YHYS Colloquium 2024 Sessions & Programme

Session Chairs: Janne I. Hukkinen, University of Helsinki; Niko Soininen, University of Eastern Finland

Submissions: janne.i.hukkinen@helsinki.fi

The Anthropocene can be characterized as a social-ecological polycrisis, i.e., an era of unexpected disparate shocks interacting in ways that make the whole more overwhelming than the sum of its parts. The consequent challenge for humanity is how to drive transformative change concerning the economic and societal root causes of the polycrisis while maintaining strategic capabilities to cope with the impacts of chronic social-ecological crises. Since recovery even after a single disruptive event may draw down society’s resources for quite some time and decrease its capacity to face subsequent crises, a series of relentless, cascading, and simultaneous crises threatens the ability to maintain social-ecological resilience over the long term. This calls for leverage points that could simultaneously help tackle the root causes of the crisis while supporting social-ecological resilience to deal with their negative impacts.

The session invites contributions addressing the following question: How to enact sustainability transformations while accommodating the disruptive reality of chronic social-ecological crises? We seek interdisciplinary contributions addressing e.g. institutional, organizational, behavioral, communicative, and infrastructural leverage points for enabling sustainability transformations while considering the constraint posed by the onslaught of simultaneous and cascading social-ecological disruptions. By framing the challenging social-ecological disruptions as opportunities for sustainability transformations, we want to convey the fundamentally optimistic ethos of the session.

Session Chairs: Jean-Pierre Imbrogiano, University of Helsinki; José-Carlos García-Rosell, University of Oulu; Astrid Huopalainen, Aalto School of Business

Submissions: jose.garcia-rosell@oulu.fi

Management research has long emphasized the importance of inclusion in organizations, a principle reflected in initiatives such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Inclusion refers to the practice of not only integrating individuals who have been considered as outsiders or vulnerable members of an organisation but also transforming them into participants who accept the terms of their inclusion. When applied to nonhuman animals, these ideas present significant limitations as their consent for inclusion and their participation in decision-making challenge traditional management paradigms. Given that nature and animals are integral to the well-being of societies, acknowledging how organizations could act within a multispecies world is vital for promoting sustainability and responsible business practices.

‘Multispecies inclusivity’ is a novel concept in management and organization studies because it invites us to move beyond a human perspective to also reflect on how we organize, perceive, and treat other animals. It asks us to re-evaluate our relationships with other species, challenging traditional anthropocentric ethics that permit animal exploitation in human-led organisational realms. To date, there remains multiple knowledge gaps about how to include and consider the needs of multiple species in everyday organizational practices and decision making.

We welcome philosophical, theoretical, and empirical contributions engaging with the questions of multispecies inclusivity as part of responsible management and organizing. Our call for contributions targets (but is not limited to) explorations of multispecies inclusivity, with the following suggested themes in mind:

How to include animal needs into concrete policies, practices, and decision-making?
What type of multispecies organizing practices are already implemented?
Critical and emerging perspectives on multispecies inclusivity
Labor and materialities in the context of multispecies organising
Everyday practices of multispecies inclusivity
Overlooked or marginalized phenomena in ’more-than-human’ organising
Constructions of multispecies inclusivity experiences in organisational life

Session Chair: Ilona Mettiäinen, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland

Submissions: Ilona.mettiainen@ulapland.fi

Climate interventions, also known as geoengineering, climate engineering, climate repair, or new technologies for climate protection, are a diverse set of suggested technological methods for temporarily cooling down the planet to counteract anthropogenic climate change. While the primary solution to climate change is mitigation by GHG emission reductions, current mitigation efforts seem insufficient. Hence, climate interventions have been suggested as stopgap measures for buying time for efficient mitigation measures to help, while also avoiding irreversible changes such as those caused by global tipping points.

A key idea of the Anthropocene is that humans are capable of changing the environment on planetary scales – inadvertently or deliberately. Hence climate intervention and its research are deeply rooted in the idea of the Anthropocene.

Although research into climate interventions has been largely dominated by physical sciences research, social sciences research is getting stronger internationally. Environmental social sciences research including transdisciplinary knowledge co-production on the methods with communities is increasingly called for amplifying voices of local and indigenous communities in the Arctic and the Global South for directing scientific inquiry into societally relevant questions, enabling informed policy-decisions in the future, and for avoiding climate interventions from turning into a new wave of colonialism. Climate interventions also a controversial and opposed research topic, and ethical guidelines have been prepared lately.

This session invites presentations on latest developments in climate interventions research in Finland and abroad, for fostering future collaboration within inter and transdisciplinary environmental social sciences research. The session is open to diverse presentations around climate intervention, e.g. as a concept, on specific methods and environmental social sciences research into them including community-based studies, reviews, surveys on public perceptions, ethics of climate intervention research, deployment and governance, and the possible role of climate interventions within climate policy, to name a few examples.

Session Chairs: Maija Lähteenkorva, University of Jyväskylä; Minna Käyrä, University of Jyväskylä

Submissions: maija.e.lahteenkorva@jyu.fi

Our societies are in dire need of a profound change. Production and consumption levels need to decrease drastically and therefore, we should pursue change in the underlying rules, structures and culture of the society. When it comes to sustainability, incremental actions are not enough to reach the level of change required. This magnitude of change requires contributions from all parties involved, where every stakeholder, from individual citizens to powerful entities, must play a role in making the transformation happen. As a counter partner to the mainstream organisations, we are witnessing a rise of a counterculture of alternative organisational forms that are going against current logic of pursuing continuous growth.

Counterculture refers to movements that challenge the dominant cultural norms and values of society. These movements often emerge in response to perceived injustices or inequalities within the existing social structure. They represent a form of resistance to the status quo and aim to bring about social change by challenging established norms and practices. As a sociopolitical term, counterculture indicates a point of dissent between dominant or mainstream ideologies and alternative value systems, creating a collective voice that can be considered a significant minority.

