00884-20-A4) as a minimal risk study as it involves the use of publicly available data.
Results
The first part of the findings introduces the characteristics of the 30 records that were identified and analysed (Appendix 1). The second part presents the sustainability elements observed.
Characteristics of the records
The vast majority of records (87%) were published during 2020 and onwards (Table 1). Most of the records (83%) focused on COVID-19, with 10% focusing on HIV/AIDS, an ongoing epidemic since 1920 (Cirillo & Taleb 2020:608–609). This shows the increase in the number of pandemic-related publications when the pandemic is active and suggests the increasing interest of stakeholders related to pandemics’ effect on companies’ sustainability. Records were mainly from academic journals (50%) and news articles (47%).
| TABLE 1: Characteristics of records on sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics. |
Overview of sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics
Within all four components of sustainability (financial, ESG), the records included a discussion of pandemics’ positive, negative and neutral effects on companies’ sustainability.
Figure 2 sets out the themes (the four components of sustainability), codes and quotation count and a related discussion, in order of quotation count. The codes also indicate whether the change was positive (+), negative (−) or neutral as it merely indicated change (#). By means of a combination of inductive and deductive coding, a total of 34 codes were created. Most (17) of the codes related to negative effects on sustainability, whereas eight codes indicated positive effects. Two of the codes were considered both positive and negative (+) (−), depending on circumstances and seven codes merely indicated change that occurred (#).
 |
FIGURE 2: Themes, codes, quotation count and discussion. |
|
The changes that occurred to the financial and environmental components of sustainability were clear as to whether the effect was positive or negative. This may be because of financial effects being generally measurable, for example, profit during the first 3 months of COVID-19 may be compared with the same 3 months in the preceding year. Similarly, the effect on the environment is physically observable. The social and governance sustainability elements included positive and negative codes, but neutral changes were also observed. Threats to companies’ sustainability forced companies to introduce changes to their approach, which could not simply be classified as either positive or negative.
Similar to how sustainability is an overarching concept requiring consideration of financial, ESG matters, any threat, such as a pandemic, to sustainability would be multifaceted, as displayed in Figure 2. Pandemics lead to several costs. These costs can be directly related to the pandemic itself (such as loss of productivity because of illness and death of employees, which also eventually leads to reduced consumption), as well as indirect costs (governmental responses towards the pandemic) (Ajam 2020:1). The supply and demand shocks that South Africa experienced during COVID-19 were the worst since the 1918 Spanish flu, when manufacturing output dropped by 18% (Ajam 2020:1; Correia et al. 2020:1). Contrarily, Russia refused to decrease their oil production during COVID-19’s lockdown measures, which led to the most sudden price crash in oil prices in nearly 30 years (Nicola et al. 2020:186). These sudden and interrelated supply and demand changes impact the prices of inputs and ultimately output, as well as inflation, wages and foreign currencies (Ajam 2020:1). Job losses and pay cuts were noted within merely a week of COVID-19 (Bartik et al. 2020:17656).
Though the pressures caused by pandemics are severe, opportunities are present and, if capitalised on, increase the plausibility of survival. The anxiety surrounding pandemics also results in an increased focus towards social and environmental issues, as well as the financial viability of companies, urging companies to focus on their sustainability (Selmi et al. 2021:1532, 1535–1537). Emerging trends are fast-tracked especially regarding digitisation and e-commerce, making an online presence vital (Coetzee et al. 2021:8–10). Encouragingly, a positive association between companies with advanced information technology capability and improved financial performance has been found (Arora & Rahman 2017).
Lazurko et al. (2020:379) expect the coming decades to increase in complexity and non-linear change, which may increase the frequency of disruptions like pandemics. Such times of exceptional uncertainty and distress require swift transformation (Selmi et al. 2021:1528), forcing companies to reflect on what happened during the pandemic and to strategise on the way forward (Ward 2020:4).
