The Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha?

Dr. Rick L. Edgeman, Executive Director Multinational Alliance for the Advancement of Organisational Excellence College of Business, 031 Rockwell Hall, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA e-mail: Rick.Edgeman@colostate.edu or maaoe@usa.net webpage: http://members.spree.com/business/maaoe/ tel. +1 970 491 5098 fax. +1 801 681 9470 Dr. Douglas A. Hensler, W. Edwards Deming Professor of Management College of Engineering and Applied Science, Campus Box 433 University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0433 USA e-mail: Douglas.Hensler@colorado.edu tel. +1 393 492 1591 fax. +1 303 492 1443

Abstract
We are at perilous points in the histories of humanity and of planet earth. Plant and animal species are disappearing at an alarming rate in parallel with ecosystem distress and destruction - with responsibility for and consequences of set firmly upon the furrowed brow of humanity. On one hand there is urgent need to abate global environmental degradation and on the other there is concern for humankind - alleviation of suffering and poverty through economic development. It appears increasingly likely that only great resolve with rapid and appropriate action born out of radical change in our worldview may forestall disaster. Too often, however, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Sustainable development is an area that considers these dual imperatives; examined herein are contributions that can be made to sustainable development by businesses applying organizational excellence principles to activities with environmental and societal implications. Key Words & Phrases: Environmental Concern; Organizational Excellence; Sustainability; Sustainable Development.

Organizational Excellence
Organizational Excellence is an overall way of working that balances stakeholder interests and increases the likelihood of sustainable competitive advantage and hence long-term organizational success through operational, customer-related, financial, and marketplace performance excellence (Edgeman, Dahlgaard, Dahlgaard and Scherer, 1999). Widely accepted principles of organizational excellence - known also as business or performance excellence - have evolved and are easily accessible, including at various on-line sources. The following websites are recommended: http://www.quality.nist.gov/ http://www.baldrigeplus.com/ http://www.efqm.org/ http://www.aqc.org.au/ http://www.excellence-ireland.ie/

While not emphasized hereafter, the role of the individual in Organizational Excellence is paramount, indeed, the flames of organizational excellence are fanned by people who excel. We must not lose sight of the fact that organizations are composed of individuals and that enrichment of the organization must not come at the expense of the individual, but rather through mutual enrichment of each. Further, to be consistent with the notions of societal and environmental sustainability, the enrichment of the individual and the organization must not come at the expense of society or the environment (Edgeman and Jonker, 2000). This implies that it may not be possible to optimize each -- indeed -- even the mutual enrichment of all areas -- like unto Stephen Covey's win-win principle (Covey, 1992) -- may not be possible. Instead, what is called for is something very much akin to the balanced stakeholder idea of organizational excellence. In this case, the stakeholders are - minimally - the environment, society, the individual, and the organization. Of course these are macro-stakeholders with society,

The A Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha? The TQM Magazine, 13, 2, 83-90, 2001. Rick L. Edgeman and Douglas Hensler

the organization and the environment each being composed of micro-stakeholders. This might well be referred to as a principle of completeness or wholeness. Taken together this suggests that the concept in need of development is holistic excellence - not merely excellence on distinct organizational, societal, individual and environmental scales. Further complicating this holistic approach is the intertemporal context within which it lies. Sustainability not only requires balancing organizational, societal, individual and environmental stakes, it also requires that each generation conduct its activities not in detriment to future generations. While decisions may be easy and obvious within the context of static time, decisions that take the future into consideration become much less certain and much more complicated. Hensler, Edgeman, and Jonker (2000) explore this challenge in the context of the Gaia Theory. Competing interests among stakeholders makes unrestricted optimization of the interests of each stakeholder impossible, hence a reasonable step in the argument is to argue for a priority among stakeholders. If such priority can be determined then it is natural to consider some sort of constrained optimization. Deming (1994) argues for cooperation consisting of sub-optimizing individual components in exchange for optimizing the system. While no great effort is expended herein to argue for a particular priority among stakeholders - and constrained optimization is beyond the scope of this paper - the essence of this paper is that environmental degradation has reached a critical point that cries for priority ... a point demanding environmental and societal sustainability, referred to herein as sustainability@alpha. For whether passively, or aggressively, if we remain on the path we have long tread (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt and Perraton, 1999), then surely not far off is earth@omega.

