ArticlePDF Available

Five Key Dimensions of Post-Growth Business: Putting the Pieces Together

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

As there has been no evidence of the kind of environmental decoupling necessary to allow for green economic growth, academic and activist discussions alike have turned to exploring post-growth pathways. Such a transformation entails a significant shift in economic institutions, yet post-growth analyses of what is problematic about businesses and how to resolve these issues are piecemeal. This article offers an overview and synthesis of key findings in the emerging post-growth business literature. Using institutional analysis, it develops a framework that conceptually ties together five dimensions of business that have been identified as most important for post-growth transformations: relationship-to-profit, incorporation structure, governance structure, strategy, and size and geographical scope. The intention of developing this five-dimensions framework is to offer a more coherent and concrete theoretical basis for ongoing discussions about which types of business are compatible, or incompatible, with post-growth pathways.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
Available online 15 May 2021
0016-3287/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Five key dimensions of post-growth business: Putting the
pieces together
Jennifer Hinton
a
,
b
,
*
a
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kr¨
aftriket 2B, 10691, Stockholm, Sweden
b
Centre for Studies and Research in International Development, Université Clermont-Auvergne, 26 avenue L´
eon Blum, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand,
France
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Post-growth economy
Degrowth
Post-growth business
Sustainable business
Not-for-prot business
ABSTRACT
As there has been no evidence of the kind of environmental decoupling necessary to allow for
green economic growth, academic and activist discussions alike have turned to exploring post-
growth pathways. Such a transformation entails a signicant shift in economic institutions, yet
post-growth analyses of what is problematic about businesses and how to resolve these issues are
piecemeal. This article offers an overview and synthesis of key ndings in the emerging post-
growth business literature. Using institutional analysis, it develops a framework that conceptu-
ally ties together ve dimensions of business that have been identied as most important for post-
growth transformations: relationship-to-prot, incorporation structure, governance structure,
strategy, and size and geographical scope. The intention of developing this ve-dimensions
framework is to offer a more coherent and concrete theoretical basis for ongoing discussions
about which types of business are compatible, or incompatible, with post-growth pathways.
1. Introduction
There has been no evidence that economic activity can be sufciently decoupled from environmental impacts to a degree that
would allow for sustainable economic growth (Haberl et al., 2020; Hickel & Kallis, 2020; Parrique et al., 2019; Vad´
en et al., 2020)
1
.
Thus, economies must be re-organized in ways that do not drive incessant growth, in order to avoid a collapse of the ecological
foundations upon which human societies depend (Daly, 1996; Parrique et al., 2019; Steffen, Broadgate, Deutch, Gaffney, & Ludwig,
2015). This shift has important implications for businesses, as key economic institutions (Jackson, 2017; Johanisova & Fraˇ
nkov´
a,
2017)
2
. What should businesses be like in post-growth economies? What kinds of features must they have (or not have) in order to be
socially and ecologically sustainable?
* Corresponding author at: Kr¨
aftriket 2B, 10691, Stockholm, Sweden.
E-mail address: jen@postgrowth.org.
1
Parrique et al. (2019) dene sufcient decoupling as: absolute, long-term, global, and applying to all critical environmental pressures. They
argue that, given the severity of the global environmental crises (e.g., climate change, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, etc.), decoupling is not
sufcient if it is: relative, temporary, based only on one environmental indicator (e.g., carbon emissions), or based on outsourcing environmental
impacts to another geographical location.
2
Businesses and markets do not necessarily have to be part of post-growth economies. However, because they are currently the main channel
through which production happens in most economies, post-growth models and visions of the future must address how businesses and markets
should be transformed or replaced by some other means of production in order to allow for sustainable provisioning.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Futures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102761
Received 27 May 2020; Received in revised form 9 May 2021; Accepted 13 May 2021
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
2
The post-growth
3
literature that deals with business tends to stay focused on the level of individual rms, leading to piecemeal
critiques of mainstream business and correspondingly piecemeal solutions (Cyron & Zoellick, 2018). For instance, in response to
globalization and inequality, post-growth scholars have critiqued governance and incorporation structures, proposing that shareholder
corporations should give way to cooperatives (Johanisova, Crabtree, & Fraˇ
nkov´
a, 2013) and non-growth-driven businesses (Gabriel,
Nazar, Zhu, & Kirkwood, 2019; Gebauer, 2018) that are rooted in place and time (Johanisova & Fraˇ
nkov´
a, 2017). In response to a
singular focus on prot-maximization, authors have proposed broadening rmsstrategic scope by using strongly sustainable business
models (Upward & Jones, 2016); ‘other-than-protgoals (Johanisova & Fraˇ
nkov´
a, 2017); a sufciency-based approach (Bocken &
Short, 2016); and for-benet production (Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014). Yet, there is a persistent concern that as long as rms are
prot-driven, this might keep them from being strongly sustainable, sufciency-based, or focused on social benet (e.g., Bocken &
Short, 2016; Johanisova et al., 2013). Indeed, much post-growth literature claims that the prot-driven way of organizing business
generates the macro-scale dynamics of economic growth, consumerism and inequality, as well as the associated environmental damage
(Magdoff & Foster, 2011; Jackson, 2017). In response to this concern, some authors claim that not-for-prot forms of business offer a
way of addressing these dynamics (Hinton & Maclurcan, 2017; Hinton, 2020; Lux, 2003).
How do all of these different aspects of rms t together and how do they relate to the post-growth compatibility of business?
Schmid (2018) and Johanisova and Fraˇ
nkov´
a (2017) highlight the need to articulate the hidden assumptions behind different con-
ceptualizations of post-growth business, as well as the need for discussions of how to conceptually organize the diversity of post-growth
business. consolidates many key principles of degrowth business found in the literature, yet it is not clear how they t together in actual
businesses. Furthermore, the important question remains of whether these aspects of business can be changed easily by willing
managers and employees, or whether there are deeper structural lock-ins and, if so, what those structural issues are. A framework that
puts these pieces together in a coherent way and identies the structural dimensions could provide the foundation for more effective
sustainability initiatives and help prevent the unnecessary confusion that arises from discussing business at cross-purposes.
This conceptual paper develops a framework to more clearly organize analyses and discussions about post-growth business. I begin
with a description of the institutional economics lens that I used to analyze the post-growth business literature, and which led me to
identify ve key dimensions of the rm that correspond to institutional elements of business. I then offer an overview of the relevant
literature, organizing the key themes and aspects of business according to these ve dimensions of the rm. I include a brief description
of real rms to illustrate how these different dimensions can take shape in a variety of different ways and combinations. I then present a
framework that brings the dimensions together, ordering them in terms of how they guide and constrain each other. This leads to the
insight that the legally-binding structural dimensions of the rm are critical for shaping economic actorsbehavior.
The dimensions framework presented in this paper claries how the different layers of a businesss organizational structure might
impact business behavior. This theoretical synthesis will inevitably be incomplete, but the main intention is to contribute more
structure and clarity to discussions around what kinds of business are compatible, or not, with post-growth pathways, as well as what
kinds of business could enable such transformations.
2. An institutional perspective on the post-growth business literature
Below I present an overview of the treatment of business in post-growth research, aiming to identify how key aspects of business are
discussed and to gain an understanding of how the different pieces t together. In this overview, I have focused on 30 relevant articles
and book chapters, which explicitly link business to the concepts of degrowth and post-growth economy, as well as the related concepts
of ecological economics, the steady state economy, and strong sustainability.
This body of literature identies a variety of aspects of business that are important to consider for post-growth economic trans-
formations. An institutional economics lens can be helpful in organizing these different aspects according to the institutional elements
of business on which they focus. Institutions are systems of embedded social rules that enable, guide, and constrain actorsbehavior
(Hodgson, 2018).
A key assumption of institutional approaches is that actors respond to their institutional contexts in a host of ways. They can
reproduce, accommodate, resist, or change those institutional contexts (Scott, 2014). Thus, an understanding of these contexts can give
insights into ranges of expected or acceptable behavior (Dugger, 1979). Although actorsbehavior is not determined by institutional
structures, it also cannot be understood outside of its institutional context (Dugger, 1979). By looking at the institutional elements that
guide and constrain businesses, we can get a better understanding of which institutions must change in which ways, in order to be
compatible with a post-growth understanding of sustainability.
Institutional economists tend to pay particular attention to legally-binding formal institutional elements (i.e., regulative in-
stitutions), such as property rights (Hodgson, 2018). Legally-binding institutions are typically more precisely articulated than other
types of social rules and there is a higher degree of obligation to comply with these types of rules because they are enforced by a legal
authority (Scott, 2014, p. 60). A related assumption of institutional economics is that the assignment of property rights creates in-
centives that shape the dynamics of the economy at large (Libecap, 1986). This coincides with much post-growth research, which also
highlights the importance of property rights and business ownership for the growth-orientation of the economy (Parrique, 2020).
Important to note is that regulative institutions have a corresponding logic and purpose - such as the logic of capitalism or the
purpose of increasing prot (Scott, 2014, p. 62). Thus, attention must be paid to the purpose embedded in institutions when discussing
3
I use ‘post-growthto refer to any growth-critical research.
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
3
post-growth possibilities (G¨
opel, 2016). When regulative institutions are aligned with the social norms and belief systems in a given
context, they can be powerful in guiding and constraining actors behavior and are thus good indicators for anticipated ranges of
behavior (Scott, 2014). On the other hand, a lack of institutional alignment can lead to confusion and conict (Scott, 2014). Therefore,
the alignment of different institutional elements of business with post-growth aims is important for post-growth transformations.
