Search results

Food Waste wird sichtbarer. Damit werden Forderungen nach weniger Lebensmittelabfällen und neuen Formen der Organisation und Bewertung lauter. Doch wie werden sichtbar gewordene Lebensmittelabfälle organisiert und bewertet? Die Beiträger*innen identifizieren Möglichkeiten für einen neuen gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit Food Waste und entdecken gleichzeitig Widersprüche und Schwierigkeiten.

Frontmatter -- Inhalt -- Danksagung -- Vorwort -- Organisation und Bewertung von sichtbar gewordenen Lebensmittelabfällen -- Plattform versus Lebensmitteltafel -- Wertzuschreibungen durch Food-Waste-Apps -- Nachhaltige Energie oder verstromtes Essen? -- Food-Waste-Management im Supermarkt -- »Und die Eimer füllen sich mit Unmengen an Essen, die der Gast nicht konsumierte« -- Vom Konsumieren zum Kochen -- Wie das Abfallprodukt in den Warenkorb kommt -- Warum Kreislaufwirtschaft allein nicht genügt -- Die soziale (Nicht-)Essbarkeit von Fleisch -- Epilog -- Autor*innenverzeichnis

AbstractTransnational sustainability governance often builds upon standards. Considering that the rise of transnational governance has blurred accountability relations, this article interrogates how and with what consequences a standards development organization (SDO) mobilizes standards for the sake of accountability. Following a partial organization perspective, standards are conceptualized as combinations of organizational elements that enhance accountability both retrospectively and prospectively. A historical case study of the Fairtrade program details the argument and shows how the SDO modified standards aligned with institutional expectations. As the alteration of one organizational element led to a chain reaction, the standards unintentionally transformed from an organizationally lenient tool into a sophisticated blend of organizational elements. Thus, the standards strengthened the accountability of those being governed, while accountability to the public was enhanced by changes in the organizational structure of the SDO. The article contributes to a nuanced understanding of the link between accountability and standards, highlighting their contingency and context dependency.

Aus einer organisationssoziologischen Perspektive untersucht Nadine Arnold die bewegte Geschichte des Fairen Handels in der Schweiz (1973-2014) und die exemplarische Entwicklung der Fair Trade Standards - hat sich die freiwillige Standardisierung doch zu einer zentralen Organisationsform unserer Gesellschaft entwickelt. Der graduelle Standardisierungsprozess hat dem Fairen Handel beeindruckende Wachstumsraten und eine hohe Popularität beschert, doch zeigt die Autorin auch dessen unerwartete Konsequenzen auf, die von sozialwissenschaftlicher und gesellschaftspolitischer Relevanz sind. Der Inhalt Standards und Standardisierung Nachhaltigkeitsstandards Geschichte des Fairen Handels in der Schweiz Entwicklung der Fair Trade Standards (Un)erwartete Konsequenzen der Standardisierung Die Zielgruppen Dozierende, Studierende und WissenschaftlerInnen der Organisationssoziologie sowie im Bereich der Standardisierungs- und Fair Trade-Forschung Praktiker, die sich für den Fairen Handel und Nachhaltigkeitsstandards interessieren Die Autorin Nadine Arnold forscht am LISIS (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés) an der Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée und lehrt an der Universität Luzern

Society overflows with waste, and waste and discard studies emphasize the social construction and contingency of waste, outlining it as the negatively valued. However, organizational sociology currently does not reflect these insights and rarely accounts for waste. Therefore, this article asks what kind of theory is required to capture waste in organized contexts. By searching for waste in Scott and Davis' well-accepted three perspectives on organizations (as rational, natural, or open systems), it becomes evident that each perspective conceptualizes waste based on its theoretical conception of organizations (rational: disorder; natural: disintegration; open: overdetermination) that is mirrored in different accounts of waste. While these perspectives assign negative value to different organizational conditions, they offer little insight into how organizations themselves disvalue entities and generate waste. To overcome this shortcoming, the article introduces an integrative perspective that incorporates the three prevalent perspectives, conceptualizing organizations as closed and open systems (COS) based on Luhmann's system concept and observation theory. The COS perspective explains how organizations construct waste through their selective indication of values and disvalues. It thereby identifies waste as a contingent yet inevitable part of any organization and shifts attention from the study of symptomatic waste to its underlying origins.

The qualities of standardised products are often perceived as naturally stable. This article scrutinises this perceived stability and investigates which aspects of standardised quality remain stable, and which change in the longer term. Our conceptual framework, anchored in the literature on standards and valuation studies, suggests that while standardised qualities appear to be stable over time and space, it is in these spatial and temporal dimensions of qualification that controversies and changes are expected. Empirically, we investigate the organic quality which has been maintained in the German mass market since the 1970s by the standard-setter Bioland. Searching our archival data for disruption that refers to events, which were interpreted by Bioland as reasons for adjusting the qualification, the data show that Bioland reacted swiftly to manifold disruption triggered by actors located along the production and distribution chain as well as outside it. Pooling Bioland's responses, we identify four shifts in terms of the (1) meaning, (2) focus, (3) organisation, and (4) relationships of quality. Due to these long-term shifts, little except the name of the standardised quality remained stable. Thus, the article concludes that standardised qualification must be dynamic and changeable if it is to be stably relevant in markets.

