Search results

A conceptual and analytical approach is presented to reconcile weak and strong sustainability. It involves a reconsideration of the conception of total capital from an ecological‐economic system perspective. In particular, natural capital is classified into non‐renewable resources, renewable resources that are harvested, and those that are not used in production. Strong sustainability is defined in terms of constant environmental quality. Weak sustainability is characterised by non‐decreasing value of aggregate income and environmental quality, and formalised in terms of a “preference‐based social value function”. Ecosystem resilience and basic human needs are introduced as minimum sustainability requirements, and a “sustainability‐based social value function” is proposed, which is sensitive to potentially irreversible changes at the boundaries of the restricted opportunity space. It implies higher values associated to the trade‐offs between income and the environment than the preference‐based function, and the fact that sustainable development is only feasible if both minimum criteria are fulfilled.

This study aims to identify the content in introductory business sustainability courses in the USA to determine the most frequently assigned reading material and its sustainability orientation.

In total, 81 introductory sustainable business course syllabi reading lists were analyzed from 51 US colleges and universities. The study utilized frequency counts for authors and readings and R analysis of key words to classify readings along the sustainability spectrum.

The study reveals the most frequently assigned authors and readings in US sustainable business courses (by program type) and places them along the sustainability spectrum from weak to strong. In total, 55 per cent of the top readings assigned in the sample advocate a weak sustainability paradigm, and 29 per cent of the top readings advocate a strong sustainability paradigm.

This study focused on reading lists of introductory courses in the USA; cases, videos and supplemental materials were excluded, and the study does not analyze non-US courses.

The findings of this study can inform instructors of the most commonly assigned authors and readings and identify readings that align with weak sustainability and strong sustainability. Instructors are now able to select sustainable business readings consistent with peers and which advance a weak or strong sustainability orientation.

This is the first research to identify the most commonly assigned authors and readings to aid in course planning. This is also the first research to guide instructors in identifying which readings represent weak versus strong sustainability.

Weak sustainability indicators often suffer from their unrealistic and inadequate assumption of substitutability between natural capital and man‐made capital. Defining sustainable development in these terms is almost trivial; measurement problems as well as methodological and sociological issues may be considered as major flaws of operationalizing weak sustainability indicators. On the other hand, strong sustainability indicators rely on physical measures. This ecological economics approach concedes that the economy is embedded in matter and energy flows ultimately limited by solar energy input and the Earth’s capability to produce renewable resources and to cope with emissions of all kinds. Drawing on the example of regional environmental resources, ground‐water in Austria, some thoughts on strong regional sustainability indicators are presented.

In the UK, Masters level discipline-specific courses in sustainability integrate modules on the social, economic, and environmental issues of sustainable development. The postgraduate faculty teaching on these courses and the student cohorts enrolling in such courses bring varying attitudes, experiences, and beliefs to the ecological and anthropological discourses and practices about sustainable development. Existing studies of education for sustainable development (ESD) have identified strengths and weaknesses in the knowledge and attitudes of students and faculty although few studies have focused on postgraduate cohorts and fewer still have attempted to compare and contrast students and lecturers. This mixed method case study analyses findings from data collected (2016–2017) from student surveys (n = 121) and semi-structured interviews with faculty (n = 21) recruited from multiple university departments, centers, and programs (n = 12) to identify prevailing anthropocentric and eco-centric ideas and rationales about sustainable development and ESD. Findings suggest a strong orientation to mainstream sustainable development in both groups but analysis identifies reasons for resisting a focus on extremes of “deep green” or “green wash” approaches. In addition, prevailing belief in academic neutrality, institutional and disciplinary factors, student pragmatism, and other drivers are highlighted. The study concludes by identifying potential paths from prevailing (experiential) education in sustainable development to more transformational approaches.

This paper aims to examine the embedding of sustainability courses in the accounting curriculum by using the Delta Business School in New Zealand as an example. The focus of this paper is an effective learning strategy on sustainability education, which other business schools could follow using this approach.

Each course’s published outline was subjected to an in-depth analysis. Semi-structured interviews were used to gather information from the course controllers and students.

