http://www.diva-portal.org
Preprint
This is the submitted version of a paper presented at 7th biennial International Symposium on Cross-Sector Social Interactions (CSSI 2020), Online Conference, June 23-26, 2020.
Citation for the original published paper:
Carlborg, P., Babri, M., Prenkert, F. (2020)
Reconsidering place in relation to sustainability: An analysis of the intricate interplay in complex organizational networks
In:
N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.
Permanent link to this version:
Reconsidering place in relation to sustainability: An analysis of the intricate
interplay in complex organizational networks
Per Carlborg, Maira Babri, & Frans Prenkert
Örebro University | Center for Sustainable Business Abstract
The concept of place, as well as physicality of place, impacts sustainability practices in different ways. While management and organization studies have seen a rise in discussions on sustainable business models, we argue that place has lost its natural place in sustainability studies related to the business organization. Place offers a rootedness and a link to the natural, that all organizational activities are dependent on. Therefore, place has the capacity to drive and deepen sustainability practices.
The purpose of this paper is to uncover the role of place in sustainability research and organizational practice. A topic, which in sustainability research related to the business organization has been rather weakly covered. By applying an abductive research approach, we identify four different settings for the relation between place and sustainability. We then develop a place typology that shows the different roles of place in sustainability research and practice.
Introduction
What is the role of place in organizational sustainability? In times of accelerating globalization, with a growing abyss between production and consumption, land and places become more and more commodified (van der Ploeg, 2010). The modern economy drives the “erasure of place” (Escobar, 2001), and “placelessness” is rising (Auge, 1995) while societies become “liquid” (Bauman, 2012). Now me must ask: is place still relevant?
The impact of research evidencing the effect of human industrialized activity on the planet (e. g., Rockström, et al., 2009; Steffen et al. 2015), has caused a renewed interest in sustainability research. Within business and management studies, a fourth wave of sustainability research has been suggested (Hoffman, 2014). This increased interest, brings with it a wide array of approaches and methods for understanding and suggesting transformative action regarding the climate impacts of businesses. An example of an operationalization which has gained much traction is the business model concept (Pieroni, McAloone, & Pigosso, 2019) particularly in forms such as sustainable business model innovation (Clinton & Whisnat, 2019) and circular business models (Frishammar and Parida, 2019). There is interest in specific industries, (Gertler, Wolfe, & Garkut, 2000) as well as global institutions depicted as cross-national federations (Olawumi & Chan, 2018). In order to face climate and economical challenges - sustainability is becoming an imperative across nations, individuals and organizations. Transforming the economic system towards a green, sustainable economy, has been put forward by both academic scholars, political leaders and practitioners as a response to the deep challenges related to a warmer climate, increasing social inequality and collapsing ecosystems. We argue that a reconstruction of the economy hinges upon an ability to abandon concepts and practices
which are paradigmatically tied in with an industrial growth age and finding new ones which correspond to mitigating and embodying the grand challenges of our times (George et al. 2016). As all major structural and environmental processes affect the shaping of places: capitalism, climate change, regulations, market behaviors; place becomes a projection area for sustainability challenges. Resource exploitation, economic inequality, social segregation all relates to place – hence provide a seed bed for the relevance of place.
In this paper we contribute with an enhanced understanding of the challenges associated with sustainability both as an academic discourse and as a practice by problematizing two dimensions of sustainability. First, we establish and discuss the notions of the sustainability discourse and the emergence of ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ sustainability. Second, we discuss the role of place in the sustainability literature and recognize that it can be understood as either implicit (emergent) or explicit (a priori) in both the theoretical analyses as well as in the sustainability practices, mainly as manifest by managers and economist’s views on externalities. Based on these initial observations, we develop a conceptual framework consisting of the dimensions of weak and strong sustainability and the notion of origin of place as emergent or a priori. Based on this, we propose a typology to better understand the extant literature and to provide analytical precision regarding the place of place in sustainability discourse and practices. We support our arguments with four empirical episodes describing how collaborating networks of actors in the Swedish paper-and-pulp industry work to make their practices more sustainable and what role place has in this. Our analysis reveals that transitions from implicit to explicit management of place can be induced by external forces and that it can have a critical impact on the sustainable development of resource utilization. Other times such transitions can be more deliberate and part of a management strategy and internal ambitions. Regardless of its origin, such transitions impact the sustainability practices of actors in such industrial networks. Understanding this dynamic is essential to improve the impacts of sustainability initiatives in industrial networks.