3. Five dimensions framework for post-growth business
3.1. The ve dimensions
My reading and analysis of the post-growth business literature was shaped by a focus on these aspects of institutions: whether they
are legally-binding or not; their connection to property rights; and their connection to the purpose and goals of business. This led me to
identify ve key dimensions of business that are discussed in the post-growth literature:
Size and geographical scope refers to how small versus large a business is, as well as how local versus global it is.
Strategy refers to how a business uses its resources to achieve its purpose. This includes business management, business planning,
and business practices.
Governance refers to the rules, protocols, and processes by which decisions are made in a business. This differs from strategy in
that it does not relate directly to which actions the business undertakes, but rather how and by whom those decisions are taken - and
who is excluded from decision-making.
Incorporation structure (also known as corporate form or legal form) refers to the specic legal body in which a rm is incor-
porated or signed into legal existence.
Relationship-to-prot (also known as legal form or organizational form) refers to the legal distinction between for-prot and not-
for-prot types of business.
Size and geographical scope of businesses are given a great deal of attention in the post-growth literature, and overall, scholars
have advocated for small, local companies that do not want or need to grow (e.g., Latouche, 2006; Dietz & ONeill, 2013; Johanisova
et al., 2013; Liesen, Dietsche, & Gebauer, 2015; Johanisova & Fraˇ
nkov´
a, 2017; Gebauer, 2018; Gabriel et al., 2019; Nesterova, 2020).
Reichel and Seeberg (2011) discuss the idea of a ‘rightsize business. There is also frequent mention of SMEs (small and medium sized
enterprises) (e.g., Kopnina, 2016) and (re)localizing production (Nesterova, 2020). This dimension is more of an attribute of business,
or an outcome of a businesss institutional conguration and wider context, rather than an institutional element itself. It is not
legally-binding, and it has no direct connection to the purpose or property rights of a company. The desire to grow or not, as a business
goal, can be seen as a normative or cultural institution that belongs in the dimension of strategy.
Strategy tends to be the area of greatest focus in the post-growth literature concerning business. This is a non-legally-binding
dimension that has no direct connection to the property rights of a rm, but does often connect to the rms purpose in terms of
goals and voluntary objectives. Thus, there are some informal institutional elements to be found in this dimension (such as norms and
beliefs), but the strategy dimension is more about agency than structure. This dimension encompasses how businesses respond to and
shape their institutional contexts. It spans a wide array of concerns, including supply chain management, ethical sourcing, production
techniques, third-party certication, sustainability-oriented accounting tools, voluntary objectives, non-market behaviors, and
everyday practices.
In the post-growth literature, there is an especially sharp emphasis on voluntary objectives like sufciency; societal needs and
wellbeing; consideration of non-human life; other-than-prot goals; and inclusive, collaborative, or shared value creation (e.g., Bocken
& Short, 2016; Cyron & Zoellick, 2018; Dietz & ONeill, 2013; Hankammer & Kleer, 2017; Johanisova & Fraˇ
nkov´
a, 2017; Khmara &
Kronenberg, 2018; Nesterova, 2020; Reichel, 2017; Upward & Jones, 2016; Wells, 2016; 2018)
4
. Along those lines, there is a focus on
metrics and indicators (e.g., Dietz & ONeill, 2013; Reichel & Seeberg, 2011). There is naturally also a concern about the kinds of
products and services a company chooses to sell, and in which sector(s) it chooses to operate (e.g., Nesterova, 2020; Wells, 2018).
Circular economy practices are prominent, such as: closed-loop processing; life-cycle analysis; material and energy efciency; sharing
resources; using renewable resources (and avoiding non-renewables); using natural processes; servicization (providing functionality
rather than ownership); encouraging sufciency; and making products that last and are repairable (e.g., Bocken, Short, Rana, & Evans,
2014; Kopnina, 2016; Khmara & Kronenberg, 2018; ; Reichel & Seeberg, 2011; Wells, 2018). There is also a focus on the use and
production of appropriate technology, as well as open-access and open-source technology (Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014; ; Wells, 2016).
Several authors identify increased cooperation between rms as important (e.g., Reichel, 2017; ; Schmid, 2018).
Schaefer, Corner, and Kearins (2015) also describe some prerequisites for sustainable business related to wider social norms and
value systems, that the rm should include: a caring view of human nature; a focus on social justice and equity; adoption of complex
systems thinking; identifying root causes of sustainability problems; critical reection on ones own habits and patterns; seeing prot
as a means, rather than an end
5
; and respecting the planetary boundaries. Reichel (2017) refers to ‘(e)noughness, multiple values,
cross- sectoral market places, products and solutions for convivial lifestyles(p. 109). Along these lines, some authors write about the
4
Kostakis & Bauwens(2014) framing of ‘for-benet businessalso implies voluntary social benet objectives.
5
Seeing prot as a means rather than an end can be legally enshrined at the level of incorporation structure and relationship-to-prot; otherwise,
it is a voluntary objective (i.e., not legally enforceable).
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
4
need for company managers and employees to behave in sustainable ways at work and in their personal lives (e.g., Khmara & Kro-
nenberg, 2018;). With regards to workers, includes in her framework: reduced working hours and a focus on meaningful work, as well
as developing human potential.
Governance structures also feature strongly. Much of the post-growth literature has advocated for democratic, inclusive,
collaborative, decentralized, networked, and adaptive companies (e.g., Cyron & Zoellick, 2018; Johanisova et al., 2013; Kostakis &
Bauwens, 2014; Khmara & Kronenberg, 2018; ; Reichel, 2017; Schmid, 2018). Johanisova et al. (2013) refer to the governance
structures built into many publicly-listed shareholder companies as being unsustainable (i.e., that shareholder votes depend on the
number of shares one owns). Similarly, one of Upward & Jones (2016) requisites of a sustainable business model is that it must
describe which stakeholders are to be involved in which conversations and advocate for processes of legitimation that are ‘determined
by the relative power of actors and stakeholders via governance arrangements(p. 109). Cyron and Zoellick (2018); Pay´
an-S´
anchez,
P´
erez-Valls, and Plaza-Úbeda (2019) and Reichel (2017) discuss bringing more stakeholders into management and decision-making.
‘Participative collaborationis one of Shaeffer et al.s prerequisites for a sustainable business (2015). Some authors claim that dem-
ocratic or worker self-management are essential components of sustainable business (Johanisova & Fraˇ
nkov´
a, 2017; Johanisova &
Wolf, 2012; Latouche, 2006;). As will be discussed in more detail in section 3.3, some aspects of this dimension can be legally-binding,
while other aspects are not legally-binding. For instance, some types of companies are legally obliged to have a board in their
governance structure, but decision-making also happens in less formal ways, such as when a company forms a team to manage a
specic project and the team is then dissolved once the project is completed.
The incorporation structure is identied as important in the post-growth literature because it locks into place exactly who the
owners are and which legal rights, responsibilities, and obligations the company has in relation to the owners and other stakeholders
(Johanisova et al., 2013; Johanisova, Padilla, & Parry, 2015; Orsi, 2014; Orts, 2013). This is a legally-binding institutional element
that relates directly to both the purpose and property rights of a company. Although specic legal bodies vary from place to place, some
incorporation structures that are available in many parts of the world include the limited liability company (LLC); publicly-traded
shareholder corporation; joint stock company (not publicly-traded); partnership; sole proprietorship; cooperative; nonprot corpo-
ration; and association
6
.
The post-growth literature has mostly focused on a few incorporation structures. Scholarsattention is largely focused on moving
away from the publicly-traded shareholder company, and towards cooperative structures (e.g., Dietz & ONeill, 2013; Johanisova &
Wolf, 2012; Johanisova et al., 2013, 2015;). Traditional not-for-prot incorporation structures, such as the charity, foundation, and
association, are increasingly being used as legal bodies for carrying out business activities for social benet (Salamon, Sokolowski,
Haddock, & Tice, 2013) and are sometimes mentioned in post-growth literature (e.g., Hinton, 2020; Hinton & Maclurcan, 2017;
Johanisova et al., 2013; Johanisova & Fraˇ
nkov´
a, 2017; Schmid, 2018).
Relationship-to-prot is a legally-binding institutional element that relates directly to both the purpose and property rights of a
company. Indeed, this dimension is mainly characterized by a difference in legal purpose and nancial rights (i.e., the right to receive
the prot and assets of a company (Palmiter, 2003)). The dening attribute of the for-prot type of business structure is the ability to
distribute prot to private owners (via private nancial rights) and to pursue nancial gain
7
as the businesss purpose (Hansmann,
1980; Reiser & Dean, 2017). Not-for-prot structures are characterized by the non-distribution constraint, which precludes a nancial
gain purpose and private nancial rights in order to ensure that resources (including prot) are used for a social benet purpose rather
than private enrichment (Hansmann, 1980; ICNL, 2013; Reiser & Dean, 2017). Not-for-prot businesses can also be distinguished from
traditional not-for-prot organizations in that they generate most or all of their revenue through the sale of goods and services, rather
than depending on grants and philanthropy (Hinton & Maclurcan, 2017). Not-for-prot businesses can be found all over the world in
nearly every sector of the economy, and have been the subject of social economy research for decades (e.g., Borzaga & Tortia, 2007;
Dees, Emerson, & Economy, 2001; James & Rose-Ackerman, 1986; Patten, 2017).
