What the Anthropocene does to organizations

Abstract

While historians of the Anthropocene have put a deliberate emphasis on the paramount role played by industry, none have been too keen to examine the role of organizations. The way we understand organizations has been continually reframed over the past few years, throughout a never-ending succession of "turns": the practical turn, the socio-material turn, the processual turn, the social turn, etc. However, none of these turns relies on a renewed understanding of the environment, let alone on a precise grasp of the consequences brought by the Anthropocene with regards to organizations, as this paper purports to critically examine.

Full text

ABSTRACT PROPOSAL TO THE 35TH EGOS COLLOQUIUM, EDINBURGH 2019
Sub-theme 67
Critical Organizational Anthropocene Studies
What the Anthropocene does to organizations
Alexandre Monnin
ESC Clermont (alexandre.monnin@esc-clermont.fr)
Emmanuel Bonnet
____________ (emmanuel.bonnet@esc-clermont.fr)
Diego Landivar
____________ (diego.landivar@esc-clermont.fr)
Abstract
While historians of the Anthropocene have put a deliberate emphasis on the paramount role played by
industry, none have been too keen to examine the role of organizations. The way we understand
organizations has been continually reframed over the past few years, throughout a never-ending
succession of “turns”: the practical turn, the socio-material turn, the processual turn, the social turn, etc.
However, none of these turns relies on a renewed understanding of the environment, let alone on a
precise grasp of the consequences brought by the Anthropocene with regards to organizations, as this
paper purports to critically examine.
The Anthropocene, a new epoch
As is well-known, the Anthropocene ([6]; [36]; [12]; [45]) is the name chosen by scientists to
mark a new geological epoch resulting from the activity of Humanity or rather from the
development of what may be more aptly called the industrial civilization (whether one
chooses as its starting point the beginning of the industrial revolution or the “great
acceleration” observed after WWII [24]; [37]; [46]
1
). Despite not being officially approved
yet either by the International Commission on Stratigraphy or the International Union of
Geological Sciences, the concept has had tremendous effect on disciplines ranging from
geology to the social sciences ([5]; [4]; [23]; [13]). In this paper we would like to extend the
range of the disciplines directly challenged by this notion to organization theory, seeking to
question the dominant conception of organizations in light of the Anthropocene.
Despite all the debates around this notion, one trait seems well established: the Anthropocene
marks the end of the environment understood as the immutable and inexhaustible background
of human activities. Bruno Latour [19] thus asks us to relinquish the use of this word because
it is amounts to an infinite container of our negative externalities, liable to absorb them with
no consequences whatsoever. However, as made obvious by climate change, the
environment’s capacity of absorption has reached its limits and we are thence on the verge of
1
For exceptions, see [21]. For an overview of the debate, [11].

suffering from the negative feedback loops triggered by our own actions. As soon as the
environment displays agency the word becomes a contradictio in adjecto. It is also too
encompassing a notion. Many entities concur the produce the world we inhabit through a
distributed activity of “worldmaking” ([40]; [6]; [14]). As nature and the environment recede,
so does the notion of “resources” to be merely harvested or exploited [39].
How about sustainable development then? While calls to enact its principles are by no means
new, it proved powerless in diminishing the density of CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere to
new highs, as a result of untamed development. More to the point, sustainable development
may have been a viable platform when it was first devised, it seems all but obsolete with
regards to the latest data available. “Time is of the essence” could very well summarize the
IPCC 2018 report
2
which states that there may remain no more than two year to enact
unprecedented change in order to avoid a scenario whereby temperature would increase in
such a way as to put climate on a non-linear trajectory leading to disastrous effects. The
conundrum is the following: either the transition toward cleaner energies goes at its current
pace and it will take 363 years
3
or we accelerate it with the immediate consequences of
delaying the excepted return over investment – well beyond the two-years we may have left to
take action.
As we shall show, our goal is not to advocate for a new model, more radical than sustainable
development, industrial ecology, cradle to cradle design, environment management systems
[33], circular economy and the likes. Only a counterfactual history could tell whether these
proposals could have had an impact thirty years ago or even before, had history taken a
different turn ([10]; [22]). As of now, data show that the constraints we are facing preclude
such approaches. What we are proposing instead is a not a new steady paradigm but to
radically rethink the place occupied by organizations at the time of the Anthropocene.
Organizations were framed to inhabit the Globe [20], manage resources and adapt to a range
of very limited (market) uncertainties (nothing comparable to a world where temperatures
would rise by 4° to 8°C [38]). Yet, the organized world (as seen and performed through
organizations) was no mere illusion though: performing that world unleashed the
Anthropocene.
Worldless organizations in the making
As for many other academic fields, the Anthropocene provides “epistemological challenges”
to organization studies especially with regards to the nature/culture dualism, which forms the
basis of the assumption “that the human species can be understood as separate from nature or
the environment.” [35]. In this section, we highlight some recent turns (practice, processual
and sociomaterial) according to which: “The assumption that the organization would be an
economic entity with stable coordination modalities becomes irrelevant.” [42]. All these turns
define organization as something in the making, rather than an entity situated in an
environement. In doing so, they tend to pluralize organizations as ways of worldmaking
focusing on sociomaterial practices enactment rather than the world itself.
Process organization studies shed light on our ontological presuppositions regarding
organizations. Weick [44] argues that we should avoid the organization representation as an
2
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
3
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-
system/

