Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Everyone Has a Truth”: Forms of Ecological Embeddedness in an Interorganizational Context

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Environmental issues involve a wide range of actors often brought together in processes of collaborative environmental governance. Nonetheless, such actors frequently disagree on the definition of these issues. Even sharing an environmental concern does not preclude disagreements. This paper takes the concept of ecological embeddedness—so far analyzed in a single community—to explore differences of views among actors involved in collaborative environmental governance. It does so by pursuing a qualitative study of French River Basin Committees. Our findings show that Basin Committee members take radically different approaches to ecological matters and therefore put forward opposing diagnoses and prognoses of their shared ecological context. We identify three dimensions of ecological embeddedness that are critical for collaborative governance, namely: ecological engagement; ecological ontology; and ecological knowledge. Our results indicate that different forms of ecological embeddedness can fuel long-lasting disagreements despite members’ shared appreciation of collaboration. This is especially so if the deliberations focus on ‘facts’—with actors pitting their ecological knowledge against one another—without facilitating discussions on ecological engagement and ontology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We do not delve into how differences of views or of resources among actors play out in terms of power dynamics in deliberations. We believe that the complexity of this topic warrants separate analysis and a distinct methodological approach if we are not to risk sacrificing depth to scope.

  2. The full version of the Hummingbird story is as follows: “Legend has it that one day there was a huge forest fire. All the animals were terrified witless as they watched the disaster unfold. Only the tiny hummingbird was busy, fetching a few drops of water in its beak to dribble on the fire. After a moment, the armadillo, annoyed by this flitting to and fro, scolded him: ‘Hummingbird, are you mad? You won’t put the fire out with those tiny drops of water!’ The hummingbird answered: ‘I know, but I’m doing my bit.’” (Rabhi, 2010).

References

  • Ansari, S. (Shaz), Wijen, F., & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons.” Organization Science, 24(4), 1014–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arenas, D., Albareda, L., & Goodman, J. (2020). Contestation in multi-stakeholder initiatives: Enhancing the democratic quality of transnational governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(2), 169–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brummans, B. H. J. M., Putnam, L. L., Gray, B., Hanke, R., Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. (2008). Making sense of intractable multiparty conflict: A study of framing in four environmental disputes. Communication Monographs, 75(1), 25–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cour des comptes. (2015). Les agences de l’eau et la politique de l’eau : Une cohérence à retrouver. Rapport Public Annuel, 2015, 69–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue & directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 317–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Schouten, G. (2018). Harnessing wicked problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2), 333–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R., & van Woerkum, C. (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62(2), 155–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnellon, A., Gray, B., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Communication, meaning, and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, G. H., & Zietsma, C. (2017). Constructing a shared governance logic: The role of emotions in enabling dually embedded agency. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2321–2351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, F., & Beunza, D. (2018). Creating common ground: A communicative action model of dialogue in shareholder engagement. Organization Science, 29(6), 1187–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, D. J., & Kringelum, L. B. (2021). Five potentials of critical realism in management and organization studies. Journal of Critical Realism, 20(1), 18–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 166–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B., Purdy, J. M., & Ansari, S. (2015). From interactions to institutions: Microprocesses of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, C., Metcalf, L., & Irwin, J. (2014). An exploratory study in community perspectives of sustainability leadership in the Murray Darling Basin. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 413–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenforder, E., Brugnach, M., Cullen, B., Ferrand, N., Barreteau, O., Daniell, K. A., & Pittock, J. (2016). Managing frame diversity in environmental participatory processes—Example from the Fogera woreda in Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Management, 177, 288–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, T. (2017). Evidence for tackling the complexities of water governance. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2016). Collaborative rationality as a strategy for working with wicked problems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 8–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam, G., & Greenwood, M. (2021). Reconnecting to the social in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jager, N., Challies, E., Kochskämper, E., Newig, J., Benson, D., Blackstock, K., Collins, K., Ernst, A., Evers, M., Feichtinger, J., Fritsch, O., Gooch, G., Grund, W., Hedelin, B., Hernández-Mora, N., Hüesker, F., Huitema, D., Irvine, K., Klinke, A.,…von Korff, Y. (2016). Transforming European water governance? participation and river basin management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 member states. Water, 8(4), 156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jager, N. W., Newig, J., Challies, E., & Kochskämper, E. (2020). Pathways to implementation: Evidence on how participation in environmental governance impacts on environmental outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 383–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenter, J. O., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Cooper, N., Hockley, N., Irvine, K. N., Fazey, I., O’Brien, L., Orchard-Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Raymond, C. M., Reed, M. S., Tett, P., & Watson, V. (2016). Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions. Ecosystem Services, 21, 358–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenter, J. O., Raymond, C. M., van Riper, C. J., Azzopardi, E., Brear, M. R., Calcagni, F., Christie, I., Christie, M., Fordham, A., Gould, R. K., Ives, C. D., Hejnowicz, A. P., Gunton, R., Horcea-Milcu, A.-I., Kendal, D., Kronenberg, J., Massenberg, J. R., O’Connor, S., Ravenscroft, N.,…Thankappan, S. (2019). Loving the mess: Navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1439–1461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klitsie, E. J., Ansari, S., & Volberda, H. W. (2018). Maintenance of cross-sector partnerships: The role of frames in sustained collaboration. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurland, N. B., & Zell, D. (2011). Regulating water: A naturological analysis of competing interests among company, town, and state. Business & Society, 50(3), 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laperche, D. (2021). Projet de loi climat : l'effacement des seuils des moulins pour la continuité écologique rendu impossible. Actu-environnement. https://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/projet-climat-resilience-effacement-seuils-moulins-continuite-ecologique-impossible-37391.php4

