Both resilience and regeneration are relevant concepts in sustainability science. Resilience thinking has led to improved understanding of cross-scale cycles of growth and renewal, regime shifts, and planetary boundaries. Regeneration highlights the role of positive, place-based and partially self-perpetuating social-ecological dynamics and seeks to foster mutualistic relationships between human and more-than-human entities. This paper lays out similarities, differences and overlaps between work on resilience and regeneration. The concept of regeneration emerged both independently of resilience as well as playing a role within resilience scholarship. We show that the literatures on resilience and regeneration have elaborated complementary ideas and can be combined to derive guidance for improved governance of social-ecological systems. Because of its explicit and proactive future-orientation, the concept of regeneration could help boost nascent efforts to enact biosphere stewardship and develop positive visions for how to re-build a world that is dominated by regenerative rather than degenerative dynamics.

As corporations have come to recognise their role in shaping the biosphere, there has been an increase in inter-corporate cooperation, whereby corporations come together to address issues of common concern. The rationale for developing a collective approach arises from a realisation that “wicked” problems are beyond the capacity of any one organisation to tackle. At the same time, although inter-corporate collaborations exist in the practice landscape, little is known about their characteristics from an academic perspective. Moreover, these initiatives raise questions in terms of how collective performance might be communicated, thereby creating the possibility for accountability to be discharged. This paper seeks to understand how inter-corporate sustainability initiatives (hereafter ISIs) have been explored in the literature by using a systematic literature review (SLR) of 203 academic papers and explores how these aspects can be integrated to start the process of developing an understanding of potential accountability mechanisms for ISIs. The paper contributes to accounting literature by emphasising the likely relevance of different ISI configurations in designing appropriate accountability approaches. It expands existing discussions around accountability-based accounting systems and highlights the importance of considering a variety of factors, including the governance approach, nature of collaboration, and ISI mechanisms and attributes, in informing accountability measures. The SLR suggests that certain aspects, such as leadership, trust, legitimacy, and outcomes, are critical in understanding ISIs and influence our ability to imagine how accountability could be sought for collective outcomes as well as participant achievements.

Natural disasters driven by climate change have increased in frequency, intensity, and scale. The consequences of these disasters include the loss of human lives, property damage, increased economic costs, and decreased ability to respond effectively to both abrupt and more gradual disasters. Government responses to such disasters are often based on a desire to rapidly recover to normal, which is understandable, but is difficult in the Anthropocene because of rapidly changing social-ecological baselines that exceed the limits of adaptation and mitigation. Here we identify pitfalls of a narrow and singular focus on resiliency. Resiliency focuses on efficient and rapid recovery, which is laudable, but assumes linear responses, absence of tipping points, a single scale of cause and effect, and an implicit assumption of stationarity. In contrast, we highlight the importance of social-ecological resilience, which includes resiliency but also accounts for multiple spatial and temporal scales, cross-scale effects, and most importantly, the possibility of alternative system configurations (or regimes) separated by tipping points. Social-ecological resilience provides a more comprehensive and realistic framing, and therefore the ability to persist with change, prepare for, and perform adaptation and transformation of social-ecological systems. Accounting for social-ecological resilience is essential for governance of coupled systems of humans and nature as we collectively face a future in the Anthropocene that will contain more surprising and unpredictable events propelled by global change including climate change.

Underpinned by systemic thinking, social-ecological systems (SES) research has emerged as a critical field for addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene, marked by a cross-scale focus, inter-and transdisciplinary approaches, and a strong emphasis on place-based work. Thanks to the efforts of many networks and institutes, the field has advanced new theoretical and methodological approaches, fostered dedicated journals, and spurred educational programs. It has also significantly influenced sustainability initiatives and policy from local to global scales, and has richly informed place-based efforts. Despite this progress, SES research faces persistent challenges, including conceptual and methodological fragmentation, difficulty in scaling localized insights to global frameworks (and vice versa), and capturing cross-scale connections and processes while retaining contextual relevance. Inclusivity also remains a critical issue, with regional, Indigenous, and local contributions often underrepresented, as there is still a reliance on short-term, inequitably distributed grant funding for much of the research in the field. This paper introduces the Society for Social-Ecological Systems (SocSES), a global platform designed to build on and connect to the rich legacy of SES networks. SocSES aims to advance and support SES–based research, practice, and action toward a just and sustainable future. We outline how SocSES will provide a home for SES institutes, networks, researchers, and practitioners working at the science-practice-policy interface to connect and amplify existing efforts through thematic streams, regional hubs, an institutional hub, an early-career professionals hub, and synthesis groups. The society will provide a stable infrastructure to foster interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration, enhance the generalizability and policy relevance of SES research, bolster education, research, and knowledge co-production, and support the next generation of SES professionals. By addressing the persistent challenges facing the field and fostering transformative spaces and communities for innovation and action, SocSES aspires to support and leverage SES knowledge as a cornerstone of global sustainability science. In line with the society’s commitment to linguistic diversity and equitable access, this abstract has been translated into 12 languages by authors of this paper and additional contributors. These translations are available in Appendix 2 and at https://socses.org/about/paper.

