Managing Relationally in the Ecology-in-Place: Multispecies Organizing in Ecological Restoration

Full text

MANAGING RELATIONALLY: MULTISPECIES ORGANIZING IN THE ECOLOGY-
IN-PLACE
MARIA EHRNSTRÖM-FUENTES
Hanken School of Economics, Finland
Biblioteksgatan 16, FI-65101 Vaasa
STEFFEN BÖHM
University of Exeter Business School
LINDA ANNALA TESFAYE
Hanken School of Economics
SOPHIA HAGOLANI-ALBOV
University of Helsinki
An updated version of this paper has been published in the AOM proceedings (2023),
please refer to:
Ehrnström-Fuentes, M., Boehm, S., Annala Tesfaye, L and Hagolani-Albov, S. 2023: Managing
Relationally in the Ecology-in-Place: Multispecies Organizing in Ecological
Restoration. Proceedings, 2023, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.119bp
ABSTRACT
Contemporary human-centered management practices endanger the existences of
multiple species—including humans. In the face of climate and ecological emergencies, it is vital
to transform managerial approaches in ways that encourage organizational modes of co-existence
based on a logic of restoration and revitalization. This article contributes to the organizational
sustainability literature by developing a framework of multispecies organizing, including four
analytical dimensions: organizing as matters of care; becoming-with the ecology-in-place; the
role of ontological politics; and translations across space. We conclude by articulating the need
for intra-actions between humans and nonhuman beings in what we call the ecology-in-place.
INTRODUCTION
The ongoing climate and ecological emergencies demand significant changes in how
humans relate to and interact with nonhumans on this planet (Gills & Morgan, 2021). For some
time already, scholars of management and organization studies (MOS) have understood that the
current, dominant way of managing organizations, societies and environmental landscapes has
profoundly negative impacts on people and the planet. Almost on a daily basis, reports are
published that provide evidence of intensifying climate and ecological crises. The latest IPCC
report (2022, p. 5) rings alarm bells about accelerating “biodiversity loss, overall unsustainable
consumption of natural resources, land and ecosystem degradation” and a whole host of other
trends that show the unsustainable development paths of humanity. Many experts now talk about
age of the Anthropocene (Ergene et al., 2021; Ergene et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2018), which
refers to a new human-induced geological epoch, where the degradation of environmental and
social conditions is consequential to human activities rather than being triggered by natural
events (Hoffman & Jennings, 2015). However, the Anthropocene narrative’s use of scientific
language, such as ‘transgressing planetary boundaries’ (Steffen et al., 2015) or talk of unleashing

‘global climatic tipping points’ (Lenton et al., 2019), ignores that human involvement with the
ecology-in-place can have a positive impact, depending on how humans organize their lives
together with other species.
The need to redefine managerial and organizational models in the face of climate and
ecological emergencies is well established. A host of corporate sustainability approaches have
emerged over the past two decades, which show the importance of shifting from a business-
centric to society-centric understanding of management and organization (Wickert, 2021). Yet,
the corporate sustainability approaches have been overwhelmingly focused on the role of
managers (Risi & Wickert, 2017), employees (Martin et al., 2016), and institutions (van den
Broek, 2022), ethical value-systems (Van Bommel & Spicer, 2011), and market-based
certifications (Moog et al., 2013), overlooking the dynamics of human-nonhuman relations in
specific places (Ehrnström-Fuentes and Böhm, 2022). Recent debates in MOS critique the
human-centric approach to organizing sustainability (Ergene et al., 2021; Phillips, 2019). Also,
the posthuman turn in MOS has started to explore the ethical implications (Tallberg et al., 2022)
and responsibilities (Gherardi & Laasch, 2021) in organizations that include other than human
beings. Yet, what is largely missing in these debates is an understanding of how the multispecies
agencies involved in organizing processes within living systems are inseparable from the
ecological contexts in which they emerge.
This article contributes to this literature by developing a theoretical framework for
understanding multispecies organizing in specific ecological contexts, and how this way of
viewing organizations fundamentally redefines sustainability as a process shaped by multispecies
agencies in the ecology-in-place. We define ‘ecology-in-place’ as the histories and entangled,
‘vibrant’ relations (Bennett, 2010) among humans, plants, animals, insects, fungi and other
beings that together support each other’s existences and shape the ecological functions (e.g.,
water, nutrient, and mineral cycles) of a specific place. We define multispecies organizing as an
affective, ethico-political practice of vital doing shaped by the entanglements among multiple
different species in the ecology-in-place. Thus, multispecies organizational practices are those
where a multitude of plants, animals, insects, and microbial agents shape the landscapes, soils,
and water flows of the ecology-in-place (Davies & Riach, 2019; McGreevy et al., 2022). This is
an ethico-political practice because of how different intentionalities are negotiated in the
ecology-in-place (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017). Thus, it is important to examine how multispecies
organizing develops and unfolds, and how these practices facilitate change at a larger scale.