The problem: Place and the sustainability discourse
The movement towards sustainability, originally stemming from environmental movements, has been rather dispersed thus far, and have had an ambivalent approach to place. Beginning in the 19th and 20th century with inspiration from environmental ecology and geography, the role of place had a central pillar. However, as interest in environmental sustainability was adopted by organization and management scholars, the concept of place was degraded to a resource or a location (Mrozowski, 1999; Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013). Arguably, this may be because, despite some critique, mainstream management and organization scholarship has relied heavily on the linguistic constructivist paradigm on the one hand (see eg. Hekman, 2010), and a resource efficiency/productivity paradigm on the other. While both have served developments in the field greatly, we argue that a lack of concepts which allow an incorporation of physical materiality (see e.g. Bell and Vachhiani, 2019; Barad, 2003) leaves much of the management sustainability scholarship lopsided. It is with this background that we explore the potential of the concept of ‘place’.
In the Brundtland report, sustainability emerged as something that meets the needs of the present civilization without compromising the ability of coming generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Since then, and accelerating, commitment to Sustainability and Sustainable Development (SD) has become a dominating political and strategic project for many countries and companies all over the world. Transformations to avoid major crises and environmental collapses is required at many levels of society - by individuals, companies, NGO’s, and governments. 20 years after the UN-conference in Rio de Janeiro where the concept of sustainable development was adopted in line with the Brundtland-statement, the term “green economy” was coined (Barbier, 2012), interpreted as a road to achieve sustainability while recognizing the need for
continued economic development and stability (Purvis, Mao, & Robinson, 2019). Green economy is a popular approach for the dual challenge of financial and climate change (UNEP, 2011), and is defined as an economy that has the output of improved “well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities”, hence an economy that in the broad meaning reduces carbon emissions, employs resources efficiently and acknowledges social values”. However, the “operationality of the green economy concept to achieve a transition towards sustainability, and a framework for its implementation and monitoring are still currently lacking” (Loiseau et al., 2016:362).
Central themes in sustainability research and green economy during the last decades since the Brundtland report, are typically related to technological aspects of development, societal impacts and environmental effects of business activities. Concepts like sustainable business model, bio economy, green technology, circular economy, cleaner production, and industrial symbiosis have emerged (Bocken et al., 2016, Lewandowski, 2016; Loiseau,2016) as a response to “meet our needs”. While encouraging these themes and developments, the science of sustainable development falls short on one important aspect: that of the importance of the physical and conceptual notion of place. The connections with the natural environment and places, is lacking attention in extant sustainability research and practice. Despite an early notion by Livingston (1994) on the role of place in sustainable management, where an absence of a strong rootedness is “an amputation of the fundamental skills required to play a co-evolved, healthy, contributory role in interspecies relationships” (Livingston, 1994:99), the silence of place in organizational sustainability research is striking. Even if place typically is outside mainstream sustainability and mainstream management studies (Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013), research suggests that commitment to a place – physical, historical, and cultural – create stronger sustainability practices than a placeless management (Hägerstrand, 1975; 1976). Also, an organization can – metaphorically – be seen as a place (Walck, 1996). Further, sense of place is also important for fostering ecological citizenship (Crane, Matten & Moon, 2008). However, as much of sustainability research in organization studies is “placeless”, it risks undermining the potential in the research connected to sustainability and the grand challenges of the 21th century. By examining place, sustainability can be more deeply understood; “Place, after all, represents the coalface, the grounded intersection of business activities, nature, and society” (Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013: 86). Hence, place offers a lens of viewing the world that is rooted in practices of day-to-day activities, and a resistance of displacement (Relph, 1976).
