Content uploaded by Steffen Böhm
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Steffen Böhm on Jun 24, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY
AGENDAS 2050
The paradigm shift: Business associations
shaping the discourse on system change
Sandra Waddock
1
| Irene Henriques
2
|
Martina Linnenluecke
3
| Nicholas Poggioli
4
| Steffen Böhm
5
1
Boston College, Carroll School of
Management, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
2
York University, Schulich School of
Business, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3
University of Technology Sydney, UTS
Business School, Ultimo, NSW, Australia
4
Appalachian State University,
Department of Management, Boone, NC,
USA
5
University of Exeter, University of
Exeter Business School, Cornwall, UK
Correspondence
Sandra Waddock, Boston College, Carroll
School of Management, Chestnut Hill,
MA 02467 USA.
Email: waddock@bc.edu
Abstract
This Agenda 2050 piece is a call to action for manage-
ment scholars to follow the lead of business associa-
tions, foundations, and businesses in studying and
understanding the transformative change needed to
bring about a more equitable and flourishing world for
all living beings—including humans and other-than-
humans. These entities advocate for a significant para-
digm shift in how business is practiced as a way of
responding to ‘polycrisis’—the interrelated set of
civilization-threatening crises that includes climate
change, social inequality, and biodiversity loss. Yet
management scholars lag behind business discourse
with issues of sustainability and ecological flourishing,
adapting to the type of leadership needed for the
future, and understanding the need for system change.
We provide four keystone pathways to help scholars
shape future discourse in business scholarship, prac-
tice, and curricula: 1) structural changes to manage-
ment education, 2) piloting social impact, 3)
development of regenerative business models, and 4)
moral, legal, and financial cases for action.
KEYWORDS
corporate social responsibility, management education,
regenerativity, sustainability, system change, transformation
Received: 25 September 2023 Accepted: 8 April 2024
DOI: 10.1111/basr.12359
© 2024 Albert P. Viragh Institute for Ethics in Business at Duquesne University.
Bus Soc Rev. 2024;1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/basr 1
1|INTRODUCTION: GETTING IN FRONT OF THE NEED
FOR SYSTEM CHANGE
“The research-teaching-practice gap seems particularly noteworthy when it comes to
global sustainability. Relatively little attention is given by business researchers to the
developments coming from global natural science research agendas …or to the impact
of business on the resilience of planetary ecosystems. This is in spite of the ‘promising
initiatives in the practice of business’(Winn & Pogutz, 2013, p. 203) that are cur-
rently being explored by some corporations”(Edwards et al., 2021, p. 45).
We propose a 2050 Agenda for management scholars to emulate business associations in
shifting systems of business practice toward greater sustainability and responsibility. The most
powerful transformational change lever is a paradigm shift (Meadows, 1999). Our proposition
stems from a professional development workshop (PDW) we conducted at the 2023 Academy of
Management (AOM) Annual Meeting. Business associations, foundations, and businesses argue
for this paradigm shift as a response to the polycrisis—the interrelated and civilization-
threatening crises including climate change, ecosystem collapse, social inequality, and biodiver-
sity loss (Homer-Dixon et al., 2021). Initiatives like Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship
aim for a paradigm shift in the global system of seafood production and consumption
(SeaBOS, 2023). The World Economic Forum's ‘The Great Reset’intends to create a new social
contract honoring human dignity, refocusing global and business models, and supporting entre-
preneurial solutions that tackle climate change and advance sustainability (The Great
Reset, 2020). The World Bank promoted a paradigm shift in the relationship between nature
and businesses (World Bank Group, 2021a,2021b). The World Business Council for Sustainable
Development updated its Vision 2050 to call for a ‘mindset shift to transform everything’
(WBCSD, V, 2010) and collaborated with Forum for the Future on A Compass for Just and
Regenerative Business (Forum for the Future & World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 2021). The MacArthur Foundation's 2021 report The Nature Imperative: How the
Circular Economy Tackles Biodiversity Loss (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021) complemented
its longstanding advocacy of a shift from linear to circular economic systems (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013).
Efforts by business associations for a paradigm shift are complemented by policymakers and
business leaders who recognize the need for a ‘whole of society’transformation across indus-
tries, especially to mitigate the harmful effects of extractive, nature- and human-insensitive
business practices (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice & Subsidiary Body
for Implementation, 2023). The European Union created the European Green Deal. Finland,
New Zealand, Scotland, and Wales adopted Wellbeing Economy ideas and metrics. Intergovern-
mental reports describe changes needed to address problems of climate change (IPCC, 2022;
Masson-Delmotte et al., 2021), biodiversity loss and species extinction (Díaz et al., 2020), the
unsustainable use of wild species (Fromentin & Al, 2022), and undervaluing nature's biodiver-
sity and ecosystem services (Edwards et al., 2021; IPBES, 2019). Leaders of Unilever and Ikea
call for a paradigm shift for their firms toward regenerative and net-positive business models to
put more back into society, the environment, and the global economy than they extract
(Cooperrider & Godwin, 2022; Cooperrider & Selian, 2021; Polman & Winston, 2021).
