Back to Reality: Environment Is More Than An Issue

setyoufreenews.com

Editor’s note: We are pleased to welcome Pratima Bansal of the University of Western Ontario and Janelle Knox-Hayes of the Georgia Institute of Technology, whose paper “The Time and Space of Materiality in Organizations and the Natural Environment” was published in the March 2013 issue of Organization & Environment.

The invitation to contribute to the inaugural issue of Organization & Environment for the new editorial team presented us an opportunity to push forward ideas that we had been discussing for several years. The editors encouraged us to be bold, so we were able to describe issues that we believe are critical to the future of organizations and environment research.

The core argument in this article is that physical materiality, as reflected in the natural environment, is fundamentally different from the sociomateriality that comprises organizations and markets. Time and space are more easily compressed in the sociomateriality of organizations, than in the physical environment.

We argue that the time and space compression of organizations has contributed to many environmental issues. For example, the accelerating speed of new generations of computing equipment is taking a toll on the natural environment, such as climate change. We call for more explicit attention to time and space in organizational studies, in order to manage the relationship between organizations and the natural environment.

This work also has important policy implications. In particular, we suggest that policy instruments need to be connected to the temporal and spatial qualities of the issue being managed. Direct carbon regulation, therefore, is more effective than carbon markets in managing carbon, because it imposes controls on when and where the emissions occur. Carbon markets, on the other hand, are open to distortion.

Click here to read the paper, “The Time and Space of Materiality in Organizations and the Natural Environment,” in Organization & Environment.

Pratima Bansal is the Canada Research Chair in Business Sustainability at the Richard Ivey School of Business, Western University, Canada. Her research focuses on aspects of time, space, and scale in organizations. She has published in the Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal, among others.

Janelle Knox-Hayes is an assistant professor of economic geography at the Georgia Institute of Technology and a research associate at the University of Oxford department of geography and environment. Her research focuses on the institutional development of emissions markets in Europe, the United States and Asia. Her work has been published in journals such as the Journal of Economic Geography, the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, and Strategic Organization.

Earth Day 2013: Why Go Green?

Bobs Market (cc)

What does it mean to be green in today’s business and management world? Today, we celebrate Earth Day by highlighting an article in Organization & Environment that studies sustainable development reports, triple bottom line reports, and health, safety, and environment
reports to find the answers:

There are potential “winners” and “losers” in the sustainable development arena—the ability to obtain and maintain the dominant discursive formation on the concept of sustainable development may be politically advantageous. Resisting it may even seem individually disadvantageous to organizations. The discursive struggle around bringing “meaning” to sustainable development involves many groups, including governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), business organizations, and academics, all of whom construct the meaning of the phrase in their own terms.

Read “The Politics of Knowing ‘Organizational Sustainable Development,’” published by Helen Tregidga of Auckland University of Technology, Kate Kearins of Auckland University of Technology, and Markus Milne of University of Canterbury in the Organization & Environment March 2013 issue.

Earth Day 2013: The Present and Future of CSR Research

In anticipation of Earth Day tomorrow, we are pleased to highlight an article in Business & Society on the impact of Newsweek magazine’s 2009 Greenest Companies ratings on financial market outcomes. This large-scale environmental assessment evaluates the impact of sustainability ratings on 500 of the largest U.S. companies. Read “Environmental Disclosure: Evidence from Newsweek’s Green Companies Rankings,’” published by Thomas P. Lyon of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and Jay P. Shimshack of Tulane University in Business & Society OnlineFirst, publish ahead of print, August 13, 2012.

In the journal Organization, a special issue on the current trajectory of Corporate Social Responsibility in both scholarly inquiry and business practice asks “Is there anything substantively useful in the area of CSR research when it comes to providing some ethical guidelines for the way business is done today, or should it be abandoned as just another piece of capitalist ideology? If there is an overriding feeling that we have all been some­how ‘duped’ by the premises and solutions of CSR, what might be the best way forward when its presence is more widespread now than ever?” Read “In Search of Corporate Social Responsibility: Introduction to Special Issue” published by Peter Fleming of Queen Mary College, UK, John Roberts, Sydney Business School, Australia and Christina Garsten of University of Stockholm, Sweden and the rest of the special issue in the Organization May 2013 issue.

