Indoctrinated Developmentalism and Local Sustainability: A Social–Ecological Model for Community-Based Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and well structured paper which certainly deserves publication. I find the notion of ‘Indoctrinated Developmentalism’ potentially useful, although the concept should be more precisely defined at the beginning of the article in a sentence or two.  
In general, the article needs a more articulated introductory section, expanding on the critique of developmentalism itself. The literature  on growth/degrowth would be useful in this respect (Kallis, G), particularly when mentioning ‘economic growth’ (86, 97-138 and tables), perhaps adding that the concepts of growth and development can be dissected. See: 2018. Degrowth. Agenda; Also more recent research, such as: 2023. Scaling-up degrowth: Re-imagining institutional responses to climate change, Urban Studies, 60 (7): 1316-1325; 2023. Urbanizing degrowth: Five steps towards a Radical Spatial Degrowth Agenda for planning in the face of climate emergency, Urban Studies, 60 (7): 1191–1211; ‘Sustainable Tourism and Degrowth: Searching for a Path to Societal Well-Being'. Cham: Springer. 

lines 53 and 134  
When mentioning the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), you should state that different goals are privileged in favour of socioeconomic development  while biodiversity conservation is strongly penalised, so that the "SDGs will likely serve as a smokescreen for further environmental destruction throughout the decade" (see 2020. Environmental destruction not avoided with the Sustainable Development Goals, Nature Sustainability, 3 (10): 795-798.)  See also 2019. The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet, Sustainable Development, 27 (5): 873-884. and 2020. The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reflection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective, Sustainability Science, 15 (4): 1101-1110.

For a longue durée approach and reading of the topic, I strongly recommend:  'Homogenocene: Defining the Age of Bio-cultural Devastation (1493–Present)', International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 2024; and "Decolonizing climate change response: African indigenous knowledge and sustainable development", Frontiers in Sociology, 9. 2024. 
the notion of "exemplary ethical communities" as well as "traditional ecological knowledge " . These two important notions should be waived in the article in order to substantiate many sections where the emphasis is excessively placed on development and growth. 

Finally, a broader contextualisation could be implemented by looking at  the critiques of modernist approaches,   2012. Modernism and nationalism, Journal of Political Ideologies, 17 (1): 13-34, but this is not strictly necessary at this stage and for this article. 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We sincerely appreciate your observation regarding the inclusion of "appropriate and adequate references to related and previous works." In light of your valuable comments, we have carefully re-reviewed the manuscript and made the necessary adjustments to better attend to the relevant literature. These additions and refinements have been made with the utmost care to ensure that the central focus and theoretical coherence of the paper are not distracted. The following paragraphs provide a point-by-point response to your (reviewer 1) comments:

COMMENT 1:

This is an interesting and well-structured paper which certainly deserves publication. I find the notion of ‘Indoctrinated Developmentalism’ potentially useful, although the concept should be more precisely defined at the beginning of the article in a sentence or two. In general, the article needs a more articulated introductory section, expanding on the critique of developmentalism itself. The literature  on growth/degrowth would be useful in this respect (Kallis, G), particularly when mentioning ‘economic growth’ (86, 97-138 and tables), perhaps adding that the concepts of growth and development can be dissected. See: 2018. Degrowth. Agenda; Also more recent research, such as: 2023. Scaling-up degrowth: Re-imagining institutional responses to climate change, Urban Studies, 60 (7): 1316-1325; 2023. Urbanizing degrowth: Five steps towards a Radical Spatial Degrowth Agenda for planning in the face of climate emergency, Urban Studies, 60 (7): 1191–1211; ‘Sustainable Tourism and Degrowth: Searching for a Path to Societal Well-Being'. Cham: Springer. 

OUR RESPONSE:

In alignment with the overall approach and goal of the paper, we have worked to integrate previous and related works most befittingly, both in terms of substance and scholarly positioning. In doing so, we have remained attentive to ensuring that the conceptual framework remains cohesive and clear throughout the manuscript. With due regard to the commendable suggestion to provide a working definition of ‘indoctrinated developmentalism, we, the authors, developed and added the following texts in the paper.

