Tackling Global and Local Challenges in Ethics, Responsibility, and Sustainability

A REFLECTIVE FOR PERSONAL ACTION

How to Prepare Yourself for Tackling Global and Local Challenges in Ethics, Responsibility, and Sustainability

Jef Teugels

Table of Contents 3 Foreword 4 Introduction 6 Ethics 6

The Ethical Challenge

7 Responsibility 7

The Responsibility Challenge

8 Sustainability 8 Sustainable Business 8 Sustainable ­Development 9 Sustainable ­Development Goals 9 Planet and Planetary Boundaries 10 People and Social Boundaries 11 Profit and Economic Boundaries 12

Leadership and Partnership Approaches

12 12

Leadership Partnerships

13 Conclusion - The impact of experiential learning on one’s practice 14 References

Jef Teugels

2

Foreword The wickedest thing about wicked prob­ lems is avoiding them. Everything we have been taught is wrong. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be at this point in our short history on the planet.

Humans are staring extinction in the face. That’s right. The end of everything — the collapse of society, nature, and all we hold dear.

Can nothing be done to stop this titanic, planetwide train-wreck?

If we don’t stand up now, we will be like those boiled frogs we hear about in man­ agement classes. The ones who didn’t realize they were in danger, so they sat tight in the water, and then it was too late to jump.

It’s time to put aside all our differences, our politics, our suspicions, and take that first step.

Christian Sarkar March 2021 www.wicked7.org

Read this tiny booklet – it just takes a few minutes.

Don’t we all love our children?

We have more in common than we think.

Demand change.

Make change.

Can’t we just get along?

It starts with you.

And me.

Although the day is late, we can still make it work.

Love, peace, and unity

3

Jef Teugels

Introduction J

ust like a smell can bring back sweet child­ hood memories, images and examples of ­catastrophes and injustices burn deep in one’s memory. At least, they ought to, yet humans find the large-scale loss of life too much to fathom. Humankind cannot understand mas­ sive tragedies; the more suffering, the more the human individual desensitizes.

The sight of one dead child washed up on a beach gives people an emotional uppercut. Nevertheless, the same people become numb as the death toll rises to hundreds of thousands, as research by Paul Slovic shows. Hundreds of thousands is a statistic; one child is a photograph that strikes a nerve. Yet, desensitization has an evolutionary purpose: to focus on things that could kill our small group or kill us and survive. The wicked problems the world faces are a statistic until an individual human being either witnesses or experiences the suffering at first hand or avoids numbing by changing her mindset and engaging in slow, deliberate thinking, as Slovic advises. He quotes Holocaust survivor Abel Herzberg to prove his point: “There were not six million Jews murdered; there was one murder, six million times” (Wen, 2020).

This booklet encourages the reader to engage in slow thinking and relate to individual lives. It promotes overcoming the feeling that an individual’s action to tackle a wicked problem is pointless since it is just a drop in the ocean. Ironically, that is how oceans get filled. Let the slow thinking begin.

Jef Teugels

4

In 2017, one child below the age of five died of diarrhea every minute.

W

hich of the three facts moved you the most? How would you describe what moved you? Indignation, anger, fear, disgust? These four words have one thing in common: they are all -like jealousy and love- emotions.

Every minute, eight people die as a result of outdoor air pollution.

An emotion is a chain of events that begins with a stimulus.

Feelings, altered psychological states, an urge to act, and goal-directed behavior occur in the chain (Plutchik, 2001).

An emotion changes one’s physical condition.

A lump in the throat is part of many’s emotional vocabularies.

Professor Marc D. Hauser posits that a moral faculty operates independently of emotions. Universal moral grammar is at work outside of one’s awareness.

For many moral problems, “reactions occur without any input from the brain’s emotional system.” One example of one of six universal ethical principles is “harms that arise from personal ­force are worse than harms from a mediating, impersonal cause” (Carter and Frith, 2010).

Confirmed deaths Last update: 8 February 2021, 04:58 pm CET

Worldwide, the reported deaths due to COVID-19 amount to more than 2.3 million on February 8, 2021 (WHO, 2021).

