Constructing a Climate Change Logic: An Institutional Perspective on the “Tragedy of the Commons”

Abstract

D espite increasing interest in transnational fields, transnational commons have received little attention. In contrast to economic models of commons, which argue that commons occur naturally and are prone to collective inaction and tragedy, we introduce a social constructionist account of commons. Specifically, we show that actor-level frame changes can eventually lead to the emergence of an overarching, hybrid "commons logic" at the field level. These frame shifts enable actors with different logics to reach a working consensus and avoid "tragedies of the commons." Using a longitudinal analysis of key actors' logics and frames, we tracked the evolution of the global climate change field over 40 years. We bracketed time periods demarcated by key field-configuring events, documented the different frame shifts in each time period, and identified five mechanisms (collective theorizing, issue linkage, active learning, legitimacy seeking, and catalytic amplification) that underpin how and why actors changed their frames at various points in time-enabling them to move toward greater consensus around a transnational commons logic. In conclusion, the emergence of a commons logic in a transnational field is a nonlinear process and involves satisfying three conditions: (1) key actors view their fates as being interconnected with respect to a problem issue, (2) these actors perceive their own behavior as contributing to the problem, and (3) they take collective action to address the problem. Our findings provide insights for multinational companies, nation-states, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders in both conventional and unconventional commons.

Institutional entrepreneurship in transforming energy systems towards sustainability: Wind energy in Finland and India

“…Furthermore, achieving sustained collective action is also difficult as some actors may not be interested in contributing to the collective action but instead appropriate benefits from efforts of others or simply wait for others to take the first lead in stimulating collective action. In such circumstances, multiple actors might not be simply interested in contributing towards collective action as they may feel that their individual actions do not lead to any significant changes [143,4,140].…”

Smart Cities as Organizational Fields: A Framework for Mapping Sustainability-Enabling Configurations

“…The analysis conducted at the organizational field level allows researchers to study the dynamics of the intertwining habits, prejudices, cognitive attitudes, values, traditions, legitimacy needs and normative inertia that often affect any innovation process, often quite independently from supposedly objective or "rational" interests. In this light, it is not surprising that an increasing consensus is emerging on the importance of institutional logics and organizational fields for building the organizational conditions for sustainability transformations [7,38,39]. It is increasingly clear that sustainability cannot be reduced to a matter of compliance to sustainable norms and practices, because the eco-socio-technical systems continuously change in unpredictable ways, while knowledge on sustainability-related issues is always partial and subject to rapid obsolescence.…”

“…Some recent seminal articles suggest that the research on institutional logics can provide such theoretical tools [7]; consistently, the organizational field [8] is a good candidate as the most appropriate level of analysis for sustainability transformations [9]. Studying the organizational field and the dynamics of institutional logics enables us to better understand the interplay of all the relevant social actors that (are expected to) play an active role in a specific sustainability transformation, such as businesses, start-ups, research centers, government bodies or social movements.…”

Moral muteness of faculty in management education

“…Whether or not it is culturally-driven, however, there is much theoretical (Dobbin, Simmons, & Garrett, 2007;Green, 2004;Greenwood et al, 2002;Henisz, Zelner, & Guill en, 2005) as well as empirical support that teaching practices will spread across the world, for example from U.S. universities to Finland (Engwall, 2004;Juusola et al, 2015), Malaysia (Jamil, 2015), and the Middle-East (Neal & Finlay, 2008). To further complicate simple diffusion ideas, there is also a broad understanding that institutional arrangements differ across nations (Ansari, Wijen, & Gray, 2013;Kostova & Zaheer, 1999), and may not spread uniformly (Ansari, Fiss, & Zajac, 2010;Creed et al, 2002) or at all (Ferlie, Fitzgerald, Wood, & Hawkins, 2005;Strang & Meyer, 1993). These implications, in summary, point to the need to study moral muteness not only to understand the phenomena but also to contribute to institutional theories of diffusion.…”