Discussion and conclusion
Outline of the results
This study aimed to determine the sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics and a comprehensive list of these elements was established, consisting of matters from all four components of sustainability: financial, ESG. This list therefore adds to the body of knowledge of the sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics. Furthermore, the list serves as a guideline for reporting in times of pandemics, where the discussion provides examples of matters that may be applicable under each sustainability element.
Government-imposed lockdowns result in non-essential operations being halted, leading to supply and demand shocks, which cause volatile product prices. Entities’ finances are further pressured by employee absenteeism obstructing operations, while employee costs continue. Companies are pressed to apply for loans, threatening liquidity. Disaster management strategies are activated to ensure viability, sometimes resulting in retrenchments or reduced salaries, threatening socio-economic targets. Pandemic-related restrictions and economical pressure change consumer behaviour, through a reduction in discretionary spending and an increased demand for non-essential products and services.
Companies’ focus on sustainability during these trying times drives societal and environmental considerations as their interdependence with nature and stakeholders is appreciated. In addition to the key role the private sector played in supporting stakeholders, companies took hands with governments in supporting communities. The health and safety of companies’ stakeholders, especially employees, came to the fore and several companies responded by introducing wellness and counselling programmes.
The necessity to strategise provided companies with opportunities to reduce inefficiencies and explore new business models, with the aim of improving operations. Specifically, pandemics accelerated emerging trends of e-commerce and digitisation, requiring companies to adapt to survive. Work from home arrangements, conducting virtual meetings and training, and other virtual operations, did, however, introduce new legal risks, as companies were required to protect the confidentiality of information.
Practical implications
Companies should use COVID-19 and other previous pandemics as a learning opportunity to accelerate sustainability by adapting their strategy, thereby improving their resilience for future crises (Lake 2022; McKinsey & Company 2022; Seetharaman 2020:1). Strong governance consequently becomes essential, acknowledging the importance of appropriate response in times of pandemics.
A study performed by Elcheroth and Drury (2020:710) highlighted the importance of reiterating joint humanity in the wake of crises. They suggest fair arrangements to share pandemics’ burdens across the boundaries of nations, generations and classes, which would allow a more resilient outcome. Consequently, it would make sense to follow a proactive approach of building good relationships, supported by effective communication, which has proven to be effective in times of uncertainty and crises (Fay & Ghadimi 2020:815; Gazley 2013; Marsen 2020). Having healthy relationships with the public sector will ease collaboration, firstly in supporting the affected country’s individuals, which is also the companies’ stakeholders, and secondly, in making reasonable arrangements for continuing business activities (Child et al. 2020). Having healthy relationships with surrounding communities helps companies to be aware of their concerns, and, if addressed, enhances their social licence to operate (Vanclay & Hanna 2019). Having healthy relationships with suppliers may assist in times of crises as this may allow for flexible payment arrangements (Lake 2022). Having healthy relationships with employees encourages their well-being (Waters et al. 2022:303). Having healthy relationships within the leadership team will assist in effectively strategising a suitable crisis response. This changed approach to the workplace will maximise the contributions of all stakeholders (McKinsey & Company 2022).
The unprecedented nature of pandemics requires boards to be experienced in scenario-building and disaster management. Boards are required to revisit their structure and frequency of meetings and communication to ensure that they stay afloat of current issues and can suitably discharge their responsibilities (PR Newswire 2020h).
The challenging nature of pandemics requires companies to have some financial flexibility with the support of a strong, liquid balance sheet (Acharya, Shin & Yorulmazer 2011:2170–2171). A more conservative approach to financial decision-making may therefore be beneficial, which includes a reduction in inefficiencies and unnecessary costs, while innovation is required to capitalise on opportunities and emerging trends. This study also agrees with the findings of Seetharaman (2020), urging companies to consider their methods of product and service delivery, as well as the characteristics of products and services delivered, potentially requiring expansion in these areas. This is especially true as pandemic-related regulations are more lenient on online and essential products and services.