In the post-growth literature, Johanisova et al. (2013) are critical of prot being a business objective and they extend that criticism
to for-prot forms of business (pp. 78 and p. 11). Hinton and Maclurcan (2016, 2017); Hinton (2020) and Lux (2003) posit that the
dynamics of a not-for-prot market would allow for post-growth sustainability in ways that for-prot markets do not, due to the
requirement for not-for-prot forms of business to have a social benet purpose and the non-distribution constraint.
3.2. A brief exploration of existent businesses to illustrate the dimensions
These ve dimensions can be used as a kind of taxonomy to more clearly see how aligned (or not) a company is with global
sustainability concerns and post-growth aims. Table 1 shows how the dimensions can be used to understand and compare companies,
giving a brief illustrative description of some rms that have featured in sustainable business discussions: Unilever (Sim, King, & Price,
2016); Riversimple (Wells, 2018); Greyston Bakery (Van Wert, 2018); Mondragon (Johanisova et al., 2013); and BRAC (Seelos & Mair,
2009). The content of the table should not be seen as empirical evidence derived from case study research. These specic businesses
have been included here because they are diverse enough to illustrate and contrast the different dimensions and various combinations
of attributes. I will touch on these concrete examples as I elaborate the conceptual framework below. All information shown in the
6
It is worth noting that ‘social enterpriseis not an incorporation structure, but is rather a category open to interpretation that can include both
types of relationship-to-prot, as well as many different kinds of incorporation and governance structures (Reiser & Dean, 2017). In other words, the
term ‘social enterpriseprovides limited usefulness for post-growth scholars and practitioners (Houtbeckers, 2018; Johanisova et al., 2015).
7
Also known as a pecuniary gain purpose.
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
5
table is publicly available, and was obtained from the companies websites (BRAC, 2020; Greyston, 2019; Mondragon, 2019; Riv-
ersimple, 2019; and Unilever, 2020a), with the exception of Riversimple, for which some information was also obtained from the UK
national company register website (UK Companies House, 2019). Some of these businesses might seem clearly aligned with
post-growth aims, or at odds with them. The purpose of this exercise is to illustrate how taking all ve dimensions into consideration
can provoke a deeper discussion of why some businesses are more post-growth-compatible than others and in which ways, than if the
focus were on just one or two of the dimensions (which is commonly the case).
If only one or two of the ve dimensions are taken into account, there is a risk of missing information that has signicant impli-
cations for post-growth outcomes. For instance, B Corp certication and social enterprises are often highlighted in post-growth dis-
cussions (e.g., Johanisova & Wolf, 2012; Khmara & Kronenberg, 2018;). A focus only on this strategic aspect would highlight Greyston
Bakery, BRAC, and Unilever, which vary greatly in terms of all of the other dimensions. Large for-prot corporations like Unilever
might have sophisticated sustainability strategies, including a B Corp certication and life-cycle analysis, but the risk is high that their
nancial gain purpose, shareholder investment structure, and private distribution of prot undermine those strategies. Furthermore,
there is no legally-binding mechanism to hold them accountable for how well (or how) they carry out their particular sustainability
Table 1
A dimensional prole of diverse companies.
Business name Relationship-to-
prot
Incorporation
structure
Governance Strategy Size and scope
Unilever For-prot Publicly-listed
company
Head-quarters and boards in
different countries
(Netherlands, UK, and US);
Chief ofcer and executive
positions (23 people in top
leadership positions); Annual
General Meeting (for
shareholders)
Produces food &
refreshments, home care
products, beauty & personal
care products; CSR activities,
life cycle analysis, and
sustainability reporting; Some
subsidiaries are B Corp
certied; Sustainable Living
Plan (vision ‘to make
sustainable living
commonplace)
Transnational; 161,000
employees;
51 billion
annual revenue; Owns more
than 400 different brands in
different sectors
Riversimple For-prot Private limited
company
One central ofce with six
people in leadership
positions;
Six Custodians (not-for-prot
entities to represent different
stakeholders)
Produces electric and
hydrogen fueled cars; Has
several sustainability
objectives; Aims for
circularity via product service
systems and distributed
manufacturing; Vision is ‘to
pursue, systematically, the
elimination of the
environmental impact of
personal transport
Local (but unclear how
local); Based in Landrindod
Wells, UK; 21 employees;
Revenue is not publicly
available online
Greyston Bakery Not-for-prot
(for-prot
subsidiary fully-
owned by a not-
for-prot)
LLC owned by a
501(c)3
foundation
Four people in chief ofcer
and management positions;
Emphasis on community
engagement; ‘Dynamic
democracy;
Produces baked goods; Uses
an Open Hiring Model (hires
people who cannot nd jobs);
B Corp certied; Moving into
vegan products with Whole
Planet Foundation; Buddhist
principles
Local (New York), but ships
nationally in the US; 65
employees; 2.3 million USD
annual revenue
Mondragon
Corporation
For-prot
a
Worker
cooperative
federation
Democratic representatives
and assemblies
Manufactures machines,
electrical appliances,
construction equipment,
technical assistance, legal
services, food; Democratic
vision; Strives to be
competitive and protable;
No ecological goals
National (Spain); 80,000
employees;
12 billion
annual revenue; Owns 266
companies and cooperatives
BRAC Not-for-prot Nonprot
corporation with
several
subsidiaries
Global board (5 members);
Governing body (9 members);
Executive body (with 27
people in managing and
director positions); Country
representatives
Runs businesses in clothing
and furniture retail,
agriculture, micro-nance,
and legal aid services, in order
to achieve social benet
missions of addressing:
extreme poverty; professional
development; climate change
and food; education; gender
equality; universal access to
healthcare; and human rights
outreach
International (Bangladesh,
Afghanistan, Liberia,
Myanmar, Nepal, Phillipines,
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South
Sudan, Tanzania, and
Uganda); 110,000
employees; 78 billion Taka
(circa
830 million) annual
revenue; Owns 5 social
enterprises
a
The worker cooperative incorporation structure involves private nancial rights for worker-owners (Pencavel & Craig, 1994).
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
6
strategies or engage with societal wellbeing.
If the focus is on small and local companies, Greyston Bakery and Riversimple stand out. However, there are important differences
between these rms. Greyston has no private owners and uses all prot for the social benet mission of helping ‘unemployablepeople
nd jobs, as well as running early learning programs, community gardens, and housing programs in disadvantaged communities
(Greyston, 2019). They also publish their full annual nancial reports on their website. In contrast, Riversimple has taken private
equity-based investment (Seedrs, 2019), but does not clearly disclose on its website what its investment structure is; who the owners
are; how much revenue it generates; nor what happens to the prot. These are all arguably very important aspects of business when it
comes to sustainability and post-growth transformations. Furthermore, if large international companies are simply assumed to be
unsustainable, post-growth opportunities of the kind BRAC demonstrates might be missed. BRAC uses its prot to have a positive
impact on the lives of rural and poor people by creating more economic democracy in several different countries, through
locally-rooted branches (Ibrahim & Hulme, 2011, pp. 397398).
Similarly, this taxonomy exposes the tensions between the dimensions that a company might have. For instance, a rm might have
a more democratic approach to governance, but does not address sustainability concerns in their strategy or they are locked into a for-
prot structure that encourages the pursuit of private nancial gain. Clearly, all ve of the dimensions are worthy of attention in post-
growth discussions.
3.3. Ordering the dimensions
All of these dimensions represent different aspects of business that are important for post-growth economies. The challenge is to t
these different dimensions together to form a more complete picture of what is required of rms for transformations to post-growth
economies.
Showing how the ve dimensions relate to each other can help scholars and practitioners identify the necessary and sufcient
conditions of business for post-growth economies. I have used changeability as a heuristic tool for ordering the dimensions. Drawing
upon the institutionalist perspective outlined above, the changeability of the dimension has to do with informal expectations versus
legal rights and responsibilities. For instance, to shift the incorporation structure or relationship-to-prot requires legal changes to the
basic structure of the business, including the assignment of its nancial rights. It is not as easy to change elements in these dimensions
as it is to change elements in the strategy dimension. Furthermore, the nancial rights of the business can be expected to have an
important impact on its strategy, but not vice versa. Changeability thus reveals which dimensions actively guide and constrain other
dimensions, and which dimensions are more guided and constrained by others.
Returning to our real-world examples, Mondragon can change its strategy tomorrow (and its broad production range indicates that
it has already done so several times), without impacting its democratic governance structure, but not vice versa. Reducing employee
involvement in its decision-making can be expected to have a signicant effect on the rms strategy. In the same vein, Unilever could
readily change its governance structure to be more democratic without getting rid of its shareholders. However, if Unilevers incor-
poration structure were transformed from a publicly-traded shareholder corporation to a partnership, it would have major impacts on
the companys governance for instance, the corporate board would likely be dissolved. In most cases, changes to a companys
incorporation structure does not have an impact on its relationship-to-prot. However, if the relationship-to-prot changes, there are
Fig. 1. The ve dimensions of business.
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
7
usually major impacts on the incorporation structure. If Riversimple were to transition from being a private limited company to a
shareholder corporation, it would still be for-prot. But if Riversimple wanted to become not-for-prot, it would have to either change
its incorporation structure to a not-for-prot type or expand its incorporation structure by transferring all ownership to a not-for-prot
parent organization (as is the case with Greyston Bakery).