The findings revealed that while some courses are considered stand-alone sustainability courses, others incorporate a technical focus on accounting as required by the professional accounting bodies: Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, certified public accountant (Australia) and Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

The research is limited to sustainability education content at a single university.

Students at tertiary education institutions, who will be future managers, are dependent on business schools to teach them the importance of sustainability.

Sustainability education in accounting could be instrumental in transforming the nature and role of the accountant in society.

This paper contributes to the discussion required to understand how sustainability education is embedded within the accounting curriculum and the perceptions of lecturers and students with regard to sustainability education.

In the new Sustainability 2.0 era of education for sustainable development (ESD) transforming, curriculum remains a high interest topic, including in the UK. Among influential factors for progress, lecturer views on sustainable development and ESD in curriculum are important. In particular, the relationship between espoused views on sustainability and development and these views institutionalized into the curriculum require further investigation. Existing qualitative interview studies of lecturers identify a range of views about sustainable development and ESD but rarely focus on postgraduate environments nor use thematic discourse analysis.

This active interview study enrolled a cohort of academics (n = 21) teaching into ten postgraduate UK taught masters degrees. Using active interviews and thematic discourse analysis, this study focused lecturer accounts of translating sustainable development into ESD, student attitudes and characteristics and course nature and content in relation to institutional, disciplinary, personal and other drivers and discourses. Thematic discourse analysis and NVivo 12 the study identified themes and discourses arising from the interview accounts.

In addition to identifying echoes of previously identified themes, this study focuses on the influence of interviewer–interviewee interaction and the interrelated nature of themes developed from 972 substantive codes. These themes identify the key influences as institutional, personal and disciplinary perspectives, institutional contrasts and tensions; pragmatic and passionate student characteristics; flexible sustainability principles and definitions; and social and personal ethics, ideology and equity, as key factors. Despite varying in length and depth, interviewees all show a deep appreciation for the challenges of defining and teaching sustainable development in complex institutional circumstances.

Faculty accounts of sustainable development and ESD practice depend on personal ethics and experiences, disciplinary discourses and institutional drivers and arrangements. Rather than focusing on simple categorizations of views in abstract, progress toward transformational ESD should acknowledge the need for dialogue about the importance of a plurality of views and discourses.

Thematic discourse analysis of a multi-institutional cohort affords closer analysis of contextual institutional and identity factors influencing approaches to HESD. Academic views cannot be easily subcategorized into broad conservative or radical positions. Final discussion of the relevance of institutional theory to sustainability change is also new.

This article explores and contrasts the views of two influential research projects within the social and environmental accounting space. Both projects advocate for sustainability. The first here referred to as the Critical Social and Environmental Accounting Project (CSEAP), was developed and championed by Rob Gray and calls for immediate radical structural change. The second one is called the Pragmatic Sustainability Management Accounting Project (PSMAP), championed by Stefan Schaltegger, and advocates for an entrepreneurial process of creating radical solutions in joint stakeholder collaboration over time.

The paper is the culmination of a decade-long debate between Gray and Schaltegger as advocates of CSEAP and PSMAP, respectively. Specifically, the paper explores the differences and agreements between CSEAP and PSMAP on whether and how companies should pursue sustainability and the role of accounting in these efforts. The paper focusses on critical issues that exemplify the tension in their views: general goals, the role of structure and agency and how to creating change and transformation.

The article contrasts CSEAP's uncompromising antagonising approach to accountability and fundamental systemic change with PSMAP's pragmatic approach to sustainability accounting with its management and entrepreneurship-orientated approach to change and unwavering support for transformative managers on the front lines. Despite their apparent differences, the paper also outlines areas of agreement between these two positions and how accounting and sustainability can move forward.

The debate tries to reconcile language and conceptional differences in the social and environmental accounting (SEA) and sustainability management accounting (SMA) communities to reduce confusion in the research space over what sustainability is for organisations and what role accounting plays in this. The authors hope that the tension between the different positions outlined in this paper generates new insights and positions on the topic.

While the two views explored in this paper are primarily incompatible, each generates implications for practice, research and education. Debates like this are crucial to moving from discursive disagreement to creating a tolerant and robust foundation for moving forward and achieving much-needed sustainable transitions in the economy and society.

