A vicious cycle of superficial conceptualization: Deconstructing nature in social innovation (policy) discourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/nocsi.v0i4.91116Palavras-chave:
social innovation, sustainable development, ecocentrism, policy discourse, ecocentric critical discourse analysisResumo
Critical studies of social innovation (SI) reveal sustainability concepts are widely used by scholars, policy makers and practitioners on a superficial level (Eichler & Schwarz, 2019). Even if SI is mainly linked to social and economic dimensions, the relationship between SI and environment is still vague and needs further research. One possible reason for this disconnectedness would be the dominating anthropocentric assumptions instead of ecocentric assumptions? To fill this gap, this paper aims to explore the conceptualization of nature in SI documents. We do this through an analysis of United Nations (UN) publications, particularly, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Accelerator Labs. In addition, we consider how SI is understood, executed, promoted and how perceptions of nature affect SI. Eco-critical discourse analysis (ECDA) is adopted as an analytical approach for this study. This study utilizes texts as empirical material on SI published by the UN. The focus on the UN is appropriate, as they are a highly influential institution on national economies in shaping their SI policies and practices. Therefore, this study is undertaken on the basis that the discourse of these documents affects the SI discourse and practices of countries and the field. The contribution of this study lies in its effort to reveal embedded propositions in SI texts through language-driven analysis, then to discuss how a deeper understanding would regain the agenda for long-lasting socio-economic problems through an ecocentric critical discourse.
Referências
Adelman, S. (2017). The Sustainale development goals. Anthropocentrism and Neoliberalism. In D. French & L. Kotzé (Eds.), Global goals: Law, theory and implementation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Ayres, R., Van den Berrgh, J., & Gowdy, J. (2001). Strong versus weak sustainability: Economics, natural sciences, and consilience. Environmental Ethics, 23(2), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200123225
Ala-Uddin, M. (2019). ‘Sustainable’ discourse: a critical analysis of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 29(2), 214-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1326365X19881515
Allen, S., Cunliffe, A. L., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2019). Understanding Sustainability Through the Lens of Ecocentric Radical-Reflexivity: Implications for Management Education. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 781-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3420-3
Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Fagan, K. (2016). How social innovation ‘came to be’: Tracing the evolution of a contested concept. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727941600009X
Bateson, G. (1991 [1975]). Ecology of mind: The sacred. A sacred unity. Further steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Harper Collins.
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (2013). The practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction. Routledge.
Bonnedahl, K. J., & Eriksson, J. (2007). Sustainable economic organisation: simply a matter of reconceptualisation or a need for a new ethics? International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2007.016060
Bonnedahl, K. J., & Caramujo, M. J. (2019). Beyond an absolving role for sustainable development: Assessing consumption as a basis for sustainable societies. Sustainable Development, 27(1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1862
Cachelin, A., Norvell, R., & Darling, A. (2010). Language fouls in teaching ecology: Why traditional metaphors undermine conservation literacy. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 669-674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01481.x
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
Donovan, J. (2018). Animal ethics, the new materialism, and the question of subjectivity. In A. Matsuoka & J. Sorenson (Eds.), Critical Animal Studies: Toward Trans-Species Social Justice (p. 257-274). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Eichler, G., & Schwarz, E. (2019). What Sustainable Development Goals Do Social Innovations Address? A Systematic Review and Content Analysis of Social Innovation Literature. Sustainability, 11(2), 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020522
Franklin, A., Kovách, I., & Csurgó, B. (2017). Governing social innovation: Exploring the role of ‘discretionary practice’in the negotiation of shared spaces of community food growing. Sociologia ruralis, 57(4), 439-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12126
Fromm, E. (1976). Altered states of consciousness and ego psychology. Social Service Review, 50(4), 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1086/643427
Godin, B. (2015). Innovation contested: The idea of innovation over the centuries. Routledge.
