94
As represented in the model, standards of assessment emerge from culture, politics, and scientific interpretations of socioecological status and
trajectory (e.g., changes in biodiversity and the stakes attached to it).
Accountability represents a series of relational ties that position some
actors to make judgements of others and impose sanctions when appropriate (Bovens 2007). Judgements are based on assessments of how well a
given practice or organisation conforms to norms that derive from deep
structures of society (i.e., institutions such as family, community, market,
state, etc.) (Kraft and Wolf 2018). Sanctions—penalties, taxes, withdrawal
of subsidies, consumer boycott, investor flight—hinder performance and
reduce competitiveness, by definition, and in this sense, they are an element of selection processes (i.e., organisational ecology). At the same
time, shifting standards of accountability and shifts in how legitimacy is
produced/accessed gives rise to new organisational strategies and new
competencies tied to emerging competitive strategies (Wolf and Primmer
2006). Out of this adaptation dynamic, we observe innovation and reconfiguration of material practices.
Changes in the institutional environment and the competitive landscape also give rise to gestures or performances that communicate engagement with norms, but amount to little material change that can be linked
back in any direct way to the new accountability tests mentioned earlier.
2
Note that these performances—for example, ways of talking about sustainability concerns—can be an element of a new competitive landscape,
and in this sense, they are not empty. This dynamic of adaptation—substantive and gestural—produces a newly configured population (i.e.,
organisation/network/field II), which is characterised by a different distribution of behaviours as well as the introduction of new material practices. These developments constitute socioecological change, and
outcomes include changes in ecology and distributional shifts in the wellbeing of people and ecosystems. These outcomes give rise to new ecological risks and opportunities and new social values and politics. In this
shifting cognitive and sociomaterial landscape, the stage is set for a new
round of assessments and evaluations that constitute accountability practices and structure flows of legitimacy.
2
In addition to disappearing from the population and adaptation, actors also have the
potential to shape the selection environment. Lobbying, constructing political coalitions,
public relations, and efforts to reshape culture are active strategies relevant for understanding
the co-evolution of sociotechnical systems.
S. WOLF
As represented in the model, standards of assessment emerge from culture, politics, and scientific interpretations of socioecological status and
trajectory (e.g., changes in biodiversity and the stakes attached to it).
Accountability represents a series of relational ties that position some
actors to make judgements of others and impose sanctions when appropriate (Bovens 2007). Judgements are based on assessments of how well a
given practice or organisation conforms to norms that derive from deep
structures of society (i.e., institutions such as family, community, market,
state, etc.) (Kraft and Wolf 2018). Sanctions—penalties, taxes, withdrawal
of subsidies, consumer boycott, investor flight—hinder performance and
reduce competitiveness, by definition, and in this sense, they are an element of selection processes (i.e., organisational ecology). At the same
time, shifting standards of accountability and shifts in how legitimacy is
produced/accessed gives rise to new organisational strategies and new
competencies tied to emerging competitive strategies (Wolf and Primmer
2006). Out of this adaptation dynamic, we observe innovation and reconfiguration of material practices.
Changes in the institutional environment and the competitive landscape also give rise to gestures or performances that communicate engagement with norms, but amount to little material change that can be linked
back in any direct way to the new accountability tests mentioned earlier.
2
Note that these performances—for example, ways of talking about sustainability concerns—can be an element of a new competitive landscape,
and in this sense, they are not empty. This dynamic of adaptation—substantive and gestural—produces a newly configured population (i.e.,
organisation/network/field II), which is characterised by a different distribution of behaviours as well as the introduction of new material practices. These developments constitute socioecological change, and
outcomes include changes in ecology and distributional shifts in the wellbeing of people and ecosystems. These outcomes give rise to new ecological risks and opportunities and new social values and politics. In this
shifting cognitive and sociomaterial landscape, the stage is set for a new
round of assessments and evaluations that constitute accountability practices and structure flows of legitimacy.
2
In addition to disappearing from the population and adaptation, actors also have the
potential to shape the selection environment. Lobbying, constructing political coalitions,
public relations, and efforts to reshape culture are active strategies relevant for understanding
the co-evolution of sociotechnical systems.
S. WOLF