Pressures on organisations to improve their environmental performance and look towards ‘corporate sustainability’ (Tickell, 1999) are intensifying. Some forward thinking organisations and governments have embraced the symbiosis between good corporate governance and sound business strategy. Other organisations have yet to be convinced of the need and benefits and have yet to fall into line. Michael Lunn and his colleagues have been investigating what it takes to create the necessary cultural change towards sustainable outcomes.
At the end of the 1990’s, organisations saw the emergence of environmental issues on both the corporate and political agendas throughout western nations. In many countries, governments have proposed new legislation in an attempt to arrest the continued slide towards wide spread environmental damage. At the international level there were also a series of treaties put into place in an effort to control the problem of environmental degradation. The political and corporate development of environmental issues seems destined to remain a major agenda item as business progresses into this millennium.
As corporate groups struggle to maintain their legitimacy in the face of more stringent public demands, there is a growing need for organisational leaders to give the next generation of managers the skills to cope with the demands of this new wave of corporate stewardship. The present curricula for most management courses gives little regard to the question of ‘sustainable management’ (Smith and Hart, 1996) and it comes as little surprise, therefore, to find that a number of managers find some difficulty in dealing with such issues. For many, the question is one of perspective: managers argue that all human activities result in environmental degradation of some kind and, consequently, society ultimately has to “strike a balance between its material desires and the requirement for a cleaner environment” (Smith and Hart, 1996, IEM, 1999).
The treatment of sustainability within the academic literature has, in part, reflected the wider defeat of environmental issues in world politics. Political scientists and international relations academics, for example, have been preoccupied with super-power rivalry, (e.g. Third World Debt) and domestic political upheaval throughout the 1980’s and late 1990’s through to the latest rounds of debate at the last Earth Summit in Johannesburg. The visibility and urgency of these issues served to over shadow sustainability as a topic for academic discussion. Consequently, some commentators have suggested that the issue has lain "dormant at both the local and global levels". This is not to state that the issues have not been addressed and a quick glance at the references would suggest that the academic coverage of sustainability has been wide and varied. However, only the obvious 'environmentally' concerned disciplines, such as geography and business studies, have been notable by the lack of fully-fledged involvement (Kates, 1987, Simmonds, 1991, and Smith, 1990). The academic business community in particular has, until very recently, been loath to take the matter seriously (Blowers, 2004).
Such neglect of the concept, which is central to organisational delivery, is surprising at one level and yet understandable at another. Sustainability concerns, like the irritated issue of corporate responsibility, run counter to the dominant, finance based business paradigm. As a consequence, organisations should not be too surprised that business practitioners and academics have shown a certain reluctance to fully address the challenges that the issues present. However, the outcome to this view is that the relationship between organisations and the environment lies at the heart of the wider environmental problem and that feeling of being uncomfortable with the issues should not be a sufficient justification for their neglect (Pepper, 1993). In its broadest sense, it is organisations, through the inputs, processing and outputs, which is responsible for a considerable amount of environmental degradation (Carley and Christie, 1992) and any attempts at changing the behaviour of organisations will require a fundamental shift in the values and behaviour of managers. However, caution must also be seen here as society must also change its consumer behaviour to accommodate the demands of the new 'environmentalism' (O'Riordan, 1981). It would seem unrealistic of society to demand that industry cleans up its act without making corresponding shifts in its own behaviour (Adams, 1992). Whilst the impact of individual behaviour change may seem trivial compared to that of a organisational body, the collective impact of such changes can be considerable in terms of "Quality of Life" (DEFRA, 2005). The initial rise of the Body Shop has illustrated that there is a demand from society for environmentally friendly products (Pearce, 1998) and if, the constituency of the green consumer can be widened, then more companies will see the market opportunities of being green and will shift the focus of their manufacturing and services accordingly. (Pearce, 1992, and Pearce et al, 1989). However, in the short term, by far the greatest improvements in environmental quality can be undoubtedly be achieved by changing the behaviour of those organisations who have substantial inputs and outputs of the economic unit.