In this session, we want to give floor to research on agency and action that support counterculture, and how they continue to challenge the dominant cultural norms and drive social change through various forms of resistance and alternative practices. This can include research on alternative organising in different sectors, societal level or scales.

We strive to provide a more comprehensive picture of the counterculture that is steadily gaining ground in our society, in this way providing hope and direction towards life within planetary boundaries.

Session Chairs: Professor Satu Teerikangas, University of Turku; Associate Professor Tiina Onkila, University of Jyväskylä; Professor Martin Welp, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, visiting professor at LUT University

Submissions: satu.teerikangas@utu.fi

Who is engaged in sustainability work and what are the evolving dynamics of such proactive engagement? These are critical questions to explore, if we are to understand the making of sustainable futures.

Over the last decades, across the social sciences, numerous actor types have been identified as active change agents in the pursuit of sustainable futures. Such sustainability agency has been categorized as individual, active, relational and governance-related agency, spanning the acts of individuals as consumer-citizens and professionals, organizations as social movements and social and environmental entrepreneurs to various forms of partnering and governing at inter-organizational, sectoral and institutional levels of analysis.

All the while, another stream of researchers has maintained an interest in leadership, a characteristic traditionally associated with individuals in managerial positions, though more recently associated with the growth potential of anyone. As regards the making of sustainable futures, the strands of research on ethical, responsible, sustainable and environmental leadership are of particular interest.

In this working group, we aim to explore and take stock of these two broad, loosely coupled bodies of knowledge that span disciplines, involve numerous terms, concepts and theoretical bases, and can be discussed at different levels of analysis. We are further interested in their overlaps and interconnections. We welcome submissions related to ongoing conceptual, empirical, theoretical and methodological work related to agency and leadership in the pursuit of sustainable futures.

Session Chairs: Maare Käis, LUT University; Sanna Karhu, University of Helsinki; Toni Ruuska, University of Helsinki; Eeva Houtbeckers, University of Eastern Finland

Submissions: Maare.Kais@lut.fi

In times of socio-ecological crisis, feminist research is more crucial than ever. Addressing the necessary transformations in our societies requires a comprehensive understanding of the complex, intertwined factors that shape individual and collective experiences. Feminist research brings to light the intersectional power relations of gender, race, class, sexuality, species, and geographies, for example, offering a nuanced perspective that is essential for environmental studies within humanities and social sciences. This approach helps us to uncover violent norms, systemic inequalities, and operations of power that often go unnoticed in traditional and mainstream research paradigms. By drawing on feminist ecological thought and critiques of capitalism, we can develop more inclusive strategies for critically addressing environmental problems, anthropocentric norms as well as speciesist hierarchies.

This session is for presentations that combine the themes of feminist political economy and ecology and for those interested in this combination. Presented work may focus on socio-ecological crises and incorporate feminist perspectives into the research or focus on feminist economies with elements of environmental social sciences or ecofeminist theorizations. Such research on feminist political ecology spans different fields and addresses questions including but not limited to the role of care and unpaid work in the sustainability transition, the intersections, and hierarchies between social, ecological, and economic issues, as well as the potential of feminist theories and concepts to broaden the research or policy debate on sustainability transitions. The session aims to provide an opportunity for networking and learning from others, to identify existing and emerging themes and issues, and to explore opportunities for collaboration on research and social impact. In the session, we are committed to discussing topics and problems in a diverse and inclusive way to find pathways to just and sustainable futures.

We ask for 300-500 word abstracts of your presentation (excluding references) by 16th September. Although conventional presentations are welcome, we also encourage creative or experimental presentations that challenge traditional academic conventions. The presentation time is approximately 10-20 minutes, depending on the total number of presentations.

Session Chairs: Antti Silvast, LUT University, Social Sciences; Suvi Huttunen, LUT University, Social Sciences; Anna Salomaa, LUT University, Social Sciences; Satu Lähteenoja, Aalto University, Department of Design, Demos Helsinki

Submissions: antti.silvast@lut.fi

Public engagement, participation, and transparency have gained increasing attention in sustainability transformations and transitions governance. It is widely acknowledged that successful sustainability transformations or transitions cannot be achieved without involving the public in decision-making processes. However, a considerable number of engagement activities in public processes at different levels are often viewed as policy failures or only achieve partial success. Despite well-documented reasons for these failures in the literature similar initiatives persist without broader learning on how to reorganize participation. In addition, participation is often geared to those who are most interested in participating. Simultaneously grassroots action at the level of communities and individual citizens in the pursuit of more sustainable lifestyles is emerging. Inspired by systemic and material approaches to participation, this workshop aims to address the question of participation from at least these angles and discuss possibilities and approaches to develop participation and to better involve existing grassroots movements and material action towards sustainability in everyday life. These approaches can help address the core problems related to non-participation and different capacities to participate.

