Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership - CiteSeerX

www.up.ac.za

Reflections on Responsible LeadershipSelection of best papers during the 2nd international

conference in responsible leadership (18 - 21 November 2012)

Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership

1st Edition: July 2013

ContentsPAPER 1 .............................................................................................................................6

Leadership for Sustainability in the Business and Biodiversity Sector: Understanding the Science-Policy-Stakeholder Interface ........................................................................................................................6

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Analytical framework ................................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 The changing landscape of business and biodiversity sustainability ........................................................ 8 1.3 Knowledge regimes and awareness ........................................................................................................ 9 1.4. The science, policy, end-user interface ................................................................................................. 10

2. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 14

3. References .................................................................................................................................................... 15

PAPER 2 ...........................................................................................................................18

When economy becomes ecology: Implications for understanding leadership ...................................................18

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. 18

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 19

2. The restorative economy and the rise of the New Corporate Environmentalism .......................................... 19 2.1 Hawken’s vision: ..................................................................................................................................... 19 2.2 New Corporate Environmentalism and the role of business and other stakeholders: ............................ 20 2.3 The design problem in business: ............................................................................................................ 20 2.4 Restoring business: ................................................................................................................................ 21 2.5 The importance of ecological consciousness: ...................................................................................... 22

3. Leadership .................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1 Transactional vs. transformational leadership: ........................................................................................ 23 3.2 Challenging transformational leadership: .............................................................................................. 23 3.3 Leadership for the restorative economy: .............................................................................................. 24 3.4 Complexity thinking: ............................................................................................................................... 25 3.5 Characteristics of eco-leadership: ......................................................................................................... 25 3.6 Imaginiation: driving forward the restorative economy ......................................................................... 27

4. (Endnotes) ..................................................................................................................................................... 28

5. References .................................................................................................................................................... 29

PAPER 3 ...........................................................................................................................30

Strategising for Sustainability: Measurement and Validation Through an Applied Case Study ...............................30

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. 30

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 31

2. Key Focus of the Research ............................................................................................................................ 32

3. Background to this Research: Context and Theory ........................................................................................ 33

4. Context for Delineation of Sustainability Embeddedness in Strategising ........................................................ 38

5. Research Objectives and Questions ............................................................................................................. 39

6. The Potential Value-Add of the Research ....................................................................................................... 39

7. Research Design ........................................................................................................................................... 40 7.1 Research approach .............................................................................................................................. 40 7.2 Key scientific beliefs of the researchers .................................................................................................. 40 7.3 Ontological positions ............................................................................................................................. 40 7.4 Epistemological positions ....................................................................................................................... 41 7.5 Case study as a research strategy ......................................................................................................... 41

PrefaceResponsible Leadership as an emerging discourse is highly under-researched. To verify this, The Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership (ALCRL) recently conducted an investigation, using Google Scholar and Thomson Reuters’ web of knowledge. It entailed an on-line search of scholarly journal articles with the term ‘responsible leadership’ in the title, stretching over the period 2002–2012. Only 35 articles were sourced that met the search term specifications. This investigation attempts to address the ALCRL’s need to understand the current state of responsible leadership as an academic field as well as deepening our understanding of current trends in research and advocacy in the field. It is clear from these findings that a lot needs to be done to advance the body of knowledge about responsible leadership.

Soon after the establishment of the ALCRL in 2009, it was decided to host the first ever International Academic Conference in Responsible Leadership, which took place in 2010. The second conference was hosted in 2012. Through the presentation of academic papers, both these academic conferences succeeded in making a significant contribution to the field. After the second conference, it was decided to select the best papers, based on a double-blind review process, for inclusion in a special publication called Reflections on Responsible Leadership.

It therefore gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the first edition of this publication. I trust that you will find the selected papers to be stimulating and informative. We believe that the papers offer an important scholarly contribution towards deepening the academic field of responsible leadership.

Prof Derick de Jongh

Page 5

8. Research Method .......................................................................................................................................... 42 8.1 Research setting and background ........................................................................................................ 42 9. Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 44 9.1 Research findings ................................................................................................................................... 44 10. Propositions and Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 48 10.1 P1: Elements of SSI can be rated by practitioners .................................................................................. 48 10.2 P2: Practitioners support the SSI as a means of measurement of sustainability embeddedness ........... 48 10.3 P3: Elements are incorporated into strategising ..................................................................................... 48 10.4 P4: Practitioners obtain direction from the results ................................................................................... 48 11. Case Study as a Valid Research Methodology .............................................................................................. 49 12. Management Implications ............................................................................................................................ 49 13. Limitations of the Research and Future Research Suggested ........................................................................ 51 13.1 Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 51 13.2 Case study as a limitation: ..................................................................................................................... 51 13.3 Suggested future research ..................................................................................................................... 52 14. References .................................................................................................................................................... 53 14.1 Annexure A: Data collected for case study............................................................................................ 55 14.2 Annexure B: Techniques for exemplary case study research ................................................................. 55

PAPER 4 ...........................................................................................................................57

Systemic In-formation Leadership ...........................................................................................................................57

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. 57

1. Systemic in-formation leadership .................................................................................................................. 58 1.1 What is systemic in-formation leadership? .............................................................................................. 58 1.2 Note on in-formation .............................................................................................................................. 58 1.3 Why do we need systemic in-formation leadership? .............................................................................. 58 1.4 Worldview of in-formation leadership ..................................................................................................... 59 1.5 Key challenges of in-formation leadership ............................................................................................. 60 1.6 Approach of systemic in-formation leadership ...................................................................................... 62

2. A methodology of systemic in-formation leadership ..................................................................................... 63 2.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 63 2.3 Problem analysis .................................................................................................................................... 63 2.4 Methods of problem analysis ................................................................................................................. 63 2.5 Theoretical and methodological considerations ................................................................................... 64 2.6 Change management considerations .................................................................................................. 64 2.7 Brainstorming solutions ........................................................................................................................... 65 2.8 Brainstorming methods ......................................................................................................................... 65 2.9 Theoretical and methodological considerations ................................................................................... 65 2.10 Change management considerations ................................................................................................. 66

3. Ideal system (re)design .................................................................................................................................. 66 3.1 Design method ...................................................................................................................................... 66 3.2 Theoretical and methodological consideration .................................................................................... 66 3.3 Change management considerations .................................................................................................. 67 3.4 Implementation planning ...................................................................................................................... 68 3.5 Method of implementation planning .................................................................................................... 68 3.6 Theoretical and methodological considerations ................................................................................... 68 3.7 Change management considerations .................................................................................................. 69

4. Implementation ............................................................................................................................................ 69 4.1 Method of implementation ................................................................................................................... 69 4.2 Theoretical and methodological considerations ................................................................................... 69 4.3 Change management considerations .................................................................................................. 69

5. Systemic change management approach .................................................................................................. 70 5.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 70 5.2 Theoretical and methodological considerations ................................................................................... 70 5.3 Change management considerations .................................................................................................. 70

6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 71 6.1 Systemic in-formation leadership versus visionary leadership ................................................................. 71 6.2 The vision of systemic in-formation leadership ....................................................................................... 72

7. References .................................................................................................................................................... 73

PAPER 5 ...........................................................................................................................74

Leadership and the Invisible virtue: hope in challenging contexts .........................................................................74

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................. 74

1. (Endnotes) ..................................................................................................................................................... 80

2. References .................................................................................................................................................... 81

PAPER 6 ...........................................................................................................................82

Enabling Sustainability through responsible leadership – an Action Research project with SMEs ...........................82

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. 82

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 83

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 85 2.1 Action Research ..................................................................................................................................... 85 2.2 Project participants ................................................................................................................................ 86 2.3 Project design ........................................................................................................................................ 86

3. Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 87 3.1 Finding from phase 1: enabling sustainability through Action Research ................................................ 87 3.2 Findings from phase 2: enabling sustainability through responsible leadership ..................................... 87

4. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 90 4.1 Responsible leadership as a normative and relational concept............................................................ 90 4.2 Responsible leadership as expanding circles of commitment .............................................................. 90

5. Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 91

6. Limitations...................................................................................................................................................... 91

7. References .................................................................................................................................................... 92

PAPER 7 ...........................................................................................................................93

Framing the agenda for appraising job sustainability: A multiple stakeholder perspective ...................................93

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. 93

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 94

2. The Jobs Imperative ...................................................................................................................................... 94 2.1 The potential in green jobs ..................................................................................................................... 94 2.2 Multiple stakeholder perspectives of sustainable jobs ............................................................................ 95 2.3 The manager/owner/shareholder perspective ....................................................................................... 95 2.4 The employee perspective .................................................................................................................... 96 2.5 The trade union perspective .................................................................................................................. 96 2.6 Government’s perspective .................................................................................................................... 97 2.7 Organisational perspective .................................................................................................................... 97 2.8 Society’s perspective ............................................................................................................................. 98 2.9 A natural environment perspective ........................................................................................................ 99 2.10 A sustainable job framework ................................................................................................................ 100

3. Discussion and conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 101

4. References .................................................................................................................................................. 102

Page 7

PAPER 1

Leadership for Sustainability in the Business and Biodiversity Sector: Understanding the Science-Policy-Stakeholder Interface

Dr Claudious Chikozho & Prof. Derick De Jongh

AbstractChallenges and opportunities evident in the landscape in which biodiversity conservation and corporate sustainability interface have gained topical currency in recent years. Greater pressure on biodiversity and the risk this poses to business and society at large present a new set of leadership challenges for both private and public institutions. The complexity of challenges faced in this landscape makes mainstream business solutions to biodiversity conservation no longer adequate. Corporations and other users are not only dependent on biodiversity and the goods and services deriving therefrom, but they also often have serious impact on them. It is hard to think of any major economic activity that does not benefit from biodiversity-related ecosystem goods and services or, in some way, alter the ecosystems around it. This paper explores the business and biodiversity leadership landscape with a view to critically assessing some of the challenges and opportunities that it presents for sustainable futures. Expectations of intensified interactions among actors in the business and biodiversity conservation landscape are analysed through a lens that positions biodiversity conservation as an organised social ecology project. Within this view, the social dynamics of conservation emerge as coordinated visioning, agreement and action among a variety of actors that take shape within a relatively uncertain environment. Against the backdrop of contemporary ‘irresponsible’ human behaviour which is dominated by business-as-usual market paradigmatic forces, more responsible leadership is required to bring about the change that we seek. Efforts by various actors to address challenges in this landscape have often proceeded largely independent of one another and yet there is a lot of benefits to be gained from collective energies and shared knowledge. Thus, the paper argues that leadership for business and biodiversity sustainability requires a change in the mindset of the private sector and other key players. It requires collective and self-responsibility, innovation, and a willingness to do ‘business-unusual’. Building commitment to self-regulation, biodiversity stewardship and investments in ‘clean’ technologies, fostering on-going multi-stakeholder engagement and partnerships to develop optimum solutions that directly address the interface, and enhancing collective responsibility for change, are some of the cornerstones of the new approach.

