No abstract

Increasingly, empirical evidence refutes many of the theoretical pillars of mainstream economics. These theories have persisted despite the fact that they support unsustainable and undesirable environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Continuing to embrace them puts at risk the possibility of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and overcoming other global challenges. We discuss a selection of paradoxes and delusions surrounding mainstream economic theories related to: (1) efficiency and resource use, (2) wealth and wellbeing, (3) economic growth, and (4) the distribution of wealth within and between rich and poor nations. We describe a wellbeing economy as an alternative for guiding policy development. In 2018, a network of Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo), (supported by, but distinct from, the larger Wellbeing Economy Alliance—WEAll) promoting new forms of governance that diverge from the ones on which the G7 and G20 are based, has been launched and is now a living project. Members of WEGo aim at advancing the three key principles of a wellbeing economy: Live within planetary ecological boundaries, ensure equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity, and efficiently allocate resources (including environmental and social public goods), bringing wellbeing to the heart of policymaking, and in particular economic policymaking. This network has potential to fundamentally re-shape current global leadership still anchored to old economic paradigms that give primacy to economic growth over environmental and social wealth and wellbeing.

Rather than passively accepting development, some Indigenous communities have forced their demands into corporate decision-making. Accordingly, recognising and responding to community expectations becomes a matter of prudent strategy and 'enlightened self-interest'. This paper examines the case of Century Zinc Mine in Queensland's Gulf of Carpentaria where the miner undertook negotiations and reached agreement with local Indigenous communities. It was later held to account by communities concerned about insufficient implementation of this agreement. Discussion then explores the campaign against Jabiluka uranium mine in Australia's Northern Territory, especially why multinational miner Rio Tinto deferred to local community wishes surrounding development. These experiences show that Indigenous communities are most effective in bringing leverage over mining companies when they impact upon profit or future profit (often related to reputation with specific audiences). The parameters and consequent limitations of a company's responsiveness to community demands reinforce fundamental roles for the state as ultimate regulator and provider.

IntroductionTransformative action points to move towards a Circular Bioeconomy of Wellbeing Focus on sustainable wellbeing Box I Gross Domestic Product versus Genuine Progress Indicator Invest in nature and biodiversityBox II Renewable natural capital and nature-based solutions are key for a circular bioeconomy Box III Connecting private forest owners for collective biodiversity protection in Denmark Generate an equitable distribution of prosperity Box IV Payments for watershed protection in Ecuador Box V Bioplastics as a means for territorial regeneration in Italy Rethink land, food and health systems holistically Box VI Regenerative agriculture Box VII Forests for water-from global to localBox VIII Agroforestry to support deforestation-free cocoa production Transform industrial sectors Box IX ReSOLVE Framework for circularity Box X Wood-based textiles Box XI Sustainable biofuel for diesel and jet enginesBox XII A nanocellulose vehicle Reimagine cities through ecological lenses Box XIII Engineered wood products for reimagining building construction Box XIV The association between urban green spaces and human health Enabling action points to move towards a Circular Bioeconomy of Wellbeing Create an enabling regulatory framework Box XV The US BioPreferred public procurement Programme Deliver mission-oriented innovation to the investment and political agendasBox XVI The Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking (BBI JU) Enable access to finance and enhance risk-taking capacity Box XVII The European Circular Bioeconomy Fund (ECBF) Intensify and broaden research and educationBox XVIII Amazonia 4.0 A Call to Action References ContentK2A Knowledge to Action 9• Economic and industrial sectors relying on biological resources and nature-based solutions (food, wood industry, bulk and speciality chemicals, construction, packaging, textiles, pharmaceuticals, bioenergy and all sectors benefiting from biobased solutions or ecosystem services such as nature tourism or water supply).

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to highlight practical manifestations of CSR and limitations of company responsiveness following these realities.Design/methodology/approachEmpirical research into responsiveness of miners to Australian Indigenous communities, alongside exploration of corporate history and composition. A range of sources was utilised, including participant interviews and quantitative data. The paper begins by discussing the primacy of commercial interest in CSR, then gives an example of responsiveness. It concludes with implications for those wanting to influence corporate behaviour.FindingsEmpirical evidence generated a definition of CSR as responsiveness. The case study illustrated how the more communities influence corporate operating parameters, the more potent their demands in the eyes of management. A link to the financial bottom line is needed. In corporate response to social expectations, three factors are relevant: expectations of corporate behaviour; a shift in how communities articulate their expectations; and increased stakeholder capacity to affect corporate operations. How a company responds is, in turn, determined by conditions including culture and market pressures.Practical implicationsUnless a business benefit from responsiveness is established, companies will deploy effort and resources elsewhere. Communities must maintain vigilance, so companies are compelled to consider communities – their ability to do so is contingent on leverage over the company.Originality/valueSetting aside the normative debate over moral responsibilities that might be applied to companies, and adopting an understanding of CSR that reflects observed patterns of action and inaction, the paper highlights corporate motivations and predicts company actions, revealing crucial parameters and levers useful for those wanting to influence corporate behaviour.