5

One’s emotional vocabulary articulates a consciously sensed impact. In the absence of words, music, drawings, paintings, or dance depict it. Between the sensing of emotion and the expression of it is a delay. This space in time lets the brain do its work and reflect on the triggering impulse. The description (or rendition) of a sense is the result of thought. To deeply un­ derstand another’s ideas and subsequent actions, or one’s own for that matter, one must discover its affective-volitional -what emotion leads to action- basis (Burkitt, 2002).

Indignation and anger are feelings to express one’s needs are not satisfied. Hope is a feeling to express one’s needs are satisfied (Center for Nonviolent Communication, 2020).

Learning and discussing in real life with people worldwide satis­ fies the need for connection, for wholeness. It pleasures thriv­ ing in an international setting. The experience reinforces the belief in universality. Hope is the right word because solutions to wicked problems exist.

Jef Teugels

Ethics Does a climate activist feel guilty for cat­ ching a ride on a plane? Moreover, if she does not, is that bad? Good and evil, right and wrong, are ethical issues.

Everyone can hurt others, animals, and the environment. Societies and families teach their children not to cause harm.

As one grows older, culture, religion, com­ munity, and family hold people responsible for not causing harm. Accepting the sober­ ing fact that one can cause damage is a nec­ essary step to think ethically (Elliott, 2009).

What motivates one into action depends on one’s values. In organizations, the construc­ tionist perspective defines ethical behavior as consistent with the values, policies, and norms the organization prescribes.

Regarding one’s workplace as fair because it follows its rules and procedures is a utilitari­ an view. When punishing unethical behavior leads to ethical behavior, employees start perceiving formal and distributive justice (Baker, Hunt and Andrews, 2006).

“

Openness to change versus conservatism.

The Ethical Challenge Company-prescribed ethical behavior can conflict with the individual. Schwartz (2012) identifies ten cross-cultural fundamental personal values. They guide one’s behavior, usually unconsciously, and one’s choices about good and evil, what action is worth one’s time or not. Experiential feelings will justify them.

Values, ordered by priority, define the character of an individual. Only when values that one holds dear conflict with each other does one become aware of them.

“Openness to change versus conservatism” and “power versus benevolence” are exam­ ples of competing values. Savani and Rattan (2012) present an actual illustration; Ameri­ cans who want less inequality are less likely to endorse tax increases for the wealthy to help the country as a whole when the free­ dom of choice comes into play.

I do not adhere to relativism or normativism.

A strong belief in cosmopolitanism (Ito, Leung, and Huang, 2020) –”being receptive to and connected with the global communi­ ty”- drives me. All while trying to be Golden Rule-consistent –treat others as you want others to treat you- (Gensler, 2018).

Jef Teugels

6

Responsibility Is Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR a must when one behaves responsibly?

Isaac Mostovicz, Kakabadse, and Kakabadse (2011) claim that corporate responsibility rests on four pillars. These are ethics, leadership, personal responsibility, and trust.

Their statement links corporate responsibility to that of an individual.

“Personal responsibility is the willingness to both accept the importance of ­standards that society establishes for indivi­ dual behavior and to make strenuous personal efforts to live by those standards” (Haskins, 2009). One can see that following both societal and corporate standards can cause inner conflict if one or both do not align with one’s values. Ilangovan and Durga­ doss (2009) postulate that “corporate executives sell their profes­ sional skills and not their conscience.”

Nevertheless, the company expects them to promote corporate values. Organiza­ tions can only achieve desired outcomes through the actions of mandated individ­ uals. The theory of individual responsibil­ ity lets corporations off the hook (Soares, 2003). Ladd (1970) goes as far as to say that “corporate moral responsibility is a meaningless concept.”

Doing what is best for society reduces corporate profit. Where private benefits and public interests align, there is no need for CSR. In all other cases, the govern­ ment should satisfy the public interest (Karnani, 2010).

Corporate executives sell their professional skills and not their conscience.

7

“

Personal responsibility is the willingness to both accept the importance of standards that society establishes for individual behavior and to make strenuous personal efforts to live by those standards.

(Haskins, 2009).

The Responsibility Challenge Hart (2016) opines that today’s government representatives sing to the tune of wealthy dominant players. Therefore, they are incapable of addressing the real challenges of society. The focus on national interests diminishes a government’s rele­ vance in a world facing global challenges. Ironically, businesses offer a solution.

