Search results

The recent economic/environmental discourse on development issues has led to a new paradigm of development, called here the “eco‐economic development model”, but usually known as sustainable development (including both ecological and economic concerns), which has successfully substituted the traditional model of economic development in general acceptance. However, new models usually imply new rules and perhaps a new type of market, yet policy issues within the eco‐economic development paradigm are being addressed with theoretical constructs and a state of mind as if we were still in the old paradigm – perhaps because the nature and the internal structure of the new paradigm are not yet well known and understood, as nobody has apparently looked into this. It should be expected that the two paradigms are not equivalent to each other, and therefore, they should be addressed differently. This paper presents a qualitative approach, from a systematic point of view, which can be used to highlight how different the two paradigms are in terms of structure and policy implications. Then, this information is used to provide an answer to three questions: is the economic development market the same as the eco‐economic development market; if not, how many invisible hands are there in the eco‐economic development market; and what are the environmental, social, and economic policy implications of this situation?. Shows that new paradigms require a new line of thinking to market policy and planning.

In this chapter, the author proceeds to explore the second ‘C’ in the 3C Model of Taoism: conversation, with an emphasis on ecological sustainability. The discussion delves into the connections between Taoism and deep ecology, eco-effectiveness and eco-efficiency, and the Diderot effect and sustainable consumption. Taoism underscores the value of maintaining balance with nature and regards the natural world as a wellspring of wisdom and inspiration. Taoism and deep ecology share many philosophical similarities. Both perspectives highlight the importance of cherishing all living beings, coexisting peacefully with nature, and acknowledging that humans are a small component of a larger ecosystem. Taoism strongly accentuates the interconnectivity of all things and the critical need for balance between nature and human life. Along with promoting harmony and respect for the environment, deep ecology also advocates for social and political reform to protect the ecosystem. These two approaches emphasize the need to understand our position in the world and how our actions affect the environment and all living organisms. The wisdom of Taoism perceives sustainability as encompassing the entire ecosystem, an intricate network of life with its abundant and diverse range of species. This view aligns with the principles of deep ecology, which sees the ecosystem as a living entity in which humanity is merely one component.

This intervention study outlines the continuing journey of a university towards its sustainability potentiality. We introduce the importance of sustainable development and link it to our intervention study of potentiality for sustainability from a Heideggerian phenomenological perspective. Through a case study of sustainability at New Mexico State University, we provide an insight into the development of a new dimension of university sustainability interface. This interface exists in terms of a dialogic of sustainability, as it relates to the balancing of competing needs, such as efficiency, heart, and brand identity. An important aspect of this interface is intervention, highlighting new possibilities for the top administrators regarding the university's goals and environmentalities. A qualitative and interpretive approach using ontological storytelling inquiry is employed. Data for the study were collected through in-depth interviews with university members from all hierarchical levels. This article raises interesting ontological issues for sustainability researchers, and has implications for strategy as practice.

Provides an overview of ecological feminism (ecofeminism) and discusses the implications for marketing. Shows how ecofeminist perspectives demand that we question not only the destruction of the environment but also our fundamental social relations and structures. Illustrates marketing’s contribution to ecopatriarchy with examples from the marketing academy and the advertising world. Concludes by asking marketers to rethink certain basic marketing principles.

This chapter deals with global sustainability, in its old and modern concepts, typologies, and theories. Most concepts of sustainability, we contend, are anthropocentric, a self-serving attitude that believes in the utmost superiority of man over the rest of the nonhuman universe, which seemingly privileges humans to use, extract, and exploit planetary resources for industrialization and infrastructure development and presumably lead to human growth and prosperity (the Anthropocene). The cost of this however is terrestrial depletion, deterioration, degradation, and decadence that manifest in the current global phenomena of global warming, global climate change, Arctic meltdowns, ocean acidity, massive deforestation, and global carbon footprints, which have collectively rendered human habitability on this earth drastically reduced and jeopardized. In this context, we review the timeline (1992–2022) of the United Nations' sustainability negotiations and accords, several nonanthropocentric and nonanthropomorphic conceptualizations of global sustainability such as Leopold Aldo's land ethic, deep ecology of Naess and associates, Thomas Berry's ecozoic ecology (updated by Spethmann). Combining the best nonanthropocentric developments, we propose a holistic concept of “natural sustainability,” more consonant with critical thinking, which mandates reduced or disciplined use of planetary resources such that Nature can regenerate and renew herself.

