1. Introduction The concept of sustainability has become one of to- day’s most widely used and controversial concepts. Brundtland Commission definition of sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the abil- ity of future generations to meet their own needs is very famous. But there are several definitions of sustainability. Definitions of sustainability vary and focus on dif- ferent things, but it is undoubtedly common model for sustainable development based on three, partly overlapping, definitions: the ecological system, the economic system and the socio-cultural system. In this model, the integration of the core of these as- pects is of importance for achieving sustainable de- velopment (Park, Allaby, 2016). It is therefore important to develop this systemic point of intersection for the development of loca- tion or activity in the right direction. To produce goods and services which meet our needs and re- main within the limits of the carrying capacity of na- ture and the ecological integrity and contributes to society’s well-being. This can also be seen as a basis for national environmental policy. As for tourism or Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2017, 7(3), 5–11 DOI 10.4467/24512249JG.17.021.7177 ProceSSeS for underStandInG SuStaInabIlIty aS a Goal and PractIce Anette Oxenswärdh Department of Industrial Engineering, Division of Quality Sciences, Uppsala University – Campus Gotland, SE-621 67 Visby, Sweden, e-mail: anette.oxenswardh@angstrom.uu.se citation Oxenswärdh A., 2017, Processes for understanding sustainability as a goal and practice, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 7(3) 5–11. abstract The concept of sustainability has become one of today’s most widely used and controversial concepts. It is therefore important to develop activities within organizational context in order to increase co-workers understanding of the goals for more sustain- able practice. To produce goods and services, e.g. that is to meet our needs and still remain within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature and the ecological integrity and contributes to society’s well-being, is a big challenge for all organizations. One way to start to deal with the problem and define sustainability at the operational level is to discuss goals and meaning of them in groups. While discussing we shape our understanding of the meaning of the goals and this in turn even shapes our understanding of assignment in whole. Most importantly do this collective learning even shape our understanding of respon- sibilities in working towards more sustainable practise. This paper aims to study how co-workers through collective learning processes and discussions together can create more sustainable practice. Key words sustainability, organizational learning, collective learning, responsibility, assignment. 6 Anette Oxenswärdh hospitality industry and durability, the World Tour- ism Organization UNWTO (UNWTO Annual Report 2014, 2015) described the development of sustain- able tourism as something that should take into ac- count the current and future economic, social and environmental influences and that should satisfy vis- itors, industry, the environment and the operators’ needs. There are other definitions which take into account reduced substance leakage to the ecosys- tem, secure employment conditions, reduced noise and impacts on animal and plant life, less waste, pro- liferation of roam and reduced crime. In this study, sustainability can be seen as a goal for any organization to strive for. In order to under- stand the assignment and responsibilities it carries there is a need of learning process. Collective learn- ing can be seen as a process, which can activate other processes important for understanding the meaning of assignment and sustainability as a goal in organizational context. 2. Sustainability and responsibility as concepts and goals Sustainability is a well-used term, appearing almost daily in the media and increasingly in everyday con- versation, often as something to strive for. Moving towards a more sustainable way of living will in- evitably require some radical changes in attitudes, values and behaviour (Hahn et al., 2014; Gullikson, Holmgren, 2015). And perhaps the best way to strive for sustainability is through organizational change initiative (Appelbaum et al., 2016a). During the last decades, it is undoubtedly so that environmental problems, e.g. pollution, deforestation and deserti- fication have become real to us. The environmental threats are consequences from the exploitation of Nature. Those threats to- gether with structural changes in manufacturing and production of goods and services, i.e. how we live and consume, shows that we still have environ- mental challenges a head of us (Hahn et al., 2014; Gullikson, Holmgren, 2015; Thurén, 2015). There have been discussions about the defini- tion of sustainable development (Dobson, 2008; Rambaud, Richard, 2015; Appelbaum et al., 2016a), about how to interpret the concept in organisations and companies (Hahn et al., 2014; Appelbaum et al., 2016b). Also, research about how companies can create measures in order to get facts for decisions has been conducted. For instance, the Triple-Bot- tom-Line (TBL), created by Elkington in the 1990s is nowadays a well-known concept that many organi- zations use (Slaper, Hall, 2011). According to A. Naess (1995), the essential ide- as informing