“organized thing” by considering the organizing process. In keeping with this assumption
([41]; [16]) “process” means a continual change: organization is not a “substance” or a “fait
accompli” but “situated sequences of activities and complexes of processes unfolding in time”
[18]. Processual view hence offers a nebulous vision of the organized world. Processual view
is concerned with how things are what they do and what we make them. Practice – what
human and non-human « actants » do – becomes an ontological criteria [19]. In somehow,
processual organization studies tend to become a “practice-based ontology” [29].
Sociomateriality centers its attention on the materiality of objects, places, artefacts, and,
eventually, practices. It provides a criticism of representationalism (i.e. granting a determining
ontological power to symbolic representations), it being considered as the keystone of modern
epistemologies. For Barad, performativity refers to the “ongoing reconfigurings of the world”
[2]. Sociomateriality ([30]; [31]) offers and interesting theoretical perspective with regard to
mundane practices and technologies of the organized world.
These turns seem to be convergent and entangled as both call into question an ontological
assumption shared by constructionist and positivist traditions: representation as a mirror or as
a construction of the world. Barad’s “agential realism” amounts to resisting the “gravitational
force” of anthropocentrism by framing agency as “an enactment, a matter of possibilities for
reconfiguring entanglements”, not a property of things or persons [32]. This view help
shifting from an anthropocentric practice-based view towards an inquiry about the
entanglement of mundane objects and practices: “ontology is not given in the order of things,
but […] ontologies are brought into being, sustained, or allowed to wither away in common,
day-to-day, sociomaterial practices.” [25]. Socio-material practices become ontological nexus
for understanding reconfiguration of the world, or ways of worldmaking.
Organization as alternative world(un)making: from firm to ruin
These performative turns shed light on organized worlds as processs, or sociomaterial
practices as world reconfigurations but very little about worldmaking in contexts where the
human world is not defined as an endless organizational process nor characterized by human
progress. These turns do not question the link between the world and organizations nor the
capacity to generate alternative narratives about the organized world or organization as
worldmaking. Truly, they provide meaningful insights in order to displace traditional and
functional definitions of organizations but at the time of the Anthropocene, organizations
should be studied from a more cosmologic level, well beyond modern assumption about the
“world” defined as “a space filled with autonomous entities and separable kinds, ones that
could be easily aligned with capitalist fantasies of endless growth from alienated labor” [39].
Situating management in relation to the world, Durand has defined the former as a “reprise”
of the latter. The world under consideration is then conceived as having lost its internal
consistency, its meaning, thus becoming “dismembered, disorganized, falling apart” [9].
Organizations are ways to reorganize such a disorganized world and repairing what is broken.
From this standpoint, organizing as worldmaking means “reassembling” the disorganized
world. That provides Durand with a way to engage management “in a reprise of our known
worlds and a new order for reality”.
In contrast with this view, Anna Tsing, in her acclaimed study of worldmaking processes [40]
has developed two elements that matter to organization studies:

