Sustainable business models are all the craze right now. Firms are making many claims that their activities create social and environmental value. The realization has finally sunk in that business has a fundamental role to play in addressing the net-zero challenge and the sustainable development goals. John Browne, who in 1997 was the first CEO of an oil major to break ranks with his industry peers on climate change denial, recently repeated in the Financial Times that ‘business can be a force for change on climate’.However, looking at these sustainable business models shows that the value firms promise to create can be quite limited. The majority focuses on cleaning up their own act but fails to assess how their business models are making a difference in tackling climate change, biodiversity loss, or global inequality at a societal level. In our latest publication in Business and Society – Dentoni, Pinkse and Lubberink (2021) –, we argue that there is a need for firms to start organizing their business models in such a way that they support the resilience of the socio-ecological systems – and not just improve their own sustainability performance.
LINK
Societal actors across scales and geographies increasingly demand visual applications of systems thinking – the process of understanding and changing the reality of a system by considering its whole set of interdependencies – to address complex problems affecting food and agriculture. Yet, despite the wide offer of systems mapping tools, there is still little guidance for managers, policy-makers, civil society and changemakers in food and agriculture on how to choose, combine and use these tools on the basis of a sufficiently deep understanding of socio-ecological systems. Unfortunately, actors seeking to address complex problems with inadequate understandings of systems often have limited influence on the socio-ecological systems they inhabit, and sometimes even generate unintended negative consequences. Hence, we first review, discuss and exemplify seven key features of systems that should be – but rarely have been – incorporated in strategic decisions in the agri-food sector: interdependency, level-multiplicity, dynamism, path dependency, self-organization, non-linearity and complex causality. Second, on the basis of these features, we propose a collective process to systems mapping that grounds on the notion that the configuration of problems (i.e., how multiple issues entangle with each other) and the configuration of actors (i.e., how multiple actors relate to each other and share resources) represent two sides of the same coin. Third, we provide implications for societal actors - including decision-makers, trainers and facilitators - using systems mapping to trigger or accelerate systems change in five purposive ways: targeting multiple goals; generating ripple effects; mitigating unintended consequences; tackling systemic constraints, and collaborating with unconventional partners.
MULTIFILE
Recently several attempts were undertaken to unite the field of metaphor studies, trying to reconcile the conceptual/cognition and linguistic/discourse approaches to metaphor (Hampe, 2017b). The dynamic view of metaphor espoused by amongst others Gibbs (2017a) as a way to unify the field of metaphor studies is said to converge on findings and theoretical predictions found in cognition and discourse approaches. The author argues this focus on dynamical models to explain the multi-scale socio-cognitive aspects of metaphor as an emergent phenomenon is not robust enough. Complexity and dynamical systems are merely a modelling technique to deploy theory for empirical testing of hypotheses; a dynamic view of metaphor needs a coherent background theory to base its dynamic modelling of metaphor in action on (Chemero, 2009). I argue that it can be successfully based on the ecological-enactive framework available within the modern paradigm of 4E cognitive science. This framework makes possible explanation of both 'lower' cognition and 'higher' cognition emerging in the interaction of an organism with its environment. In addition, I sketch how recent theoretical insights from ecological-enactivism (Baggs and Chemero, 2018) concerning Gibson's notion of environment apply to the attempted unification of the field of metaphor studies. I close by suggesting how an understanding of metaphor as an ecological affordance of the socio-cultural environment can provide a rich basis for empirical hypotheses within a dynamical science of metaphor.
LINK