an environmental worldview can be broadly shared without prescribing or predetermin- ing ultimate premises, or specific interpretations and actions. We are in need of plural interpretations and actions appropriate to local cultures and condi- tions – echoing the ecological principle of diversity in unity. Paradoxically an environmental worldview yields many different views of the same thing, and the same view of many different things. It is obvious that the result from the Brundtland Commission created challenges for countries and corporations. Corporate managers and other lead- ers in organizations have to make decisions in their companies and organization with economic, en- vironmental and social considerations, which is to some extent paradoxical and difficult (Hahn et al., 2014). Responsibility is a word and a concept that is increasingly being mentioned in our society. It is pointed out how important it is, in any organization- al context, to develop co-workers into responsible actors. In the scientific sense, the concept of respon- sibility is first and foremost a philosophical question. Philosophy and responsibility are interconnected on the one hand in the general question of what re- sponsibility possibly is and on the other side of the normative question: what responsibility should be? (Kernell, 2002). “Responsibility is so integral part of human rela- tionship that in its various meanings and shadings it serves as a synonym for almost every important political word” (Wildavsky, 1986, p. 1). Responsibility is one of the major political con- cepts alongside freedom, equality and solidarity, etc. that are easily to use but the more precise meaning often remain vague. (Wildavsky, 1986) In practice meets the talk of responsibility often an approach that has been called Sunday concept. This means that everyone uses the word only in rhetorical sense as referring to responsibilities seems generally ac- ceptable and it causes no harm. M. Bovens (1998) points out, however, that responsibility is a real con- cept that is even known by everyone. It is hard to imagine that anyone would deny or ignore their re- sponsibility or deliberately behave irresponsibly. At the same time the term is used as a spiritual or emer- gency solution, e.g. with in the party and govern- ment programs. In fact, responsibility as a concept is understood in many ways and used for many dif- ferent purposes: responsibility changes depending on the time, venue and speakers (Bovens, 1998). As a legal term the concept of responsibility is describ- ing personal or financial penalties. In law and politi- cal science implies responsibilities consequences of Processes for understanding sustainability as a goal and practice 7 an act or not acting. A person who commits a crime must take her responsibility through paying fines or imprisonment. She is forced to face the conse- quences of her action. The law has been developed from the basic idea that one is free by choosing ac- tion alternatives, because otherwise it would be just as meaningless to ask people to be accountable as it is to punish machines (Mackie, 1990; Permer, Per- mer, 1994). In political science are the terms political responsibility and civic responsibility presented. To take active responsibility is an opportunity to free us from being held responsible/accountable. Be assigned responsibility, to be accountable, does not automatically result taking or acting re- sponsibly. An assigned responsibility is a passive form of responsibility. Taking responsibility is an ac- tive action, based on the subject’s own free will? To be liable, however is based on future requirements. But to be held responsible for an act, must include that the actor have understood the responsibilities that the task/mission contains. Additionally must the one who is held accountable had had the oppor- tunity and own the ability to perform the task. The responsibility is a complicated concept, according to R. Ingarden (1970, 1983); it commits us to study its different dimensions together. J.R. Lucas (1995) claims that, before we can form us a clear idea of what the real responsibility in- cludes, we must also take into account the circum- stances in which we are not responsible. 3. understanding the assignment and responsibilities There is a certain dynamic between individuals, groups and organizations. Broadly speaking, re- sponsibility in any organizational context can be de- scribed as a relationship between the commissioner and the actor. Relations of responsibility constitute the arena where both the exaction and the assump- tion of responsibility can take place. Responsibility/ accountability is a crucial question in all organiza- tions working towards sustainability. Issues of ac- countability consequently have a direct relationship to professional development in organizations. An essential part of the organization’s assignment is to assume responsibility. Different actors can under- stand both, the assignment and the responsibility, in different ways. This can be described in terms of the understanding of assignment and responsibility. The actors’ understanding and interpretation of the assignment is significant for the way in which they assume responsibility for fulfilling what they are commissioned to do. The understanding includes the cognitive and psychological processes and shows in turn how the assumption of responsibility can be shaped (Abrahamsson, Andersen, 