The article makes two key contributions to the debates on sustainability in MOS. First,
we contribute to the emerging debates on relational sustainabilities (Ergene et al. 2018; Ergene et
al. 2021; Beacham, 2018; Davies & Riach, 2019) by developing a framework of the
organizational dynamics involved when humans collaborate with other species in ways that seek
to improve the vitality of ecosystems. We also provide key insights into the politics of
organizational processes, not as defined by institutions, but by the ontological politics of
different organizational intentionalities on the land (Ehrnström-Fuentes and Böhm, 2022),
defined by subtle power configurations and place-based histories that structure how humans
relate to different nonhuman beings in an ecology-in-place.
A REVIEW OF THE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY LITERATURE MANAGING
THE ENVIRONMENT
Over the past three decades, the corporate sustainability literature has been developed to
address environmental challenges from a MOS perspective. In the 1990s, Shrivastava (1994)
called for a ‘greening’ of MOS, given that human-centered organization often, as he argues,
‘castrates’ the natural environment. Hart’s (1995) natural-resource-based view of the firm
suggested that, to be successful, companies must manage a whole host of natural resources. From

the 2000s onwards, a range of MOS scholars have demonstrated how companies are increasingly
responsive to and embedded in wider ecological systems (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Whiteman &
Cooper, 2000). Whiteman et al. (2013) showed how management practices go well beyond the
so-called ‘planetary boundaries’ and are thereby not in line with the ecological foundations of the
planet, or its climatic safe space (Wright & Nyberg, 2022). Yet, research on how companies
function in relation to ‘the natural environment’ often overlook how natures, environments and
ecologies are shaped by organizational engagements with species, beings, and forces through
their co-constitutive everyday situated practices in place. To take these multispecies agencies
into account would require a systems perspective, analyzing managerial and organizational
practices as part of wider social, economic, cultural, ecological, and biophysical systems (Bansal
et al., 2021), shaped by ontological assumptions that underpin organizational behavior and
human interactions with other living beings (Ehrnström-Fuentes & Böhm, 2022).
The scholarly debates on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the political role of
corporations have contributed to shifting MOS and managerial debates from a business‐centric to
a society‐centric focus (Wickert, 2021). These debates acknowledge that firms have political
interests and that their engagements with stakeholders are motivated by other than profit-
maximization purposes (Dmytriyev et al., 2021; Freeman et al., 2004; Scherer & Palazzo 2011).
Yet, as Shaw & Shaw (2019) have shown corporations tend to ignore, either intentionally or non-
intentionally, issues that are too complex to address by relatively simple corporate attempts to
‘doing good’. As Bolsø et al. (2018) point out, most non-market engagements by firms are
characterized by mechanisms of commodification and rationalization that ignore place-based and
gendered dynamics in the organization of sustainability. Most of these debates are focused on
social processes of human interaction derived from modern assumptions that assume that there is
a separation between humans and nature (Ehrnström-Fuentes and Böhm, 2022). Such framings
do not allow for examinations of the relational agencies of socioecological processes involving
multiple different species in their distinct ecologies-in-place. Crucially, how not just
corporations, but different types of organizations connect with other beings need to be
considered when thinking about sustainability.
In the mid-1990s, MOS authors—particularly business ethicists—started to ask whether
other species, such as trees, should have any managerial standing (e.g., Starik, 1995). Recently
novel insights on the ethico-political dimension of organizing with animals have emerged
(Sayers et al., 2022; Tallberg et al., 2022). This literature stresses the urgency to consider a
renewed ethics of care towards animals (Satama & Huopalainen, 2019), providing an important
contribution, given that billions of animals are treated by humans as a resource, held in mass-
captivity and killed at will (Labatut, et al., 2016). Yet, there is little understanding of, and
engagement with, the complexities and entanglements among several different living beings
embedded in a specific ecology. Taking these shortcomings as starting points, we hence turn to
introducing our theoretical framework of what we call ‘multispecies organizing’.
