Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
org/terms
This content downloaded from 193.0.116.20 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:00:06 UTC
MARK STARIK
GORDON P. RANDS
The concept of ecological sustainability has been applied to various processes and
sectors, including development, agriculture, communities, economies, energy
consumption, forestry, resources, societies, soils, tourism, and urban
environments (Mannion & Bowlby, 1992). The notion of an "ecologically
sustainable organization" (ESO), although not widely discussed, has received
increased attention (Gladwin, 1993a; Starik, 1992).
(a) anthropocentric;
(b) indefinite on what "needs" are and whose "needs" have priority;
Given the numerous political interests that have used the term sustainable
development, the ability of a single definition of the concept to satisfy everyone
appears severely limited (El Serafy, 1992). The lack of a precise definition may
have been helpful in the past by facilitating development of a general consensus
on the critical nature of the basic concept (Daly, 1991).
irreplaceability,
biodiversity, and
carrying capacity
socioeconomic and
and futurity
Several authors have suggested (and we agree) that sustainability and sustainable
development have multilevel and multisystem characteristics (Costanza et al.,
1992; Kinlaw, 1993; Yanarella & Levine, 1992) and that the achievement of
sustainability requires an effective integration of these multiple levels and
systems. For us, integration involves the assumptions that
Although analyses of global carrying capacity are extremely complex and their
findings are tentative and open to criticism, many scientists believe that we are
closely approaching (or have even exceeded) the thresholds at which natural
systems are degraded, such that global carrying capacity actually declines (Brown
& Kane, 1994; Meadows et al., 1992). Human carrying capacity can be increased
by diverting food, water, and habitat to humans from other species, but at a cost
to those species. Scientists have estimated that humanity already appropriates
some 40% of all terrestrial net primary production (NPP)biomass produced
by green plantsand 25% of total NPP (Vitousek, Ehrlich, Ehrlich, & Matson,
1986). The potential implications of this increased appropriation are enormous.
It is apparent that two more doublings of the human scale will give 100 percent
[of NPP]. Since this would mean zero energy left for all nonhuman and
nondomesticated species, and since humans cannot survive without the services
of ecosystems, which are made up of other species, it is clear that two more
doublings of the human scale is an ecological impossibility ... . Total
appropriation of the terrestrial NPP is only a bit over one doubling in the future.
This article addresses the final factor regarding the organizational level. Our goal
is to describe some of the more salient characteristics of an ESO. This description
has two purposes: (a) to provide organizations that intend to move toward
ecological sustainability with a useful and research-based diagnostic tool and (b)
to provide researchers with a guide that can be used to assess the degree to which
an organization has achieved or is approaching ESO status and to serve as a basis
for hy-pothesis development regarding organizational ecological sustainability.
multiple levels also can be found throughout the practitioner literature on this
topic. For example, one prominent executive asserted:
We have identified five levels of analysis that bear upon the presence or absence
of ecological sustainability: the individual, organizational, political-economic,
social-cultural, and ecological levels. Small group, department, and strategic-
unit levels are included within the organizational level because of space
constraints. A fine-grained analysis of the implications for ecological
sustainability of interactions between multiple levels within organizations
remains the subject of future research. A basic depiction of our multilevel,
multisystem framework is shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
|0
5 OT
O CO
w O O cc O
Open systems are also differentiated, creating the need for the specialized
components of the system to function effectively together. This is accomplished
through integration mechanisms such as roles, norms, and shared values, and
through coordination devices such as strategies, objectives, plans, schedules, and
rules and regulations (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Integration and coordination are
systemic elements that are fundamental to understanding the ecological
sustainability of organizationsthey are included in our framework and are
referred to as values and strategies.
A basic assumption for this analysis is found in the notion of fit. Drazin and Van
de Ven (1985) identified three approaches to fit in contingency theory: selection,
interaction, and systems. The selection and interaction approaches "tend to focus
on how single contextual factors affect single structural characteristics and how
these pairs of context and structure factors interact to explain performance"
(Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985: 519).
