Beyond Anthropocentrism: A Call to Action for Multispecies Inclusivity

Abstract

Acknowledging organizations within a multispecies world is crucial for advancing sustainability. This commentary advocates for “multispecies inclusivity” in business and society as a new concept, transcending the traditional anthropocentrism that determines whose interests “matter.” We offer insights into this concept, discuss associated challenges, and propose pathways for implementing it into organizational practices.

Management research has long emphasized the importance of inclusion in organizations, as reflected in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #16. Inclusion involves integrating those seen as outsiders into the organization, ensuring they consent to the terms of their inclusion (Ahmed, 2012). Inclusive organizations value individuals from diverse backgrounds and involve them in decision-making (Nishii, 2013). When applied to animals, these definitions reveal limitations as animals’ consent for inclusion and their participation in decision-making challenge traditional managerial thinking. Given that animals are integral to organizations and societies, whether acknowledged or not, it is an ethical imperative to urgently address this gap in current discourse.

“Multispecies Inclusivity” as a Novel Concept for Transcending Anthropocentrism

“Multispecies inclusivity” involves adopting a perspective that recognizes the intrinsic value, standpoint, and interests of animals within organizations. It encompasses a wide spectrum, from considering group-specific interests to individual factors (such as species-specific biology and behavior, as well as an individual’s personality, traits, and experiences). Multispecies inclusivity not only recognizes our interconnectedness with nature but also emphasizes its pivotal role in fostering a sustainable future for multiple species. It represents a fundamental paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to post-anthropocentrism in how organizations and society perceive and treat other species, challenging the ethics that permit animal exploitation in human-led organizations.

Multispecies inclusivity aligns with One Welfare/One Health principles and planetary well-being, as well as the emerging field of Animal Organization Studies (AOS), urging organizational scholars to rethink human organizing through a multispecies lens. Animal inclusion can already be found in many Indigenous ontologies, which perceive life as interconnected. There have also been attempts to advance organizational theories by rethinking human-centeredness and including other species. Stakeholder theory, with its moral core for managerial decision-making, stands as a notable example that has been re-imagined in studies where both animals (Tallberg et al., 2022) and nature (Kortetmäki et al., 2023) have been included as stakeholders.

Multispecies inclusivity matters because it promotes a more comprehensive understanding of well-being that encompasses all living beings, not just humans. By incorporating animal interests into organizational processes, we can foster more ethical and sustainable practices, enhance biodiversity, and create a more balanced and harmonious coexistence between humans and other species. Multispecies inclusivity may uncover new opportunities for solving problematic practices, such as those within food systems, sports, and tourism. Furthermore, by including animals in existing organizational diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and sustainability policies, we can broaden ethical considerations to encompass all living beings, not just those traditionally in positions of power. While some organizations, particularly those in animal-based industries, may struggle to seriously include animal interests, this should not deter the overall progress efforts. Indeed, especially in organizational contexts where human workers face emotional, physical, and psychological challenges, and where animals are adversely affected, adopting a nonhuman perspective through multispecies inclusivity can significantly improve the welfare of both humans and animals.

Unpacking the Challenges of Multispecies Inclusivity

“Multispecies inclusivity” faces challenges from traditional power structures that systematically exclude animals from theoretical discussions and decision-making processes aimed at promoting inclusion. For example, the 17 SDGs have so far excluded domesticated animals, particularly those within agricultural and food systems. As a result, animal activists have been calling for the adoption of SDG 18 “Zero Exploitation,” emphasizing that improving animal welfare by reducing and ultimately eliminating exploitation is crucial for success across all other SDGs. Domesticated animals, like chicken (represented on the SDG 18 tile), endure some of the worst welfare conditions within food systems. Yet “poultry” is often portrayed as one of the most sustainable sources of animal protein. This narrative ignores the welfare implications for both animals and humans working in environments marked by high-security risks and the potential for zoonotic disease transmission. Similarly, the UN’s Global Code of Ethics for Tourism excludes the millions of animals used in tourism. Despite calls for the inclusion of an additional article addressing animal welfare in tourism, the code has remained human-centered since its introduction in 1999. These examples highlight the major challenges to broaden organizational circles of concern to include multiple species.

Overcoming this dominant anthropocentric worldview is challenging, as organizational practices typically prioritize human interests over those of nonhuman species. There is also a lack of awareness regarding the diverse roles played by multiple species in various organizational contexts, including guide dogs, mine rats, animals used for food, animal tourist workers, and lab animals. Moreover, multispecies inclusivity poses ethical dilemmas for organizations in industries with a history of animal exploitation.

Transforming organizations to embrace multispecies inclusivity proves challenging due to animals’ limited recognition as workers or legal subjects, with labor regulations often disregarding their status. Resistance to changing anthropocentric organizational policies for the sake of multispecies inclusivity can impede progress. Many of these organizational behaviors come from human individuals’ ethical framings, which, despite the growing body of knowledge on animal interests and experiences, remain entrenched in traditional anthropocentric framings. Such attitudes are not easily changed on personal levels, especially as many are challenged to change their cultural thinking regarding societal animal use (e.g., in food, clothes, leisure, or entertainment), and thus find this topic emotionally charged. Furthermore, determining who advocates for or speaks on behalf of animals poses its own set of challenges.

Establishing Ways Forward

The “animal question” is fundamentally a question of domination that extends to human groups (or individuals) who lack traditional power. This commentary stands as an urgent call to scholars and practitioners to expand their focus on these groups if they are serious about promoting responsible organizing. It is time to directly confront power imbalances and acknowledge the interconnectedness of all forms of exploitation. This is a challenge we must all rise to meet if we are committed to creating a more fair and sustainable society.

Promoting the well-being of multiple species across all levels of organized society requires a transformative framework for education, organizational practice, and decision-making. Innovative pedagogical rethinking is needed in business schools to teach ethical, moral, and critical skills, so graduates can better manage the increasing complexity of the Anthropocene.

As organization and management scholars, we can play a crucial role by ethically including other species in our research and being more inclusive in our theorizing, while reflexively acknowledging the difficulties involved in doing so. Furthermore, exploring and innovating alternative approaches is essential for progress—a path that forward-thinking organizations and individuals ought to embrace, especially within the domain of HR and management. Recent DEI literature highlights double marginalization for disabled humans and their service animals, along with overlapping inequalities. Focusing equality policies solely on single groups, such as gender or race, does not adequately address these issues (Jammaers & Huopalainen, 2023). Embracing multispecies inclusivity within DEI practices could better value individuals from other species, surpassing abstract environmental sustainability policies that often keep animals at a distance.

Over the long term, multispecies inclusivity can spark societal innovations benefiting both humans and animals, fostering more compassionate, resilient, and sustainable societies for all life. For example, various organizations in the plant-based industry are creating widely accepted alternatives to animal agriculture, such as protein derived from air or hemp. Similarly, service industries like tourism are developing animal welfare certifications to enhance animal well-being. Even profit-driven sectors like finance are introducing offerings that consider animal interests, such as “cruelty-free” pension funds. Finally, as our well-being is deeply interconnected, how we treat and think about animals is a great indicator of who we are as moral subjects, decision-makers, and as a species. As we navigate the challenges of the Anthropocene, multispecies inclusivity provides a roadmap for creating a more sustainable, just, and equitable world for humans and nonhumans alike.