As presented by WCED sustainable development is concerned with humankind and the environment, calling for sustaining the overall integrity of the ecosystem, alleviation of human suffering, and extension to all people of the opportunity to satisfy their desires for a better life. This latter concern is sometimes referred to as reviving growth and is related perhaps foremost to revival of the human spirit - the death of hopelessness and the rekindling of hope -- it is not about death or degradation but about resurrection. At the heart of the human end of sustainable development is the issue of whether these are regarded as a human rights, that is, entitlements (Velasquez, 1982: p. 59) - or as privileges. The view of sustainable development espoused in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) appears to regard these as rights and furtherance of this view may prove crucial to the future success or failure of sustainable development efforts. For if these are regarded as rights, then many means of securing compliance are within reach. If, however, these are privileges, then the future of sustainable development appears tenuous. The argument of privileges vs. rights is perhaps analogous to the choice between earth@omega and sustainability@alpha. It is clear from existing conditions that there is no unanimity of opinion in this argument, however - judging by results earth@omega seems the more likely eventual outcome. The distinction between rights and privileges also raises the issue of responsibility. Responsibility is more closely associated with rights as the implication of a right is that it includes a responsibility to respect the rights of others, in this case future generations. Additional exploration of responsibility appears in the next section. In addition to the ability of corporations to impact or reclaim the environment - an element key to sustainable development - this paper employs a construct of societal excellence consistent with the call to alleviate poverty and human suffering that is embedded in the WCED definition of sustainable development. That is: The excellence of a society can be judged not so much by the survival and survival of its fittest, but by the care provided for its weakest. Moreover - the ability of individuals to solving the problems confronting humankind should not be

Sustainable Development and Societal Excellence

Sustainable Development is defined as follows: Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (WCED, 1987)

The A Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha? The TQM Magazine, 13, 2, 83-90, 2001. Rick L. Edgeman and Douglas Hensler

discounted. The combined personal fortunes of the world's 200 wealthiest individuals exceeds US$1 trillion and - wealthy or not - all of us can bring our hearts, minds, skills, and other resources to bear. This provides a corollary to the above construct of societal excellence, that is: Societal Excellence demands responsible citizenry.

Marguliss theory of evolution through cooperation is now widely accepted by biologists and anthropologists. Current technology movements in basic industries to find systematic production massenergy balances that result in minimization of pollutant byproducts provides further evidence that this approach can and does work. It is often stated that such proactive corporate involvement with society and the environment corporate social & environmental responsibility (CSER) - is profitable. This is the notion of the ethical investor - that capital markets reward such companies. Empirical evidence confirming a generally positive relationship between CSER and capital markets is mixed as best, however (Balabanis, Phillips and Lyall, 1998). This implies that we cannot presume sustainable development to be the leading consideration of those most responsible for corporate decisions - decisions that are most commonly driven by financial considerations. Consider the following quotes by decision-makers at AlliedSignal Corporation - a company valued at US$38 billion - successful enough to be counted among the combined top 200 corporations (in terms sales) and nations (in GDP) (Harry and Schroeder, 2000). Allied is not in the business of measuring activity. We are in the business of measuring results. If something doesn't have a positive impact on customer satisfaction, our shareholders, and employees, and in the process makes us lots of money, then we just flat out aren't going to do it. Dr. Richard A. Johnson, Director of Six Sigma at AlliedSignal One of the things I have trouble with is non-financial objectives. Often they're just as obscure and vacuous as they sound. Lawrence A. Bossidy, CEO of AlliedSignal Corporation Either, society must make a valid business case to corporation for sustainable development endeavors or society must conceive of profit as more than simply the monetary value recorded on the bottom line there must be more than one bottom line. Indeed, society might argue for the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997) where the triad represents the interests of society, the economy, and the environment. Society depends on the economy - and

Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility and the Notion of Kyosei

Corporations can, of course, contribute positively to societal excellence - in terms of citizenship and economics - and can at the same time be stewards of the natural environment. Hewlett-Packard Corporation (HP) is among businesses making environmental considerations an important part of their decision-making process. Included among such considerations are entry into supplier and partner relationships. HP also devotes much of its philanthropic effort to environmentally proactive concerns. Excellent examples of environmentally responsible decisions and actions by firms in the US$1.3 trillion telecommunications industry can be found in Beard and Hartmann (1999). Rowledge, Barton and Brady (1999) chronicle several additional examples of environmentally responsible corporations - including Patagonia, DaimlerChrysler, Sony and Volvo. Actions and products by Monsanto Corporation contributing impressively to sustainable development, while also being financially rewarding can be found in Magretta (2000). One such concept of successfully functioning simultaneously in the roles of social and environmental steward is that of kyosei. While translated literally as symbiosis, the notion of kyosei is one of living and working for the common good. As practiced by Canon Corporation, kyosei has led to harmonious relationships with owners, customers, suppliers, competitors, governments, and the natural environment (Rosen, Digh, Singer and Phillips, 2000). When a group of sufficiently influential corporations practices kyosei, they can become positive and powerful agents for social, political and economic change - including the sorts of change critical to successful sustainable development. Margulis provides strong support for the existence of symbiosis in evolution. Once rejected as contradicted by Darwin Theory and empirical evidence,

The A Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha? The TQM Magazine, 13, 2, 83-90, 2001. Rick L. Edgeman and Douglas Hensler

the economy depends on the global ecosystem, whose health might well represent the ultimate bottom line.

Profit as Residue Stewardship

That CSER and capital market success are not so closely tied as society would ideally like - which would be sufficient to encourage sustainable development efforts by organizations - implies that society should not take such efforts as a given. Indeed, from the corporate viewpoint society ought not presume that sustainable development stands on its own merit, but rather, that a valid business case for sustainable development must be made. Recent decades have seen the transformation from organizations in society to a society of organizations (Jonker, 1999). Economically this can be asserted by taking note of the fact that - in 1997 - corporations outnumbered nations by a 51-to-49 margin in the top 100 combined list with nations qualifying on the basis of gross domestic product and corporations qualifying based on sales (Anderson and Cavanagh, 2000). Apart from substantiating the global economic clout wielded by organizations, this implies that organizations have massive human capital, financial, and material resources that can be brought to bear on the enormous environmental and societal issues by which society is faced. Rightly or wrongly, global business has often been blamed for these issues - and now they have ample opportunity to contribute to solutions thereof. Of course the supreme objective of many organizations is that of economic profit maximization. Beyond commitment to the cause of sustainable development, it is likely that organizations - and individuals and society at large must come to a new understanding of profit - or perhaps it is an ancient understanding that is needed. The concept of economic profit suggested for use herein is one that refuses to accept a narrow interpretation of Neoclassical economic self-interest theory (Beed and Beed, 1999). This interpretation of self-interest theory essentially ignores all motives in decision-making other than material self-interest including anger, benevolence, obligation, and various other emotional motivations to which the whole of humanity is subject. A broader interpretation holds that self-interest includes wider considerations (see Hirshleifer and Hirshleifer 1997). For example, for some individuals