"Indoctrinated Developmentalism, as employed in this paper, refers to a mode of developmental thinking and practice that is disproportionately shaped by Western-centric paradigms of economic growth, sustainability, and resource management. Within the context of community-based enterprises (CBEs) in the Global South, it denotes a normative framework wherein access to, and control over, community-based production and economic empowerment mechanisms are subsumed under externally imposed logics of development. This often results in the marginalization of indigenous knowledge systems, local autonomy, and context-specific pathways to community resilience and self-determination."

Please refer to the red highlighted paragraph in Section 1, lines 49-60 in the post review revised version (V4) of the manuscript.

COMMENT 2: 

When mentioning the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), you should state that different goals are privileged in favour of socioeconomic development  while biodiversity conservation is strongly penalised, so that the "SDGs will likely serve as a smokescreen for further environmental destruction throughout the decade" (see 2020. Environmental destruction not avoided with the Sustainable Development Goals, Nature Sustainability, 3 (10): 795-798.)  See also 2019. The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet, Sustainable Development, 27 (5): 873-884. and 2020. The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reflection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective, Sustainability Science, 15 (4): 1101-1110.

For a longue durée approach and reading of the topic, I strongly recommend:  'Homogenocene: Defining the Age of Bio-cultural Devastation (1493–Present)', International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 2024; and "Decolonizing climate change response: African indigenous knowledge and sustainable development", Frontiers in Sociology, 9. 2024. 
the notion of "exemplary ethical communities" as well as "traditional ecological knowledge " . These two important notions should be waived in the article in order to substantiate many sections where the emphasis is excessively placed on development and growth. 

OUR RESPONSE:

Thank you so much for your insights and suggestions. Yes, we found two of your recommended papers [ 1. Conversi, D.; Posocco, L. Homogenocene: Defining the Age of Bio-cultural Devastation (1493–Present). International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 2024, 1-24.; and 2. David, J. O. Decolonizing climate change response: African indigenous knowledge and sustainable development. Frontiers in Sociology, 2024, 9, 1456871.] very relevant to refer.

We have therefore cited those in Section 5 – please refer to the red highlighted paragraph, lines 368-376.   

As regards additional observations, please note that we have consciously maintained analytical distance from broader debates such as the contention that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) may serve as a smokescreen for continued environmental degradation, the growth–degrowth discourse, and the dichotomy between economic growth and ecological limits on a finite planet. This choice is deliberate for two primary reasons: first, the paper's focus is situated at the grassroots, micro-scale level, rather than engaging with macro-level policy or global sustainability paradigms; second, the scope of inquiry is anchored in community-based participatory enterprise management, with particular emphasis on governance, agency, and local economic empowerment, rather than a direct ecological sustainability perspective. Nonetheless, we sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful suggestion, which we acknowledge as valuable for future research trajectories.

As a central contribution, the paper continues to be tied to the overarching conceptual orientation that Michel Foucault’s notion of dispositif provides a productive and encompassing analytical lens. This framework allows us to align contemporary realities of community-based developmentalism with the functioning and emergence of community-based enterprises (CBEs) at the grassroots level in developing countries, particularly in the Global South.

COMMENT 3: 

Finally, a broader contextualisation could be implemented by looking at  the critiques of modernist approaches,   2012. Modernism and nationalism, Journal of Political Ideologies, 17 (1): 13-34, but this is not strictly necessary at this stage and for this article. 

OUR RESPONSE:

We explored the suggested literature and found it "not strictly necessary" as mentioned by you (the reviewer).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has a lot of potential. However, it falls short from addressing the following points, which could contribute to make this article a truly innovative contribution to the field:

• The relationship between mainstream discourses on development and coloniality, and how these inform top-down development interventions, including those aimed at promoting community-led initiatives;
• The relationship between critical approaches to development and decolonial discourses, and how these inform bottom-up, community-based initiatives aimed at protecting or rebuilding livelihoods from market pressures.
• The methodological differences between the two approaches: The former based on an individualistic methodology, based on analysing entrepreneurship, and the later based on a collective, community-based, and commons-oriented approach.
• The contribution of movement-developed discourses on local sustainability, such as solidarity economy, transition, ecovillage design, indigenous approaches.
• How the approach of community-led initiatives differs from that of mainstream, top-down approaches to development in what regards the interconnection, and mutual reinforcement, of societal, environmental, and economic objectives.
• Ho the approach of community-led initiatives differs from that of mainstream, top-down approaches to development in what regards the promotion of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.
• The contribution of degrowth discourse and approaches. 