Key words: biodiversity; corporate sustainability; stewardship; collective leadership; partnerships

1. Introduction Most of the prevailing projections of the earth’s biodiversity profile and natural resource-use patterns in the coming decades paint a disturbing picture of increasing ecosystem degradation and significantly reduced biodiversity.1 This degradation is faster and escalating in Africa as various countries and companies expand and intensify their economic production activities. Therefore, degradation of biodiversity and the broader basket of the earth’s natural resources is going to remain a serious challenge in development policy and practice for several decades. At the heart of this challenge, is the realisation that to be sustainable, businesses rely on well-functioning ecosystems and biodiversity but in the process of conducting their activities and operations, they invariably degrade ecosystems and biodiversity. In essence, economic growth and limitations in integrating environmental concerns into development planning have put increasing pressure on biodiversity across Africa and other parts of the world. Among others, resource degradation mainly occurs in the form of deforestation, desertification, habitat loss, coral reef degradation, declining fish stocks, spread of invasive species and loss of pollinators. Therefore, threats to biodiversity are often posed not by a completely new, poorly understood technology or process, but by the expansion or intensification of well-understood activities such as harvesting of wild species, clearing forests, mining, or over-exploitation of fish stocks. To this end, threats often derive from multiple rather than singular sources, with different courses of action raising potential risks and alternatives.

Emerging paradigms and analytical frameworks in this complex landscape increasingly point towards responsible leadership in the corporate sector and collective action at local and national levels as critical ingredients for addressing the challenges evident in the interface between business and biodiversity sustainability. But a dimension that is not sufficiently emphasised in most of the discourses is the importance of enabling better interface between science, policy, and key stakeholders to enhance environmental responsibility and collective leadership. Indeed, understanding regarding collective leadership imperatives that help in enhancing sustainability in the business and biodiversity landscape is still in its infancy and the quest for new knowledge in this domain remains paramount. Among the multiple causes of this situation is the limited collective learning that occurs between researchers, development practitioners, policy-makers and the private sector.

In trying to address these shortcomings, one begins to engage with three analytical constructs that are very important for understanding leadership in the context of business and biodiversity sustainability. First is the recognition that biodiversity conservation and sustainability can no-longer be easily attained in a context where responsible leadership is conceptualised as the result of individualised intentions and actions. It is increasingly conceptualised as coordinated visioning and action among different players that take shape within the confines of specifically defined objectives and roles for each actor (stakeholders). Second, the practical expression of that coordination exists as organised social groups and networks of key actors in the conservation landscape that emerge out of specific historical contexts. Key aspects of ‘organisation’ in this context imply the promotion of certain ideological perspectives and potential lines of action that are worked out through processes of negotiation and agreement, and ultimately implemented through public policy and specific practices in the business sector. These are by no means exclusive processes limited to governmental private sector players. Other actors from the science sector, civil society and the public are part of the process of identifying, negotiating and implementing relevant solutions.

The third critical dimension of leadership conceptualisations in this landscape relates to the realisation that in the world of biodiversity policy and practice – where policy-making and influencing has historically been viewed as a simple linear progression from technical evidence, to policy design, to accurate implementation – the failure of public policy to stop the rapid decline of biodiversity and ecosystems may be interpreted as a problem of limited/ non-existent stakeholder engagement processes as well as limited application of evidence-based policy-making. Thus emerging perspectives on business and biodiversity leadership have to begin to take into account the non-systematic outcomes realised through previous conservation regimes. In the process, weaknesses evident in past and current research and policy efforts become apparent. In this complex landscape, the impacts of research and policy do not occur at the envisaged time nor in ways that are predictable. Additionally, the influence of research and the impact of public policy are not necessarily always in the direction in which they are originally intended.

We can anticipate that millions of dollars will continue to be spent each year on initiatives designed to improve the performance of businesses and other sectors in biodiversity conservation. We can also anticipate that despite this expenditure, the degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity will remain an intractable problem if appropriate policy and institutional processes are not re-designed to enhance collective leadership and bring together scientists, policy-makers, and end-users of research and innovations. It is critical that useful research and innovations generated in various sectors are disseminated broadly to benefit the private sector. Lessons learnt should influence further research, public policy agendas and business strategic planning. In this paper, we suggest that adoption of such a perspective provides the groundwork for ongoing debate, theorising, and paradigmatic shifts that can help us re-conceptualise research-policy-stakeholder interactions in fresh and practical ways that resonate with emerging realities in the business and biodiversity leadership landscape.

1 Most definitions of biodiversity usually relate it to the complex array of living organisms that one finds on land and aquatic ecosystems, together with the processes that sustain them (see Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993; Millennium Ecosystems Assess-ment, 2005).

Prof Derick de Jongh is the Director of the Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership, University of Pretoria

Dr. Claudious Chikozho is the Exxaro Business and Biodiversity Leadership Programme Director at the Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership, University of Pretoria. His current areas of special interest include public sector leadership and service delivery; environmental sustainability; adaptation to climate change; & technology transfer processes.

Page 9

1.1 Analytical frameworkThis paper is the result of a qualitative study focusing on the interface of business, biodiversity, science and policy. Through detailed review of the published literature, the paper explores major discourses and perspectives prevailing in the emerging field of business and biodiversity leadership, the role of science and stakeholder engagement in this complex landscape. In so doing, key areas of focus for corporate environmental responsibility, collective leadership and biodiversity stewardship are revealed. Emphasis is placed on the need to generate more knowledge on how to strengthen the science, policy, and end-user interface. A critical assessment of potential pathways into the future enables the generation of alternative policy options, strategies and institutional steps.

The paper adopts an analytical approach informed by an action-oriented framework that fosters socio–ecological sustainability in a rapidly changing planet through greater biodiversity stewardship and collective responsibility. This analytical framework applies a dynamic and actor-centric conceptualisation of institutions which emphasises change and collective action rather than the rigidity and independence of social structures. Application of this framework enables us to seek answers about how best to bridge the gap between policy-makers, scientists and the business community. ‘Bridging this gap’ is not a technical issue. It is a political, economic, social and cultural issue that moves us further along the continuum from individualised actions to collective leadership and responsibility.

Closer examination of this analytical framework also reveals the complexity of the subject matter and in the process, raises a wide range of pertinent questions. For example, how would a biodiversity and ecosystem services-informed approach differ from the business-as-usual and current corporate environmental management processes? What is the added-value of a biodiversity perspective based on collective responsibility relative to existing corporate environmental management practices? What is the role of science in this landscape and how best do we ensure that scientific innovations actually reach the intended end-users and policy-makers? The seminal work by Garforth and Usher, 1996, which explores the barriers that have historically limited the impact of science on policy and practice is quite informative in this regard. It helps to shed light on how one can address these barriers and contribute to the broader goal of biodiversity conservation and responsible leadership.2 The paper reviews the extant literature, contextualises the relevant issues, and highlights articulated challenges and opportunities in the business and biodiversity conservation leadership landscape. The paper adds to the growing body of knowledge in the business and biodiversity leadership landscape in South Africa and beyond. It is targeted at decision-makers and key players in the business and biodiversity leadership sector who grapple continuously with the challenges evident in this landscape.

In this paper, we examine and profile the changing landscape of business and biodiversity sustainability and the broad implications for leadership paradigms. We further interrogate discourses on the science-policy-stakeholder interface and argue that paying more attention to this interface in theory and practice suggests the possibility of strengthening responsible leadership in the business and biodiversity conservation landscape. From the analysis, stakeholder participation and strategic engagement in research and policy decision-making processes emerge as key ingredients for collective action and positive change in biodiversity use and conservation practices.

1.2 The changing landscape of business and biodiversity sustainabilityBroadly speaking, two threads of literature have contributed to sustainability concepts relevant to the business and biodiversity leadership landscape. One comes from ecology and addresses ecological sustainability as a basis for biodiversity conservation. The other comes from geography and United Nations development efforts and addresses the socio-economic sustainability of human well-being (Turner, 2003; World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Following the lead of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, some scholars have begun to integrate these approaches to address socio–ecological sustainability, recognising that people are integral components of socio–ecological systems and that people both affect and respond to ecosystem processes (MA, 2005; Berkes et al., 2002). Efforts that fail to address the synergies and trade-offs between ecological and societal well-being are unlikely to be successful. Local inhabitants, for example, are unlikely to respect rules that establish parks for species conservation (so-called ‘fortress conservation’ approaches) but that exclude local people and reduce their livelihood opportunities (Liu, et al., 2007). Conversely, development projects that stimulate unintended ecosystem degradation (eg illegal logging owing to improved access) are unlikely to produce a sustainable trajectory of human well-being (Folke et al. 2004; MA, 2005).

It is now almost common knowledge that many economic production activities negatively impact while also depending on well-functioning ecosystems and biodiversity. Therefore, the constant decline we currently witness in the world’s ecosystems and biodiversity pose significant challenges to the business sector, public policy and society at large. The big challenge is to determine how best to create enduring socio-economic opportunities for a growing population while ensuring societal environmental responsibility and biodiversity sustainability. There is evidence from various parts of the world indicating that all players who degrade biodiversity can reposition themselves to become a very positive force in addressing the challenge through pursuit of new and “smarter” policies, reduction of their environmental footprint, development and deployment of new eco-efficient technologies, and establishment of effective partnerships.

2 Emphasises results-based management and is concerned with getting value-for-money from research spending or with ‘more bang for the buck’. It is also concerned with whether research is actually ‘making a difference’.

The Millennium Ecosystems Assessment carried out between 2001 and 2005 established that over the past 50 years, virtually all ecosystems have been rapidly transformed by human actions (and this is worse in developing countries). For example, 25% of mammal species are now threatened by extinction. The assessment also concluded that human activity has caused between 50 and 1000 times more extinctions in the last 100 years than would have happened due to natural processes (MA, 2005). Since 1900, the world has lost about 50% of its wetlands and there is still increasing pressure for the conversion of tropical and sub-tropical wetlands to alternative land-uses (Moser et al., 1996; Wilkinson, 2004). Damage to biodiversity has been estimated to cost the global economy more than US$500 billion per year (UNEP, 2010). It is now generally agreed that a large percentage of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss is attributable to anthropogenic factors. The intensive use of ecosystems and biodiversity often produces the greatest short-term advantage, but excessive and unsustainable use leads to losses in the long-term. In addition, loss of biodiversity makes it more difficult for ecosystems to recover from damage, recovery being slow, costly, and sometimes even impossible (TEEB, 2008).

1.3 Knowledge regimes and awarenessHuman knowledge of the biophysical and socio-economic dimensions of the business and biodiversity nexus is also improving fast. Most of the dominant scholarship in the field fully acknowledges that biodiversity is threatened by human development processes that exploit or simply disturb the natural environment and its resources (see Barna, 2008; WRI, 2008; TEEB, 2009; Rands et al. 2010; WBCSD, 2011). It is also well known that global biodiversity is changing at an unprecedented rate, with the most important drivers of this change being land conversion, climate change, pollution, unsustainable harvesting of natural resources and the introduction of exotic species (Pimm et al., 1995; Sala et al., 2000). The published literature indicates that as biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services decline, business value is destroyed and in the process, worsen the limits to future growth opportunities (see Sala et al., 2000; UNEP, 2010; WBCSD, 2011). Therefore, in both theory and practice, there is growing awareness of the impact and dependency that business operations have on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the business risks that poor management of them can present (TEEB, 2008; Schaltegger & Beständig, 2012).

Environmentalists increasingly frame their analysis of biodiversity loss in terms of the benefits or ecosystem goods and services provided to people and the public policy and practice challenges the loss poses. The McKinsey Global Institute, 2011, states that greater pressure on resource systems together with environmental risks present a new set of leadership challenges for both private and public institutions. Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services will affect the framework conditions within which businesses operate, influencing customer preferences, stockholder expectations, regulatory regimes, governmental policies, employee well-being, and the availability of finance and insurance. Higher operating costs or reduced operating flexibility should be expected due to diminished or degraded resources (such as fresh water) or increased regulation.