2005; Ox- enswärdh, 2011). When the understanding of responsibility de- scribes what happens to the professionals and in turn leads to heightened competence, the concept of responsibility can also be viewed as a pedagogical concept. The understanding of assignment and re- sponsibility can thus be regarded as a learning pro- cess, which is in turn essential for active assumption of responsibility. This learning process is deemed to be an important part of the organization staff ’s competence development and professional devel- opment. These processes of understanding can be seen as a part of process of Collective learning (Ox- enswärdh, 2011). Process of understanding one’s responsibility is, however, a more unexplored concept – unlike un- derstanding the mission - and it has to do with operator’s own approach in question the nature of the professional obligation to consider themselves obliged on assignment. To illustrate the difference between the terms, it would be quite possible finding cases where as- signments understanding of a co-worker is high, i.e. it is a clear picture of the tasks they believe the de- cision maker expects be implemented. Despite this understanding, responsibility taking can be low, i.e. a number of different – e.g. moral /ethical/cultural – causes, may hamper actors accountability to re- ally carry out the assignment. One way to express the distinction between mission understanding and the responsibility of understanding is to assume that the former rests on the legal and the latter on legiti- mate grounds. Concepts of legality and legitimacy disclose relations’ between justice and morality. Le- gality focuses on social actions in a formal sense and is sanctioned by the state, e.g. by orders and rules of law. Legitimacy is more unspoken value system that has nothing to do with the formal legal system but in stead rests on ethical foundations (Bertilsson, 1987; Oxenswärdh, 2011). At the core of mission un- derstanding exists seemingly even understanding of responsibility. Responsibility understanding is formed in the core of actor’s competences. Thus, it is further emphasized that actors’ responsibilities also include understanding of the approach to change and development. 4. collective learning Organizational learning is more complex and dynam- ic than a mere magnification of individual learning. 8 Anette Oxenswärdh The level of complexity increases tremendously in the change from a single individual to a large collec- tion of diverse individuals. Issues of motivation and reward, for instance, which are an integral part of hu- man learning, become doubly complicated within organizations. Although the meaning of the term “learning” re- mains essentially the same as in the individual case, the learning process is fundamentally different at the organizational level. A model of organizational learning has to resolve the dilemma of imparting in- telligence and learning capabilities to a nonhuman entity without anthropomorphizing it. What do we mean by organizational learning? In the early stages of an organization’s existence, organizational learn- ing is often synonymous with individual learning because the organization consists of a small group of people and has minimal structure. As an organi- zation grows, however, a distinction between indi- vidual and organizational learning emerges, and a system for capturing the learning of its individual members evolves. C. Argyris and D.A. Schön (1978) posed one of the main dilemmas shared by all who tackle this issue: There is something paradoxical here. Organizations are not merely collections of individuals, yet there are no organizations without such collections. Simi- larly, organizational learning is not merely individual learning, yet organizations learn only through the experience and actions of individuals. Collective, collaborative and collegial learning are terms often used in the context of joint learn- ing processes. J. Ohlsson (2008) describes learning as a social process when the individual change their way of thinking about something. Collaborative learning in turn can be considered as a form of joint learning, as a special type of phenomenon, where the starting point is that all learning is based in so- cial activities, but with the collaborative learning processes is meant something beyond the social. Collaborative learning is a situation in which at least two people learn something together (Bruffee, 1993; Dillenbourg, 1999). Collaborative learning activities can include collaborative writing, group projects, joint problem solving, debates, study teams, and other activities. The approach is closely related to cooperative learning, which is the instructional use of small groups so that individuals work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Johnson et al., 2008). The difference between col- laborative and collective learning is still vague. But according to O. Granberg and J. Ohlsson (ed., 2016) this difference can consist of that in collaborative learning there is group of individuals trying to learn something together but without to specify or clarify the social context. In collective learning however it is decisive to try to achieve a common understanding. Collegial learning however, often used when schools and teachers are discussed, is related to the concept of collaborative learning. Collegial learning can be seen as a combination term for various forms of professional