the utility derived from charitable giving is greater than the utility derived from spending those funds on the next best alternative, e.g., purchasing a new automobile. Oslington (2000) argues convincingly that such characteristics can be successfully integrated into economic theory and practice. That many people over countless generations have sacrificed their own lives to save those of others including, on occasion, that of a stranger - is sufficient to indicate people do not always act out of self-interest and hence that any sweeping economic construct ignoring the reality of such motivations is, at best, incomplete. Having noted this, the concept of economic profit that will be embraced herein is one held in ancient Judaism, that is: Economic Profit = Residue = that which remains, after all obligations are met. This notion melds well with the idea of stewardship that is, the choice of service over self-interest (Block, 1993). The notion of stewardship extends beyond caretaking of resources - which connotes to the meeting of obligations - to the Biblical concept stewardship that chastises mere caretaking and rewards fruitfulness (Luke 19:12-27), whether it comes through multiplication of resources or via transformation thereof into a something more desirable. Stewardship is an age-old call, with the care of creation - environmental stewardship - being the first commission given to humankind in the Biblical Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:27-30). That stewardship can alleviate human suffering and be profitable as well is illustrated by a period in the life of Joseph, the son of the Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham from whom the lineage of Jews, Muslims and Christians can be traced. Genesis 41:40-57 indicates that the whole of the known world - probably Northern Africa, the Middle East and nearby environs - was engulfed by famine. Joseph, as Prime Minister of Egypt, and chief steward of all its resources, foresaw the famine and was able to formulate and implement a strategy of enough during times of abundance that preceded the famine that continued to provide enough during the time of shortage, allowing even for famine relief for those of nearby peoples - while also financially enriching both the nation and its king - the Pharaoh. The charge is to embrace environmental stewardship in its full sense: care for (obligation) and reclamation or enhancement (fruitfulness) of the environment.

The A Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha? The TQM Magazine, 13, 2, 83-90, 2001. Rick L. Edgeman and Douglas Hensler

This concept can and must be applied at the individual, organizational and societal levels.

An Expression of Environmentalism
Degradation of the natural environment is a shameful element of the legacy of many corporations. The vast majority - if not all - of us can identify personal failures in this area as well, though perhaps not so significant as corporate - until our individual contributions to the problem are collectivized. The purpose herein is not to attribute blame for the circumstances in whichever society finds itself not so much because there is more than enough to assign but because it is solutions that society more desperately needs. While the historical and contemporary expression of this issue varies across corporate and national cultures - and certainly from person-to-person, the root of environmental concern in America's native cultures is a pristine one and captured eloquently by the content of an 1855 letter from Chief Seattle of the Dwamish Tribe to American president Franklin Pierce. The content is in many ways even more relevant today than when it was authored - and not only to the people of the United States, but also to people groups around the globe. The exact content of Chief Seattle's letter is a matter for debate (Zussy, 1993), but there is general agreement on its tenor and the most readily accessible version is as follows: The Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. The Great Chief also sends us words of friendship and good will. This is kind of him, since we know he has little need of our friendship in return. But we will consider your offer, for we know if we do not do so the white man may come with guns and take our land. What Chief Seattle says you can count on as truly as our white brothers can count on the return of the seasons. My words are like the stars - they do not set. How can you buy or sell the sky - the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us? We will decide in our time. Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing, and every humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as

the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's graves and his children's birthright is forgotten. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the redman. But perhaps it is because the redman is a savage and does not understand. There is no quiet place in the white man's cities. No place to listen to the leaves of spring or the rustle of insect wings. But perhaps because I am a savage and do not understand - the clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lovely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind itself cleansed by a mid-day rain, or scented by a pion pine: The air is precious to the redman. For all things share the same breath - the beasts, the trees, and the man. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the stench. If I decide to accept, I will make one condition. The white man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. I am a savage and I do not understand any other way. I have seen thousands of rotting buffaloes on the prairie left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive. What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, men would die from great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beast also happens to the man. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Our children have seen their fathers humbled in defeat. Our warriors have felt shame. And after defeat they turn their days in idleness and contaminate their bodies with sweet food and strong drink. It matters little where we pass the rest of our days - they are not many. A few more hours, a few more winters, and none of the children of the great tribes that once lived on this earth, or that roamed in small bands in the woods will remain to mourn the graves of the people once as powerful and hopeful as yours. One thing we know that the white man may one day discover. Our God is the same God. You may think that you own him as you wish to own our land, but you cannot. He is the Body of man, and his