1.3.1 Business and biodiversity leadership Approaches dominant in the responsible leadership field, particularly corporate social responsibility, seem to have been extrapolated to the business and biodiversity landscape. Now experts usually discuss corporate social responsibility together with corporate environmental responsibility. Thus the quest for responsible leadership is no longer limited to scandals and subsequent calls for responsible and ethical conduct in the public domain (Brown & Trevino, 2006). It also stems from the changes in and new demands of business contexts (see Maak & Pless, 2006). One such expectation is that businesses and their leaders take active roles in fostering responsible behaviour, within and outside the organisation, such as by creating responsible organisational cultures imbedded in the ‘triple bottom-line’ that takes into account the social, environmental, and economic value dimensions of the business and its resources (Maak, 2007; Waldman & Galvin, 2008).

In these discourses, most of the scholarship underlines the vital contribution of the environmental pillar to a company’s bottom-line (profits) and use the environment and biodiversity as entry-points when addressing broader sustainability issues. Indeed, a fundamental paradigmatic shift is now recognisable globally regarding the way biodiversity should be managed by government, communities and the private sector. Being an environmental leader can put you ahead of the game and help differentiate your brand and attract new business. It seems that investors reward those companies with long-term visions rather than short-term gains, and robust environmental risk management practices (Chhabara, 2009). There is growing recognition that all actors and users have a pivotal role to play in the sustainable use and protection of natural resources and biodiversity (Schaltegger & Beständig, 2012).

UNEP (2010) posits that perhaps the most dramatic evolution in business over the past decade is the dawn of the new economy and perspectives informed by the corporate environmental responsibility bandwagon. The way companies conduct their business is now expected to reflect the broad goals and values that underpin the key concepts and practices of corporate environmental responsibility and advance the objectives of sustainable development. This perspective acknowledges the close interrelations between and among business operations, society and the environment, and seeks positive mutual impact. Key actors are now expected to mainstream biodiversity in development planning, public policy, corporate strategy and community-based resource management initiatives (see TEEB, 2010; Schaltegger & Beständig, 2012).

Page 11

In response to the impending crisis, some businesses are increasingly becoming positive agents of change and the source of innovation, helping to create new ecosystem-friendly markets and developing more sustainable technologies and business practices (WBCSD, 2010). Bellini, 2003, argues that businesses have progressively taken environmental issues into account under the impulsion of three types of arbitrage: legislative or normative, economic and technical. Jamison et al, 2005, state that corporations are beginning to respond to expectations of corporate responsibility by asking what is good for the environment, society and business, as well as how performance can be measured and evaluated. For some companies improving corporate environmental performance is simply “the right thing to do,” while for others it is viewed as a strategic business advantage to increase competitiveness. These companies want to know what is expected of them so they can incorporate corporate environmental responsibility into their business strategies and become more competitive.

More corporations are recognising that there is value and opportunity in a broader sense of responsibility beyond the next quarter’s results and that what is good for people and the planet can also be good for the long-term bottom-line and shareholder value (see KPMG, 2012). The statement by the UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, Achim Steiner, resonates very well with developments in the sector:

“ The landscape may appear bleak, but a rising number of companies are making the link between natural assets, their bottom line, business sustainability and the urgent need for a low-carbon, resource-efficient 21st century green economy” (see UNEP, 2010).

Business leaders, as well as the general public, now realise that biodiversity conservation does not necessarily mean excluding large tracts of land from development, or excluding biological resources from wise and sustainable use. Although protected areas are important, by themselves, they are not sufficient to fully conserve biodiversity, nor do they normally provide for sustainable resource use. Equally important are efforts to sustain the working landscapes and waters between the protected areas in order to sustain human well-being and business activity in the long-term (Canadian Business and Biodiversity Council, 2010). A win-win approach has attempted to demonstrate the advantages of environmental actions undertaken by firms, invalidating the orthodoxy of negative causality between competitiveness and the internalisation of environmental concerns (Porter & Van der Linde, 1995; Houdet et al., 2009). An exclusive focus on reducing the impacts of business on biodiversity should be discarded in favour of an innovative approach in which biodiversity becomes an integral part of business strategy (Houdet, 2008).

While some companies have already made significant steps to adopt and implement these approaches within the context of aspirations for a more sustainable economy, the big challenge remains the transformation of mainstream businesses to practically apply these approaches in a local and sector-specific context (Schaltegger & Beständig, 2012). It is encouraging to note that many companies are taking steps to identify and minimise their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems and reaching out to civil society to create innovative solutions that enable the present-day needs of society and economies to be balanced with the overarching need to ensure we continue to live in a healthy and productive environment (ibid). Indeed, business-case thinking on environmental issues has shifted from basic compliance and day-to-day cost-saving to a focus on reputation for social responsibility and long-term supply of resources and ecological services (Canadian Business and Biodiversity Council, 2010; UNEP, 2010).

1.4. The science, policy, end-user interfaceThe imperative for the business sector to address the environmental pillar invariably generates new scholarship and debate focusing on analytical frameworks and governance arrangements for better conservation of biodiversity. Scholars and practitioners alike are agreed that scientific evidence and innovations backed by robust public policy will enhance biodiversity conservation initiatives (see Robertson & Hull, 2003; Gatzweiler, 2006; Hage et al., 2010). What seems to be less-understood is the process and means of ensuring that both science and policy actually have the desired impact on biodiversity conservation practices of business and society, both immediately and in the long-run. As Reed, 2008, explains, biodiversity conservation problems are typically complex, uncertain, multi-scale and affect multiple actors and agencies. The challenge becomes even more complex when assessed from a business sustainability perspective. Stave, 2002, points out that pressure to improve public involvement in decisions about biodiversity resources management is especially high. Because such decisions generally involve complex scientific and technical issues and a wide array of stakeholders, scientific uncertainty, value conflicts, ecosystem dynamics, and social dynamics make environmental decisions especially prone to challenge.

1.4.1 Collaborative partnershipsIn the literature, cross-sectoral partnerships repeatedly appear as key to finding the solutions to many of the challenges evident in the business and biodiversity leadership nexus. Some of the articulated advantages of partnerships include helping businesses manage their impacts on biodiversity and capitalise on opportunities, as most initiatives are undertaken in collaboration with conservation groups, government groups, and academic institutions. By working in partnership with other sectors, businesses have access to resources, including expertise and networks, which can help address biodiversity issues. Therefore, to enhance the sustainability of businesses and biodiversity, many options will be needed that make use of collaboration and partnerships across levels. In this regard, it is very important to acknowledge that ultimately, halting biodiversity loss, reducing ecosystem degradation and enabling continuity in economic production is going to be a shared

responsibility and all stakeholders (including the private sector) must be committed to generating workable solutions. Collective responsibility, leadership and action will be required to address the complex challenges that businesses face as they interact with or make use of biodiversity. Expert groups in the biodiversity sector, government departments, the private sector, civil society, research and academic think-tanks, and other interested stakeholders will need to work together to catalyse collective effort and environmentally responsible leadership.

In the accentuated debate and analysis of new challenges and opportunities evident in the business and biodiversity conservation landscape, collaborative networks and dialogue platforms emerge as important mechanisms that facilitate more responsible leadership and biodiversity stewardship. In this paper, we adopt the position that the challenge isn’t so much with managing biodiversity as it is with managing stakeholders who have different needs, priorities, institutions, and access to the biodiversity resources upon which they depend (Stave, 2002). We further argue that solutions will require broader public and private sector awareness, involvement and participation in decision-making processes. Such participation is better understood within the context of the science-policy-stakeholder interface. And scholarship from social ecology provides useful illumination in this regard as it exists at the interface of science and policy. It is an approach to environmental inquiry and decision-making that does not emphasise the perfection of scientific knowledge. Rather, it requires that science and policy be produced in collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders or, at the least, be significantly informed by results of strategic engagement with key stakeholders in order to construct a body of knowledge that will reflect the pluralist and pragmatic context of its application (ibid).

This suggests that the focus of initiatives that address challenges evident in the business and biodiversity conservation leadership landscape should be on process, content and outcomes. Process values the participation of expert communities, civil society, scientists, policy-makers, corporate sector representatives, concerned citizens, and other stakeholders. Content encompasses biophysical and social knowledge of dynamic ecosystems and biodiversity that directly relates to and results from the participatory processes that are designed to build common ground among competing beliefs and stakes related to biodiversity (Fischer, 2000; Irwin, 2001). The development of techniques that recognise local knowledge such as farming systems research and participatory rural appraisal in the 1980s has informed significantly the current theoretical underpinnings of stakeholder engagement and participatory approaches (see Chambers, 1983). An outcomes focus would be about getting positive results, but with the end being justified by the means.

From the foregoing, it is increasingly clear that science alone cannot provide a complete assistance package that fully informs biodiversity stewardship and decision-making in the public and business spheres. Ultimately, public policy and business practice must be made according to a set of beliefs, values, interests, institutions, and assumptions that extend beyond the boundaries of what is traditionally considered to be “good” science (Robertson & Hull, 2003). The novelty of social ecology is that it emerges at the confluence of three major currents shaping the contemporary biodiversity conservation arena. First, the need for local actors and key stakeholders to coalesce and use local knowledge and local action to address local concerns; second, the need for dialogue and collaboration across the many disciplinary and cultural boundaries that divide scientists, policy-makers, and citizens; and third, the need for a vision of nature and human society that encourages people to create healthy ecosystems and sustainable resource use at local, regional, and global scales (see Berkes & Folke, 1998; Berkes et al., 2002; Stave, 2002).

The global development community is beginning to recognise the requirements for greater stakeholder engagement in order to come up with relevant solutions. Speaking at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative held in October 2012, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the bold statement: “You cannot have development in today’s world without partnering with the private sector.” A few years ago, this is the kind of proclamation that might have raised eyebrows but now was just met with widespread agreement in the development community, and the shift reflects how deeply attitudes toward engaging the private sector have changed in the past decade (see Troilo, 2012). The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has been advocating and leading efforts to facilitate such engagement. They strengthen the case for greater stakeholder engagement by pointing out that businesses are keen to work more closely with policy makers and researchers on the design and implementation of biodiversity and ecosystem-related policy and innovations. They argue that much biodiversity and ecosystem policy and regulation relies on the private sector in its implementation, and in any event, it is often the private sector which has the resources and flexibility to develop and implement solutions at scale. For these reasons, as part of increased involvement from business, it is essential that overarching objectives and targets are designed to be relevant for business (see WBCSD, 2010).

In recognition of the complex and uncertain aspects of biodiversity conservation, it is clear that a more practical approach requires that scientists and policy-makers share with a larger community of stakeholders the responsibility and the privilege of defining the problems, the research needs, the policy decision-making processes, and the content of the deliberation surrounding biodiversity conservation issues. In this science-policy-end-user interface, uncertainty is not necessarily banished but is managed through interactive dialogue, and values are not presupposed but are made more explicit (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1995; Robertson & Hull, 2003). The key to ‘good science’ and policy leading to desirable action on the ground is a participatory process with open dialogue and paradigmatic debate (Song & M’Gonigle, 2001). While dialogue among diverse stakeholders is not necessarily the ‘silver-bullet’ to conservation and sustainability challenges, empirical evidence suggests that collaborative learning processes can be enhanced by involving a greater range and diversity of people in science and policy-making processes (Petts, 1997; Maarleveld & Dangbègnon, 1999; Finger & Verlaan, 1995). This includes actors in the civil society and private sector spheres who are traditionally marginalised within or located outside the institutional boundaries of professional and disciplinary practice.

