Conceptualising Sustainability Using a Cognitive Mapping Method

Reviewer comments

Location of change in paper with track changes removed

Author response

Reviewer 1

One or two more recent references are desirable…in order to take account of the further development of sustainability theory.

Ref [13]

Ref [23]

Ref [31]

The following references have been added –

Lankoski, L. Alternative conceptions of sustainability in a business context. J. of Clean. Prod.  2016, 139, 847-857.

Ketschau, T.J. Social sustainable development or sustainable social development-two sides of the same coin? The structure of social justice as a normative basis for the social dimension of sustainability. Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. 2017, 12, 338-347.

Fagerberg, J.; Andersen, A.D.; Schlaile, M.P.; Urmetzer, S.; Blok, V.; Timmermans, J.; Mueller, M.; Pyka, A. Innovation Systems for Transformations towards Sustainability? Taking the Normative Dimension Seriously. Sustain. 2017, 9, 2253.

The chosen theoretical and normative backgrounds are predominantly from the field of economics and have strong corresponding references.

There are two solutions for this:

a. broaden the theoretical scope of the work, on current theoretical developments in the field of social sustainability, or

b. Explicitly limit the scope of the study to the area that seems to have been chosen.

Lines 72-74

Solution b is chosen and we added this explanation -

There is an enormous body of literature covering sustainability and its many contested meanings. This research draws predominantly from sustainability literature within business and management, supplemented by literature from sustainability education, a focus that matches the backgrounds of the expert participants in this study.

No clear research question in the introduction.

Lines 64-67

We have added the research objective to the Abstract -  Our research objective is to explain differences in how sustainability is conceptualized

and provided a further explanation at the end of Section 1, lines 65-68.

Partially too long sentences, e.g. line 59.

Lines 61-63

Fixed.

In chapter two it must be made clearer that the three-pillar model is only one of several and that there is no consensus at all that there are three equal dimensions.

Lines 84-86

Added this explanation -

…however, there is no agreement of the relative importance of each element, and considerable tension exists among different interest groups as to which of these elements should be prioritised.

Opposing positions include, for example, the emphasis on the fundamental relevance of social sustainability as the first condition for sustainable development before other dimensions can be successfully implemented (see also Ketschau 2017).

Ref [23]

Reference to Ketschau (2017) has been added, however expanding our discussion to other specific or new definitions of sustainability, is not the purpose of this study.

Chapter 2 does not make clear why the chosen criteria are chosen and described.

Lines 76-82

We’ve added this explanation at the beginning of Chapter/Section 2 -

In this section, drawing substantially from recent theoretical development, we provide a sample of the diversity of views that underly sustainability, and emphasise the importance of the chosen worldview to any sustainability conceptualisation. We discuss relevant moral, cognitive and paradigmatic elements, but avoid an attempted comparison of the multitude of sustainability definitions. We conclude this section with a discussion of three alternative worldviews that lead to very different sustainability conceptualisations.

The aim of this section is to introduce some different views of sustainability to set up the discussion of the importance of worldviews to sustainability conceptualisation, and the selection of the sustaincentric paradigm as the framework we use to differentiate worldviews.

From line 85 on, references for the following section are missing.

now

Lines 96-104

References have been added.

The purpose of the paragraph beginning with line 115 is unclear.

I recommend deleting it…

This paragraph and the corresponding references have been deleted.

In the paragraph beginning with line 122 it is unclear how the distinction between inter- and intra leads to anthropocentric and ecocentric, which seems to be the real issue. Why is the question of social justice not included in the remarks on morality? Isn't that also decisive for the worldview?

Lines 127-142

This paragraph has been rewritten. Reference is made to research on social justice, but it is not the purpose of this paper to broaden the review of sustainability interpretations, given the literature review is considered a “relevant sample” that sets up the process of experts preparing their cognitive maps.

The concept of social justice is used by the experts to conceptualise sustainability, and this is noted in the analysis section.

The line of argumentation of chapter 2 is completely unclear. What does it aim at? It needs to be written more stringently to make it clear to the reader why he is reading this.

Lines 76-82

As noted above a new introductory paragraph has been added (Lines 76-82) and parts of this chapter/section have been rewritten.

The aim of this section is to introduce a selection of different perceptions of sustainability, identify the importance of the chosen worldview, leading to the sustaincentric paradigm as the chosen framework to analyse the worldviews of the 12 experts.

The revision now builds more clearly to the discussion of worldviews and sustaincentric paradigm, which sets up the cognitive mapping methodology.

The purpose of Table 1 is not quite clear. Is it a frame of reference for further methodological development?

Line 170-171

Lines 187-189

Added these 2 sentences –

An overview of these three paradigms is provided in Table 1. 

This distinction between technocentrism, ecocentrism and sustaincentrism is used later in this paper to distinguish the sustainability conceptualisations provided by the 12 experts.

The sentence from line 186 onwards does not work.

Line 198

Fixed.

In the description of the sample selection (line 216 ff.), the selection criteria need to be justified, both for companies and persons.