  • Leach, W. D. (2006). Collaborative public management and democracy: Evidence from western watershed partnerships. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, W. D., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). To trust an adversary: Integrating rational and psychological models of collaborative policymaking. American Political Science Review, 99(4), 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R. P., & Leong, C. (2012). A hermeneutic approach to explaining and understanding public controversies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 793–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litrico, J.-B., & David, R. J. (2017). The evolution of issue interpretation within organizational fields: Actor positions, framing trajectories, and field settlement. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 986–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, F. (2015). A three-dimensional conceptual framework of corporate water responsibility. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, A. W., & Dacin, M. T. (2020). Water wars in Detroit: Custodianship and the work of institutional renewal. Academy of Management Journal, 63(5), 1455–1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morandi, B., Piégay, H., Lamouroux, N., & Vaudor, L. (2014). How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 178–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newig, J. (2007). Does public participation in environmental decisions lead to improved environmental quality? Towards an analytical framework. Communication, Cooperation, Participation (international Journal of Sustainability Communication), 1(1), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007). Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02037-120205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 481–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabhi, P. (2010). Vers la sobriété heureuse (1st ed.). ActesSud.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766–1777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). What is a “fair” price? Ethics as sensemaking. Organization Science, 26(3), 867–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, J. (2013). Controlled flooding in the Grand Canyon: Drifting between instrumental and ecological rationality in water management. Organization & Environment, 26(4), 412–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots : A Study of politics and organization. Univ. of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M., & Kanashiro, P. (2013). Toward a theory of sustainability management: Uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious. Organization & Environment, 26(1), 7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Poeck, K. (2019). Environmental and sustainability education in a post-truth era. An exploration of epistemology and didactics beyond the objectivism-relativism dualism. Environmental Education Research, 25(4), 472–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, S., & O’Mahoney, J. (2018). Critical realism and qualitative research: An introductory overview. In C. Cassell, A. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions (pp. 201–216). SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. P. (2009). Explaining institutional change in tough cases of collaboration: “Ideas” in the Blackfoot Watershed. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 314–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. (2000). Ecological embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1265–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. (2011). Ecological sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 889–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G., & Yumashev, D. (2018). Poles apart: The Arctic & management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 873–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M. I., & Pogutz, S. (2013). Business, ecosystems, and biodiversity: New horizons for management research. Organization & Environment, 26(2), 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, A., Albers, N., & Kenter, J. O. (2021). Deliberating our frames: How members of multi-stakeholder initiatives use shared frames to tackle within-frame conflicts over sustainability issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 178, 757–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04789-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuzul, T. W. (2019). “Matter battles”: Cognitive representations, boundary objects, and the failure of collaboration in two smart cities. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 739–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Loire-Bretagne and Seine-Normandie Water Agency employees who helped us collect semi-structured interviews, as well as all interview participants. We are also grateful to all the scholars who dedicated to time to help us improve this work, such as the participants of the 2018 Ivey Phd Sustainability Academy, notably Charlene Zietsma and Paul Tracey, as well as to the participants of the sub-theme 16 at the 2019 EGOS conference, where we had the chance to have friendly and supportive respondents: Silvia Pianta and John Murray. Thank you as well to Anne Touboulic and to the Nottingham University for the opportunity to present our work at the International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility.

Funding

This research has benefitted from the financial support of the FI-AGAUR grant (Grant credentials 2018 FI_B 00258, 2019 FI_B1 00166 and 2020 FI_B2 00127). This research project has been reviewed and approved by ESADE ethics committee (Approval numbers RE01-003-2018 and RE01-003-2018-rev1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Excelia Business School, CERIIM, La Rochelle, France

    Lucie Baudoin

  2. Universidad Ramon Llull, ESADE, Barcelona, Spain

    Daniel Arenas

Authors
  1. Lucie Baudoin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Arenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucie Baudoin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors are not aware of any possible conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baudoin, L., Arenas, D. “Everyone Has a Truth”: Forms of Ecological Embeddedness in an Interorganizational Context. J Bus Ethics 185, 263–280 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05187-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05187-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation