Institutional Integrity

David B. Couturier, OFM. Cap., "Franciscan Mission in an Evolving Global Environment: Institutional Integrity in a Polymorphic World." Keynote Address at the Evolving Global Environment Conference, The School of Business, St. Bonaventure University (November 14-15, 2025).

It was nearly ten years ago that Thomas Friedman, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist from the New York Times, wrote that we were now living in an “age of accelerations,” where the volume and velocity of change were exponentially impacting every aspect of our lives.[1] His “age of acceleration” referred to a period of rapid, simultaneous, and compounded change in technology, global markets, business, the environment, and climate that was outstripping humanity’s ability to adapt and thrive. Individuals and institutions in this rapid-fire world needed to be fast, fair, and flexible.

That was ten years ago. Last Sunday, Friedman again wrote in the New York Times to analyze the effects of the speed and scale of change on economics, politics, and international diplomacy. He now argues that there is a “full fusion taking place between accelerating climate change and rapid transformations in technology, biology, cognition, connectivity, material science, geopolitics, and geoeconomics.”[2]

The issue is no longer just about speed and “acceleration”; it’s about transformations and how they combine in more volatile fashion. He says that these transformations…

"… have set off an explosion of all sorts of things combining with all sorts of other things, so much so that everywhere you turn these days, binary systems seem to be giving way to poly ones. Artificial intelligence is hurtling toward “polymathic artificial general intelligence,” climate change is cascading into “poly-crisis,” geopolitics is evolving into “polycentric” and “polyamorous” alignments, once-binary trade is dispersing into “poly-economic” supply webs, and our societies are diversifying into ever more “polymorphic” mosaics.”[3]

Friedman’s point is valid and challenging. For years, we have viewed most issues in binary terms—either/or, on/off. We see climate change as a simple binary problem: (“more warming bad, less warming good”). However, experience shows that climate change is a far more complex and difficult subject than we initially thought, triggering a “cascade of interlocking crises” that leads to droughts, floods, wildfires, crop failures, and rising sea levels. These, in turn, cause economic shocks, widespread migration, fears of deportation, and authoritarian elections. Our ecological systems are not the only ones overwhelmed by climate crises; our social and political systems are as well. These crises can no longer be contained. This cascade of crises has given rise to a new concept—polycrises[4]—and it calls for a major shift in social consciousness from the “Anthropocene” worldview, centered on human domination, to the “Polycene” worldview, which emphasizes the interconnectedness between humans and all other creatures.[5] Since these new crises do not respect borders or boundaries, we are entering a new era beyond “evolving globalization.”

I grew up in Nashua, New Hampshire, the state's second-largest city. Back then, we lived in a binary world. Our town was split nearly evenly between Catholics and Protestants. And Catholics were also evenly divided between French-Canadian and Irish parishes. Some of our parochial schools spoke only English, and others spoke English and French. In those parochial schools, we all learned history and our first lessons about politics through the lens of the two superpowers that shaped global politics and economics: the Soviet Union and the United States. The priorities and anxieties of those two nations became the priorities and anxieties of the world. It was the era of the Cold War that lasted from the end of World War II to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.

During that period, the world began shifting toward a more polycentric system, where countries no longer aligned solely with one superpower. Instead, they adopted strategies of multiple alignments or omni-alliances, maintaining various economic and security ties beyond the old binary focus on strategic and defensive relationships.

This growing diversity of views, interests, strategies, economies, and value systems makes the world increasingly complex and unpredictable. In a highly interconnected global landscape, multiple value systems, economic stakes, ecological approaches, and demographic issues either converge or clash. In short, the center cannot hold. Yet, businesses must keep operating in this fractured world where the center constantly shifts and breaks apart. Amid this climate of polycentric crises, democracies find it hard to work across political divides. They often shut down, leading to hunger and causing millions worldwide to lose vital humanitarian aid—while the world also trends toward authoritarian rule.