MULTISPECIES ORGANIZING – POLITICS, ECOLOGY, AND PLACE
In MOS, scholars have started to recognize the importance of going beyond the human,
considering the network of multispecies organizational contexts. Ergene et al. (2018) and Ergene
et al. (2021) call for a decisive shift towards a relational epistemology and ontology that
understands human efforts of managing and organizing as part of wider ecological systems. Our
framework includes considerations of the dynamics of multispecies organizing that includes four
different dimensions of analysis: 1) organizing practices as matters of care (how do relations
between humans and nonhumans produce multispecies organizing and practices of care?); 2)
becoming with the ecology-in-place (what are the ecological transformations going on in a
specific place, and how do different organizational practices regenerate ecosystems in local

communities and shape their landscapes?); 3) ontological politics (how are different paths to
landscape restoration negotiated through situated practices in place, and how do inherited power
hierarchies influence these negotiations)?; 4) translating across space (how are restorative
practices translated in different geographic and institutional contexts, and how do these
translations create trans-local networks that enable peer-to-peer learning and allow ecosystem-
specific knowledge to travel across large geographical distances enabling socioecological
transformation?). We will now discuss each of these dimensions in more detail.
Multispecies Organizing Practices as Matters of Care
One key inspiration for our conceptualization of the processes of multispecies organizing
is Puig de la Bellacasa’s elaboration of the ethics of care, for whom “care is everything that is
done to maintain, continue, and repair ‘the world’ so that all can live in it as well as possible”
(2017, p. 161). She sees three, interlinked dimensions to ‘matter of care’: an affective state; a
material vital doing, and an ethico-political obligation that in combination tie together humans
with other living beings in ways that all can live as well as possible. First, what Puig de la
Bellacasa refers to as ‘an affective state’ is a call to be emotionally involved with another.
Affect is here understood as a ‘relational thread’ (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017) that through
emotions enable people to “get interested and involved in the things that plants care about”
(Myers, 2013, cited in Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017, p. 64). Second, the ‘material vital doing’ is
practical and requires action, which lays forth the importance of each species act and are
“rendered capable” (Despret, 2008, p. 127) through the specific times-spaces that connect
specific actors in the ecology-in-place. Third, the ‘ethico-political obligation’ situates caring
relations within systems of power asymmetries, raising questions regarding “what worlds are
being maintained and at the expense of which others”, and “what are we encouraging caring
for?” (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017, p. 52). These questions shows that care is a political activity
that also include “persistent forms of exclusion, power, and domination” (Puig de la Bellacasa,
2017, p. 49). How people come to care for certain species but not others depends on
preconceived ideas about how specific ecologies/natures (should) work (Plumwood, 2006) and
the organizational intentions and financials that support certain practices and not others (Puig de
la Bellacasa, 2017).
Becoming With the Ecology-In-Place
Haraway (2016) refers to the concept of ‘companion species’ to describe a vast range of
species—biotic and abiotic—that accompany and continually affect, and are affected by,
humans. The concept does not refer to a specific species with which humans engage in relations;
rather, she uses it as a pointer of an ongoing evolving process of ‘becoming with’ (Haraway,
2016). Barad’s (2007) notion of ‘intra-action’ allows us to see how this ‘becoming with’
constantly creates novel assemblages of entities and beings. In contrast to ‘interaction,’ which
necessitates pre-established and separate individual entities participating in action with each
other, the notion of intra-action recognizes that entities are always defined by their relations to
others and that all entities emerge through their shared actions (Barad, 2007, p. 33). Thus, agency
consists of a dynamism of forces where ‘things’ are constantly exchanging and diffracting,
influencing and working inseparably (Barad, 2007). Through this joint agency and
performativity all species are reciprocally affecting and being affected by each other (Gherardi &
Laasch, 2021). An ecology is hence not a space that contains certain species (e.g., biodiversity)
or minerals (e.g., carbon). Instead, it is a constantly changing thread of relations that, by
affecting and being affected, enable the existences of a myriad of different species. It is not the
quantity of species contained in concepts such as ‘biodiversity’ but the actual organizing

processes among multiple species, including humans, which determines the kind of existences
(and extinctions) that are produced in the ecology-in-place.
