Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

After decades of natural scientists sounding the alarm, complex socio-ecological problems – such as record rates of species extinctions, ocean acidification, massive air and water pollution, and frequent dramatic natural disasters – are increasingly materializing. Humanity has exceeded several planetary boundaries, the ecological limits within which societies can safely operate without causing irreversible damage to Earth’s systems (Whiteman et al., 2013; Steffen et al., 2015). These phenomena, rooted in the interactions between humans and non-human actors within socio-ecological systems, will continue to have long-term consequences for decades and potentially centuries. As human and non-human agencies are deeply intertwined in entanglements that shape collective sensemaking, decision-making, and organizing (Heikkurinen et al., 2021; Pascucci et al., 2021), understanding how social and biophysical elements co-evolve within disrupted socio-ecological systems is essential to navigating this new era of uncertainty. As a discipline, we must move beyond an anthropocentric view of organizations and organizing toward a more-than-human perspective (Ergene & Calás, 2023) to better understand how to operate within planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015). This transition demands updating our ways of researching and organizing to address the complex interdependencies between human and non-human systems. Existing theories and methods may no longer suffice.
 
The interconnected socio-ecological crises of our time can only be addressed if management and organization scholars create new spaces to redefine sustainable practices (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022). This involves fostering collaboration, encouraging experimentation, and combining disciplines to better understand and support planetary health (Baudoin et al., 2023). In other words, we need a scholarship that bridges organizational and natural sciences to investigate and advance socio-ecological resilience. Drawing on insights from natural sciences is essential for understanding the socio-ecological foundations of our society and its inherent contradictions (Ergene et al., 2021). It also encourages us to (re-)think our relationship with nature, requiring us to (re-)consider the intricate entanglement of social and ecological dimensions in our societies (Ergene & Calás, 2023). Achieving this goal demands collective mobilization to develop novel, rigorous, and ambitious interdisciplinary research (Gladwin et al., 1995; Wohlgezogen et al., 2020) and adopt a more systemic perspective (Williams et al., 2017).
 
However, this type of scholarship remains nascent and continues to face challenges in gaining visibility and recognition (Leahey et al., 2017; Baudoin et al., 2023). Discussions about addressing the “fractured epistemology” in Organization and Management Studies have been ongoing for decades (Gladwin et al., 1995). Yet, recent research highlights a persistent lack of collective engagement to transform scholarship in response to the transgression of planetary boundaries (Williams et al., 2024). Management and organizational theories and practices have largely overlooked the importance of integrating disciplines to investigate socio-ecological relations and the responsibilities of businesses to operate within planetary boundaries (Pinkse & Gasbarro, 2019; Williams et al., 2024). Furthermore, there remains insufficient focus and momentum on how to effectively ‘bring sciences into the boardroom’ to help organizations better understand the socio-ecological foundations and impacts of their actions and strategies at individual, organizational, and systemic levels (Whiteman et al., 2013).
 
Given this background, we aim to bring together organization and management scholars working with biophysical and ecological data in a safe space to discuss how to leverage theoretical perspectives from diverse fields of knowledge to foster effective and innovative collaborations across disciplines, as well as to share best practices. We aim to build on the EGOS 2024 Colloquium’s “Sub-theme 38: Ecological Insights on Sustainable Organizing: Bridging Organizational and Natural Sciences” and the EGOS 2025 Colloquium’s “Sub-theme 58: Harnessing the Power of Creativity to Bridge Organizational and Natural Sciences” by co-creating a space for shared learning. Our goal is to help these scholars connect, form a stronger and more diverse research community, and advance a more recognizable and impactful stream of research (Baudoin et al., 2023).
 