development where colleagues through structured cooperation acquire knowledge from a broad concept of knowledge, which also con- tains abilities and skills. In general it is emphasized that peer learning or collegial learning is a method by which a more experienced person helps a less experienced to absorb specific knowledge. Useful methods for peer learning are among others, learn- ing study, lesson study and auscultation with feed- back and peer tutoring. The importance of the joint learning synergistic effect is often highlighted in the descriptions of the collective learning (Wilhelmson, 1998; Döös et al., 2001; Döös, Wilhelmson, 2011). Synergy means that collective processes based on interaction and communication, leads to the new common beliefs that had not been possible for in- dividuals to come up with on their own (Granberg, 1996; Ohlsson, 1996; Wilhelmson, 1998; Döös, Wil- helmson, 2005; Granberg, Ohlsson, 2005). L. Wilhelmson (1998) also draws attention to the importance of symmetry between the participants in a dialogue. Symmetry means that all participants’ observations and opinions are given the same weight in the conversation, and to recognize each other’s experiences as valid. An asymmetric situa- tion means a situation where power positions and opinions consolidation and an evaluative approach prevent an open and common search for new op- portunities. Symmetrical relationships can thus be seen as favourable to collective learning. J. Habermas (1996) argues that inter-subjective founded collective agreement will not occur from the fact that someone has been manipulated or forced to a particular approach, but requires cer- tain symmetry between the participants. J. Ohls- son (1996) has developed the concept of collective learning and created a model of the relationship be- tween individual and collaborative learning, which can be used to illustrate the collective learning. J. Ohlsson (1996) notes, that the collective learning shapes how the individual perceive their practical work and thereby shape the collective learning in- dividual experience potential. It is important for the collective learning that the experiences described in the collective so that the community can jointly problematize and reflect on the experience (Dixon, 1994; Granberg, 1996; Ohlsson, 1996; Wilhelmson, 1998; Larsson, 2004). Processes for understanding sustainability as a goal and practice 9 J. Ohlsson (1996) points out the learning dy- namic character and the on-going co-constructing of borders for example, the permissible and the im- permissible, is something, which can be perceived as a condition for learning processes. There is a criti- cal, emancipatory dimension of awareness rising of these unconscious conditions for learning. If the in- dividual is unaware of its potential and limitations, the individual cannot respond fully to promote learning. The actors’ understanding and interpretation of the change in thinking is significant for the way in which they assume change for fulfilling what they are commissioned to do. The understanding in- cludes the cognitive and psychological processes and shows in turn how the assumption of change can be shaped (Reeve, 2009). When the understanding of change describes what happens to the professionals and in turn leads to heightened competence, the concept of change can also be viewed as a pedagogical concept (Lin- densjö, Lundgren, 2002; Scherp, 1998; Ohlsson (ed.), 2004; Alexandersson, 1994). The understanding of assignment and change of thinking can thus be re- garded as a learning process, which is in turn essen- tial for active assumption of collective learning. This learning process is deemed to be an important part of the organization staff ’s competence development and professional development (Ellström, 2011; Mad- sén (ed.), 1994; Ohlsson, Stedt, 2003; Ohlsson (ed.), 2004; Goodson, 2005). D.A. Schön (1995) integrates values and beliefs in a theory on learning. According to D.A. Schön cog- nition cannot be separated from values and beliefs, nor can cognition and action. Importance of by il- luminating the relationship between learning and action, that is, between thinking and doing by D.A. Schön (1995) sheds light on the nature of the chang- es that an innovative project must seek to provoke. Changes in so called theories-in-use that often are tacit, remain implicit and go unnoticed. In order to challenge them, they need to be brought to the sur- face: people will have to be made aware of their tacit rationalities, and be tempted to reconsider them. A second relevant aspect of D.A. Schön’s insights is that, even though theories-in-use play a role in the actions of various actors in a similar way, they dif- fer in terms of contents depending on professional training and experience, social background, up- bringing and so on. Because of their intrinsic and fundamental diver- gence, the theories-in-use that people from different professional and cultural backgrounds hold, will in- fluence the possibility for them to learn collectively. 