Page 13

There are other scholars who adopt a constructivist position that views the science-policy-end-user interface as a ‘network’ consisting of mechanisms and patterns of connections between actors. These connections are typically characterised by the formation of working groups, projects or partnerships that enable better communication and exchange of knowledge. Kelsey, 2003, argues that biodiversity initiatives have traditionally operated within a ‘science-first’ model of decision-making in which the public is expected to respond to environmental problems, initially and accurately described by scientists. Solutions, according to this rationalist model, are informed by science, negotiated and adopted by politicians and enacted by the public through various means of persuasion and regulation (Grove-White, 1993; Macnaghten & Urry, 1998). The collaborative perspectives that now inform business and biodiversity leadership and sustainability discourses discard the ‘science-first’ model in favour of a collective leadership model whose application provides the opportunity for all key players to define challenges, digest emerging issues, learn from one another, identify potential solutions and mobilise around specific programs of action (see Powell, 1990; Burt, 2000; Primmer, 2011).

One major weakness of the ‘one size fits all’ science-first model is that it assumes a hierarchical relationship in which scientific knowledge is elevated above other knowledge systems and the views of other players in the system are ignored. Application of such a model in the business and biodiversity conservation landscape, would imply that the views of the business sector and the general public do not count in decision-making. Scientific knowledge is regarded as unproblematic, and science communication is considered to be a unidirectional flow of information from scientists to the receivers (Palmer & Schibeci, 2012). It is a model whose structural weaknesses have been identified and critiqued for many decades already. Reed, 2008, argues that natural resource management and biodiversity conservation have long been recognised to have implications for a broad group of stakeholders and hence to require collaboration and knowledge-sharing. Young, 2008, argues that although most policy processes conceptually involve a sequence of stages from agenda-setting through decision-making to implementation and evaluation, in reality policy and research utilisation processes are very rarely linear and logical. Simply presenting research results to policymakers and practitioners and expecting them to put the evidence into practice is very unlikely to work.

Collaboratively designed policies and scientific options are more legitimate and easier to implement while solutions developed in top-down fashion often face resistance from those who must actively contribute to the implementation process (Primmer & Kyllönen, 2006; Schenk et al., 2007). Collaboration also enables improved reflection and adaptation to emerging ecological challenges as well as the building of trust and mobilisation of resources (Conley & Moote, 2003; Schusler et al., 2003). This also requires effective integration of knowledge systems that inform different social groupings. As Kelsey (2003) points out, the core commitment of this constructivist position is that knowledge is not transmitted directly from one knower to another, but is actively built up by all stakeholders. Brechin et al, 2002, argue that since nature protection is, by definition, a social and political process, it stands to reason that our responses to the biodiversity crisis will have to focus on questions of human organisation. In the final analysis, we argue that by focusing on the human organisational processes associated with nature protection, the conservation community will necessarily have to reflect internally on the fundamental concepts, methods, and modes of organisation that govern collective action. Figure 1 depicts the basic elements of this model.

Figure 1: Analytical framework for effective engagement and participation

The philosophical underpinning of this new mode of knowledge production for is characterised by multi- or even trans-disciplinarity, the latter referring to the involvement of non-scientific actors; generated in a context of application; produced on a diversity of sites, in horizontal, ephemeral or even virtual networks; in highly flexible and reflexive settings; and steered by novel forms of quality control (Hage et al., 2010). In this model, everyone is a teacher, learner and co-leader. Problems are commonly defined, community will and commitment is established, supportive institutional arrangements, policy processes and programs are crafted, and trust and partnerships between policy-makers, scientists and other stakeholders are enhanced. There is therefore, a direct appeal for systematic two-way dialogue between science, society and politics (Ehrlich & Pringle, 2008).

Fundamentally, both the ends and the means need to be negotiated and applied in context. In this paper we argue that combining different ways of knowing and learning, promoting two-way dialogue processes, and empowering stakeholders enables different social actors to work in concert, even in situations characterised by much uncertainty and limited information (see Hage et al., 2010). Indeed, public policy and research into sustainable development issues is not an end in itself. If public policy and knowledge created by researchers is shared and debated publicly in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms, it is more likely to be effective and will be adopted and applied by the practitioners (Bassler et al., 2008; Palmer & Schibeci, 2012). Lomas, 1997, argues that researchers, policy makers and end-users would benefit a lot from a greater understanding of each other’s worlds and avoid listening to the sound of one hand clapping if they understood and committed themselves to collective engagement. This perspective also suggests the possibility of creating shared visions around contentious issues related to conservation and business that have, in many instances, led to innovative solutions. New tools and approaches are designed and tested to bridge the knowledge and trust-gap between the policy-makers, conservation community and the business sector (IUCN, 2012).

Uptake of new policies and research is greatest if there has been a clear communications and influencing strategy from the start, and if the results are packaged in concepts familiar to the end-users (Court & Young, 2003). Such a perspective understands the biodiversity governance system as a ‘‘collective’’, a shared set of responsibilities of states, market actors and civil society actors. Improvements of the system depend on the functional interdependencies the actors are able to shape, the deliberate allocation of tasks and the strategic alliances they are able to forge (Visseren-Hamakers & Glasbergen, 2007). Research ceases to be something that researchers do and communicate with ‘end-users. In the emerging business and biodiversity leadership landscape, there is a need (rarely articulated) to create spaces for joint knowledge-generation and exchange in an environment that is open and non-threatening to all key players. We believe that these perspectives have the potential to positively drive the agenda for collective leadership and biodiversity stewardship in the business and biodiversity sustainability landscape.

1.4.2 Implications for leadership and knowledge generation processesThe main message from this discussion is that early and ongoing involvement of relevant decision makers and potential end-users in the conceptualisation and implementation of research stands a better chance of ensuring utilisation of its recommendations. Similarly, researchers with ongoing linkages to specific actors and decision-makers in the business and biodiversity sector will have greater influence than those without such links. As Lomas, 1997, points out, familiarity apparently breeds pertinence not contempt. The strengths of the links among researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders depend, therefore, on all parties finding points of exchange at more than the “product” stages of each of their processes and, furthermore, on a redefinition of the research product as synthesis of a broad spectrum of knowledge rather than an individual study’s findings (ibid). Therefore, more effort should be placed on establishing and maintaining ongoing links and more comprehensive two-way dialogue. It is also important for knowledge champions to understand the political factors which may enhance or impede uptake of knowledge products and develop appropriate strategies to address them. This will probably include investing heavily in communication and engagement activities as well as the research itself and build strong relationships with key stakeholders. In other words, engaging with policy requires more than just research skills. Researchers who want to be good policy and practice entrepreneurs will also need to synthesise simple, compelling stories from the results of the research, network effectively with all the other key stakeholders involved in the process, build programmes that can generate convincing evidence at the right time and know the key decision-makers and how to get to them. Working in multidisciplinary teams with others who have these skills is also a non-negotiable ingredient.

Page 15

2. ConclusionThis paper has demonstrated that most business processes affect biodiversity and ecosystems while being dependent on well-functioning ecosystems to remain in business. For the past few decades, ecosystems and biodiversity have been altered faster and more extensively than ever before as the pace of industrialisation increases. These alterations continue to escalate as the national and global population increases and new development priorities emerge. These alterations pose significant risks to businesses and biodiversity as well as opportunities for use of new eco-efficient technologies, goods, and services. While the corporate fraternity must accept that changes are required in the way that business is done, there is no way that it can meaningfully contribute to reversing the current loss of biodiversity and degradation of critical ecosystems unless it is given incentives to comply with the requirements for conservation and a voice in the process of discussing and creating local and international policy solutions.

The process of generating the right incentives and magnifying the voice of the corporate sector has to be facilitated in a constructive and non-confrontational manner. That is where ongoing engagement and dialogue platforms become very important. They enable better interface between research, policy, and practice as well as the formation of partnerships that can deliver more relevant policies and technical solutions. They may also be used to establish a level playing field; leverage market forces; set realistic targets; and create appropriate incentives for sustainable resource use. Our main message is that given the right conditions, businesses can function profitably and in harmony with biodiversity. Given the right conditions, science can contribute significantly to the definition and enhancement of the right conditions. The model of collective leadership and biodiversity stewardship promoted in this paper suggests that research is but one voice in the knowledge economy relating to policy and practice. This is not to dismiss its importance and the strength of messages which can be generated from research, but to recognise the competitive advantages that may be realised from collective engagement, collaboration and action. This is a model that mobilises local actors and groups develop shared interests and build the common understanding around mutual or overlapping agendas critical for effective and responsible leadership in a rapidly changing business and biodiversity sustainability landscape.

In this paper, we also recognise that getting innovations into policy and practice is the big challenge and the social engineering, linear, top-down approaches of the past have failed. New mind-sets are required that view the halting of ecosystem degradation as a shared leadership responsibility. New biodiversity conservation initiatives require key players and institutions that are willing to take risks and put aside their own familiar ways of working in favour of experimenting with new approaches that better meet the needs of their diverse partners and the biodiversity goals they seek to achieve, responding more effectively to the social dynamics and institutional rigidities that inevitably arise. We reiterate that ultimately, biodiversity stewardship is everyone’s responsibility and no amount of science, no matter how interdisciplinary and applied, will, in and of itself, solve environmental problems. In addition, no amount of policy and regulation will, in and of itself, solve the business and biodiversity sustainability challenge. Problems have to be identified, de-composed and solved by multiple stakeholders. Some of the answers will be found at the interface of science, policy and end-user engagement. The goal of such an approach is to build increased political will and social capital for informed and responsible biodiversity decision-making in this landscape. By getting the fundamentals right, including thorough assessment of context, engaging policymakers, getting rigorous evidence, working with partners, and facilitating two-way dialogue in innovation platforms, the business and biodiversity sustainability champions can overcome key obstacles in this landscape.

3. ReferencesBassler, A, Brasier, K, Neal Fogle, N, & Taverno, R (2008). Developing Effective Citizen Engagement: A How-To Guide for Community Leaders. Centre for Rural Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.

Barna, C (2008). “Re-thinking on the Role of Business in Biodiversity Conservation.” MPRA Paper 12596, University Library of Munich, Germany.

Bellini, B (2003). Un nouvel enjeu stratégique pour l’entreprise: la prise en compte de la protection de l’environnement dans son management. Etat des lieux et perspectives Communication à la Journée « Développement Durable » de l’AIMS. 15 mai 2003, Angers.

Berkes, F, Folke, C (Eds) (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Berkes, F, Colding, J, Folke, C (Eds) (2002). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Beyer, J & Trice, H (1982). The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings. Admin Science Quarterly, 27, p. 591-622.

Brechin, S, Wilshusen, P, Fortwangler, C & West, P (2002). Beyond the Square Wheel: Toward a More Comprehensive Understanding of Biodiversity Conservation as Social and Political Process. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 15:1, p. 41-64.

Brown, ME & Treviño, LK (2006). Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, p. 595-616.

Burt, RS (2000). The Network Structure of Social Capital. In: Sutton, RI, Staw, BM (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior. Jai Press, Greenwich.

Canadian Business and Biodiversity Council. (2010). A Guide to Biodiversity Conservation for Canadian Business. CBBC, Ontario.

Chambers, R (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman, Essex.

Chhabara, R (2009). Ethical Banks Emerging Stronger. Ethical Corporation, November 2009.

Conley, A & Moote, MA (2003). Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 16(5), p. 371-386.

Court, J & Young, J (2003). Bridging Research and Policy: Insights from 50 Case Studies. ODI Working Paper 213, London.

Crewe, E & Young, J (2002). Bridging Research and Policy: Context, Evidence and Links. ODI Working Paper 173, London.

Eccles, MP (2009). Implementation Science: An Implementation Research Agenda. Implementation Science, 4 p. 18.

