The seductive logic of subtractive sustainability: reflections on sustainable socio-economic ...

12 Pages·2017·0.22 MB·English

WSB University in Wroclaw
Research Journal
ISSN 1643-7772 I eISSN 2392-1153
Vol. 16 I No. 4
Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły
Bankowej we Wrocławiu
ISSN 1643-7772 I eISSN 2392-1153
R. 16 I Nr 4
The seductive logic of subtractive sustainability:
reflections on sustainable socio-economic development
Author: Ynte K. van Dam
Q: What’s the first thing you’d
take out of a burning house ?
A: The fire
(Pratchett, 1995)
Abstract
Aim: To discuss the drivers and impediments sustainability of social systems.
Design / Research methods: Analysis of and reflections on the discussions
on campus antifragility during the 4th international conference on efficiency,
sustainable business and sustainable economic development, hosted by WSB
Wroclaw on May 13th 2016.
Conclusions / findings: (1) Lack of sustainability results from organisational
culture or dominant logic rather than from primary activities; (2) Disequilib-
rium in organisational culture reflects a lack of congruence between formal
and informal institutions; (3) Conflict between informal and formal institu-
tions is a driver of change, unless the formal institutions are enforced as a core
cultural value; (4) Sustainability and sustainable development in a turbulent
environment should aim for organisational and cultural diversity.
Originality / value of the article: This discussion note shows that a good
metaphor can generate new insights. Viewed in terms of organisational viabil-
ity and antifragility it is not what is done, but how it is done that determines
the sustainability of an organisation. This implies that the ends never jus-
tify the means. The discussion note shows that sustainable development re-
quires a critical reflection on the formal institutions and governance systems
that determine these means. Likewise sustainable marketing requires a critic-
al reflection on market institutions.
Keywords: Diversity, institutions, History: received 2016-07-29,
organisational culture, sustainable corrected 2016-10-20, accepted
development 2016-10-20
JEL: B52, M14, Q01
Ynte K. van Dam
Wageningen University
[email protected]
WSB University in Wroclaw Research Journal I ISSN 1643-7772 I eISSN 2392-1153 I Vol. 16 I No. 4
Introduction capacity of a system to gain order
from disorder. In practical sense it re-
Theories and models are mere meta- mains unclear whether this benefit or
phors for understanding the complex- gained order stems from an evolution-
ities of the real world. Theories are ary weeding out of fragile subsystems
a way of viewing reality. A theory, like (like in a species), from purposeful
a metaphor, may fit reality but by def- system learning (like in business), or
inition cannot be true, and therefore from a reinforcing response (like in the
the relevant questions to ask about body), just like it remains unclear at
a theory are not related to its truth what level of system-analysis antifra-
or its lack of truth (Box 1976). Correct gility becomes an issue (Geddes 2012).
and relevant questions about theor- Even if antifragility cannot be equated
ies, models, and about metaphors to the capacity of a system to live up
in general, are whether or not they to the epitome ‘wat does not kill me,
contribute to understanding phenom- makes me stronger’ (Geddes 2012,
ena, and especially whether they help Nietzsche 1889), antifragility only is
in generating new insights on these a relative and indeterminate state
phenomena. The important questions because only the lack of antifragility,
to ask of a theory are along the line of i.e. ‘whatever destroys me does kill
‘Does it work?’. And the ultimate test me’, can be positively and conclusive-
of the usefulness of a theory is wheth- ly observed. All systems that currently
er new empirical evidence provides seem to benefit from external stress
sufficient reason to disconfirm and are at best ‘tentatively antifragile until
reject the understanding and insights proven differently’. The ultimate irony
that are generated. If a theory is suffi- of positivist science is that in order
ciently disconfirmed in sufficiently dif- to gain conclusive knowledge about
ferent ways it makes sense to accept something it is most often necessary
the limits of this specific metaphor to destroy it. This notwithstanding,
and search for a new one to explain because only the lack of antifragility
the unexplainable. If not there is hard- can be conclusively observed, and
ly a reason to stop using it as long as because it is seriously doubted that
it fulfils its purpose of contributing antifragility can exist (Kovalenko, Sor-
to understanding and the generation nette 2013), antifragility seems to be
of new insights. During the 4th inter- a fitting metaphor for sustainability
national conference on efficiency, (Jickling 1992).