They have the best position to understand and respond to societal micro-needs of individuals, families, and communi­ ties. There are enough businesses around to serve the globe.

Exit CSR as we know it and embrace a new generation of cor­ porations that embed sustainability by design as a core com­ petence and “profit in the process.”

Jef Teugels

Sustainability Sustainable Business Dyllick and Muff (2015) posit that the primary ­concern of Business Sustainability 3.0 is not eco­ nomic but “starting with sustainability.” Its desired outcome –”the creation of value for the common good”– ­results from an outside-in approach. Such a vision contrasts stark­ ly with Friedman (1970), who stresses that a compa­ ny’s “sole social responsibility is to make a profit.”

An outside-in approach and concern beyond econom­ ic profit drive business sustainability. Its definition is “the actions needed to manage a firm and its relation­ ships seeking for economic, social, and environmental aligned performance improvement along a firm’s net­ work and influence.” Sustainable development or SD must drive the pursuit of business opportunities ­(Cagnin, Loveridge, and Butler, no date).

Sustainable Development If business sustainability serves sustainable devel­ opment, then what is the latter? It is defined by the Brundtland Commission in Our Common ­Future (World Commission on Environment and Develop­ ment, 1987) as “human development to meet the needs of the present generation without com­ promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Blowfield, 2013, p.334).

SD involves governments and institutions, ­academics, practitioners, and the public.

The militarization and political economy of nations hinder the return to multilateral­ ism promoted in Our Common Future (­ Sneddon, Howarth, and Norgaard, 2006).

Transitioning to a sustainable world requires acknowledging that we “are all in this together” (Robertson, 2017, p.330). SD is, therefore, not only served by business sustainability.

Citizens must adopt and demand sustainable ­living. An action that might put them at odds with politics and companies that adhere to the Fried­ man doctrine. The free-market capitalism that Friedman stands for is what causes human-in­ duced climate change. It happens in a relentless pursuit of economic profits (Shrubsole, 2015).

Such actions do not subscribe to meeting the needs of present and future generations.

Jef Teugels

8

Sustainable ­Development Goals The UN’s “2030 Agenda for Sustain­ able Development” identifies seventeen Sustainable Develop­ ­ ment goals and one hundred and sixty-nine targets. They are “inte­ grated and indivisible and ­balance the three dimensions of sustain­ able development: the economic, social, and environmental” (United Nations, 2015).

In the meantime, the Biden admin­istration rejoined the Paris ­Agreement on Climate Change, a move joyfully welcomed by Unit­ ed Nations Secretary-General ­Antonio Guteress with the words: “We look forward to the l­eadership of United States in accelerat­ ing global efforts towards ­net­-zero” (Rott, 2021).

In 2015, all UN member states adopted the agenda. The agenda calls for a global partnership and action by all developed and devel­ oping countries. The year 2015 also marked the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (United Na­ tions, 2020). In November 2019, the New York Times announced that the Trump administration served notice to quit the Paris Agreement.

The world’s largest economy left the global partnership battling cli­ mate change. The coalition then looked at two other significant polluters -China and India- to step up their game (Friedman, 2019).

We look forward to the leadership of United States in accelerating global efforts towards net­-zero.

(Rott, 2021)

9

Planet and Planetary Boundaries When does the planet become inhabitable?

The Anthropocene marks a new geological era —an age during which human activities funda­ mentally impact the environment (Crutzen, 2006). Earth has minimum and maximum plan­ etary boundaries. The space in between the two is the safe operating space. It remains un­ certain to date when a planetary-scale change will occur. However, science does know they happen when the climate or biosphere passes a point of no return (Hughes et al., 2013).

Science does know that at least three of nine boundaries already moved above the maxi­ mum threshold: “rate of biodiversity loss, ­climate change, and human interference with the nitrogen cycle.” Two concentric circles ­visualize the nine boundaries: the outer ring represents the tipping point, the inner one the minimum viable conditions.

Thus, a doughnut image divided into nine equal parts emerges (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). Actual pictures of an Earth in distress appear as well. For example, the disappearing Tuvalu Islands and their fleeing inhabitants (climate refugees) are living proof of the devastating climate change effects (Farbotko, 2010).

Jef Teugels

People and Social Boundaries Who must act?

The well-being of humankind depends on “planetary health, equality, renewal of economic theory and policy-making, and the creation of a practical roadmap for the future” of local and global economies that are “regenerative and distributive” by design (Raworth, 2017). Like planetary boundaries, social ones exist.

Figure 1: Social and Planetary Boundaries in the Doughnut ­(Raworth, 2012).

Figure 1 shows the combination of both, known as the dough­ nut. It is a human right to live within the safe ecological and social operating space of the doughnut. Achieving the so­ cial foundation of human rights for all must be the first focus (­Raworth, 2012).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipu­ lates, among others, that “everyone is born free in equal and rights.” Every­one -without any exceptionhas the right to “a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of self and f­amily” in freedom and security. Article 17.1 also states that “everyone has the right to own property.” Article 17.2 stipulates that no “one shall be a ­ rbitrarily de­ prived of his property” (United N ­ ations, 1948).

Given the level of deprivation and inequality, t­hose who must act -the UN and all its Member States- do not fast enough. By 2030, nine out of ten impoverished (416 million people in total, surviv­ ing on $1.90 or less per day) will live in Sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2020). The people most affected by natural catastrophes, diseases, and health issues that climate change will worsen are the poor. Indeed, cli­ mate change and poverty are linked (Hallegatte et al., 2016). Other players -NGOs- act as pressure groups and can and must influence local and global policy-making (Paul, 2000).

Jef Teugels

10

Profit and Economic Boundaries Who will be the change agent?

The top one percent in net worth has, like all other humans, the right to own property. How­ ever, the question is whether too many pos­ sessions for one is detrimental to society and Earth. The amassment of wealth in the hands of a few inevitably leads to inequality. Economic inequality is not new. In 1901 in the UK, the share of the top one percent’s net wealth was 73.8%, compared to 19.9% in 2012.

Inequality rates decrease between 1901 and 1984 (15.2%) and rise again ever since (World Inequality Database, 2020). The renewed in­ crease in inequality started roughly in 1980 and marked the neoliberal era’s birth that conti­nues to date (Michl, 2016). Piketty (2015) argues that the wealthy spend their fortunes on purchasing influence, status, and power. He further asserts that they do not contribute to economic growth and should pay hefty taxes on wealth.

According to Gallup (2020), sixty-two percent of Americans believe that high-income ­people do not pay enough taxes. Sixty-nine percent find that corporations do not contrib­ ute enough to the country through taxes. So yes, a call for economic boundaries rings.

However, taxpayer avoidance is possible. ­Reaching an international consensus on the wealth tax regime is a must (Bach and ­Thiemann, 2016). The question of who will be the change agent remains unanswered.

11

Jef Teugels

Leadership and Partnership Approaches Leadership

People do not buy what you do but why you do it.

(Sinek, 2011)

Leaders should provide a mission, a vision of what is pos­ sible. They must help people see. When people see and have the freedom to exercise human agency and initia­ tive, they own their work (The Arbinger Institute, 2018).

The Team of Teams approach prescribes that “teams that traditionally reside in separate silos must now become fused to one another via trust and purpose.”

This approach requires extremely transparent commu­ nications and decentralized decision-making. It mimics the interconnected and rapidly evolving world of today (McChrystal et al., 2019). “People do not buy what you do but why you do it” (Sinek, 2011) illustrates how followers see a purpose and engage when that purpose aligns with their values.

It might well be the right recipe to tackle sustainability.

Such an approach requires transformational leadership, characterized by providing vision, instilling pride, gaining respect and trust (Robbins and Judge, 2017).

Partnerships Co-creation lies at the heart of partnerships in which individuals participate in value creation through ­personal engagement. Co-creation transforms busi­ ness by uniting various stakeholders in “ecosystems” (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010).

Since “we are all in it together” (Robertson, 2017) and the UN calls for a global partnership (United Nations, 2015), not teaming up is not an option. The key to a thriving ecosystem is its keystone species, leaders who strongly influence the co-evolutionary or co-cre­ ation processes (Peltoniemi and Vuori, n.d.).

Partnering is a must for solving wicked problems, and choosing the right partnerships will enable achieving the desired objectives.

Jef Teugels

We are all in it together.

(Robertson, 2017)

12

Conclusion The impact of experiential learning on one’s practice Leaders should provide a mission, a vision of what is possible. They must help people see. When people see and have the freedom to exercise human agency and initiative, they own their work (The Arbinger Insti­ tute, 2018). The Team of Teams approach p ­ rescribes that “teams that traditionally reside in ­separate silos must now become fused to one another via trust and purpose.”

This approach requires extremely transparent com­ munications and decentralized decision-making.

It mimics the interconnected and rapidly evolving world of today (McChrystal et al., 2019). “People do not buy what you do but why you do it” (Sinek, 2011) illustrates how followers see a purpose and engage when that purpose aligns with their values.

It might well be the right recipe to tackle sustainability.

Such an approach requires transformational leader­ ship, characterized by providing vision, instilling ­pride, gaining respect and trust (Robbins and Judge, 2017).

Jef Teugels

13

Jef Teugels

References Bach, S. and Thiemann, A. (2016). Reviving Germany’s wealth tax creates high revenue potential.

DIW Economic Bulletin, 6(4/5), pp. 50-59. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/126168 (Accessed: 29 February 2020).

Baker, T., Hunt, T. and Andrews, M. (2006). “Promoting ethical behavior and organizational citizenship behaviors: The influence of corporate ethical values.” Journal of Business Research, 59(7), pp. 849-857.

Blowfield, M. (2013). Business and sustainability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 334.

Burkitt, I. (2002). “Complex Emotions: Relations, Feelings and Images in Emotional Experience”.

The Sociological Review, 50(2_suppl), pp. 151-167.

Cagnin, C., Loveridge, D. and Butler, J. (n.d.). Business Sustainability Maturity Model. [ebook] Manchester: Institute of Innovation of the University of Manchester. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.585.5811&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed: 29 February 2020).

Carrington, D. (2018). ‘We are last generation that can stop climate change’ – UN summit. [online] www.euractiv.com. https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/we-are-last-generation-that-can-stopclimate-change-un-summit/ (Accessed: 29 February 2020).

Carter, R. and Frith, C. (2010). Mapping the mind. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 130-131.

Center for Nonviolent Communication (2020). Feelings Inventory. [online] Cnvc.org. https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/feelings-inventory (Accessed: 29 February 2020).

Charles-Coll, J. (2011). “Understanding Income Inequality: Concept, Causes, and Measurement.”

International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 1(3), p. 19.

Crutzen, P. (2006). The Anthropocene. In E. Ehlers and T. Krafft (Eds.), Earth System Science in the Anthropocene. Berlin: Springer, pp. 13-18.

Dyllick, T. and Muff, K. (2015). “Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business.”

Organization & environment, 29(2), pp. 156-174.

Edersheim, E. and Drucker, P. (2007). The definitive Drucker. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 43.

Elliott, D. (2009). Ethical Challenges: Building an Ethics Toolkit. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.

Farbotko, C. (2010). “Wishful sinking: Disappearing islands, climate refugees and cosmopolitan experimentation.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 51(1), pp. 47-60.

Fourie, J. (2018). Confusing ‘big business’ with ‘free market’. [ebook] Cape Town: Media 24, p. 4. https://www.fin24.com/Finweek/Opinion/confusing-big-business-with-free-market-20180726 (Accessed: 25 February 2020).

Friedman, L. (2019). Trump Serves Notice to Quit Paris Climate Agreement. [online] The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/climate/trump-paris-agreement-climate.html (Accessed: 26 February 2020).

Friedman, M. (1970). “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”.

The New York Times Magazine.

Frost & Sullivan Institute (2020). Environment | Frost & Sullivan Institute. [online] Frostandsullivaninstitute.org. https://www.frostandsullivaninstitute.org/environment (Accessed: 22 February 2020).

Frost and Sullivan (2020). Frost & Sullivan Visionary Innovation Group | Mega Trends. [online] Frost & Sullivan. https://ww2.frost.com/research/visionary-innovation/ (Accessed: 25 February 2020).

Frost and Sullivan (2020). Global Mega Trends to 2030, Growth, Forecast, Share & Size. [online] Store.frost.com. https://store.frost.com/global-mega-trends-to-2030.html (Accessed: 22 February 2020).

Gallup, Inc. (2020). Taxes. [online] Gallup.com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx (Accessed: 28 February 2020).

Gensler, H. (2018). Ethics. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, pp. 88-123.

Hallegatte, S., Bangalore, M., Bonzanigo, L., Fay, M., Kane, T., Narloch, U., Rozenberg, J., Treguer, D. and Vogt-Schilb, A. (2016). Shock waves. Washington, D.C: World Bank Group.

Hart, S. (2016). The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility – Stuart Hart. [online] marketingjournal.org. https://www.marketingjournal.org/the-future-of-corporate-social-responsibility-stuart-hart/ (Accessed: 1 March 2020).

Haskins, R., 2009. The Sequence of Personal Responsibility. [online] brookings.edu. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-sequence-of-personal-responsibility/ (Accessed: 1 March 2020).

Hirschfeld, M. (2019). “Rethinking Economic Inequality.” Journal of Religious Ethics, 47(2), pp. 259-282.

Hughes, T., Carpenter, S., Rockström, J., Scheffer, M. and Walker, B. (2013).

“Multiscale regime shifts and planetary boundaries.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(7), pp. 389-395.

Ilangovan, D. and Durgadoss, R. (2009). “Value Congruence - Personal Values and Corporate Values.”

Curie, [online] 1(4), pp. 92-95. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=bf666787-be4c-465d-a68d-5584db539bef%40sessionmgr4008 (Accessed: 1 March 2020).

Isaac Mostovicz, E., Kakabadse, A. and Kakabadse, N. (2011). “The four pillars of corporate responsibility: ethics, leadership, personal responsibility and trust.” Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 11(4), pp. 489-500.

Ito, K., Leung, A. and Huang, T. (2020). “Why do cosmopolitan individuals tend to be more pro-environmentally committed? The mediating pathways via knowledge acquisition and emotional affinity toward nature.”

Journal of Environmental Psychology, p. 101395.

Joliffe, D. and Lugo, M. (2018). Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2018. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications, p. 20.

Karnani, A. (2010). The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility. The Wall Street Journal [online]. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703338004575230112664504890 (Accessed: 1 March 2020).

Keeley, B. (2015). Why is income inequality rising? In Income Inequality: The Gap between Rich and Poor. [online] Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264246010-en (Accessed: 25 February 2020).

Kolb, A. and Kolb, D. (2005). “Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education”. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), p. 194.

Ladd, J. (1970). “Morality and the Ideal of Rationality in Formal Organizations”. Monist, 54(4), p. 499.

Martin, D. and Schouten, J. (2012). Sustainable marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 19.

McChrystal, S., Collins, T., Silverman, D. and Fussell, C. (2019). Team of teams. London: Penguin Business.

McKnight, A. (2018). How Are Inequality and Poverty Linked. [online] un.org. https://www.un.org/ development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/09/McKnight2.pdf (Accessed: 1 March 2020).

Meadowcroft, J. (2009). Does our wealth impoverish the poor? Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Michl, T. (2016). “Capitalists, Workers and Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century.” Review of Political Economy, 28(2), pp. 205-219.

Palm, R., Lewis, G. and Feng, B. (2017). “What Causes People to Change Their Opinion about Climate Change?” Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(4), pp. 883-896.

Pasquet, Y. (2010). ‘Western’ diseases spread to developing world: experts. [online] Medicalxpress.com. https://medicalxpress.com/news/206163684-western-diseases-world-experts.html (Accessed: 28 February 2020).

Paul, J. (2000). NGOs and Global Policy-Making. [ebook] Global Policy Forum. http://www.rmbonline.cn/images/pdfs/ngos_and_global_policy_making.pdf (Accessed: 28 February 2020).

Peltoniemi, M. and Vuori, E. (n.d.). Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. Master. Tampere University of Technology.

Pew Research Center (2016). The Politics of Climate. [online] Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. https://www.cpp.edu/~skboddeker/301/misc/PS_2016.10.04_Politics-of-Climate_FINAL.pdf (Accessed: 24 February 2020).

Piketty, T. (2015). “About Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”

American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 2015, 105(5), p. 52.

Plutchik, R. (2001). “The Nature of Emotions.” American Scientist, 89(4), pp. 345-346.

Ramaswamy, V. and Gouillart, F. (2010). The power of co-creation.

New York: Free Press a Division of Simon & Schuster.

Raworth, K., 2012. “A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut?”

Oxfam Discussion Papers. Oxford: Oxfam GB. Raworth, K. (2017). “A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st century.”

The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(2), pp. e48-e49.

Robbins, S. and Judge, T. (2017). Organizational behavior. 17th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, p. 425.

Robertson, M. (2017). Sustainability principles and practice. 2nd ed. London, England: Routledge, p. 330.

Rockström, J., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, III, F., Lambin, E., Lenton, T., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P., Constanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R., Fabry, V., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. [online] Nature 461, pp. 472-475. https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a.pdf (Accessed: 27 February 2020).

Rott, N. (2021). NPR Cookie Consent and Choices. [online] Npr.org. https://www.npr.org/sections/ inauguration-day-live-updates/2021/01/20/958923821/biden-moves-to-have-u-s-rejoin-climateaccord?t=1614447082924 (Accessed: 27 February 2021).

Saez, E. (2020). Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Updated with 2018 Estimates). [ebook] Berkely: UC Berkely, p. 8. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2018.pdf (Accessed: 25 February 2020).

Sánchez-Rodríguez, Á., Willis, G. and Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2017). “Economic and social distance: Perceived income inequality negatively predicts an interdependent self-construal.”

International Journal of Psychology, 54(1), pp. 117-125.

Savani, K. and Rattan, A. (2012). “A Choice Mindset Increases the Acceptance and Maintenance of Wealth Inequality.” Psychological Science, 23(7), pp. 796-804.

Schwartz, S. (2012). “An Overview of the Schwartz Theory on Basic Values.”

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).

Shrubsole, G. (2015). “All that is solid melts into air: climate change and neoliberalism.” Soundings, 59(59), pp. 115-128.

Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why. London: Portfolio Penguin, p. 41.

Sneddon, C., Howarth, R. and Norgaard, R. (2006). “Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world.”

Ecological Economics, 57(2), pp. 253-268.

Soares, C. (2003). “Corporate Versus Individual Moral Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics, 46, pp. 143-150.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., de Vries, W., de Wit, C., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G., Persson, L., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B. and Sorlin, S. (2015). “Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.” Science, 347(6223), pp. 1259855-1259855.

The Arbinger Institute. (2018). Leadership and Self-Deception. 3rd ed. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, pp. 203-212.

United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [online] Ohchr.org. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf (Accessed: 27 February 2020).

United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

New York: United Nations.

United Nations (2020). Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. [online] Sustainabledevelopment.un.org. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 (Accessed: 26 February 2020).

Wen, T. (2020). What makes people stop caring?. [online] Bbc.com. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200630-what-makes-people-stop-caring (Accessed: 27 February 2021).

WHO (2021). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) – World Health Organization. [online]. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019 (Accessed: 8 February 2021).

World Bank (2020). Understanding Poverty. [online] World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/understanding-poverty (Accessed: 26 February 2020).

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987).

Our Common Future. Suffolk, EN: Oxford University Press.

World Inequality Database (2020). France – WID – World Inequality Database. [online] WID - World Inequality Database. https://wid.world/country/france/ (Accessed: 25 February 2020).

World Inequality Database (2020). India – WID – World Inequality Database. [online] WID - World Inequality Database. https://wid.world/country/india/ (Accessed 25 February 2020).

World Inequality Database (2020). United Kingdom – WID – World Inequality Database. [online] WID - World Inequality Database. https://wid.world/country/united-kingdom/ (Accessed: 25 February 2020).

World Inequality Database (2020). USA – WID – World Inequality Database. [online] WID - World Inequality Database. https://wid.world/country/usa/ (Accessed: 25 February 2020).

Colophon Copyright © 2021 by Jef Teugels All rights reserved.

D/2021/0147/229 ISBN: 9789048642106 NUR: 740

Kleine Pathoekeweg 3 8000 Brugge, Belgium +32 50 47 12 89 pp@diekeure.be www.diekeure.be