Environmental Frames: Exploring Culture in Socio-Ecological Systems (SES)-Journal of Sustainability Research-CSCIED科技核心评价数据库-手机版

Environmental Frames: Exploring Culture in Socio-Ecological Systems (SES)

Environmental Frames: Exploring Culture in Socio-Ecological Systems (SES)

ES评分 0 浏览量：162 下载量：0

DOI	10.20900/jsr20260001
刊名	Journal of Sustainability Research JSR
年，卷(期)	2026, 8(1)
作者	Bruno F. Abrantes*,Karen K. Fujii,
作者单位	Business Research Unit (BRU), ISCTE University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), Lisboa 1649-026, Portugal ; Faculty of Higher Education, Niels Brock Copenhagen Business College, Copenhagen K 1167, Denmark ;
摘要	Using a critical case from the Global North (i.e., a Danish private-equity firm, committed to the utmost environmental protection activities) one emulated a stress test upon a highly homogenous sample-group from the Global South to comprehend if in a seven-hour timespan one would be able to influence a behavioral framework. Through the fashioning of a 7-hour length virtual seminar, the participants on the event were challenged in their cultural DNA with a content on Environmental and Sustainable Development and a rhetoric of Environmental Activism, covering carbon-rescuing, natural habitat’s reconstruction and paths to zero carbon footprints. Our starting point was the general focus research question (GFRQ): Will one be able to influence an environmental frame, rooted in deep cultural assumptions? Confronting two diametrically opposing national cultures (Denmark and Nepal) and agencies (i.e., the speaker’s activism versus the participant’s passive listening), one aimed to comprehend the resilience of the latter, Nepalese (NP) individual to outer influences from dissimilar national and corporate cultures. Then one measured the impact of the event on individual’s opinions, centered on the environmental pillar of the sustainable development goals (SDGs): SDG6; SDG7; SDG11; SDG13; SDG14 and SDG15. The socio-ecological system (SES) of the focal country revealed a close-fit to a logic of dual paradigm (openness and resistance) found at the microsphere of environmental frames, with openness being neat-tied to manmade dimensions. The results from the enquiry were validated against three (3) streams of supplementary data: the 6-D model of Geert Hofstede (GH), plus the 7-D model of Fon Trompenaars (FT); and the six SDG indexes, aforementioned, and finally confirmed using the index of nature connectedness (IoNC) with results revealing unequivocally a wider perceptive framework, with an accentuated criticism on own’s nation environmental frame, and particularly on four dimensions that are more susceptible to determine urban-living public policy and investment; and on the other hand, highly resilient on other two dimensions related to nature and wild life.
Abstract	Using a critical case from the Global North (i.e., a Danish private-equity firm, committed to the utmost environmental protection activities) one emulated a stress test upon a highly homogenous sample-group from the Global South to comprehend if in a seven-hour timespan one would be able to influence a behavioral framework. Through the fashioning of a 7-hour length virtual seminar, the participants on the event were challenged in their cultural DNA with a content on Environmental and Sustainable Development and a rhetoric of Environmental Activism, covering carbon-rescuing, natural habitat’s reconstruction and paths to zero carbon footprints. Our starting point was the general focus research question (GFRQ): Will one be able to influence an environmental frame, rooted in deep cultural assumptions? Confronting two diametrically opposing national cultures (Denmark and Nepal) and agencies (i.e., the speaker’s activism versus the participant’s passive listening), one aimed to comprehend the resilience of the latter, Nepalese (NP) individual to outer influences from dissimilar national and corporate cultures. Then one measured the impact of the event on individual’s opinions, centered on the environmental pillar of the sustainable development goals (SDGs): SDG6; SDG7; SDG11; SDG13; SDG14 and SDG15. The socio-ecological system (SES) of the focal country revealed a close-fit to a logic of dual paradigm (openness and resistance) found at the microsphere of environmental frames, with openness being neat-tied to manmade dimensions. The results from the enquiry were validated against three (3) streams of supplementary data: the 6-D model of Geert Hofstede (GH), plus the 7-D model of Fon Trompenaars (FT); and the six SDG indexes, aforementioned, and finally confirmed using the index of nature connectedness (IoNC) with results revealing unequivocally a wider perceptive framework, with an accentuated criticism on own’s nation environmental frame, and particularly on four dimensions that are more susceptible to determine urban-living public policy and investment; and on the other hand, highly resilient on other two dimensions related to nature and wild life.
关键词	environmental frames; national cultures; nature connectedness; seven-hour’s test; socio-ecological system (SES); sustainable business models (SBM)
KeyWord	environmental frames; national cultures; nature connectedness; seven-hour’s test; socio-ecological system (SES); sustainable business models (SBM)
基金项目
页码	-

参考文献
相关文献

1.Schein EH. Organizational culture and leadership. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ, US): John Wiley & Sons; 2010. Vol. 2.

2.Tellis GJ, Prabhu JC, Chandy RK. Radical innovation across nations: The preeminence of corporate culture. J Mark. 2009;73(1):3-23.

3.Spencer-Oatey H, Franklin P, Lazidou D. Global fitness for global people: How to manage and leverage cultural diversity at work. Melbourne (VIC, Australia): Castledown Publishers; 2022.

4.Hansson C, Abrantes BF. Strategic adaption (capabilities) and the responsiveness to COVID-19’s business environmental threats. In: Essentials on dynamic capabilities for a contemporary world: Recent advances and case studies. Cham (Switzerland): Springer Nature; 2023. p. 1-23.

5.Abrantes BF, Venkataraman A. Environment kinesis and organisational adaptability: Effects of EU’s General Data Protection Regulation on the danish software industry. Int J Learn Change. 2022;14(1):22-45.

6.Bains G. Cultural DNA: The psychology of globalization. Hoboken (NJ, US): John Wiley & Sons; 2015.

7.Uchida Y, Takemura K, Fukushima S. How do socio-ecological factors shape culture? Understanding the process of micro-macro interactions. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020;3(2):115-9.

8.Nisbett RE, Peng K, Choi I, Norenzayan A. A culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev. 2001;108:291-310.

9.Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychol Rev. 1991;98(2):224-53.

10.Donaldson T. Values in tension: Ethics away from home. In: Readings and cases in international human resource management. Oxfordshire (UK): Routledge; 2016. p. 403-15.

11.Stairs D. Biophilia and technophilia: Examining the nature/culture split in design theory. Des Issues. 1997;13(3):37-44.

12.Goleman D. Emotional intelligence: Working with emotional intelligence. London (UK): Bloomsbury Publishing; 2004.

13.Trompenaars F, Woolliams P. Business across cultures. Hoboken (NJ, US): John Wiley & Sons; 2004.

14.Bock AJ, Opsahl T, George G, Gann DM. The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. J Manag Stud. 2012;49(2):279-305.

15.Caprar DV. Foreign locals: A cautionary tale on the culture of MNC local employees. J Int Bus Stud. 2011;42(5):608-28.

16.Vickerman M. Exploring the culture trap. Ethn Racial Stud. 2024;47(3):552-61.

17.Silver L, Schumacher S, Mordecai M, Greenwood S, Keegan M. In US and UK, globalization leaves some feeling ‘left behind’ or ‘swept up’. Washington (DC, USA): Pew Research Center; 2020. Available from: https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/nkrtdg. Accessed on 10 Sep 2025.

18.Lee HJ, Yoshikawa K, Harzing AW. Cultures and institutions: Dispositional and contextual explanations for country-of-origin effects in MNC ‘ethnocentric’ staffing practices. Organ Stud. 2022;43(4):497-519.

19.Livermore CR. What went wrong? Lessons learned from studying ERP implementation across cultures. In: Qualitative case studies on implementation of enterprise wide systems. Hershey (PA, US): IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2005. p. 87-106.

20.Abrantes BF, editor. Principles of external business environment analyzability in an organizational context. Hershey (PA, US): IGI Global; 2023.