The A Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha? The TQM Magazine, 13, 2, 83-90, 2001. Rick L. Edgeman and Douglas Hensler

compassion is equal for the redman and the white. This earth is precious to him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator. The whites, too, shall pass - perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by the talking wires, where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. And what is it to say goodbye to the swift and the hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival. We might understand if we knew what it was the white man dreams, what hopes he describes to his children on long winter nights, what visions he burns into their minds, so they will wish for tomorrow. But we are savages. The white man's dreams are hidden from us. And because they are hidden, we will go our own way. If we agree, it will be to secure your reservation you have promised. There perhaps we may live out our brief days as we wish. When the last redman has vanished from the earth, and the memory is only the shadow of a cloud passing over the prairie, these shores and forests will still hold the spirits of my people, for they love this earth as the newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. If we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it as we have cared for it. Hold in your memory the way the land is as you take it. And with all your strength, with all your might, and with all your heart -preserve it for your children, and love it as God loves us all. One thing we know - our God is the same. This earth is precious to him. Even the white man cannot escape the common destiny. (Chief Seattle, 1855) To lend perspective to Chief Seattle's treatise, it is of value to note that most Native American tribes did not regard the land as something to be owned. Instead, the land was their host and they its stewards on behalf of generations yet unborn. This strong identification with - even love for - the environment may not be a necessary condition for sustainable development - since a sense of duty or urgency may also suffice - but it is consistent with the imperative of environmental sustainability. From an emotional perspective, it might also be argued that such love is a superior motivator for - although wrenched from context - the notion is very much one of friendship with the environment and the truth of the words of Jesus Christ - that greater love has no

man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13) is taken as a given herein.

The Last Battle: is Earth@Omega?

Is earth at omega? Many have read the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis. In the concluding book of the Chronicles, The Last Battle - the final conflict between good and evil is detailed. Therein the dying words of Roonwit the Centaur, delivered by messenger to Tirian, King of Narnia were remember that all worlds draw to an end and that a noble death is a treasure that no one is too poor to buy. (Lewis, 1956: p. 91). This we know: that all worlds - or at least the inhabitants thereof - do, indeed, draw to an end with the environment sustaining them eventually becoming insufficient to do so. By implication, we can conclude this also: not all deaths are noble - and even noble deaths may not produce hoped for results - some deaths, indeed, are senseless. For in The Last Battle, there were deaths of both sorts and renewal - of both humanity and of creation - was ultimately found only in Aslan's own world - where in Lewis' work, Aslan is the Christ figure and Aslan's own world is analogous to the Biblical construct of heaven. Is earth@omega?

Or is Sustainability@Alpha?
Business-savvy environmentalists have come up with a set of environment-friendly principles called the triple bottom line. This notion urges companies to be socially responsible, environmentally sound, and economically viable. While not overtly so, detailed examination of the organizational excellence principles supporting, say, America's Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, the European Quality Award, or the Australian Business Excellence Awards will reveal that the triple bottom line is considered. What is not evident - and would presumably vary from businessto-business - is the relative emphasis given to each of these bottom lines. In fact, this is not surprising since - owing to social, political, economic and environmental pressures - the lines are generally construed to be in near constant flux.

The A Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha? The TQM Magazine, 13, 2, 83-90, 2001. Rick L. Edgeman and Douglas Hensler

Employing a geological analogy, each bottom line is comparable to a continental plate, often moving independently of the others. As the plates move under, over or against each other, so called 'shear zones' emerge where the social, economic or ecological equivalents of tremors and earthquakes occur. In the social-environmental shear zone, businesses are working on environmental literacy and training, but challenges remaining include environmental justice, environmental refugees, and the inter-generational equity agenda. In the economic-environmental shear zone, some companies promote eco-efficiency, but additional challenges awaiting include shadow pricing and ecological tax reform, environmental economics and accounting, and ecological tax reform. In the economic-social shear zone, some companies are looking at the social impacts of proposed investment, but lurking in the shadows are issues like business ethics, fair trade, human and minority rights, and stakeholder capitalism. (www.sustainability.co.uk/triple/triple.htm) We have seen the child but will it mature? Will we move beyond sustainability@alpha?