The recent pandemics sufficiently proved the environmental improvements as companies’ operations declined, encouraging greater consideration of the impact of operations on the surrounding environment and the importance of minimising this as far as possible. Such consideration will increase the ecological balance, which is essential in decreasing diseases (Mofijur et al. 2021:357; Poudel 2020:1).
Limitations and recommendations
This study was limited to a systematic review of extant literature, which inherently involves subjectivity in the search process, and specifically in selecting the keywords, search string, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consequently, the chosen characteristics set the scope of the study and determine the sample of data included. Of the 30 selected records, 27 discussed the effects of COVID-19, whereas 3 involved a discussion of the effects of HIV/AIDS. This composition of the final sample was different to the researchers’ expectation, as a bigger range of pandemics was expected, especially as no limitations were imposed regarding the timeframe of the studies. The researchers addressed this limitation through triangulating the findings from the 30 analysed records with other relevant records, mainly identified through the initial narrative literature review. Furthermore, Ajam and Davis (2020:1) emphasised the importance of separating the economic consequences of the pandemic itself and the consequences as a result of the policy responses to the pandemic. They observed that the economic costs of the responses to COVID-19 likely exceeded that of the pandemic itself (Ajam & Davis 2020:1). This is another limitation to the study, as the analysed records did not separate these costs. Despite these obstacles, the study provides a thorough overview of the sustainability elements of companies that are affected by pandemics.
Future research may focus on conducting quantitative research on the said research question, as this will assist to quantify the impact that pandemics have on companies’ sustainability elements. Specific inclusion of the various major pandemics that the world has experienced may also provide a different overview of companies’ sustainability elements that are affected by pandemics.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The author(s) declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
A.M. acquired, analysed, and interpreted the data (the majority of the research). J.F. contributed towards the conception and design of the study. V.L. assisted with the analysis and interpretation of the data. All authors contributed towards drafting the works.
Funding information
Funding was received from the North-West University through postgraduate bursaries and a grant towards completion of the study.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the public domain with details indicated in Appendix 1 and the reference list.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
References
Acharya, V.V., Shin, H.S. & Yorulmazer, T., 2011, ‘Crisis resolution and bank liquidity’, The Review of Financial Studies 24(6), 2166–2205. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhq073
Adegboyegun, A., Alade, M., Ben-Caleb, E., Ademola, A., Eluyela, D. & Oladipo, O., 2020, ‘Integrated reporting and corporate performance in Nigeria: Evidence from the banking industry’, Cogent Business & Management 7(1), 1736866. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1736866
Ajam, T., 2020, ‘The economic costs of the pandemic – And its response’, South African Journal of Science 116(7–8), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/8490
Ajam, T. & Davis, D., 2020, ‘Unprecedented tax collapse endangers post-COVID recovery’, Daily Maverick, viewed 17 August 2020, from https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-05-14-unprecedented-tax-collapse-endangers-post-covid-recovery/.
Amidei, C., Arzbaecher, J., Maher, M.E., Mungoshi, C., Cashman, R., Farrimond, S. et al., 2020, ‘The brain tumor not-for-profit and charity experience of COVID-19: Reacting and adjusting to an unprecedented global pandemic in the 21st century’, Neuro-Oncology Advances 3(1), vdaa166. https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdaa166
Arora, B. & Rahman, Z., 2017, ‘Information technology capability as competitive advantage in emerging markets: Evidence from India’, International Journal of Emerging Markets 12(3), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-07-2015-0127
Azam, A., Ahmed, A., Wang, H., Wang, Y. & Zhang, Z., 2021, ‘Knowledge structure and research progress in wind power generation (WPG) from 2005 to 2020 using CiteSpace based scientometric analysis’, Journal of Cleaner Production 295, 126496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126496
Barry, J.M., 2010, ‘The next pandemic’, World Policy Journal 27(2), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1162/wopj.2010.27.2.10
Bartik, A.W., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z., Glaeser, E.L., Luca, M. & Stanton, C., 2020, ‘The impact of COVID-19 on small business outcomes and expectations’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(30), 17656–17666. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006991117
Bayulken, B., Huisingh, D. & Fisher, P.M.J., 2021, ‘How are nature based solutions helping in the greening of cities in the context of crises such as climate change and pandemics? A comprehensive review’, Journal of Cleaner Production 288, 125569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125569
Bergquist, A.-K., 2017, Business and sustainability: New business history perspectives, viewed 11 June 2021, from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1150757/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
Bhosale, J., 2020, Prices of agricultural commodities drop 20% post COVID-19 outbreak, viewed 03 December 2020, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/prices-of-agricultural-commodities-drop-20-post-covid-19-outbreak/articleshow/74705537.cms.