The systems approach, however, takes the perspective that fit entails consistency
between many contingencies and organizational characteristics. The degree of
such consistency affects performance, with the highest performing organizations
predicted to be those that most closely approach an ideal type having a high
degree of fit on multiple dimensions. This approach suggests that "two basic
choices confront the organizational designer: (1) to select the organizational
pattern of structure and process that matches the set of contingencies facing the
firm, and (2) to develop structures and processes that are internally consistent" (
Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985: 521).
As Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) noted, however, organizations will experience
multiple competing contingencies. Ecological contingencies often appear to
conflict with economic ones. Given the criticality of eco-nomic contingencies, we
would not be surprised if most organizations gave insufficient attention to
ecological contingencies until they became too dramatic to ignore.
TABLE 1
Ecological Level
Individual Level
Organizational Level
Political-Economic Level
Social-Cultural Level
Involvement with social-cultural elements to advance sustainability values
Involvement in educational institutions' environmental literacy efforts Provision
of environmental information to various media
The disposition of this matter and energy output determines feedback emanating
from the ecological environment. Although this feedback is sometimes difficult
to interpret, it inherently has pro-sustainability attributes. Positive ecological
feedback, such as reappearance of species and improvements in worker health and
productivity because of the removal of pollutants, generally should cause
organizations to respond by con-tinuing pertinent practices. Negative feedback,
such as the declining quality of process water, the disappearance of animal and
plant species, and the increases in workplace illnesses should act as signals for
organizations to impose self-limiting controls to modify organizational inputs,
processes, and/or outputs. Too often, however, feedback from nature is
misinterpreted by organizations: Decline in the availability of large trees can
increase the pressure to use the remaining trees and result in non- sustainable
harvesting, rather than a decline in overall consumption levels. ESOs will design
and utilize mechanisms that sense, accurately interpret, and promote corrective
action upon negative!pro-sustainability feedback from nature.
Values and other integrative mechanisms can link different individualized units
together to achieve common purposes (such as ecological sustainability); they can
also link them to the ecological environment. ESOs will promote the value of
environmental protection and sustainable organizational performance, instill
norms for environmental sensitivity in all decisions, and develop role-specific
expectations for environmental performance.
The previous discussion has introduced the various system components and
suggested how they relate to the establishment of congruent organizational
relationships with the ecological environment. In the sections that follow, we
consider some of the implications of these requirements for organizations'
relationships with individuals, with other organizations, and with entities at
political-economic and social-cultural levels.
Managers often have taken the lead in introducing sustainability concepts and
practices into their organizations. Bill Foley, research director of Herman Miller,
championed the furniture manufacturer's re-placement of rosewood and
mahogany from tropical rainforests with far more plentiful cherry and walnut
(Makower, 1993). Nonexecutive employees have been prolific in developing
sustainability-related ideas for their respective organizations. Gail Mayville began
Ben & Jerry's recycling efforts while an administrative assistant, and later she
went on to direct the organization's entire environmental program. Heather Bell,
an American Airlines flight attendant, began recycling soda cans on one route
and spread the effort throughout the rest of the company. Literally hundreds of
3M employees have initiated and implemented several thousand Pollution
Prevention Pays (3P) projects.
Third, and perhaps most important, ESOs will develop a deep and widespread
commitment to ecological sustainability among their members, so that members
can integrate their activities toward sustainable practices. This capacity requires
development of cultures based on shared environmental values, in which strong
norms for pro-sustainability behavior exist and ecological expectations are built
into roles throughout the organization (Callenbach, Capra, Goldman, Lutz, &
Marburg, 1993; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Starik & Carroll, 1992). ESOs will be
characterized by numerous cultural artifacts such as slogans, symbols, rituals and
stories which serve to articulate and reinforce for their members the importance
of ecologically sustainable performance. Such artifacts might include Earth Day
celebrations, environmental-service
A second means involves creating stable markets for such products. Large
organizations with concerted purchasing power such as governments, as well as
buying cooperatives of small organizations, have begun to institute purchasing
programs stipulating product criteria such as recycled content and energy
efficiency. Although this action clearly improves the purchasing organizations'
own sustainability, an important rationale for many of these efforts is to provide
stable and profitable markets for such products and, thus, reward organizations
that are en-gaging in sustainability-oriented practices. ESOs will adopt marketing
and procurement policies emphasizing sustainable products, in part to create and
enlarge markets for such products.