21.Ghemawat P. Redefining global strategy: Crossing borders in a world where differences still matter. Brighton (MA, US): Harvard Business Press; 2007.

22.Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag. 1991;17(1):99-120.

23.Abrantes BF. Are neoclassic internationalization models enduring? A case-review of the uppsala paradigm. Sage Open. 2020;10(2):2158244020932535.

24.Park H, Russell C, Lee J. National culture and environmental sustainability: A cross-national analysis. J Econ Financ. 2007;31(1):104-21.

25.Kanter RM. Change in the global economy: An interview with Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Eur Manag J. 1994;12(1):1-9.

26.Mansaray HE, Jnr HEM. The connection between national culture and organizational culture: A literature review. Brit Int Hum Soc Sci J. 2020;2(1):179-89.

27.Hofstede G. The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance. J Int Bus Stud. 2010;41(8):1339-46.

28.Abrantes BF, Ström E. Business utilitarian ethics and green lending policies: A thematic analysis on the swedish global retail and commercial banking sector. Int J Bus Govern Ethics. 2023;17(4):443-70.

29.Sadiki H. Non-verbal barriers to cross-cultural communication. J Res Eng IT Soc Sci. 2020;10(12):25-34.

30.Meyer E. When culture doesn’t translate. Harv Bus Rev. 2015;93(10):66-72.

31.Jenifer RD, Raman GP. Cross-cultural communication barriers in the workplace. Int J Manag. 2015;6(1):348-51.

32.Kim WC, Mauborgne R. Strategy, value innovation, and the knowledge economy. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. Available from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/strategy-value-innovation-and-the-knowledge-economy/. Accessed on 30 April 2025.

33.Ilyas IM, Osiyevskyy O. Exploring the impact of sustainable value proposition on firm performance. Eur Manag J. 2022;40(5):729-40.

34.Geissdoerfer M, Santa-Maria T, Kirchherr J, Pelzeter C. Drivers and barriers for circular business model innovation. Bus Strateg Environ. 2023;32(6):3814-32.

35.European Commission. Corporate sustainability reporting: What is EU doing and why. Available from: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en. Accessed on 22 May 2025.

36.Rerup C, Feldman MS. Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Acad Manag J. 2011;54(3):577-610.

37.Dzhengiz T, Hockerts K. Dogmatic, instrumental and paradoxical frames: A pragmatic research framework for studying organizational sustainability. Int J Manag Rev. 2022;24(4):501-34.

38.Cornelissen JP, Werner MD. Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Acad Manag Ann. 2014;8(1):181-235.

39.Roth S, Schneckenberg D, Valentinov V, Kleve H. Approaching management and organization paradoxes paradoxically: The case for the tetralemma as an expansive encasement strategy. Eur Manag J. 2023;41(2):191-8.

40.van Bommel K. Managing tensions in sustainable business models: Exploring instrumental and integrative strategies. J Clean Prod. 2018;196:829-41.

41.Raffaelli R, Glynn MA, Tushman M. Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strateg Manag J. 2019;40(7):1013-39.

42.Bjerregaard T, Jeppesen F. Framing strategy under high complexity: Processes and practices of ongoing reframing in the becoming of strategy. Eur Manag J. 2023;41(3):458-70.

43.Craib I. Erving goffman: Frame analysis. Philos Soc Sci. 1978;8(1):79-86.

44.Klimas P, Czakon W. Species in the wild: A typology of innovation ecosystems. Rev Manag Sci. 2022;16(1):249-82.

45.Carlson RR, Li J, Crowder LB, Asner GP. Large-scale effects of turbidity on coral bleaching in the Hawaiian islands. Front Mar Sci. 2022;9:969472.

46.Cornet VJ, Cantin NE, Joyce KE, Leggat W, Ainsworth TD, Heron SF. Enhancing coral bleaching predictive tools through integrating sensitivity to heat exposure. Biol Conserv. 2025;302:110958.

