Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability from a planetary boundaries and modern corporate capitalism perspective
Abstract views: 56 / PDF downloads: 47
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15637/jlecon.2498Keywords:
Continuity, Sustainability, Planetary Boundaries, Modern Corporate Capitalism, Corporate SustainabilityAbstract
The world’s natural resources and ecosystems have been and continue to be degraded at an alarming level. This is why resource scarcity is the most important obstacle to corporate sustainability and the most important agenda item for companies. Sustainability for companies requires stopping biodiversity loss and ecosystem decline, reducing climate change and improving environmental conditions more generally. However, the business plans and incentives to do this are currently very weak. The spiral in this regard is that although environmental problems are still seen as “externalities” in the current economic paradigm, nature continues to be degraded and undervalued instead of being seen as a basic natural capital that requires management and investment for the future survival of humanity. There are many resources and initiatives that provide advice and guidance to companies on specific actions, targets or metrics for more sustainable business decisions, but a significant number of them equate “less impact” with sustainability, rather than sustainability in the context of limited resources and natural capital. On the other hand, since they do not consider the Earth System as a holistic structure, they often focus on ecosystems and the environment at the local or regional level. It is an undeniable fact that a new and more sophisticated awareness is needed to understand which business actions are truly sustainable. In this way, it is inevitable to prioritize approaches that can offer very useful solutions that address various challenges, especially those related to the destabilization of the Earth System as a whole. We need to prepare strategies and action plans within the framework of Planetary Boundaries (PB) to guide actions, not only to improve ecosystems and biodiversity (our natural capital) at local and regional scales, but also to improve the planetary systems that govern the stability of the Earth System. Using the PB framework to inform corporate sustainability decisions, particularly in supply chains, will enable businesses to understand the macro-level implications of their impacts and help them focus on specific actions to address them.
The main objective of this study in this context is to review the ecological and systemic foundations for corporate sustainability with a new paradigm that is more holistic, integrative, ecological and empowering. and to ensure integration with environmental, social and governance (ESG). In this way, the value of the PB framework, along with its challenges and limitations is introduced. It can be demonstrated how the PB framework can be applied in a corporate context. Innovative approaches based on the PB framework is proposed and the next milestones for integrating companies into the PB framework development is identified.
Downloads
References
AKYÜZ, A. A. (2021). Ekolojik Gezegen Modellemeleri ve Anlam Dünyası Olarak Geleceğin Coğrafyası, Reflektif Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2)
BAWA, P. E. & KNICKLE, K. (January 2024) Green Quadrant: ESG and Sustainability Consulting, https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
BÖHRINGERA, C. & JOCHEMC, P.E.P. (2007), Measuring the Immeasurable — A Survey of Sustainability Indices, Ecological Economics, 63(1), 1-8.
CASH, D.W. vd. (2006). Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecol. Soc. 11, Article 8. https://shorturl.at/bJwAs
CHAPIN, F. S. vd. (2000). Consequences of changing biotic diversity. Nature 405:234–242. https://www.nature.com/articles/35012241
ELMACI, O. & EMRE, Ş. (2021). Sürdürebilirlik Performansını Değerlendirme Ölçeği, Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi
GLADWIN, T.N., KENNELY, JJ. & KRAUSE, T. (1995) Shifting Paradigms For Sustainable Development: Implicatıons For Management Theory And Research, Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(4).
FİDANOĞLU, A. (2021). Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Oryantasyonunun İşletme Performansına Etkisinde Sürdürülebilir Tedarik ve Ürün Tasarımının Aracılık ile Tedarikçilerle Entegrasyonun Düzenleyici Rolü, (Basılmamış Doktora Tezi), Hasan Kalyoncu Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Gaziantep.
GLADWIN, T.N., KENNELY, J. J. & KRAUSE, T. (1995). Shifting Paradigms For Sustainable Development: Implications For Management Theory and Research, Academy of Management Review, 20(4).
HART, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20, 986–1014.
HART, S. L. & DOWELL, G. (2011). A natural-resource-based view of the firm: fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464-1479.
HARDIN, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243–8.
HOFFMAN, A. J. (2011). Thirty-five years of research on business and the natural environment. Part 1: a statistical synopsis. Available at: http://oneaomonline.blogspot.com/2011/07/thirty-five-years-ofresearch-on.html (accessed 17 July 2012).