Sparking a Revolution In Clean Energy?

Random_fotos (cc)

Editor’s note: We are pleased to welcome Alfred Marcus of the University of Minnesota, whose article “The Promise and Pitfalls of Venture Capital as an Asset Class for Clean Energy Investment: Research Questions for Organization and Natural Environment Scholars,” co-authored by Joel Malen of the University of Minnesota and Shmuel Ellis of Tel Aviv University, was published in the Organization & Environment March 2013 issue.

I wanted to know if venture capital (VC) could spark a revolution in clean energy like it sparked a revolution in information technology. What was the potential of this type of funding for clean energy and what were the limitations? Undoubtedly funding was rising rapidly but would VC be as transformative in this area as it was in information technology? Could it spawn great companies and change the way we live?

The persistence of VC funding of clean energy given that the payoffs are hard to achieve and the fact that VCs have under a decade to achieve these payoffs is  surprising. The first decade of the 21st century was not a good one for VCs. IPOs and exits were down and the VCs thrive in an era when these are rising. Moreover, many of the good opportunities in other areas in which they had invested like information and medical technology were no longer as vibrant or as promising. That they moved into clean energy and stuck with it to the degree that they did was surprising.

If we are concerned about sustainability, then we have to understand how the financing of companies that will achieve a more sustainable future will take place. These companies need long term support but VCs are not in the business of providing long term support. They provide transitional money for companies that have substantial promise but are not quite ready to commercialize their ideas. The really pioneering ideas in clean energy are only taken up by the true believers among the VCs and often their staying power in the industry is not long because the pension funds, endowments, and individual investors who provide money to the VCs need reasonable returns in a relatively short time period. Where in our society will we find the funding for long term risk taking? Without long term risk taking we will simply make incremental adjustments and miss the truly transformative potential of entrepreneurial ideas.

Read “The Promise and Pitfalls of Venture Capital as an Asset Class for Clean Energy Investment: Research Questions for Organization and Natural Environment Scholars“  in the new issue of Organization & Environment.

Alfred Marcus is the Edson Spencer Endowed Chair in Strategy and Technological Leadership at the Carlson School of Management and at the Technological Leadership Institute (TLI) College of Science and Engineering University of Minnesota. Professor Marcus’ research has been published by the Strategic Management Journal, the Academy of Management Journal, and other academic journals. He also is the author or editor of 15 books including Cross-Sector Leadership for the Green Economy: Integrating Research and Practice on Sustainable Enterprise (2011) and Strategic Foresight: A New Look at Scenarios (2009). He was co-editor of a special 2011 fall issue of the California Management Review on regulatory uncertainty and the natural environment.

Book Review: The Politics of Actually Existing Unsustainability

Barry, J. (2012). The Politics of Actually Existing Unsustainability: Human Flourishing in a Climate-Changed, Carbon-Constrained World. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Read the review by Ted Benton of the University of Essex, forthcoming in Organization & Environment and now available in the journal’s OnlineFirst section.

This, John Barry’s latest book-length contribution to green political debate, offers original and engaging thought that draws not only on the latest scholarship but also on Barry’s own direct involvement as a Green party activist and office-holder in Northern Ireland. The main thrust of Barry’s argument is for a version of what he calls “Green Republicanism” that might serve as a policy orientation to take us away from a currently unsustainable and unjust form of social and economic life while defending the key socio-political values of liberty and democracy.

Click here to continue reading, and click here to receive e-alerts about the latest research from the journal that aims to encourage rigorous explorations and analyses of the connections between the management of organizations and any of the relevant dimensions of sustainability.

Time to Reverse the Sustainability Crisis

Akuppa (cc)

Editor’s note: The new issue of Organization & Environment (OAE) is now available online! We are delighted to welcome Mark Starik of San Francisco State University and Patricia Kanashiro of George Washington University, who published the lead article, “Toward a Theory of Sustainability Management: Uncovering and Integrating the Nearly Obvious.” Click here to access the full issue free through March 15.

