We review here the findings from an empirical study of yield ratios between plant and animal foods grown organically compared to either conventional or low-input peasant farming methods. Our 2007 study demonstrated that organic yields were sufficiently large, in principle, to provide much of the global food supply in terms of calories across all major food groups. Publication of the study encountered strong opposition from reviewers as well as support. Once published, the findings were widely cited and well received by practitioners of sustainable agriculture and agroecologists. Several follow-up studies using larger datasets and newer analytical methods found yield ratios (yield gaps) similar to or somewhat larger than ours. Most of these studies also concluded that organic production methods could make a major contribution to the global food supply. In a food-system context, organic production could also contribute to carbon sequestration and maintenance of native biodiversity, particularly if less land were devoted to growing livestock feed or crops for biofuels, and if less food were wasted. Organic agriculture is often more profitable for farmers, boosts rural employment, and improves social connections among farmers and between farmers and consumers. Together, these elements contribute to the kind of food system that simultaneously serves people and nature.

In two studies of attitudes and beliefs of American adults (N = 482), there is a substantial positive correlation between pro-natural and pro-sustainability, a weak negative correlation between pro-technology and pro-natural, and a moderate positive or negative correlation between pro-technology and pro-sustainability, depending on the way technology is framed. Participants also believe strongly that natural policies are ‘good for’ sustainability. Liberals are substantially more pro-sustainable than conservatives, but both political groups are strongly pro-natural. Most respondents explicitly believe that organic farming is ‘good for sustainability’, and many believe that genetically engineered foods are not good for sustainability. On open-ended explanations for their beliefs about positive linkages between natural and sustainability, respondents’ reasons are frequently vague, very generic, factually incorrect, or irrelevant to sustainability (e.g., claims that genetically modified organisms are unnatural or bad for human health). Respondents are inclined to believe in a positive association, often a causal link, between natural and sustainable, both concepts they favor. Additional results from a British adult sample show that 65% agree with the statement: ‘Generally, more natural things cause more sustainable outcomes.’ This may be an example of causal inference supported by congruent valences.

In this Opinion Paper, we argue that the absence of animal welfare in the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDGs) may not be as detrimental as some suggest. We put forward the view that the welfare of animals is an integral part of the concept of sustainability, that development which affects animals cannot be sustainable without due consideration to their welfare, and we give examples in support of this position. Put simply: no mention means animal welfare could be, and potentially should be, anywhere and everywhere in the goals. For livestock species, we submit that the synergies between the SDGs when animal welfare is included greatly outweigh the conflicts usually highlighted. Further, considering animal welfare as both an achievable goal and as a mechanism for sustainable development allows improvement of animal welfare to carry the weight it warrants: an animal with poor welfare is not a sustainable animal. By extension, products from animals with poor welfare cannot be considered sustainable, and animal welfare is necessarily included in a well-functioning ecosystem. Through the paper we argue that the challenge is not to add in animal welfare, but to think sustainability with animal welfare. We conclude by giving directions to where animal welfare can be integrated when developing sustainable actions.

A major advantage of agroforestry systems is its ability to enhance soil health. Rubber and oil palm are typically cultivated in monocultures and are considered economically volatile crops. Integrating these two crops may help strengthen farmers’ resilience. This study examined a seven-year-old, innovative rubber–oil palm agroforestry system in Indonesia. Using the Biofunctool® set of indicators, the spatial heterogeneity of soil health was assessed across five distinct positions within the plot. Of the eleven indicators measured, three showed significant variation by position, which could be directly linked to specific management practices. Soil mesofauna activity was higher in less disturbed areas where cover crops were established, while nitrate dynamics was greater in zones where fertilization was applied. Infiltration rates were reduced in the rubber harvesting path, likely due to compaction from repeated walk. Most other indicators showed little variation across the plot, possibly due to the young age of the experiment and the intensive soil disturbance commonly associated with the establishment of perennial crops such as rubber and oil palm. This study provides practical recommendations for improving soil health in innovative agroforestry systems mixing rubber and oil palm. Further research incorporating agronomic and economic evaluations is needed to fully assess the system’s performance and scalability.