 

Author Response

We extend our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for invaluable and insightful suggestions, which we have thoroughly considered in revising the manuscript. The following paragraphs provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments:

COMMENT 1:

The relationship between mainstream discourses on development and coloniality, and how these inform top-down development interventions, including those aimed at promoting community-led initiatives; the relationship between critical approaches to development and decolonial discourses, and how these inform bottom-up, community-based initiatives aimed at protecting or rebuilding livelihoods from market pressures.

The methodological differences between the two approaches: The former based on an individualistic methodology, based on analysing entrepreneurship, and the later based on a collective, community-based, and commons-oriented approach.

OUR RESPONSE:

In line with the core focus of the paper, we have addressed the timely need for Community-Based Enterprises (CBEs) to distance themselves from the prevalent influence of indoctrinated developmentalism.

To this effect, we have integrated relevant theoretical discussions in a concise manner that aligns with this orientation, while ensuring we remain focused on the paper’s central objective. Specifically, we cover:

(1) the mainstream positioning of development paradigms without delving into an elaborate discourse on development and coloniality;

(2) the essential connection between a bottom-up approach and the decolonization of mentalities at the grassroots level;

(3) the transition from traditionally dominant individualistic methodologies to more collective, commons-oriented CBE practices, viewing this as a conceptual evolution rather than merely a methodological shift; and

(4) the importance of movement-informed approaches rooted in solidarity, mutual reinforcement, ecovillage design, and indigenous perspectives.

 With a view to the above, we, the authors, are pleased to integrate the following discussions to attain the desired clarity in the paper: 

"In light of the persistent influence of colonial epistemologies on prevailing development paradigms, it is imperative that Community-Based Enterprises (CBEs) in the Global South consciously disengage from the pervasive effects of indoctrinated developmentalism. This concept encapsulates the imposition of Western-centric models of growth, sustainability, and resource governance, which frequently marginalize indigenous knowledge systems and undermine community autonomy.

The broader discourse on development and coloniality, notably articulated by scholars such as Arturo Escobar (1995), compels a critical re-evaluation of development from the perspective of those who have historically been subjected to asymmetrical power relations. Escobar asserts that "the problem is not just the failure of development but the nature of the development discourse itself" (p. 5), highlighting the urgent need for alternatives that are organically rooted in community contexts rather than imposed through externally defined objectives.

Within this framework, the decolonization of grassroots mentalities—especially among local entrepreneurs and community actors—demands a bottom-up approach that is firmly grounded in local agency and epistemic sovereignty. This evolution is evidenced by the transition from individualistic, efficiency-driven methodologies to more collective, commons-oriented CBE structures. Rather than representing a rigid methodological rupture, this shift signifies an ongoing conceptual and ethical transformation that reconceptualizes CBEs as integral components of relational, participatory, and place-based practices.

Movement-informed approaches—including ecovillage design, indigenous resurgence, and solidarity economies—further reinforce this transition. As articulated by Manzini (2015) in Design, When Everybody Designs, these frameworks present “social forms capable of combining autonomy and collaboration, local rootedness and global openness” (p. 60), thereby enabling CBEs to function not merely as economic entities, but as catalysts for sociocultural transformation grounded in mutual support and community well-being.

Please refer to Section 6, red highlighted paragraphs, lines 380-409

COMMENT 2:

• How the approach of community-led initiatives differs from that of mainstream, top-down approaches to development in what regards the interconnection, and mutual reinforcement, of societal, environmental, and economic objectives.
• Ho the approach of community-led initiatives differs from that of mainstream, top-down approaches to development in what regards the promotion of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.
• The contribution of degrowth discourse and approaches. 