Traditional organizational approaches towards sustainability and to achieve changes in line with the green economy are Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Sustainability (CS), Triple Bottom Line (TBL) (also based on CSR), and circular economy (CE), etc. A strong focus on business models emphasizes the adjustment, fine-tuning, and (re)configuring of an already existing system towards sustainability. Resources are still seen as interchangeable (natural or human). An alternative approach is however reemerging, viewing natural resources as finite resources (e.g. Rockström, 2009), and hence fine-tuning the existing economic system is not enough. Instead, rethinking sustainability is needed beside new practices and conceptualizations (Ramos, 2019). Notably, there exist no ecological/environmental corporate responsibility, hence CSR can be seen as an anthropocentric/firm-centric concept related to a human centered morality and prioritization of human well-being (Imran et al., 2014). What is lacking in many organizational approaches is the eco-centric approach with similarities to stewardship ethics (Sarvestani & Shahvali, 2008). However, substantial sustainability discourses are moving from anthropocentric to eco-centric world views – hence moving from the human-dominating worldview to a view where ecology and natural ecosystems are dominating (Ramos et al., 2020)). This is partly based on a hard critique against the often-vague concept of sustainability: In its existing form [sustainable development], therefore, ecological ethics do not form part of the
sustainable development definition as the emphasis is on human welfare and development with pronounced emphasis on social ethics (Imran et al., 2014: 137). Hence, a prioritization of human needs over other lives is here seen as problematic. This worldview is also addressed by environmental researchers proclaiming that resources must be seen as finite resources, and that we must seek a human operating space within planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009).
The sustainability movement can be seen as a mass movement with overarching strategies and policies but also containing uncountable initiatives in everyday practices – connected in complex networks. Hence, analyzing place as part of an economical-societal network, a ‘social-ecological system’, where system characteristics are complexity and adaptability, can contribute to contemporary sustainability research since the progression towards sustainability will need a thorough understanding of network interrelatedness (Imran et al., 2014).
In this work we focus on the role of place in the sustainable economy by examining its role in relation to sustainability. In this study, we are particularly interested in how the industrial business network — with its embedded actors, and organizational practices — co-evolve in relation to the place to which it links (Baraldi, Fors & Houltz, 2006; Prenkert, 2013). By doing this, we contribute with an extension of previous literature on sustainability in business. By combining the physical dimension of place with organizational practices, we contribute with advancing the knowledge of sustainability practices. The purpose is to develop a conceptual framework that can guide further development and analysis of the role of place in sustainable development and to enhance the knowledge of how to manage the interaction between place and sustainability in sustainability practice.
The paper is organized thus: Next follows a section in which we develop our conceptual framework which produces a typology of place in organizational sustainability. After that comes a methodology section describing out research design. Then we describe our empirical settings immediately followed by initial descriptions of examples of the four typologies identified in the conceptualizations. Then follows a discussion.
Conceptual framing
Sustainability has deep roots in in environmental ecology, but has developed in a direction towards a more economic and social dominating concept since the last quarter of the 21th century and the development of the UN Sustainable development goals. Especially in environmental ecology and ecological economics (Ekins et al., 2003), but lately also in management and organization (Brozovic, 2019, de Oliveira Neto et al., 2018; Landrum & Ohsowski, 2018; Perey, Benn, Agarwal, & Edwards, 2018), one way of considering sustainability approaches, is the weak sustainability/strong sustainability (WS/SS) duality (Dietz & Neumayer, 2007; Ekins et al., 2003). In the baseline lies resources and the utilization and exploitation of resource.
Sustainability approach
While weak sustainability relates to the idea of building on our existing economic system through pollution control, carbon mitigation, carbon storage, strong sustainability suggest structural changes in our society, mode of living and economic system (Ekins et al., 2003). Further, the distinction between weak and strong sustainability relates to the level of substitutability between ‘human capital’ and ‘natural capital’— and the discussion goes back to early sustainability terminology (Dietz & Neumayer, 2007; Loiseau, 2016) where neoclassical theory of economic growth found a way towards (weak) sustainability – typically operationalized through the sustainable business models without a systemic perspective and with the earth as primary capital (Brozovic, 2019).