sustainable business and sustainable Discussing sustainability of society
economic development, hosted by in terms of campus antifragility with
WSB Wroclaw on May 13th 2016, the a group of academics (professors and
guiding metaphor was multilevel anti- students) is refreshing in several ways.
fragility of a university campus. In this It rapidly becomes evident that all
discussion note I analyse whether this four key concepts (society, campus,
worked and generated new insights. sustainability, and antifragility) are
floating signifiers (Lévi-Strauss 1950)
Setting the stage that lack a clear and unambiguous
referent, and that have no concrete
Antifragility recently has been intro- operational meaning. Even this limited
duced as the capacity of a system domain does not allow for consensus
to benefit from stressors, shocks, and – though to be fair, consensus among
other influences that ordinarily are academics is rare under the best of
harmful to a system (Taleb 2012a, circumstances. The meaning of sus-
2012b). Antifragility therefore is the tainable development only becomes
20
Ynte K. van Dam | The seductive logic of subtractive sustainability: reflections on sustainable socio-economic development
Corporate Culture
‘how things are done’
Primary activities System
‘why, what, and how’ Viability
Corporate Processes
‘which things are done’
Figure 1: Proposed determinants of system viability
evident when applied to a specif- variables. Structurally the result there-
ic concrete context and when dis- fore can be depicted in a two-times-
cussed in terms of what changes are three matrix. Process variables cover
required to increase sustainability (or what is done, in terms of primary pro-
to decrease the lack of sustainability) cesses, organisational processes, and
in this concrete contextual application (financial) resource processes (Porter
(Shearman 1990, Van Dam, Apeldoorn 1998). Culture variables cover how
1996). Likewise the meaning of ‘cam- things are done (Balmer, Wilson 2001,
pus’ appears to become evident when Deshpande et al. 1993) in the primary,
applied to a specific and concrete organisational and financial process.
issue. What is often referred to as an Functionally the variables may be
academic community, or Gesellschaft, grouped into three constructs: one
rapidly turns out to be an academic so- covering corporate (organisational
ciety, or Gemeinschaft (Tönnies 1887). and financial) culture, one covering
corporate (organisational and finan-
Playing the play cial) processes, and one covering the
primary activities (process and cul-
The seminar was organised to elicit ture). Corporate processes support
elements that contribute to the fra- and corporate culture institutional-
gility of the (academic) system and ises the primary activities, and jointly
to find ways to eliminate these. With- they directly or indirectly determine
out going into detail about the specific system viability (Figure 1). This func-
elements that were listed in this specif- tional distinction is reminiscent of the
ic context, the elicited elements could distinction between technical (what)
be classified in two different ways. The and functional (how) quality of ser-
first classification follows a distinction vices (Grönroos 1984). If services are
between primary elements (i.e. aca- substituted for the primary activities,
demic education and research), or- then the quality of these primary ac-
ganisational elements (infrastructure tivities has a technical and a functional
and support) and resources (these lat- component. The technical quality of
ter are mostly financial). The second the primary activities depends main-
classification follows a distinction be- ly on corporate processes and the
tween process variables and culture functional quality depends mainly
21
WSB University in Wroclaw Research Journal I ISSN 1643-7772 I eISSN 2392-1153 I Vol. 16 I No. 4
on corporate culture, whereas the context is whether culture explains
synergy between processes and cul- why things are done or legitimises
ture may further increase both quality and prescribes how things are done
components. (Dauber et al. 2012; Deshpande et al.