Bossel, H., 1999, Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, applications, viewed 11 June 2021, from http://www.seedengr.com/Indicators%20for%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf.
Brainerd, E. & Siegler, M.V., 2003, The economic effects of the 1918 influenza epidemic, viewed 03 March 2022, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=394606.
Brown, S., 2020, ‘Pandemic to hit ability to meet KPIs on ESG loans’, Global Capital, viewed 21 November 2020, from https://www.globalcapital.com/article/28mudmf4ppazk1ughqlfk/investment-grade-loans/pandemic-to-hit-ability-to-meet-kpis-on-esg-loans.
Child, J., Dillon, R., Erasmus, E. & Johnson, J., 2020, Collaboration in crisis: Reflecting on Australia’s COVID-19 response, viewed 03 March 2022, from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/collaboration-in-crisis-reflecting-on-australias-covid-19-response.
Christofi, M., Leonidou, E. & Vrontis, D., 2017, ‘Marketing research on mergers and acquisitions: A systematic review and future directions’, International Marketing Review 34(5), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2015-0100
Christofi, M., Vrontis, D. & Cadogan, J.W., 2019a, ‘Micro-foundational ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: A systematic review and a conceptual framework’, International Business Review 30(1), 101625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101625
Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Shams, S.R. & Change, S., 2019b, ‘Triggering technological innovation through cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A micro-foundational perspective’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146(C), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.026
Çiftçi, P.K., 2022, ‘Analyzing the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on supplier performance evaluation factors via fuzzy cognitive map with a hybrid learning system’, International Journal of Emerging Markets (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-12-2021-1925
Cirillo, P. & Taleb, N.N., 2020, ‘Tail risk of contagious diseases’, Nature Physics 16(6), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0921-x
Clarke, V. & Braun, V., 2014, ‘Thematic analysis’, in T. Teo (ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology, pp. 1947–1952, Springer, New York, NY.
Coetzee, J., Neneh, B., Stemmet, K., Lamprecht, J., Motsitsi, C. & Sereeco, W., 2021, ‘South African universities in a time of increasing disruption’, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 24(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v24i1.3739
Correia, S., Luck, S. & Verner, E., 2020, Pandemics depress the economy, public health interventions do not: Evidence from the 1918 flu, viewed 17 August 2020, from https://www.sbmfc.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SSRN-id3561560.pdf.
Dada, O., 2018, ‘A model of entrepreneurial autonomy in franchised outlets: A systematic review of the empirical evidence’, International Journal of Management Reviews 20(2), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12123
Deegan, C., 2002, ‘The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation’, Accounting, Auditing, Accountability Journal 15(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
Deegan, C.M., 2019, ‘Legitimacy theory: Despite its enduring popularity and contribution, time is right for a necessary makeover’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 32(8), 2307–2329. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2018-3638
Dellis, J., 2020, The importance of driving a circular economy in the ‘new normal’ (commentary), viewed 15 February 2021, from https://www.waste360.com/sustainability/importance-driving-circular-economy-new-normal-commentary.
Dharani, K., Mohanarathinam, A., Mansoor, S., DaraniKumar, M. & Sasikala, P., 2020, ‘Deforestation is a cause of pandemic – A systematic analysis’, in 4th International Conference on Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA), November 05–07, pp. 1491–1497, IEEE, Coimbatore.