As educators and students, our primary task is to be clear-sighted and open-minded about the context of our teaching regarding mission today, whether in business or theology. We are moving from the era of globalization, where human interests dominated, to a polycene world where the planet’s multiple interests now emerge.[6] What form of mission and institutional integrity will we choose?

Globalization and the Polycene World

Let me clarify the distinction between globalization and the polycentric world. Globalization sees the world as a large, interconnected marketplace fueled by trade, technology, and human effort, focusing on growth, efficiency, and profit across nations. It is driven by the “compression of time,” as the world appears to “shrink” thanks to improvements in transportation, and benefits from comparative advantage, economies of scale, labor and resource arbitrage, technological spread, supply chain improvements, and capital mobility.[7]

• Comparative Advantage: Countries specialize in producing goods and services they can make most efficiently, leading to lower global production costs.[8]
• Economies of Scale: Global markets allow firms to produce larger quantities, reducing per-unit costs through mass production and standardized processes.
• Labor and Resource Arbitrage: Companies can locate production where labor, materials, or regulations are less costly, optimizing profit margins.
• Technological Diffusion: Innovations spread more quickly across borders, improving efficiency in production, logistics, and communication.
• Supply Chain Optimization: Global sourcing and just-in-time systems streamline manufacturing and distribution, minimizing waste and inventory costs.
• Capital Mobility: Investment flows easily to where it yields the highest return, enabling rapid scaling and resource allocation.

In contrast, a Polycene world of business envisions an economy of relative harmony among humans, nature, and technology—where value is assessed not only by economic profit but, more importantly, by ecological health, community well-being, and sustainable partnerships. While globalization emphasizes market integration, the Polycene aims to unify the world’s life systems.[9]

Instead of a human-dominated era, the Polycene envisions a world of many beings — human and nonhuman — coexisting and shaping the planet together. In business terms:

• The focus shifts from globalization’s human-centered economics to planetary coexistence.
• Businesses are expected to participate in a network of relationships among people, animals, ecosystems, and technologies.
• Success is judged not only by profit but also by sustainability, reciprocity, and ecological balance.
• Extractive global economic models are replaced by regional, regenerative, and relational economies.  

This shift is monumental for those of us in education, whether we teach business or theology. Let me share why I believe that is so.

As globalization progresses, it continues to focus on human advancement through market growth. Its ethical base remains mainly utilitarian and human-centered, aiming to improve human welfare and productivity.

Businesses are guided by principles of efficiency, corporate responsibility, and sustainable development, but their main goal remains expansion. Ethical considerations focus on balancing profit with fairness, reducing harm, and promoting justice within human societies.

In contrast, the emerging vision of a Polycene world demands a deeper ethical shift. Instead of seeing humans as rulers of the planet, the Polycene acknowledges a shared existence among humans, nonhumans, and ecosystems. Ethics in this framework are relational and restorative, focusing on mutual flourishing and ecological justice. Business is no longer just a human pursuit centered on productivity; it becomes an active collaboration aimed at preserving the vitality of Earth’s living systems.

The educational implications of these differences require ethical shifts. A globalization-oriented education prepares students to succeed in a competitive, interconnected economy, focusing on efficiency, innovation, and transferable skills.[10] It views education as the development of human capital and an investment in productivity. The Polycene perspective, however, sees education as a practice of ecological literacy and ethical and moral imagination. It values wisdom rooted in love, local knowledge, and global curiosity, along with participatory/collaborative learning that engages and connects students to place, community, and the more-than-human world, including the transcendent.[11]

Ultimately, globalization aims to make the world smaller and more efficient, while the Polycene worldview seeks to expand the world’s meaning, purpose, and connections. Where the former focuses on making systems more efficient for consumption, the latter focuses on sustaining life.[12]

The Connections and Differences between the Polycene and Franciscan Ethical Perspectives

Given the significant differences in both business and theology, when our minds shift from a focus on globalization to one centered on the combinations, transformations, and polycrises of our emerging world, what role does our Franciscan mission-mindedness play in these educational shifts?[13] I believe the Franciscan mission can serve as a powerful resource as the world transitions from anthropocentric beliefs to polycentric realities.