A striking observation is the general 1993). In organisational and marketing
absence of reflective variables that literature these teleological and causal
cover why things are done the way explanations are used interchangeably,
they are done. Both the corporate pro- mixing up or substituting ends with
cesses and the corporate culture are means, as is common in the praxeology
assumed to be given, or at least they of the Austrian school of economics
are not questioned, as a fact of life. Not (Von Mises 1949, 1962).
questioning what is done and how it is
done may have many benefits (Briley, Formal and informal culture
Wyer Jr 2002) and increases the effi-
ciency of an organisation (Alvesson, Let corporate culture be a set of con-
Spicer 2012), but it does not contribute ventions that determine how things
to organisational survival in a volatile are done in a corporate organisation
environment (Sørensen 2002). Even (Berry 2004, Cohan 2002). Corporate
more disconcerting is this lack of critic- culture thus reflects the espoused
al reflection on corporate processes values within an organisation and the
and corporate culture in a discussion conventional arrangements that co-
of academic fragility among academics ordinate individual actions within that
(Giroux 2011). This lack of critical re- organisation (Dauber et al. 2012, Hatch
flection on the own organisation, even 1993, Schein 2006). It may be assumed
among academics, should be analysed that the informal culture and govern-
to its sources and its consequences, ance conventions are explicitly codi-
though it is not too farfetched to as- fied by the formal organisational cul-
sume that those consequences are re- ture and the formal governance style.
lated to antifragility/sustainability or This notwithstanding the formal codi-
the lack thereof (Cohan 2002). fication is by necessity an abstraction
A second observation is that corpor- (a theory or a model) of the informal
ate culture is a contested construct. culture and governance conventions.
Though there is little doubt about the What is codified and made visible is
influence of corporate culture on cor- a reduced slice of corporate reality
porate performance (Deshpande et al. that, like any formal contract, never
1993, Sørensen 2002, Sugita, Takahashi covers all contingencies (Hart, Moore
2015), and though there is at least 1988). As long as this formal structure
qualitative evidence of the incorpora- reflects the manifold informal struc-
tion of sustainable values into corpor- tures, the formal structure may (ap-
ate culture (McMaster 2003, Muja et pear to) function satisfactorily and the
al. 2014), the meaning of corporate informal structures may remain invis-
culture remains elusive. The constitut- ible (Figure 2).
ing elements and the underlying di- When formal institutions and for-
mensions of corporate culture are not mal governance styles are fully sup-
unambiguously operationalised and ported by the informal institutions an
the relations between corporate cul- institutional equilibrium exists, and
ture and corporate performance are the informal institutions are the glue
not unambiguously modelled (Balmer, and grease that keep an organisation
Wilson 2001, Cameron, Quinn 2005, together and running (Platje 2008,
Dauber et al. 2012 Deshpande et al. 2011). In an institutional equilibrium
1993, Serpa 2016). A key issue in this the informal institutions compensate
22
Ynte K. van Dam | The seductive logic of subtractive sustainability: reflections on sustainable socio-economic development
system individual
Formal
Culture Extrinsic
& Motives &
Governance Incentives
style
Individual
Organisational Organisational
Goal (in)congruent
Goals Viability
Behaviour
Informal
Culture Intrinsic
& Motives &
Governance Incentives
arrangements
Figure 2: Culture, governance, and individual behaviour
for the incompleteness of the formal organisation the formal acculturation
institutions. An unintended conse- is codified in terms of ‘this is how we
quence is that the informal institutions do things around here’, which covers
cover for the misspecifications of the the formal organisation but not ne-
formal institutions, which enhances cessarily the informal organisation
the perception of correctness and from which this formal organisation
truth of the formal model. When the has emerged (Banks 2008). After all,
codified formal culture and governance no model is correct and no formal ar-
style are mistaken for the underlying rangement can cover all eventualities
reality the abstract reduction sooner that are taken for granted in an in-
or later will be implemented to replace formal arrangement (Box 1976, Hart,
and curtail reality. This occurs in eco- Moore 1988) and likewise no formal
nomic or organisational policy when acculturation can cover the full extent
the theory or the model is not used of the informal culture that makes an
to understand social reality but to con- organisation run smoothly.