We invite submissions of both theoretical and empirical presentations on participation in sustainability transformations and transitions including:

Conceptualizations of participation in sustainability transformations
Participatory approaches in sustainability policymaking and governance
Community-based approaches to sustainability transformations
Participation in the management and circulation of natural resources
Innovative methodologies and the role of science and technology in engaging diverse stakeholders in sustainability initiatives
Addressing non-participation and the participation of marginalized groups
Representation of material non-human actors in participatory processes

Session Chairs: Teea Kortetmäki, University of Jyväskylä; Markku Oksanen, University of Eastern Finland; Mikko Puumala, University of Turku

Submissions: markku.oksanen@uef.fi

“In the Anthropocene, no institutional solution may be stable for very long…” claim Dryzek and Pickering in their book The Politics of the Anthropocene (2019). Whether this is true or not, the concept of the Anthropocene inspires us to think about what people living in modern societies are at a constant risk of losing. A way of responding is to develop a collective understanding of the ideas and practices of sustainability through which modern societies seek to maintain valued features and, indeed, their continued existence. The purpose of this session is to look into sustainability philosophically. We are open to different kinds of characterization what counts as philosophical reflection, and to different disciplines. Themes that are often addressed in philosophical discussions include: Is sustainability predominantly a normative concept; and if so, in what ways? What is its place in environmental thinking and its relation to empirical research? Is sustainability human-centered, as was presumed in Our Common Future, or can there be multispecies sustainability? In the name of sustainability, what is acceptable to demand and from whom? If the Anthropocene puts institutions under constant adaptive pressures, can there be utopian-like visions of sustainability or is the core of sustainability an ability to react? And finally: how to conceptualize the opposite of sustainability? Is it a collapse or some other construct?

The session Visions of sustainability in the Anthropocene invites all those interested in discussing the foundational issues. Papers of all kinds from different disciplines that address both sustainability and its countervisions/opposites are welcome – such as philosophical, anthropological, sociological, historical and speculative fiction research (literature, films, series, games etc.).

Session Chairs: Anni Arponen, Tampere University; Minna Santaoja, University of Lapland

Submissions: minna.santaoja@ulapland.fi

In today’s academia, scientific societies are struggling to find active members to continue their activities, such as organizing conferences and publishing scientific journals. Societies are perhaps seen as a thing of the past, and todays’ researcher generations do not find time for societies’ activities, as they are not seen to produce scholarly merit. At the same time, various initiatives are encouraging scientific societies to take a more active role with respect to global environmental crises. If scientific societies were to become active in defining research ethics and values and sounding their opinions on sustainability policies, they could emerge as newly relevant actors in the eyes of younger researcher generations.

In this session we discuss the role of scientific societies - such as YHYS - in sustainability transformation. What role should societies take? Should scientific societies crystallize their values? How could the societies become relevant actors and attract more active members?

We will have a few short introductory talks from different viewpoints to set the scene, followed by open discussion. Depending on the participants, the session will be held in Finnish or in English. We kindly ask you to sign up to the session by sending an email to have an estimate of the participant number. Indicate in your mail, if you wish to have a short prepared talk on the topic.

Session Chairs: Tina Nyfors, University of Helsinki; Teemu Koskimäki, University of Eastern Finland; Senja Laakso, Tampere University

Submissions: tina.nyfors@helsinki.fi

Sufficiency is a resurgent concept increasingly recognized as a necessary complement to efficiency strategies for reducing human pressure on the environment. It is connected to ideas of what is ‘enough’ versus ‘excess’ and how to define a ‘good life’ within environmental limits. As such, sufficiency has been defined positively as “a situation in which limited resources are used to satisfy reasoned needs” and normatively as “a situation in which universal decent living standards are compatible with planetary boundaries” (Laurent, 2024).

Sufficiency solutions, which seek to adjust demand and supply to reasoned levels, should be implemented at various levels and sectors, encompassing government policies (IPCC, 2022; Jungell-Michelsson and Heikkurinen, 2022; Nyfors et al., 2020) and novel business practices (Bärnthaler and Gough, 2023; Beyeler and Jaeger-Erben, 2022). In addition, everyday practices and consumption habits should evolve in a manner that is both just and acceptable (Sahakian et al., 2023). However, challenges of implementing such solutions as part of a just sustainability transformation remain to be explored and the “untapped sufficiency potential” (IPCC, 2022) remains to be fully charted.

We welcome presentations addressing the potential of sufficiency solutions and the challenges related to their implementation in affluent societies. Contributions could include, but are not limited to: What type of sufficiency policies or practices exist, either already implemented or proposed? What factors could drive widespread implementation of sufficiency? How can sufficiency be applied in different sectors (particularly supply-side)? What could be the potential economic impacts of implementing sufficiency? How can technological innovation support sufficiency goals? How can policy frameworks be designed to integrate sufficiency with other sustainability goals? How does sufficiency intersect with issues of social equity and justice? What are the barriers to implementing sufficiency, and how can they be overcome? How could sufficiency become a unifying objective in the Anthropocene?

Bärnthaler, R., Gough, I., 2023. Provisioning for sufficiency: envisaging production corridors. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 19, 2218690. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2218690

Beyeler, L., Jaeger-Erben, M., 2022. How to make more of less: Characteristics of sufficiency in business practices. Front. Sustain. 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.949710

IPCC, 2022. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926

Jungell-Michelsson, J., Heikkurinen, P., 2022. Sufficiency: A systematic literature review. Ecological Economics 195, 107380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107380

Laurent, É., 2024. ToBe Project Deliverable D1.2: Sufficiency as a confluence for post-growth streams – Report on the integrated analysis of the different schools of thought. Sciences Po.

Nyfors, T., Linnanen, L., Nissinen, A., Seppälä, J., Saarinen, M., Regina, K., Heinonen, T., Viri, R., Liimatainen, H., 2020. Ecological Sufficiency in Climate Policy: Towards Policies for Recomposing Consumption. Tulevaisuuden tutkimuksen seura.