These efforts, calls, and reports signal an urgent need for a paradigm shift in business prac-
tices to effectively address the polycrisis. They emphasize the leading role that business
2WADDOCK ET AL.
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
associations are taking in detailing how to foster a paradigm shift, including through regenera-
tive practices in food and agriculture, moving value chains from linearity to circularity, and
shifting humans' and businesses' relationships with nature. Despite this attention to paradigm
shifts, key journals in the broad field of management (including the business in society field)
seldom discuss system change or transformation. (Exceptions include Colombo, 2023; Edwards
et al., 2021; Lucas et al., 2022; Sulamoyo, 2022; Winn & Pogutz, 2013). How can we manage-
ment scholars and teachers do more to accelerate the paradigm shift in business practice?
To answer this question, we organized the PDW at the 2023 AOM Annual Meeting titled,
“Making the Paradigm Shift Happen: Following the Lead of Business Associations”to provoke
and elicit feedback from AOM scholars. The session put management scholars' analytical and
intellectual skills into action to understand how management education can contribute to the
paradigm shift called for by business associations. We identified four pathways for a paradigm
shift. We view these pathways as four ‘keystone’pillars that can help shape future discourse in
business scholarship, practice, and teaching.
1. Structural changes to management education,
2. Piloting social impact,
3. Development of regenerative business models, and
4. Moral, legal, and financial case for action.
We engaged the international audience of the PDW in an interactive exercise and dialogue on
these topics. This paper presents the results of the exercise and, from those results, describes
the four pathways for how management scholarship can contribute to the much-needed para-
digm shift.
2|A GENERATIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT
REGENERATIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE, ECONOMICS, AND
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION
The aim of the generative exercise with session attendees was to identify how to shift the eco-
nomic paradigm towards a more regenerative approach. We organized attendees into
roundtables and asked each table to generate ideas for realizing the paradigm shift. Participants
wrote each idea on a sticky note and placed each note in the center of the table, creating a tan-
gible, accumulating pile of contributions as the exercise progressed. Once the rate of idea gener-
ation slowed, the notes were moved to one of the room walls, where participants silently
contemplated all contributions. Following this reflection, participants collaborated to organize
the notes into thematic categories, which was followed by a general discussion. These thematic
categories form the foundation of our paper's recommendations.
Attendees expressed diverse views on what needs to change and how to achieve those
changes. For one, they recognized the need for experimenting with the idea of looking back-
ward to move forward, showcasing regenerative practices, learning from what is already known
about overcoming past crises, and traditional knowledge systems, and working within the sys-
tem. Suggested strategies for taking ‘pluriversal’approaches to stakeholder engagement include
changing values and mindsets with particular emphasis on rethinking/re-understanding
humans as part of (rather than separate from) nature, moving from circular to regenerative
practices transparently, and building political power for change. Participants also advocated for
WADDOCK ET AL.3
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
engaging with stakeholders and communities to generate cultures of respect for other-
than-humans and nature as well as other people and changing the moral foundation on which
businesses rest. Creating regenerative economies, using concepts like Raworth's Doughnut Eco-
nomics (Raworth, 2012), adopting well-being-focused metrics beyond gross domestic product
(GDP), stopping extractive practices, and problematizing growth as a central economic goal
were also key points. Potential steps forward included governmental action, increasing the costs
of problematic practices, media strategies to increase public awareness, regenerative design,
and shifting away from profit as the sole incentive for businesses.
The broad-ranging conversation that followed the exercise emphasized a need for manage-
ment scholars to catalyze collaboration among different stakeholders and sectors as a key aspect
of undertaking needed transdisciplinary research. In addition, the idea of engaging more fully
with Indigenous perspectives and recognizing, acknowledging, and working collaboratively
with people with different worldviews is crucial to dealing with ecological and social
challenges.
For example, the incorporation of more place-based or local solutions tailored to the unique
needs and challenges of different contexts may suggest moving beyond Western-centric dia-
logue and ways of knowing, to be open to different ways of communicating, collaborating with,
and understanding various perspectives. Such an approach requires we overtly acknowledge
the ethical issues associated with these changes and adopt an openness to different ways that
people communicate and engage with knowledge, particularly around issues of system change,
regenerative practices, place-based approaches, and other-than-human beings. The conversa-
tion also underscored the need for a shift in the economic system from growth and extractive
practices to resilience and well-being, necessitating changes in business education on all fronts
(Kennedy & Linnenluecke, 2022).
3|FOUR PATHWAYS TO PARADIGM SHIFT
3.1 |Structural changes to management education
One principal topic that emerged from the discussion was that existing management
education is not capable of achieving the needed paradigm shift. Management education was
developed within an era of unfettered fossil fuel use. But halting climate change and its associ-
ated social and environmental harms requires the world to stop burning fossil fuels, reorganize
our transportation systems, change land use and management, innovate new ways of making
steel, cement, and other industrial products, and change other management practices (Project
Drawdown, 2023).