5. discussion and conclusions The understanding of the goals for assignment and especially those towards sustainability has attained a greater role in organizations today. Even more im- portant, if possible, however, is the understanding of the responsibility embedded in the assignment. This understanding of responsibility may be viewed as a path, as a process to the active assumption of responsibility that is demanded of all the actors in organization working towards more sustainable so- lutions. Changes in professional competence do not take place without initiative. Reflection on the assignment engenders a better ability to assess reality, which in turn shapes a quali- tative aspect of professional know-how. This shows a need to specialize by refining the language and to develop tools with which to han- dle the work better. The difficulties for managers and leaders and the need for changes in attitudes and values in general in our way of living generate the necessity of learning. Perhaps the best way to do it is, as Appelbaum et al. (2016a, 2016b) suggest, through organizational change initiative and collec- tive learning processes. Hence, the purpose of this paper, which was to discuss collective learning in organizational context as a tool for deeper under- standing of sustainability as a concept and a goal. Any planned, directed change by individuals or collectives is built on learning. Learning can be de- fined more generally as the process of acquiring knowledge, skills, norms, values, or understanding through experience, imitation, observation, model- ling, practice, or study; by being taught; or as a result of collaboration. This learning process activates sev- eral other processes: processes of understanding the assignment and its responsibilities. Being able to develop one’s professional compe- tence to match the practical needs is probably a via- ble path to learning where the motivation is greatest among professionals. In this light, the organizational and collective competence development measures alone are not sufficient. Highlighting and being able to discuss, reflect, and learn more about the profes- sion-specific areas, both individually and collective- ly, is of great significance for professional develop- ment. Based on this reasoning, the learning process provides the professionals with their knowledge and sharpens their tools. Organizations can thus be continuously improved through the profession- als’ own power. This process as a model for enhanc- ing aspects of the professionals’ competence can become an important part of their development, where professionals themselves shape and continu- ously revise their know-how in their work by relying 10 Anette Oxenswärdh on their own and their colleagues’ competence and professionalism. Responsibility issues are a part of the ethical competence in organization and a vital part in the work towards sustainable organization. Without eth- ical discussions at a deeper level, professionals de- ceive themselves and can deceive their customers. This leads to ethical stances being taken on unethi- cal grounds. The balance between freedom on the one hand and responsibility on the other is upset, and the result is an organization like a stage with a nicely designed set but with a play that does not affect anyone. Organization development towards more sustainable activities can be regarded as a force whereby the diversity, through reflection and dia- logue, results in new solutions that can be beneficial to everyone. Responsibility of the mission thus be- comes a matter of debate among the professionals. Discussions intend to jointly interpret the responsi- bilities that the task contains. As the road to the mission and responsibility of understanding and accountability can be seen as a learning process, both in individually and collec- tively, emphasized the psychological and pedagogi- cal dimension of the concepts of responsibility and sustainability. Regarding to mission and responsibil- ity understanding, these can be seen as formed by learning processes. Factual knowledge base uses the familiarity of knowledge that in turn helps to shape and create understanding of the mission and the re- sponsibility, towards sustainability. In summary, mis- sion and responsibility understanding, are both pro- cesses formed by individual and collective learning. The process starts as an individual learning process. Subsequently, involved group reflections together with their own reflections create a collective learn- ing. If co-workers are given a possibility to clarify and discuss concept of sustainability in collective, it also activates other processes of understanding their as- signment and it’s responsibilities. references Abrahamsson B., Andersen J.A., 2005, Organisation: att beskri- va och förstå organisationer, Liber-Hermods, Malmö. Alexandersson M., 1994, Fördjupad reflektion bland lärare – för ökat lärande, [in:] T. Madsén (eds.), Lärares lärande Studentlitteratur, Lund, 157–173. Appelbaum S.H., Calcagno R., Magarell, S.M., Saliba M., 2016a, ‘A relationship between corporate sustainability and or- ganizational change (part two)’, Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(2), 89–96. Appelbaum S.H., Calcagno R., Magarelli S.M., Saliba M., 2016b, ‘A relationship between corporate sustainability and or- ganizational change (part three)’, Industrial and Commer- cial Training, 48(3), 133–141. Argyris C., Schön D.A., 1978, Organizationl learning: a theory of action perspective, Addison & Wesley Pub, Co., Boston. Bertilsson M., 1987, Makten över moderniteten, Symposion Bokförlag, Lund-Stockholm. Bovens M., 1998, The Quest for Responsibility. Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations, University Press, Cambridge. Bruffee K., 1993, Collaborative Learning, [in:] Organisational Change Management: A., The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 28–51. Dillenbourg P., 1999, Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, Advances in Learning and In- struction Series, Elsevier Science Inc., New York. Dixon N.M., 1994, The Organizational Learning Cycle: How we can Learn Collectively, McGraw-Hill, London. Dobson A., 2008, Nature (and Politics), Environmental Values, 17, 285–301. Döös M., Wilhelmson L. och Backlund T., 2001, Kollektivt lä- rande på individualitstiskt vis – ett lärdilemma för praktik och teori. Lärdilemman i arbetslivet, [in:] T. Backlund, H. Hansson, C. och Thunborg (eds.), Lärdilemman i arbetsli- vet, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 43–78. Döös M., Wilhelmson L., 2005, Kollektivt lärande. Om betydel- sen av interaktion i handling och gemensam handlingsa- rena, Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 10(3/4), 209–226. Döös M., Wilhelmson L., 2011, Collective learning: interaction and a shared action arena, Journal of Workplace Learning, 10, 487–500. Ellström P.-E., 2011, Informal learning at work: Conditions, processes and logics, [in.] M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Ev- ans, B. O’Connor (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Workplace Learning, SAGE Publications, London, 105–119. Goodson I.F., 2005, Vad är professionell kunskap? Förändrade värderingar av lärares yrkesroll, Studentlitteratur, Lund. Granberg O., 1996, Lärande i organisationer. Professionella yrkesutövares strategier vid organisatorisk förändring, De- partment of Pedagogics Stockholm University, Stock- holm. Granberg O., Ohlsson J. (eds.), 2016, Kollektivt lärande. Stu- dentlitteratur, Lund. Granberg O., Ohlsson J., 2005, Kollektivt lärande i team, Peda- gogisk forskning i Sverige, 10(3–4), 227–243. Gullikson H., Holmgren U., 2015, Hållbar utveckling: livskvali- tet, beteende, teknik. Studentlitteratur, Lund. Habermas J., 1996, Kommunikativt handlande. Texter om språk, rationalitet och samhälle, Daidalos, Gothenburg. Hahn T., Preuss L., Pinkse J., Figge F., 2014, Cognitive Frames in Corporate Sustainability: Managerial Sense making with Paradoxical and Business Case Frames, Academy of Man- agement Review, 39(4), 463–487. Ingarden R., 1970, Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt, Bd.I, II/I, II/2, MaxNiemeyer, Tübingen. Ingarden R., 1983, Man and Value, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington. Johnson D.W., Johnson R.T., Holubec E., 2008, Cooperation in the Classroom, Interaction Book Company, Edina. Kernell L-Å., 2002, Att hitta balanser, Studentlitteratur, Lund. Processes for understanding sustainability as a goal and practice 11 Larsson P., 2004, Förändringens villkor. En studie av organisato- riskt lärande och förändring inom skolan, Doktorsavhand- ling vid Handelshögskolan i Stockholm, Stockholm. Lindensjö B., Lundgren U.P., 2002, Politisk styrning och utbild- ningsreformer, Liber Utbildningsförlaget, Stockholm. Lucas J.R., 1995, Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Ox- ford. Mackie J., 1990, Ethics, Penguin Books, London. Madsén T. (ed.), 1994, Lärarens lärande, Studentlitteratur, Lund. Naess A., 1995, The Deep Ecological Movement – Some Philo- sophical Aspects, [in:] G. Sessions (ed.), Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, Shambala, Boston, 225–229. Ohlsson J. (ed.), 2004, Arbetslag och lärande. Lärarens organi- serande av samarbete i organisationspedagogisk belysning, Studentlitteratur, Lund. Ohlsson J., 1996, Kollektivt lärande: lärande med arbete med förskolebarn. Rapport/seminar om miljöutbildning, Peda- gogiska institutionen Stockholm University, Stockholm. Ohlsson J., 2008, 29/9-2008 Föreläsning: Arbetslag och läran- de? Södertörns högskola, Stockholm. Ohlsson J., Stedt L., 2003, Organisering och kollektivt lärande. Ett organisationspedagogiskt perpektiv på lärande organi- sation i praktiken. Paper HSS Konferens 2003, 14-16 Maj 2003 i Ronneby, pedagogiska Institutionen, Stockholm. Oxenswärdh A., 2011, Relations of Responsibility in School De- velopment, Doctoral Disertation. SU, Stockholm: US-AB, New York. Park Ch., Allaby M., 2016, A Dictionary of Environment and Conservation, Oxford University Press, London. Permer K., Permer L.-G., 1994, Begreppet ansvar: en litter- aturgenomgång och en empirisk studie I skolan, Pedago- gisk metodisk utveckling nr 128, Kristianstad. Rambaud A., Richard J., 2015, ‘The triple Depreciation Line’ instead of the ‘Triple Bottom Line’: towards a genuine in- tegrated reporting, Critical Perspective on Accounting, 33, 92–116. Reeve J., 2009, Understanding Motivation and Emotion, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. Scherp H-Å., 1998, Utmanande eller utmanat ledarskap. Göteborg. Studies in Educational Sciences 120. ACTA Uni- versitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg. Schön D.A., 1995, The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, Arena, Melbourne. Slaper T.F., Hall T.J., 2011, ‘The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work?’ Indiana Business Review, Spring 2011, 4–9. Thurén T., 2015, Etik ocjh politik, Liber AB, Stockholm. UNWTO Annual Report 2014, 2015, World Tourism Organiza- tion UNWTO, http://www2.unwto.org/annualreport2014 [30.04.2017]. Wildavsky A., 1986, Responsibilities are Allocated by Cultures, Mimeo, Berkley. Wilhelmson L., 1998, Lärande dialog. Samtalsmönster, pers- pektivförändring och lärande i gruppsamtal, Stockholm University, Stockholm.