Conceptualising post‐growth to advance corporate sustainability research: A comparative literature review

IF 13.4 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Gianluigi Narciso, Yanfei Hu
{"title":"Conceptualising post‐growth to advance corporate sustainability research: A comparative literature review","authors":"Gianluigi Narciso, Yanfei Hu","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.70033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This comparative literature review explores how an expanding body of interdisciplinary post‐growth literature aligns, extends or challenges <jats:italic>ecocentric</jats:italic> Corporate Sustainability ( <jats:italic>e</jats:italic> CS) research in management (i.e., rooted in systems thinking, emphasising planetary boundaries, ecological limits and embeddedness). From a sample of <jats:italic>e</jats:italic> CS literature, we inductively extracted four recurring theoretical dimensions: Place, Resources, Scale and Time. We then systematically compared how <jats:italic>e</jats:italic> CS research and post‐growth scholarship approach these dimensions. Our results suggest that although the two literatures share the same intellectual foundations grounded in ecological realism (i.e., natural science insights about biophysical limits and their implications for human organising), they diverge significantly in that the post‐growth literature has drawn out the political–economic implications of such ecological realism more explicitly than <jats:italic>e</jats:italic> CS (e.g., challenging neoclassical economic principles; paying more attention to the requisites for political and structural change; and embracing experimentation with alternative organising). We elaborate on the implications of such divergences, from which we propose future research directions towards <jats:italic>post‐growth‐oriented</jats:italic> CS, that is, a synthesis that combines <jats:italic>e</jats:italic> CS's engagement with firm‐level organising and post‐growth's institutional, political and economic critique of growth imperatives.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.70033","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This comparative literature review explores how an expanding body of interdisciplinary post‐growth literature aligns, extends or challenges ecocentric Corporate Sustainability ( e CS) research in management (i.e., rooted in systems thinking, emphasising planetary boundaries, ecological limits and embeddedness). From a sample of e CS literature, we inductively extracted four recurring theoretical dimensions: Place, Resources, Scale and Time. We then systematically compared how e CS research and post‐growth scholarship approach these dimensions. Our results suggest that although the two literatures share the same intellectual foundations grounded in ecological realism (i.e., natural science insights about biophysical limits and their implications for human organising), they diverge significantly in that the post‐growth literature has drawn out the political–economic implications of such ecological realism more explicitly than e CS (e.g., challenging neoclassical economic principles; paying more attention to the requisites for political and structural change; and embracing experimentation with alternative organising). We elaborate on the implications of such divergences, from which we propose future research directions towards post‐growth‐oriented CS, that is, a synthesis that combines e CS's engagement with firm‐level organising and post‐growth's institutional, political and economic critique of growth imperatives.
概念化后增长以推进企业可持续发展研究:比较文献综述
这篇比较文献综述探讨了越来越多的跨学科后增长文献如何协调、扩展或挑战生态中心企业可持续发展(e CS)管理研究(即植根于系统思维,强调地球边界、生态限制和嵌入性)。从文献样本中,我们归纳出四个重复出现的理论维度:地点、资源、规模和时间。然后,我们系统地比较了CS研究和后成长奖学金如何处理这些维度。我们的研究结果表明,尽管这两篇文献在生态现实主义(即,关于生物物理极限及其对人类组织的影响的自然科学见解)方面有着相同的知识基础,但它们在这一点上存在显著分歧,即后增长文献比后者更明确地阐述了这种生态现实主义的政治经济含义(例如,挑战新古典经济原则;更多地关注政治和结构变革的必要条件;并接受另类组织的实验)。我们详细阐述了这些分歧的含义,并据此提出了面向后增长的社会经济学的未来研究方向,即,将社会经济学与企业层面组织的接触与后增长对增长必要性的制度、政治和经济批评相结合的综合研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书