trol and engineer this social reality, and When the formal institutions and gov-
the bureaucracy shifts from enabling ernance are not supported by the in-
into coercive (Adler, Borys 1996). In formal institutions, people are unwill-
an informal organisation new entrants ing to comply with the formal rules and
(employees, members or partners) the informal culture increases friction
must learn their way to understand and organisational costs (Platje 2008,
the culture and the governance system 2011). Lack of acceptation of the for-
in a trial-and-error process of integra- mal culture may stimulate institutional
tion and socialisation, which can be change, but if the belief in the formal
facilitated by informally showing the model is sufficiently strong it is more
ropes (Sutton, Louis 1987). In a formal likely that the informal structures are
23
WSB University in Wroclaw Research Journal I ISSN 1643-7772 I eISSN 2392-1153 I Vol. 16 I No. 4
viewed as ‘aberrations of the model’ improvements by elimination. This
or ‘imperfections of the world’ that resembles the idea of incremental
are blamed for the decreased perform- improvement by eliminating the worst
ance and viability of the formal system. evil, rather than salutary improve-
Strong belief in the incompletely speci- ment by pursuing the greatest good
fied formal institutions easily results (Popper 1945). The proposition is
in a vicious circle as existing informal that if one eliminates what makes an
structures are eradicated and alterna- organisation or a system fragile, the
tive non-formal structures spontan- fragility would decrease and possibly
eously emerge to replace them, only the antifragility would increase. This
to be eradicated by stricter rules and proposition rests on a couple of hid-
regulations once they become visible. den assumptions that can be illustrat-
Though the formal culture is supposed ed by the model in Figure 2. A first
to be grounded in the informal culture, assumption is that the formal know-
the two can easily get dissociated once ledge of ‘what makes a system tick’ is
the formal culture becomes codified accurate: if the formal knowledge is
and rationalised. Where formal physic- the belief in formal culture and gov-
al models sooner or later are corrected ernance style, the idea of subtractive
by the physical world, because mis- epistemology forcibly suggests the
specified structures collapse, formal elimination of the informal culture
socio-economic models have a strong and governance arrangements that
narrative component that allows their prevent the system to achieve its
adherents to ignore corrections by goals. This is more or less the argu-
the socio-economic world and instead ment that has always been and still
make them try to bring the world in is used by neo-liberal economists
line with the model. It is a continuous to demand a decrease in regulation of
source of surprise and wry amusement the market (Polanyi 1944, Von Mises
to observe how many laws and regu- 1949). Conversely if the formal know-
lations have been necessary to safe- ledge embraces a strong belief in in-
guard and protect the ‘self-regulating formal culture and spontaneous gov-
market’ of classical economy (Polanyi ernance arrangements, the same idea
1944), or how many rules, regulations, of subtractive epistemology favours
forms, and bureaucrats are necessary the radical elimination of the formal
to maintain ‘bureaucratic efficiency’ structure (Kropotkin 1927). Either
(Antonio 1979). Over the years the might be successful and either might
spontaneous resistance against (and prove disastrous, and conclusive
consequent regulation of) the neo-lib- knowledge on what cannot be safely
eral free market policy has been used eliminated only results from positivist
as the decisive argument in favour of destruction of the system. Stepwise
that policy, because ‘if only the free improvement by incremental elimina-
market would be truly unregulated it tion may turn into an elaborate game
would generate sustainable welfare of organisational jenga. The key point,
as intended’. Likewise the bureau- however, is that in most instances
cracy would be efficient ‘if only people the identification of ‘what makes an
would stick to the rules’. organisation fragile’ depends on the
ideology or the social paradigm of the
Subtractive epistemology observer.
and a culture of antifragility A second assumption is that fragility
is caused by the presence of some-
The general idea behind sub- thing that can be eliminated. The
tractive epistemology is creating generic organisation model of Figure
24
Ynte K. van Dam | The seductive logic of subtractive sustainability: reflections on sustainable socio-economic development
2 presupposes a mutual reinforce- this seminar. Of course this does not
ment between formal and informal mean it would work the same way for
structures. Any organisation where other people, and it does not mean
formal structure is incongruent with that another metaphor might not
the informal structure loses its vi- have worked equally well or better.