1. “The art of noticing” organization as a ruination process akin to both worldmaking and
unmaking. “Ruin”, she writes, “has become our collective home”. “Global landscapes
today are strewn with this kind of ruin. Still, these places can be lively despite
announcements of their death; abandoned asset fields sometimes yield new
multispecies and multicultural life. In a global state of precarity”.
2. Worldmaking is not only grounded in humans as the sole organizers of the world we
live in: « the modern human conceit is not the only plan for making worlds: we are
surrounded by many worldmaking projects, human and not human. Worldmaking
projects emerge from practical activities of making lives; in the process these projects
alter our planet.”.
A call to notice anthropocenic dis/organizing is not tantamount to a call to pluralize ways of
worldmaking in order to “update them” but can be thought of as rally cry to investigate how
the human and non-human world is being unmade by organizations.
What kind of strategy for a world in the unraveling?
The Anthropocene raises to main questions with regards to organizations and their strategic
orientations. In a setting dominated marked by disorientated organizations and a disorganized
world, how can one expect to avoid the “strategic void” and find one’s way in the world? The
two ideas are inseparable and must be though anew considering the Anthropocene and the
ongoing collapses.
According to Philippe Baumard, the « vide stratégique » (strategic void) is « un état de non
devenir généralisé à l’ensemble des arrangements humains, une destruction aveugle du vivant
; une économie de la ressource fossile qui se dirige tout droit vers sa mort asymptotique » (“a
generalized state of unbecoming to all human arrangements, a blind destruction of life; an
economy of fossil resource that is heading straight for its asymptotic death” ([3], p. 15). The
examples given by Baumard directly are un direct connection with the Anthropocene :
managing the shortage of rare earth elements, the geopolitical challenge of gas supplies for a
country, monetary creation, financial failings, etc. What strategy is lacking is a proper relation
to the world we live in, by substituting « l’organisation efficace des moyens pour atteindre un
but » (“an effective organization of means to achieve a goal”, ibid. p. 15). More deeply, the
strategic void is tantamount to losing the world, an “acosmie”: « Ce que nous vivons est un
désenchantement, un affaiblissement général des “definitions”, comme si le monde avait
décidé d’arrêter tout débat ontologique » (“What we are experiencing is a disenchantment, a
general weakening of "definitions", as if the world had decided to stop any ontological
debate”, ibid., pp-16-17). Such is the debate it is now mandatory to engage in a world in the
process of unraveling.
The processual turn puts the emphasis on organizing as a way of worldmaking. Organizing in
the making is an open phenomenon, a permanent activity of building the identity of beings in
the world in contrast with an economic and social entity being just extant in the world. It is
the process through which the world is being defined. More radically, it is an activity which
resists the disorganization of the inhabitable world: “Organization is not a thing, but a generic
Social technology for arresting, fixing, stabilizing and regularizing what would otherwise be a
wild, amorphous, and hence unlivable world” (Chia, 2002, p. 867). As a world in the making,
the organizational world appears then as “constituted by the inter action processes among its