This analysis enables the ordering of the dimensions in relation to each other (as shown in Fig. 1). The dimensions at the bottom of
the pyramid (relationship-to-prot and incorporation structure) are legally-binding and structural in nature and, as such, they are not
easy to change. The dimensions at the top relate to purpose and goals, but are not legally-binding. Size, scope, and strategy are guided
and constrained by the other dimensions but do not have much of an impact on those lower dimensions. Governance can be seen as a
mediating dimension, which is guided and constrained by the lower dimensions, and also has a high degree of inuence on the upper
ones. Some structural aspects of governance are legally-binding, such as voting rights in cooperatives and shareholder corporations,
while others are not, such as decision-making protocols in the day-to-day management of the businesss resources.
The ve dimensions are more dynamic and interrelated than they are depicted in Fig. 1. They should not be thought of as silos,
separate from one another. Nor do processes ow linearly upward from the bottom dimensions to the top. Instead, the dimensions are
better thought of as different interacting aspects of one dynamic system. This is similar to an ecosystem, where the soil and climate are
less changeable and have a large inuence on how the ecosystem functions, but the microbes, plants, and animals still play a vital role
in shaping the ecosystems dynamics.
Another useful metaphor for interpreting the order of these dimensions is that of an iceberg. The upper dimensions are more visible
and currently receive more attention in the academic literature, whereas the lower dimensions are less visible. Perhaps the reason they
receive less attention is because they are legal in nature, making them technically complex, more difcult to get information about, and
harder for interdisciplinary researchers to integrate. For instance, it is very easy to gather information about the strategy, size and
scope of all of the companies in Table 1 from their websites, while it takes more digging to uncover their governance structure,
corporate form, and relationship-to-prot. Yet, it is exactly because of their legally-binding nature the cementing of rights, re-
sponsibilities, and expectations that the deeper layers have signicant impacts on the other dimensions and are important for social
and ecological sustainability.
3.3.1. A closer look at how each of the dimensions affects the others
The upper dimensions of strategy, size and scope, can be characterized as being more changeable, diverse, and context-dependent.
The size and geographical scope of a business can be seen mostly as an outcome of strategy. A company can choose to stay small and local,
like Greyston, or to grow large and become transnational as a part of its strategy (Penrose & Pitelis, 2009). The size and geographical
scope can also be a byproduct of certain strategies. A company seeking to control more of its supply chain might do so by acquiring
other companies in the supply chain, thus becoming larger and more international. As such, the size and scope of a business are fairly
changeable traits, that are quite heavily inuenced by strategy directly.
Size and geographical scope can also be impacted by the incorporation structure and relationship-to-prot of the company, through
strategy. For example, equity-based investment from venture capitalists might put pressure on managers to pursue a growth-driven
strategy.
The size and scope of a business can also guide and constrain strategy and governance structures, in terms of what is feasible and
desirable. For instance, if a company has thousands of employees, like Unilever or BRAC, it might be more logistically challenging to
switch to more democratic governance structures than for smaller companies to do so.
The strategy of a business guides and constrains the size and geographical scope of a business. However, strategy is mostly inu-
enced by other dimensions. For instance, governance determines who can participate in making decisions and in shaping the voluntary
objectives of the rm. Likewise, a companys strategy is guided and constrained by its incorporation structure and relationship-to-
prot, in terms of setting priorities as well as choosing ways of pursuing those priorities. The for-prot structure means that there
are likely investors who expect a dividend, so there is pressure on the manager to deliver this (Bapuji, Husted, Lu, & Mir, 2018).
Managers of for-prot social enterprises are expected to nd a way to balance nancial gain for owners with benets for the wider
community (Reiser & Dean, 2017). A not-for-prot social enterprise is expected to focus its strategy on generating enough revenue to
pursue the social benet mission (James & Rose-Ackerman, 1986). This means that in order to radically change strategy (e.g., to
decrease the size of its output), a company might require corresponding shifts in the governance, incorporation structure, and
relationship-to-prot dimensions.
Governance structures are somewhat exible and somewhat steadfast in nature. Some aspects of governance structures are legally-
binding, while other aspects can be changed overnight by managers. In many companies, a CEO can decide to make a project manager
more independent in terms of her decision-making and her control over the companys resources, for instance requiring less oversight
of how she uses the budget. This change in governance protocols can often be made without any need to amend legal documents.
However, incorporation documents can determine some aspects of governance in legally-binding ways. For example, the cooper-
ative is an incorporation structure that requires democratic decision-making (ICA, 2018). Likewise, publicly-traded corporations,
nonprot foundations, and associations are incorporation structures that require a board to be engaged in major decisions (ICNL, 2013;
Orts, 2013). In a sense, the governance of a business bridges the incorporation structure with the strategy dimension. Decisions are
connected to the legal responsibilities and obligations of the business through its decision-making protocols, which include and
exclude certain stakeholders according to the incorporation structure. As a shareholder corporation, Unilevers structure means that
members of the board can have a direct inuence on the strategy and that investors with voting-right shares can also inuence it once a
year at the shareholders meeting (Unilever, 2020b).
Finally, relationship-to-prot guides and constrains the dimensions of incorporation structure, governance, and strategy. As such, it
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
8
can also have an indirect inuence on size and scope. The non-distribution constraint, which is the essence of the not-for-prot
organizational type, means that only certain kinds of incorporation structures can be considered not-for-prot. For instance, a com-
pany with private shareholders (whether through private equity or publicly-traded shares) can only be for-prot. The focus on social
benet often guides or requires the company to have a board in its governance structure, in order to hold the rm accountable for using
its resources for this purpose (Orsi, 2014). Likewise, relationship-to-purpose guides and constrains the companys strategy to focus on
the pursuit of its legal purpose (ICNL, 2013; Orsi, 2014).
3.4. Overlapping but different: relationship-to-prot and incorporation structure
Relationship-to-prot and incorporation structure are closely linked, in terms of ownership and investment. It might not be
necessary to consider the distinctions between them at all in post-growth discussions, if it were not for three main issues:
the widespread lack of awareness of not-for-prot forms of business and the common assumption that business is naturally for-
prot;
the lack of clarity about nancial rights in some incorporation structures; and
the wide ranges of acceptable business behavior among different incorporation types.
With regards to the rst issue, most scholars and practitioners assume that business must be for-prot (Hinton, 2020) or even that
maximizing ownerswealth must be a prime concern of all businesses (Bapuji et al., 2018). As such, some authors have pondered how
to make companies prioritize social benet over private prot. For instance, Johanisova et al. (2013) express a common concern,
Another difcult issue which needs to be discussed in relation to a potential social enterprise future is the tendency of successful
alternative economic structures to revert to a mainstream modelHow do explicit social and environmental objectives get written
into the objects of an enterprise, and take long-term precedence over simple prot maximisation? (pp. 1415). Bocken and Short
(2016) express a similar concern. The not-for-prot structure prohibits private distribution of prot, which offers clarity, account-
ability, and enforceability to the prioritization of social benet. Therefore, it is important to highlight that the for-prot structure is a
matter of choice and social norms, rather than a natural aspect of business.
Regarding the second issue, with so many different kinds of incorporation structures it is hard to keep track of the types of nancial
rights and legal purpose associated with each structure. Incorporation structures are complex, diverse, context-dependent, and
constantly evolving, so it is not an ideal dimension to guide international, interdisciplinary discussions and visions for post-growth
organizing. Relationship-to-prot has only two types, which are found around the world, and it relates directly to legal purpose
and nancial rights. Therefore, relationship-to-prot offers a useful shorthand for this important information. For example, the non-
distribution constraint of not-for-prot structures means that dual-purpose incorporation structures, which seek to deliver social
benet and private nancial gain to owners (like the benet corporation in the US), are for-prot in legal terms (Reiser & Dean, 2017).
This is a point that is commonly misunderstood in the literature in instances where authors describe dual-purpose businesses as not
really being for-prot or not-for-prot (e.g., Dietz & ONeill, 2013, p. 149). This point of confusion between incorporation structure
and relationship-to-prot is part of the reason why the latter needs to be a separate dimension. In Fig. 2, I have traced how
Fig. 2. Relationship-to-prot and incorporation structure.
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
9
relationship-to-prot and incorporation structure are connected in order to highlight how the former is a more straightforward
indication of purpose and nancial rights than the latter.
Incorporation structure is often (but not always) tied to one type of relationship-to-prot (as depicted in Fig. 2). For instance, a
publicly-traded shareholder corporation can only be for-prot, and a state-owned enterprise can only be not-for-prot (due to the
preclusion of private nancial rights). However, some incorporation structures can be either for-prot or not-for-prot, such as co-
operatives and many types of social enterprise. Consumer cooperatives can be considered not-for-prot
8
, whereas worker cooperatives
are for-prot, as they entail private nancial rights (Pencavel & Craig, 1994). Community Interest Companies in the UK are another
example, as there are two available forms: limited by shares and limited by guarantee (Ofce of the Regulator of Community Interest
Companies, 2013). The former is for-prot, as it allows for the private distribution of prot (albeit capped). The latter does not, so it is
not-for-prot. This difference is not immediately clear and has, thus, led to confusion in the literature. Dietz and ONeill (2013) for
instance, describe all Community Interest Companies as having private nancial rights (p. 149). If business ownership is as important
for post-growth organizing as many authors claim (e.g., Lange, 2018), then this information about different types of business needs to
be easily accessible and decipherable.