In order to reach sustainability@beta - on the distant shore of tomorrow - a marriage of the two perspectives must be consummated for both are necessary, but neither is sufficient in and of itself. The environment is progressively and rapidly deteriorating and is in clear need of renewal in order to support humankind. Yet solutions to many human problems - poverty and consequent suffering - also require dedication of substantial financial resources. One without the other is inadequate to heal the whole. Complicating the issue is that generation of financial resources is often predicated on consumption of environmental resources, some of which are nonrenewable. Yet the notion of strong sustainability generally constrains development to that for which regeneration of renewable natural resources matches or exceeds depletion of non-renewable natural resources. This would generally seem to imply the need to improve generalized productive capacity while not degrading overall environmental quality. Consequently, many have seen weak and strong sustainability as incompatible. Among approaches that address both concerns is the notion of sustainable livelihoods. Sustainable livelihoods are concerned with people's capacities to generate and maintain their means of living, enhance their well-being, and also that of future generations. These capacities are contingent upon the availability and accessibility of options that are ecological, sociocultural, economic, and political and are predicated on equity, ownership of resources and participatory decision-making. In the context of organizational excellence, reconciliation of weak and strong sustainability is not impossible. Consider, for example, the difficulty - in the material sense - of making something out of nothing. Yet our generation is but the latest of many to consistently make inefficient use of resources human and natural alike. By implication, then, it may well be possible to make something - and make it better - out of less. Indeed, this is not only a central idea of organizational excellence, but also a common practice -- a so-called lean approach that seeks to eliminate all non-value added activities. There are also numerous organizational excellence methods that reduce failures of products and services and the seriousness of those failures that do occur, thus increasing their reliability and hence longevity. This in turn reduces legitimate need for replacement,

On the Shore of Tomorrow

What will it take to avoid earth@omega? What will it take to move from sustainability@alpha to sustainability@beta and from there to sustainability@chi and so forth? Technological approaches such as mass-energy balance discussed herein and the current biomass conversion research being conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory provide ways of addressing this issue. Whether or not it is complete remains to be seen. Whether or not its completeness would satisfy some sustainable development proponents also remains to be seen. Sustainable development proponents divide into two primary camps, corresponding to weak and strong sustainability. Weak sustainability is driven by the notion of economic sustainability whereas strong sustainability is driven more by concern for environmental sustainability (Hediger, 1999). Ultimately these camps must be warmed by a common fire - which is to say that greater integration must occur. The crux of this challenge is that the two camps have differing views of capital and just what it is, precisely, that must be sustained. This difficulty derives at least in part from the fact that some environmental assets are used in economic processes while other such assets are not.

The A Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha? The TQM Magazine, 13, 2, 83-90, 2001. Rick L. Edgeman and Douglas Hensler

so that the opportunity for decreasing per capita consumption rate exists. On the human front, organizational excellence practices support physical and emotional health, as well as versatility (e.g. cross-functionality). Indeed, much that is found in organizational excellence is aligned with both the economic and environmental concerns that are key to sustainable development. What is needed to arrive on the shore of tomorrow and breathe its fragrance deeply and gratefully? At minimum, it is pervasive resolve and adoption of a new view of profit as residue - which is consistent with the triple-bottom line. It is possible that we are straddling a tear in time where on one side is sustainability@alpha - and on the other earth@omega. The chasm is widening and it is time to choose this day whom you will serve but as for me and my house, we will serve (Joshua 24:15).