members” ([17], p. 4). A main highlight of this approach is the implicit cosmology it
embodies, certain taken for granted ontological assumptions à propos the world we live in.
Whenever talks of “organized world” comes up, what kind of world does it conjure? Are
“organized phenomena” (Hussenot et al. 2016) those that characterized the world itself? Why
does this processual turn attribute more ontological weight to these phenomena or to the
organizing activity while disregarding other phenomena, especially those involving non-
humans and more-than-humans ([15])? We need an explicit cosmology rather than tacit,
implicit assumptions about the world we live in. The explicit cosmology of the Anthropocene
requires going beyond reducing all beings into “organizational actors”. To qualify some being
as “more-than-humans” commits us to undertaking an inquiry about entities which are not the
mere byproducts of organizational worlds in the making. This anthropocenic cosmology also
turns our attention away from a world solely in the making and draws it to the fact that it may
be unraveling before our eyes, thus demanding further inquiries. The impossibility of taking
into account “more-than-humans” which are not organizational actors underlines a lack of
world, especially if we stick to Pierre Montebello’s characterization of what a worlds,
properly speaking, “consists” in: “We call “world” the moving set of interdependent beings
with whom we are intertwined, that we compose or let decompose, that we make consist or
that we deliver to inconsistency” ([26], p. 236). At stake here, with making explicit the
cosmology of the Anthropocene, is achieving an understanding of how humans and more-
than-humans forge relations of consistency whereas the becoming-organization of the world
has proven to be, by and large, inconsistent.
"We organizations have learned to acknowledge that we are mortal”
The Anthropocene epoch offers a new narrative for organizations. Our hypothesis is that
organization theory has emerged with a tendency to neglect the world. More precisely,
organization theory suggests a worldview where, despite sociomaterial or performative turns,
organizational agency happens through human action. The world is seen as chaos, a complex
interrelated mess naturally craving to be organized. Thus, chaos is the “state of nature” at the
root of organization theory [9]. Here, the development of societies stems from their capacity
to invent and erect institutions and organizations. In a sense, our humanity comes from our
tendency to organize a disorganized world.
Yet, the Anthropocene suggest a very different conception of the relation between
organizations and environment. First, as demonstrated by empirical works conducted by
whole-Earth scientists, human organizations tend to disorganize the biosphere. Organizational
activity is predicated on grounds [43], non-human bodies [34], critical zones [1] and its
impact exceed a simple negative externality in need of being corrected. Such a critical
situation comes from the fact that this impact cannot be compensated because of its tendency
to be exponential and persistent [27]. There is no organization theory without whole-Earth
evidence-based empirical background. Secondly, the Anthropocene addresses a radical
challenge to the “state of nature” which we identified as the core of organization theory. If we
follow the scientific consensus, the Holocene displays stability, continuity and self-regulation.
Taking their diagnosis seriously leads to reconfiguring the standard division between
organization and disorganization. At least it requires that what is considered the main
characteristic of disorganization be made more precise. If the world that preceded organizing

was not “disorganized” what justification is there to consider it under this guise? Must we
postulate an axiom of “world disorganization” as a precondition to study organizations? If so,
it means one thing: organizations have long forgotten the world they destabilized.
Finally, it is important to add that talk about the Anthropocene shall not be limited to echoing
empirical evidence of human activity on the biosphere. Its darker side challenges the very
lives of organizations and has to do with the difficulty of thinking about climate and
ecological trajectories as reversible. Many scientists backed by empirical data suggest we are
following climate trajectories characterized by discontinuity, acceleration and cumulative
effects [27]; [33]). The IPCC (IPCC Special Report, 2018) and the United Nations (Emissions
Gap Report, 2018) do point out the possibility of catastrophic scenarios if current emissions
trajectories are maintained. In this sense, the Anthropocene raises the problem of the finitude
of organizations. Under current empirical projections, species, territories and human beings
may well disappear due to climate global warming ([5]; [28]). The trajectory of organizations
will be strongly related to the geological trajectory of the Earth. Hence, the traditional
perspective on the interaction between organisations and their environment is completely
reconfigured. As the environment recedes, this partition is deeply challenged, aligning all
actors, whether “organized” or “natural”, on the same axis. On this account, firms can no
longer transcend their surroundings and repair the environment that absorbs their externalities
or limit C02 concentration; simply put, manage the Anthropocene.
Future work
To further our ontological analysis of organizations, we would like to shift from the implicit
cosmology of organization theories and draw conclusions by directly engaging with
organizations in the wild. We began doing so through interviews with corporate CEOs and
managers so as to probe the intrusion of the Anthropocene in current organizations (we
reckon that organizations encompass more than just businesses but due to their nature and the
issues raised by the Anthropocene so far those have been our main focus). The first results can
be summarized and represented on a matrix which shows a segmentation of organizational
positions and statements with regards to the Anthropocene.
The first vertical axis differentiates organizations according to their capacity to integrate the
Earth, or what used to be called “Nature”, as the main entity in their cosmologies. By
comparing strategic statements and discourses we identified two ways of integrating Nature in
organizational cosmologies. The first one based on the scientific agenda deployed by several
academic or international organizations (IPCC, IPBES, UN…) has to do with taking seriously
the Anthropocene epoch, i.e. as a new, peculiar global situation. The second one is based on
the capacity to integrate nature, the environment and non-humans as entities need to be
considered for the deployment of organizational activities. This integration can be
accomplished by holding Nature itself or individualized “natural entities” as stakeholders (in
the case of Michelin, for example, recently in France) or through integrated industrial process
(e.g.: Gore Tex or Danone).