Ehrlich, P & Pringle, R (2008). Where does Biodiversity go from Here? A Grim Business-As-Usual Forecast and a Hopeful Portfolio of Partial Solutions. PNAS, August 12, 2008, Vol. 105 Suppl. 1, p. 11579–11586.

Finger, M, Verlaan, P (1995). Learning Our Way Out: A Conceptual Framework for Social–Environmental Learning. World Dev. 23 (3), p. 503–513.

Fischer, F (2000). Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham.

Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst, 35, p. 557-581.

Funtowicz, SO, Ravetz, JR (1995). Science for the Post Normal Age. In: Westra, L, Lemons, J (Eds.), Perspectives on Ecological Integrity. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 146–161.

Garforth, C & Usher, R (1997). Promotion and Uptake Pathways for Research Output: A Review of Analytical Frameworks and Communication Channels. Agricultural Systems, Vol. 55, No. 2, p. 301-322.

Gatzweiler, FW (2006). Organizing a Public Ecosystem Service Economy for Sustaining Biodiversity. Ecological Economics 59, p. 296–304.

Grove-White, R (1993). ‘Environmentalism: A New Moral Discourse for Technological Society?’ in: K Milton (ed), Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology. Routledge, London.

Hage, M, Leroy, P, Petersen, AC (2010). Stakeholder Participation in Environmental Knowledge Production. Futures 42, p. 254–264.

Houdet, J (2008). Integrating biodiversity into Business Strategies: The Biodiversity Accountability Framework. PhD Thesis, CREED – Veolia Environnement Doctoral school ABIES, AgroParisTech UMR 8079 Ecologie Systématique Evolution.

Houdet, J, Trommetter, M, & Weber, J (2009). Changing Business Perceptions Regarding Biodiversity: From Impact Mitigation Towards New Strategies and Practices. Cahier n° 2009-29, Paris.

Irwin, A (2001). Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, p. 1–18.

IUCN (2012). IUCN Business Engagement Strategy, IUCN, Geneva.

Jamison, A, Raynolds, M, Holroyd, P, Veldman, E, & Tremblett, K (2005). Defining Corporate Environmental Responsibility Canadian ENGO Perspectives. Pembina Institute, Ontario.

Jones, H (2011). A guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Policy Influence. ODI, London.

Page 17

Keeley, J & Scoones, I (2003). “Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: A Review.” IDS Working Paper 89, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Kelsey, E (2003). Integrating Multiple Knowledge Systems into Environmental Decision-making: Two Case Studies of Participatory Biodiversity Initiatives in Canada and their Implications for Conceptions of Education and Public Involvement. Environmental Values, Vol. 12, No. 3 August, p. 381-396.

KPMG (2012). Expect the Unexpected: Building Business Value in a Changing World. KPMG, Geneva.

Liu, J. et al (2007). Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science 317, p. 1513–1516.

Lomas, J (1997). Improving Research Dissemination and Uptake in the Health Sector: Beyond the Sound of One Hand Clapping. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics & Policy Analysis, Policy Commentary C97-1.

Maak, T & Pless, NM (2006). Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society – A Relational Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 66, p. 99–115.

Maak, T (2007). Responsible Leadership, Stakeholder Engagement, and the Emergence of Social Capital. In: Journal of Business Ethics, 74 (4), p. 329–343.

Maarleveld, M & Dangbegnon, C (1999). Managing Natural Resources: A Social Learning Perspective. Agriculture and Human Values 16, p. 267-280.

Macnaghten, P & Urry, J (1998). Contested Natures. Sage, London.

McKinsey Global Institute (2011). Resource Revolution: Meeting the World’s Energy, Materials, Food, and Water Needs. McKinsey & Company, London.

Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (MA). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Opportunities and Challenges for Business and Industry. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Moser, M, C Prentice & Frazier, S (1996). A Global Overview of Wetland Loss and Degradation. In: Papers, Technical Session B, Vol. 10/12B, Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the Conference of Contracting Parties, Brisbane, Australia, 19.27 March 1996. p. 21–31, Ramsar Convention Bureau: Gland, Switzerland.

Palmer, S & Schibeci, R (2012). What Conceptions of Science Communication are Espoused by Science Research Funding Bodies? Public Understanding of Science 0(0), p. 1-17.

Petts, J (1997). The Public–Expert Interface in Local Waste Management Decisions: Expertise, Credibility and Process. Public Understanding Sci.6, p. 359–381.

Platt, L (2003). ‘Putting childhood poverty on the agenda: the relationship between research and policy in Britain 1800-1950’, Young Lives Working Paper No. 7, London, Young Lives.

Pimm, SL, Russell, GJ, Gittleman, JL, & Brooks, TM (1995). The Future of Biodiversity. Science, New Series, Vol. 269, No. 5222, July, p. 347-350.

Recommendations of TEEB. UNEP, New York.

Troilo, P (2012). USAID and Devex Create New Platform Linking Business and Development Professionals. Weekly Global Development Briefing, 1 Nov. 2012, Washington DC.

Turner, BL (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, p. 8074–8079.

UNEP. (2010). Are you a Green Leader? Business and Biodiversity: Making the Case for a Lasting Solution. URL: www.unep.fr/scp/business/ (Accessed: Sept. 11, 2012).

Visseren-Hamakers, IJ & Glasbergen, P (2007). Partnerships in Forest Governance. Global Environmental Change 17, p. 408–419.

Waldman, D A & Galvin, B (2008). Alternative Perspectives of Responsible Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), p. 327-341.

Wilkinson, C (ed) (2004). Status of Coral Reefs of the World 2004, Volume 1. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2010). Vision 2050. The New Agenda for Business. Geneva: WBCSD.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2011). Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation: A framework for Improving Corporate Decision-making. WBCSD, Geneva.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.

World Resources Institute (WRI). (2008). The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review - Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change, Version 1.0. WRI, Washington, DC.

Young, J (2008). Working with Complexity: Impact of Research on Policy and Practice. Capacity.org 35, Dec., p. 1-7.

Porter, M, Van der Linde, C (1995). Toward a New Conception of the Environment Competitiveness Relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (4), p. 97–118.

Powell, WW (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network Forms of Organisation. In: Staw, B, Cummings, LL (Eds.) Research in Organisational Behavior, 12, p. 295–336.

Primmer, E & Kyllönen, S (2006). Goals for Public Participation Implied by Sustainable Development, and the Preparatory Process of the Finnish National Forest Programme. Forest Policy and Economics 8, p. 838–853.

Primmer, E (2011). Policy, Project and Operational Networks: Channels and Conduits for Learning in Forest Biodiversity Conservation. Forest Policy and Economics 13, p. 132–142.

Rands M et al (2010). Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges Beyond 2010. Science 10 September 2010, Vol. 329 No. 5997, p. 1298-1303.

Reed, MS (2008). Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review. Biol. Conserv. 141, p. 2417–2431.

Reisman, J, Gienapp, A, Stachowiak, S (2007). A Guide to Measuring Advocacy and Policy. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore.

Robertson, D & Hull, B (2003). Public Ecology: An Environmental Science and Policy for Global Society. Environmental Science & Policy 6, p. 399–410.

Sala, O et al (2000). Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science 287, p. 1770-1774.

Schaltegger, S & Beständig, U (2012). Corporate Biodiversity Management Handbook: A Guide for Practical Implementation. BMU, Berlin.

Schenk, A, Hunziker, M, Kienast, F (2007). Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Nature Conservation Measures — A Qualitative Study in Switzerland. J. Environ. Management 83, p. 66–79.

Schusler, T, Decker, M, Daniel, J, Pfeffer, Max J (2003). Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 15, p. 309–326.

Shaxson, L (2010). Improving the Impact of Development Research through Better Research Communications and Uptake. Report of the AusAID, DFID and UKCDS funded Workshop: London, November 29-30,

2010.

Song, SJ, M’Gonigle, RM (2001). Science, Power, and System Dynamics: The Political Economy of Conservation Biology. Conserv. Biol. 15 (4), p. 980–989.

Stave, KA (2002). Using System Dynamics to Improve Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 18, p. 139–167.

TEEB Report (2008). TEEB – Interim Report COP-9, Bonn, May 2008.

TEEB (2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. UNEP, New York.

TEEB (2010). Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and

Page 19

PAPER 2

When economy becomes ecology: Implications for understanding leadership

Prof Louise du Toit and Dr Minka Woermann

AbstractIn this paper we consider the paradigm shift required in our conceptualisation of leadership if business is to reinvent itself in response to our current ecological crisis. Before turning to leadership, we discuss the emergence of a challenging new paradigm within business namely, ‘New Corporate Environmentalism’ (NCE), which was arguably triggered by Paul Hawken’s now classic work entitled The Ecology of Commerce (1993). Hawken and NCE emphasise the importance of looking at business in a systematic fashion (i.e. business is viewed as embedded in larger social, natural, and political systems). Given this understanding, the error of viewing either the organisation, or the individuals within it, in atomistic terms, becomes apparent. As will be demonstrated, this atomistic understanding is prevalent in traditional models of leadership such as transactional and transformational leadership. In light of the present environmental crisis, we argue that what is needed is a complete overhaul of the industrial view of business and its concomitant leadership theories, which continue to cast individuals in ‘monstrous’ roles vis-à-vis nature and other people. We argue that leadership should be reconceived as a phenomenon embedded within (and understood from the vantage point of) interlocking complex systems. This means that business leaders working in the more traditional transactional and transformational modes will have to take on the highly creative and challenging task of re-inscribing their own self-understanding. We conclude the analysis with an investigation of the emerging field of eco-leadership, which, we argue, supports the new restorative business paradigm.

Keywords: Hawken, restorative economy, New Corporate Environmentalism, transformational leadership, ecological leadership, complexity, metaphor

1. IntroductionPaul Hawken’s The Ecology of Commerce was a milestone publication for a number of reasons, but the most significant for our purposes is that he deliberately wrote the book from within the business perspective, addressing fellow business leaders. In this respect, his contribution was strategically important because up until this point, 1993, most radical critiques of the capitalist-industrial system came from people who consciously positioned themselves outside, and in opposition to, business and industry2. Like the environmentalists, Hawken also accuses business and industry of destroying life on Earth, but does not view the economic system as necessarily destructive. With his radical new vision of how the system should be transformed he provides business with both a positive ideal for a new way of doing business and with a key role and responsibility in the process of radically re-shaping the economy.

We take as our point of departure Hawken’s challenge to business and the new business and industry paradigm which is developing in response to his vision. In other words, we are broadly in agreement with his far-reaching proposals for the transformation of our economic system. We also agree with him that business and industry should pro-actively strive for and promote the transformation of this system, not least because we share his assessment that business is the only social institution that is currently powerful enough to bring about the kind of large-scale changes that we need. We then part ways with Hawken by pursuing a line of inquiry that is not explicitly considered in his work, namely, the nature of leadership for a restorative economy3. In this regard, the focus of our inquiry is not so much on identifying current leadership paradigms that would bring about Hawken’s vision, but rather on determining how our very understanding of leadership should change, in order to both make sense of, and promote, a restorative economy. In other words, we are interested in beginning to formulate an understanding of leadership that would be congruent with the new economy based on Hawken’s vision.

In order to achieve this aim, we draw on Hawken’s own description of the principles of a restorative economy (specifically, the notions of systems, internal diversity, cyclical forms, life-restoration and promotion, innovation, and self-limitation). We supplement these ideas with concepts from other authors, such as ‘complexity thinking’ (Morin & Cilliers), ‘ecological thinking’ and ‘situatedness’ (Code), ‘ecological leadership’ and ‘generative leadership’ (Western), and ‘imaginization’ (Morgan). Using these concepts, we begin to flesh out the main characteristics of leadership as it would ideally manifest within a restorative economic paradigm.

2. The restorative economy and the rise of the New Corporate Environmentalism

2.1 Hawken’s vision:Paul Hawken’s The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability (1993) was, according to a 2010 article by Forbes and Jermier which appeared in the journal Organization & Environment, instrumental in “launching and amplifying” a social movement which they call the ‘New Corporate Environmentalism’ (NCE) (p. 465). Forbes and Jermier contend that Hawken’s book further stimulated and strongly influenced research on organisations and the natural environment, including organisational change and development. These authors are of the opinion that the ‘impact of The Ecology of Commerce on the thinking of managers and other practitioners is legendary’ (p. 469), and that this book has become a standard textbook in many disciplines.

The thesis of the book may be summarised as follows: the still dominant industrial economy must end because ‘business is destroying the world’ (Hawken, 1992, p. 94)4. In its place, we must develop a restorative economy ‘based on technological innovation, sweeping structural reform and radical process re-design’ (Forbes & Jermier, 2010, p. 465). Hawken (1992) crucially gives business a central role in driving this reform. In this regard, he writes:

‘…I don’t believe that there’s any choice about this. Either we see business as a restorative undertaking, or we, business people, will march the entire race to the undertaker. Business is the only mechanism on the planet today powerful enough to produce the changes necessary to reverse global environmental and social degradation’ (p. 94-95).

Therefore, although Hawken views business as the main culprit when it comes to the radical decline in environmental and social conditions on earth, he also sees business and industry as the drivers of their own systemic transformation

Prof Louise du Toit is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Stellenbosch. She is the author of ‘A Philosophical Investigation of Rape: the making and unmaking of the feminine self’ which appeared with Routledge in 2009.

Dr. Minka Woermann is a lecturer in Philosophy and Head of the Unit for Business Ethics and Public Integrity at the Centre for Applied Ethics, Stellenbosch University.

Page 21

and as proactive agents in shaping the existing economic structures into a restorative framework. Older ‘corporate environmentalism’, which was met with little constructive response and was essentially based on reactive responses to externally-exerted pressures, such as environmental legislation, is a far cry from Hawken’s outlook.

2.2 New Corporate Environmentalism and the role of business and other stakeholders: In line with his internal criticism Hawken promotes an ambitious vision in which business and business leaders play the leading role in addressing the crises mentioned. Hawken thus places a special duty on business and industry leaders, whom he views as mature moral agents, capable of effectively responding to his appeal to look beyond their short-term, material self-interest. Business can no longer act like the immature child in Kohlberg’s 1981 model of moral development, who, in the absence of an internalised locus of control, requires external control. In other words, instead of treating ‘the captains of industry’ as perpetual moral minors, who are forever in need of policing, he calls on these players to take up the primary role in turning business around. In other words, Hawken challenges business to grow up, morally speaking, and to be responsible and responsive to the larger environment in its supposedly justifiable selfish pursuit of profit.

In a past era business people could transfer their moral responsibilities to a semi-divine ‘invisible hand’. However, the Nietzschean insight regarding the death of God at the hands of man, which leaves us solely responsible for the state of the world (De Wit, 2010, p. 14-15), is finally starting to dawn on the business community. Hawken’s work therefore began to find traction during the 1990’s, and prominent business leaders (notably, Ray Anderson of Interface carpets) were inspired to publically accept ‘responsibility for environmental damage and degradation rightly attributable to commercial activities’ (Forbes & Jermier, 2010, p. 466; see also Schmidheiny, 1992). Today companies like General Electric (the world’s largest manufacturing organisation) and Wal-Mart (the world’s largest retailer), along with many other companies, especially smaller ones, endorse Hawken’s vision (Forbes & Jermier, p. 466).

Jermier et al. (2006, p. 618) labelled this vision the ‘New Corporate Environmentalism’ and emphasised that it entailed an important break with traditional corporate environmentalism, which, as previously stated, was characterised by mere ‘compliance with environmental laws and regulation’ (i.e. external regulation). In their article, they define NCE as:

‘Rhetoric concerning the central role of business in achieving both economic growth and ecological rationality and as a guide for management that emphasizes voluntary, proactive control of environmental impacts in ways that exceed or go beyond environmental laws and regulatory compliance’ (p. 618; emphasis in original).

The authors further explain that NCE ‘places emphasis on self-regulation, which aims to situate control of environmental impacts in the hands of individual corporations, value chain requirements, industry and trade associations’ (p. 618). They also argue that, although NCE is aimed specifically at business organisations, business can also place ‘pressure on all contemporary organizations and their leaders…to assume this stance’ (p. 466). Arguably, there would be a problem of public trust if business was allowed to self-regulate its own social and environmental impact. And yet, as Forbes and Jermier (2010, p. 467) point out, in 2010 there was widespread ‘distrust of all institutions, including government and NGO’s’ (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2010), with the implication that ‘more sympathy for corporate steering of the environmental movement may exist than usually assumed’. This idea of responsible business leadership transcending mere compliance is also in line with the thinking behind the King Report on Governance for South Africa, for example:

‘It is, however, important to note that Hawken also envisages a new role for government as well as for other (non-governmental and non-business) organisations, which may help to balance out business interests within any particular community. Hawken warns that the current global arrangement where economics and politics are merging into a seamless whole, may threaten to violently subject the interests of the world population to the interests of a handful of powerful companies. He thus pleads for a renewed separation between financial and political interests, so that governments will return to their real job of serving people’s and communities’ interests, as opposed to the interests of large companies. Clearly, governmental and political complicity accounts for much of the inflated power of business organisations. For Hawken, government must “set the conditions under which commerce operates” and “establish the standards that help guide the planning and development of business”’ (Hawken, 1993, p. 168).

Thus we understand him as saying that government must both limit what business may do, and provide a broad social base upon which industry and government may together successfully transform the nature of commerce as such (Hawken et al., 1999, p. ix). Hawken’s idea of business-led environmental action thus also places a renewed emphasis on responsibility and moral maturity, manifested by leadership within fields other than business.

2.3 The design problem in business:Although Hawken does not align himself directly with the more radical green movements, such as deep ecology or ecofeminism, he is one of the fiercest internal critics of business, and his 20-year old book unfortunately strikes as hard today as when it first appeared. Forbes and Jermier (2010, p. 469) attribute the reason for this to the ‘apparent timelessness of the world’s modern environmental and social problems and the slow response of business to those problems’. Thus, in spite of its huge impact, The Ecology of Commerce and the associated NCE have not yet managed to turn the tide and,

as was the case twenty years ago, ‘we are [still] conducting a vast toxicologic experiment and we are using our children as the experimental animals’ (Landrigan, 2001; cited in Forbes & Jermier, 2010, p. 470). Hawken clearly identifies, and relentlessly rejects, the various techniques and strategies that business and industry have used to ‘forestall meaningful change’ (p. 470). He is thus not naïve about the nature of business culture, yet believes that this culture can be, and must be, transformed from the inside out. Key themes that must be addressed to achieve this include; addressing the role and nature of advertising, materialistic mindsets and commercialism, the ideology of growth, the idea of trickle-down markets, and so on. These notions come together under his overarching idea of developing a restorative economy in the place of the still dominant industrial one.

In this regard he makes some interesting points that are pertinent to our reconsideration of business and organisational leadership. Although certain personal virtues such as self-discipline, frugality, and efficiency lie at the heart of his restorative model, Hawken does not view the problem with existing commerce as centering in the sphere of personal ethics and moral awareness, but rather as a design problem running through all of business (p. 473), and ultimately, through late-modern capitalist society. This notion is strongly echoed in the documentary film, The Corporation (2003)5, in which philosophers, economists, and scientists agree that we have created a legal corporate form that has spun out of control and that, in turn, is starting to control us. This corporate form dictates and enforces a dangerously impoverished understanding of the human being and its relationships to others and the world; in fact, they see the corporate form itself as structured along the lines of the human psychopath. The film suggests that, as individuals, business leaders may be good or bad, virtuous or vicious, but that this is largely irrelevant to the roles his or her organisation requires them to play. Noam Chomsky, in particular, argues that just as the institution of slavery cast the slave owner in a monstrous role, the dominant corporate form is casting business leaders in monstrous roles when it comes to damage inflicted on the environment and other people, which is irrespective of the personal moral convictions and virtues of these leaders. To merely focus on the development of moral character in business leaders would be a superficial and ineffectual response to a much broader, systemic problem.

2.4 Restoring business: Resolution of the design problem ‘requires an integrated system (economic, biologic, and human)’ which cannot be achieved at the level of the individual company alone. Instead, it ‘requires radical re-design of institutions’ and of the relations between institutions (Forbes & Jermier, 2010, p. 473). Traditional business practices have encouraged a narrowing of one’s moral vision, what Joan Tronto (2006, p. 11-13) has termed ‘privileged irresponsibility’. In contrast, Hawken’s envisaged restorative economy promotes an opening up of the moral vision to include the material and symbolic conditions of business, as well as the material and symbolic effects of its actions. In other words, within a restorative vision, business is rightly returned to its material and symbolic embeddedness in both natural and social systems much larger than itself.

Concrete changes advocated by Hawken under the rubric of restoration include the following: (i) the new business organisation will recognise the true costs of goods (Hawken, 1993, p. 13, p.167); (ii) the new business organisation will mimic nature, and live in symbiosis with natural processes in that it will ‘use closed loops, renewable energy and promote [cultural and other] diversity’ (Forbes & Jermier, 2010, p. 473) and it will be cyclical rather than linear in design; (iii) the new business organisation will be regional rather than global, smaller and community-based, rather than larger (Forbes & Jermier, 2010, p. 473); (iv) the system must reward the highest internalised costs (Forbes & Jermier, 2010, p. 474); (v) business leaders must ‘accept their role to act as restorers of life’ (Hawken, 1993, p. 167); (vi) we must ‘obey the [cyclical] waste-equals-food principle [in nature] and entirely eliminate waste from our industrial production’ (Hawken, 1993, p. 209); (vii) the economy must mimic nature by being fueled by hydrogen and sunshine instead of carbon (Hawken, 1993, p. 12); (viii) ‘we must create systems of feedback and accountability that support and strengthen restorative behaviour’ (Hawken, 1993, p. 209-10), including green fees and taxes on carbon; and, (ix) we must form public utilities to manage raw materials and natural resources (Forbes & Jermier, 2010, p. 475). Given this list of conditions, it is clear that it is structural reform that is needed rather than a change in ‘human consciousness and behavior alone’ (Forbes & Jermier, 2010, p. 478).

In terms of leadership under a restorative paradigm, one of the most important aspects is that businesses must start to act in self-limiting ways in order to re-humanise the lived world (i.e. overcome the one-dimensionality or mono-culture of corporatisation). One of the most crucial elements in such an exercise of self-limitation is that business leaders must, as previously argued, disentangle business interests from political interests. It is interesting to note that leaders of large corporations would appreciate that government must play a critical leadership role in advancing a green agenda, and that they would even welcome strong leadership in that regard. This is according to Forbes and Jermier (2010, p. 478), who quote General Electric chairman Jeffrey Immelt, who stated in a 2009 interview, that:

‘What doesn’t exist today in the energy business is the hand of God… I think if you asked the utilities and big manufacturers in this business what they would most like, it would be for the President to stand up and say: ‘By 2025 we are going to produce this much coal, this much natural gas, this much wind, this much solar, this much nuclear, and nothing is going to stand in the way.’ Well, you’d have about thirty days of complaining and crying, and then people across the whole energy industry would just stand up and say, ‘Thank you, Mr President, now let’s go do it’. And we would go out and do it.’