Some observers believe these two viewpoints are antithetical: NEP adherents will
choose nonmaterialistic, low-consumption, cooperatively based lifestyles (Plant
& Plant, 1991), and DSP adherents give little or no thought toward the
environmental impact of their behavior. In fact, however, a majority of the U.S.
population appears to espouse elements of both worldviews (Milbrath, 1985).
Widespread interest in "green products is a manifestation of a desire for both
economic abundance and high environmental quality, and it provides the impetus
for organizations to attempt to develop environmentally sustainable processes and
outputs. If such success is to be achieved, pro-sustainability feedback from
political- economic systems is needed. It is likely that such feedback will require
direct appeals to individuals to express their environmental values in their political
and economic choices, as well as more firmly and widely establish such values
through their inculcation and promotion by social- cultural systems. ESOs will
attempt to affect social-cultural elements in order to increase the strength of pro-
sustainability values.
Educational systems, news and entertainment media, the arts and humanities,
religions, ethnic traditions and histories, and other social- cultural elements both
influence and are influenced by organizations, and these have enormous
ecological implications (Simmons, 1989). The relationship among cultural
factors, organizational technologies, population growth, and environmental
degradation is increasingly recognized by policy makers (Gladwin, 1993b).
A key element in changing individual values, attitudes, and behaviors about the
natural environment is the provision of information about ecology and about
environmental problems. A major source of such in-formation has been
educational systems. Schools in many countries have upgraded their
environmental curricula during the past 25 years, in part due to the curriculum
materials that have been developed by businesses, governments, and nonprofit
organizations. Collegiate business schools are among those dramatically
increasing ecological information in their course offerings. ESOs will become
involved with educational institutions in activities designed to increase
"environmental literacy ." Guest speak-ers, site visits, internships, scholarships,
and career days are other common mechanisms for this involvement (Starik,
1993).
A fundamental step in achieving and maintaining ESO status will be the adoption
of sustainable strategies (Starik, Throop, & Joyce, 1995). Developing and
implementing such strategies at enterprise, corporate, business, and functional
levels (Carroll, 1993) are critical tasks for managerial practice.
At the enterprise level of strategy (Freeman, 1984), managers need to ask "what
does our organization stand for?" and "what is our role in society?"; then they
need to attempt to act on the results. Enterprise strategies thus direct attention
toward the political-economic, social-cultural, and ecological environments.
Managers might answer the societal role question with "we stand for ecological
sustainability and cooperation" and, thus, set the tone for organizational
fulfillment of this role. For ex-ample, enterprise-level strategies might address
whether an organization adopts more institutional and collaborative problem-
solving approaches or individualistic and adversarial postures (Miles, 1987) in
relation to the natural environment and other emerging ESOs.
Third, it is likely that different contextual and organizational factors will cause
ESOs to exhibit differences regarding core characteristics. Researchers need to
investigate the impacts of these factors. In what ways, for example, will initiation
and involvement in environmental partnerships be affected by differences in an
organization's history, scale, sector, location, environmental munificence, and
core competencies? How will differences in organizational and national culture,
functional backgrounds, and reward systems influence the design and
effectiveness of systems designed to sense and interpret negative/pro-
sustainability feedback?
Conclusion
This article has described some of the connections ESOs might forge with
individuals, other organizations, and political-economic, social- cultural and
ecological environments. In doing so, we examined a number of systems and
system components to help envision these linkages. We have identified a number
of encouraging trends in both the development of ESOs and their interactions
with these multiple levels and systems. We conclude that ESOs are beginning to
emerge and that this trend eventually may lead to overall systemic sustainability.
