Erinevate tunnetusraamistike mõistmine, tunnistamine (mitte tunnustamine) ja kujundamine on midagi väga keerukat, kui vaadata uudiseid või minuni jõudvaid igapäevapraktikaid avalikest organisatsioonidest. Tegelikult on isegi sedalaadi retoorikat harva kuulda. Siinviidatud avalikus levis olevas tekstis on rakendatud tunnetusraamistikud ja metafoorid kestliku arengu hüvanguks. Nii ei olegi rohkem suurt midagi selgitada, sest tekst võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele.


Corporate sustainability initiatives, defined as a firm’s voluntary initiatives to meet environmental and social goals along with financial goals (Meuer et al., 2020) often involve paradoxes where these goals are simultaneously and persistently inter-related but contradictory in nature (Schad et al., 2016).

Konkureerivad huvid, eesmärgid:

Though not without limitations (e.g., Berti & Simpson, 2021; Calic & Hélie, 2018), simultaneous engagement with conflicting goals, and viewing sustainability goals as having intrinsic value at par with financial goals (rather than instrumental for financial goals) can advance a sustainability agenda in ways that a business case frame cannot (Hahn et al., 2018; Jay, 2013; Joseph et al., 2020; van Bommel, 2018; Walker et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2011).


Drawing on conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), I propose the use of metaphorical mapping as the cognitive mechanism for managerial sensemaking of CS-SR for a paradoxical frame and sensebreaking of CS-SR of the default business case frame.

Autor väidab:

I argue that because nurturant parenting contradicts CS-SR of the business case frame (which is defined by managerial agency and therefore is structurally similar to Lakoff’s strict fathering), juxtaposing nurturant parenting cues with CS-SR also initiates sensebreaking of CS-SR of the business case frame.

Tunnetusraamistikud … ja vastulud:

Cognitive frames are mental constructions that hold an individual’s beliefs and associations about concepts (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). […] The business case frame emphasizes a firm’s economic goals while the paradoxical frame eschews prioritizing a profit goal above all.

Teoreetiline lähtepunkt:

Conceptual metaphor theory holds that metaphors, frequently considered as linguistic tools, can function as cognitive tools, thinking devises, to structure our understanding or conceptualization of concepts, experiences, domains (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; for a review and critique of the theory, see Gibbs, 2011; Kövecses, 2008). Conceptual metaphors occur when two conceptual domains are related through a series of mappings (Lakoff, 1992).

Kuritegevuse näide – erinevad metafoorid õhutavad erinevaid mustreid:

The metaphor “crime is a virus” increased focus on root causes and recommendations for social reform solutions to inoculate against crime, while “crime is a beast” led to proposals to catch and jail criminals (Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011).

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

Understanding differences in the enactment of managerial agency and communion for sustainability is foundational to understanding how paradoxical and business case frames function and is an important complement to extant research on features and consequences of adopting a paradoxical frame for sustainability (e.g., Hahn et al., 2014; van Bommel, 2018).

Menon, K. (2022). Metaphorical Mapping for Sensemaking and Sensebreaking of Stakeholder Relations in Sustainability Frames. Organization & Environment.