Natural sustainability advocates a more fruitful integrative ecozoic paradigm of “sustainability centrism,” which seeks cosmic sustainability of Mother Nature for herself as an end in herself, and we spell out its implications for organizational science and corporate responsibility as an extended global community.

This chapter runs into three parts. Part I: Major Sustainability Types versus Ecozoic Worldview of Cosmic Sustainability; Part II: Conceptualization of Natural Sustainability and Its Justification based on Environmental Ethics, Ecozoic Sustainability, and Deep Ecology; and Part III: Capturing Nature as Nature and Her Moral Imperatives for Understanding Natural Sustainability. Toward the end of this chapter, we also discuss managerial implications and directions for future research.

The encyclical letter of Pope Francis, “Praised Be: On the Care of Our Common Home” (Laudato si’), presented an excellent opportunity to spark a conversation between economics and faith-based discourses on sustainability. The encyclical underlined the human origins of the ecological crisis and proposed fundamental changes in organizing our economic life. Among the important suggestions put forward by the Pope are increased frugality in consumption and acknowledging the intrinsic value of nature.

Frugality implies rebalancing the spiritual and material values in economic life. This may lead to the rehabilitation of the substantive meaning of the “economic” and the revival of the corresponding logic of sufficiency. Despite their different ontological and anthropological conceptions, the ecological position of the Pope’s encyclical has close links with Deep Ecology and Buddhist Economics. Both Deep Ecology and Buddhist Economics point out that emphasizing individuality and promoting the greatest fulfillment of the desires of the individual together lead to destruction. Happiness is linked to wholeness, not to personal wealth.

Mainstream economics fails to acknowledge the intrinsic value of nature. It is happy to put value on environmental goods and services merely on the basis of a market value determined by competing economic actors. But price, for sure, is an inappropriate model for assessing the value of natural entities. There is no algorithmic solution to nature’s allocation problems. Decisions and policies related to nature require making qualitative and multiperspective considerations and the proper use of our wisdom, knowledge, and experience.

To consider the links between ecology, environmentalism and system theory.

The concept of system and its philosophical implications are examined in relation to ecology and environmentalism.

That in human systems complexity is organised through forms of hierarchy, coevolution connected to the environment, emergency and information phenomena which transform disorder into order. Concludes that these traits have a deep impact on the system man – environment and offer opportunities for scientific research and social mobilisation to think and act in a broader context.

Political near scientific thought as presented encourage a rethinking or concepts such as resposibility limit, diversity when the future of the earth is deemed to be threatened.

Ecology considers the interrelationships between all species and matter. It is argued that there are important direct and indirect links between accounting information and ecological effects. A direct link can be traced through identification of some of the conventional problems of accounting. An indirect link can be traced through economics. It is only comparatively recently that the link between economics and ecology has received significant attention. In particular, the relationship between economic development and environmental quality has come to the fore. The concepts of “ecodevelopment”, an ecologically sound economic development strategy, and of “sustainable development” have promoted the view that there may be positive as well as negative interdependences between economics and ecology. With this linking of economics and ecology, the next logical step is to consider possible indirect links between accounting and ecology, with economics as an intervening variable, since a link between accounting and economics has long been established. Having established these direct and indirect links between accounting and ecology, inferences for environmental accounting based on recent Australian agricultural experience are suggested. In conclusion a brief review of the implications of adopting a “Deep Ecology” perspective for such accountings is given.