An unclear occupational orientation is characteristic of sociological training. How research-based learning in sociology nevertheless creates occupational references is the leading question of this article. The authors bring together findings from the literature on research-based learning with studies on sociology as a profession and use findings from an empirical case study to answer the question. They show that three stages of the research process create occupational references: 1) Raising funds, 2) Identification of a research question with novelty value and 3) Communication of research results through scientific articles. The authors argue that these occupational references can only be realized if research-based learning is practiced holistically.

Voluntary standards are a ubiquitous phenomenon in modern society that has recently started to attract sociologists' profound interest. This paper concentrates on formal standardization over the long term and seeks to understand its effects on the coordination of an organizational field. Using an institutional approach we see standards as a form of governance that can be analytically distinguished from other modes of coordination, such as markets and hierarchical organizations. To empirically ground our understanding of formal standards' consequences on field-level governance, we conducted a case study of the historical development of the Swiss fair trade field since the 1970s. Evidence used in this case study is drawn from 28 expert interviews, documentation and fair trade standard documents. While a formal set of voluntary standards was absent in its early development, in 1992 fair trade organizations started to use written standards as a means of achieving their objectives. Paradoxically, the introduction of a rational standardization system has led to escalating governance structures in the field. In the long run the launch of formal standards has caused more organizations, more markets, and even more standards. The use of standards as a means of creating differentiation instead of generating uniformity is thereby seen as the main reason for increased coordination demands. As a consequence, this article highlights standards' potential to boost additional governance efforts and directs attention to the mutual enforcement of distinct modes of coordination.

Voluntary standards are a ubiquitous phenomenon in modern society that has recently started to attract sociologists' profound interest. This paper concentrates on formal standardization over the long term and seeks to understand its effects on the coordination of an organizational field. Using an institutional approach we see standards as a form of governance that can be analytically distinguished from other modes of coordination, such as markets and hierarchical organizations. To empirically ground our understanding of formal standards' consequences on field-level governance, we conducted a case study of the historical development of the Swiss fair trade field since the 1970s. Evidence used in this case study is drawn from 28 expert interviews, documentation and fair trade standard documents. While a formal set of voluntary standards was absent in its early development, in 1992 fair trade organizations started to use written standards as a means of achieving their objectives. Paradoxically, the introduction of a rational standardization system has led to escalating governance structures in the field. In the long run the launch of formal standards has caused more organizations, more markets, and even more standards. The use of standards as a means of creating differentiation instead of generating uniformity is thereby seen as the main reason for increased coordination demands. As a consequence, this article highlights standards' potential to boost additional governance efforts and directs attention to the mutual enforcement of distinct modes of coordination. ; + ID der Publikation: unilu_28027 + Sprache: Englisch + Letzte Aktualisierung: 2019-06-24 20:33:20

This article sheds light on the organizational dimensions of infrastructures of sustainability. We employ the case of energy cooperatives, which co-shape the new decentralized infrastructure for the supply of renewable energy, to illustrate the relevance of the organizational dimension. From a perspective of the sociology of organizations, we argue in the first part of the article that energy cooperatives advance radical imaginaries and innovative practices of sustainability because they are "unconventional organizations" characterized by participatory structures. Their participatory makeup integrates different social groups and concerns in their decision-making processes and enables them to combine economic, social, and ecological aims. Given that participatory arrangements are often associated with small organizational size but need to be scalable, the second part of the article explores how energy cooperatives can extend their sustainable practices, thereby strengthening their role as infrastructures of sustainability. We identify organizational networks, digital platforms, and symbolic influence as organizational ways to expand the sustainability imaginaries of cooperatives.

ZusammenfassungWährend die Organisationssoziologie vornehmlich auf die Analyse von Organisationen und zwischenorganisatorischen Arrangements konzentriert ist, finden wir in verschiedenen anderen Teilgebieten der Soziologie die Einschätzung, dass die Rolle von Organisationen hinsichtlich ihrer gesellschaftlichen Effekte oftmals nur unzureichend reflektiert wird. Dieser Beitrag zielt darauf ab, konzeptionelle Voraussetzungen zur Überwindung dieser Situation zu schaffen. In Abschn. 2 wird auf das Konzept der Organisationsgesellschaft rekurriert, so wie es in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts entwickelt worden ist. Als gemeinsames Problem dieser Forschungsbeiträge wird identifiziert, dass sie sich auf eine bestimmte – hier als Archetyp bezeichnete – Organisationsform beziehen, deren Dominanz im 21. Jahrhundert fragwürdig geworden ist. In Abschn. 3 wird deshalb vorgeschlagen, neue Organisationsformen einzubeziehen. Insbesondere wird auf Hyper-Organisation, partielle Organisation und Plattform-Organisation eingegangen. Es werden zwei Schwachpunkte dieser Konzepte identifiziert: Erstens suggerieren die entsprechenden Beiträge eine Ersetzung des Archetyps und vernachlässigen zudem andere neuartige Organisationsformen; zweitens beziehen sie gesellschaftliche Voraussetzungen und Folgen nur selektiv ein. Abschließend werden Perspektiven zur Überwindung dieser gravierenden Schwachstellen diskutiert.