ability. Subtractive epistemology sug- A weak spot of the subtractive epis-
gests this can be solved by eliminat- temology metaphor is similar to the
ing the absence of congruence rather problem of social costs in transaction
than by the creation of congruence. cost economics (Coase 1960): ir-
Apart from the pragmatic observation respective the type and magnitude of
that one cannot remove what is ab- social costs, sustainability increases
sent, this suggestion also ignores the with the internalisation and decreas-
institutional development processes es with the externalisation of these
by which the emergent formal cul- costs. Lack of sustainability is caused
ture and the informal culture may di- by external costs, and in terms of sub-
verge. If the alienation of formal and tractive epistemology sustainable de-
informal culture is a consequence velopment merely requires the elim-
of the autonomous development of ination of external costs. Transaction
either culture, then the solution is costs economics shows that welfare
not in dialectical elimination, but in effects are equal whether social costs
a critical dialogue and synthesis be- are prevented or repaired afterwards,
tween them. but this may be different for sustaina-
bility costs on two points. Firstly, the
Final act prevent/repair trade off assumes that
reparation is possible, which may be
Antifragility is simply defined as the a fallacy as convincingly shown in e.g.
capacity of a system to gain from dis- Bhopal (Eckerman 2005a, 2005b), or
order (Taleb 2012a). As long as it is Chernobyl and Fukushima (Mietelski
not specified what the system should et al. 2014, Piedelievre et al. 1990).
gain from disorder, it may be advis- Secondly, contrary to the two-actor
able not to push this metaphor too examples that are popular in trans-
far. Antifragility as a goal implies that action cost economics, in real life the
the primary aim of the system is sur- externalised sustainability costs are
vival, which seems rather shallow – too widely dispersed to be repaired,
especially for functional systems like which implies that individual com-
markets or organisations – though it panies and their customers profit at
may aptly describe the current state the expense of current and future
of the neo-liberal economic system. global population (Kapp 1971).
Antifragility as a condition appears
to be a post hoc qualification of sys- Conclusion
tems that have survived external
stressors. Despite this obvious limita- Viewed in terms of organisational vi-
tion, using the metaphor of antifragil- ability and antifragility, the internal
ity in discussing campus sustainabil- and external sustainability of an or-
ity may contribute to understanding ganisation depend on the interplay
sustainability, and especially to gen- of technical-process variables (what
erating new insights on sustainability is done) and functional-cultural vari-
– if only because both sustainability ables (how things are done). Though
and antifragility are unattainable in much criticism on corporate sustain-
the current reality. So in this sense ability refers to what companies do,
the metaphor may have worked in the functional-cultural component of
25
WSB University in Wroclaw Research Journal I ISSN 1643-7772 I eISSN 2392-1153 I Vol. 16 I No. 4
sustainability remains underrepre- that at first glance it is incompatible
sented. A functionalist view on sus- with the dominant social paradigm
tainability therefore proposes that (Kilbourne et al. 2002), and therefore
it is not what is done, but how it is socially impossible in the social uni-
done that determines sustainability. verse as we know it. A fundamental
It is the means that determine the difference between the physical uni-
sustainability of the ends, but this im- verse and the social universe, how-
plies that the ends do not justify the ever, is that the former is indeed given
means. Critical analysis for sustain- as a fact of life whereas the latter only
able development therefore should is assumed to be given but can be
not primarily focus on the goals but changed in principle. The discussion
on the procedures of an organisation: and reflection on campus antifragility
not ‘why is this done?’ but ‘why is it shows that this change, though pos-
done in this way?’. sible in principle, may never occur in
If corporate culture and the means practice due to institutional inertia.