Elcheroth, G. & Drury, J., 2020, ‘Collective resilience in times of crisis: Lessons from the literature for socially effective responses to the pandemic’, British Journal of Social Psychology 59(3), 703–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12403
Elson, C.M. & Goossen, N.J., 2017, ‘E. Merrick Dodd and the rise and fall of corporate stakeholder theory’, Business Lawyer 72(3), 735–754.
Elzainy, A., El Sadik, A. & Al Abdulmonem, W., 2020, ‘Experience of e-learning and online assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic at the College of Medicine, Qassim University’, Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences 15(6), 456–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2020.09.005
European Commission, 2020, Non-financial reporting, viewed 13 August 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/non-financial-reporting_en.
Fay, D.L. & Ghadimi, A., 2020, ‘Collective bargaining during times of crisis: Recommendations from the COVID-19 pandemic’, Public Administration Review 80(5), 815–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13233
Fernandes, N., 2020, Economic effects of coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) on the world economy, viewed 26 February 2021, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557504.
Gazley, B., 2013, ‘Building collaborative capacity for disaster resiliency’, in N. Kapucu, C.V. Hawkins & F.I. Rivera (eds.), Disaster resiliency: Interdisciplinary perspectives, pp. 106–120, Routledge, New York, NY.
Geisler, C. & Swarts, J., 2019, Coding streams of language: Techniques for the systematic coding of text, talk, and other verbal data, WAC Clearinghouse, Fort Collins, CO.
Goodman, D., 2020, World economy faces $5 trillion hit: That’s like losing Japan, viewed 06 April 2020, from https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/world-economy-faces-5-trillion-hit-that-is-like-losing-japan.
Gow, J., George, G. & Grant, B., 2012, ‘Managing the costs of HIV/AIDS: A case study of a South African contract cleaning company’, Development Southern Africa 29(3), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2012.706039
Gow, J. & Grant, B., 2010, ‘Human-resources strategies for managing HIV/AIDS: The case of the South African forestry industry’, African Journal of AIDS Research (AJAR) 9(3), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085906.2010.530184
Hayat, U. & Orsagh, M., 2015, Environmental, social, and governance issues in investing – A guide for investment professionals, viewed 09 June 2021, from https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/article/position-paper/esg-issues-in-investing-a-guide-for-investment-professionals.ashx.
Hourneaux, F., Jr., Da Silva Gabriel, M.L. & Gallardo-Vázquez, D.A., 2018, ‘Triple bottom line and sustainable performance measurement in industrial companies’, Revista de Gestão 25(4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/REGE-04-2018-0065
Hughen, L., Lulseged, A. & Upton, D.R., 2014, ‘Improving stakeholder value through sustainability and integrated reporting’, The CPA Journal 84(3), 57.
Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J.L. & May, S. (eds.), 2011, The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility, Wiley-Blakwell, Malden, MA.
Johnson, N.P. & Mueller, J., 2002, ‘Updating the accounts: Global mortality of the 1918–1920 “Spanish” influenza pandemic’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 76(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1353/bhm.2002.0022
Jones, D., Snider, C., Nassehi, A., Yon, J. & Hicks, B., 2020, ‘Characterising the digital twin: A systematic literature review’, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 29, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.02.002
Jones, K.E., Patel, N.G., Levy, M.A., Storeygard, A., Balk, D., Gittleman, J.L. et al., 2008, ‘Global trends in emerging infectious diseases’, Nature 451(7181), 990–993. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06536
Jordá, Ó., Sanjay, R.S. & Taylor, A.M., 2020, ‘The long economic hangover of pandemics’, Finance & Development 57(2), 12–15.
Kannenberg, L. & Schreck, P., 2019, ‘Integrated reporting: Boon or bane? A review of empirical research on its determinants and implications’, Journal of Business Economics 89(5), 515–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0922-8
Kauppi, K., Salmi, A. & You, W., 2018, ‘Sourcing from Africa: A systematic review and a research agenda’, International Journal of Management Reviews 20(2), 627–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12158
Kenny, C., 2020, Form 8-K: United Airlines Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc., viewed 02 July 2020, from https://ir.united.com/static-files/440c2464-a618-4c55-afa0-4eaff0210d3e.