Figure 1
Along this axis, we distinguish three organizational types:
- “Acosmic organizations” are organizations that do not take into account any kind of
Natures nor anthropocenic diagnoses.
- “Repairing the World” organizations deploy their cosmologies by combining two
aspects. On the one hand, there is a clarification regarding their effects on the
environment as well as on their being dependent on various resources around the
world. On the other hand, under such a cosmology, organizations are dedicated to
overseeing ecological problems.
- The cosmology of finitude assembles organizations that chose to live up to the radical
nature of the anthropocenic times. Characterized by a “more than a simply cyclical”
crisis framework, the situation at hand calls for wide-ranging reactions.
The horizontal axis displays the mode of projection / agency according to which organizations
are enrolled in a dynamic process once faced with ecological issues. This mode of projection
betokens their broad organizational philosophy of action as well as their capacity to suggest
new paradigms of disruption, innovation or disnovation. Hence, we distinguish:
- Organizations that keep an “engineering position” standpoint, putting the organization
as the central player in a “problem-solving cosmology”. The organizational range of
action is clearly driven by intensive innovation on par with severe ecological
problems.
- Organizations that are engaged in a more neutral relation to innovation, capable of
differentiating those technologies which are compatible with the Anthropocene from
those which are not. Here the paradigm of innovation is driven by (soft) sustainable
strategic policies.

- Organizations that are engaged in a critical endeavour to address technological
progress and innovations covering a whole set of approaches, from resilient policies to
low-tech ones, from strategies of divestment to voluntary degrowth business plans.
Conclusion
The Anthropocene far from symbolizing a new iteration of an old problem, that of
disorganization, stressing the necessity to update our toolkit to find a proper solution, rather
represents a cosmological crisis for organizations that pinpoints their contradictions. The
many turns organization studies have witnessed over the past few years have been unable to
remedy this lack of a world on witch organizations may eventually “land” (to borrow Latour’s
metaphor [20]).
The reason why is simple: at their core, organizations where defined to negate entropy by
producing negentropy. However, in a system entropy can only be negated locally. On a global
scale, negentropy increases the overall entropy of the system. Additionally, open systems
produce negentropy through their transactions with an environment or, rather, a world they
are fully embedded in. Dealing with a worldless environment full of “resources”, far from
overcoming disorganization unleashed it on the world.
Not only may we not be able to turn the clock back and design Earthly organizations, doing
so, may only worsen the situation if the contradiction hasn’t been surmounted – furthermore,
the time to do so is sorely lacking. By contrast, we must learn to live with the ongoing process
of ruination, in a disorganized world made such (the Anthropocene!), with no turning back
and no remedy: we are not facing a problem but a new epoch The challenge is upon us and
requires a complete overhaul of some of the most entrenched axioms of organization theory.