We welcome submissions, both theoretical and empirical, that engage directly with novel and innovative strategies for combining insights from social and natural sciences. This includes developing new methods that incorporate biophysical and ecological variables, concepts, or frameworks, as well as redefining levels and scales of engagement with social actors, organizations, and non-human agencies. We particularly encourage submissions from authors employing approaches and methodologies that are less common in management or organization studies but widely used in other disciplines. In this sub-theme, we will also exchange experiences and insights on the methodological and theoretical challenges inherent in this interdisciplinary endeavor. Additionally, we aim to synthesize what we learn from the process of bridging different sciences to collectively reimagine the role of organizations in a more-than-human society.
 
Submissions might explore, for instance, the following questions:

• How do significant Earth system changes, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, influence organizational strategies, decision-making, and resilience, and how can organizations adapt to these shifts while ensuring sustainability and effectiveness?

• How can we combine different scientific knowledge domains to reduce organizations’ environmental footprint, achieve sustainability goals, and contribute positively to Earth’s health?

• How can organizations improve the measurement, transparency, and reporting of their ecological and social impacts, and what role do scientific collaborations play in enhancing stakeholder understanding and accountability for sustainable practices?

• How do different perspectives interpret and respond to observed or experienced changes in socio-ecological systems?

• What methods and data are available – and the potential struggles – to integrate socio-ecological contexts in organization and management studies?

Considering the online format, we aim to go beyond traditional paper discussion sessions by organizing dedicated networking activities to facilitate informal conversations and connections among participants. To further enhance interactivity, we will also host a workshop with natural scientists, offering attendees the opportunity to reimagine their research at the intersection of organizational and natural sciences. These activities are designed to foster networking, encourage interdisciplinary collaboration, and inspire innovative research approaches. Additionally, we are working to set up a special issue linked to the sub-theme in a leading management journal (outlet to be determined), further extending the impact of the discussions within this sub-theme.
 

References

• Baudoin, L., Carmine, S., Nava, L., Poggioli, N., & van den Broek, O.M. (2023): “Imagining a place for sustainability management: An early career call for action.” Journal of Management Studies, 60 (3), 754–760.
• Ergene, S., Banerjee, S.B., & Hoffman, A.J. (2021): “(Un)Sustainability and organization studies: Towards a radical engagement.” Organization Studies, 42 (8), 1319–1335.
• Ergene, S., & Calás, M.B. (2023): “Becoming naturecultural: Rethinking sustainability for a more-than-human world.” Organization Studies, 44 (12), 1961–1986.
• 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.
• Gümüsay, A.A., & Reinecke, J. (2022): “Researching for desirable futures: From real utopias to imagining alternatives.” Journal of Management Studies, 59 (1), 236–242.
• Heikkurinen, P., Clegg, S., Pinnington, A.H., Nicolopoulou, K., & Alcaraz, J.M. (2021): “Managing the Anthropocene: Relational agency and power to respect planetary boundaries.” Organization & Environment, 34 (2), 267–286.
• Leahey, E., Beckman, C.M., & Stanko, T.L. (2017): “Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (1), 105–139.
• Pascucci, S., Dentoni, D., Clements, J., Poldner, K., & Gartner, W.B. (2021): “Forging forms of authority through the sociomateriality of food in partial organizations.” Organization Studies, 42 (2), 301–326.
• Pinkse, J., & Gasbarro, F. (2019): “Managing physical impacts of climate change: An attentional perspective on corporate adaptation.” Business & Society, 58 (2), 333–368.
• Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015): “Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.” Science, 347 (6223), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1259855.
• Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013): “Planetary Boundaries : Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability.” Journal of Management Studies, 50 (2), 307–336.
• Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F., & Whiteman, G. (2017): “Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 866–881.
• Williams, A., Perego, P., & Whiteman, G. (2024): “Boundary Conditions for Organizations in the Anthropocene: A Review of the Planetary Boundaries Framework 10 Years On.” Journal of Management Studies, 62 (4), 1811–1846.
• Wohlgezogen, F., McCabe, A., Osegowitsch, T., & Mol, J. (2020): “The wicked problem of climate change and interdisciplinary research: Tracking management scholarship’s contribution.” Journal of Management & Organization, 26 (6), 1048–1072.