References
1. Anderson, S., and Cavanagh, J. (2000), Field Guide to the Global Economy, The New Press, New York. 2. Balabanis, G., Phillips, H.C. and Lyall, J. (1998), Corporate Social Responsibility and Economic Performance in the Top British Companies: are They Linked? European Business Review, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 25-44. 3. Beard, C. and Hartmann, R. (1999), European and Asian Telecoms - Their Role in Global Sustainable Development, European Business Review, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 42-54. 4. Beed, Clive and Beed, Cara. (1999), A Christian Perspective on Neoclassical Rational Choice Theory, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 26, No. 4, 501-520. 5. Block, P. (1993), Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco. 6. Covey, S. (1992), The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Doubleday, New York. 7. Deming, W.E. (1994), The New Economics, MIT Press. 8. Edgeman, R.L., Dahlgaard, S.M.P., Dahlgaard, J.J., and Scherer, F. (1999), Leadership, Business Excellence Models and Core Value Deployment,, Quality Progress, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 49-54. 9. Edgeman, R.L. and Jonker, J. (2000), Lessons from Leonardo: Application of da Vincian Principles to Organizational

Excellence, Quality Australia, 15, 1, pp. pending, June 2000. 10. Hensler, D.A., Edgeman, R.L.,and Jonker, J. (2000), Living Apart Together, Proceedings of the ERP conference, June 2000. 11. Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, SustainAbility Ltd., London, UK. 12. Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World's Top Corporations, Currency-Doubleday, New York. 13. Hediger, W. (1999), Reconciling 'Weak' and 'Strong' Sustainability, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 26, No. 7/8/9, pp. 1120-1143. 14. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. & Perraton, J. (1999), Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture, Stanford University Press, California. 15. Hirshleifer, J. and Hirshleifer, D. (1997), Price Theory and Applications, Prentice Hall, New York. 16. Jonker. J. (1999). Time for New Solutions. European Quality, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 4-14. 17. Lewis, C.S. (1956), The Last Battle, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. 18. Magretta, J. (2000), Growth Through Global Sustainability in World View: Global Strategies for the New Economy, edited by Garten, J.E., Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. Pp. 269-286. 19. Margulis, Lynn (1998); Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution, Basic Books, New York. 20. Oslington, P. (2000), A Theological Economics, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 32-44. 21. Rosen, R., Digh, P., Singer, M., and Phillips, C. (2000), Global Literacies: Lessons on Business Leadership and National Cultures, Simon & Schuster, New York. 22. Rowledge, L.R., Barton, R.S. and Brady, K.S. (1999), Mapping the Journey: Case Studies in Strategy and Action Toward Sustainable Development, Greenleaf Publishing Ltd., Manchester, UK. 23. Tamminen, R. (1999), Ownership in Environmental Management, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 354-359. 24. Velasquez, M.G. (1982), Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Prentic-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

The A Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha? The TQM Magazine, 13, 2, 83-90, 2001. Rick L. Edgeman and Douglas Hensler

25. Weitzman, M.L. (1976) On the Welfare Significance of National Product in a Dynamic Economy, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 90, No. 1, pp. 156-162. 26. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future (aka the Brundtland Report). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. pp. 43-44. 27. Zussy, N. (1993), untitled webpage, http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/wslibrry.htm Autobiographical Note Dr. Rick L. Edgeman is professor at Colorado State University where he directs the SABER Institute for Self-Assessment & Business Excellence Research. He serves as Executive Director of the Multinational Alliance for the Advancement of Organisational Excellence and has served as a Visiting Professor in the Quality & Innovation Research Group at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark and in the Division of Quality Technology & Statistics at the Lule University of Technology in Sweden. He was acknowledged in the January 2000 issue of Quality Progress as one of 21 Voices of Quality for the 21st Century. Dr. Douglas A. Hensler is the W. Edwards Deming Professor of Management at the University of Colorado at Boulder where he holds a joint appointment to the College of Engineering and Applied Science and the College of Business and Administration. His research interests include intellectual capital, knowledge management and learning organizations, quality management, finance and economics, innovation, value creation, and strategic management. A Licensed Professional Quality Engineer, Doug holds a Ph.D. from the University of Washington, an M.B.A. from the University of Portland, and a B.S.E. from Princeton University.

The A Chronicle: Earth@Omega or Sustainability@Alpha? The TQM Magazine, 13, 2, 83-90, 2001. Rick L. Edgeman and Douglas Hensler