47.Doherty FC, Rao S, Traver A, Dabelko-Schoeny H. Extreme heat preparedness and coping among older adults: A rapid review. PLoS Clim. 2025;4(8):e0000689.

48.Van Hooidonk RJ, Manzello DP, Moye J, Brandt ME, Hendee JC, McCoy C, et al. Coral bleaching at little cayman, Cayman Islands 2009. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2012;106:80-4.

49.Selba T. Clean disruption of energy and transportation. Stockton (CA, US): Clean Planet Ventures; 2014.

50.Fairhurst G, Sarr R. The art of framing. San Francisco (CA, US): Jossey-Bass; 1996. Vol. 358.

51.Global Finance. Economic data: Poorest countries in the world 2025. Available from: https://gfmag.com/data/economic-data/poorest-country-in-the-world/. Accessed on 9 May 2025

52.Shrestha RR, Shrestha MP, Upadhyay NP, Pradhan R, Khadka R, Maskey A, et al. Groundwater arsenic contamination, its health impact and mitigation program in Nepal. J Environ Sci Health Part A. 2003;38(1):185-200.

53.Budhathoki S, Ajayi O, Steckel JA, Wilmer CE. High-throughput computational prediction of the cost of carbon capture using mixed matrix membranes. Energy Environ Sci. 2019;12(4):1255-64.

54.Karmacharya P, Nepal S, Aryal M. How nepal can make its water and sanitation systems inclusive and climate-resilient. International Water Management Institute. Available from: https://www.iwmi.org/blogs/how-nepal-can-make-water-and-sanitation-systems-inclusive-and-climate-resilient/. Accessed on 9 May 2025.

55.Annapurna Express. Nepal can play key role in clean energy transition within country. Available from: https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/34171/. Accessed on 9 May 2025.

56.Kathmandu Post. Nepal’s ambitious energy vision. Available from: https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2025/04/20/nepal-s-ambitious-energy-vision. Accessed on 9 May 2025.

57.Paudel D, Jeuland M, Lohani SP. Cooking-energy transition in Nepal: Trend review. Clean Energy. 2021;5(1):1-9. doi: 10.1093/ce/zkaa022.

58.Labh SN, Kayastha BL, Shakya SR, Kushwaha MP, Vaidya SR, Chitrakar P, et al. Present status and future prospectives of freshwater fisheries in nepal: A short overview. Int J Fish Aquat Stud. 2017;5(3):95-7.

59.Dhakal A, Pandey M, Kayastha P, Suwal G, Suwal B. An overview of status and development trend of aquaculture and fisheries in nepal. Hindawi Adv Agric. 2022;2022(1):4206401. doi: 10.1155/2022/4206401.

60.Baniya B, Techato K, Ghimire SK, Chhipi-Shrestha G. A review of green roofs to mitigate urban heat island and kathmandu valley in nepal. Appl Ecol Environ Sci. 2018;6(4):137-52.

61.Lin B, Kaewkhunok S. From fields to markets: Solar power adoption impact on Nepali farmers’ livelihoods. Energy Sustain Dev. 2024;82:101537.

62.Pokhrel S. Green space suitability evaluation for urban resilience: An analysis of Kathmandu metropolitan city, Nepal. Environ Res Commun. 2019;1(10):105003.

63.Bahadur YKC, Sedhai S. Residents’ attitudes towards the residential urban forest in metropolitan city: A case study from bharatpur city in nepal. For J Inst For. 2019;16:72-85.

64.Joshi K, Joshi AR. Strategy for conserving biodiversity in Nepal. Algae. 1998;687:3.

65.Adhikari S, Baral H. Emission reductions program for addressing drivers of deforestation and forest degradation: An insight from the Terai Arc landscape in southern Nepal. In: Forest dynamics and conservation: Science, innovations and policies. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2022. p. 419-37.

66.Joshi BK, Upadhya D. On-farm conservation approaches for agricultural biodiversity in Nepal. J Agric Nat Resour. 2019;2(1):14-35.