Transitioning business practices to activities that do not cause additional global warming is
a significant management challenge. Is management education useful for understanding orga-
nizations and organizing in a world without fossil fuels? Do strategic management courses
teach how to successfully compete and survive against firms that use fossil fuels and other
destructive business practices? Do international business courses teach how to manage foreign
direct investment and global supply chains without using fossil fuels? Scholarship suggests the
answer to these questions might be no (Higham & Font, 2020; Yu et al., 2023).
Instead, management scholars seem confident that innovations will allow unsustainable
practices to continue, requiring little change in the teaching or practice of management. There
is strong enthusiasm that sustainable aviation fuel, carbon capture and storage, carbon offsets,
4WADDOCK ET AL.
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
and solar geoengineering will solve climate change without ending the use of fossil fuel-based
management practices. This optimism resembles what Gifford (2011) called an ideology of
technosalvation: we do not need changes today because innovations will save us tomorrow. The
truth is there is little evidence that technologies like sustainable aviation fuel, carbon capture
and storage, carbon offsets, and solar geoengineering can scale up to solve the climate chal-
lenge. Guarding against a misplaced faith in technology innovation requires management
scholars to develop conceptual and curricular innovations that teach how to organize and man-
age economically sustainable firms and industries in environmentally and socially
sustainable ways.
Concerted, accelerated effort from business school administration and faculty is probably
required to shift management theory into a paradigm useful in a world without carbon emis-
sions. Emerging curricular paradigms like sustainability management (Baudoin et al., 2022)
and sustainability competencies (Brundiers et al., 2021; Wiek et al., 2011) offer initial move-
ments toward climate-friendly management education, but past attempts to advance new para-
digms like ecocentric management (Shrivastava, 1995) and sustaincentrism (Gladwin
et al., 1995) have so far failed. A practical first step to show success is for business schools to
demonstrate that they can operate without using fossil fuels. This shift would require
reorganizing business schools to no longer use airplane travel, faculty, staff, and student com-
muting, and building heating and cooling that burn fossil fuels. These efforts would generate
invaluable theories about how organizations can be managed without fossil fuels while
remaining viable against competitors. If such change sounds infeasible, that simply demon-
strates that we lack theory explaining how to manage organizations without contributing to
global warming, reinforcing the need for a paradigm shift in management education.
3.2 |Piloting social impact
Another theme that emerged from the exercise was a need to understand whether corporate
social responsibility efforts lead to a better society. Are CSR initiatives providing the societal
good they promise? Mapping and analysis of 6,254 articles addressing CSR performance publi-
shed in the last 50 years suggest that although the massive CSR literature has progressed
beyond its long-standing focus on firm financial performance, it has failed to provide insight
into how effectively CSR initiatives fulfill their promise to society (Barnett et al., 2020). Without
such information, how can scholars address the grand challenges faced by society? There is a
need to reorient management research towards an exploratory, experimental design approach
guided by what works. In the field of development economics, Duflo (2017) likens economists
to ‘plumbers’as opposed to a scientist or engineer. Whereas scientists analyze policies and engi-
neers design policies, ‘[t]he plumber goes one step further than the engineer: she installs the
machine in the real world, carefully watches what happens, and then tinkers as needed’
(Duflo, 2017, p. 5). A field experiment is essential in development economics (Duflo, 2020) for
designing, implementing, and evaluating solutions. Unfortunately, there is currently no arena
in which CSR interventions can be piloted and assessed.
To address this gap, business scholars, businesses, and practitioners can work together to
create CSR sandboxes, in which organizations assess the social impacts of CSR initiatives. A
sandbox is a controlled, supervised environment that simulates a real-life context where busi-
nesses can experiment with new products or services (Clarke, 2017). The concept, applied to
sustainability, facilitates the re-thinking of what sustainability is and should be
WADDOCK ET AL.5
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
(Godelnik, 2019). Companies should apply this concept to CSR to test initiatives, assess their
success or failure, and redesign them for more widespread implementation (Aronson &
Henriques, 2022). Organizations can use a CSR sandbox to safely try out new ideas and evaluate
their effectiveness before committing significant resources to them at a larger scale.
There are five important properties of a CSR sandbox: 1) isolation and control, 2) experi-
mentation, 3) collaboration, 4) monitoring and evaluation, and 5) flexibility and learning (Hitt
et al., 1998). Isolation and control relate to an organization's ability to separate the CSR sandbox
from main operations so that the interventions can be independently controlled and assessed.