While weak sustainability advocates a high degree of substitution between natural and human capital (e.g., a new technology can always be developed to support the increasing demand of human life standards), strong sustainability does not recognize the same patterns of interchangeability between natural capital and human capital. Natural capital is seen as needed to be preserved and changes in the ecosystem as irreversible which address the need of societal transformations and systemic changes in the economic system (Dietz & Neumayer, 2007). Ecological externalities such as pollution, damage to biodiversity and loss of genetic gene pool, which are the outcomes of so-called sustainable economic growth, are hence not accounted for in weak sustainable economic development (Giddings et al., 2002).
Sustainability orientation Examples of articles Important impact
Weak sustainability Dietz & Neumayer, 2007 Economic approach to sustainability
Technological progress will increase productivity of natural resources faster than it is being drained
Strong sustainability Ekins et al. 2003 Natural capital is more or less non-substitutable, i.e., they cannot be replicated by another capital component
Imran et al. 2014 Ecocentric dimension of
sustainable development Brozovic (2020) Strong sustainability and the
Business model
Place in sustainability conceptualizations – a priori or emergent
Inspired by Deetz (1996) who discuss how research concepts arise – we use the idea of origin of concepts as one dimension in the ‘role of place’-framework. Deetz (1996) labels the two extremes of the continuum as emergent and a priori. Much sustainability research (e.g., Bocken et al., 2015) tends to adopt a worldview where place is assumed a priori, hence given beforehand, a possible object for exploitation. This is shown in how place is treated as objective landscapes or positions on a map for extraction of resources (for example through bio-economy, resource efficiency, sustainable business etc.) – to be used for human well-being in the name of sustainability. With the a priori origin of place, place is not seen as local narrative with a history and tradition, instead place represents something measurable and objective. The place in this approach is emancipated from the local, and further tradable and exchangeable (on a market).
Meanwhile, research with a radically different approach to place sees places as complex and emergent phenomena (Guthey et al., 2014). Here places are not disconnected phenomena to economic activities nor “objects or sites on a map to be economically exploited” (Gruenewald, 2003: 624). Place is perhaps best viewed as an “evolving, even emergent complex of natural (ecological), cultural, social, political, and economic factors. Place involves more than cartographic space and more than just one firm or organizational space; it involves multiple scales of social and natural life” (Guthey et al., 2014: 257). Place as an emergent phenomenon implies a perspective where it becomes an integral part for citizens in a town, or employees at a factory, in the construction of meaning. The history of a place, local stories, the rootedness in the natural environment are all part of the creation of a narrative (Guthey et al., 2014). From the commoditization of place as a natural resource to an authentic place with inbuilt
history and meaning, place becomes shaped in both individual and collective processes of mattering (Barad, 2013).
Origin of place Examples of articles Important impact
Emergent Di Gregorio (2017), Shrivastava
& Kennelly (2013) Place as a local narrative Situated practical knowledge of place
Changeability and meaning as key concern
A priori Bocken et al., 2014 Place as emancipated from the
local
Business rationality as key concerns for sustainability
Initial framing of place
Based on the two dimensions discussed above; sustainability approach (weak sustainability or strong sustainability) and origin of the concept of place (a priori or emergent), we derive the following framework in order to further discuss the role of place in sustainability practice. Four different themes are identified as emerging: place as a resource place as meaning, place as location and place as landscape. See Figure 1. The themes will further be developed into a typology for the role of place in sustainability practices for business organizations in collaborative networks.
Figure 1 Initial place-sustainability framework
Research design
Given a research landscape with limited knowledge on the role between place in sustainability research and practice - where the notions from the Brundlantd report (WCED, 1987) worryingly
The origin of place Emergent
A Priori Sustainability
approach Weak Strong
Place as location landscapePlace as Place as meaning Place as resource
underestimate the connections between sustainability and place (Horlings et al., 2020) - we consider an abductive research approach in order to build in-depth understanding of the phenomena itself. The idea behind abductive reasoning is to jointly consider theory, literature and emerging data in an integrative manner (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). An abductive approach is open for iteratively moving between data, observations and abstract thinking. See Figure 2 for an explanation of the research process.