Adding complication to the situation, a company that is incorporated as a for-prot structure, like a limited liability company, can
be owned by a not-for-prot entity (as is the case with Greyston Bakery). Despite its complex incorporation arrangement, Greyston
meets the legal denition of NFP, because it is wholly-owned by an NFP entity, precluding private nancial rights. These intricate
aspects of incorporation structures reveal why relationship-to-prot needs to be its own dimension. Even in less straight-forward
incorporation structures, asking the question of whether a business is for-prot or not-for-prot prompts questions (and answers)
about two of the most important aspects of business for post-growth organizing the nancial rights and legal purpose (as shown in
Fig. 2).
Lastly, the relationship-to-prot and incorporation structure of a company can encourage, allow for, or inhibit the pursuit of certain
Fig. 3. Relationship-to-prot and incorporation structure guide and constrain the range of business behavior.
8
The only way members can capture the value of the cooperatives activities is by buying its goods and services (Ruiz-Mier & van Ginneken,
2006). It can be argued that consumer cooperatives and credit unions meet the legal denition of not-for-prot, because the prot distributed to
consumers will never be more than a fraction of what the consumers have spent into the company via purchases (Hinton & Maclurcan, 2016). The
‘dividendsfrom consumer cooperatives are best thought of as refunds, rather than actual dividends for private nancial gain.
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
10
business objectives, such as private nancial gain or social benet. This leads to a range of possible strategic behaviors, as concep-
tualized in Fig. 3. Equity-based investment can compel for-prot companies to pursue prot as an ultimate end, because equity-holders
are expecting returns on investment. Some for-prot incorporation structures, such as the publicly-traded shareholder corporation,
have more structural pressure to deliver private prot than others (Bapuji et al., 2018; Johanisova et al., 2013). The partnership, LLC,
worker cooperative, and producer cooperative structures allow for the pursuit of social benet or for a sole focus on private nancial
gain, depending on the motivation of the owners but there is no legal requirement for a focus on either type of objective. If a producer
cooperatives members are for-prot companies, the cooperative can be very focused on delivering private prot to its members
owners (Gall & Schroder, 2006). Dual-purpose incorporation structures are expected to deliver nancial gain to owners, but often have
caps on how much prot and assets can be privately distributed, so that the business can focus on social benet as well (as in the case of
Community Interest Companies limited by shares, mentioned above).
Note that all for-prot structures allow for the pursuit of private nancial gain, whereas not-for-prot structures do not. If a not-for-
prot company does pursue private nancial gain, it is breaking the law and can be held legally accountable (James & Rose-Ackerman,
1986; ICNL (International Center for Not-for-Prot Law), 2013; Orsi, 2014). As Fig. 3 illustrates, not all not-for-prot businesses will
act sustainably and not all for-prot businesses are slaves to the prot-maximization mandate; rather not-for-prot business frame-
works naturally encourage a focus on social benet, while for-prot business frameworks risk encouraging a focus on private nancial
gain and driving problematic dynamics like consumerism, environmental degradation, inequality, and market concentration (Hinton,
2020).
4. A brief discussion of the theoretical and the practical
Theoretical approaches to business often describe how a rm operates after it has already been started. However, contextual factors
such as culture, market pressures, and regulatory environment, can inuence how entrepreneurs decide to start their business in the
rst place.
When starting a business, entrepreneurs have to contend with many things all at once. They must think about where they can nd
sources of investment, and on which conditions. Different kinds of investment have different kinds of expectations when it comes to a
return on investment. They must grapple with the types of incorporation structure that are available and which is best for their business
plan. They must think about what kind of ownership structure they prefer. If they nd easier access or better terms with certain streams
of investment, then that might guide the way they structure the business. Likewise, the desired incorporation structure may shape
decisions about relationship-to-prot (e.g., a worker-cooperative or partnership). A lack of knowledge about the different options that
are available may also shape decisions (Schmid, 2018).
For traditional rms that have nancial gain as a core aim, the question of relationship-to-prot might never even appear as a
decision that needs to be made; for-prot legal structures will be taken for granted in investment and ownership decisions, leaving
explicit decisions to be made only about the incorporation structure (i.e., which specic legal vehicle to use), governance, strategy, size
and scope. If an entrepreneur desires to have a core social benet purpose, relationship-to-prot becomes more prominent in the
decision-tree. In fact, entrepreneurs that choose the not-for-prot organizational type often do so in order to minimize the possibility of
the business drifting away from its social benet mission (Reiser & Dean, 2017).
These practical issues of how aware and familiar entrepreneurs are with the existing range of ways to organize a business have
implications for transformation. If certain forms of business are deemed necessary for post-growth transitions, then awareness may
need to be raised about those types of business. For instance, it is difcult to imagine how the economy could transition from for-prot
to not-for-prot types of business without a larger social movement that raises awareness about this possibility
9
. However, these
concerns should not inuence how we conceptualize the necessary and sufcient conditions for post-growth business. There are
important differences between identifying and describing the most post-growth compatible businesses that currently exist, on the one
hand, and conceptualizing the necessary and sufcient conditions for all businesses in a post-growth economy, on the other. The ve
dimensions framework offers a concrete basis for both types of discussions.
5. Conclusion
This article has organized and grounded various specic insights about business and post-growth economies in one coherent
framework. The ve dimensions framework offers a clearer conceptual foundation for assessing how and why different types of
business might be compatible (or not) with post-growth transformations. As such, it can facilitate the theoretical and practical
development of post-growth-compatible rms, and can also be used to probe existing businesses for post-growth-compatibility.
Scholars have so far largely focused on aspects of the governance, strategy, size and geographical scope of rms, but have largely
overlooked the deeper legally-binding structures that guide and constrain those more changeable processes. Considering all ve di-
mensions in the framework above might help researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners nd better ways of aligning economic
activity with social and ecological sustainability. As it offers a concrete, well-dened set of terms and categories, it might also help
scholars and practitioners avoid unnecessary misunderstandings in discussions about sustainable business. The debate is not about
whether not-for-prot structures, democratic decision-making, or environmentally-regenerative strategies are required for post-
9
Hinton and Maclurcan (2016) offers such a transformation scenario from the for-prot economy to a not-for-prot economy (pp. 215246).
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
11
growth transformations, but rather how attributes in all ve dimensions might be aligned. The discussion should center on which kinds
of changes are important in all of these dimensions, and why. The specic attributes given by post-growth authors for each dimension
10
(covered in section 3.1) offer clear guidance for holistic sustainability analysis and organizing.
The ve dimensions framing also helps reveal the amount of existing diversity of business structures that can suit a post-growth
economy, rather than just social enterprises or cooperatives. This can help readers nd those building blocks in their own commu-
nities rather than trying to create something new or reinvent the wheel.
Another contribution of this framework is that it can help to categorize types of business as: growth-driving; potentially compatible
with post-growth transition pathways; or ideal for post-growth economies. This connects to questions about what the necessary and
sufcient conditions of business are for a post-growth economy and gives guidance for avenues for future research. Which attributes in
each of these dimensions are not compatible with post-growth aspirations, which are compatible, and which traits might be necessary?
The extent to which the deeper layers guide and constrain the other layers, due to their legally-binding nature, hints that they are
where the necessary conditions for a post-growth economy might reside. Should the sustainability of the economy be left to the visions
and voluntary objectives of enlightened owners and managers, or is a transition in the legally-binding institutions of business also
necessary?
Of course, there are also many external factors that inuence whether a rm behaves sustainably. All rms operate in a larger
economic and societal context, and experience various sources of pressure, resistance, encouragement, and constraint from contextual
factors as well. This means there are important differences when contrasting how for-prot businesses might act in a predominately
for-prot market; how not-for-prot companies might act in a for-prot market; and how not-for-prot businesses might act in a
predominately not-for-prot market. To this end, and because relationship-to-prot plays such an important role in guiding and
constraining other dimensions of the rm, there is a need to collect data on not-for-prot business as a distinct category, separate from
for-prot businesses and charity-dependent nonprots, in order to better understand the ranges of sustainability outcomes associated
with this type of business and the extent to which their behavior is inuenced by larger for-prot dynamics.
Funding
Funding is acknowledged from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklo-
dowska Curie Fellowship Action in Excellent Research (grant agreement no. 675153).
Declaration of Competing Interest
I have no competing interests to disclose.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for feedback on drafts of this article from Sarah Cornell, Arnaud Diemer, Anselm Schneider, Timoth´
ee Parrique, María
Mancilla García, Wijnand Boonstra, Ola Persson, and two anonymous reviewers.
References
Bapuji, H., Husted, B., Lu, J., & Mir, R. (2018). Value creation, appropriation and distribution: How rms contribute to societal economic inequality. Business and
Society, 57(6), 9831009.
Bocken, N. M. P., & Short, S. W. (2016). Towards a sufciency-driven model. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18(41-), 61.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 65, 4256.
Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2007). Social economy organisations in the theory of the rm. Social economy: Building inclusive economies. Paris, France: OECD.
BRAC. (2020). BRAC website. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://www.brac.net.
Cyron, T., & Zoellick, J. C. (2018). Business development in Post-Growth economies: Challenging assumptions in the existing business growth literature. Management
Revue, 29(3), 206229.
Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond Growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising nonprots: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Dietz, R., & ONeill, D. (2013). Enough is enough: Building a sustainable economy in a world of nite resources. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Dugger, W. M. (1979). Methodological differences between institutional and neoclassical economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 13(4), 899909.
Gabriel, C. A., Nazar, S., Zhu, D., & Kirkwood, J. (2019). Performance beyond economic growth: Alternatives from growth-averse enterprises in the global south.