First, I believe there are four main connections between the polycene and the Franciscan ethical perspective: ontology, a critique of anthropocentrism, a focus on care, and a commitment to building an integral ecology.

1. Relational Ontology: Both the Polycene and the Franciscan traditions affirm that being is relational. In the Polycene world, all entities—human, animal, technological, ecological—exist within webs of mutual interdependence. Likewise, Franciscan thought (based on Bonaventure and Francis of Assisi) views all creation as arising from and returning to the divine relationality of the Trinity. Franciscan theologians like Ilia Delio, Zachary Hayes, MaryBeth Ingham, and others describe this as a “sacramental worldview,” where everything reveals God’s presence and interconnectedness.[14]

2. Critique of Anthropocentrism: Both oppose the idea that humans are above or separate from creation. The Polycene approaches this philosophically, emphasizing the more-than-human world as      essential to existence. The Franciscan tradition addresses it theologically, focusing on creaturehood: humans are part of creation, not its rulers. This is the core of St. Francis’ “Brother Sun, Sister Moon” spirituality and Horan’s “Catholicity of Creation” reflections; both advocate this decentering and reevaluation of humanity.[15]

3. Ethics of Care and Mutuality: Each promotes an ethic rooted in relationships and responsibility rather than domination. The Polycene sees ethics fulfilled when there is flourishing among all beings, while Franciscan ethics finds fulfillment in the mutuality in love (caritas) found in Trinitarian relations—the abundant goodness of God reflected in creation.[16]

4. Integral Ecology: Both perspectives align with Pope Francis’s Laudato Si’, which draws on the Franciscan sense of kinship and the Polycene’s ecological consciousness. Each recognizes social, economic, and environmental issues as interconnected rather than occupying separate moral spaces.[17]

The Differences Between the Polycene and Franciscan Ethics

There are also significant differences between the ethics of the Polycene tradition and those of the Franciscan intellectual tradition. These differences are in kind, not just in degree, and they relate to the foundation of meaning, our moral outlook, our anthropology, and our ethical motivations.

1. Ground of Meaning: The polycene and Franciscan traditions differ in their understanding of the ground of meaning. The polycene tradition resides in a post-theistic world, one that is highly secular. Meaning arises from within the network of relationships itself, and life’s diversities and mutualities are seen as self-justifying.[18] On the other hand, the Franciscan intellectual tradition is theologically rooted. Meaning derives from the profound mystery first related in the Book of Genesis that God is Creator. The great revelation of those initial thoughts in Scripture is that the divine goes beyond its eternal self-sufficiency to speak a word outward. This divine creates outward. Creation’s relationality reflects divine love and intentionality.[19]

2. Moral Horizon: There is a clear difference in the moral outlook of these two views of our world. The moral goal of the polycene world is to establish sustainability and coexistence within the Earth's limits. The ethical goal of the Franciscan tradition is to seek communion and redemption, where creation’s harmony participates in divine life. Its path is eschatological, not just ecological. The ultimate purpose or telos of life on earth is the creation of a “new heavens and a new earth.” Heaven is not the final goal in Christian or Franciscan theology. It is, as the Book of Revelation predicts, a faith-based conviction, rooted in the Resurrection of Jesus, that He will return and dwell with His resurrected followers in the renewed heavens and earth.[20]

3. View of the Human: As we have seen previously, in the polycene tradition, humans are one species among many, and thereby ethically and effectively decentered. They are not the only concern of life. In the Franciscan ethical tradition, humans are creatures among creatures, but with a significant difference. They are uniquely capable of reflective praise—called to mirror God’s goodness through humility and care, not superiority.

4. Ethical Motivation: The polycene tradition is ethically motivated by planetary survival, reciprocity, and shared vulnerability. The Franciscan tradition is ethically motivated by love of God and neighbor, extending to all creation—ethical action is doxological (praise-filled) rather than just pragmatic.[21]

This graphic summarizes the differences between the polycene perspective and that of the Franciscan intellectual tradition. The differences are significant and noteworthy.

