IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/z4ja7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

One Planet Living and the legitimacy of sustainability governance: From standardised information to regenerative systems

Author

Listed:
  • Gerhards, Jan
  • Greenwood, Dan

Abstract

The last two decades have seen the increased use and evolving forms of governance instruments seeking to promote sustainability across increasingly complex and varied contexts. These primarily voluntary instruments combine guidance on sustainability strategy and/or monitoring with marketable public information, such as certifications, ratings, and reports, to incentivise take-up. Whilst they are typically based on standardised assessment criteria, recent academic literature emphasises more context-sensitive and systems-based, or ‘regenerative,’ approaches. We evaluate these differing approaches by adapting the concept of ‘legitimacy’, often applied to product certification, for this broader family of governance instruments. Prior research finds that standardised approaches have achieved success in take-up at the expense of other aspects of legitimacy, such as programme effectiveness and informational quality. Yet there remains a need for evaluation of established instruments based on a regenerative approach. We address this need through a focus on the One Planet Living framework established by Bioregional in the UK. Using practice-embedded, mixed-methods research, we identify achievements of the framework in terms of promoting effective, participatory and generally transparent programmes. Key limitations of the more bespoke approach concern take-up, resource requirements and the integration of measurement. Governance instruments for complex strategy and monitoring have, to date, struggled to combine programme effectiveness with scalability, suggesting there remains a need to develop more scalable regenerative approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerhards, Jan & Greenwood, Dan, 2021. "One Planet Living and the legitimacy of sustainability governance: From standardised information to regenerative systems," SocArXiv z4ja7, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:z4ja7
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/z4ja7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/60e19a2131881a034d63a6fc/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/z4ja7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy E. Landrum & Brian Ohsowski, 2018. "Identifying Worldviews on Corporate Sustainability: A Content Analysis of Corporate Sustainability Reports," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 128-151, January.
    2. Michael Mason, 2008. "Transparency for Whom? Information Disclosure and Power in Global Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 8-13, May.
    3. Aarti Gupta, 2008. "Transparency Under Scrutiny: Information Disclosure in Global Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, May.
    4. Donald Schepers, 2010. "Challenges to Legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 279-290, March.
    5. James Guthrie & Federica Farneti, 2008. "GRI Sustainability Reporting by Australian Public Sector Organizations," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 361-366, December.
    6. Mena, Sébastien & Palazzo, Guido, 2012. "Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 527-556, July.
    7. Emilia Conte, 2018. "The Era of Sustainability: Promises, Pitfalls and Prospects for Sustainable Buildings and the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Barkemeyer, Ralf & Preuss, Lutz & Lee, Lindsay, 2015. "On the effectiveness of private transnational governance regimes—Evaluating corporate sustainability reporting according to the Global Reporting Initiative," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 312-325.
    9. Julia Hertin & Frans Berkhout & Marcus Wagner & Daniel Tyteca, 2008. "Are EMS environmentally effective? The link between environmental management systems and environmental performance in European companies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(2), pages 259-283.
    10. Merriam Haffar & Cory Searcy, 2018. "Target‐setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1079-1092, November.
    11. David L. Deephouse & Suzanne M. Carter, 2005. "An Examination of Differences Between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 329-360, March.
    12. Luke Boyle & Kathy Michell & François Viruly, 2018. "A Critique of the Application of Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools in Urban Regeneration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    13. José M. Moneva & Pablo Archel & Carmen Correa, 2006. "GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 121-137, June.
    14. Jannik Giesekam & Jonathan Norman & Alice Garvey & Sam Betts-Davies, 2021. "Science-Based Targets: On Target?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kishore Kumar François & Hoe Chin Goi, 2023. "Business Model for Scaling Social Impact towards Sustainability by Social Entrepreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-17, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    2. David Bendig & Andreas Wagner & Kevin Lau, 2023. "Does it pay to be science‐based green? The impact of science‐based emission‐reduction targets on corporate financial performance," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(1), pages 125-140, February.
    3. Pistorius, Till & Reinecke, Sabine, 2013. "The interim REDD+ Partnership: Boost for biodiversity safeguards?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 80-86.
    4. António Pedro Vieira & Gregor Radonjič, 2020. "Disclosure of eco‐innovation activities in European large companies' sustainability reporting," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2240-2253, September.
    5. Mähönen Jukka, 2020. "Integrated Reporting and Sustainable Corporate Governance from European Perspective," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-40, July.
    6. Taryn De Mendonca & Yan Zhou, 2019. "What does targeting ecological sustainability mean for company financial performance?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(8), pages 1583-1593, December.
    7. Deanna Kemp & John R. Owen & Éléonore Lèbre, 2021. "Tailings facility failures in the global mining industry: Will a ‘transparency turn’ drive change?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 122-134, January.
    8. Elda Du Toit, 2024. "Thirty Years of Sustainability Reporting: Insights, Gaps and an Agenda for Future Research Through a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-33, December.
    9. Calabrese, Armando & Costa, Roberta & Ghiron, Nathan Levialdi & Tiburzi, Luigi & Pedersen, Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum, 2021. "How sustainable-orientated service innovation strategies are contributing to the sustainable development goals," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    10. Anna-Lena Maier, 2021. "Political corporate social responsibility in authoritarian contexts," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(4), pages 476-495, December.
    11. Eungkyoon Lee, 2010. "Information disclosure and environmental regulation: Green lights and gray areas," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 303-328, September.
    12. Sciarelli Mauro & Cosimato Silvia & Landi Giovanni, 2020. "Benefit Corporations Approach to Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosure: A Focus on Italy," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 10(4), pages 1-25, October.
    13. Anica Zeyen & Markus Beckmann & Stella Wolters, 2016. "Actor and Institutional Dynamics in the Development of Multi-stakeholder Initiatives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 341-360, May.
    14. Norma Schönherr, 2022. "Same Same but Different? A Quantitative Exploration of Voluntary Sustainability Standards in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Sébastien Mena & Daniel Waeger, 2014. "Activism for Corporate Responsibility: Conceptualizing Private Regulation Opportunity Structures," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(7), pages 1091-1117, November.
    16. Judith Schrempf-Stirling, 2018. "State Power: Rethinking the Role of the State in Political Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 1-14, June.
    17. Luca Fornaciari & Caterina Pesci, 2018. "Global financial crisis and relevance of GRI disclosure in Italy. Insights from the stakeholder theory and the legitimacy theory," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(1), pages 67-102.
    18. Taryn Renatta De Mendonca & Yan Zhou, 2019. "Environmental Performance, Customer Satisfaction, and Profitability: A Study among Large U.S. Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-15, September.
    19. Robin Hogrefe & Sabine Bohnet-Joschko, 2023. "The Social Dimension of Corporate Sustainability: Review of an Evolving Research Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-22, February.
    20. Jukka Mähönen, 2020. "Comprehensive Approach to Relevant and Reliable Reporting in Europe: A Dream Impossible?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-38, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:z4ja7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.