Sahakian, M., Fuchs, D., Lorek, S., Di Giulio, A., 2021. Advancing the concept of consumption corridors and exploring its implications. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 17, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.1919437

Sahakian, M., Moynat, O., Senn, W., Moreau, V., 2023. How social practices inform the future as method: Describing personas in an energy transition while engaging with teleoaffectivities. Futures 148, 103133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103133

Session Chairs: Riikka Latva-Somppi, Aalto University; Katriina Soini, Natural Resources Institute Finland LUKE; Kristina Svels, Natural Resources Institute Finland LUKE

Submissions: riikka.latva-somppi@aalto.fi

Frequent calls and funding possibilities for transdisciplinary research within the area of sustainability transformation signal the need for inclusivity and collective knowledge-creation involving not only human, but also more-than-human agency. However, working across disciplinary boundaries and diverse sectors, or beyond human-nature dualism, is not easy. Oftentimes research that is intended to be inter- or transdisciplinary eventually enforces siloed tasks and thinking even within research groups. Such experiences, in the worst case, may even further strengthen disciplinary and other borderlines.

In this session we aim to tackle the ways in which successful transdisciplinary projects and processes may be conducted, and the kind of methods they could entail. We welcome contributions that discuss or present processes, methodologies, and case studies of and through transdisciplinary research and acknowledge the different agencies that the participants of the research, whether human or non-human, may have. Acknowledging the challenges of such processes, we also encourage sharing observations of difficulties, and even experiences of failure. In other words, we hope to ignite discussions on what may or may not work in such processes. The session ends with diffraction, that is, a kind of collective reflection, to learn from the shared insights during the session.

Session Chairs: Ossi I. Ollinaho, Global Development Studies, University of Helsinki; Markus Kröger, Global Development Studies, University of Helsinki

Submissions: ossi.ollinaho@helsinki.fi

Since 2015, the world has seen a surge of ecological restoration (ER) pledges, policies, and projects—typically related to different types of tree planting, motivated by stopping land degradation and deforestation, acquiring carbon credits and boosting biodiversity and food production. Yet, more empirical research is needed to uncover what is happening where and why; focusing on the politics, practices, and organising of ER and the associated effects on land use. We want to uncover how ER schemes interrelate with the financial realm, land use conflicts, and power relations. We will focus on ER schemes in the global South. However, as ER schemes often have a global reach due to ‘green economy’ supply chains, this might also entail scrutinizing practices in the global North to more fully understand the aspirations and threats involved in ER.

The ER practices linked to global financial flows are typically problematic in their effects on land use as top-down restoration practices tend to be incommensurate with local practices and traditional livelihoods. Many rural communities in the global South have lost control over their lands by virtue of carbon credit mechanisms. As many livelihoods in the global South countries are often still directly dependent on land use, the schemes that do not maintain or improve the access to the land tend to be problematic, fail or both. Changes in climatic conditions are also relevant as the proliferation of extreme weather conditions such as droughts, cyclones, and flooding cause increased uncertainty in land use. How could ER address these—seemingly inexorable—insidious changes? How should guidelines for ‘good’ politics, practices, and organizing, as well as articulating future aspirations related to ER be conceptualized?

We invite papers addressing these issues from the global, local, or regional perspective. Papers can be case-based studies (comparative or in-depth), theoretical or review papers.

Session Chairs: Veera Kinnunen, Oulun yliopisto; Karoliina Lummaa, BIOS tutkimusyksikkö

Submissions: Veera.Kinnunen@oulu.fi & karoliina.lummaa@bios.fi [Finnish language only]

Humanistinen ympäristötutkimus on viimeisen vuosikymmenen aikana vakiintunut kuvaamaan laajaa kirjoa lähestymistapoja, jotka tarkastelevat ympäristökysymyksiä kulttuurisina ilmiöinä. Usein jaettuna lähtökohtana on, että luonnon ja kulttuurin ulottuvuudet ovat erottamattomasti toisiinsa kietoutuneet ja muovaavat toinen toisiaan. Humanistinen ympäristötutkimus ei rajaudu perinteisiin humanistisiin tieteenaloihin, vaan yhä useammin tutkijat esimerkiksi kasvatustieteen ja yhteiskuntatieteen sekä taiteen ja aktivismin kentiltä kokoontuvat humanistisen ympäristötutkimuksen sateenvarjon alla (ks. esim. Lummaa et al. 2020).

Humanistiselle ympäristötutkimukselle tunnusomaista on muun muassa tiedon ja tietämisen laajeneminen spekulatiiviseen, luovaan ja kokeilulliseen suuntaan esimerkiksi taiteen, tieteen ja kansalaistieteen menetelmiä yhdistämällä.

C. Wright Mills määritteli 1950-luvulla sosiologian tehtäväksi yksilön ja yhteiskunnan välisen suhteen tarkastelun. Hänen mukaansa sosiologista mielikuvitusta tarvittiin ymmärtämään uudenlaista yhteiskuntaa, johon valistuksen aikaisten käsitteiden selitysvoima ei riitä. Kyky mielikuvitteluun ja toisin ajatteluun on nostettu kerta toisensa jälkeen tutkimuksen tärkeäksi tehtäväksi muuttuvassa maailmassa (ks. esim. Norgaard 2017; Pyyhtinen 2015; Heise 2008; Buell 1996; Gatens 1996; 2007; Yosuff & Gabrys 2011; Kinnunen & Valkonen 2022). Myös humanistinen ympäristötutkimus perustelee usein olemassaoloaan uudenlaisen käsitteistön ja elämisen muotojen tarpeella kriisien läpäisemässä maailmassa. Esimerkiksi Åsberg, Neimanis ja Hédren (2016) tunnistavat sosiokulttuurisen mielikuvittelun kulttuuriseksi maaperäksi, jossa neuvotellaan jaettuja tavoitteita, unelmia ja yhteistyön muotoja ja suhteita ympäristöön. Kysymmekin, millaista on humanistisen ympäristötutkimuksen mielikuvitus ja mihin sitä tarvitaan.