There are two issues developing here. The first is that organisations must influence the current generation of managers who are controlling the direction of the organisation. If organisations are to achieve short-term improvements in the environmental performance of the organisation, the organisation must encourage managers to recognise the immediate impacts that their own actions can have on the environmental performance of the organisation. However, long-term improvements can only be made if the organisation can change the way in which future generations of managers are educated. Such a strategic view of the problem will entail making major changes to the organisational curriculum at all levels and involve the retraining of existing organisational managers who have generally been over exposed to the status quo.
Organisations and the Environment: Structuring the issues
One of the difficulties in addressing sustainability issues within organisations relates to the role of corporate culture and managerial values in affecting the corporate response. Mitroff et al (Pauchant and Mitroff, 1988; Mitoff et al., 1989; Pauchant, Mitroff and Lagadec, 1991) point to the difficulties involved in penetrating and understanding the relationship between corporate culture and the acceptability, or otherwise, of certain courses of action. They express the view that corporate culture is a "multi-layered and highly interactive concept" (Pauchant and Mitroff, 1988; Mitroff et al., 1989; Mitroff and Pauchat,1990) and, whilst their concern was with the relationship between corporate culture and crisis management, the concepts serve equally well to illustrate the points made within this study on sustainability development.
The challenge for an organisation that is serious about the concepts inherent in the idea of sustainable development is to move towards becoming a visionary organisation. It requires the fundamental transformation of the organisation. The organisation initially has to emphasise efforts on the employees in the organisation, who must in turn work as a trusting team rather than a coalition of different people with different interests whose basic aim is personal survival. Of course, some employees will make personal sacrifices for the good of the organisation, but they will only be willing to do that for an organisation which has built up a set of shared values and visions.
Transformation towards a sustainable organisation involves individuals abandoning their own self-interest, distrust, egotism and political positioning. The distrustful climate which is becoming increasingly common in many organisations needs to be replaced by one of co-operation, where employees are working towards goals which they recognise are better for themselves and better for the organisation as a whole. Strong leadership will be needed to achieve this situation and people need to experience the process of empowerment that allows them to be creative and to experiment. However, experimentation also requires careful evaluation and reflection if the lessons of risk taking are to be truly worthwhile. There are no simple checklists, which are capable of mapping out the path towards sustainable development. It will be different for each individual and each organisation. However, this paper has attempted to lay out some important principles. Perhaps most importantly, though, individuals and organisations need new paradigms ones that are consistent with sustainable development.
Such new paradigms involve embracing uncertainty in a rapidly changing world and realising that unless there is deep change, there may not be any significant future to talk about. A current literature associated with organisational management often emphasises the traditional status quo. It is no surprise, therefore, organisations find it so difficult to engage with social and environmental issues when they have problems seeing outside the narrow mindsets imposed by notions of growth, market share, profit maximisation and shareholder value. The new sustainable organisation will have to be much more flexible and adaptive, exploring risk and generating high levels of creativity.
When one considers the discipline of ecology in organisational management, the analogy, can be given that, in order to survive and remain healthy, any vibrant species needs to adapt and transform as in Darwin’s evolutionary theory. All systems must expand and grow, otherwise they decay into a state of slow death. Organisations are no different. More than anything, though, one has come to learn that individuals and organisations have to go through a process of deep radical change if they are to reverse the huge damage caused to our planet in the last century. The process of deep change requires all individuals to think again about the fundamental values in their lives.
There is a need to create a strong vision for the future and societies role within that. Of course, this is not an easy process and for many it will be very difficult. It requires much more than superficial analysis: it requires deep meaningful thought and meditation if employees are really going to discover their true selves. However, if organisations are going to create a difference, the change process needs to be discussed. Going through some sort of individual transformational process needs to become a valid and interesting point of discussion and not something managers feel embarrassed to admit. The minority of people who are currently engaged in such a process need to work together to form a critical mass. Then individuals may begin to see real change in their organisations and in the society in which they live. Only in those circumstances will the wider organisational community see real progress towards sustainable development.
Organisations need to be forward looking and to accept that present economic and political structures act as a barrier to any improvement, which is capable of delivering sustainable development.