Greenwashing poses a significant challenge to the fight against climate change by undermining trust in corporate sustainability claims. This study introduced the greenwashing tendency score (GTS), an automatable method designed to detect greenwashing tendencies in corporate sustainability reports. By leveraging textual sentiment and alignment analysis techniques in conjunction with environmental, social, and governance ratings, the GTS quantifies discrepancies between communicated and actual sustainability performance. We applied our methodology to 36 German stock index companies during the years from 2020 to 2022. Our key findings reveal substantial variations in greenwashing tendencies among these companies, emphasizing the need for more transparent and reliable sustainability reporting. The GTS emerged as a scalable, reproducible, and objective tool that can aid, for example, investors, regulators, and Non-government organizations in identifying greenwashing practices. This research contributed to the sustainable finance literature by introducing a neutral and open measure to assess firms’ greenwashing tendency, summarizing implications for policymaking and regulatory authorities and discussing its potential for long-term accountability and integrity in corporate sustainability communications.

Instead of following an “end-of-life” concept, the circular economy focuses on reducing, or alternatively reusing, recycling, and recovering materials in production, distribution, and consumption processes. Despite its potential to contribute to organizational environmental sustainability goals, there is much uncertainty about how the circular economy can be effectively implemented. So far, industrial and organizational (I-O) psychological science and practice have largely neglected how factors such as employee attitudes and motivation, teamwork, leadership behavior, and work design may contribute to the implementation of circular economy practices. Accordingly, the aim of this focal article is to outline how expertise from I-O psychology could be used for effective circular economy implementation. To achieve this goal, we first briefly summarize the history and current practices of the circular economy. Second, we expand the current understanding of the circular economy by adding an I-O psychology perspective. Third, we link the circular economy to other relevant topics in I-O psychology, such as corporate social responsibility and employee green behavior. Finally, we outline how I-O psychologists could address one of the major challenges in the circular economy transformation: intra- and interorganizational cooperation within and across the circular value chain.

This article reconsiders late Qing state building through the underexamined lens of ecological governance, moving beyond teleological narratives of imperial decline to reassess the regime’s resilience and institutional adaptability under conditions of mounting environmental, fiscal, and geopolitical strain. Drawing on a transregional synthesis of ecological, social, political, and economic historiography, it argues that the crises confronting the Qing in the nineteenth century stemmed less from institutional stagnation or state decay than from a profound mismatch between inherited governing capacities and intensifying socio-ecological pressures generated by population growth, commercialization, and environmental degradation. Employing R. Bin Wong’s analytical framework of Challenges, Capacities, Commitments, and Claims, the article traces how the Qing state recalibrated its governing priorities in response to these challenges and constraints. Through six case studies spanning agrarian cores and imperial borderlands, it shows how ecological governance took multiple, regionally differentiated forms. Across these settings, the state selectively retreated from labour-intensive, resource-consuming paternalistic commitments while expanding extractive, coercive, and territorial strategies aimed at dynastic survival. Rather than signalling simple state decline, these uneven and survival-oriented adaptations constituted a process of governing recalibration shaped by negotiation among state authorities, local actors, and non-human forces such as water, soil, and forests. By foregrounding the agency of ecological dynamics, this article situates the late Qing within broader debates on empire, sustainability, and state capacity, offering a comparative framework for understanding how premodern and modern states confronted environmental limits in moments of systemic crisis.

Protecting biodiversity on the planet through business involvement is a priority for many governments and citizens. To do this requires balancing different social, financial, and ecological objectives with economic output. This editorial questions what is the right way to do this based on considering different forms of capital, such as natural, human, social, manufactured, and financial. This enables renewed interest in the natural environment in terms of business involvement in issues such as climate change and the circular economy.

Education policy is always at risk of working at cross-purposes toward education goals. Using a meta-ethnographic methodology and Massey’s geometry of space theory, the present article addresses this in relation to a particular policy realisation problem of teaching for sustainability in schools in depopulated rural areas with identified population challenges. Specific attention has gone to research addressing the enacted curriculum and teachers’ experiences of working with sustainability goals. The results highlight features for goal realisation such as the presence of and attention to rural natural and cultural environmental heritage, having local access and giving curriculum attention to local employment and sustainable vocations and professions, and having community support from the local community and engagement of the school in the community. Working against sustainability were global epistemic rural marginalisation, performative curriculum relations, market competition and competitive exclusions from market participation, tepid community involvement in schools, and socially isolated schools insulated from the local community.

Transitioning to a sustainable economy requires firms to transform their business models in accordance with circular economy principles. Circular economy scholarship has predominantly examined resource-rich large firms and circular startups, leaving established, resource-constrained small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) underexplored. Facing capability constraints regarding resources, knowledge, and organizational capacity, government policy intervention plays an important role. Through interviews with 15 experts and analysis of seven government programs, we reveal the transition dynamics that shape SME circular engagement and how government intervention can reinforce the optimization of linear business models or facilitate moving toward circular business model transformation.