rather than ends of the organisation Feasibility of a change to sustainable
determine the sustainability of an development might be enhanced by
organisation, the general lack of re- focusing on the reduction of non-sus-
flection on the formal culture and tainable practices and damage pre-
governance system that determine vention rather than on the increase
these organisational means is rath- of sustainable practices and damage
er disconcerting. This lack of critical repair. Of course this presupposes the
reflection has been explained as in- ability to identify and critically evalu-
tentional organisational stupidity or ate non-sustainable practices, and
as ethical blindness (Alvesson, Spicer the ability to find and implement al-
2012, Palazzo et al. 2012), which sug- ternative ways of doing things. Even
gests a non-sustainable institution- though we do not know which path
al equilibrium. Another explanation of development will eventually be
might be institutional disequilibrium sustainable, the subtractive epistem-
and incongruence between the for- ology of antifragility suggests that the
mal bureaucracy and the informal sustainability of a system increases
structures that has resulted in alien- with the variability within that sys-
ation and apathy among the mem- tem (Fisher 1930). In a stable context
bers of this society (Abramson et al. the benefits of efficiency promote
1978, Horton 1964, Seeman 1959, uniformity and homogeneity in a sys-
Weber 1922). The deeper explana- tem, which implies that the fragility
tion behind all these might be the of that system in a turbulent context
that the dominant social paradigm, is increased. In order to prepare for
built around neo-classical economics sustainable development in a turbu-
and neo-liberalism, is so firmly estab- lent environment a system therefore
lished that it is beyond any critical dis- should actively aim for organisational
cussion (Harris 2008, Kilbourne et al. and cultural diversity in a stable en-
2009, Milburn, Harvie 2016). vironment, even (or especially) if this
Critical reflection on the concept of compromises efficiency. Sustainable
antifragility shows that at first glance it development requires a critical re-
is incompatible with thermodynamics flection on the existing culture of gov-
(Osband 2013), and therefore phys- ernance and institutions, likewise sus-
ically impossible in the physical uni- tainable marketing requires a critical
verse as we know it. Critical reflection reflection on market governance and
on the concept of sustainability shows institutions.
26
Ynte K. van Dam | The seductive logic of subtractive sustainability: reflections on sustainable socio-economic development
Bibliography
Abramson L.Y., Seligman M.E., Te- consumer decisions, “Journal of Con-
asdale, J.D. (1978), Learned help- sumer Research”, vol. 29, no. 3, pp.
lessness in humans: critique and re- 400-415.
formulation, “Journal of abnormal
psychology”, vol. 87, no. 1, p. 49. Cameron K.S., Quinn R.E. (2005), Diag-
nosing and changing organizational
Adler P.S., Borys B. (1996), Two types culture: Based on the competing val-
of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive, ues framework, John Wiley & Sons.
“Administrative Science Quarterly”,
vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 61-89. Coase R.H. (1960), The problem of so-
cial cost, “Journal of Law and Econom-
Alvesson M., Spicer A. (2012), A stu- ics”, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-44.
pidity-based theory of organizations,
“Journal of Management Studies”, vol. Cohan J.A. (2002). “I didn’t know” and
49, no. 7, pp. 1194-1220. “I was only doing my job”: Has cor-
porate governance careened out of
Antonio R.J. (1979), The contradiction control? A case study of Enron’s infor-
of domination and production in mation myopia, “Journal of Business
bureaucracy: The contribution of or- Ethics”, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 275-299.
ganizational efficiency to the decline
of the Roman Empire, “American Dauber D., Fink G., Yolles M. (2012),
Sociological Review”, vol 44, no. 6, pp. A configuration model of organization-
895-912. al culture, “SAGE Open”, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 1-16.
Balmer J.M., Wilson A.M. (2001),
Understanding organisational culture Deshpande R., Farley J.U., Webster
and the implications for corporate Jr, F.E. (1993), Corporate culture, cus-
marketing, “European Journal of Mar- tomer orientation, and innovativeness
keting”, vol. 35, nos. 3/4, pp. 353-367. in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis,
“The journal of Marketing”, pp. 23-37.
