This paper first touches on global trends in environmental investment and information disclosure, focusing on Russia, which is not only the world’s largest energy resources country but also a major powerhouse of environmental resources such as forest and water. This paper describes recent institutional developments in Russia and examines the reasons for the lack of progress in environmental investment and information disclosure, compared with other countries from a broader perspective of the transformation of institutions and economic systems.

First, this paper points out that the development of a system for non-financial information disclosure, which has been under way in Russia since 2017, has been interrupted due to the government’s response to the pandemic and changes in companies’ information disclosure obligations. Second, this paper identifies that Russian companies’ reluctance to take environmental measures due to the weakening of environmental administration since the transition to a market economy, the existence of resource rents, and the low priority of the environment in the social cost burden by companies, have become obstacles to proceed environmental investment and information disclosure in Russia. Third, this paper explains that corporate governance system of Russian companies has still been characterized by a concentration of insider ownership, which hinders environmental investment and information disclosure in the country, whilst there have been almost no independent outside directors who are expected to promote and supervise the disclosure process in a timely and appropriate manner. At the same time, this paper reveals that internal corporate systems, such as the establishment of committees related to non-financial information and its incorporation into a performance-linked compensation system, have been not yet in place in Russia.

Many previous studies have pointed out that landscapes, in general, played a decisive role in the formation of modern nationalism and national consciousness. There has already been a considerable accumulation of essays on the relationship between landscape and nationalism in Russia, too. In countries that were late to modernization, including Japan, the landscape views and aesthetic sense of developed countries were directly imported at first, and then transformed in order to correspond with their own climate. In this respect Russia is no exception. This paper provides an overview of the formation of “Russian landscape” and the process of its transformation into “Russian nature” in the 19th century literature and painting, and also a sketch of its subsequent spread in film and literature of the Soviet period.

This paper examines the Polish view of nature through 19th century Polish literature and its film adaptations.

Romantic literature, which sustained national identity during the period of Polish partition, is also the basis for the modern Polish view of nature. In particular, the countryside depicted in “Pan Tadeusz” is often identified with the nature of his native Poland, rather than with the limited location of Lithuania, and Wajda has cleverly used this in his film direction.

In “Lalka,” Paris and Warsaw are depicted as urban ideals and their opposites. Paris appears to be a utopia that embodies the positivist slogan “organic labor.” However, a comparison with another important topos, “Zasławek,” shows that Paris is also not considered perfect by the author.

The image of Warsaw, torn between the two poles of “European ideals” and “nostalgia for the motherland,” raises questions about urban civilization. On the other hand, reservations seem to be made about the attitude that should be shown to “nature” in the realization of the ideal city.

At the end of the 19th century, the novel “Ziemia obiecana” depicted the various processes characteristic of capitalism, such as population growth, the expansion of productive forces, the industrialization of the country and the capitalization of agriculture, and the accompanying development of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. This novel can be considered the first book of Polish “environmental literature.” The film adaptation by Wajda exaggerates the negative aspects of the city in a more grotesque way.

This article analyzes the views of Vissarion Belinsky (1811–48), the most prominent Russian literary critic in the 1830s-1840s, on Ukrainian literature. His scathing evaluation of Taras Shevchenko and other Ukrainian literary writers is well known. In criticizing Ukrainian literature, Belinsky adhered to Hegelian Universalism and romantic nationalism. He emphasized general phenomena over particular ones in culture, society, and politics. Belinsky thought of the relationship between “the universal” (West, de facto), Russia, and Ukraine within this schema. This idea was also a principle in his search for a Russian literature comparable to universal Western literature.

The first chapter clarifies the relationship between his philosophy of history, his view of nationalities, and literature. From the viewpoint of developmental history, Belinsky distinguishes between “nation”/“narod” (or “tribe”), placing Russia in the former category and Ukraine in the latter. In doing so, he denied the possibility of developing Ukrainian literature, arguing that only a “nation” can have great poets.

In the second chapter, we will analyze the characteristics of “realism” and “typology,” which were the main points of Belinsky’s evaluation of Nikokai Gogol. The “typology” itself, which Belinsky recognized as Gogol’s strong point, had a structure similar to his philosophy of history, mediating nature between generality (universality) and particularity. Belinsky’s critique of Gogol was oriented toward limiting the significance of Ukrainian nationhood and locating it as a region of Russia. In addition, the “typology” that was supposed to support Realism contained an element of anti-Realism, and Belinsky’s view of Ukraine often degenerated into a stereotype.

The third chapter analyzes Belinsky’s critical review of the Ukrainian-language works. The critic stubbornly regards Ukrainian as a “peasant” language and cites Gogol to explain the advantages of writing in Russian. However, his view shows an incomprehension of the existence of literature that the Ukrainian educated class and the emerging national consciousness among the Ukrainian intelligentsia had steadily practiced.

In conclusion, Belinsky, who believed in the potential of Russian literature to rival other Western literatures, saw no room for Ukrainian literature. He saw the essence of such literature in its union with “universality” and its reflective consciousness of individuality. Belinsky’s “realism,” contrary to the nuances of the word, is backed up by transcendentalism and idealism. As such, it was sometimes at odds with the reality of the Russian Empire, a society of diverse peoples.