Reflexões sobre o sentido de sustentabilidade em organizações
Barra lateral de artigos
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
Empreendemos uma reflexão institucionalista sobre a construção do(s) sentido(s) de sustentabilidade enquanto fator legitimador das organizações, argumentando que a construção polissêmica do conceito é linguisticamente operada intencionando legitimação em campos organizacionais heterogêneos. Aplicamos o modelo semiótico do processo de institucionalização ao conceito de sustentabilidade, evidenciando sua construção linguístico-social de duas formas – denotacional e conotacional –, discutindo a saída da natureza objetiva do conceito para sua natureza mítico-racional na qual a dissociação do fazer, dizer e significar transmuta seu conteúdo semântico. A sustentabilidade é, então, entendida como mais uma pressão institucional à qual as organizações precisam responder, e estas geralmente o fazem de maneira estratégica, mediante aceitação, adaptação ou contestação. Assim, ainda que determinados atores busquem institucionalizar a sustentabilidade denotacionalmente, seu sentido oscila conotacionalmente conforme é difundido, seja por conveniência ou falta de clareza sobre como operacionalizá-lo nas organizações.
Downloads
Métricas
Detalhes do artigo
A RAE compromete-se a contribuir com a proteção dos direitos intelectuais do autor. Nesse sentido:
- adota a licença Creative Commoms BY (CC-BY) em todos os textos que publica, exceto quando houver indicação de específicos detentores dos direitos autorais e patrimoniais;
- adota software de detecção de similaridades;
- adota ações de combate ao plagio e má conduta ética, alinhada às diretrizes do Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Referências
Brannen, M. Y. (2004). When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 593-616. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/20159073
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483-530. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462
Chapman, G., Cully, A., Kosiol, J., Macht, S., Chapman, R., Fitzgerald, J., & Gertsen, F. (2020). The wicked problem of measuring real-world research impact: Using sustainable development goals (SDGs) and targets in academia. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(6), 1030-1047. doi: https://doi:10.1017/jmo.2020.16
Cobley, P. (2010). Introduction. In P. Cobley (Ed.), Routledge companion to semiotics (pp. 3-12). New York, USA: Routledge.
Cobley, P. (2016). Semiotics. In K. B. Jensen, & R. T. Craig (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy, (pp. 1-11). John Wiley & Sons. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect146
Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Tost, L. P., & Suchman, M. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer (Eds.), SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 27-54). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2011). Institutional pressures and organizational characteristics: Implications for environmental strategy. In P. Bansal, & A. J. Hoffman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp. 229-247). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dovers, S. R. (1996). Sustainability: Demands on policy. Journal of Public Policy, 16(3), 303-318. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4007649
Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., & Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 878-907. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/258959
Gümüsay, A. A., Claus, L., & Amis, J. (2020). Engaging with grand challenges: An institutional logics perspective. Organization Theory, 1, 1-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720960487
Haack, P., & Rasche, A. (2021). The legitimacy of sustainability standards: A paradox perspective. Organization Theory, 2(4), 1-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211049493
Haack, P., Schilke, O., & Zucker, L. (2021). Legitimacy revisited: Disentangling propriety, validity, and consensus. Journal of Management Studies, 58(3), 749-781. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12615
Hoffman, A. J., & Jennings, P. D. (2015). Institutional theory and the natural environment: Research in (and on) the anthropocene. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 8-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575331
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244
Jennings, P. D., & Hoffman, A. J. (2017). Institutional theory and the natural environment: Building research through tensions and paradoxes. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer (Eds.), SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 759-785). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015-1052. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/258964
Jensen, K. B. (2015). Semiotics. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 21, 2a ed., pp. 592-597). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.95033-5
Li, Y. (2017). A semiotic theory of institutionalization. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 520-547. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0274
Lounsbury, M., Fairclough, S., & Lee, M. P. (2011). Institutional approaches to organizations and the natural environment. In P. Bansal, & A. J. Hoffman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp. 211-228). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lounsbury, M., Steele, C. W., Wang, M. S., & Toubiana, M. (2021). New directions in the study of institutional logics: From tools to phenomena. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 261-280. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-111734
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuokkanen, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2019). Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau. Recuperado de eeb.org/decoupling-debunked
Phillips, N., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Language, cognition and institutions: Studying institutionalization using linguistic methods. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer (Eds.), SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 392-417). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 259-284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12014
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451-478. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0101
Vadén, T., Lähde, V., Majava, A., Järvensivu, P., Toivanen, T., Hakala, E., & Eronen, J. T. (2020). Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 236-244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016
Wæraas, A., & Nielsen, J. A. (2016). Translation theory ‘translated’: Three perspectives on translation in organizational research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 236-270. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12092
Wedlin, L., & Sahlin, K. (2017). The imitation and translation of management ideas. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer (Eds.), SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 102-127). London, UK: Sage Publications. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280669.n16