KALLIO, T. J., & NORDBERG, P. (2006). The Evolution of Organizations and Natural Environment Discourse: Some Critical Remarks. Organization & Environment, 19, 439-457.
KING, A. A. & LENOX, M. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the chemical industry’s Responsible Care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 698–716.
LYNCH, M.J. & STRETESKY, P. (2003). The Meaning of Green: Towards a Clarification of the Term Green and Its Meaning for the Development of a Green Criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 7(2), pp.217-238.
LYNCH, M. J. & STRETSKY, P. B. (2003), The meaning of green: Contrasting criminological perspectives, Green Criminology, pp.507-528.
MEUER, J. & FISS, P. C., (2020). Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Business and Management Research, (oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/602e9115cafb1a24216985bb/t/6040f232bbcd3b445625c2eb/1614869055459/Meuer+%26+Fiss+ORE+2020.pdf / https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1086026619850180?journalCode=oaec
MAZUR, B. & WALCZYNA, A. (2020). Bridging Sustainable Human Resource Management and Corporate Sustainability, Sustainability, 12/21, 8987-9007.
MEADOWS, D.H., MEADOWS, D.L., RANDERS, J. & BEHRENS III, W.W. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.
MEADOWS, D.H., MEADOWS, D.L. & RANDERS, J. (1992). Beyond the limits: Global collapse or a sustainable future. Earthscan publications.
MEADOWS, D.H., MEADOWS, D.L. & RANDERS, J. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. Chelsea Green Publishing.
MILNE, M. J., BALL, A. & GRAY, R. (2008). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the istitutionalization of corporate sustainability reporting’. Paper presented to the American Accounting Association, Anaheim, August https:/www.researchgate.net/publication/283117022_Whither_Ecology_The_Triple_Bottom_Line_the_Global_
Reporting_Initiative_and_Corporate_Sustainability_Reporting
NILSSON, M. & PERSSON, Å. (2012). Can Earth System Interactions be Governed? Governance Functions for Linking Climate Change Mitigation with Land Use, Freshwater and Biodiversity Protection. Ecological Economics, 75, 61–71.
OSTROM, E., BURGER, J., FIELD, C. B., NORGAARD, R. B. & POLICANSKY, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278–82.
ROCKSTRÖM, J vd. (2009a). A safe operating space for humanity.” Nature 461: 472-475.
ROCKSTRÖM, J vd. (2004). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461: 472-475.
SHRIVASTAVA, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), s. 936-960.
TEKIN, B. (2023), Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik ile Hizmet Kalitesi Arasındaki ilişkinin Belirlenmesi: Oda ve Borsalar Üzerine Bir Uygulama, Doktora Tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi.
WALKER, H., DI SISTO, L., & MCBAIN, D. (2008). Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: Lessons from the public and private sec tors. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14(1), 69-85.
WALKER, J. M., (2002),The Protein Protocols Handbook, 2.edition, Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey
WACKERNAGEL, M. & REES, W. (1998), Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth, New society publishers, 1998/7/1
WHITEMAN, G., WALKER, B. & PEREGO, P. (2012). Planetary Boundaries: Ecological Foundations for Corporate Sustainability, Journal of Management Studies, https://shorturl.at/lKQVa
WRIGHT, C. & NYBERG, D. (2015), Climate Change, Capitalism, and Corporations, Cambridge University Presss.
https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limitsto-growth/
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html
https://eco-act.com/transformation/planetary-boundaries-businesses/
https://transitiontaskforce.net/
CSRD, https://shorturl.at/hrN24
IFRS, https://www.ifrs.org/groups/international-sustainability-standards-board/
KPMG https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2021/03/sustainability-reporting-strategic-direction.html
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb054798/full/html
http://www.skdturkiye.org/files/yayin/reporting-matters-turkiye-2021-raporu.pdf
https://www.wwf.org.tr/?2340/IPCC5degerlendirmeraporuaciklandi
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 JOURNAL OF LIFE ECONOMICS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
When the article is accepted for publication in the Journal of Life Economics, authors transfer all copyright in the article to the Holistence Publications.The authors reserve all proprietary right other than copyright, such as patent rights.
Everyone who is listed as an author in this article should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work and should take public responsibility for it.
This paper contains works that have not previously published or not under consideration for publication in other journals.