Alternatives, 44(24), 119137.
Gall, R. G., & Schroder, B. (2006). Agricultural producer cooperatives as strategic alliances. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 9(4), 2644.
Gebauer, J. (2018). Towards growth-independent and post-growth-oriented entrepreneurship in the SME sector. Management Revue, 29(3), 230256.
G¨
opel, M. (2016). The Great Mind Shift: How a new economic paradigm and sustainability transformations go hand in hand. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing.
Greyston. (2019). Financials. Retrieved April, 20, 2020, from https://greyston.org/nancials/.
Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Vir´
ag, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Brockway, P., et al. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and
GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6), 065003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a.
Hankammer, S., & Kleer, R. (2017). Degrowth and collaborative value creation: Reections on concepts and technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.046.
10
Nesterova (2020) in particular gives a robust set of criteria.
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
12
Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprot enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89, 341361.
Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is Green Growth Possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964.
Hinton, J. (2020). Fit for purpose? Clarifying the role of prot for sustainability. Journal of Political Ecology, 27(1), 236262.
Hinton, J., & Maclurcan, D. (2016). How on Earth: Flourishing in a Not-for-Prot World by 2050 (online draft). Ashland, OR: Post Growth Publishing. https://arxiv.org/
pdf/1902.01398.pdf.
Hinton, J., & Maclurcan, D. (2017). A not-for-prot world beyond capitalism and economic growth? Ephemera Journal, 17(1), 147166.
Hodgson, G. M. (2018). Institutional economics. In L. Fischer, J. Hasell, J. C. Proctor, D. Uwakwe, Z. Ward-Perkins, & C. Watson (Eds.), Rethinking economics: An
introduction to pluralist economics (pp. 4559). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Houtbeckers, E. (2018). Framing social enterprise as post-growth organising in the diverse economy. Management Revue, 29(3), 257280.
Ibrahim, S., & Hulme, D. (2011). Civil society and poverty. In M. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 392406). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
ICA (International Cooperative Alliance). (2018). Cooperative identity. Retrieved July 6, 2018, from https://www.ica.coop/en/whats-co-op/co-operative-identity-
values-principles.
ICNL (International Center for Not-for-Prot Law). (2013). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved June 10, 2019, from http://www.icnl.org/contact/faq/index.html.
Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity without Growth: Foundations for the economy of tomorrow. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
James, E., & Rose-Ackerman, S. (1986). The nonprot enterprise in market economics. New York: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Johanisova, N., & Fra ˇ
nkov´
a, E. (2017). Eco-social enterprises. In C. Spash (Ed.), Routledge handbook of ecological economics: Nature and society (pp. 507516).
Routledge.
Johanisova, N., & Wolf, S. (2012). Economic democracy: A path for the future? Futures, 44(6), 562570.
Johanisova, N., Crabtree, T., & Fraˇ
nkov´
a, E. (2013). Social enterprises and non-market capitals: A path to degrowth? Journal of Cleaner Production, 38, 716.
Johanisova, N., Padilla, R. S., & Parry, P. (2015). ‘Co-operatives. In G. DAlisa, F. Demaria, & G. Kallis (Eds.), Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era. Oxon, UK:
Routledge.
Khmara, Y., & Kronenberg, J. (2018). Degrowth in business: An oxymoron or a viable business model for sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 721731.
Kopnina, H. (2016). Sustainable business: What should it be? Circular economy and the ‘business of subversion. In H. Washington, & P. Twomey (Eds.), A future
beyond growth: Towards a steady state economy (pp. 7082). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2014). Network society and future scenarios for a collaborative economy. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Lange, S. (2018). Macroeconomics without growth: Sustainable economies in Neoclassical, keynesian and marxian theories. Marburg, Germany: Metropolis-Verlag.
Latouche, S. (2006). Le pari de la d´
ecroissance. Paris, France: Fayard.
Libecap, G. D. (1986). Property rights in economic history: Implications for research. Explorations in Economic History, 23, 227252.
Liesen, A., Dietsche, C., & Gebauer, J. (2015). Successful Non-growing companies. Research paper series n25/15. St. Gallen, Switzerland: Humanistic Management
Network.
Lux, K. (2003). The failure of the prot motive. Ecological Economics, 44, 19.
Magdoff, F., & Foster, J. B. (2011). What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism: A Citizens Guide to Capitalism and the Environment. New York, USA:
Monthly Review Press.
Mondragon. (n.d.). Mondragon website. Retrieved November 4, 2019, from https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/.
Nesterova, I. (2020). Degrowth business framework: Implications for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.121382.
Ofce of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies. (2013). Community interest companies: Guidance chapters. Retrieved July 5, 2018, from https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/community-interest-companies-how-to-form-a-cic.
Orsi, J. (2014). Practicing law in the sharing economy. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
Orts, E. (2013). Business persons: A legal theory of the rm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Palmiter, A. R. (2003). Ownership interests Bundle of rights. Law and valuation: Financial valuation in legal contexts. Wake Forest University, School of Law website
Accessed June 10, 2019 https://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/LawandValuation/chapter%205/5-4-1.htm.
Parrique, T. (2020). The political economy of degrowth. Economics and Finance. Université Clermont Auvergne. Stockholms universitet. English. NNT : 2019CLFAD003.
tel-02499463.
Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuakkanen, A., et al. (2019). Decoupling Debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole
strategy for sustainability. Brussels, Belgium: European Environmental Bureau.
Patten, C. (2017). Nonprot social enterprise: Social change in a new economic paradigm. Doctoral dissertation. University of Vermont.
Pay´
an-S´
anchez, B., P´
erez-Valls, M., & Plaza-Úbeda, J. A. (2019). Supply Chain management in a degrowth context: The potential contribution of stakeholders. In
N. Yakovleva, R. Frei, & S. Murthy Rama (Eds.), sustainable development goals and sustainable supply chains in the Post-global economy (1st ed., pp. 3145). Springer
Nature Switzerland AG.
Pencavel, J., & Craig, B. (1994). The empirical performance of orthodox models of the rm: Conventional rms and worker cooperatives. Journal of Political Economy,
102(4), 718744.
Penrose, E., & Pitelis, C. (2009). The growth of the rm (4th ed). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Reichel, A. (2017). Shape of things to come: From the ‘laws of formto management in the post-growth economy. Ephemera Journal, 17(1), 89118.
Reichel, A., & Seeberg, B. (2011). The ecological allowance of enterprise: An absolute measure of corporate environmental performance, its implications for strategy,
and a small case. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.14448/jes.01.0006.
Reiser, D. B., & Dean, S. A. (2017). Social enterprise law: Trust, public benet and capital markets. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Riversimple. (2019). Riversimple website. Retrieved November 4, 2019, from https://www.riversimple.com/making-efciency-protable/.
Ruiz-Mier, F., & van Ginneken, M. (2006). Consumer cooperatives: An alternative institutional model for delivery of urban water supply and sanitation services (Water supply
& sanitation working note No. 5). Washington, D.C: World Bank.
Salamon, L., Sokolowski, S. W., Haddock, M. A., & Tice, H. S. (2013). The State of Global Civil Society and Volunteering: Latest ndings from the implementation of the UN
Nonprot Handbook (working paper no. 49). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Schaefer, K., Corner, P. D., & Kearins, K. (2015). Social, Environmental and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: What is needed for sustainability-as-ourishing?
Organization & Environment, 28(4), 394413.
Schmid, B. (2018). Structured diversity: A practice theory approach to post-growth organizations. Management Revue, 29(3), 281310.
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Seedrs. (2019). Riversimple crowdfunding page. Retrieved November 4, 2019, from https://www.seedrs.com/riversimple.
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2009). Hope for sustainable development: How social entrepreneurs make it happen. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship:
Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 228246). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sim, S., King, H., & Price, E. (2016). The role of science in shaping sustainable business: Unilever case study. In R. Clift, & A. Druckman (Eds.), Taking stock of industrial
ecology (pp. 291302). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the anthropocene: The great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 118.
UK Companies House. (2019). Riversimple information page. Retrieved November 4, 2019, from https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=riversimple.
Unilever. (2020a). Unilever webpage. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from https://www.unilever.com.
Unilever. (2020b). AGM and voting page. Retrieved April 7, 2020, from https://www.unilever.com/investor-relations/agm-and-corporate-governance/agm-and-
voting/.
Upward, A., & Jones, P. (2016). An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Dening an Enterprise Framework Compatible with Natural and Social
Science. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 97123.
J. Hinton
Futures 131 (2021) 102761
13
Vad´
en, T., L¨
ahde, V., Majava, A., J¨
arvensivu, P., Toivanen, T., Hakala, E., et al. (2020). Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of
research literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 236244.
Van Wert, C. (2018). Case study: Greyston bakery. New York City, US: New York University.
Wells, P. (2016). Economies of scale versus small is beautiful: A business model approach based on architecture, principles and components in the beer industry.
Organization and Environment, 29(1), 3652.
Wells, P. (2018). Degrowth and techno-business model innovation: The case of Riversimple. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197(2), 17041710.
J. Hinton
... For instance, not-for-profit orientation or, at a minimum, an organisational purpose not based on profit-maximisation has been recognised as a key facet of organising economic activity from a post-growth perspective (Hinton, 2020(Hinton, , 2021Wiefek & Heinitz, 2018). Likewise, legal structures such as cooperatives or social enterprises have been argued to be fitting in a post-growth context (Blauwhof, 2012;Johanisova et al., 2015;Nesterova, 2020). ...
