Transitions dynamics in context: key factors and alternative paths in the sustainable development of nations

Abstract

The spatial dimension of sustainability transitions is central to understanding how systems change, yet current literature falls short when it comes to explaining transitions dynamics in context, and the central factors and alternative paths through which particular spaces move towards or away from sustainable development efforts. We conduct an exploratory factor analysis and a post-hoc cluster analysis of sustainability transition dynamics at a spatial level in 99 nations. Based on our analyses we establish a multi-dimensional measurement tool of nation sustainability that considers place, time and directionality. The analysis yielded four key dimensions -governance quality, industrial pollution, socio-environmental conditions and clean wealth creation -upon which we elaborated clusters of nations representing four distinct empirical types of transition pathways, crossroaders, compliers, athletes and laggards. In doing so we provide a holistic view of the phenomenon, which is relevant for both further theorizing and policy development. *Manuscript Click here to view linked References AbstractThe spatial dimension of sustainability transitions is central to understanding how systems change, yet current literature falls short when it comes to explaining transitions dynamics in context, and the central factors and alternative paths through which particular spaces move towards or away from sustainable development efforts. We conduct an exploratory factor analysis and a post-hoc cluster analysis of sustainability transition dynamics at a spatial level in 99 nations. Based on our analyses we establish a multi-dimensional measurement tool of nation sustainability that considers place, time and directionality. The analysis yielded four key dimensions -governance quality, industrial pollution, socio-environmental conditions and clean wealth creation -upon which we elaborated clusters of nations representing four distinct empirical types of transition pathways, crossroaders, compliers, athletes and laggards. In doing so we provide a holistic view of the phenomenon, which is relevant for both further theorizing and policy development.Keywords: Sustainability transitions; Nation-level sustainability measurement; Empirical typology; Sustainability pathways; Factor analysis Highlights  It conducts a quantitative exploration of sustainability transition dynamics at a spatial level  It identifies sets of distinct factors and paths of sustainable development at national level  It conducts an EFA of 22 factors at the national level  It identifies 4 key dimensions relevant to capturing transition dynamics  It conducts a cluster analysis of 99 countries and develops an empirical typology of paths towards SD  It recognizes several policy implications for the four distinct groups of nations  It provides a promising start for the identification of key variables in sustainability research 2 1

Does it really pay to be good, everywhere? A first step to understand the corporate social and financial performance link in Latin American controversial industries

“…Furthermore, according to Porter & van der Linde () and Rodrigo et al . (), these institutional pressures have the potential to help enhance a firm's profit. When these influences are weak, as in Latin America, they have a detrimental effect on this association, as our results show (quadrant [A] in Table 1).…”

“…Julian & Ofori-Dankwa (2013) acknowledge that institutional deficiencies in Ghana are not necessarily true in other contexts. In fact, as shown by Rodrigo et al (2015), Latin American and African countries possess very dissimilar institutional dynamics, which among other things lead them to follow different paths in their transitions to sustainability. For instance, Ghana's capital market is notably underdeveloped (Julian & Ofori-Dankwa 2013), but this is not an issue in Latin America (S a de Abreu et al 2015).…”

“…When government and legislative bodies take social/environmental concerns more seriously, other stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations follow (S a de Abreu et al 2015). Furthermore, according to Porter & van der Linde (1995) and Rodrigo et al (2015), these institutional pressures have the potential to help enhance a firm's profit. When these influences are weak, as in Latin America, they have a detrimental effect on this association, as our results show (quadrant [A] in Table 1).…”

“…For instance, the five selected CIs amount to 18.7% of Chile's GDP, 14.5% in Argentina, and 12.1% in Brazil (ECLAC 2013). Unlike developed economies, most Latin American countries rely mainly on agrarian activities and natural resource extraction (Rodrigo et al 2015). As a simple comparison, in the United States, the selected sectors represent about 4-6% of GDP (BEA 2014), and in the United Kingdom around 5-6% (ONS 2014).…”

“…Besides the classical control variables in this type of research, we also controlled for differences among countries, as level of income (McWilliams & Siegel 2001) and institutional disparity (Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra 2004;Esty & Porter 2005;Chiu & Sharfman 2011;Rodrigo et al 2015), as both might influence CSP and profitability. To control for power of purchase in each country, GDP per capita (power purchase parity) (GDPPC) was used, and institutional differences were assessed by the mean of the six Worldwide Governance Indicators (GOV) whose goal is to measure these differences (Kaufmann et al 2011): voice and accountability, political stability and no violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and corruption control.…”