The authors offer shared understandings, points of continuing disagreement and alternative views on the nature of sustainability. The debate forges a bridge of understanding where both sides can learn from each other.

This research aims to compare consumer responses to pro-environmental communication and appeals to recycle packaging when these messages come from a high-familiarity versus a low-familiarity brand.

Two online between-subjects experimental studies evaluate consumer perceptions and the willingness to comply with recycling appeals in response to pro-environmental communications from a high-familiarity versus a low-familiarity brand. To test the hypotheses, the studies examine the moderating role of sustainability habits and the mediating role of shared environmental responsibility.

Findings show that communicating a brand’s adoption of sustainable packaging is more salient to consumers when the appeal comes from a low-familiarity rather than a high-familiarity brand, especially when sustainability habits are weaker. The mediating role of shared environmental responsibility partly explains consumers’ commitment to act pro-environmentally.

Sustainability officials and policymakers should consider the impact of pro-environmental interventions that encourage collective recycling between brands and consumers. Practitioners are encouraged to examine revised waste management schemes such as extended producer responsibility programs to elicit the collaboration of consumers in initiatives that boost recycling and stimulate pro-environmental behaviors.

Using the diagnosticity–accessibility framework and habit theory, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this research is among the first to empirically examine the role of sustainability habits in consumer responses to pro-environmental brand communications. It also highlights consumers’ willingness to comply with brands’ take-back programs in a shared effort to reduce plastic waste and encourage a circular economy.

Resource use policy based on standard (neoclassical) economic theory is driven by the assumption that “getting the prices right” is the key to sustainable resource use. Although most neo‐classical economists now agree that market prices may substantially undervalue biological features, the prevailing view is that “correct” market prices can be established through enlightened intervention in private markets. Using the examples of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, the American bison, and the passenger pigeon, we show that neither very high nor very low prices can ensure the survival of a particular species. With these cases as background, we compare and contrast three policy approaches to sustainability: weak sustainability, strong sustainability and Georgescu‐Roegen’s concept of a viable technology.

After over 30 years’ reform and opening-up, China as the second largest economy is now facing the most essential transformation of management philosophy and the biggest challenging issue of business sustainable development, with people’s increasing worry of the deterioration of environmental pollution, food security and human health. It can be said that what China needs urgently today is business ethical value and long-term sustainable development concept, rather than rapidly growing GDP. The purpose of this paper is to assess how the term “sustainable development” is constructed and valued in the sustainability reports or corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports of Chinese corporations, so as to interpret these Chinese firms’ conception of sustainable development in their real business practices.

A corpus of sustainability reports collected from 30 Chinese corporations totaling 247,311 tokens is first of all compiled to realize the objective of study. Then the authors use the AntConc, a corpus analysis toolkit, to generate word lists, key-word-in-context concordances and collocation lists, as well as calculating statistical significance measures for collocates, of which the mutual information (MI) score 3 is most relevant to the paper’s purposes. Based on the key-word-in-context concordance and collocation list, the authors can find what context “sustainable development” usually appears in sustainability reports, thus inferring Chinese corporations’ conception of sustainable development.

The result indicates that Chinese corporations use the rhetoric of weak sustainability, indicating that sustainable development is compatible with further economic growth, which means that Chinese corporations in current China, strongly promoting the concept of new normal economy, still put economic growth as a dominant goal, on which other dimensions of sustainability like environmental protection depend.

The data gleaned in current corpus are limited to the sustainability reports in 2014 thus the study provides no hints as to diachronic trends. However, this study increases our understanding of how Chinese corporations attach value to sustainable development from the view of corpus analysis.

Different from traditional discourse analysis, which usually carries out qualitative analysis to analyze how a word or phrase is constructed in a small number of texts, the authors’ study innovatively introduces the method of corpus analysis to explore how Chinese corporations construct “sustainable development” in their sustainability reports. Thus, the number of texts analyzed is larger in the authors’ study and their findings are more representative and convincing. The authors create a more qualitative understanding of what the reports are actually saying on their reports and prove that corpus methods can bring new application to the discourse analysis of the biggest challenging issue of China’s future economic growth, suggesting a potential novel way to work out the meaning and implication of sustainable development in Chinese real business world.