OUR RESPONSE: 

We have tried to answer these concerns in Sections 5 and 6 of the article. Please refer to the red highlighted paragraphs of these sections.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is written on a relevant topic. The authors have developed a socio-ecological model for enterprises to achieve internal sustainability. The article analyzes the influence of internal groups on the achievement of sustainable development of industrial enterprises based on analytical models. The study presents the Socio-ecological Enterprise Model (CBE) and argues that it includes the necessary components to ensure sustainability at the community level. The main note to the article is that there is no critical analysis of the sources presented. The author has analyzed quite a lot of sources, but a critical look is required for scientific research. The drawings in the article are also not viewed.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for valuable and constructive feedback. The comments (of the reviewer) and our response are as follows:  

COMMENTS:

The article is written on a relevant topic. The authors have developed a socio-ecological model for enterprises to achieve internal sustainability. The article analyzes the influence of internal groups on the achievement of sustainable development of industrial enterprises based on analytical models. The study presents the Socio-ecological Enterprise Model (CBE) and argues that it includes the necessary components to ensure sustainability at the community level. The main note to the article is that there is no critical analysis of the sources presented. The author has analyzed quite a lot of sources, but a critical look is required for scientific research. The drawings in the article are also not viewed.

OUR RESPONSE:

Thanks for your observations. As suggested, we have tried to have a further critical look at Sections 5 and 6 of the article. The figures are visible now.   

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author. The research topic is interesting, widely discussed in scientific literature. It is replete with the author's personal perspective on the research subject matter and a clear intention to enhance it. Thank you.

A philosophical article dealing with the social and environmental aspects of community-based enterprise (CBE). The article is based on an extensive literature review. In order to ensure the sustainability of the micro-entrepreneurship model at the local level, the author proposes a socio-economic model incorporating ESG management principles into micro-finance strategy, that has been extended with an element of environmental responsibility.  According to the author, changing the micro-entrepreneurship model ‘to include environmental goals will lead to a new framework for sustainability at the local level’. The rationale for the model change is outlined in the formulated research aim. The main research method is literature review; no primary data is used.

Nevertheless, there are aspects that, in my opinion, need to be clarified: 1) A description of the research methodology is absent, as is an explanation of how the logic of the article is structured to achieve the aim of the research. 2) Table 1 needs a reference to the sources. 3). The conclusions are general in nature. In conclusion, the results obtained from the author's research should be disclosed, and a succinct evaluation of the study's aim shall be provided.

4). The version of the article that was received is incomplete, as it lacks two figures. The first figure is the classic CBE model, and the second figure is the social-ecological model of CBE.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for valuable and constructive feedback, which has greatly contributed to enhancing the clarity and rigor of our paper. The comments of the reviewer and our response are presented as follows: 

COMMENTS:

Nevertheless, there are aspects that, in my opinion, need to be clarified: 1) A description of the research methodology is absent, as is an explanation of how the logic of the article is structured to achieve the aim of the research. 2) Table 1 needs a reference to the sources. 3). The conclusions are general in nature. In conclusion, the results obtained from the author's research should be disclosed, and a succinct evaluation of the study's aim shall be provided. 4). The version of the article that was received is incomplete, as it lacks two figures. The first figure is the classic CBE model, and the second figure is the social-ecological model of CBE.

OUR RESPONSE:

In response to the specific points raised, we are pleased to confirm that we have added a concise methodology note to clarify the empirical foundation and conceptual framework of the study. Furthermore, we have appropriately referenced Table 1 within the main text to guide the reader and reinforce the connection between the data and the discussion.

Lastly, we have revised the conclusion to provide more specific assertions, replacing earlier generalized statements with clearly articulated insights that align with the paper’s overall argument and contributions.

We believe these revisions effectively address the concerns raised and significantly improve the manuscript. The figures are now embedded inside the body/text of the article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the suggested revisions. This is a good paper, which I believe is ready for publication in its current format.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have added some information, although not all sources provide a critical approach to literature analysis, nevertheless, I think that the authors' contribution is significant in their own argumentation. Therefore, I think that the article can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considered the comments provided by the reviewer.

Thanks.