References:
[1] Banwart, S.A. et al. 2013. Sustaining Earth’s critical zone: basic science and
interdisciplinary solutions for global challenges. University of Sheffield.
[2] Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter
comes to matter. Signs. 28, 3 (2003), 801–831.
[3] Baumard, P. 2015. Le Vide stratégique. Cnrs.
[4] Bonneuil, C. and Fressoz, J.-B. 2013. L’événement anthropocène : La Terre, l’histoire et
nous. Seuil.
[5] Ceballos, G. et al. 2017. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction
signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. 114, 30 (Jul. 2017), E6089–E6096.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704949114.
[6] Coccia, E. 2016. La vie des plantes : Une métaphysique du mélange. Rivages.
[7] Crutzen, P.J. and Stoermer, E.F. 2000. The “Anthropocene.” Global Change Newsletter.
41 (2000), 17–18.
[8] Dipesh Chakrabarty, B. 2009. The Climate of History: Four Theses. Critical Inquiry. 35,
2 (Jan. 2009), 197–222. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1086/596640.
[9] Durand, R. 2014. Organizations, Strategy and Society: The Orgology of Disorganized
Worlds. Routledge.
[10] Fressoz, J.-B. 2012. L’apocalypse joyeuse : Une histoire du risque technologique. Seuil.
[11] Hamilton, C. 2017. Defiant Earth : The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene. Polity
Press.
[12] Hamilton, C. 2016. Define the Anthropocene in terms of the whole Earth. Nature. 536,
(2016), 251.
[13] Haraway, D. 2015. Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantationocene, chthulucene: Making
kin. Environmental Humanities. 6, 1 (2015), 159–165.
[14] Haraway, D. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke
University Press Books.
[15] Hastrup, K. and Tsing, A.L. eds. 2015. More-than-human sociality: a call for critical
description. Anthropology and Nature. Routledge.
[16] Hernes, T. 2007. Understanding Organization as Process: Theory for a Tangled World.
Routledge.
[17] Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. 2010. Introducing “Perspectives on Process Organization
Studies.” Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing. T. Hernes and S. Maitlis, eds. Oxford
University Press.
[18] Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. 2016. The Sage Handbook of Process Organization
Studies. SAGE Publications Ltd.
[19] Latour, B. 2015. Face à Gaïa: huit conférences sur le nouveau régime climatique. La
découverte.
[20] Latour, B. 2017. Où atterrir ?. La Découverte.
[21] Lewis, S.L. and Maslin, M.A. 2015. Defining the Anthropocene. Nature. 519, 7542
(Mar. 2015), 171–180. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258.
[22] Malm, A. 2016. Fossil capital: the rise of steam-power and the roots of global warming.
Verso.
[23] Malm, A. and Hornborg, A. 2014. The geology of mankind? A critique of the
Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review. 1, 1 (Apr. 2014), 62–69.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019613516291.
[24] McNeill, J.R. and Engelke, P. 2014. The great acceleration: an environmental history of
the anthropocene since 1945. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

[25] Mol, A. 2003. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press.
[26] Montebello, P. 2015. Métaphysiques cosmomorphes : La fin du monde humain. Les
Presses du réel.
[27] Mora, C. et al. 2018. Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards
intensified by greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Climate Change. 8, 12 (Dec. 2018),
1062. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0315-6.
[28] Mora, C. et al. 2017. Global risk of deadly heat. Nature Climate Change. 7, 7 (Jun.
2017), 501–506. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3322.
[29] Nicolini, D. 2013. Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. OUP
Oxford.
[30] Orlikowski, W.J. 2007. Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work.
Organization Studies. 28, 9 (Sep. 2007), 1435–1448.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138.
[31] Orlikowski, W.J. and Scott, S.V. 2008. Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of
Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals. 2, 1 (Jan. 2008),
433–474. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644.
[32] Rick Tuin and Iris van der Dolphijn 2012. Interview with Karen Barad. New
Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies Metaphysics. Open Humanities Press.
[33] Robinson, N.A. 2012. Beyond sustainability: environmental management for the
Anthropocene Epoch: Beyond sustainability. Journal of Public Affairs. 12, 3 (Aug.
2012), 181–194. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1432.
[34] Rochman, C.M. et al. 2013. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and
induces hepatic stress. Scientific Reports. 3, (Nov. 2013), 3263.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03263.
[35] Somerville, M. 2017. The Anthropocene’s call to educational research. Reimagining
Sustainability in Precarious Times. 17–28.
[36] Steffen, W. et al. 2011. The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences. 369, 1938 (Mar. 2011), 842–867.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327.
[37] Steffen, W. et al. 2015. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The
Anthropocene Review. 2, 1 (2015), 81–98.
[38] Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. 8.
[39] Tsing, A.L. ed. 2017. Arts of living on a damaged planet. University of Minnesota Press.
[40] Tsing, A.L. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World - On the Possibility of Life in
Capitalist Ruins. Princeton University Press.
[41] Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. 2002. On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking
Organizational Change. Organization Science. 13, 5 (Oct. 2002), 567–582.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810.
[42] Vaujany, F.-X. de et al. 2016. Théories des organisations. Economica.
[43] Waters, C.N. and Zalasiewicz, J. 2018. Concrete: The Most Abundant Novel Rock Type
of the Anthropocene. Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene. D.A. Dellasala and M.I.
Goldstein, eds. Elsevier. 75–85.
[44] Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE Publications, Inc.
[45] Zalasiewicz, J. et al. 2017. The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of
evidence and interim recommendations. Anthropocene. 19, (Sep. 2017), 55–60.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2017.09.001.
[46] Zalasiewicz, J. et al. 2015. When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century
boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International. 383, (Oct. 2015),
196–203. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.045.