Godin, B., & Vinck, D. (Eds.) (2017). Critical studies of innovation: Alternative approaches to the pro-innovation bias. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Haskell, L., Bonnedahl, K. J., & Stål, H. I. (2021). Social innovation related to ecological crises: A systematic literature review and a research agenda for strong sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 325, 129316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129316
Hayward, T. (1997). Anthropocentrism: a misunderstood problem. Environmental Values, 6(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327197776679185
Heikkurinen, P., Rinkinen, J., Järvensivu, T., Wilén, K., & Ruuska, T. (2016). Organising in the Anthropocene: an ontological outline for ecocentric theorising. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 705-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.016
Hoffman, A. J., & Sandelands, L. E. (2005). Getting Right with Nature: Anthropocentrism, Ecocentrism, and Theocentrism. Organization & Environment, 18(2), 141-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026605276197
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O'Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable development, 13(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244
Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B., & J Piccolo, J. (2018). Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(1), 109-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9711-1
Mead, T. (2017). Bioinspiration in Business and Management: Innovating for Sustainability. Business Expert Press.
Millard, J. (2018). How social innovation underpins sustainable development. In J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder & M. Zirngiebl (Eds.), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future (p. 41-43). Munich: oekom Verlag GmbH, Young Foundation.
Moore, B. L. (2017). Ecological literature and the critique of anthropocentrism. Springer.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation (Vol. 24). London: Nesta.
Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards alternative model (s) of local innovation. Urban studies, 42(11), 1969-1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279893
Moulaert, F., & MacCallum, D. (2019). Advanced introduction to social innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). Language of environment, environment of language: a course in ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge.
Nussbaumer, J., & F. Moulaert. (2007). L’innovation sociale au cœur des débats publics et scientifiques, In J.-L. Klein & D. Harrisson (Eds.), L’innovation sociale (p. 71-88). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Olsson, P., Moore, M. L., Westley, F. R., & McCarthy, D. D. (2017). The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: a new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09310-220231
Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Toward an ecocentric organization paradigm? Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053-1089. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280035
Schleppegrell, M. J. (1997). Agency in environmental education. Linguistics and Education, 9(1), 49-67.
Schubert, C. (2019). Social innovations as a repair of social order. NOvation: Critical Studies of Innovation, 1(2019), 41-66.
Sharra, R., & Nyssens, M. (2011). Social innovation: An interdisciplinary and critical review of the concept. Working paper. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Social-Innovation-%3A-an-Interdisciplinary-and-Review-Sharra-Nyssens/b46a2f4e83789220bda416fcb8ac01964156e73d
Stål, H. I., & Bonnedahl, K. (2016). Conceptualizing strong sustainable entrepreneurship. Small Enterprise Research, 23(1), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2016.1161119
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196145647
Stephens, A., Taket, A., & Gagliano, M. (2019). Ecological justice for nature in critical systems thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2532
Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live by. Routledge.
Vlasov, M., Heikkurinen, P., & Bonnedahl, K. J. (2021). Suffering catalyzing ecopreneurship: Critical ecopsychology of organizations. Organization, https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211020462
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management studies, 50(2), 307-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x
Zygmunt, T. (2016). Language education for sustainable development. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 7(1), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1515/dcse-2016-0008
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
NOvation é uma revista de acesso aberto sob uma licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0, que permite que outros compartilhem o trabalho com um reconhecimento (e preservação) da autoria e do direito de propriedade intelectual do autor.
Nesta medida, os autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
1. Autores mantém os direitos e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho publicado sob a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 que permite [...]
2. Autores têm autorização para distribuição, da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista, em repositório institucional, temático, bases de dados e em outras obras como capítulo de livro, com reconhecimento da autoria e da publicação inicial na revista;
3. Os trabalhos publicados nesta revista serão indexados em bases de dados, repositórios, portais, diretórios e outras fontes em que a revista está e vier a estar indexada.
Responsabilidade ética dos autores
Esta revista está empenhada em manter a integridade do registo científico.
O consentimento para submissão foi recebido explicitamente de todos os coautores, bem como das autoridades responsáveis – tácita ou explicitamente – incluindo o instituto/organização onde o trabalho foi realizado, antes do trabalho ser submetido