Työpajan tavoitteena on tarjota avoin keskustelufoorumi humanistisen ympäristötutkimuksen tekijöille, ei niinkään määritellä tieteenalarajoja. Kutsumme humanistisen ympäristötutkimuksen tekijöitä jakamaan ajatuksia humanistisen ympäristötutkimuksen mielikuvituksesta esittelemällä empiirisiä esimerkkejä, metodologisia kokeiluja tai käsitteellisiä avauksia omasta tutkimuksesta.

Lähetä korkeintaan 300 sanan mittainen abstraktisi työryhmän puheenjohtajille, Veera Kinnuselle (Veera.Kinnunen[at]oulu.fi) ja Karoliina Lummaalle (karoliina.lummaa[at]bios.fi 16.9.2024 mennessä. Esitysten pituuksista ja työryhmän työskentelymuodosta päätetään abstraktien viimeisen palautuspäivän jälkeen.

Session Chairs: Malin Bäckman, Postdoctoral Researcher on behalf of the LEGACES project, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki; Susanna Barrineau, PhD Researcher, University of the Sunshine Coast and Uppsala University

Submissions: malin.backman@helsinki.fi

“This planet is not ours; we have borrowed it from our grandchildren” is an outworn slogan implying human exceptionalism. From such a perspective, humans are centre stage and what we tend to call “the environment” is there for humans to exploit, protect or use for recreational activities. Another slogan coined by the environmental justice movement refers to environment as “where we live, work and play” and seeks to challenge the notion of environment being a distant place. Rather, humans are entangled with the environment through their everyday lives. This entanglement and the impossibility of separating human and nonhuman worlds have in recent years increasingly been brought to attention by scholars engaging with more-than-human perspectives. Such perspectives are opposing human exceptionalism by acknowledging others, such as animals, plants, organic and inorganic matter in the agentic sphere. While human entanglement with non-human others as well as attributing agency to non-human actants are relatively new within western thinking, these perspectives have a long history across various indigenous knowledges. A core argument within more-than-human perspectives, is how thinking-with those usually being ‘othered’ supports a move towards more just and caring relationships with human and non-human others.

While theoretical and conceptual papers on more-than-human perspectives and nonhuman agency abound, this session turns to the how of engaging with, including and/or exploring more-than-humans through empirical research. This session invites both work-in progress and recent experiences of more-than-human research endeavours. The session invites both empirical and methodological reflections, and is particularly interested in papers exploring questions such as:

How can more-than-human agencies be considered throughout a research project?
What methodologies and methods are suitable when engaging with more-than-human perspectives?
How can social scientists educated in researching with and about human worlds shift their perspectives towards more-than-human actants and agencies?

We are looking for max. 300 words abstracts of the proposed presentations. We will decide on how to organise the session once we know the nature and number of presentations.

Session Chairs: Professor Johanna Kujala, Tampere University; Dr. Jaan-Pauli Kimpimäki, LUT Business School, LUT University; Dr. Neha Neha, Tampere University; Professor Laura Albareda, LUT Business School, LUT University

Submissions: Jaan-Pauli.Kimpimaki@lut.fi

Natural resources, such as genetic diversity, species richness, and ecosystem services are accessible for use by everybody but are limited and affected by human overexploitation. What makes these environmental resources special is that they involve commons (Ostrom, 1990). The struggle of the commons is a complex situation in which a large set of individuals, businesses, and other organizations has access to those resources and degrades them based on their own self-interest and without any clear rules of use (). This struggle is a social dilemma, and it would be better for the parties to cooperate, but they fail to do so due to conflicts between organizational interests that discourage joint action (Aligica & Tarko, 2012).

In 1990, E. Ostrom proposed a theory that explains how to overcome this struggle of the commons. She studied how individuals and local communities can create and organize institutions for collective action, designing shared rules defined by local users to govern commons resources cooperatively. Polycentricity is a key concept in Ostrom’s research, emerging as an alternative to centralized governance models (Ostrom, 2010; Aligica & Tarko, 2012). Polycentric governance refers to a system based on multiple, interdependent, and autonomous decision-making centers that enable cross-sector actors to manage complex collective action problems (McGinnis, 2016). Polycentricity is a form of adaptive governance that allows multiple stakeholders, including individuals and organizations, to define rules to govern complex interactions, natural resources, circularity, and sustainable consumption (Patala et al., 2022). Commons and collective action are important drivers of research in social and environmental sciences that offer opportunities to explore new concepts such as commoning (Bollier & Helfrich, 2015) or commons organizing (Albareda & Sison, 2020).

We call for a discussion between commons, polycentricity and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984, Freeman et al., 2010) to understand business-stakeholder value-creation to prevent the collapse of the commons in the Anthropocene. We embrace the interconnected relationships between cross-sector actors and stakeholder engagement to address the struggle of the commons. We see “stakeholder engagement” (Freeman et al., 2017; Kujala & Sachs, 2019) as a change in focus from a business-centric view to a relational perspective in which both economic and non-economic value is created through complex stakeholder relationships (Tapaninaho & Kujala, 2019). Stakeholder theory explicitly acknowledges that joint value creation necessitates stakeholder engagement in the face of collective action and governance systems, for this adopting learning and deliberation processes (Bridoux & Stoelhorts, 2020; McGahan & Pongeluppe, 2023).