The Polycene tradition promotes a secular ecological awareness, while the Franciscan tradition emphasizes a sacramental ecological spirituality. Both advocate humility, relationality, and a departure from exploitative human-centered views. However, whereas the Polycene concludes with mutual coexistence, Franciscan ethics go further—toward spiritual kinship, viewing creation as a community of praise united in divine love.[22]

A Vision to Compel us

Given what I have said (in too short a form), I believe that the vision that should compel us as educators may sound like this:

"A business school (and a theology department) that is deeply Franciscan in identity, integrated in institutional integrity, and responsive to the polycene world, producing leaders who are mission-minded, ethically-grounded, complexity-adept, and globally responsible."

All of this goes to the question of our institutional integrity and the coherence of our understanding of our mission as a Catholic university dedicated to excellence in the Franciscan tradition. Is our business education (or, for that matter, our theological education) serving the whole person integrally and holistically, or have we fallen victim to Enlightenment principles that fracture our connections with one another, with our fellow creatures, and with our God, the good and abundant creator of all things, according to our Catholic-Franciscan tradition?

Conclusion

And so tonight, we present a broader and more ethically unified perspective that guides us toward an “evolving globalization,” while also embracing a humble and coherent challenge that is ecologically and philosophically urgent, sacramental, and incarnational. As Pope Francis often said, the cry of the earth is the most resonant echo in our world today. In it, we hear the living systems of the planet crying out to humanity to stop acting like rulers and oppressors and instead see ourselves as brothers and sisters of a world increasingly in need of healing. We need a solid and transformative ethic for this challenge. I believe the Franciscan mission and moral tradition offer us that.

Bibliography on Polycene/ Polycentric Studies

Acharya, Amitav. 2014. The End of the American World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Acharya, Amitav. 2017. “After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order.” Ethics & International Affairs 31 (3): 271–285.

Aligica, Paul Dragos, and Vlad Tarko. 2012. “Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and Beyond.” Governance 25 (2): 237–262.

Aligica, Paul Dragos, and Vlad Tarko. 2013. “Co?Production, Polycentricity, and Value Heterogeneity: The Ostroms’ Public Choice Institutionalism Revisited.” American Political Science Review 107 (4): 726–741.

Baykov, Andrey, ed. 2022. Polycentric World Order in the Making. Singapore: Springer.

Escobar, Arturo. 2018. *Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds.* Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Harraway, Donna J. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin with the Chthuclucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ingold, Tim. 2013. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture.Lmondon: Routledge.

Jordan, Andrew, Dave Huitema, Harro van Asselt, and Johanna Forster, eds. 2018. Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Latour, Bruno. 2018. Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Manzini, Ezio. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McGinnis, Michael D., ed. 1999. Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems.” American Economic Review 100 (3): 641–672.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. “Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change.” Global Environmental Change 20 (4): 550–557.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2014. “A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change.” Annals of Economics and Finance 15 (1): 71–108.

Ostrom, Vincent, Charles Tiebout, and Robert Warren. 1961. “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.” American Political Science Review 55 (4): 831–842.

Polanyi, Michael. 1951. The Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders. London: Routledge/University of Chicago Press.

RISD Center for Complexity. 2023. The Polycene Design Manual. Providence, RI: Rhode Island School of Design.

RISD Center for Complexity. 2023. Gateways into the Polycene. Providence, RI: Rhode Island School of Design.

RISD Center for Complexity. 2024. “Design for the Polycene.” Research Overview. https://cfc.risd.edu/the-polycene/

 

_________________________

David B. Couturier, OFM. Cap. is the Director of the Franciscan Institute and Associate Professor of Theology and Franciscan Studies at St. Bonaventure University. He is also the Director of the Padua Program, which teaches Franciscan mission-based leadership to lay and religious leaders of Franciscan institutions. His latest book is Franciscan Mission and Organizational Development: A Socioanalytic Perspective (Franciscan Institute Publications, 2025).