This paper draws on data from four different networks in the Swedish paper and pulp industry from two different research project spanning a three-year period (2018-2020). The industries are all ambitious in their strivings towards sustainability by increasing circular material flows (minimizing waste outcome). They all represent the crossroads of linking technical, ecological, circular solutions with economic aspects of business and are also all part of networks situated in the local region as well as nationally and internationally. The cases illustrate the different typologies of place in the theoretical sustainability discourse and the roles that place can have in sustainability practice.
Figure 2 The abductive research process
Interviews
All three researchers have been active participants in collaborative projects with the mentioned firms. The projects aimed at testing different sustainability practices regarding the reduction of waste materials. We performed interviews and project meetings at four different mills (A, B, C & D) and 3-4 interviews at each organization. The project meetings were important milestones to confirm and validate empirical interpretations but also as a step to redirect coming interviews. The interview lengths where approximately 1 hour and where recorded and transcribed before the content analysis with thematic categorization took place.
Empirical setting and data analysis
Place plays different roles in sustainability practices - demonstrated by our four cases. Both the temporal dimension (time) and the spatial dimension (space) of place is acknowledged – place with long history effect how sustainability is practiced and also the link to natural space (water reservoirs et cetera). We identified four different paradigms based on the theoretical framework, of the role of
Theoretical domain
Empirical domain
Conceptual starting points
-Place as essential part of sustainability practices
-Sustainability orientation -Place as emergent or a priori
- Eco-centric/anthropocentric approach
Stream of literature
-Place and sustainability -Sustainable development - Literature review of how place is framed and used in sustainability research The or et ic al fram ei ng Ev ol vi ng re se ar ch fra m ew or k Origin of place Sustainability
approach Weak Strong
Emergent A priori Em pi ric al st ar ting po int s
In different context and firms, place is related to sustainbaility in different ways. Place is implicit and explicit present in sustainability practices
The meaning of a place is also related to time and the temporal dimension. Realtion to a place drives sustainability practices.
Theoretical inspiration
-Environmental ecology -Geography
-Sustainability and green economy
Location Landscape (spatial) Meaning (temporal/spatial)
place in sustainability; (1) Extracting paradigm, (2) Excluding paradigm, (3) Exchanging paradigm, (4) Entwining paradigm. They all relate to one more first order concept, derived from the interviews, project meetings, internal documents, and external documents. In Table 1, representative excerpts from the different paper mills are shown to illustrate the different paradigms.
Paradigm First order concept Representative excerpt Organization
Extracting
paradigm Valorizing values from natural resources “Holmen has a long tradition of using and refining the resources of the nature. D There are several values within the sludge if we can splint it into its pieces. But we need to find ways to extract them
C
The mill's own deepwater harbour in Bråviken, a bay of the Baltic Sea, makes long distance transports cost-efficient and easily accessible.”
D
Natural resources as a
”mine” “It is possible to build a new landfill, that is, however, not easy and is also expensive. As it looks now, Our old landfill will have free capacity for another three-four years”.
A
Excluding
paradigm Sustainability as a business in itself “Primarily, it was the environmental aspect we wanted to ride on here and to use in our legitimacy building”.
A
Market domination “A resource is not a resource until anyone needs it. You need to consider the market”.
Exchanging
parading Mutual engagement with nature “We need to see our self as a recycling industry – not only a paper board mill.” B “The earth gives us the resources we need in order to develop our strong paperboard and to transport it over the whole continent.”
D
Strive for circular flows of
resources “Circularity means that renewable resources are being used, recycled and lastly burned for energy usage. Through this strategy, we reduce the amount of waste.”
D
“The co-location of the paper mill and the sawmill enables great synergies that benefit both the production and the environment. The sawmill supplies the paper mill with wood chips for pulp production, and in return they get hot water to make steam for the drying kilns.”
D
Entwining
paradigm Time as a key factor for sustainability “Still today, our production takes place on the same geographical points since it all started almost 400 years ago. “
Sustainability emerges as culture inside the organization
“If you discuss sustainability – isn’t that sustainable that we have been on the same place since 17th century.”