Kenton, W., 2021, Triple bottom line (TBL), viewed 15 June 2021, from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triple-bottom-line.asp.
KPMG, 2020, Towards consistent and comparable ESG reporting, viewed 03 July 2020, from https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/05/towards-consistent-and-comparable-esg-reporting.html.
Lacy, P., Cooper, T., Hayward, R. & Neuberger, L., 2010, A new era of sustainability, viewed 11 June 2021, from https://www.comunicarseweb.com/sites/default/files/biblioteca/pdf/1321968280_33434737-New-Era-Sustainabiltiy-Accenture-UNGC-Study-2010.pdf.
Lake, R., 2022, Five financial lessons small business owners can lean from COVID-19, viewed 12 May 2022, from https://www.firsthorizon.com/Business-Learning-Center/5-Business-Lessons-From-COVID19.
Landis, J.R. & Koch, G.G., 1977, ‘The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data’, Biometrics 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lanis, R. & Richardson, G., 2013, ‘Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: A test of legitimacy theory’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 26(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571311285621
Lazurko, A., Alamenciak, T., Hill, L.S., Muhl, E.-K., Osei, A.K., Pomezanski, D. et al., 2020, ‘What will a PhD look like in the future? Perspectives on emerging trends in sustainability doctoral programs in a time of disruption’, World Future 12(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756720976710
Lektauers, A., Trusins, J. & Trusina, I., 2010, ‘A conceptual framework for dynamic modeling of sustainable development for local government in Latvia’, Paper delivered at the 28th International System Dynamics Conference, viewed 12 May 2022, from https://proceedings.systemdynamics.org/2010/proceed/papers/P1150.pdf.
Littman, R.J. & Littman, M.L., 1973, ‘Galen and the Antonine plague’, The American Journal of Philology 94(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.2307/293979
Lynch, N.C., Lynch, M.F. & Cullinan, C.P., 2020, ‘Managing the going concern risk in an uncertain environment: An analysis of regulatory guidance and financial relief for the COVID-19 pandemic’, The CPA Journal 90(5), 34–41.
Macaninch, E., Martyn, K. & Lima do Vale, M., 2020, ‘Exploring the implications of COVID-19 on widening health inequalities and the emergence of nutrition insecurity through the lens of organisations involved with the emergency food response’, BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health 3(2), 374–382. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000120
Marsen, S., 2020, ‘Navigating crisis: The role of communication in organizational crisis’, International Journal of Business Communication 57(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419882981
McKinsey & Company, 2022, COVID-19: Implications for business, viewed 12 May 2022, from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk-and-resilience/our-insights/covid-19-implications-for-business.
Merriam, S.B. & Grenier, R.S., 2019, Qualitative research in practice – Examples for discussion and analysis, 2nd edn., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Mofijur, M., Fattah, I.R., Alam, M.A., Islam, A.S., Ong, H.C., Rahman, S.A. et al., 2021, ‘Impact of COVID-19 on the social, economic, environmental and energy domains: Lessons learnt from a global pandemic’, Sustainable Production and Consumption 26, 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.016
Mustafa, M. & Abbas, A., 2021, ‘Comparative analysis of green ICT practices among Palestinian and Malaysian in SME food enterprises during COVID-19 pandemic’, PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 18(4), 254–264.