67.Cordano M, Welcomer S, Scherer RF, Pradenas L, Parada V. A cross-cultural assessment of three theories of pro-environmental behavior: A comparison between business students of chile and the United States. Environ Behav. 2011;43(5):634-57. doi: 10.1177/0013916510378528.

68.Schwarz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues. 1994;50:19-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x.

69.Boeve‐de Pauw J, Van Petegem P. The effect of Flemish eco‐schools on student environmental knowledge, attitudes, and affect. Int J Sci Educ. 2011;33(11):1513-38.

70.Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements. The case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev. 1999;6:81-97.

71.Oreg S, Katz-Gerro T. Predicting pro-environmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environ Behav. 2006;38:462-83.

72.Michailidis M, Zafeiriou E, Kantarzis A, Galatsidas S, Arabatzis G. Governance, energy policy, and sustainable development: Renewable energy infrastructure transition in developing MENA countries. Energies. 2025;18(11):2759. doi: 10.3390/en18112759

73.Stern DI. The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. J Bioecon. 2017;19:7-28. doi: 10.1007/s10818-017-9243-1.

74.Zafeiriou E, Galatsidas S, Arabatzis G, Tsiantikoudis S, Batzios A. Environmental degradation by energy—Economic growth interlinkages in EU agriculture. Energies. 2023;16(9):3900. doi: 10.3390/en16093900.

75.Karasmanaki E, Arabatzis G, Tsanpoulos G. Citizens and energy transition: Understanding the role of perceived barriers and information sources. Energies. 2025;18(18):1-20. doi: 10.3390/en18184984.

76.Konstantinidou A, Ioannou K, Tsantopoulos G, Arabatzis G. Citizen’s attitudes and practices towards waste reduction, separation, and recycling: A systematic review. Sustainability. 2024;16(22):9969. doi: 10.3390/su16229969.

77.Skordoulis M, Kavoura A, Stavropoulos A, Zikas A, Kalantonis P. Financial stability and environmental sentiment among millennials: A cross-cultural analysis of Greece and Netherlands. Int J Financ Stud. 2025;13(2):64. doi: 10.3390/ijfs13020064.

78.Richardson M, Lengieza M, White MP, Tran US, Voracek M, Stieger S, et al. Macro-level determinants of nature connectedness: An exploratory analysis of 61 countries. Ambio. 2025;55(1):80-100. doi: 10.1007/s13280-025-02275-w.

79.Culture Factor. The country comparison tool. Available from: https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool. Accessed on 5 May 2025.

80.THT Consulting. The 7 dimensions of culture. Available from: https://www.thtconsulting.com/models/7-dimensions-of-culture/. Accessed on 5 May 2025.

81.Boeve-de Pauw J, Van Petegem P. A cross-cultural study of environmental values and their effect on the environmental behavior of children. Environ Behav. 2011;45(5):551-83. doi: 10.1177/0013916511429819.

82.Kleespies MW, Dierkes PW. Connection to nature for sustainable development at universities—What should be done? Front Sustain. 2023;4:1249328. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1249328.

83.Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dim Wildl. 1996;1(2):24-47.

84.Jones NA, Shaw S, Ross H, Witt K, Pinner B. The study of human values in understanding and managing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 2016;21(1):15.

85.Eckersley, R. The mixed blessings of material progress: Diminishing returns in the pursuit of happiness. J Happiness Stud. 2000;1(3):267-92.

86.Kellert SR. A biocultural basis for an ethic toward the natural environment. In: Rockwood L, Stewart R, Dietz T, editors. The foundations of environmental sustainability: The coevolution of science and policy. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 321-32. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309454.003.0021.

87.Kellert SR, Wilson EO. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington (DC, US): Island; 1993.

引用本文

Bruno F. Abrantes*,Karen K. Fujii. Environmental Frames: Exploring Culture in Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) [J]. Journal of Sustainability Research. 2026; 8; (1). - .

文献评论

相关学者

相关机构