The Ontological Politics of Multispecies Organizing
The political processes involved in multispecies organizing define the limits of the intra-
actions. These processes are ontological because they involve how humans see themselves in the
world and relate to other than humans in the ecology-in-place (Blaser & de la Cadena, 2018;
Ehrnström-Fuentes & Böhm, 2022). Tsing (2015, p. 28) highlights how the modern sciences and
neoclassical economics enabled an ontological assumption that regard both humans and other
species as self-contained individuals, driven by self-interests, ignoring how humans evolved
through constant interaction with other species (Tsing, 2015). This assumption is what has
enabled extractivist land relations, and managerial practices that exploit and destroy other
species for human-centric self-interests (Wall Kimmerer, 2013). Thus, ‘land’ is not a container
for resources—void of people and meanings—each place carries stories of world-making natures
(Blaser & de la Cadena, 2018) that shape intra-actions-in-place (Ehrnström-Fuentes, 2016). The
modern ontological assumption, as a mode of thinking and organizing lives, have had
devastating impacts on local and Indigenous relational ways of being with animals and plants
(Ehrnström-Fuentes & Böhm, 2022; Kröger, 2022; Krzywoszynska, 2020; Wall Kimmerer,
2013). Kröger (2022) provides a vivid, devastating example of how forested landscapes in Brazil
have been changed into monoculture soybean plantations, destroying in the process multiple
sentient beings, species, energies, local ways of organizing on the land have been drastically
transformed as they become dependent on the soy plantations to survive. Hence, multispecies
organizing is never solely defined by local actors. Powerful politico-economic interests shape the
dynamics of species intra-actions and how territorial intentions unfold (Ehrnström-Fuentes,
2022; Kröger, 2022).
Translating ecologies across time and space
Latour’s concept (2005) of ‘immutable mobile’ refers to an object that can travel across
time and space without any distortion can assist in explaining how different organizational
practices that connect species with human intentions travel across ecologies in place. Some of
these immutable mobiles are abstracted representations of ‘what exists’ in place, images,
certifications, and stories that travel across space used to attract attention, funding, or support
from politicians and consumers for specific multispecies projects. Such immutable mobiles are
problematic as they redirect attention from the actual relational agencies on the ground. For
example, adopting a standardized or universal accounting of ‘biodiversity’ opens the possibility
to claim that ecologies in one place can be sacrificed, provided they are compensated by
protection of ‘wildlife’ or land in another (Kröger, 2022). Yet, other immutable mobiles such as
the teachings that travel translocal networks of peer support are ways through which different
multispecies organizing practices across different locations.
DISCUSSION
MOS has been called upon to take a leading role in bridging social and natural sciences to
address the urgent social-ecological challenges of our time (Baudoin et al., 2022; Nyberg &
Wright, 2022). In this article, we have followed this call by proposing an expanded approach to
the study of organizing sustainability, emphasizing humans’ inseparable relation to, and
dependence on, other species in the ecology-in-place. We have introduced a theoretical frame to
understand the dynamics of multispecies organizing that considers how humans connect and

collaborate with other species in a particular ecology-in-place, showing how this ecology is co-
constituted through a web of intra-actions. These intra-actions between species do not simply
happen. Instead, we have argued that the organizational assemblages formed through these intra-
actions are highly dependent on the ontological politics between different existences and
extinctions as well as the immutable mobiles that make certain multispecies practices travel
across space.
Overcoming the human-centric Anthropocene narrative requires a shift towards
examining how humans intra-act with nonhumans in ecology-in-place through their ways of
worlding (Ehrnström-Fuentes & Böhm, 2022). This shift is facilitated by the posthuman turn in
MOS, which has shed light on organizing in nonhuman contexts (e.g., Fox, 2000; Gherardi &
Laasch, 2021; Jensen & Sandström, 2020; Tallberg et al., 2022). We argue that managing for
sustainability is not solely dependent on the scientific data, information, and knowledge of how
to remain within the Earth’s planetary boundaries (Whiteman et al., 2013). The organizational
dynamics of multispecies relations also shape these boundaries. How organizational connections
unfold depends on the relational encounters between humans and other species in place and
whether their attention to and care for each other’s existences foster life-affirmative ways of
organizing life, instead of pushing more species towards mass-extinction. Our framework allows
for an analytical approach that brings the relational agencies between human and other species
forward, showing the ‘alternative visions’ (Roux-Rosier et al., 2018) and organizational
intentionalities shaping how multispecies practices are enacted. Our proposal is not an analysis
of the institutional settings that shape how corporations or other human-based organizations use
or manage natural resources and environments (Hoffman & Jennings, 2015) but how humans
relate to other species and organize within the ecology-in-place, and how different organizing
intentionalities affect core ecological functions.