The inspiration for this article was the relentless, continuous, and distressing news about both environmental degradation and socio-economic deprivation that most of us receive on at least a day-to-day basis, which we think should prompt both sustainability academics and practitioners to do something differently in order to help reverse these sustainability crises.  We proposed that, if organization/management theory has any relevance to practice (and, thereby, to results), and, if our current organization/management theories do not appear to be up to the task of assisting in this vital transformation toward sustainability, then new theories of sustainability management apparently need to be developed, considered, tested, and applied.

We think many sustainability researchers (both academic and non-academic) have “bent over backwards” trying to use traditional organization/management theories to help guide practice for more effective sustainable results, and some of these have been stellar in quality.  But, they do not appear to be providing enough of a positive impact on practice and results to reverse our collective environmental and socio-economic looming catastrophes.

So, our proposed sustainability management theory, which we think is one of many such possibilities, suggests that the more frequently, broadly, deeply, genuinely, competently, and systematically that individuals, organizations, and societies are aware of, think about, and act on sustainability issues, the more likely it is that eventually the results of those actions will be more sustainable  (which we describe as the capacity to advance long-term environmental and socio-economic quality of life) and will be so on a significant scale.  We assert that what we collectively appear to need to move toward, including at the individual, organizational, and societal levels, is to immerse ourselves in the rationales for environmental and socio-economic sustainability and to identify how we can practice effective approaches as often and as widely as possible to make a significant positive sustainability impact.

Regarding the potential for our article to influence future directions in research and practice, our intent was and hope is that the article will generate multiple conversations about the need for sustainability management theories, what these theories might entail that is either similar to or different from ours, and, perhaps most importantly, how any sustainability management theories that are found to be effective can be applied as soon, as widely, and as often as possible.  We welcome all researchers (both academic and practitioner) to develop and test their own theories of sustainability management and to collaborate with one another in evolving those theories and, from local to global levels, in making a substantial, positive sustainability difference.

Click here to read the article, “Toward a Theory of Sustainability Management: Uncovering and Integrating the Nearly Obvious,” in the new issue of Organization & Environment (OAE). All articles are available free through March 15. 

Mark Starik is a professor of management and sustainability and the director of the Center for Ethical and Sustainable Business in the College of Business at San Francisco State University. He researches and teaches in the areas of business environmental and energy management and policy; has consulted with various business, government, and nonprofit organizations; and is a coeditor of Organization & Environment. He holds a doctorate in strategic management from the University of Georgia.

Patricia Kanashiro is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Strategic Management and Public Policy in the School of Business of the George Washington University. Her research interests are in sustainability, corporate governance, and business strategies for the poor in developing countries.

Obama Vows to Act on Climate Change

Caza_No_7 (cc)

As reported in The New York Times, President Barack Obama devoted special attention to climate-change goals in his second Inaugural Address on Monday. From nytimes.com:

After coming to office four years ago on a pledge to heal the planet and turn back the rise of the seas, he is proceeding cautiously this time, Democrats said, intent on making sure his approach is vetted politically, economically and technologically so as not to risk missing what many environmental advocates say could be the last best chance for years to address the problem.

The centerpiece will be action by the Environmental Protection Agency to clamp down further on emissions from coal-burning power plants under regulations still being drafted — and likely to draw legal challenges.

Today, we examine relevant research in “The Messy Politics of ‘Clean Coal’: The Shaping of a Contested Term in Appalachia’s Energy Debate,” published by Jenrose Fitzgerald of the University of Kentucky in the Organization & Environment December 2012 issue:

Clean coal is a widely used and highly contested term in debates over energy policy and climate change in the United States. While the discourse of “clean coal” originated in industry and government circles, it has been debated, shaped, and contested by a wide range of players, including environmental and social justice groups. In this article, I examine how different local, regional, and national environmental and social justice groups participate in debating and defining these technologies and their implications for the energy future of the region.

Read more at oae.sagepub.com, and click here to sign up for e-alerts from the journal.

Also, don’t miss our guest contribution from expert Andrew Hoffman on the ‘how’ in the climate-change debate.