Our caveat, however, is that although organizations may make dramatic
advances in reducing technological burdensenvironmental impact per unit of
consumption they may not make these advances quickly and substantively
enough in sustainable directions, given the other two core determinants of
environmental impact: overconsumption and overpopulation. Most
organizations have yet to begin addressing these root dilemmas, and until they
do so in significant and effective ways, sustainability will be a distant, perhaps
unattainable dream (Starik & Gribbon, 1993). ESOs must be developed quickly
and establish the relationships set forth in this article with the multiple levels and
systems that may themselves be moving toward sustainability. Essentially, ESOs
need to play transformational roles in developing Homo sapiens into an ESSan
ecologically sustainable species (Devall, 1993).
REFERENCES
Anderson, T. L., & Leal, D. R. (Eds.) 1991. Free market environmentalism. San
Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
Andrews, K. R. 1980. The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Berry, W. 1988. The dream of the earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Bredt, S., & Running-grass. 1991. Strategies for saving a multi-ethnic planet.
Paper presented to the annual meeting of the North American Association for
Environmental Education, St. Paul, MN.
Brown, L. R., et al. 1993. State of the world, 1993. New York: Norton.
Brown, L. R. 1995. Nature's limits. In L. R. Brown et al. (Eds.), State of the world.
1995. New York: Norton
Brown, L. R., & Kane, H. 1994. Full house: Reassessing the earth's population
carrying capacity. New York: Norton.
Callenbach, E., Capra, F., Goldman, L., Lutz, R., & Marburg, S. 1993.
Ecomanagement. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
Costanza, R., Daly, H. E., & Bartholomew, J. A. 1992. Goals, agenda, and policy
recommendations for ecological economics. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological
economics: The science and management of sustainability: 7-20. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Daly, H., & Cobb, J. B., Jr. 1994. For the common good: Redirecting the economy
toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future (2nd ed.). Boston:
Beacon Press.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. 1982. Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Devall, B. 1993. Living richly in an age of limits. Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs
Smith.
Dillon, P. S., & Baram, M. S. 1993. Forces shaping the development and use of
product stewardship in the private sector. In K. Fischer & J. Schot (Eds.),
Environmental strategies for industry: 329-342. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Donahue, J. P. 1994. The fat cat freeloaders: When American big business bellys
up to the public trough. Washington Post, March 6: C1-C3.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1994. Typologies as a unique form of theory building:
Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management
Review, 19: 230-251.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency
theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 514-539.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. 1978. The "new environmental paradigm."
Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4): 10-19.
Gore, A. 1992. Earth in the balance: Ecology and the human spirit. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin. Hawken, P. 1993. The ecology of commerce. New York:
Harper Business.
Henn, C. L., & Fava, J. F. 1994. Life-cycle analysis and resource management. In
R. V.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.).
New York: Wiley.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. 1994. Levels issues in theory
development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19:
195-229.
Milliman, J., & Clair, J. 1994. Organization development and total quality
environmental management (TQEM): Implications for research and practice.
International Association for Business and Society, Proceedings of the Fifth
Annual Conference: 442-447.
Plant, L., & Plant, J. (Eds.). 1991. Green business: Hope or hoax? Philadelphia:
New Society Publishers.
Scott, W. R. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Simmons, P., & Wynne, B. 1993. Responsible care: Trust, credibility, and
environmental management. In K. Fischer & J. Schot (Eds.), Environmental
strategies for industry: 201-116. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Simon, J. L. 1990. Population growth is not bad for humanity. Phi Kappa Phi
Journal. Winter: 12-16.
Sitarz, D. (Ed.). 1993. Agenda 21: The earth summit strategy to save our planet.
Boulder, CO: Earthpress.
Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. 1992. Management for a small planet: Strategic
decision making and the environment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Throop, G. M., Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. 1993. Sustainable strategy in a greening
world: Integrating the natural environment into strategic management. In P.
Shrivastava, J. Dutton, & A. Huff (Eds.), Advances in strategic management. vol.
9: 63-92. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vitousek, P. M., Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H., & Matson, P. A. 1986. Human
appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience. 34: 368-373.
Mark Starik received his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia. He is an assistant
professor of strategic management and public policy at George Washington
University. His current research interests include international environmental
policy, strategic environmental management, environmental entrepreneurship,
and stakeholder management.