... Within post-growth scholarship, democratic governance models and flat hierarchies (see e.g., Khmara & Kronenberg, 2018;Hinton, 2020Hinton, , 2021 as well as a focus on employee well-being (see e.g., Nesterova, 2020;Hankammer et al., 2021) have been argued to be key facets for post-growth compatible organisations. Within capitalist business, employee well-being is generally only considered for retaining the workforce and ensuring productivity to ensure profitability. ...
Article
Full-text available
Unprecedented runaway climate change and ecological degradation is argued to be caused by the dominant capitalist mode of production’s reliance on endless economic growth and capital accumulation. Businesses and organisations are expected to act in an ecologically and socially ethical way to help avert the crisis. Yet, there has arguably been little progress in this direction. The conventional ethical frameworks are generally subsumed under capitalism’s reliance on growth that effectively delegate business ethics to a peripheral and, often, contradictory pursuit, insufficient to influence ecologically and socially sustainable business conduct. We therefore explore an alternative approach by operationalising business ethics through organisational values from a post-growth perspective. By analysing the case of a social cooperative, we highlight how post-growth organisational values emerge through the organisation’s history, the members’ experience, and active contrasting to the dominant capitalist value systems. We contribute to business ethics scholarship by highlighting the potential of post-growth organisational ethics and values in creating contrasts to the dominant capitalist values. Our research further contributes to sustainability scholarship, particularly post-growth perspectives, by highlighting that organising through post-growth values in contrast to the dominant economic system is not only possible, but essential to achieve sustainability. Ultimately, our research illustrates the need for political engagement in upholding organisational ethics, in the face of the ecological crisis.
... Furthermore, parts of post-growth scholarship such as on organisations apparently do not see an incompatibility with capitalism (see e.g., Khmara and Kronenberg, 2018;Hankammer et al, 2021;Roulet and Bothello, 2020). However, others have criticised this view in the context of organisations (see e.g., Hinton, 2021;. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The endless pursuit of economic growth produces spatial problems which are critiqued by geographers, economists, artists, political ecologists, psychologists, historians, and philosophers alike. What is the spatial impact of economic growth? How does space promote economic growth to negative effect, and how have critiques materialised? This chapter offers an introduction to the many ways in which questions regarding the spatial implications of economic growth have been explored, by outlining how critiques of this dynamic have been presented in academic literature, as well as art and the built environment. It ofers a broad overview of key issues rather than a comprehensive account in the hope of providing a strong starting point from which the reader can explore these issues in greater depth.
... First, by emphasising adaptive transformation, resonant organizing contributes toward an affirmative, non-binary organizational register that is reflective of spatial, temporal, organizational, and other frictions -regardless of whether they occur in 'pre' or 'postgrowth', 'alternative' or 'traditional' organizations (Alhojärvi, 2020;Cord, 2022;Gibson-Graham, 2006). By focusing away from organizational forms, resonant organizing allows to break other dichotomies maintained in the OMS literature, for instance those between commercial and social organizations (Moore et al., 2015;Peredo & Chrisman, 2006), or centralized and distributed forms of governance and ownership (Cheney et al., 2014;Hinton, 2021;Resch & Steyaert, 2020;Siedlok et al., 2024). Our case confounds these distinctions as it works on a national scale, includes a mix of not-for-profit, commercial, and public organizing, entertains relationships with diverse partners, but also retains some centralized (Rosa, 2016: 184). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper formulates an affirmative non-binary conceptual basis for rethinking the growth/‘post-growth’ binary in the context of repair thinking. We propose the twin notions of resonant organizing and thriving as new imageries of a ‘hopeful’ organizing for a better world in transitional times. These notions arise from our diffractive engagement with Anna Tsing’s reflections on frictions and Hartmut Rosa’s notion resonance, which we brought into dialogue with a case of a solidarity initiative that sprang up in Italy during the Covid-19 pandemic – SpesaSospesa. Our findings contribute to the current post-growth debate by: (1) shifting post-growth organizing’s focus from trying to overcome capitalist expansionist striving toward contaminating its building blocks; (2) theorizing ways in which post-growth organizations may thrive in space and time, relationally; and (3) proposing resonant organizing as a form of reflexive and transformative thriving that expands by constantly rethinking its basic elements. Our research thus contributes to the broader political project of repair crystallizing in organization studies that seeks to help alternative economies exit their marginal role and accomplish their transformative potential.
... Affordability is often addressed by collectivising property (e.g., by creating cooperatives) (Balmer & Gerber, 2018;Gerber & Gerber, 2017). However, collectivising property does not inherently reduce profit-seeking strategies (Hinton, 2021;Vestbro, 2000). Similarly, while cohousing may have the potential to foster solidarity among people of different nationalities, ages or socio-economic backgrounds, it can also turn into identity and/or income-based enclaves (Chiodelli, 2015;Czischke & Huisman, 2018;Droste, 2015;Sørvoll & Bengtsson, 2020). ...
Article
This study illustrates a critique of circular fashion practices using empirical insights from upcycling to highlight its potentials and limits for a degrowth transition in circular fashion. Acknowledging valuable marketing research on the motivations, benefits, and challenges of consumer upcycling, we investigate the often-overlooked domain of institutional upcycling practices, through interviews with diverse industry actors and secondary data analysis. Our analysis advances critical and theoretical debates on degrowth and circular fashion by examining how the socio-ecological value of upcycled waste is realized through institutional upcycling practices. Accordingly, we elucidate the emerging dynamics of degrowth circularity, demonstrating how these dynamics challenge and expand the degrowth principle of conviviality. Findings articulate the diverse convivialities necessary for a degrowth transition in circular fashion. Specifically, we highlight neo-material and more-than-human relationality as essential organizing principles of conviviality for degrowth circularity.
Article
This review advances a critical discussion of prevalent sustainability discourses in the leadership and management literature. Since the 1990s, ecocentric approaches to management have been discussed in opposition to anthropocentric (human centered) management theory. However, limited attention has been given, so far, to clarifying how sustainability discourses have influenced the literature of leadership and management. The influence of rights‐based United Nations Sustainable Development dating back to the Brundtland report in 1987 is widely recognized, as are business and technology‐based discourses in sustainability (ecological modernism). Such discourses are united in a belief in green growth. However, a literature review shows that critical sustainability discourses about limits to growth, planetary boundaries and the need for degrowth, as well as ecocentric discourses, are only marginally present in the literature on leadership and management. In view of the need for leadership to address the “polycrisis” of entangled environmental and social crises, we problematize the lack of critical sustainability discourses in the leadership and management literature.
Chapter
In light of the urgent ecological and social challenges facing our world, there has been a noticeable shift in focus towards exploring economic models that prioritise ecological constraints and societal well-being over the pursuit of continuous growth and profit maximisation. These alternative perspectives collectively fall under the overarching term of post-growth economic models and the financial sector has significant influence over the real economy, and the investments made within it can either perpetuate destructive traditional practices or contribute to the construction of sustainable, regenerative, and inclusive economic and social structures. Therefore, this chapter aims to delve into the role of existing sustainable investment strategies, such as ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) Investment and Impact Investment, in the transition to a post-growth era. It also aims to examine the new transformative investment frameworks that have emerged in response to the shortcomings of current investment models in facilitating this transition.
Book
Full-text available
"This is one of the most important pieces of research to come out in ecological macroeconomics in the last 20 years, alongside Peter Victor's 'Managing Without Growth', and Tim Jackson's 'Prosperity Without Growth'. It is the first and only attempt to systematically work out the conditions for zero growth under different economic models.” (Giorgos Kallis, Research Professor of Ecological Economics, Autonomous University of Barcelona) "Steffen Lange has provided an amazing piece of work. The book has good chances of becoming a standard work for ecological economists in due course." (Arne Heise, Professor of Macroeconomics, University of Hamburg) How can we organize our economies without growth? "Macroeconomics Without Growth' provides a comprehensive understanding of how non-growing economies can be sustainable. With this book, Steffen Lange brings new momentum into the debate on post-growth, degrowth and steady state economies. The book delves deep into economic theory to understand how a macro-economy can operate without growth. By applying a highly diverse set of theories - from Neoclassical, Keynesian and Marxian traditions - the book is able to cover a wide range of macroeconomic aspects: Is zero growth possible in a capitalist economic system? What happens to aggregate demand and aggregate supply when economies stop growing? And what role do firms, markets and technological change play in post-growth economies? Steffen Lange conclusively shows that sustainable economies without growth are feasible from a macroeconomic perspective. However, small changes will not suffice. Rather, key economic institutions and dynamics need to be rearranged: the prices of labour and natural resources, the structures of companies, the framework of markets - just to name a few. 'Macroeconomics Without Growth' is the first economics book to investigate nongrowing economies in a comprehensive manner. It is a must read both for economists who want to use economics for a sustainable future, and for environmentalists who want to understand the economic principles of sustainable transformations.