Beyond “I Have a Dream”

ChellieL (cc)

On Martin Luther King day, 2013, we look back at the Business & Society December 2008 issue for insights on what management scholars and practitioners can learn from Dr. King:

Jeanne M. Logsdon of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque and Audrey J. Murrell of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania published “Beyond ‘I Have a Dream’ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Contributions to Management Scholarship and Practice“:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is regarded by many as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. He challenged the status quo of racial discrimination by using America’s historic ideals of freedom and opportunity to create and strengthen support for social change through brilliant rhetoric and courageous actions. As some of the worst practices of racial discrimination began to be dismantled in the mid-1960s, he focused attention on economic justice for all disadvantaged groups. His role as social activist committed to nonviolent confrontation earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.

Dr. King is rightfully honored as an eminent historical figure of a significant social movement, whose life was tragically cut short at age 39 when he was assassinated in 1968. But do his life and legacy have relevance today? In particular, what does his work have to say to the business-and-society field and for management in general?

Darryl D. Roberts of Emory University, Laura Morgan Roberts of Harvard University, Regina M. O’Neill of Suffolk University, and Stacy D. Blake-Beard of Simmons College published “The Invisible Work of Managing Visibility for Social Change Insights From the Leadership of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr“

James R. Jones of the University of Nebraska at Omaha, David C. Wilson of the University of Delaware, and Peggy Jones of the University of Nebraska at Omaha published “Toward Achieving the ‘Beloved Community’ in the Workplace Lessons for Applied Business Research and Practice From the Teachings of Martin Luther King Jr.“

The ‘How’ In the Climate Debate

andrewhoffman.net

Editor’s note: We are delighted to welcome Andrew Hoffman, the Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business and School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) where he is also Director of The Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise. Professor Hoffman is a leader in using organizational, network and strategic analyses to assess the implications of environmental issues for business. He kindly provided the following commentary on his work and on how social science research can make a difference.

The social debate around climate change is no longer about carbon dioxide and climate models. It is about values, culture, worldviews and ideology. As physical scientists explore the mechanics and implications of anthropogenic climate change, social scientists explore the cultural reasons why people support or reject their scientific conclusions.

What we find is that scientists do not hold the definitive final word in the public debate on this issue. Instead, the public develops positions that are consistent with the values held by others within the referent groups of which they are part.  In this context, efforts to present ever increasing amounts of data, without attending to the deeper values that are threatened by the conclusions they lead to, will only yield greater resistance and make a social consensus even more elusive.

Academic research focused on business decision-making, firm behavior, and the protection of the natural environment began as a modest off shoot of management research in the late 1980s and has grown into a maturing area of study within the management sciences, encompassing a wide range of disciplines. And now, with the established body of literature that has been built, it is possible to step back and view the state of this field in terms of where it has been and where it is going.

It is now possible to consider in broad terms the history of B&NE, the central themes in the field as they exist today and where are the fruitful areas of future research.  This can be helpful for both senior members of the field as well as new and junior members to explore the full range of the research domain as well as its individual pieces.

Don’t miss these related publications by Professor Hoffman, winner of the Journal of Management Inquiry “Breaking the Frame” award for “The BP Oil Spill as a Cultural Anomaly? Institutional Context, Conflict, and Change,” co-authored by P. Devereaux Jennings.
Business and the Natural Environment
The Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment
Climate Science as Culture War
The Social and Psychological Foundations of Climate Change

The 21st Century Crisis?

Mr. T in DC (cc)

Is it possible to reduce consumption and achieve ecological sustainability while still meeting humanity’s basic needs? Research in The Journal of Environment & Development and the Review of Radical Political Economics looks at the issues and potential solutions:

“Technology Is Not Enough: Climate Change, Population, Affluence, and Consumption,” by Ronald B. Mitchell of the University of Oregon, published in the JED March 2012 issue:

If we fail to develop policies proactively to constrain population, affluence, and consumption while respecting other human values, we will almost certainly face impacts from climate change that constrain population, affluence, and consumption for us.

“The 21st Century Crisis: Climate Catastrophe or Socialism,” by Minqi Li of the University of Utah, published in the RRPE September 2011 issue:

Under the current trend, the world is on track towards an extreme greenhouse state that threatens to destroy human civilization and nearly all forms of life on Earth. Without an end to economic growth, it is virtually impossible for meaningful climate stabilization to be achieved. However, both capitalist enterprises and states are constantly driven to expand production and consumption.