Page 23

In Hawken’s ideal scenario government would be emancipated from manipulation by business. This would take place partly through the self-limitation of business itself, which would force government to ‘accept that the most important social unit in a democracy is not [the large corporation], but … individuals, families and communities that are constantly being affected by the decisions of business to externalize their costs onto society and the environment’ (Hawken, 1993, p. 168).

2.5 The importance of ecological consciousness:Hawken’s understanding of the need to re-structure the global economy into a restorative enterprise can be usefully connected with Lorraine Code’s idea of ‘ecological thinking’, developed in her 2006 book with the same title. One could convincingly argue that she develops similar ideas to that of Hawken, but on the level of knowledge claims or epistemology. In Code’s opinion knowledge is always situated and embedded in contexts that include concrete power relations, relations of trust or lack of trust, and issues concerning responsibility. An ecological consciousness would, on her account, entail that we become aware of larger responsibilities than we have been encouraged to acknowledge under a modernist, industrial paradigm. This is especially crucial for the lives of the white affluent in the west: they must actively reject their own cultivated ‘privileged irresponsibility’ and narrow moral focus, and take responsibility for what they are discouraged from knowing or understanding by the system of global injustice.

Using Code’s ideas, we suggest that leadership under a restorative paradigm would not only mimic or imitate nature, but would also be characterised by an intensification of ecological thinking. Ecological thinking is concrete, embedded, aware of power relations (i.e. material and symbolic asymmetries, inter-dependencies, and conditions) and takes responsibility for knowledge (and, to some extent, for the limits of knowledge), as well as for the potentially far-reaching consequences of actions, even though these actions are always taken on the basis of incomplete knowledge. Ecological thinking, as embedded, thus also always takes locality seriously, since locality influences or shapes one’s perspectives. Thus, for instance, in South Africa ecological consciousness business leaders would take their historical context and their position on the African continent seriously, as well as the influence that this exerts on understanding their social role, power relations, relations of trust and distrust, and their material and symbolic relations with the people in South Africa and on the African continent.

This consciousness would also require that business leaders publicly take responsibility for the environmental degradation and social deterioration rightly attributable to their commercial activities, and that these leaders would play a leading role in decoupling business from government, and building a restorative economy. Moreover, they would come to understand that transforming the economy so that it serves people and planet will not be the result of a personal conversion of a few virtuous individuals or visionary business leaders, but is more likely to materialise through a thorough re-structuring and re-design of the national landscape. This re-design would crucially involve a new relation between the political and economic spheres. Ecological consciousness business leaders would thus be willing and able to play a leading role in transforming countries into places where individuals, families, and communities become the most important units of consideration morally.

3. Leadership At first glance, it would seem that Hawken’s vision for a restorative economy, the NCE movement, and ecological thinking would be well-served by a transformational leadership paradigm, since the very emphasis of this paradigm is on transforming the nature of commerce, on the basis of an over-arching leadership vision, which inspires followers to align their behaviour with this vision. In order to ascertain whether transformational leadership truly serves the restorative economy, a more in depth analysis of this paradigm is warranted. We begin by contrasting transactional leadership with transformational leadership, and conclude that transformational leadership – which is described as a flexible leadership approach, capable of responding to turbulent environments – does indeed seem to serve the goals of an ecological economy. However, on further inspection, it transpires that, like transactional leadership, transformational leadership is also grounded in a view that privileges the person of the leader, above the context in which leadership emerges. The restorative economy, the NCE movement, and ecological thinking all support a systemic view of business, wherein business is defined as a complex system, which is embedded in larger social, natural, and political systems. Given this understanding, the error of viewing either the organisation, or the individuals within it, in atomistic terms becomes apparent, and it is on this basis that we reject not only the transactional, but also the transformational account of leadership.

Through exploring complexity thinking, and new emerging leadership paradigms, we attempt to present both a challenge to traditional conceptions of leadership, as well as to flesh out the characteristics of a conception of leadership that does indeed support a new, ecological business economy. Whilst we acknowledge that the traditional leadership paradigms, such as transactional and transformational leadership continue to find footing in the business world, it is our hope that the analysis presented here will help business leaders to take on the creative and challenging task of re-inscribing their own self-understanding as leaders in ways that can help them to productively tackle our current environmental crisis.

3.1 Transactional vs. transformational leadership:The notion of ‘transforming leadership’ was first introduced by James MacGregor Burns in his seminal work on political leaders, entitled Leadership (1978). The term ‘transformational leadership’ was however coined by Bernard M. Bass, who, in his book entitled Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (1985), extended Burns’ research by explaining the psychological mechanisms that underlie what is respectively termed ‘transactional’ and ‘transformational’ leadership.

Bass (1997, p. 133) argues that transactional leaders use a ‘carrot or stick approach’, whereby they explain what is required from their employees, and what compensation they will receive if the requirements are fulfilled (Bass, 1990). In the words of Bass (1990, p. 29): ‘This transaction or exchange – this promise and reward for good performance, or threat and discipline for poor performance – characterises effective leadership [in the transactional leadership paradigm].’ Bass (1990) criticises transactional leadership for often leading to mediocrity, on the grounds that leaders often fail to intervene until problems become serious (what Bass (1997, p. 134) refers to as ‘passive management by exception’). Furthermore, this paradigm may be ineffective in the long-run, since leaders may not have adequate control over rewards and penalties and employees may not desire the rewards or fear the penalties.

In contrast to transactional leadership, Bass argues that transformational leadership is consistent with superior leadership performance, which:

‘…occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purpose and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group’ (Bass, 1990, p. 21).

According to Bass (1990; 1997), transformational leaders achieve these results in four ways. Firstly, transformational leaders may be charismatic and exercise what Bass (1997, p. 133) calls an ‘idealized influence over followers’. He argues that charismatic leaders ‘are admired as role models generating pride, loyalty, confidence, and alignment around a shared purpose’ (p. 133). Secondly, transformational leaders may motivate or inspire followers, because such leaders are capable of articulating ‘an appealing vision of the future, challenge followers with high standards, talk optimistically with enthusiasm, and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done’ (p. 133). Thirdly, transformational leaders may intellectually stimulate their followers because such leaders ‘question old assumptions, traditions and beliefs, stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things; and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons’ (p. 133). Lastly, transformational leaders may show individualised consideration to followers, since they deal with followers as individual people, and ‘consider their individual needs, abilities, and aspirations’ (p. 133).

Despite the appeal of the transformational leadership paradigm, Bass (1990, p. 30) concedes that ‘transformational leadership is not a panacea’. In stable markets, for example, transactional leadership may be a more acceptable leadership paradigm, and achieve faster results. However, Bass is clear on the matter that transformational leadership is the superior paradigm for organisations functioning in complex environments. In this regard, he writes:

‘… when the firm is faced with a turbulent marketplace… then transformational leadership needs to be fostered at all levels in the firm. In order to succeed, the firm needs to have the flexibility to forecast and meet new demands and changes as they occur – and only transformational leaders can enable the firm to do so… In short, charisma, attention to individualized development, and the ability and willingness to provide intellectual stimulation are critical in leaders whose firms are faced with demands for renewal and change’ (Bass, 1990, p. 31).

Given this description of the benefits of transformational leadership in turbulent environments, one is likely to conclude that transformational leadership is what is needed in order to transcend mere compliance with environmental regulations (which is easily supported by transactional leadership), and to successfully transform the nature of business culture and commerce so as to realise the goals of NCE. Such a conclusion would, however, be premature, and in order to understand why this is the case, it is necessary to briefly look at some of the criticisms against transformational leadership.

3.2 Challenging transformational leadership:In his article entitled, Eco-leadership: towards the development of a new paradigm, which appears in an edited volume of papers under the name of Leadership for Environmental Sustainability, Simon Western (2010) briefly investigates the insufficiencies of 20th century leadership paradigms for managing our current-day environmental responsibilities. One of the discourses that he criticises is transformational leadership, which he characterises as a “messiah leadership discourse” (p. 40). Western argues that the messiah discourse was a response to the U.S. economic slump in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, and the corresponding growth in production of the Asian tiger economies. It was in this context that ‘this new covenantal leadership style’ (p. 40) was born, with ‘the aim to create strong, dynamic organizational cultures under the vision and charisma of a transformational leader’ (p. 40). Furthermore, Western argues that it is no coincidence that transformational leadership in the U.S. arose at the same time as Christian fundamentalism. Essentially, both these movements resonated at ‘an unconscious cultural level’ (p. 40). Western describes this cultural impulse as follows:

‘America was seeking in the economic and sociopolitical sphere a form of ‘Messiah Leadership’ to reaffirm its status as the leading world power and to reaffirm a collective sense of what it means to be American. The business schools, consultancies, and multinational corporations acted with vigor selling the new leadership

Page 25

discourse of a transformational leader (Messiah) who could offer vision and passionate leadership to an inspired, loyal, and committed workforce’ (p. 40).

Unfortunately, Western argues, this leadership style also resulted in highly conformist organisational monocultures (what Peters and Waterman (2012) refer to as ‘cult-like cultures’). In the long-term, this monoculture could lead to a totalising mindset, where individuals and teams who do not buy into the leader’s vision, are soon expelled. In other words, what is lacking from the transformational leadership paradigm is a critical, multi-stakeholder discourse on the vision of the organisation and the leader.

A related problem concerns the fact that, in pursuing and encouraging buy-in of their vision for the organisation, transformational leaders ‘attempt to “engineer culture” (Kunda, 1992) and create “designer employees” (Casey, 1995)’ (Western, 2010, p. 41). This tendency to view leaders ‘as the architects and controllers of an internal and external order’ (Uhl-Bien, 2006, p. 65) also underwrites other traditional approaches to leadership (such as servant leadership, spiritual leadership and authentic leadership). Richard Wielkiewicz and Stephen Stelzner (2010, p. 17) call these approaches ‘positional leadership’ theories and in their paper, which also appears in the above-mentioned volume, argue that ‘according to this theoretical perspective, positional leaders are directly responsible for organizational success and adaptation.’ These authors believe that such theories support and promote the attribution error, which they define as the (predominantly Western) tendency ‘to overestimate the importance of personality factors and underestimate the importance of situational factors’ (p. 20). In terms of leadership, this error manifests as the ‘tendency to attribute [the positional leader’s] behavior to an internal characteristic, as opposed to the situational context and organizational hierarchy’ (p. 20).

In the introduction to Leadership for Environmental Sustainability, the editor Benjamin Redekop (2010, p. 3) argues that stressing positional leadership over the context in which leadership is enacted is very problematic, as it results in a myopic view of the organisation, and a mistaken view of human nature. In this regard, he specifically states that:

‘The tendency amongst American business leadership to ignore or discount the larger social and environmental contexts in which leadership occurs is simply a reflection of some of the main tenets of American capitalism, as well as the lineaments of the American dream, which stresses the idea that human beings (and by extension, leaders) are free agents who can succeed at whatever they wish to do, if only they work hard enough’ (p. 3).

