Rethinking Sustainability Research to Better Address Real-World Crises  
 

Transcript generated by an AI tool and lightly edited for clarity. 
 

Hello and welcome to this edition of Breakthroughs, a monthly podcast on the research emerging from HEC Paris. I'm the school's chief editor, Daniel Brown. Today breakthroughs puts the spotlight on the research of this academic. Yeah. Hello, my name is Frank Wijen. I'm a professor of Global Sustainable Strategies at in, in Belgium, and I'm also a visiting professor at HEC.  
 

Professor Vine has been a visiting academic at HECC Paris since 2016. Last month, he was the key speaker at a landmark workshop organized by the business schools for Climate Leadership or BS four cl. His speech helped the young scholars attending Rethink systems that underpin environmental performance.  
 

Frank Wijen Vine's research focuses on the challenges of sustainable business practices that often fail to reach sustainability outcomes at the company level. And Frank Wijen pinpoints the responsibility of researchers and peers in not looking at broader perspectives, which are often harder to get accepted by publishers and reviewers in leading research journals.  
 

And he's not the only one. We all know the complaint, the peer review system is broken. It's biased. Yeah. Editors. Especially at those top journals seem to have too much power to decide what gets published. It feels opaque. It's the reasons why your paper, my paper is accepted or rejected isn't always clear.  
 

Both for us as authors and for us as readers. We have over the years experimented with different types of peer review, different approaches. So for example, today if you submit to nature or any journal in the nature portfolio, you can choose to have double blind peer review. Most of you choose the, let's just call it traditional model, the single blinded, right?  
 

So when the reviewers know who you, as the authors are, but the authors don't know who the reviewers are, there needs to be a rethinking of what is important. And what is important is finding ways to get the. Important content to the right people, whether that's the scientists or whether that's the public part of a report by the Francis Crick Institute on this deluge of research papers, many of which are missing the target.  
 

Frank Wijen says that many of these papers on sustainability are quote. Taking snapshots and not movies of the issues at stake. And yet these movies are vital in this debate. As he said in his opening remarks at the BS four CL conference, sustainability is under fire. After the conference, I first asked Frank Wijen to describe the shortcomings of research in this field and then the possible ways of solving them.  
 

So I think that this day and age there's a lot of backlash against sustainability and politics, for example the message seems to be we've got more. Important stuff to take care of than caring about the bees and the flowers. So we are in a weird situation, which is that we experience firsthand all kinds of dramatic ecology related incidents social tensions, and at the same time we ignore them or we push them away and we focus on other.  
 

That's a very short term oriented issues, although of course it's not by ignoring external problems that they will spontaneously go away. Sustainability, it's a long, whole effort we need to make. And so there are all kinds of short term barriers or sources of resistance against acting. And that's of course why we, on the one hand, acknowledge there are things going on.  
 

But at the same time, we do not fail to implement requisite action. In this exchange with young scholars PhD students in the main, what are you hoping to make evolve in terms of priority? Because you, you gave a long list of suggestions to answer a little, even longer list of shortcomings, but if you had to prioritize.  
 

What is the most important issue that they should consider when they're applying it to research their research? So I think on the one hand, maybe they should not shy away from taking up daring topics. Yeah. So there is a bit of a tendency to work on relatively tame firm level. Projects that get more easily published yet at the same time are not the most salient ones.  
 

And so I would encourage them to have the courage to pick up the more daring topics to look into the wider systemic issues and to. Also to follow their heart in terms of the things they really care about. Sometimes young scholars are encouraged to have let's say a relatively instrumental approach towards picking the readily publishable topics.  
 

Can you give examples? There has been a longstanding research tradition in terms of looking into the relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance. So the idea is you are doing well by doing good. And so there's a lot, there have been hundreds of studies about that, and it's a bit of a silly approach.  
 

In all honesty, why do you want to study whether you earn more by taking care of other people, by taking care of the natural environment, rather than looking into things like, oh, how does our firm contribute to societal wellbeing, which is broader perspective, harder to study, harder to measure, but still so important.  
 

You say the courage, but is there that much danger in doing something more audacious and looking at underrepresented and under-researched and more systemic issues that need to be addressed? Or is this exaggerated? Can these up and coming PhD students bring up these important issues and still have a prosperous and satisfying career?  
 

The setting is that this day and age the academic environment has become extremely competitive. So there's a lot of interest in very limited number of academic positions. And so young researchers, they typically need to enter a tenure track where they need to demonstrate the research capability, which is often measured by the number of a publications.  
 

In a limited set of journals. And so these journals tend to be a bit conservative. So things are. Improving, but the change process goes quite slowly. At the same time as, so they have a tenure clock, which typically five, six years. And within that short time of period, they need to have a number of publications in prestigious journals accepted by their schools.  
 