Banks J.A. (2008), Diversity, group
identity, and citizenship education in Eckerman I. (2005a), The Bhopal gas
a global age, “Educational Researcher, leak: Analyses of causes and conse-
vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 129-139. quences by three different models,
“Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Berry B. (2004), Organizational cul- Process Industries, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.
ture: A framework and strategies for 213-217.
facilitating employee whistleblowing,
“Employee Responsibilities and Rights Eckerman I. (2005b), The Bhopal
Journal”, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1-11. saga: causes and consequences of the
world’s largest industrial disaster, Uni-
Box G.E.P. (1976), Science and statis- versities press, Hyderabad.
tics, “Journal of the American Statis-
tical Association”, vol. 71, no. 356, pp. Fisher R.A. (1930), The genetical
791-799. theory of natural selection, Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Briley D.A., Wyer Jr, R.S. (2002), The
effect of group membership salience Geddes L. (2012), Antifragil: how
on the avoidance of negative out- to make an unstable world strong.
comes: Implications for social and interview with Nassim Nicholas Taleb,
27
WSB University in Wroclaw Research Journal I ISSN 1643-7772 I eISSN 2392-1153 I Vol. 16 I No. 4
“New Scientist”, vol. 14 November Kilbourne W.E., Dorsch M.J., Mc-
2012. Donagh P., Urien B., Prothero A.,
Grünhagen M., et al. (2009), The insti-
Giroux H.A. (2011, Tuesday, 18 January tutional foundations of materialism in
2011), Beyond the swindle of the cor- western societies, “Journal of Macro-
porate university: Higher education in marketing”, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 259-278.
the service of democracy, Truthout.
Kovalenko T., Sornette, D. (2013), Dy-
Grönroos C. (1984), A service quality namical diagnosis and solutions for
model and its marketing implications, resilient natural and social systems,
“European Journal of Marketing”, vol. “Planet@Risk”, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7-33.
18, no. 4, pp. 36-44.
Kropotkin P. (1927), Anarchism:
A collection of revolutionary writings,
Harris H. (2008), Promoting ethical
Courier Corporation, North Chelms-
reflection in the teaching of business
ford (Mass).
ethics, “Business ethics: A European
review”, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 379-390. Lévi-Strauss C. (1950), Introduction à
l’oeuvre de Marcel Mauss In: Marcel
Hart O., Moore J. (1988), Incomplete
Mauss (1902 - 1938), Sociologie et an-
contracts and renegotiation, “Econo-
thropologie, PUF, Paris.
metrica: Journal of the Econometric
Society”, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 755-785. McMaster K.I. (2003), Not just another
day on the job - Implementation of
Hatch M.J. (1993), The dynamics of sustainable development in the min-
organizational culture, “Academy of erals industry, “Exploration and Min-
Management Review”, vol. 18, no. 4, ing Geology”, vol. 12, nos. 1-4, pp. 1-4.
pp. 657-693.
Mietelski J.W., Kierepko R., Brudecki
Horton J. (1964), The dehumanization K., Janowski P., Kleszcz K., Tomankie-
of anomie and alienation: a problem in wicz E. (2014). Long-range transport of
the ideology of sociology, “The British gaseous 131I and other radionuclides
Journal of Sociology”, vol. 15, no. 4, from Fukushima accident to Southern
pp. 283-300. Poland, “Atmospheric Environment”,
vol. 91, pp. 137-145.
Jickling B. (1992), Viewpoint: Why
Milburn K., Harvie D. (2016), On the
I don’t want my children to be edu-
uses of fairy dust: Contagion, sorcery
cated for sustainable development,
and the crafting of other worlds, “Cul-
“The Journal of Environmental Educa-
ture and Organization”, pp. 1-17.
tion”, vol 23, no. 4, pp. 5-8.
Muja N., Appelbaum S.H., Walker T.,
Kapp K.W. (1971), The social costs of
Ramadan S., Sodeyi T. (2014), Sustain-
private enterprise, 2nd ed., Schocken
ability and organizational transforma-
books, New York.
tion: Putting the cart before the horse?
(part two), “Industrial and Commercial
Kilbourne W.E., Beckmann S.C., Thelen
Training”, vol. 46, no. (6), pp. 307-314.
E. (2002), The role of the dominant
social paradigm in environmental at- Nietzsche F. (1889), Götzen-Däm-
titudes: A multinational examination, merung oder wie man mit dem Ham-
“Journal of Business Research”, vol. mer philosophirt, Verlag von C.G.Neu-
55, no. 3, pp. 193-204. man, Leipzig.
28