The way forward seems to be to combine the collective and the individual, to empower people towards a common purpose with personal choice, and to develop the organisation so that it strives towards new imperatives while developing the individual and individuality. This approach stresses the need for new social contracts, for new relationships between owners, managers and employees, and the revisitation of notions of industrial democracy, participation, co-operation and collectivism.
Of course, environmental concerns challenge established political structures. Sustainable development demands both a local and a global approach (based on local action and organisation); it demands a reconsideration of equity and a new stress on equality. There are serious limits to the capacity of national sovereignty to deal with the future threats to the environment. There may be a need for new national forums and recognition of interdependence at the global level (although real action should be at the local or regional level). Moreover, such institutions need also to be more creative and leave aside accepted wisdom and theories maintained by the status quo. The growth of uncertainty and conflict between the ‘experts’ as to the severity of environmental risk has led to a recognition of the limits of rationality alone and an enhanced status for explicit values. Organisations need to develop further the notions of individual responsibility and collective strategy at the political level and drive these down to the operational level leading to a news culture, which is co-operative, individualist and collective.
Sustainable development thinking draws on a clear moral stance. It provides a radical challenge, which an organisation can grasp if they are willing to challenge power and resources to develop new structures in a sustainable way. At the heart of that reconstruction is the need for organisations to define and develop new systems which will lead the organisation to develop flexible ways of carrying out strategic delivery. One of the core values of the sustainable development movement is the emphasis on qualitative as opposed to quantitative objectives as a measure of social progress.
The overall conclusion of this paper has to be that there is a need for change in the way an organisation does business. At the outset that change might be associated with the introduction of environmental management systems and sustainability tools associated with improved environmental, social and economic performance. However, as it was suggested earlier, such tools need to be supported by organisational and cultural changes within the organisation if the process of continuous improvement towards zero negative impact on the environment and society is to be achieved.
Without deep personal change organisations simply cannot change. It might be possible to tear down the old systems and hierarchies, which make the organisation such an unpleasant place, but unless employees within the organisation also change at a personal level, new equally destructive systems and hierarchies will re-emerge. It is only when managers discover new values and new paradigms that change can be long lasting. However, organisational change also requires creative, systematic thinking. It means looking beyond the scope of any immediate problems and finding the actual source of the trouble. Organisations that pay mere lip service to environmental protection, for example, must come to realise that the death of the environment actually results in the death of their organisation. Moreover, organisation have to realise that if they do not internalise concepts, which are associated with sustainable development, the future of everything, which currently holds society together is under threat.
This paper attempted to extend the analysis of corporate environmental management in dealing with the challenges associated with sustainable development. Essentially, this means changing the paradigm, which Quinn (1996) called the transformational paradigm. Here the emphasis is on transforming the organisation into one, which is working in a way, which is consistent with sustainable development and all the various elements of that concept. The nature of the organisation becomes based on shared values and beliefs based on a moral system. The organisation extends it natural boundaries, seeing itself not only as an economic unit but also as an educator and campaigner with this in mind. The source of power comes from core values, which are commonly held in the organisation, and the source of credibility is a result of the personal integrity of those involved within the organisation. Clearly, the environmental ethic is extended to encompass sustainable development. The corporate culture is self-authorising, where great emphasis is placed on individuals changing with the organisation and taking more responsibility for their own actions. Behaviour patterns therefore tend to be diverse and unconventional. The overall objective of the organisation is to attain its vision, which will include acting in a way, which is consistent with sustainable development.
We are very proud to have worked with many leading organisations and are proud to have helped them on their respective sustainability journeys. We strive to maximise and exceed our clients expected outcomes. We recognise the need to be flexible; to understand the dynamics of the organisations we work with, and to have the sensitivity and recognition of other stakeholders. It is also extremely rewarding to see our clients happy with the results.
SustainUs focuses on practical solutions to everyday sustainability challenges. Whoever we work with, and whatever we do, we stress the need to create not just customer value, but also wider economic, social and environmental value.
If you would like to learn more about the tools and services we can offer to your organisation or more specifically the training we offer to managers then please write to me directly Michael@SustainUs.com If you would like us to give your organisation a free quote on helping you to accelerate your sustainability Project please e-mail our head office info@SustainUs.com