And so if they pick up the more audacious topics. The likelihood of getting published within a short notice is lower than if you take more the, let's say, the run of the mill topics you're actually describing that you understand the pressures. If those realities are there it is hard. It's more than courage.  
 

It's maybe objectively hard to decide on more, more audacious paths because the risk is greater. Yeah, things are evolving. Yeah. So I see a certain openness towards broader, more audacious topics and a broader consideration of criteria that matter for whether someone gets tenure or not. So there has been, a change at the same time, I must say the academic environment, although it operates at the knowledge frontier, it is extremely conservative. So some of the habits that we have, they go back to centuries. So there has been very little evolution has. And so any change that comes up is going very slowly.  
 

And unfortunately, those who are on the market now, those who need to get their tenure, they can't wait. They don't have decades before these changes have really materialized. I think in lots of ways we need to slow down. So there have just been so many outputs and absolute crisis and information too much to possibly read, but lots of that didn't necessarily need to be published.  
 

Lots of it is incremental. There needs to be a rethinking of what is important and what is important is finding. Ways to get important content to the right people, whether that's the scientists or whether that's the public. It's within scientist own field. It's the people they know. They are the editors.  
 

They are the reviewers. They are the authors. They can choose to publish. With these smaller outfits, they don't have to publish with the large commercial players. And if the scientists decide to do that, then that's the way that publishing will change. In your keynote speech, the shortcomings were of numerous.  
 

I think I noted nine and then you, the positives where you saw a way out through ethnographic studies, through longitudinal approaches multi-level approaches and so on. Multi-issue in all honesty, how representative is that vision in your academic world? Can you gimme. A better idea of the realities you're facing to make things evolve in the direction you, you laid out in your keynote speech.  
 

So I, I do see opportunities to make it happen to overcome some of the shortcomings that I, outlined and some of the publications that I showed as illustrations of successful instances of quote unquote better research, they were actually published in top journals. So it's not impossible, it's not a mission impossible, however, it is a riskier, more long term endeavor to get there.  
 

So maybe we. Could be tempted to go for the easier route, and let's say it would be quote unquote wise to do it from a practical perspective for young scholars. But I think we need to also look beyond let's say the short term and acknowledge that in the end you want to work on issues as a scholar that really matter.  
 

And for example. The bigger systemic issues, for example, looking beyond firm level performance, financial performance to start with, but even the broader firm performance knowing how firms contribute or fail to contribute to societal wellbeing, for example. So these are some of the bigger hair.  
 

Things I to grapple with. You also mentioned the Blue ocean strategy. What do you mean by that? Yeah, so there's a sort of a curious tendency in the academic world to follow the herd. So although we say we operate at the knowledge frontier we emulate, we mimic our peers. For understandable reasons, because they are the reviewers of our work.  
 

So whatever they studied, they may be sensitive, they may sympathize with. And so you need to get your work accepted because it goes through a peer review process. It's not like you throw out your paper and it gets published. It needs to be seen as legitimate work by your peers. So in that sense, there is, let's say attention.  
 

But that explains why so many people have blindly followed what others have done, and which I would call a red ocean strategy Because you operate in densely navigated waters and the likelihood of making a significant contribution is so much smaller than if you go for more blue ocean strategy, where you are among the first ones to pick up a more novel topic.  
 

You ended your keynote speech by encouraging people to do engaged research and inspired by Andy Van Devan. Can you tell us more about that? What do you mean and what did he inspire precisely? Andrew Van. Van was really a trailblazer in terms of putting engage research on the map. And in a nutshell, engage research is about addressing important societal topics from a multidisciplinary perspectives engaging with practitioners.  
 

And so by having a number of complimentary perspectives. Alongside each other, you will be more able to see the bigger picture rather than to have a very partial, very narrow view of a problem. So this might really need to lead to more comprehensive, fuller understanding of these societal problems and also in terms of identifying these problems because one problem.  
 

In the academic world is we are in our ivory tower, so we talk to our peers and so we repeat each other. So it becomes if I may call it inbreeding, and we need to reach out and discover what are the, let's say the most pertinent and important problems that practitioners are grappling with.  
 

It is not to say we need to become consultants, but at least we can become inspired by the actual problems and encountered by practitioners and to reflect on those and to say, what can we do as academics in terms of shedding light on these important problems they're facing. Can you give an example that really has inspired you in the past couple of years of this approach, which is a combination of academic and practitioner inspired by Andy Van Devan?  
 

I think that's the right way of pronouncing it, for these complex societal problems. Yeah. There are many problems. If I look. For example, at the the energy transition. Now that is one instance. We understand the need that we cannot keep on going in the, let's say the good old way, fossil fuel with fossil fuels.  
 

