Limits to Anthropocentrism: Toward an Ecocentric Organization Paradigm?

Purser, Ronald E.; Park, Changkil; Montuori, Alfonso

doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9512280035

Cited by 192 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While early writings on corporate sustainability were deeply embedded in a systems logic that takes into account the level-spanning and multifaceted nature of corporate sustainability (Purser et al 1995;Gladwin et al 1995), over the last two decades ''[m]uch of the research on organizational responses to social and environmental issues […] has been framed around an instrumental logic, i.e., how firms can benefit from addressing societal concerns'' (Gao and Bansal 2013, p. 241). The business case for sustainability is based on the dominance of economics language (Ferraro et al 2005) and appropriates sustainability in terms of narrow business interests (Banerjee 2008;Welford 1997).…”

Section: Beyond the Business Casementioning

confidence: 99%

A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a paradox perspective on corporate sustainability. By explicitly acknowledging tensions between different desirable, yet interdependent and conflicting sustainability objectives, a paradox perspective enables decision makers to achieve competing sustainability objectives simultaneously and creates leeway for superior business contributions to sustainable development. In stark contrast to the business case logic, a paradox perspective does not establish emphasize business considerations over concerns for environmental protection and social well-being at the societal level. In order to contribute to the consolidation of this emergent field of research, we offer a definition of the paradox perspective on corporate sustainability and a framework to delineate its descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. This framework clarifies the paradox perspective's contents and its implications for research and practice. We use the framework to map the contributions to this thematic symposium on paradoxes in sustainability and to propose questions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Beyond the Business Casementioning

confidence: 99%

A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Porter (1991) and Porter and van der Linde (1995) started it by showing how companies could be both green and competitive at the same time by utilizing green technology strategies to gain financial benefits. However, many prominent researchers like Gladwin et al (1995), Purser et al (1995), Shrivastava (1995) and Welford (1995) warned against such value-void technological optimism. Bansal and Roth (2000) discovered that even some companies felt that they had social and environmental obligations.…”

Section: Valuesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Gladwin et al, 1995;Purser et al, 1995;Shrivastava, 1995;Welford, 2002) is less abundant than utilitarian because the duty ethical approach is considered normative, although in actual fact the utilitarian approach is equally normative. The only difference is that the utilitarian approach (still) describes corporate reality much better than the duty ethical approach.…”

Section: Valuesmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Holistic Corporate Responsibility Model: Integrating Values, Discourses and Actions

Ketola

2007

J Bus Ethics

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The corporate responsibility (CR) discussion has so far been rather fragmented as academics tackle it from their own areas of expertise, which guarantees in-depth analyses, but leaves room for broader syntheses. This research is a synthetic, interdisciplinary exercise: it integrates philosophical, psychological and managerial perspectives of corporate responsibility into a more holistic CR-model for the benefit of academics, companies and their interest groups. CR usually comprises three areas: environmental, social and economic responsibilities. In all these areas there should be a match between corporate values, discourses and actions. The aim of this multidisciplinary research is to build a CR-model by integrating (1) utilitarian/egoistic, duty/rights/justice and virtue ethical corporate values with (2) increased consciousness of psychological defences in corporate discourses, in order to achieve (3) responsible environmental, social and economic corporate actions. The resulting CR-model can be tested in companies and executed through corporate strategic and operational management.

show abstract

“…The predominance of the NEP in personal value systems has been associated with the promotion of ecological values in organizations, support for measures that further management accountability, the emergence of champions of the environment, and concerns for global warming (Anderson and Bateman, 2000;Dispensa and Brulle, 2003;Ebreo et al, 1999;Shafer, 2006). More generally, many studies have stressed the importance of management's adopting a more ecocentric vision characterized by openness to major environmental issues, the promotion of sustainable development, and a reconsideration of the dominant anthropocentric perspective (Gladwin et al, 1995;Purser et al, 1995;Shrivastava, 1995).…”

Section: The Values Of Environmental Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…First, the integration of environmental concerns in daily management calls for a systemic, complex, and inclusive worldview. Environmental challenges are interdisciplinary and characterized by the complex interactions among a diverse array of regulatory, technological, human, social, ethical, and political factors (Bansal, 2003;Gladwin et al, 1995;Purser et al, 1995). In fact, responsible environmental management implies taking these interdependent issues into account and thus cannot rely on any one discipline or specialization, but rather requires a combination of many skill and knowledge sets.…”

Section: The Capabilities Of Environmental Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%