Experimentation is a process of trial and error in which continuous and iterative tests are con-
ducted (Thomke, 1998) until the organization has enough data and related insights to indicate
the likelihood of success of the intervention (Aronson & Henriques, 2022). Collaboration with
stakeholders, including employees, customers, scientists, NGOs, and communities, can be an
important part of a CSR sandbox to not only ensure that interventions are effective and posi-
tively received but also provide more diverse perspectives and ideas for addressing social and
environmental challenges. A CSR sandbox must also have systems in place to monitor the pro-
gress and impact of interventions whereby multiple actors can pool their resources, knowledge,
and expertise to achieve a greater impact. Finally, a CSR sandbox should be flexible and open
to learning and modification as needed, based on the results of the experiments (Hitt
et al., 1998). The outcome of such an approach will go a long way in addressing the research-
teaching-practice gap.
3.3 |Development of regenerative business models
Participants also noted that a change in how businesses operate on a daily basis, especially to
move away from linear and extractive business models towards circular and regenerative
approaches, is needed (Gualandris et al., 2024; Konietzko et al., 2023). The 20th century saw an
unprecedented rise in fossil fuel use and the adoption of a destructive ‘take-make-dispose’lin-
ear business model. Resources are extracted to produce goods and services, which are then dis-
carded as waste (Bocken & Short, 2021). This model leads to valuable resources ending up in
landfills, rivers, and oceans (Stahel, 2016), and has produced a host of negative impacts –from
social inequalities to environmental degradation –which remain unaccounted for (Alexander
et al., 2023; Hochschild, 2018).
Participants agreed that we need a paradigm shift away from a linear model and towards a
regenerative model of business practice (Wright & Nyberg, 2017). This would shift business
practice away from the idea of doing less harm –which is what corporate sustainability and
CSR approaches are mostly focused on –towards business practices that contribute positively to
restoring and maintaining social and ecological systems (Velenturf & Purnell, 2021). This shift
requires holistic systems thinking that goes beyond profit and loss, shareholder value, GDP
growth, and other economic indicators. A regenerative business paradigm considers the inter-
connectedness of ecological, social, and economic systems, and understands that whatever is
done in one domain creates ripple effects across the entire system (Waddock, 2020b). There
is an urgent need to restore and repair systems damaged or destroyed by linear business para-
digms through regenerative practices. These include rewilding, reforestation, regenerative agri-
culture, and regenerative water, land, and forest management, all based on adopting a different
perspective on the relationship between business and ecological and social systems (Navarro &
Pereira, 2015).
6WADDOCK ET AL.
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Regeneration also includes a social dimension. It would be problematic to exclude people
from large areas of land to use them for carbon sequestration or rewilding projects (Franco &
Borras, 2019). In addition to emphasizing ecological systems, regenerative business includes the
wellbeing of communities and individuals, social justice, employee welfare, fair labor practices,
and inclusive community development (Bennett et al., 2021).
Alternatives to linear and extractive management are available but undervalued by manage-
ment scholarship and teaching. Land management practices by Indigenous groups like the
Bajau and Puruvesi, for example, have provided stewardship of nature for hundreds, and in
some cases thousands, of years (Böhm et al., 2014; De la Cadena, 2015). In contrast, business
and policy cycles of 3–5 years struggle to maintain regenerative and resilient business systems.
It is time to unlearn old business paradigms to establish a deep understanding of systems
change and regenerative approaches to life (Morgan et al., 2023). As is evident, the paradigm
shift in business requires a society-wide effort of re-imagining our future (Gümüsay &
Reinecke, 2022). It is an effort of cross-sectoral activism (Böhm et al., 2023; Skoglund &
Böhm, 2022) that is focused on co-creation and collaboration, rather than only competition. We
cannot solve many of today's ecological and social challenges without collective efforts that
include diverse perspectives from around the world (Antonacopoulou, 2022). This reality is one
reason why business associations, rather than individual businesses, are so active in calling for
a paradigm shift.
3.4 |The moral, legal, and financial case for action
Businesses are confronted with a moral imperative to address environmental and social degra-
dation. This obligation, which is rooted in the principles of ethical responsibility and inter-
generational stewardship, resonates throughout the sustainability and ethics literature, fueling
sporadic instances of proactive action within corporate spheres. The paradigm shift of these
moral convictions in business practice has not yet occurred, partly because of structural and
behavioral barriers in management scholarship and education (Linnenluecke & Smith, 2019).
While companies are still grappling with doing ‘what's best’for society, the development of
international agreements on climate change has further accentuated the push for climate
action. Global agreements such as the Paris Agreement, the UN's 17 Sustainable Development
Goals, and the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework signal a growing momentum
for transformative action on climate change and ecosystem issues. Despite these endeavors,
most countries worldwide still lack comprehensive policies to combat climate change (and its
negative impacts on issues such as ocean acidification and biodiversity loss) or inequity effec-
tively and to move towards net zero targets. This policy gap constrains businesses from taking
substantial action as they grapple with uncertain regulatory environments (Waddock, 2020a).
The overarching challenge continues to lie in creating comprehensive and consistent policy
frameworks that drive both corporate and collective climate action.
