Is Place the Secret to Sustainable Enterprise?

The discussion about sustainable enterprise has often been held in a “placeless” context.

As we, quite rightly, are drawn into important economic and ecological discussions about the future of the planet, the importance of location (place), on a sustainable enterprise is often ignored.

Our experience of the world is shaped by the specific geographic location of where we live. In this context, it is not unreasonable to assume our location (place) is fundamental for our engagement in sustainable enterprise.

In fact, there may be a far more critical role for enterprises that operate at the local scale with a 'sense of place' to deliver sustainable outcomes for the planet. Neglecting the importance of ‘place’ in enterprise activity may well undermine the whole concept of sustainability.

Conventional enterprise thinking tends to promote a single dimension one-size-fits-all commercial position that doesn’t translate well to the local level.

Before we can determine the extent ‘place’ contributes to sustainable enterprise, we need to understand the physical and socially definition of place, and how place (and sense of place) can support sustainable enterprise practice.

The framework of this discussion has drawn upon insights from a recent research article by Shrivastava and Kennelly published by Sage Publications in 2013. In this article, they explored how place sensitive enterprise can... 

“…offer a potentially important means of fostering ecological and social sustainability in local communities.”

Evolution Of "Placeless" Sustainability

We didn't always believe in the "placelessness" of sustainability. Our early history, prior to the emergence of large-scale human settlements, saw the local natural environment as integral to determining day to day survival.

As our civilisations advanced the link between progress and place was lost. By the 19th & 20th Century, thought leaders such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau believed in the divinity of the environment, and as such, thought that natural resources should be protected from the activities of humans. They sought to change societal values to respect nature. Others advocated for the protection of natural resources, but they believed that only certain parts of nature needed to be "conserved", and these parts should be protected for the benefit of human beings, not because of any "divine/spiritual" nature of the earth.

The latter approach promoted human exploitation of natural resources and is the underlying framework used to drive the industrial revolution that has shaped our modern economy.

Unfortunately, this rationalist approach ignored the potential of an industrialised society to recognise 'sense of place' as a means of economic growth.

The dominance of a placeless humancentric economy has promoted resource exploitation to the detriment of the environment. Shrivastava and Kennelly suggest that one of the dramatic examples of this disconnect can clearly be seen in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, from 280ppm in the 19th century to 316ppm in the 1960s and about 396ppm in 2012. The spike in carbon dioxide over the past few decades, as opposed to the past century, suggests the view of place as a resource for human exploitation ignores (to our detriment) the concept of interdependence which is the key principle of sustainability.

A more networked approach of shared responsibilities and power at the place scale needs to be incorporated for sustainability to be successful.

The argument here, for sustainability, is that it can't be understood without examining its connection and role in the definition of place. We need to look further into the intersection between sustainability, economic development, and place if we are to close the gap. There is a real danger that by disconnecting the values of place with the aspirations of sustainability we dehumanise the outcomes of sustainability policy.

“Place, after all, represents the coalface, the grounded intersection of business activities, nature, and society”

Shrivastava & Kennelly 2013

CLICK HERE to see the full article