B
“The commitment to contribute to a sustainable development is deeply rooted inside our organization. “
B
Case summary
Below the four cases are briefly introduced – they are used abductivley in the research process, to illustrate, uncover and deepen the development of the typology for the role of place in sustainability.
Case Employees Founded Case summary
A. 190 1670 Paper- and pulp industry situated in
mid-Sweden in region Skaraborg. The paper mill has been located in the same place for over 300 years, on the shore to lake Vättern, the biggest drink water reservoir in Europe. As part of the waste material from the pulp mill inherit a range of different chemicals that are harmful for the surrounding area – material typically is directed to land fill.
B. 300 1637 The oldest paper mill was established almost 400 years ago, and is situated close to a water stream. Sustainability initiatives is geared towards establishing circular flows and a circular economy that involves actors in the surrounding business network. The initiatives concern for example new innovative ways of managing waste through both downcycling (reduced functionality) and upcycling (improved functionality) practices.
C. 670 1870 The third case is a producer of paper –
predominantly for the construction industry. Situated close to the river of Motala Ström, the factory is part of the surrounding neighborhoods. The mill are involved in several sustainability initiatives to improve the mills environmental efficiency but also to reduce the volume of waste that yearly is produced for land-fill and bio energy. Three project meetings and follow up interviews with moth management and co-workers where performed.
D. 600 1977 Situated along the same river as Case 2 and 3, the mill of Braviken produces paper and has done so since the 70’s at the same location. The mill was originally at a place
approximately 10km away but since the mill grew, the need for a new location increased.
Discussion – a place/sustainability typology
The aim of this paper is to emphasize the role of place in sustainability in relation to accelerating globalization and major structural transformation in the society. By combining theoretical framing and using illustrative examples from four different organizations in the Swedish paper- and pulp industry, involved in activities geared towards sustainability and circular economy, the study develops a typology of the role of place in sustainability. By using the framework presented earlier in Figure 1, we below present the typology with the four different paradigms based on the role of place in sustainability practices as noted in the firms. See Figure 3.
Figure 3 The role of place-typology
Excluding paradigm
The excluding paradigm is imprinted by an anthropocentric approach, and place is seen as a location; a position on a map with longitude, latitude and altitude. In this paradigm, sustainability becomes a matter of legitimacy building for organizations, for example through building od sustainable business model (Bocekn et al., 2014) – descriptions in annual reports to show different stake-holders its actions. However, this paradigm many times excludes or silences place as it is not given any further meaning in terms of sustainability. The place is given a priori and is not emerging nor evolving over time, and the history of the place is not necessarily taken into account.
Extracting paradigm
The extracting paradigm is mainly an anthropocentric worldview and place is regarded as something to exploit resources from: natural resource to extract for human well-being. The valorization of values
from natural resources are pre-dominant and place is seen as a resource which changes character over time and the valorization needs to be flexible in order to maximize benefit from the place. This
The origin of place Emergent
A Priori Sustainability
approach Weak Strong
Excluding paradigm (Place as location) Exchanging paradigm (Place as landscape) Entwining paradigm (Place as meaning) Extracting paradigm (place as resource)
paradigm is related to the approach of sustainability that is sprung from the 1980’s, as an pre-dominantly economic concept (WCED, 1987). In the above presented cases, the idea of extracting value from nature is many times showed when discussing a value adding product – take cellulose and valorizing value from it. The place and natural resources is like a mine where economic value can be realized.
Exchanging paradigm
In the exchanging paradigm, place is given a rather different meaning. Here the role of place is colored by an eco-centric worldview, which means that ecological values valued on par with human values. The idea of exchanging resources with nature implies a more carful approach with the idea of the all-encompassing ecosystem. Resources are finite and therefore, initiatives like circular economy are important parts of the exchanging paradigm (Frishammar & Parida, 2019).
