Payments for ecosystem services and corporate social responsibility: Perspectives on sustainable production, stakeholder relations, and philanthropy in Thailand

Thompson, Benjamin S.

doi:10.1002/bse.2260

Cited by 24 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Aside from perceiving conservation issues as relevant, prospective benefits are decisive for a favourable attitude, especially image gains, employee retention and motivation, as well as the protection of natural resource inputs. This is an important result of our study, given that some previous studies found that companies typically consider biodiversity and ecosystem services commitments as philanthropy with only a few own benefits to be gained in return (Koellner et al, 2010; Krause & Matzdorf, 2019; Smith et al, 2018; Thompson, 2018b). Similar to our result, Hassan et al (2020) argued that disclosures about company impacts on biodiversity and threatened species stems from self‐interest instead of a selfless desire to preserve the environment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Generally, the higher the benefit expectations for the company, the more likely are activities for nature conservation. Companies typically expect communication and image gains from a voluntary nature conservation engagement, whereas other benefit expectations, for example, business risk reduction, cost reduction or innovation, are not commonly perceived (Krause & Matzdorf, 2019; Smith et al, 2018; Thompson, 2018b). Benefit expectations seemingly differ, though, depending on the specific type of engagement: Gattás, De Campos, Barakat, and Orsato (2019) investigated reasons for voluntary ecosystem services valuation and found that access to knowledge and risk mitigation were strong motivations, whereas reputational gains and innovation were weak motivations.…”

Section: Theoretical Model and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What makes businesses commit to nature conservation?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, various actors including companies need to engage, but it is not yet clear what drives voluntary business commitments. We explore leverage points that might increase corporate action for conservation. We apply a structural equation model based on the theory of planned behaviour to analyse data from 618 German companies, collected through an online‐survey in 2019. We show that a favourable attitude, driven by perceived business relevance and benefit prospects, fosters engagement. Perceived difficulties, such as lacking finances and knowledge, hinder the engagement. Customers, employees and the general public are presently the only stakeholder groups that drive corporate conservation engagement. Nevertheless, the expectation levels of virtually all stakeholders were found to be quite low and as such inadequate for the ecological crisis we face. We discuss how political will and goal setting can encourage more widespread business support for the natural environment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Theoretical Model and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes businesses commit to nature conservation?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Private commercial landowners are most similar to the rural land managers that existing PES schemes usually target (Grima, Singh, Smetschka, & Ringhofer, ); for example, farmers in the Vittel™ PES scheme in France (Perrot‐Maître, ) and Sloping Land Conversion Program in China (Pan, Xu, Yang, & Yu, ). Private non‐commercial landowners also act as providers in rural PES schemes, such as property owners in Uganda that are paid not to cut trees for charcoal (Jayachandran et al, ), or communities with de facto land tenure in Thailand that construct check‐dams to enhance water retention in catchments (Thompson, ). Few rural PES schemes involve public providers (Grima et al, ), although there are rare examples of State‐led provision in Bolivia (Pereira, ) and Madagascar (Brimont et al, ).…”

Section: Typology Of Providers Of Urban Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban ecosystems: A new frontier for payments for ecosystem services

Richards¹,

Thompson

2019

People and Nature

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban ecosystems provide many benefits to people, including regulation of environmental conditions, recreational opportunities, and positive health impacts. However, many urban ecosystems are under pressure from increasing urbanisation, because the economic benefits they provide are rarely captured by the people who own and manage them. Such ecosystems are seldom economically competitive compared to more profitable residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. To develop more sustainable cities, we require new approaches for encouraging and enabling interventions that maintain, improve and create urban ecosystems. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes are increasingly used to incentivise conservation and changes in environmental management in rural settings, but this approach has rarely been considered in cities. Here, we explain how payments for urban ecosystem services (PUES) could help protect, restore, and manage urban ecosystems. To implement PUES, we must understand the differences between various public and private actors who could potentially provide or benefit from urban ecosystem services. For example, utilities companies could pay for reduced water treatment costs via deculverting streams, homeowners could pay for improved stormwater management via increasing permeable surface area, and business proprietors could pay for street tree installation and maintenance to provide shade and reduce air conditioning costs. Urban densities, land values, and land tenure will impact the types of PUES projects that are most likely to be viable. To be successful, PUES will require an improved understanding of urban ecosystem service science—particularly how service provision changes under different land management practices. Nevertheless, because of the high densities, co‐location, and wide variety of stakeholders that live in cities, there is potential for PUES to become an innovative funding source to support future urban ecosystem management. A plain language summary is available for this article.

show abstract

“…In addition, green production can be considered as a leading strategy for enterprises to cultivate and improve their green dynamic capability (Augusto de Oliveira et al, 2019; Thompson, 2019). In this case, the adoption of a green production strategy provides a route‐map for enterprises to enhance their green dynamic capability (Kjaerheim, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Green dynamic capability of construction enterprises: Role of the business model and green production

Zhang

Ouyang

Philbin

et al. 2020

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving green dynamic capability is an important business strategy to enhance enterprises' competitive advantage. This study proposes a theoretical framework that considers the business model and green production to analyze how green dynamic capability can be fostered by enterprises. In this study, 202 managers of Chinese construction enterprises were questionnaire surveyed, and partial least squares structural equation modelling was used to test hypotheses. Results show that: (a) the business model is positively related to green dynamic capability, so enterprises need to adjust business model to balance economic benefits and environmental responsibility; and (b) green production directly and indirectly affect green dynamic capability through a positive mediating role of the business model. This study extends the current literature on dynamic capability by investigating the relationship between the business model, green production, and green dynamic capability. This study also provides guidance for enterprises to enhance green dynamic capability and promote sustainable development. Highlights This paper proposes a theoretical framework that takes into account business models and green production to analyze how to cultivate and enhance enterprises' green dynamic capability. Takes China as an example to empirically analyze the impact of business model and green production on the green dynamic capability of enterprises, and eventually lay a theoretical guidance for enterprises to achieve green development goals. Good business model is positively correlated with green dynamic capability. The higher the level of green production, the stronger the positive relationship between business model and green dynamic capability.

show abstract

Payments for ecosystem services and corporate social responsibility: Perspectives on sustainable production, stakeholder relations, and philanthropy in Thailand

Cited by 24 publications

References 71 publications

What makes businesses commit to nature conservation?

What makes businesses commit to nature conservation?

Urban ecosystems: A new frontier for payments for ecosystem services

Green dynamic capability of construction enterprises: Role of the business model and green production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About