Search results

Towards ecological management

This article will discuss philosophical debates on economic growth and environmental sustainability, the role of management responsibility, and the risk of subversion to business as usual. This discussion will be framed using the concepts of Cradle to Cradle (C2C) and Circular Economy about sustainable production. The case study illustrating the danger of subversion of these progressive models discussed here is based on the assignments submitted by Masters students as part of a course related to sustainable production and consumption at Leiden University. The evaluation of the supposedly best practice cases placed on the website of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation or those awarded Cradle to Cradle certificate has led some students to conclude that these cases illustrated green-washing. Larger implications of identified cases of green-washing for the field of sustainable business and ecological management are discussed. “This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in 'Philosophy of Management'. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00108-x LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/

Designing sharing logistics as a disruptive innovation in city logistics

European Renewable Energy: Applying circular economy thinking to policy-making

This article addresses European energy policy through conventional and transformative sustainability approaches. The reader is guided towards an understanding of different renewable energy options that are available on the policy making table and how the policy choices have been shaped. In arguing that so far, European energy policy has been guided by conventional sustainability framework that focuses on eco-efficiency and ‘energy mix’, this article proposes greater reliance on circular economy (CE) and Cradle to Cradle (C2C) frameworks. Exploring the current European reliance on biofuels as a source of renewable energy, this article will provide recommendations for transition to transformative energy choices. http://dx.doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/2331 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/

Entrepreneuring a regenerative society

Our planet’s ecology and society are on a collision course, which manifests due to a contradiction in the assumptions of unlimited material growth fueling the linear economic paradigm. Our closed planetary ecosystem imposes confined amounts of space and a finite extent of resources upon its inhabitants. However, practically all the economic perspectives have been defiantly neglecting these realities, as resources are extracted, used and disposed of reluctantly (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015). The circular economy attempts to reconcile the extraction, production and usage of goods and resources with the limited availability of those resources and nature’s regenerative capabilities This perspective entails a shift throughout the supply chain, from material science (e g non-toxic, regenerative biomaterials) to novel logistical systems (e g low-carbon reverse logistics). Because of this, the circular economy is often celebrated for its potential environmental benefits and its usefulness as a blueprint for sustainable development (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017). Unfortunately, the promise of the circular economy aiming at enhanced sustainability through restorative intent and design (McDonough & Braungart 2010), is often inhibited by institutional barriers posed by the current linear economy of take, make, use and waste (Ghisellini et al. 2016). Underlying those barriers our cultural paradigm celebrates consumerism, exponential growth and financial benefit instead of human values such as diversity, care and trust. Based on a mapping exercise of the circular economy discourse in the Netherlands and an overview of international (academic) literature (Van den Berg 2020) supplemented with collaborative co-creation sessions, visiting events, conferences, giving talks and classes, we have defined a gap leading to the focus of the Professorship. First, we highlight the importance of a process approach in studying the transition from a linear to a circular economy, which is why we use the verb ‘entrepreneuring’ as it indicates the movement we collectively need to make. The majority of work in the field is based on start-ups and only captures snapshots while longitudinal and transition perspectives - especially of larger companies - are missing (Merli et al. 2019; Geissdoerfer et al. 2018; Bocken et al. 2014). We specifically adopt an entrepreneurship-as-practice lens (Thompson, Verduijn & Gartner 2020), which allows us to trace the doings – as opposed to only the sayings - of organizations involved in circular innovation. Such an approach also enables us to study cross-sector and interfirm collaboration, which is crucial to achieve ecosystem circularity (Raworth 2019). As materials flow between actors in a system, traditional views of ‘a value chain’ slowly make way for an ecosystem or value web perspective on ‘organizing business’. We summarize this first theme as ‘entrepreneurship as social change’ broadening dominant views of what economic activity is and who the main actors are supposed to be (Barinaga 2013; Calás, Smircich & Bourne 2009; Steyaert & Hjorth 2008; Nicholls 2008). Second, within the Circular Business Professorship value is a big word in two ways. First of all, we believe that a transition to a circular economy is not just a transition of materials, nor technologies - it is most of all a transition of values We are interested in how people can explore their own agency in transitioning to a circular economy thereby aligning their personal values with the values of the organization and the larger system they are a part of Second, while circularity is a broad concept that can be approached through different lenses, the way in which things are valued and how value is created and extracted lies at the heart of the transition (Mazzucato 2018). If we don’t understand value as collectively crafted it will be very hard to change things, which is why we specifically focus on multiplicity and co-creation in the process of reclaiming value, originating from an ethics of care Third, sustainability efforts are often concerned with optimization of the current – linear – system by means of ecoefficient practices that are a bit ‘less bad’; using ’less resources’, causing ‘less pollution’ and ‘having less negative impact’. In contrast, eco-effective practices are inherently good, departing from the notion of abundance: circular thinking celebrates the abundance of nature’s regenerative capacities as well as the abundance of our imagination to envision new realities (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015). Instead of exploiting natural resources, we should look closely in order to learn how we can build resilient self-sustaining ecosystems like the ones we find in nature. We are in need of rediscovering our profound connection with and appreciation of nature, which requires us to move beyond the cognitive and employ an aesthetic perspective of sustainability This perspective informs our approach to innovating education: aesthetics can support deep sustainability learning (Ivanaj, Poldner & Shrivastava 2014) and contribute to facilitating the circular change makers of the future. The current linear economy has driven our planet’s ecology and society towards a collision course and it is really now or never: if we don’t alter the course towards a circular economy today, then when? When will it become urgent enough for us to take action? Which disaster is needed for us to wake up? We desperately need substitutes for the current neo-liberal paradigm, which underlies our linear society and prevents us from becoming an economy of well-being In Entrepreneuring a regenerative society I propose three research themes – ‘entrepreneurship as social change’, ‘reclaiming value’ and ‘the aesthetics of sustainability’ – as alternative ways of embracing, studying and co-creating such a novel reality. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kim-poldner-a003473/