The dynamics in multispecies organizing of restoration provide an alternative to
established systems perspectives about the shifts the planet is facing in the era of the
Anthropocene (Wright et al., 2018). Modern thinking places intense weight on scientific
modeling predictions of critical tipping points causing irreversible damage to Earth and mass
extinctions (Steffen et al., 2015). Yet, the relational agency that emerges when humans and other
species connect in ways that restore and repair core ecological processes (e.g., carbon and water
cycles), points to a politics of the ‘terrestrial’ (Latour, 2018) where the future of Earth depends
on how we, as a species, ‘come down to Earth’ relating to and intra-acting with other species in
the ecology-in-place.
Moving towards multispecies organizing requires new ways of reimagining what goes on
in organizations as forms of intra-actions through which the actors involved both shape
(‘manage’) and are shaped by their collaborative (vital) doings in the ecology-in-place. This goes
well beyond processes and outcomes of management of natural resources for value creation. The
‘outcomes’ are not dependent on how humans value nature (through price or other valuations
schemes) (Böhm et al., 2012; Islam et al., 2019; Levy et al., 2016; Van Bommel & Spicer, 2011;
Wright & Nyberg, 2022) or measure sustainability through environmental indicators
incorporated to governance systems and CSR (Gond & Nyberg, 2017; Martin et al., 2016; van
den Broek, 2022) but on the relational agencies that shape becomings with the ecology-in-place.
How humans relate to the landscape through their own experiences and histories contributes to
determining which connections are and are not formed with other species.
REFERENCES
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). ‘Why companies go green: A model of ecological
responsiveness’. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 717–736.

Bansal, P., Grewatsch, S., & Sharma, G. (2021). ‘How COVID‐19 informs business
sustainability research: It’s time for a systems perspective’. Journal of Management Studies, 58,
602–606.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of
Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press
Baudoin, L., Carmine, S., Nava, L., Poggioli, N. & van den Broek, O.M. (2022). ‘Imagining a
place for sustainability management: an early career call for action’. J. Manage. Stud. Accepted
Author Manuscript.
Beacham, J. (2018). ‘Organising food differently: Towards a more-than-human ethics of care for
the Anthropocene’. Organization, 25, 533–549.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.
Blaser, M., & de la Cadena, M. (2018). “Introduction. PLURIVERSE.” In M. de la Cadena & M.
Blaser (Eds.), A World of Many Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press. 1–22.
Bolsø, A., Phillips, M., & Sabelis, I. (2018). ‘Gendering environmental sustainability and
organization: Introduction’. Gender, Work & Organization, 25, 215–221.
Davies, O., & Riach, K. (2019). ‘From manstream measuring to multispecies sustainability? A
gendered reading of bee-ing sustainable’. Gender, Work & Organization, 26, 246–266.
Despret, V. (2008). ‘The becomings of subjectivity in animal worlds’. Subjectivity, 23, 123–139.
Dmytriyev, S. D., Freeman, R. E., & Hörisch, J. (2021). ‘The relationship between stakeholder
theory and corporate social responsibility: Differences, similarities, and implications for social
issues in management’. Journal of Management Studies, 58, 1441–1470.
Ehrnström-Fuentes, M. (2016). ‘Delinking legitimacies: A pluriversal perspective on political
CSR’. Journal of Management Studies, 53: 433–462.
Ehrnström-Fuentes, M., & Böhm, S. (2022). ‘The political ontology of corporate social
responsibility: Obscuring the pluriverse in place’. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–17.
Ergene, S., Banerjee S. B., & Hoffman, A. J. (2021). ‘(Un)Sustainability and organization
studies: Towards a radical engagement’. Organization Studies, 42, 1319–1335.
Ergene, S., Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (2018). ‘Ecologies of sustainable concerns: organization
theorizing for the Anthropocene’. Gender, Work & Organization, 25, 222–245.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). ‘Stakeholder theory and “the corporate
objective revisited”’. Organization Science, 15, 364–369.
Gherardi, S., & Laasch, O. (2021). ‘Responsible management-as-practice: Mobilizing a
posthumanist approach’. Journal of Business Ethics.
Gills, B., & Morgan, J. (2021). ‘No More Excuses! Why the Climate and Ecological
Emergencies Demand a New Paradigm’. Cadmus, 4, 83–102.
Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke
University Press.
Hart, S. L. (1995). ‘A natural-resource-based view of the firm’. Academy of Management
Review, 20, 986–1014.
Hoffman, A. J., & Jennings, P. D. (2015). ‘Institutional theory and the national environment:
Research in (and on) the Anthropocene’. Organization & Environment,28, 8–31.
IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Pörtner, et al. (eds.)]. In: Climate Change
2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, et al.