Nicola, M., Alsafi, Z., Sohrabi, C., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C. et al., 2020, ‘The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review’, International Journal of Surgery 78, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018
Norouzi, N., Zarazua De Rubens, G., Choupanpiesheh, S. & Enevoldsen, P., 2020, ‘When pandemics impact economies and climate change: Exploring the impacts of COVID-19 on oil and electricity demand in China’, Energy Research & Social Science 68, 101654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101654
Oppenheim, B., Gallivan, M., Madhav, N.K., Brown, N., Serhiyenko, V., Wolfe, N.D. & Ayscue, P., 2019, ‘Assessing global preparedness for the next pandemic: Development and application of an epidemic preparedness index’, BMJ Global Health 4(1), e001157. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001157
Osterholm, M.T., 2005, ‘Preparing for the next pandemic’, New England Journal of Medicine 352(18), 1839–1842. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp058068
Palmer, K., Monaco, A., Kivipelto, M., Onder, G., Maggi, S., Michel, J.-P. et al., 2020, ‘The potential long-term impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on patients with non-communicable diseases in Europe: Consequences for healthy ageing’, Aging Clinical & Experimental Research 32(7), 1189–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01601-4
Park, J.M., Lee, H.Y., Park, S.H. & Han, I., 2020, ‘Value relevance of accounts receivable factoring and its impact on financing strategy under the K-IFRS after COVID-19 from the perspective of accounting big data’, Sustainability 12, 10287. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410287
Parker, R.G., 2009, ‘Civil society, political mobilization, and the impact of HIV scale-up on health systems in Brazil’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 52(Suppl. 1), S49–S51. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181bbcb56
Poudel, B.S., 2020, ‘Ecological solutions to prevent future pandemics like COVID-19’, Banko Janakari 30(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.3126/banko.v30i1.29175
PR Newswire, 2017, Thermoplastic polyester elastomer market analysis by end-use and segment forecasts, 2014–2025, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p05108801.
PR Newswire, 2020a, Amid the COVID-19 crisis and the looming economic recession, the children’s wear market worldwide will grow by a projected US$73.7 billion, during the analysis period, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p04951650/?utm_source=PRN.
PR Newswire, 2020b, The China and Hong Kong data center market by revenue is expected to grow at a CAGR of close to 2% during the period 2019–2025, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p05955547/?utm_source=PRN.
PR Newswire, 2020c, Growth opportunities in the global facility management market, forecast to 2025, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p05934525/Growth-Opportunities-in-the-Global-Facility-Management-Market-Forecast-to.html.
PR Newswire, 2020d, The Indian e-commerce packaging market was valued at USD 451.4 million in 2019, and it is expected to reach USD 975.4 million by 2025, registering a CAGR of 13.8% during the period of 2020–2025, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p05877829/India-E-Commerce-Packaging-Market-Growth-Trends-and-Forecasts.html.
PR Newswire, 2020e, PINC receives significant growth equity investment from Accel-KKR, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pinc-receives-significant-growth-equity-investment-from-accel-kkr-301077195.html.
PR Newswire, 2020f, The reshaping of industries caused by COVID-19, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p05967978/The-Reshaping-of-Industries-Caused-by-COVID-19.html.
PR Newswire, 2020g, Retort pouch packaging market – Growth, trends, forecasts (2020–2025), viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p05982373/Retort-Pouch-Packaging-Market-Growth-Trends-Forecasts.html.
PR Newswire, 2020h, Survey: Boards face growing challenges & sharp divide over pandemic’s impact on sustainability, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://conferenceboard.esgauge.org/covid-19/governance.
PR Newswire, 2020i, The toys market by revenue is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 4% during the period 2019–2025, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p05587795/Toys-Market-Global-Outlook-and-Forecast.html.
PR Newswire, 2020j, The U.S. electric lawn mowers market by revenue is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 9% during the period 2019–2025, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p05758026/US-Electric-Lawn-Mower-Market-Comprehensive-Study-and-Strategic-Analysis.html.
PR Newswire, 2020k, Why Kellogg’s enhanced human rights strategy matters more than ever, viewed 15 March 2021, from https://www.wfmz.com/news/pr_newswire/pr_newswire_food_beverages/why-kelloggs-enhanced-human-rights-strategy-matters-more-than-ever/article_0d5ce37a-23b5-50d1-9daf-6f83a6ad1997.html.
PWC, 2020, Impact of trade-disrupting COVID-19 on South African business, viewed 02 July 2020, from https://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/impact-of-trade-disrupting-covid-19-on-sa-business.pdf.