Sustainable business has become a battleground in culture wars, reflecting a dynamic clash
between growing public pressures to act and growing amounts of misinformation. Climate
strikes and legal actions amplify public demand for responsible corporate behavior. But the
propagation of misinformation and unsubstantiated science simultaneously muddles the dis-
course. Nonetheless, climate lawsuits are on the rise and underscore the imperative for busi-
nesses to align with broader societal goals for sustainable business practice. Despite initial
setbacks in the early 2000s (unsuccessful attempts to bring North American oil, gas, and electric
WADDOCK ET AL.7
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
companies to court), a renewed surge of strategic lawsuits and inquiries against corporations
has arisen, which aim to seek redress for climate change-induced harm. Augmented by
advancements in climate attribution science, these cases seek to hold these significant carbon
emitters accountable for their contribution to climate impacts and disruptions, indicating a con-
vergence between litigation, research, and corporate accountability. It is still unclear if lawsuits
might drive more substantial business action in the future, but they are nonetheless raising
awareness (Setzer & Higham, 2023).
The financial incentives for climate-conscious practices are becoming increasingly promi-
nent (OECD, 2021). Companies recognize the financial advantages inherent in renewable
energy and climate-oriented ventures. This shift is underpinned by technological advancements
and a realization that the transition to a net-zero future can be synonymous with profitability.
This trend toward ‘climate capitalism’, however, raises ethical questions about the prioritiza-
tion of profitable endeavors over holistic sustainability, potentially sidelining other vital societal
concerns. Initiatives such as the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) are
reshaping corporate reporting paradigms. This shift has steered attention toward the evaluation
of climate risks to the global economy. While this financial-centric approach drives companies
to consider economic stability, it might not comprehensively address the broader
climate-related societal risks. Thus, the challenge remains to strike a balance between financial
considerations and a more encompassing understanding of climate risk, acknowledging the
interconnectedness of corporate actions and societal well-being.
4|DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Few management scholars seem to have responded actively to Winn & Pogutz's (2013) call to
action for researching and better understanding the ways in which (business) organizations
need to intersect with the natural environment to bring about the regenerative, ecologically
flourishing natural environment needed to support human civilization (Buckton et al., 2023).
Perhaps that is because such approaches mean dealing with the complex-wickedness of real
socioecological systems and the transformative processes that need to be engaged. Some may
view that task as daunting. As one scholar in a recent conference stated openly: it is just too
hard for scholars, or perhaps whole fields, to do. Complexity, wicked problems, and systems-
based concepts can facilitate understanding the need for a paradigm shift and how to overcome
the challenges to achieving it.
The actions of business associations, foundations, and businesses show that management
scholarship around a paradigm shift in business practice lags behind what businesses are call-
ing for and doing. There is a growing literature on system transformation in fields outside man-
agement (Abson et al., 2017; Bentz et al., 2022; Chapin et al., 2011; Dorninger, 2020; Fazey &
Leicester, 2022; Geels, 2011). Fields where this conversation is active include geography, ecolog-
ical, wellbeing, and other heterodox economics, Indigenous scholarship, systems change and
transformation literature, ecology, and other biophysical scientific fields that recognize the need
for transformative change, such as marine science, sustainability, and agroecology
(Dasgupta, 2021; IPBES, 2019; IPCC, 2022). Management scholars can draw on this existing
work to grapple with the ways in which businesses, business leaders, and, indeed, business
schools themselves can understand the paradigm shift needed to respond to the polycrisis.
We encourage management scholars and teachers to courageously engage with difficult,
complexly wicked topics. Neglect of issues of sustainability, never mind systemic change
8WADDOCK ET AL.
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
(Edwards et al., 2021; Winn & Pogutz, 2013), is bad enough that in 2022 a group of early-career
scholars published a call to action for imagining a place for sustainability in business schools
and business scholarship (Baudoin et al., 2022), and widely-read practitioner outlets publish
calls by established scholars for integrating sustainability into core MBA programs (Delmas &
Sparks, 2024).
We acknowledge that the paradigm shift described in this paper increases the expectations
for business practitioners to move from reducing harm to contributing proactively to regenera-
tive outcomes. Competitive realities can present significant barriers to adopting regenerative
practices, especially if those practices raise costs over competitors that continue to use practices
limited to harm reduction, such as increased resource use efficiency or even destructive prac-
tices. These realities are one reason that business associations feature prominently in calls for a
paradigm shift: if all businesses in an industry shift practices simultaneously, no business faces
competitive disadvantages of adopting what is usually a higher cost structure associated with
regenerative rather than destructive practices that externalize costs to society and nature. Con-
cepts like pre-competitive partnerships and Sustainable Development Goal #17: Partnerships
for the Goals acknowledge this tension and provide ways to resolve it through coordination and
cooperation among competitors to shift whole systems of production and consumption, rather
than the practices of individual firms (Altshuler et al., 2010; Ospina, 2022).