Climate change will worsen conditions for people in the Global South, while conditions in large parts of the North will improve. Migration seems an effective adaptation strategy. However, making that a win-win for migrants and receiving communities requires revision of the food system, rules for mobility, and strategies for social integration.

Much of the discourse around climate change and the situation of diverse human societies and cultures in the Anthropocene focuses on responding to scientific understanding of the dynamics of the biosphere by adjusting existing institutional and organizational structures. Our emerging scientific understanding of human behaviour and the mechanisms that enable groups to achieve large-scale coordination and cooperation suggests that incrementally adjusting existing institutions and organizations will not be sufficient to confront current global-scale challenges. Specifically, the transaction costs of operating institutions to induce selfish rational actors to consider social welfare in their decision-making are too high. Rather, we highlight the importance of networks of shared stories that become real—imagined orders—that create context, meaning and shared purpose for framing decisions and guiding action. We explore imagined orders that have contributed to bringing global societies to where they are and propose elements of a science-informed imagined order essential to enabling societies to flourish in the Anthropocene biosphere.

"Water is the bloodstream of the biosphere" is a wise insight coined by Professor Malin Falkenmark (Falkenmark and Biswas 1995), a world-leading international hydrologist, who passed away on 3 December 2023, at the age of 98 years (Fig. 1). Falkenmark was a scientific visionary, calling for global water stewardship as a fundamental step towards human development, even before modern thinking on sustainable development was established through the 1987 Brundtland Commission and the 1992 Agenda 21 following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio. Her lifelong passion was to eradicate water poverty in the world, and to do this with hydrological evidence and inter-disciplinary collaboration. She co-developed the most prestigious award in water science—the Stockholm Water Prize, and received multiple awards herself, including the prestigious Volvo Environment Prize in 1998 and the Blue Planet Award in 2018.

We bring together two decades of research on cross-scale spatial and temporal connectivity of water in the Anthropocene to understand the implications for institutional fit and water governance, with a focus on river basin organizations and watershed-based bodies. There is strong evidence showing how hydrological cycles are tightly coupled across larger spatial scales than they were in the past, which implies a possible expansion of the boundaries typically considered in the study and governance of water. Temporally, frequent time lags between action and consequence and the potential for increasing concurrence of extreme events pose risks for decision-makers trying to make accurate and appropriate decisions. Both cross-scale spatial and temporal connectivity create new challenges to key principles regarding participation, deliberation and collaboration in water governance. We argue for a shift from emphasizing how governance can ‘fit’ a closed, biophysical boundary towards a stronger consideration of institutional ‘fitness’ through flexibility, responsiveness and anticipatory capacity to better support water resilience and sustainability.

As a result of years of increased rationalization and consolidation of food systems, the knowledge and skills of many actors in food value chains, especially those linked to smaller-scale traditional and artisanal production, processing, and cooking, have rapidly been eroded. Despite the resilience that such knowledge and skills can offer. In this paper, we use the lens of gastronomy to highlight how culinary craftsmanship and innovation hold potential to drive the development of biosphere stewardship that contributes to more biocultural, diverse, and resilient landscapes. We propose the concept of ‘gastronomic landscapes,’ i.e., land/seascapes that are governed, managed, or cared for to contribute specifically to culinary development while having substantive value for landscape resilience and food system sustainability. Through six cases representing different knowledge systems and landscapes across the world, the breadth of gastronomy and how it is linked to landscapes is highlighted. We develop a typology of characteristics that can be used to analyze gastronomic landscapes based on locality, diversity, and quality. In the paper, we conclude that thinking and acting in line with gastronomic landscapes can help build resilience and food sovereignty over time and offers a helpful conceptualization for further studies.