The paradox of tourism extremes. Excesses and restraints in times of COVID-19

This paper seeks to highlight underlying issues of the tourism system that have led to tourism extremes of too much or too little tourism. Five phases are recognized that reflect different ways of dealing with too much tourism over time, after which the impact of a sudden lack of tourism is investigated in light of future renewal processes. This discussion highlights the remarkable capacity of the tourism industry to adjust to rapidly changing circumstances and crises, even when these cause anguish to individuals and within societies at large. The paper thus seeks to contextualize the current discussions regarding the transformation of tourism post COVID-19. It highlights the complexity of changing a tourism that multiple stakeholders depend on or have grown accustomed to. To come to a more balanced tourism, it is necessary to not only come up with alternative visions and strategies, but also to engage with the political economy nature of tourism development. A future research agenda should therefore also discuss facets of entangled power, social exclusion, inequalities and class differences to come to new reference points of what actually constitutes a more inclusive tourism success.

Shaping the entrepreneurial mindset – the cases of Social Entrepreneurship HUBs within higher education in Thailand and Myanmar

Background: The full potential of social entrepreneurship remains challenging to achieve, despite continuous efforts in various economies, including South-East Asia. Several obstacles need to be addressed, such as the scarcity of skilled employees, limited business understanding among founders, difficulties accessing funding and infrastructure, and the absence of proper social impact measurement. Higher education institutions (HEIs) often face constraints in engaging and supporting early entrepreneurial activities, exacerbating the imbalance in the social entrepreneurship landscape. This imbalance has been observed in both Thailand and Myanmar. Research objectives: The Erasmus+ funded project, STEPup, running from 2020 to 2023, recognized an opportunity to foster innovative social entrepreneurship practices tailored for disruptive business settings in these two countries. By applying the challenge-based learning approach through interactive case challenge proceedings involving social entrepreneurs, faculty mentors and students, the development of the entrepreneurial mindset of the latter group was studied. Research design and methods: To accomplish this, a multi-method research design was chosen, which involved a case-challenge experience within the framework of 6 universities, a questionnaire-based survey conducted among the student population which took part in the case-challenge experience and desk research. Results: The study revealed the necessity for a self-organizing and organic support system for social entrepreneurship. The objective of this paper is to present recommendations and strategic guidelines to enhance access and opportunities for existing social enterprises and social entrepreneurs seeking to establish and sustain a social enterprise ecosystem. The proposed framework leverages the support, expertise, and structure of existing higher education institutions. Conclusions: Higher Education Institutions can serve as excellent cases demonstrating how to design and develop resource hubs for social enterprise practitioners and engage stakeholders from all sectors to address social issues and promote awareness.