Lines 229-243

The explanation has been extended and rewritten as follows -Experts were drawn from business, educational and not-for-profit organisations. Business organisations comprised Australian companies selected from the ASX Top 100 which had achieved at least one of the following: either a Global Reporting Initiative rating of ‘A+’; or inclusion in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index; or receipt of a sustainability award in the previous five years. Sustainability educators consisted of high school teachers, TAFE teachers and university lecturers who teach specific subjects connected to sustainability. Not-for-profit organisations included social and environmental NGOs and government departments and were selected if they had an advertised goal of sustainability, including promotion of sustainability initiatives or disclosing information regarding sustainability initiatives in their promotional material or websites. Once the organisation was identified, the person within the organisation most involved in sustainability initiatives (for example the Sustainability Manager in a corporation, NGO or university, or the sustainability teacher in a high school) was asked to participate in the research. Age, gender, ethnicity and experience of each participant were not considered when selecting participants. From the list of available experts, priority was given to those in closest proximity to the researchers, as well as those located in capital cities and hence readily accessible for interview.

The systematic links between chapters 2 and 4 are not clear. How does chapter two lead to chapter 4? Where are the theoretically defined criteria to be found again?

The traditional view of sustainability, the moral elements, the holistic/integrative view and the centrality of the expert’s worldview to their conceptualisation are ideas common to chapters/sections 2 and 4.

Chapter 2 concludes with the sustaincentric paradigm and its connection with expert’s conceptualisation is central to the data analysis.

Some ideas introduced in Chapter 2 were not used by experts to conceptualise sustainability (eg sustainability as a journey, egalitarianism etc), but this is not considered a relevant finding as the focus is on how experts conceptualised sustainability, rather than how they didn’t.

We did consider using Hahn’s paradoxical thinking versus unitary truth divide to further categorise and distinguish sustainability conceptualisations. However, our view is that the data is already sufficiently analysed, and that the discussion of Hahn’s model in Chapter 2 provided a useful introduction into holistic versions of sustainability and defaulting to the business case, which are ideas that are developed in the paper.

How is it possible to deduce from the use of certain vocabulary the worldview without taking into account the context of use?

Lines 363-366

We have added this paragraph –

Each term listed in Table 2 was interpreted in the context of how it was used by the expert to conceptualise sustainability during their interview. Where a term was used critically or negatively, for example an economic growth-oriented worldview as a barrier (to sustainability), or economic growth exceeds ecological limits, this is noted in the table.

It is unclear how the "Rank" scale was created and exactly how the assignment of experts to it works.

Lines 371-392

This explanation has been rewritten and extended.

What is the aim of paragraph line 423 f.? A differentiation of the sustainability theory? A description of the gap between theory and practice? Explain.

Lines 450 - 476

The aim is to interpret the sustainability thematic scatter highlighting the diversity of themes included in the experts’ conceptualisations, but noting that the themes are not new to the sustainability literature. This moves the discussion to a method to refine these many themes and how to understand this diversity (ie the sustainability conceptualisation framework).

What is the argumentative intention of line 441 ff.?

Lines 479-485

The intent here is to interpret the content of Figure 3 and to emphasise that the core objective included in Figure 3 was just one of many that could be extracted from the experts’ conceptualisations. This latter point has been added to the revision.

What is the essence of the framework: there is a premise that all actors acknowledge, but their interpretation differs based on individual value systems, and their actions / measures / decisions are based on this interpretation?

In the explanation of the framework the layers are already mixed.

Lines 572-599

Lines 570-578

The framework captures diversity in one common visual representation. Lines 572-599 have been substantially rewritten to identify the benefits and uses of the framework.

The connection between layers and the influence of values on all layers is discussed and the core sustainability attribute of interconnection is reaffirmed.

There is a section 5.1, but no section 5.2. Correction needed.

fixed

Why is the actual purpose of the study first explained from line 531 onwards? And how does the research design fit this purpose, so where does the creation of this framework require empirical investigation? Explain or change it.

Lines 589-599

This paragraph has been revised and relocated (see lines 589-599). The purpose of the study has been clarified in Section/Chapter 1 with a clearer statement of the research objective. The sustainability framework fits the stated research objective, which is to explain differences in how sustainability is conceptualized.

Is the essence of the results that there are different interpretations of sustainability, and that these must therefore be discussed in education? Or that basic philosophy lessons are needed in schools/high schools? This is trivial, the importance of education for sustainable development is well known. Be a little more precise if possible.

Lines 531 – 543

The educational function of the framework is revised and clarified from Lines 589-599.

I recommend that its limitations be clarified in a self-critical manner.

How is the framework supposed to deliver what is promised from line 553 on?

Lines 601-607

Lines 632-633

Limitations of the model is added from (Lines 593-599).

The framework is developed in this study, but it has not been tested. This is identified as the focus of further research in the conclusion. 

Reviewer 2

The text is not well aligned with the cognitive maps.

The text has been changed to clearly align the discussion with the relevant cognitive map.

In general, more detailed figure captions would be welcome so that the reader understands them without needing to search in the associated text.