References
Albareda, L., & Sison, A. 2020. Commons organizing: Embedding common good and institutions for collective action. Journal of Business Ethics. 166: 727–743.
Albareda, L., & Branzei, 0. (2024). Biocentric work in the Anthropocene: How actors regenerate degenerated natural commons. Journal of Management Studies. Online. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.13080
Aligica, P. D. & Tarko, V. 2012. Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 25(2): 237–262.
Albareda, L., & Kimpimäki, J-P. 2023. How did it come to be? Circular economy as
collective stakeholder action. In J. Kujala, A. Heikkinen, & A. Blomberg (Eds.). Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable Circular Economy: Theoretical and practical perspective. (pp. 19–55). Palgrave MacMillan.
Bridoux F., & Stoelhorst J.W. 2020. Stakeholder governance: Solving the collective action problems in joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 47(2): 214–236.
Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. 2015. Overture. In D. Bollier, & S. Helfrich (Eds.). Patterns for commoning (pp. 1–12). Levellers Press.
Freeman, R. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.
Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & de Colle, S. 2010. Stakeholder Theory. The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press.
Freeman R., Kujala J., & Sachs S. 2017. Stakeholder Engagement: Clinical Research
Cases. Springer.
Gatignon A., & Capron L. 2023. The firm as an architect of polycentric governance: Building open institutional infrastructure in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 44(1):48–85.
Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., & Folke, C. 2012. Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries: Emerging governance of climate change-ocean acidification-marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 81: 21–32.
Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. 2022. Stakeholder
engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society, 61(5), 1136–1196.
Kujala, J., Lehtimäki, H., & Freeman, R. E. 2019. A stakeholder approach to value creation and leadership. In A. Kangas, J. Kujala, A. Heikkinen, A. Lönnqvist, H. Laihonen, & J. Bethwaite (Eds.) Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives (pp.123–143). Tampere University Press.
Kujala, J., & Sachs S. 2019. The practice of stakeholder engagement. In J. Harrison, J. Barney, & R. E. Freeman (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory (pp.121–140). Cambridge University Press.
McGahan, A., & Pongeluppe, L. S. 2023. There is not Planet B: Aligning Stakeholder interest to preserve the Amazon Rainforest. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4884
McGinnis, M. D. 2016. Polycentric Governance in Theory and Practice: Dimensions of Aspiration and Practical Limitations. Working paper. Indiana University.
Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global
environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20: 550–557.
Patala, S., Albareda, L., & Halme, M. 2022. Polycentric governance of privately owned resources in circular economy systems. Journal of Management Studies, 59(6): 1563–1596.

Session Chairs: Liisa Varumo, Finnish Environment Institute; Suvi Huttunen, Finnish Environment Institute

Submissions: liisa.varumo@syke.fi

In recent decades we have seen a rise in market-based approaches to conservation, ranging from green bonds to carbon and biodiversity credits and offsets, and in general the seepage of economic language into conservation through terms such as natural capital and ecosystem services. While thought to make conservation more appealing to private actors, these approaches are still marginal both in financing and achieving conservation targets (Dempsey & Suarez 2016). Furthermore, they often oversimplify the valuing of biodiversity, thereby perpetuating socio-environmental injustices (e.g., Pascual et al. 2023). This highlights the need, for a broader range of actors and approaches to conservation (and its financing), but also for existing market-based approaches to be redesigned to be more socially just and reflective of diverse values and worldviews.

This is reflected in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, particularly under target 19, which once again calls for the mobilisation of more public and private resources and attention to social safeguards in existing practices (CBD 2022). This time, however, it also seeks to strengthen the role of collective action, civil society cooperation and, for example, ecocentric and non-market approaches to conservation, thus broadening the agency of conservation from that of public governance and private corporations to that of local people and non-human actors, even recognising the diverse economies at play in conservation practices. These could arguably lead to more context sensitive conservation and interpretations of value beyond the instrumental to intrinsic and relational.

We invite contributions that reflect on what emerging conservation policies and practices, both market-based and others, mean for the natural environment and our societies and how they influence and relate to our understandings of nature and different ways of assigning value to it. Furthermore, we encourage the contributions to consider what do these practices imply for environmental justice, agency and participation in conservation in the Anthropocene?

References

CBD (2022) Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/4 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2022)

Dempsey, J., & Suarez, D. C. (2016). Arrested Development? The Promises and Paradoxes of “Selling Nature to Save It.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(3), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1140018 

Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Anderson, C. B., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Christie, M., González-Jiménez, D., Martin, A., Raymond, C. M., Termansen, M., Vatn, A., Athayde, S., Baptiste, B., Barton, D. N., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., Kumar, R., Lazos, E., Mwampamba, T. H., Nakangu, B., … Zent, E. (2023). Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature, 620(7975), 813–823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9

Session Chairs: Idil Gaziulusoy, Aalto University; Seona Candy, Demos Helsinki

Submissions: idil.gaziulusoy@aalto.fi

The importance of nature and ecosystemic health for human well-being is well established in sustainability research (e.g. Ratcliffe et al., 2013; Bretzel et al., 2016). However, such research has not been able to transform the practices that shape human-nature relationships or how we imagine and create our socio-technical-ecological futures. Multispecies sustainability and justice discourse (Rupprecht et al., 2020; Tschakert et al., 2021; Szymanski et al., 2021) calls for de-centring of human needs, expectations and interests in governance of sustainability transitions and transformations, and consequently in research, innovation, planning and design policies/practices which will shape future systems.

Arguably, generating the theoretical and practice-informing insights necessary for a multispecies turn in sustainability research will require radical interdisciplinarity across all academic knowledge domains, from natural sciences to humanities, and co-creating knowledge in collaboration with local and indigenous communities. It will also require developing and evaluating methods to represent, recognise and give epistemic advantage to non-human stakeholders of these change processes.

Overall, it will involve not only looking forward to future challenges but also recognising past injustices and the need for restorative justice, which is necessary to avoid re-making the same mistakes. This paper session aims to bring together various theoretical and practice-based knowledge in this emerging research area to start forming a knowledge base and community around this important challenge.

We are inviting work-in-progress and/or short papers presenting conceptual, empirical and/or practice-based research on topics including but not limited to:

The potential and limitations of the multispecies sustainability and multispecies justice concepts in the sustainability research context;
Perspectives on how to understand the needs and how to establish the rights of other species from multiple disciplines, including but not limited to ecology, law and philosophy;
Critical, creative and anticipatory methods to incorporate multispecies perspectives in research and practice;
Intersections between multispecies sustainability and other emerging discourses and scholarship (such as degrowth, decolonisation, inner dimensions, feminist perspectives).