5|CONCLUSIONS
The paradigm shift described in this paper argues for a transformative change in our scholar-
ship, our journals, and how we view our work, so we as management scholars can begin to
catch up with business associations, businesses, and other academic disciplines already pushing
forward to realize the paradigm shift. Ideally, we might eventually lead in addressing these
issues so we can understand and inform management practices with prospective or future-
oriented theories (Laszlo, 2021; Pavez et al., 2021).
We in management scholarship need to close the gap, to start thinking systemically. We
need to understand the problematic nature of many existing management theories and prac-
tices, including their business-centric orientation in an ecologically constrained world. The
imperative is to adopt innovative and new approaches to understanding and studying busi-
nesses in their societal and ecological contexts, much as business associations are already begin-
ning to do. As scholars, we are now poised on the edge of a potential paradigm shift that
incorporates system thinking, dynamics, big-picture understanding, and the need for transfor-
mational change in our work, in the focus of research, and in the academy itself. This paradigm
shift threatens to decenter business schools and management scholarship from a central place
of relevance. In our 2023 AOM session, we began this conversation and forward it here—not
just with early career scholars but with anyone willing to take the risks and outline pathways
forward that retain our excellence as scholars while enabling us to do work that really matters.
It is long past time we shifted the conversation towards systemic issues and dealing with the
complexity that it brings. For our environment, and for the continued sustainability of business
systems.
ORCID
Sandra Waddock https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1089-7686
Irene Henriques https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6953-9982
WADDOCK ET AL.9
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Martina Linnenluecke https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-9717
Nicholas Poggioli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0830-9577
Steffen Böhm https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0888-1362
REFERENCES
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P.,
Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio,
46(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y
Alexander, A., Pascucci, S., & Charnley, F. (2023). Handbook of the circular economy: Transitions and transforma-
tion. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110723373
Altshuler, J. S., Balogh, E., Barker, A. D., Eck, S. L., Friend, S. H., Ginsburg, G. S., Herbst, R. S., Nass, S. J.,
Streeter, C. M., & Wagner, J. A. (2010). Opening up to precompetitive collaboration. Science Translational
Medicine,2(52), 52cm26. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3001515
Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2022). Partnering for impact: A grand challenge and Design for co-Creating a just, resil-
ient and flourishing society. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,58(4), 571–594. https://doi.org/10.
1177/00218863221113316
Aronson, O., & Henriques, I. (2022). Shared value creation in equivocal CSR environments: A configuration
approach. Journal of Business Ethics,1–20, 713–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05260-5
Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I., & Husted, B. W. (2020). Beyond good intentions: Designing CSR initiatives for
greater social impact. Journal of Management,46(6), 937–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319900539
Baudoin, L., Carmine, S., Nava, L., Poggioli, N., & van den Broek, O. M. (2022). Imagining a place for sustainabil-
ity management: An early career call for action. Journal of Management Studies,60, 754–760. https://doi.
org/10.1111/joms.12887
Bennett, N. J., Blythe, J., White, C. S., & Campero, C. (2021). Blue growth and blue justice: Ten risks and solu-
tions for the ocean economy. Marine Policy,125, 104387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104387
Bentz, J., O'Brien, K., & Scoville-Simonds, M. (2022). Beyond “blah blah blah”: Exploring the “how”of transfor-
mation. Sustainability Science (2, 17(2), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01123-0
Bocken, N. M., & Short, S. W. (2021). Unsustainable business models–Recognising and resolving institutionalised
social and environmental harm. Journal of Cleaner Production,312, 127828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2021.127828
Böhm, S., Bharucha, Z. P., & Pretty, J. (2014). Ecocultures: Blueprints for sustainable communities. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203068472
Böhm, S., Ho, C.-H., Holmes, H., Manolchev, C., Rödl, M., & Spekkink, W. (2023). 14 Circular society activism:
Prefigurative communities in everyday Circular Economy action. In Handbook of the circular economy: Tran-
sitions and transformation (Vol. 241). Walter de Gruyter.
Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebri
an, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., Dripps, W., Habron, G.,
Harré, N., Jarchow, M., Losch, K., Michel, J., Mochizuki, Y., Rieckmann, M., Parnell, R., Walker, P., &
Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—Toward an agreed-upon reference
framework. Sustainability Science,16(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2
Buckton, S. J., Fazey, I., Sharpe, B., Om, E. S., Doherty, B., Ball, P., Denby, K., Bryant, M., Lait, R., Bridle, S.,
Cain, M., Carmen, E., Collins, L., Nixon, N., Yap, C., Connolly, A., Fletcher, B., Frankowska, A.,
Gardner, G., …Sinclair, M. (2023). The regenerative lens: A conceptual framework for regenerative social-
ecological systems. One Earth,6(7), 824–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.06.006
Chapin, F. S., Pickett, S. T., Power, M. E., Jackson, R. B., Carter, D. M., & Duke, C. (2011). Earth stewardship: A
strategy for social–ecological transformation to reverse planetary degradation. Journal of Environmental
Studies and Sciences,1(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-011-0010-7
Clarke, D. (2017). The serious business of sandboxes (Vol. 45, p. 105). Strategy+business. https://www.strategy-
business.com/article/The-Serious-Business-of-Sandboxes.https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2017.8233303
Colombo, L. A. (2023). Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management
Learning & Education,22(1), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2021.0430
Cooperrider, D., & Godwin, L. (2022). Our Earthshot moment: Net positive OD for the creation of a world of full
Spectrum flourishing. Organization Development Review,54(1), 2942.