(eds.)]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3–33
Krzywoszynska, A. (2020). ‘Nonhuman Labor and the Making of Resources: Making Soils a
Resource through Microbial Labor’. Environmental Humanities, 12: 227–249
Kröger, M. (2022). Extractivisms, Existences and Extinctions: Monoculture Plantations and
Amazon Deforestation. Taylor & Francis.

Labatut, J., Munro I., Desmond J., et al. (2016) ‘Animals and Organizations’. Organization, 23:
315–29.
Latour, B. (2005). Re-assembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lenton, T. M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., &
Schellnhuber, H. J. (2019). ‘Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against’. Nature, 575, 592–
595.
Martin, G., Farndale, E., Paauwe, J., & Stiles, P. G. (2016). ‘Corporate governance and strategic
human resource management: Four archetypes and proposals for a new approach to corporate
sustainability’. European Management Journal, 34, 22–35.
McGreevy, S. R., Rupprecht, C. D., Niles, D., Wiek, A., Carolan, M., Kallis, G., ... &
Tachikawa, M. (2022). ‘Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world’. Nature
Sustainability, 1–7.
Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2015). ‘The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The
crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council’. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 469–493.
Nyberg, D., & Wright, C. (2022). ‘Climate-proofing management research’. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 36, 713–728.
Phillips, M. (2019). ‘“Daring to care”: Challenging corporate environmentalism’. Journal of
Business Ethics, 156, 1151–1164.
Plumwood, V. (2006). ‘The concept of a cultural landscape: Nature, culture and agency in the
land’. Ethics and the Environment, 11, 115–150.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017). Matters of Care - Speculative Ethics in More Than Human
Worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Risi, D., & Wickert, C. (2017). ‘Reconsidering the ‘symmetry’ between institutionalization and
professionalization: The case of corporate social responsibility managers’. Journal of
Management Studies, 54, 613–646.
Roux-Rosier, A., Azambuja, R., & Islam, G. (2018). ‘Alternative visions: Permaculture as
imaginaries of the Anthropocene’. Organization, 25, 550–572.
Satama, S., and Huopalainen, A. (2019) ‘“Please Tell Me When You Are in Pain”: A
Heartbreaking Story of Care, Grief and Female–Canine Companionship’. Gender, Work and
Organization, 26, 358–76.
Sayers, J., Martin, L. & Bell, E. (2022). ‘Posthuman Affirmative Business Ethics: Reimagining
Human–Animal Relations Through Speculative Fiction’. Journal of Business Ethics, 178, 597–
608.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). ‘The new political role of business in a globalized world:
A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and
democracy’. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899–931.
Shaw, H. J., & Shaw, J. J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility, social justice and the global
food supply chain: towards an ethical food policy for sustainable supermarkets. Routledge.
Shrivastava, P. (1994). ‘Castrated environment: Greening organizational studies’. Organization
Studies, 15, 705–726.
Starik, M. (1995). ‘Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-
human nature’. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207–217.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., ... & Sörlin,
S. (2015). ‘Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet’. Science,
347, 1259855.
Tallberg, L., García-Rosell, JC. & Haanpää, M. (2022). ‘Human–Animal Relations in Business
and Society: Advancing the Feminist Interpretation of Stakeholder Theory’. Journal of Business
Ethics, 180, 1–16.

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The Mushroom at the End of the World. In The Mushroom at the End of the
World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
van Bommel, K., & Spicer, A. (2011). ‘Hail the Snail: Hegemonic Struggles in the Slow Food
Movement’. Organization Studies, 32, 1717–1744.
van den Broek, O. M. (2022). ‘How Political Actors Co‐Construct CSR and Its Effect on Firms’
Political Access: A Discursive Institutionalist View’. Journal of Management Studies. Online
ahead of issue.
Wall Kimmerer, R. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and
the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.
Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. (2000). ‘Ecological embeddedness’. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 1265–1282.
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). ‘Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations
for corporate sustainability’. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 307–336.
Wickert, C. (2021). ‘Corporate social responsibility research in the Journal of Management
Studies: A shift from a business‐centric to a society‐centric focus’. Journal of Management
Studies, 58, E1–E17.
Wright, C. and Nyberg, D. (2022). ‘The Roles of Celebrities in Public Disputes: Climate Change
and the Great Barrier Reef’. Journal of Management Studies, 59, 1788–1816
Wright, C., Nyberg, D., Rickards, L., & Freund, J. (2018). ‘Organizing in the Anthropocene’.
Organization, 25, 455–471.