References

Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B., & Sowden, P. T. (2013). Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 221-228. https://doi.org/hEps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.004

Bretzel, F., Vannucchi, F., Romano, D., Malorgio, F., Benvenute, S., & Pezzarossa, B. (2016). Wildflowers: From conserving biodiversity to urban greening—A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 428-436. https://doi.org/hEps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.008

Rupprecht, C. D. D., Vervoort, J., Berthelsen, C., Mangnus, A., Osborne, N., Thompson, K., Urushima, A. Y. F., Kóvskaya, M., Spiegelberg, M., Cristiano, S., SpringeE, J., Marschütz, B., Flies, E. J., McGreevy, S. R., Droz, L., Breed, M. F., Gan, J., Shinkai, R., & Kawai, A. (2020). Multispecies sustainability. Global Sustainability, 3, e34-e34. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.28

Szymanski, E. A., Smith, R. D. J., & Calvert, J. (2021). Responsible research and innovaBon meets multispecies studies: why RRI needs to be a more-than-human exercise. Journal of Responsible InnovaCon, 8(2), 261-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1906040

Tschakert, P., Schlosberg, D., Celermajer, D., Rickards, L., Winter, C., Thaler, M., Stewart-Harawira, M., & Verlie, B. (2021). MulBspecies jusBce: Climate-just futures with, for and beyond humans. WIREs Climate Change, 12(2), e699-e699. https://doi.org/hEps://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.699

Session Chairs: Sven M. Laudien, media Akademie – Hochschule Stuttgart; Ekaterina Albats, LUT University

Submissions: laudien@media-hs.de

Over the past decade, the Circular Economy (CE) concept – that is by now still fuzzy and lacks a commonly agreed on definition (Kirchherr et al., 2017) – has gained significant attention as a strategy for mitigating the environmental impact of production and resource utilization. CE draws upon principles from fields such as ecology (Odum, 1988) and industrial ecology (O'Rourke, Connelly, & Koshland, 1996). Industrial ecology focuses on understanding the patterns of resource flows within industrial systems with the aim of minimizing the extraction of materials from the earth (sources) while concurrently reducing the release of wastes and emissions (sinks) back into the environment (Baldassarre et al., 2019). In accordance, the central focus of CE is on the (perceived) reduction of environmental impacts.

However, examining circularity effects is a complex task as they affect different levels. It is not sufficient just to look at the (micro-)effects of circular products and services as potentially broader (macro-level) impacts such as rebound effects that may foil the initially positive circularity effects. It is likely to assume the existence of “dark side of circularity” as we lack proper tools to assess/monitor circularity (Saidani et al., 2019) and extant literature provides at best very limited evidence that firm-level actions (e.g. making use of product-service systems) and products designed for increased circularity (e.g. focusing on longevity or recyclability) have a positive effect on environmental performance (Tukker, 2015). Even when ecological and social benefits are achieved, financial aspects and the costs of closing a loop that may exceed the benefits have to be considered. Another issue of relevance is “circular greenwashing”.

Against this background, the proposed session aims at attracting members of the scientific community, practitioners, decision-makers, and policymakers who are interested in better understanding benefits and especially drawbacks associated with the CE solutions.

References

Baldassarre, B., Schepers, M., Bocken, N., Cuppen, E., Korevaar, G., & Calabretta, G. 2019. Industrial Symbiosis: towards a design process for eco-industrial clusters by integrating Circular Economy and Industrial Ecology perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 216, 446-460.

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232.

Odum, H. T. 1988. Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science, 242(4882), 1132-1139.

O'Rourke, D., Connelly, L., & Koshland, C. P. 1996. Industrial ecology: a critical review. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 6(2-3), 89-112.

Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., & Cluzel, F. 2017. How to assess product performance in the circular economy? Proposed requirements for the design of a circularity measurement framework. Recycling, 2(1), 6.

Tukker, A. 2015. Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy–a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 76-91.

Session Chairs: Jani Lukkarinen, Suomen ympäristökeskus; Kaisa Matschoss, Helsingin yliopisto

Submissions: kaisa.matschoss@helsinki.fi

As the urgency of interconnected environmental crises, such as climate change and biodiversity loss are cutting across society, this has created calls for different stakeholder groups to actively participate in mitigation and adaptation efforts - including households that traditionally have been seen as mere spaces of consumption and reproduction of societal roles. Recent conceptualisations of energy transition from the household perspective have helped to diversify the perspective (e.g. Raven et al. 2021; Upham et al. 2020) opening up questions on the role of households as agents in the sustainability transition.

The energy transitions are far from a simple process for households, as different pathways are often manifested through uncertainties, inequalities and tensions and it is unclear what kind of complexities the household agency involves. The past and current energy crises in Europe highlight the role of households as a source of flexibility in energy consumption and potential sources of system level resilience (e.g. Laakso et al. 2023; Winther & Sundet 2023) Paradoxically, the recent energy crisis, although accelerating the shift away from fossil fuels, may have led to increasing inequalities in the energy transitions.

To unpack the complexities and paradoxes of household agency in sustainability transitions, the contributions are called from a broad perspective. They can have a more conceptual focus reflecting on theoretical understandings of agency in contexts of transformative change, more empirical focus on e.g. various aspects of social practices that take place on the scale of households, or on social and technical mitigation activities, such as on energy sufficiency, carbon capture or renewable energy production.