10 WADDOCK ET AL.
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cooperrider, D., & Selian, A. (2021). The business of building a better world: The leadership revolution that is
changing everything. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Dasgupta, P. (2021). Final report - the economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. UK. https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review
De la Cadena, M. (2015). Earth beings: Ecologies of practice across Andean worlds. Duke University Press.
Delmas, M., & Sparks, B. (2024). It's time for sustainability to become a Core part of MBA programs. Harvard
Business Review.https://hbr.org/2024/02/its-time-for-sustainability-to-become-a-core-part-of-mba-programs
Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E., Ngo, H., Guèze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K., &
Butchart, S. (2020). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem
services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES.
Dorninger, C. (2020). Leverage points for sustainability transformation_ a review on interventions in food and
energy systems. Ecological Economics,9, 106570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106570
Duflo, E. (2017). The economist as plumber. American Economic Review,107(5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1257/
aer.p20171153
Duflo, E. (2020). Field experiments and the practice of policy. American Economic Review,110(7), 1952–1973.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.110.7.1952
Edwards, M. G., Alcaraz, J. M., & Cornell, S. E. (2021). Management education and earth system science: Trans-
formation as if planetary boundaries mattered. Business & Society,60(1), 26–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0007650318816513
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology,2,23–44.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2021). The nature imperative: How the circular economy tackles biodiversity loss.
IPBES. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/biodiversity-report
Fazey, I., & Leicester, G. (2022). Archetypes of system transition and transformation: Six lessons for stewarding
change. Energy Research & Social Science,91, 102646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102646
Forum for the Future, & World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2021). A compass for just and
regenerative business. IPBES. https://www.forumforthefuture.org/just-and-regenerative-business
Franco, J. C., & Borras, S. M. Jr. (2019). Grey areas in green grabbing: Subtle and indirect interconnections
between climate change politics and land grabs and their implications for research. Land Use Policy,84,
192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.013
Fromentin, J.-M., & Al, E. (2022). Thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species: Summary for
policymakers. IPBES. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2485016/thematic-assessment-of-the-sustainable-
use-of-wild-species-of-the-intergovernmental-science-policy-platform-on-biodiversity-and-ecosystem-
services-zenodo/3507444/
Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Envi-
ronmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,1(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adap-
tation. American Psychologist,66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications
for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review,20(4), 874–907. https://doi.org/10.
5465/AMR.1995.9512280024
Godelnik, R (2019). Sandbox zero: Rethinking sustainability-as-usual introduction: Sustainability-as-usual.
Conference: Sustainable Innovation 2019 At: University for the Creative Arts, Epsom, UK.
Gualandris, J., Branzei, O., Wilhelm, M., Lazzarini, S., Linnenluecke, M., Hamann, R., Dooley, K. J.,
Barnett, M. L., & Chen, C. (2024). Unchaining supply chains: Transformative leaps toward regenerating
social–ecological systems. Journal of Supply Chain Management,60(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.
12314
Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2022). Researching for desirable futures: From real utopias to imagining alterna-
tives. Journal of Management Studies,59(1), 236–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12709
Higham, J. E. S., & Font, X. (2020). Decarbonising academia: Confronting our climate hypocrisy. Journal of Sus-
tainable Tourism,28(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1695132
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strate-
gic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of Management Perspectives,12(4),
22–42. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.1333922
WADDOCK ET AL.11
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Hochschild, A. R. (2018). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. The New
Press.
Homer-Dixon, T., Renn, O., Rockstrom, J., Donges, J. F., & Janzwood, S. (2021). A call for an international
research program on the risk of a global Polycrisis (SSRN scholarly paper 4058592). Springer Nature. https://
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4058592
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental
science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (version 1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/
ZENODO.3831673
IPCC. (2022). In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig,
S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, & B. Rama (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation,
and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change (IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contri-
bution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig,
S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press; Issue
IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group
II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press. In Press
Kennedy, S., & Linnenluecke, M. K. (2022). Circular economy and resilience: A research agenda. Business Strat-
egy and the Environment,31(6), 2754–2765. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3004
Konietzko, J., Das, A., & Bocken, N. (2023). Towards regenerative business models: A necessary shift? Sustain-
able Production and Consumption,38, 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.04.014
Laszlo, C. (2021). Prospective theorizing: Researching for social impact. Journal of Management, Spirituality &
Religion,18(6), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.51327/OBNX5448
Linnenluecke, M. K., & Smith, T. (2019). A primer on global environmental change. Abacus,55(4), 810–824.
https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12175
Lucas, D. S., Grimes, M. G., & Gehman, J. (2022). Remaking capitalism: The strength of weak legislation in
mobilizing B corporation certification. Academy of Management Journal,65(3), 958–987. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amj.2020.1688
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L.,
Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, R.,
Yu, R., & Zhou, B. (2021). IPCC 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate change 2021: The physical sci-
ence basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on cli-
mate change: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of
working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 1–41).
Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_
SPM.pdf
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system (Vol. 2020, Issue June 17). The Donella
Meadwos Project. https://donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf
Morgan, C. B., Brevik, K., Barbieri, L., & Ament, J. (2023). Humans in/of/are nature: Re-embedding reality in
sustainability sciences. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene,11(1), 00083.
Navarro, L. M., & Pereira, H. M. (2015). Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. In Rewilding European
landscapes (pp. 3–23). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12039-3_1
OECD. (2021). Biodiversity, natural capital and the economy: A policy guide for finance, economic and environment
ministries, OECD Environment Policy Papers 26 (Vol. 26).
Ospina, C. (2022). What are pre-competitive partnerships? Resonance. https://www.resonanceglobal.com/blog/
what-are-pre-competitive-partnerships
Pavez, I., Godwin, L., & Spreitzer, G. (2021). Generative scholarship through prospective theorizing: Appreciat-
ing the roots and legacy of organization development and change to build a bright future. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science,57(4), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211049836
Polman, P., & Winston, A. (2021). Net positive: How courageous companies thrive by giving more than they take.
Harvard Business Press.
Project Drawdown. (2023. Drawdown Roadmap. Project Drawdown. https://drawdown.org/drawdown-roadmap
12 WADDOCK ET AL.
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? [Oxfam Discussion
Papers]. Oxfam International. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/safe-and-just-space-humanity
SeaBOS. (2023). About SeaBOS. SeaBOS. https://seabos.org/about/
Setzer, J., & Higham, C. (2023). Global Trends in Climate Change LItigation: 2023 Snapshot. In Grantham
research institute on climate change and the environment and Centre for climate change economics and policy.
London School of Economics and Political Science.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. The Academy of Management Review,20(1),
118. https://doi.org/10.2307/258889
Skoglund, A., & Böhm, S. (2022). Climate activism: How communities take renewable energy actions across busi-
ness and society. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108697194
Stahel, W. R. (2016). The circular economy. Nature,531(7595), 435–438. https://doi.org/10.1038/531435a
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, & Subsidiary Body for Implementation. (2023). Techni-
cal dialogue on the first global Stocktake: Synthesis report by the co-Facilitaors on the technical dialogue
(Advance Version FCCC/SB/2023/9; Framework Convention on Climate Change, p. 46). United Nations.
https://unfccc.int/documents/631600
Sulamoyo, D. S. (2022). The dichotomization of Ubuntu as a cultural strategy for large system change during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Organization Development Journal,40(2), 28–37.
The Great Reset. (2020). World economic forum.https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/
Thomke, S. H. (1998). Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Management Science,44(6),
743–762. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.6.743
Velenturf, A. P., & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and
Consumption,27, 1437–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018
Waddock, S. (2020a). Achieving sustainability requires systemic business transformation. Global Sustainability,
3, e12. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.9
Waddock, S. (2020b). Reframing and transforming economics around life. Sustainability,12(18), 7553. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12187553
WBCSD, V. (2010). 2050—The new agenda for business.World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD).http://www.Wbcsd.Org/Includes/getTarget.Asp
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework
for academic program development. Sustainability Science,6(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-
011-0132-6
Winn, M. I., & Pogutz, S. (2013). Business, ecosystems, and biodiversity: New horizons for management research.
Organization & Environment,26(2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026613490173
World Bank Group. (2021a). Unlocking nature-smart development: An approach paper on biodiversity and ecosys-
tem services. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/36047
World Bank Group. (2021b). World Bank Group climate change action plan 2021–2025: Supporting green, resil-
ient, and inclusive development [strategy document]. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/35799
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2017). An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into busi-
ness as usual. Academy of Management Journal,60(5), 1633–1661. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0718
Yu, H., Bansal, P., & Arjaliès, D.-L. (2023). International business is contributing to environmental crises. Jour-
nal of International Business Studies,54(6), 1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00590-y
How to cite this article: Waddock, S., Henriques, I., Linnenluecke, M., Poggioli, N., &
Böhm, S. (2024). The paradigm shift: Business associations shaping the discourse on
system change. Business and Society Review,1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12359
WADDOCK ET AL.13
14678594, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12359 by Appalachian State University, Wiley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
