The framing of sustainability by different stakeholder groups in India: Perspectives, consequences and implications
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose Achieving sustainable development relies on the engagement by leaders from businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and governments, particularly in emerging economies, where economic growth often creates tensions with social and environmental externalities. Therefore, our research aims to shed new light on how different stakeholders in India frame sustainability, paying attention to the congruence of diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing tasks. Design/methodology/approach We applied a two-phase qualitative design, consisting of 32 semi-structured interviews (to generate a deeper understanding of the framings by different stakeholders) and a focus group discussion with eight key stakeholders (to validate the findings of the interviews). Findings We find two distinct framings across stakeholder groups of sustainability versus corporate social responsibility (CSR). Sustainability is framed as comprising environmental issues (diagnostic framing), requiring private sector solutions (prognostic framing) driven by the business case (motivational framing). CSR is framed as comprising social issues (diagnostic framing) that are the remit of government (prognostic framing), to be addressed through regulation (motivational framing). Practical implications Businesses and other stakeholders in India tend to view sustainability and CSR as distinct, compartmentalizing respective expenses and impact. This divergence from more holistic, international framings, while potentially reflecting local contexts, poses challenges for businesses and other stakeholders operating in the globalized arena. Social implications Legislators need to be aware of the influence of current public policy on domestic framings of social and environmental sustainability as being unrelated activities. Instead, they should consider promoting a holistic approach to sustainability, thus maximizing benefits for all stakeholders. Originality/value Going beyond prior literature, we show how actors’ frames on sustainability and CSR, respectively, are linked – in themselves but in parallel to each other – through diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing tasks. While the two frames remain separate from each other, the three framing tasks generate a high degree of congruence within each frame; therefore, both frames have a high degree of credibility and salience. Where different framings of one and the same issue exist, individuals commonly push for framings to become either more similar to or more different from each other. In our case, neither of these happened; rather, individuals keep the tension between the two frames alive, resulting in a novel frame alignment process – which we termed frame separation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».