Entwining paradigm
In the entwining paradigm, place is given an authentic and emerging meaning. Place is deeply rooted in the organization and in the mind of the employees. The place is many times manifested in a long history of the place. At Case B, the more than 400-year-old history has created an emotional relation to the place which affects the relation to sustainability – for example through the care of the surrounding nature and the knowledge of the history of the place. Time dimension, forces the organization to act with a more long-term approach – and they are constantly reminded of how old ways of dealing with material affect the organization for long time.
This paradigm is guided by an eco-centric approach, where it is not only human well-being in the center, instead caring about the natural place and it’s continued environmental wellbeing is central. The water stream surrounding the mill is also a local drink water reservoir, and as many of the employees also live in the community, the respect for the place is high. As the production in many cases have been conducted for centuries, the place is not only a natural resource, but it is also a historical place that connects present generation with previous. In all the four cases, the place can be seen as a driver for sustainability – as the place creates a deeper meaning and actively influence the sustainability practices.
Conclusions
Place deserve a central pillar in sustainability practice given the structural changes society is facing— both as a critical resource by integrating the local material dimensions of sustainability (e.g., land, ashes, sludge, technology, water, emissions) with the socially constructed management processes of framing sustainability (communication, reporting, legitimacy).
A place— with history and culture —is important for the surrounding communities and can acts as a stabilizer for sustainability actions. Without the presence of place, sustainability endeavors run the risk of becoming solely an exercise of management processes restricted within the firm’s social boundaries, disconnected from the physicality and materiality of the land, water, and air that constitutes the biological basis for all life. The concept of place engages a much broader range of actors in the network with relation to the material and the direct effects of the industries on the close environment such as for example drinking water reservoirs as is shown in this work. Thus, results from this research challenges the notion of de-coupling by recognizing the impact of the materially real economy on sustainability practices. It shows that the argument that economic activity and development can be de-coupled from sustainability initiatives and from material planetary boundaries is empirically faulty
and most likely also theoretically flawed. The typology presented, elaborates on the specific role of place in sustainability.
Theoretical contributions
By acknowledging the ecosystemic nature of sustainability challenges, we contribute with an empirical account and a theoretical framing of innovative approaches for collaboration and systematic interaction that can serve as catalysts for sustainability practices to take place through practices of making places matter. Hence, through this, we have contributed to the call for a better understanding of place in organizational research (Guthey et al., 2014) and also to a more generic sustainability discussion, by integration of multiple perspective (environmental ecology, organizational studies etc.). The four different paradigms identified in the study, contribute to sustainability in organizations by deepening our understanding of how the role of place both can mitigate and stimulate sustainability practices. An organizational focus on place can put meaning to sustainability through an increased awareness of the collaborative interplay between networks of organizations and its surrounding nature, and preventing a migration of meaning from the concept itself (Benson & Craig, 2013), hence
References
Augé M (1995) Non-places. Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London, Verso Bauman Z (2012) Liquid life. Polity Press, Cambridge
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 28(3), 801-831.
Baraldi, E., Fors, H., & Houltz, A. (Eds.). (2006). Taking Place: The Spatial Contexts of Science, Technology and Business. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications/USA.
Barbier, E. B. (2012). The green economy post Rio+ 20. Science, 338(6109), 887-888.
Bell, E., & Vachhani, S. J. (2019). Relational encounters and vital materiality in the practice of craft work. Organization Studies
Benson, M. H., & Craig, R. K. (2014). The end of sustainability. Society & Natural Resources, 27(7), 777-782.
Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.
Bocken, N. M. P., Rana, P., & Short, S. W. (2015). Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 32(1), 67-81.
Brozovic, D. (2020). Business model based on strong sustainability: Insights from an empirical study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 763-778.
Capasso, M., Hansen, T., Heiberg, J., Klitkou, A., & Steen, M. (2019). Green growth–A synthesis of scientific findings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 390-402.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 354-363.
Clinton, L., & Whisnant, R. (2019). Business model innovations for sustainability. In Managing Sustainable Business (pp. 463-503). Springer, Dordrecht.
Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cresswell, T (2004). Place: A short introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Deetz, S.A. (1996), “Describing differences in approaches to organization science: rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy”, Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 191-208.