Quantec, 2020, Lockdown and COVID-19 in South Africa: Economic impact underestimated, viewed 05 March 2021, from https://www.quantec.co.za/post/3771/lockdown-and-covod-19-in-south-africa/.
Roberts, R.W., 1992, ‘Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(6), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90015-K
Sarkodie, S.A. & Owusu, P.A., 2020, ‘Global assessment of environment, health and economic impact of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19)’, Environment, Development and Sustainability 23(4), 5005–5015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00801-2
Seetharaman, P., 2020, ‘Business models shifts: Impact of covid-19’, International Journal of Information Management 54, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102173
Selmi, R., Hammoudeh, S., Errami, Y. & Wohar, M.E., 2021, ‘Is COVID-19 related anxiety an accelerator for responsible and sustainable investing? A sentiment analysis’, Applied Economics 53(13), 1528–1539. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1834501
Singh, P., 2020, Unsustainability and pandemics: Exploring the relationship and finding the crucial underlying factor, viewed 16 May 2022, from https://ingsa.org/covidtag/covid-19-commentary/singh-unsustainability/.
Stats SA, 2021, Statistics of liquidations and insolvencies (preliminary), viewed 11 June 2021, from http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0043/P0043April2021.pdf.
Sun, S., 2011, ‘Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa’, Health Services Outcomes Research Methodology 11(3–4), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-011-0077-3
Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V. & Braun, V., 2017, ‘Thematic analysis’, in C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 2nd edn., pp. 17–37, Sage, London.
Tollefson, J., 2020, ‘Why deforestation and extinctions make pandemics more likely’, Nature 584(7820), 175–177. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02341-1
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P., 2003, ‘Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review’, British Journal of Management 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Turkyilmaz, A., Dikhanbayeva, D., Suleiman, Z., Shaikholla, S. & Shehab, E., 2021, ‘Industry 4.0: Challenges and opportunities for Kazakhstan SMEs’, Procedia CIRP 96, 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.077
Vanclay, F. & Hanna, P., 2019, ‘Conceptualizing company response to community protest: Principles to achieve a social license to operate’, Land 8(6), 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8060101
Van Den Berg, L., Coetzee, B. & Mearns, M., 2020, ‘Establishing competitive intelligence process elements in sport performance analysis and coaching: A comparative systematic literature review’, International Journal of Information Management 52(C), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102071
Van Der Merwe, P., Saayman, A. & Jacobs, C., 2021, ‘Assessing the economic impact of COVID-19 on the private wildlife industry of South Africa’, Global Ecology and Conservation 28(1), e01633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01633
Velte, P. & Stawinoga, M., 2017, ‘Integrated reporting: The current state of empirical research, limitations and future research implications’, Journal of Management Control 28(3), 275–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-016-0235-4
Vrontis, D. & Christofi, M., 2019, ‘R&D internationalization and innovation: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research directions’, Journal of Business Research 128(C), 812–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.031
Wang, C.L. & Chugh, H., 2014, ‘Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and future challenges’, International Journal of Management Reviews 16(1), 24–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12007
Ward, B., 2020, ‘Message from ASCTA CEO Brendon Ward’, Swimming in Australia 47(1), 4–5.
Warrens, M.J., 2011, ‘Cohen’s kappa is a weighted average’, Statistical Methodology 8(6), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stamet.2011.06.002
Waters, L., Algoe, S.B., Dutton, J., Emmons, R., Fredrickson, B.L., Heaphy, E. et al., 2022, ‘Positive psychology in a pandemic: Buffering, bolstering, and building mental health’, The Journal of Positive Psychology 17(3), 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1871945
Williams, J.R., 2019, ‘The use of online social networking sites to nurture and cultivate bonding social capital: A systematic review of the literature from 1997 to 2018’, New Media & Society 21(11–12), 2710–2729. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858749
World Health Organization, 2020, Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), viewed 02 July 2020, from https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov).
Worldometer, 2021, COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, viewed 08 January 2021, from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/.
Appendix
|
Email this article 
Hide
Show all