Article
Full-text available
This conceptual article contributes to the post-growth strand of political ecology literature, which seeks to find sustainable ways of organizing the economy that do not require economic growth. It explores the idea that transitioning to post-growth societies requires a transition in the relationship-to-profit of business. I first conceptualize relationship-to-profit as the intersection of purpose, investment, and ownership of firms. Specifically, for-profit business structures entail a financial gain purpose, private ownership, and unlimited returns on investment; whereas not-for-profit business structures have a social benefit purpose, collective ownership, and limited returns on investment. I then outline ideal types of for-profit and not-for-profit economies, based on the differences between these two kinds of relationship-to-profit. The first ideal type shows how the for-profit business structure drives consumerism, economic growth, and ecological harm, as well as inequality and political capture, preventing post-growth transitions. These dynamics might be slowed down by businesses that seek to balance private financial gain with social benefit (known as dual-purpose businesses). The second ideal type describes the dynamics that might be expected in an economy consisting of not-for-profit businesses, which have a legal mandate to pursue only social benefit. This analysis explains how transitioning from for-profit to not-for-profit forms of business might change some of the most problematic dynamics of the economy, allowing for post-growth transformations. A brief discussion of the possible shortcomings of a not-for-profit economy is also offered. Keywords: Not-for-profit business, nonprofit enterprise, for-profit business, relationship-to-profit, post-growth, degrowth, economic growth, sustainability, sustainable econom
Article
Full-text available
Strategies toward ambitious climate targets usually rely on the concept of “decoupling”; that is, they aim at promoting economic growth while reducing the use of natural resources and GHG emissions. GDP growth coinciding with absolute reductions in emissions or resource use is denoted as “absolute decoupling”, as opposed to “relative decoupling”, where resource use or emissions increase less so than does GDP. Based on the bibliometric mapping in part I (Wiedenhofer et al., this issue), we synthesize the evidence emerging from the selected 835 peer-reviewed articles. We evaluate empirical studies of decoupling related to final/useful energy, exergy, use of material resources, as well as CO2 and total GHG emissions. We find that relative decoupling is frequent for material use as well as GHG and CO2 emissions but not for useful exergy, a quality-based measure of energy use. Primary energy can be decoupled from GDP largely to the extent to which the conversion of primary energy to useful exergy is improved. Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled GDP from both production- and, weaklier, consumption-based CO2 emissions. We analyze policies or strategies in the decoupling literature by classifying them into three groups: (1) Green growth, if sufficient reductions of resource use or emissions were deemed possible without altering the growth trajectory. (2) Degrowth, if reductions of resource use or emissions were given priority over GDP growth. (3) Others, e.g. if the role of energy for GDP growth was analyzed without reference to climate change mitigation. We conclude that large rapid absolute reductions of resource use and GHG emissions cannot be achieved through observed decoupling rates, hence decoupling needs to be complemented by sufficiency-oriented strategies and strict enforcement of absolute reduction targets. More research is needed on interdependencies between wellbeing, resources and emissions.
Thesis
Full-text available
What is degrowth and what are its implications for political economy? Divided in three parts, this dissertation explores the why, what, and how of degrowth. The first part (Of growth and limits) studies the nature, causes, and consequences of economic growth. Chapter 1: Understanding economic growth answers a series of questions about the nature of economic growth: What is it exactly that grows? By how much does it grow? When and where does it grow? How does it grow? And why should it grow? The three following chapters develop a triple objection to economic growth as no longer possible (Chapter 2: Biophysical limits to growth), plausible (Chapter 3: Socioeconomic limits to growth), and desirable (Chapter 4: Social limits of growth). The second part (Elements of degrowth) is about the idea of degrowth, especially its history, theoretical foundations, and controversies. Chapter 5: Origins and definitions traces the history of the concept from 1968 to 2018. Chapter 6: Theoretical foundations presents a normative theory of degrowth as de-economisation, that is a reduction in importance of economic thoughts and practices. Chapter 7: Controversies reviews the attacks the concept has received. Whereas the first part diagnosed economic growth as the problem, this part offers a solution. The take- home message is that degrowth is not only a critique but also a fully-fledged alternative to the growth society. The third part (Recipes for degrowth) is about the transition from a growth economy to a degrowth society. It opens with an inventory of the policies that have been mobilised by degrowthers until today (Chapter 8: Strategies for change). The three following chapters on property (Chapter 9: Transforming property), work (Chapter 10: Transforming work), and money (Chapter 11: Transforming money) go from theory to practice and translate the values and principles of degrowth into operational transition strategies. Chapter 12: Transition strategy presents a method to study the interactions between degrowth policies in order to craft effective transition strategies. The central claim of this final part is that degrowth is a powerful conceptual tool to think about societal transformations for social-ecological justice.
Article
Full-text available
The notion of green growth has emerged as a dominant policy response to climate change and ecological breakdown. Green growth theory asserts that continued economic expansion is compatible with our planet’s ecology, as technological change and substitution will allow us to absolutely decouple GDP growth from resource use and carbon emissions. This claim is now assumed in national and international policy, including in the Sustainable Development Goals. But empirical evidence on resource use and carbon emissions does not support green growth theory. Examining relevant studies on historical trends and model-based projections, we find that: (1) there is no empirical evidence that absolute decoupling from resource use can be achieved on a global scale against a background of continued economic growth, and (2) absolute decoupling from carbon emissions is highly unlikely to be achieved at a rate rapid enough to prevent global warming over 1.5°C or 2°C, even under optimistic policy conditions. We conclude that green growth is likely to be a misguided objective, and that policymakers need to look toward alternative strategies.
Article
Among other aims, degrowth calls for a deprioritization of economic growth as primary indicator of success. However, deprioritizing economic growth is challenging because it is the antithesis of business as we know it today. Yet, in this study, we find examples of enterprises operating in the renewable energy industry in the Global South, which deprioritize traditional economic growth as their preferred indicator of success. We interviewed 30 renewable energy enterprises (REEs) on the basis of an importance-performance analysis (IPA). Our findings confirm that conventional measures of financial performance are not universally applicable to all enterprises in the Global South. Specifically, we observed that the REEs that are least satisfied with conventional economic performance indicators possess two characteristics in common: (1) they have strong social motivations (e.g., energy access and poverty alleviation) and (2) they are averse to economic growth in the traditional sense. We draw insights from these REEs for the future of post-growth enterprise, including the importance of localness in success and performance appraisal as the Global South transitions toward degrowth. We also introduce 14 alternative performance indicators, suggested by the REEs themselves, which may help bring enterprises closer to post-growth orientation in the Global South.
Book
This book explains the legal structure of business firms as they operate in the world today. It describes the legal foundations or “matrix” from which all firms are built, managed, and governed. The legal theory of the firm presented here provides a counterweight to the currently dominant economic approaches to understanding firms. The book describes how business enterprises work, the laws governing them, and how they change over time in terms of their institutional purposes and values. Basic legal ideas emphasized in the book include the “real fictions” of firms, the role of constructed “entities,” and the recognition of firms as “persons.” Other foundations of the firm include agency law, organizational contracts, and private property—and an appreciation of how these legal elements fit together to compose the “business persons” of modern firms. An institutional legal theory of the firm is developed that embraces both the “bottom-up” perspective of business participants and the “top-down” rule-setting perspective of government. The book discusses the important feature of limited liability of both firms themselves and participants in them, as well as the shifting legal boundaries of firms in different circumstances. A typology of different kinds of firms is presented ranging from entrepreneurial one-person start-ups to complex corporate groups. New forms of hybrid social enterprises are also reviewed. Practical applications include recommendations about two contemporary problems: executive compensation and rights of political speech of business corporations highlighted in the landmark Citizens United case.
Article
The idea of decoupling “environmental bads” from “economic goods” has been proposed as a path towards sustainability by organizations such as the OECD and UN. Scientific consensus reports on environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions) and resource use give an indication of the kind of decoupling needed for ecological sustainability: global, absolute, fast-enough and long-enough. This goal gives grounds for a categorisation of the different kinds of decoupling, with regard to their relevance. We conducted a survey of recent (1990–2019) research on decoupling on Web of Science and reviewed the results in the research according to the categorisation. The reviewed 179 articles contain evidence of absolute impact decoupling, especially between CO2 (and SOX) emissions and evidence on geographically limited (national level) cases of absolute decoupling of land and blue water use from GDP, but not of economy-wide resource decoupling, neither on national nor international scales. Evidence of the needed absolute global fast-enough decoupling is missing.
Article
Recent years have seen a revival in growth scepticism, yet degrowth in relation to the macroeconomic level has received almost exclusive attention. This resulted in a lack of literature on how post-growth and specifically degrowth visions of economy could be implemented, including from the perspective of firms and other organisations. This paper focuses on degrowth literature and fields of knowledge which share a similar or sympathetic perspective regarding the undesirability of economic growth and desirability of living within planetary boundaries while pursuing wellbeing. It then applies degrowth vision to firms and identifies potential elements of a business for a degrowth economy, here referred to as a degrowth business. These elements comprise a degrowth business framework. The framework is centred around the following groups: (1) environment, (2) people and non-humans, and (3) deviation from profit maximisation imperative. It aims to contribute to an emerging discussion on what firms should be like for a degrowth economy and society to be possible.
Chapter
The planet is changing and consumption patterns appear to be one of the main causes. The Earth has physical limits and eternal growth is basically not possible. In this context the economic theory of degrowth arises to change present consumption and production habits in order to ensure the survival of our planet and its inhabitants. Sustainability is a very important concept in the operations management field nowadays. In this chapter, we will contribute to this field discussing areas where degrowth is present explaining the important contributions of the stakeholder theory to reach a more sustainable supply chain, contributing to the achievement of SDGs. With this, we aim to highlight the influence that stakeholder pressures have when making supply chain management decisions to achieve a higher sustainability level in the firm, and ultimately, in the whole system.