Session Chairs: Erkki-Jussi Nylén, Finnish Environment Institute, Syke, Senior Research Scientist; Helena Valve, Finnish Environment Institute, Syke, Leading Research

Submissions: erkki-jussi.nylen@syke.fi

Large environmental policy ideas -- such as circular economy, bioeconomy, and just and green transition -- are important because they provide guidance and needed political impetus for sustainability transformation. The ideational construct of transformative ideas usually relies on framing current situation untenable, and solutions that the idea suggest providing substantial economic and environmental benefits. These enable the idea to reach political agenda, but the actual realization of envisioned changes is more difficult. The upshot is that environmental policy agendas include broad topics that travel with strong normative baggage, but which translate into practical orientations or policy objects nonlinearly and selectively.

The open-ended ideals perform political work in potentially unexpected ways. Their entanglement with political and material realities can generate new alliances and forms of agency. At the same time the transformative ideals are contested, but this may not happen in public, or in processes and places that are easily accessible.

We invite presentation proposals on variety of topics related on politics of transformative ideas and hurdles in their realization attempts. Such topics can entail urban and regional planning, industrial policy, or specific sectors, such as agriculture, waste, construction etc. In addition to Environmental Policy, we welcome variety theoretical frameworks in the submissions, drawing, for example, from Business Studies, Science and Technology Studies (STS) or Sustainability transitions scholarship.

Session Chairs: Pasi Heikkurinen, LUT Business School; Ashly Pinnington, Nottingham University Business School; Jessica Fishburn, LUT Business School

Submissions: Jessica.fishburn@lut.fi

The Anthropocene, a term popularized by Crutzen and Stoermer in 2000, refers to a proposed new geological epoch succeeding the Holocene, characterized by humanity's significant impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems. Despite substantial interdisciplinary discourse and evidence supporting this epoch, the Anthropocene lacks official geological recognition. In 2019, the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) voted to submit a proposal to formalize the epoch. However, in March 2024, the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) voted against its official status, underscoring the ongoing debate within the scientific community.

The Anthropocene, whether officially recognized or not, remains a pivotal concept in environmental social sciences. It highlights the dominance of human activity over natural processes, leading to environmental crises like climate change and biodiversity loss. Critics argue that while humans are culpable for these issues, the blame is not equally distributed among all humans but lies primarily with certain organizational practices and consumption patterns that over-exploit natural resources.

This session invites contributions which examine the interplay between natural and social sciences concerning the Anthropocene, focusing on sustainable organizational practices. It calls for a nuanced understanding of the Anthropocene that goes beyond viewing humans as the sole problem. Instead, it emphasizes the need to investigate political and organizational structures that drive unsustainable practices. The issue also explores the concept of "deep time," urging scholars to consider the long-term impacts of human activity on Earth's geological processes.

We invite contributions from various theoretical and disciplinary perspectives to foster a transdisciplinary approach to addressing the Anthropocene's challenges. Please submit a max. 1,000-word extended abstract of a research idea, research-in-progress, or research results you would like to present and discuss. Submissions could address questions such as:

How is the Anthropocene relevant to organization and environment scholarship? What motivates the use of the concept of the Anthropocene rather than other ideas on the environmental crisis?
How should the natural sciences on the Anthropocene inform studies on organization and environment? What do the politics and conflicting discourses on the Anthropocene debate tell us about knowledge and reality?
How to consider the findings of natural scientists in social sciences? —Are there imaginable or encountered problems is using, for example, geology and Earth systems sciences to motivate and inform research on organization and environment?
How to introduce deep time in the everyday life of organizing and managing social affairs?
What kinds of business, consumption practices and economic systems are meaningful? How to engage with micro- and macro- conditions of the economy and activities that are hopeful for the duration of the Anthropocene?
How do still under-researched themes of the Anthropocene such as “social, organizational and environmental dilemmas”, “deep time”, and “meaning and hope” contribute to transdisciplinary research?
How could work be distributed between natural sciences and social sciences, regarding conceptualization and action for the Anthropocene?
What strategies should organizations have and what kinds of distribution of responsibility in society might enable desired transitions during the Anthropocene?
What is Anthropocene CSR? What kind of responsibility bearing could be expected from business actors to respond to the challenges of the Anthropocene?
In what senses is the post-Anthropocene epoch imaginable and realistic? How might different utopias and dystopias contribute to organization and management practices such as corporate planning and communication?

YHYS Colloquium 2024 Sessions & Programme

Pre-Colloquium Event

Main Colloquium

YHYS Colloquium 2024 Sessions & Programme

Pre-Colloquium Event

Main Colloquium

01. Disruption as transformation: Enacting sustainability while coping with chronic social-ecological crises

02. Advancing multispecies inclusivity in responsible management and organising

03. Climate interventions as a phenomenon of the Anthropocene: Environmental social sciences research into the suggested stopgap measures

04. From margin to mainstream: The steady rise of counterculture

05. Actors’ agency and/or Leadership in pursuit of sustainable futures?

06. Feminist Political Ecology and Economy: Critical Approaches to Agency and Transformation

07. Participation in sustainability transformation

08. Visions of sustainability in the Anthropocene

09. Scientific societies as actors in sustainability transformation

10. Sufficiency in the Anthropocene

11. How to get there together? Transdisciplinary methodologies to reach and engage various agencies.

12. The politics, practices, and organising of ecological restoration and its effects on land use, future threats, and aspirations

13. Humanistisen ympäristötutkimuksen mielikuvitus

14. Researching more-than-human worlds

15. Collective action for the commons: Stakeholder engagement and polycentricity

16. Rethinking the nature conservation economy: Embracing diverse values and social justice in the Anthropocene

17. Towards a multispecies turn in sustainability research & practice

18. Understanding the dark side of circularity

19. Household agency and resilience in sustainability transitions

20. Politics of transformative ideas

21. The Anthropocene Challenge: Organizing across epochs and disciplines