Background: The myriads of environmental and social predicaments that came together with the rise of energy consumption and global capitalism now calls for a radical paradigm shift. Though this shift has been discussed over the last few decades under the concept of “sustainable development”, it appears that the focus has merely been put on “sustaining the unsustainable”. Hence, exploring alternative sustainability paradigms and their viability appears as a necessity to navigate in the Anthropocene era.    Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore the strategies employed by Swedish ecovillages to achieve financial viability in the context of a strong sustainability paradigm. The focus is put on understanding how these organizations manage to avoid bankruptcy without compromising their values and purpose.    Method: This thesis is qualitative in nature and is based on an interpretivist paradigm. More specifically, the researchers followed the Grounded Theory approach proposed by Strauss & Corbin to analyze their data and find a plausible theory. Therefore, the theory introduced by the authors is rooted in the primary data collected through in-depth interviews with a total of six residents from three different Swedish ecovillages.   Conclusion: The results of this research shows that the Swedish ecovillages studied achieved financial viability by channeling money from the capitalist market economy to their communal economy, while simultaneously relying on their ideology and resources to prevent this money from “leaking out”.

Les organisations alternatives (OAs) s’opposent au quotidien à des formes traditionnelles d’organisation du travail. Les valeurs de solidarité, d’autonomie, d’engagement et d’inclusion constituent généralement leur raison d’être. Par conséquent, les profits s’imposent comme un moyen de répondre adéquatement à ces valeurs plutôt que comme une fin en soi. Ce positionnement fait en sorte que les OAs entrent fréquemment en dissonance avec des éléments structurels et idéologiques du système sociopolitique et économique capitaliste néolibéral. Les tensions dialectiques représentent un cadre théorique pertinent pour comprendre comment les membres d’OAs vivent et gèrent ces éléments qui entrent en opposition de manière dynamique dans les discours. L'analyse, basée sur des entretiens avec onze membres d'OAs, révèle quatre tensions principales : une tension interne/externe, une tension individuelle/collective, une tension rigidité/flexibilité et une tension inclusion/exclusion. Les tensions laissées ouvertes, lorsqu’on ne cherche pas à les résoudre hâtivement, peuvent stimuler le dialogue et favoriser le partage, l’implication des membres et l’innovation sociale. Toutefois, l’ambigüité et le désordre dans le sens et les interprétations constituent également un terrain propice à l’émergence de hiérarchies informelles et d’un contrôle normatif dont la force coercitive se trouve dans les valeurs fondamentales défendues. / Alternative organizations (AOs) oppose themselves from traditional forms of work organization on a day-to-day basis. Values of solidarity, autonomy, social responsibility and inclusion generally guide how organizing occurs. Consequently, members of AOs accept profits only insofar as they enable the organization to live out these values rather than as an end in themselves. This perspective is frequently in dissonance with the ideology and practices of the neoliberal socio-political and economic system. Dialectical tensions represent a relevant theoretical framework for understanding how those who work in AOs experience and manage these tensions, which play out dynamically in organizational interactions and discourses. The analysis, based on interviews with eleven members of AOs, reveals four main tensions: an external/internal tension; a rigidity/flexibility tension; an individual/collective tension; and an inclusion/exclusion tension. When tensions are left open, rather than being quickly resolved, they can stimulate dialogue and foster sharing, inclusiveness, and social innovation. However, paradoxes, ambiguity, and disorder in meaning and interpretations are also a breeding ground for informal hierarchies and normative control whose coercive force is found in the core values defended.