Yeah. So we need to move into a different direction. However, there are all kinds of practical problems we are facing. And for example firms are massively facing regulatory uncertainty. So they're getting crazy by, let's say the short term horizons of politicians. We, they swing from one extreme to another.  
 

And how can you make long term investments as practitioners? So we need to understand better. How can companies, for example, steadfastly move on that energy transition pathway amidst so much regulatory uncertainty what can they do? And also we need to go back and maybe even in include policy makers.  
 

In order to see how can we collectively come to wise effective transition pathways around energy, for example, HEC breakthroughs, a knowledge at HEC Podcast to dive right into the hard stuff. Everyone in this room knows about the ESG backlash that's been causing policy ripples. And a wave of green Hushing, the speaker from the Trellis Group, which empowers professional communities to confront the climate crisis politicians and pundits on the right.  
 

The way they talk about ESG is often more aligned with cultural or social narratives than it is climate or finance. We. As sustainability professionals know that shareholder proposals that have come through in the last 18 months and many of our companies have focused on trying to push back against.  
 

Companies for their diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice initiatives. Frank Wijen, let's go even more specific though. I'm also asking you is if you have an example of a good engaged research that has brought together pro practitioners and researchers and academics like yourself and has changed or had an impact in policy recently?  
 

So one example of a successful engage research was on the post-merger integration of KLM and Air France, where some colleagues were invited to closely observe what was going on, and to eventually come up with useful advice on how to bring together very divergent cultures from France and the Netherlands so that the company can work more effectively.  
 

So the research. Teams consisting of Dutch and French researchers. They closely work together with the top management team and middle managers of KLM and Air France over multiple years in order to come to more workable, effective solutions. On the one hand. That also yielded good academic publications.  
 

That is one example of engaged research. Maybe another example in a very different respect. So I did some work on the sustainability standards myself. And one contentious issue around sustainability standards is the role of child labor. Now typically many multinationals, and I would say even the the general image is that we should ban child labor by all means.  
 

Now, my work on the unintended effects of sustainability standards shows that what sometimes seems to be a good, reasonable, clear measure in the short term may backfire. Through indirect effects. So one instance is the ban of child labor in the stitching of Pakistani soccer balls, where Nike, which was under public attack for the involvement of child labor, abstain from the use of child labor.  
 

And eventually it led to the further impoverishment of these child laborers and their families. So the bottom line is that sometimes a well-intended measure may backfire. And so the academic research showed that we need to look into the indirect and unintended effects of well-intended measures.  
 

Such as standards and that we need to think very carefully about the existence of a viable, a better alternative before we really ban a well intended but naive measure. And this was by the way covered by the Guardian and it led to some public debates that hopefully has led to the understanding that is a categorical ban.  
 

On a thing like child labor may sometimes lead the target audience Worse off. So Frank Wijen, in a way, this is also an interesting example where the ethnographic approach can really enhance the studies by economists to, to better understand so the context of the society and bring in social sciences.  
 

Absolutely. Yes. We definitely need to have a deep understanding of these issues because the first impression may yeah, not really reveal what is going on. Underneath the Surface, breakthroughs and Knowledge at HEC Podcast. For decades, the United States has been the undisputed leader in these fields.  
 

From pioneering space missions to the birth of Silicon Valley. The US has set the pace for innovation, but China is rapidly closing the gap with significant investments in research and development. China is making strides that are hard to ignore. China's rise is not happening in isolation. It's a phenomenon that is intricately linked With the broader global shifts we are witnessing today, it's part of a global shift in the balance of scientific and technological power.  
 

This shift is reshaping industries, economies, and even geopolitical landscapes. China's commitment to r and d is producing tangible results. The country is rapidly catching up to, and in some cases surpassing the west in terms of scientific output and technological innovation. I wanted to turn to what you were telling me before about your current work with Chinese academics.  
 

Can you say in a word what you're working on? Sure. We have several projects dealing, for example, with the impact of government regulations on. The environmental performance of companies. And China is of course a very interesting setting. It has gone a long way in terms of economic progress, yet also it has massively the natural environment has massively deteriorated.  
 

China is both. A leader in terms of renewable energy, but it also has the largest coal-fired power plant capacity on Earth. So it does some really great things in conjunction to some very bad things. I do think that the Chinese government is more serious about sustainability that many. Western governments are, of course the rhetoric in the West is more let's say sustainability oriented.  
 

But the actual practice, if you really look at the actual investments, the actual efforts that our governments are willing to make, and the determination of governments. To take sustainability to heart that is much more pronounced in China than it is in in the West, for example. And so what we see we may criticize and say China's an autocratic country.  
 

Yet if you look into what is actually happening and the advancement of Chinese firms in terms of   the improvement of their environmental performance, I think that we can be inspired as in the West by what they are doing. This day and age, yet another misconception of what's really happening on the ground in another country.  
 