Dietz, S., & Neumayer, E. (2007). Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement. Ecological economics, 61(4), 617-626.
Di Gregorio, D. (2017). Place-based business models for resilient local economies. Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy.
de Oliveira Neto, G. C., Pinto, L. F. R., Amorim, M. P. C., Giannetti, B. F., & de Almeida, C. M. V. B. (2018). A framework of actions for strong sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 1629–1643. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.067
Escobar A (2001) Culture sits in places: refection on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Polit Geogr 20:139–174
Frishammar, J., & Parida, V. (2019). Circular business model transformation: A roadmap for incumbent firms. California Management Review, 61(2), 5-29.
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895. Gertler, M. S., Wolfe, D. A., & Garkut, D. (2000). No place like home? The embeddedness of
innovation in a regional economy. Review of International Political Economy, 7(4).
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American educational research journal, 40(3), 619-654.
Gussow, D. (1971). A sense of place: The artist and the American land. San Francisco, CA: Friends of the Earth.
Guthey, G. T., Whiteman, G., & Elmes, M. (2014). Place and sense of place: Implications for organizational studies of sustainability. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(3), 254-265.
Hekman, S. (2010). The material of knowledge: Feminist disclosures. Indiana University Press.
Hoffman, A. J. (2014). The fourth wave, management science and practice in the age of the Anthropocene.
Horlings, L. G., Roep, D., Mathijs, E., & Marsden, T. (2020). Exploring the transformative capacity of place-shaping practices. Sustainability Science, 15(2), 353-362.
Hägerstrand, T. (1975). Space, Time and Human Conditions. In A. Karlquist, L. Lundqvist, & F. Snickars (Eds.), Dynamic Allocation of Urban Space (pp. 3-12). Farnborough: Saxon House.
Hägerstrand, T. (1976). Geography and the study of interaction between society and nature. Geoforum, 7, 329-334.
Imran, S., Alam, K., & Beaumont, N. (2014). Reinterpreting the definition of sustainable development for a more ecocentric reorientation. Sustainable Development, 22(2), 134-144.
Landrum, N. E. (2018). Stages of corporate sustainability: Integrating the strong sustainability
worldview. Organization & Environment, 31(4), 287–313.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026617717456
Perey, R., Benn, S., Agarwal, R., & Edwards, M. (2018). The place of waste: Changing business value for the circular economy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(5), 631–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. 2068
Pieroni, M. P., McAloone, T., & Pigosso, D. A. (2019). Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of cleaner production.
Prenkert, F. (2013). The Interactive Constitution of Actors in Industrial Networks: The Case of the Norwegian City of Ålesund. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(6), 10-28. doi:DOI: 10.5430/ijba.v4n6p10
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Thre pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14, 641 - 695.
Ramos, T. B. (2019). Sustainability Assessment: Exploring the Frontiers and Paradigms of Indicator Approaches. Sustainability, 11(3), 824.
Ramos, T. B., Caeiro, S., Disterheft, A., Mascarenhas, A., Deutz, P., Spangenberg, J. H., ... & Sohal, A. (2020). Rethinking sustainability: Questioning old perspectives and developing new ones. Journal of Cleaner Production, 120769.
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. London: Random House Business Books.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placlessness. London, England: Pion.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin Iii, F. S., Lambin, E., . . . Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2). doi:10.5751/ES-03180-140232
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., ... & Folke, C. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172-194.
Trebeck, K., & Williams, J. (2019). The Economics of Arrival: Ideas for a Grown Up Economy. Bristol: Policy Press.
UNEP, U. (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication.
van der Ploeg JD (2010). The peasantries of the twenty-first century: the commoditisation debate revisited. J Peasant Stud 37(1):1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903498721
Walck, C. L. (1996). Organizations as places: a metaphor for change. Journal of Organizational Change
Wells, P., & Nieuwenhuis, P. (2017). Operationalizing deep structural sustainability in business: longitudinal immersion as extensive engaged scholarship. British Journal of Management, 28(1), 45-63.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future (Also known as The Brundtland Report). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
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.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 216-226.