Lines 395 & 477

Figures 1 and 3 have expanded headings.

Figure 1. Paradigmatic location of each expert – the figure contains three terms along a continuum, i.e. “ecocentrism”, “sustaincentrism” and “technocentrism”, yet in the description of the figure the authors also use the term “anthropocentric worldview” which is not part of the figure.

Lines 397-398

We have clarified that both technocentric and sustaincentric worldviews are anthropocentric.

Figure 2. Sustainability thematic scatter – please explain the shortcut for Triple-bottom line (TBL) as not all readers might be familiar

Line 442

TBL expanded to triple bottom line.

Figure 3 and 4 – there is inconsistency between these two figures regarding the first “layer”, i.e. the Core objective. In Figure 3 the core objective is presented as “Meeting current and long-term future needs by efficient and sustainable use of resources” while the core objective in Figure 4 is presented as “Long term survival”.

Lines 483-485

The Fig 3 core objective is just one of many that could have been drawn from the expert’s conceptualisations and this is noted in Lines 476-477.

The Figure 4 core objective is deliberately generic as this fits the need for the framework to be one common framework that captures the breadth of diversity of sustainability interpretations.

Only six studies are mentioned in the discussion part of the paper – this is in my view too few.

The following important questions should be addressed in the discussion: How is the conceptualisation of sustainability different to previous studies and what is the added value?

Lines 76-82

Lines 579-599

We have added an explanation as why and how we chose the sample of research the sustainability literature.

 Chapter/Section 2 includes references 21 to 38.

The discussion of the uses and benefits of the new model has been revised and expanded.

Page 20, line 531-537: This paragraph does not fit in well

It would be more suitable to move this paragraph towards the end of the discussion part.

Also, the expected “target group” that might benefit from the new framework should be better described – the authors mention “educators and students in some parts”, while mentioning business and government in another. The framework could surely be used in many different situations, the aim of the authors sounds nevertheless a bit unclear.

Lines 589-599

Lines 579-599

This paragraph has been relocated.

The discussion of which groups (educators, students, interest groups in negotiation or conflict, government and business) and the the uses and benefits of the new model has been revised and expanded.

In addition, the limitations of the study need to be mentioned in the discussion part of the article. This would in my view include the basis of the framework on 12 experts only and most of them based in Australia.

Lines 601-607

We have added this discussion just prior to conclusion.

To me the most important outcome of the study is the conceptual framework and therefore should be highlighted in the conclusions.

It is in my view not of high value to highlight that the “ethical values…were predominantly anthropocentric…”, since the study only included 12 selected experts.

Lines 579-599

We have expanded our discussion of the target groups, expected benefits and limitations of the sustainability conceptualisation framework.

This has been deleted.

Reviewer comment

Our response

(1) The abbreviation WCED, although common, is nowhere explained in the text.

Line 114 WCED acronym expanded to World Commission on Environment and Development.

(2) In my opinion, the research question is still too vague and the motivation to develop a framework should emerge from it. Can be improved.

Our research objective is to develop a conceptual tool that explains differences in these many sustainability meanings.

(Lines 13-14 and 63-66)

(3) In my view, the selection of criteria in Chapter 2 is still not sufficiently explained in a comprehensible manner. Why are they relevant? Are there other works or reference theories on this?

This section has been revised and expanded. (Lines 76-85)

(4) It is still not clear to me how the distinction between inter- and intra leads to anthropocentric and ecocentric (lines 126ff.). Argumentative stringency is missing here. Can be improved.

This connection was never being made. This was a mistake due to the order and structure of sentences. We have created a new paragraph and revised this section to differentiate inter- and intragenerational equity, which represent moral dimensions of sustainability; and anthropocentric versus ecocentric ethics, which lead to morally diverse interpretations of sustainability.

(Lines 146-150)

(5) The point- The systematic links between chapters 2 and 4 are not clear. How does chapter two lead to chapter 4? Where are the theoretically defined criteria to be found - in review 1 is addressed, with the statement (i.a.) “Some ideas introduced in Chapter 2 were not used by experts to conceptualise sustainability (eg sustainability as a journey, egalitarianism etc), but this is not considered a relevant finding as the focus is on how experts conceptualised sustainability, rather than how they didn’t.” I strongly disagree with this, because an identified divergence between theoretical assumptions and empirical observations is an extremely relevant finding and needs to be discussed.

We have added 2 new paragraphs that provide further discussion of the similarities and difference between the theory from Chapter 2 with the empirics in chapter 4.

(Lines 486-501)

(6) The research result described in lines 572 - 599 is understandable. However, I still do not think that a particularly innovative finding is presented here.

We have added the additional potential use of the framework advised by this reviewer.

(Lines 636-638)

(7) The educational function of the framework (Lines 589 - 599) does not convince me. The described use can also be achieved by discussing sustainability theories with students. In my opinion, the framework is more useful as a basis for future empirical studies on the distribution of the types of attitudes towards sustainability that are determined and already exploratively observed in the framework. Can be improved.

This section has been revised and expanded.

(Lines 623-636)