And I'm wondering if in terms of research, if there's a different approach from Chinese researchers compared to Western researchers. And if there is a shift as the world shifts into, new powers arriving. Emerging powers from India, Brazil, China. Which are being felt in research. So I think that Chinese researchers have in first place tried to mimic what we have done in the west.  
 

And like we see with Chinese firms which were first massively copying what Western companies are doing that they're now overtaking us. And so if you look at research, I think we are at the brink of seeing a more China centric approach. So looking for their own approaches rather than trying their own data to start with granular data, but maybe even also different research approaches that are less common.  
 

I cannot give concrete examples at this point, but I think that we are going to be surprised in the coming decade. For example, in artificial intelligence and quantum computing, China is setting new benchmarks. For instance, China now publishes more scientific papers than any other country. This surge in academic output is a testament to its growing influence in the scientific community.  
 

It's also home to some of the world's fastest supercomputers. These machines are not just symbols of technological prowess, but are also crucial for advancements in various, an extract from the most seen YouTube channel documentary on China's transformation into a technological powerhouse. Before ending this exchange with Frank Wijen Vine, I had to ask him about his exchanges with PhD scholars that were involved in the Business School for Climate Leadership Workshop that he had been invited to.  
 

And more specifically, I wanted him to talk about Mark gra, whose work he's mentoring. Mark is an HEC doctoral student exploring how infrastructure like abandoned railroads in rural California can become an invisible yet. Powerful driver of community cooperation. Mark's research also talks about what he calls the tragedy of the commons.  
 

That's an economic and environmental science problem where individuals have access to a shared resource and act in their own interest at the expense of other individuals. This can result in over consumption, under investment and depletion of resources. What's Frank Wijen's take on Mark's approach? So he deals with this very important yet under research topic of water management.  
 

And this is a very important topic because of course our survival really depends on the presence of enough fresh water. And yet this is very prone to the tragedy of the commons. Because we understand that collectively we need to wisely manage, yet we are inclined as individual actors to appropriate disproportionate share of that that commons.  
 

And so he looks into the governance and very interestingly and importantly, he takes this historical perspective. Yeah. So he looks into institutional legacies. And sees whether the way in which actors are interconnected has, so their social ties impacts the way in which they govern the water reservoirs.  
 

And this is, I think, really important because sometimes we forget that history really matters. So we do not start from scratch at any point in time. The history leaves its legacy. And if we want to understand how we act today, how we are going to act tomorrow. We need to not just look where we stand today or look forward, but also where we come from.  
 

So Mark's research is perhaps a good example of engaged research that you were discussing earlier. He is absolutely, let's say, grounded into the actual Yeah. Intricacies of the collective water management issue. Absolutely. Thanks a lot, Frank Wijen.  
 

Frank Wijen Vine, professor of Global Sustainable Strategies in Belgium's, faculty of Economics and Business at KU L. And of course, Frank Wijen is still a visiting professor at HEC Paris. In his research, he continues to work on the intersection of strategy and organiz. Theories. This includes trying to find ways to chart environmental and social outcomes of business activities.  
 

That wraps up this Month's Breakthroughs podcast. Next time round, we'll share with you the research from one of our brightest doctoral students, Pauline Asmar. She'll be sharing some fascinating insights into ways that team leader communicates his or her firm's corporate purpose. Corporate purpose on the outside.  
 

It's very nice. It's very beautiful to look at because the companies just saying, I want to serve you everyone, so my employees, my customers, my society. However, if it's just shallow, then no actions will come after. And these companies can easily be seen as hypocrites. They can easily be seen as lying to their stakeholders.  
 

You have the right to be skeptical. You have the right to be a believer because it really depends on what you're looking at. Are you looking at the company that is applying but it's it's corporate purpose and it just considers it as an essential part of a strategy? Or is it just a company that.  
 

Considers it as a nice title to put on the website and to tell the employees, but in reality, they have not really changed the way that they do their business. The amount of scandals that we see companies that say, oh, we're becoming more eco-friendly. We want to be a sustainable company that serves the community, but in reality they are not or health healtHECare companies that say, oh, we just want to have the.  
 

Medication available for all of the population. But in reality, they engage in price gouging. And nobody is blind. They see that, okay, they are not doing what they say that they are doing. They're still considering that that the profit is the most important thing. And as employees that thought that they were making a difference.  
 

They just feel a bit cheated. There's plenty more feisty observations from Strategy Scholar Pauline Asmar. She completes her doctorate at HEC Paris. That's it for today, show. If you want to catch up on previous podcasts, why not look them up on the knowledge at HEC pages, and please send in your comments and questions to me at Brown D in one word.  
 

That's Daniel Brown at HEC. Goodbye, and of course, thanks for listening.