It is precisely these tenets that Paul Hawken (1993) challenges in The Ecology of Commerce. Because businesses discount the larger social and environmental contexts in which leadership occurs they often have insufficient ecological knowledge, specifically with regard to their impact on ecosystems; a short-term focus (which allows them to discount long-term sustainability issues); and a technocratic view of environmental problems. And, this is why ‘business is destroying the world’ (Hawken, 2010, p. 3). Despite Bass’ (1990, p. 31) appeal to transformational leadership as an appropriate leadership paradigm for turbulent times, we see that the ability of transformational leaders to be flexible and to adapt to changing environmental and market conditions is limited by the more conservative elements of this leadership philosophy, specifically the uncritical promulgation of the leader’s vision and the almost exclusive focus on the person of the leader, at the expense of systemic conditions. Taking cognisance of these shortcomings is important, because despite the fact that the popularity of this leadership theory has recently been declining, many people continue to appeal to transformational leadership as the superior leadership theory in contemporary times. Indeed, numerous websites, blogs, articles, and books are devoted to the transformational leadership agenda. Yet it is our belief that the tenets underlying this leadership paradigm cannot facilitate the radical transformation of business and leadership thinking for a restorative economy. For this reason, we therefore turn to work done on leadership for environmental sustainability specifically, in order to see whether other, more recent, approaches to leadership are better aligned with the goals of NCE.

3.3 Leadership for the restorative economy: Redekop (2010, p. 1) introduces the volume on Leadership for Environmental Sustainability with the truism that ‘[a]chieving environmental sustainability is quickly becoming one of the great leadership challenges of our time.’ Yet, despite this undisputed fact, he remarks that leadership studies have paid little attention to this topic6. Redekop purports that this volume of papers is the first to place ‘the relationship between leadership – as a general construct – and the natural environment at center stage’ and to examine it from ‘diverse viewpoints’. Indeed, this volume is a jewel in terms of developing a multi-dimensional understanding of leadership and its relation to the natural environment. However, for the purposes of this paper, we concentrate on only one of the perspectives offered in this volume, namely that of ‘eco-leadership’. Redekop (p. 4) defines ‘eco-leadership’ (coined by Western (2008)), as follows:

‘Still in its infancy, this discourse (or paradigm) is characterized by “a growing interest in systems thinking, complexity theory, narrative approaches, and also the environment as metaphors for leadership and organizing company structures” [Western, 2008] (p. 184)… it conceives of leadership as being dispersed, emergent, ethical, and adaptive – able to help groups and organizations adapt themselves to external contingencies like environmental change.’

This perspective resonates well with Hawken’s discussion of the restorative economy, particularly with his focus on the systems (environmental, cultural, biological, and human) in which business is embedded, and the institutions (governmental and non-governmental) to which business is related. To recall: with a restorative vision, business is rightly returned to its

material and symbolic embeddedness in both natural and social systems much larger than itself. It is exactly this systemic perspective that forms the heart of eco-leadership. As Western (2010, p. 36) notes: ‘Eco-leadership works in organizations that are conceptualized as “ecosystems within ecosystems”’. This contrasts sharply with the positional leadership models (including transformational leadership) where organisations are conceived as ‘stable and boundaried systems that operate with leaders at the top of clear hierarchies’ (p. 36). Western continues by arguing that:

‘Eco-leadership shifts the focus from individual leaders to leadership, asking of an organization “how can leadership flourish in this environment?” Leadership is too often reduced to the heroic individual, when leadership is about much more. Leadership includes individual leaders as well as collective groups and teams taking leadership… Nation-states can take a leadership role, and leadership can be seen in processes and culture. The first task of eco-leadership is to make leadership generative, broadening the common reductionism that restricts it to elite individuals at the top of an organization’ (Western, 2010, p. 36).

Given the resonances between Hawken’s conceptualisation of the restorative economy and Western’s description of eco-leadership, it is worthwhile to investigate the tenets of eco-leadership in order to further operationalise leadership for a restorative economy. This task will be tackled in the next section, followed by a discussion on whether the transformational vision still has a place within this model. We argue that a leadership vision remains important for driving forward the restorative economy, but that such a vision should be based on something akin to Gareth Morgan’s 1986 concept of ‘imaginization’, and should be developed along the lines of an ecological contextualisation of human economic activity, which concerns a pro-active and dynamic personal and collective attitude regarding the way organisations are and how they could / should be.

3.4 Complexity thinking:It was previously noted that eco-leadership has its roots in systems theory, complexity theory, and narrative approaches. Indeed, many of the characteristics of eco-leadership are framed in the language of complexity thinking, and before examining these characteristics, it is useful to briefly introduce the paradigm of complexity.

Complexity thinking, as it is understood from a philosophical perspective, resists the simplification and overly rapid reductionism that characterises the classic sciences, and the modernist worldview. According to this perspective, complexity is irreducible, in other words, complex phenomena cannot be compressed into simple models without discounting some of the complexity and thus distorting the phenomenon itself (Cilliers, 1998). The complex nature of certain systems (particularly living systems) is attributable to the dynamic, self-organising relationships and feedback loops that exist between the components of a system, and between the components and the system itself (Cilliers, 1998). Cutting-up a system (i.e. trying to gain knowledge of the whole by studying the parts, the classical western scientific approach of analysis) therefore destroys the relations, and hence the complexity that constitutes the system as that system (Morin, 2007). Yet, a certain degree of reductionism is unavoidable because, due to our cognitive limitations, we cannot understand the world in its full complexity. We are consequently forced to reduce the complexity through modelling. Any engagement with complexity thinking therefore implies a critical engagement with the status and limits of our models and knowledge claims. The challenge posed by the environmental crisis certainly constitutes a complex problem. Furthermore, the technocratic thinking that constitutes many mainstream responses to this crisis, and which has its roots in the Enlightenment ideal of science and knowledge, needs to be replaced (or at least supplemented) by a perspective that is sensitive to the inherent limitations and possible derailments that may result from intervening in this crisis. Complexity thinking represents one such perspective, and we would do well to pull the insights from complexity thinking into our theories and practices, including leadership.

Although it is impossible to fully model a complex system, complex systems are, nevertheless, characterised by a number of features. Keeping these features in mind can help us develop an understanding of complex phenomena. Many of these features, including the emergent nature of complex systems, the rich inter-connections between and embeddedness of complex systems, the presence of positive and negative feedback loops, and a focus on hierarchy and structure, also feature as characteristics of eco-leadership. This affirms the point that eco-leadership presents us with a leadership style that is modelled on complexity thinking, and can thus be fruitfully employed in the development of a leadership paradigm for a restorative economy, as will be demonstrated below.

3.5 Characteristics of eco-leadership:

a) The emergent nature of leadership

Wielkiewicz and Stelzner (2010, p. 21) argue that leadership ‘emerges from the interactions and actions of individuals within an ecological system.’ Describing leadership as an emergent process means that the focus of leadership theories shifts from the positional leadership paradigm, to understanding the interactions among individuals that give rise to leadership. This is not to say that formal leaders do not exist. The point is merely that leadership is an emergent quality, and is not something that is wholly attributable to the leader’s unique traits or organisational position. In fact, different organisational members with different personality traits and positions within the organisation may assume leadership roles in different

Page 27

situations and, in this regard, the hallmark of a great leader is to know when to step down (self-limit) and let someone else take hold of the reins. As such, the process of mobilising people and resources (the process of leadership) should be understood in terms of an institution’s systemic functions (Grebe & Woermann, 2011). From this perspective leadership is ‘an on-going direction-finding process, which is innovative and continually emergent’ (Collier & Estaban, 2000, p. 207).

Wielkiewicz and Stelzner (2010, p. 22) argue that ‘[i]n an ecological context, the role of positional leaders is to assist organizations in developing processes that make them more adaptive.’ An important part of the role of leadership would therefore be to cultivate an environment or habitat within the organisation that is conducive to the development or emergence of leadership itself on different levels and within different dimensions of the organisation. Grebe and Woermann (2011) argue that this will only be achieved if leaders attend to and steer emergent institutional narratives and sensitise role-players to the effects of their actions. It is through these context-sensitive leadership processes that Hawken’s goal of transforming business culture from the inside-out can be realised. This is because our narratives constitute the shared meaning or ‘stories about ourselves’ that form our culture and values, and that direct our focus, but also determine the scope of our focus.

b) The embedded nature of leadership

As noted earlier, Hawken views the problem with existing commerce as a design problem running through business, whereby business is seen as separate from the systems and institutions in which it is embedded, on which it depends, and to which it is related. This view is supported by the paradigm of disjunction, and should be replaced by what the complexity theorist, Edgar Morin (2007), refers to as the paradigm of ‘whole-part mutual interaction’. Apart from the environmental challenges, businesses today are faced with a host of social and technological challenges including globalisation, scientific and technological advances, the proliferation of information, and a fast-changing and fluid social economy (Wielkiewicz & Stelzner, 2010). In order to be able to adapt to these social and biological challenges, leaders must actively seek to broaden the focus of business, and to develop robust and responsible strategies for dealing with the myriad challenges and relational ties that characterise the organisational environment. This is no easy task and, according to Wilelkiewicz and Stelzner (p. 24), ‘requires developing a deeper understanding of the interdependent systems contexts within which organizations exist’, and also requires that we deal with the tensions that emerge ‘between devoting resources to thoroughly understanding this context versus being more action-oriented, which means making timely and effective decisions based upon an admittedly incomplete understanding of the context.’

This again underscores the point that our knowledge of complex systems is limited, yet the fact that we do not have complete knowledge of the situation, does not excuse us from action. We must take responsibility for what we know, for how we know, as well as for acting within knowledge limitations. The philosopher, Jacques Derrida (2002), calls this the aporia of ethics and politics, in which the need to be infinitely vigilant is always interrupted by the urgency of a response. It is our contention that any responsible response to the environmental crisis should be situated in the heart of this aporia.

c) The importance of feedback loops for leadership

Wielkiewicz and Stelzner (2010, p. 25) argue that ‘[s]ustainability is an excellent environmental feedback loop’ since ‘[i]gnoring environmental feedback loops is harmful to organizations in many ways.’ Their point is that companies who are unable to adapt to the environmental challenges are unlikely to be sustainable. The manner in which companies become aware of these challenges is through feedback loops, and the success with which they respond to these feedback loops will, in part, determine the company’s success, especially in the dimension of long-term sustainability. Wielkiewicz and Stelzner (2010) argue that there are no guaranteed ways in which to identify ‘relevant’ feedback loops, but they nevertheless draw a distinction between constricting feedback loops (which are associated with too big a focus on the sense-making skills of the individual, positional leader) and feedback loops which are understood and interpreted by a range of empowered workers, where empowerment is defined in terms of ‘high involvement work processes’ (Vandenberg, Richardson and Eastman, 1999 in Wielkiewicz & Stelzner, 2010, p. 25). They elaborate by arguing that ‘group decision processes are advantageous for an organization because they maximize the number of feedback loops influencing leadership processes (p. 25).

The positive recognition and reaction to feedback loops is facilitated by workplace diversity, in which divergent viewpoints that challenge one another are expressed. Leaders should therefore ensure that the internal diversity mirrors or exceeds the diversity in the environment (phenomena which are referred to as requisite and excess diversity respectively). The complexity theorist, Peter Allen (2001) argues that the ‘fat’ of excess diversity is necessary for experimenting and innovating for the future, and for coming up with successful strategies for dealing with complex problems.

This excess diversity should be accompanied by process accountability where organisational members are encouraged to ‘build a thorough examination of all alternatives into the decision process’ (Wielkiewicz & Stelzner, 2010, p. 25). Process accountability keeps work members attuned to the consequences of their actions and allows them to respond quickly and flexibly to emerging problems. Today we face a number of complex problems (including global warming), and it is impossible to determine the success of our strategies in advance. Hence, process, as opposed to outcome accountability, presents a more responsible and responsive paradigm for action in a complex world.

d) The structured nature of leadership

Contrary to popular belief, complex systems are structured systems. This is because when the components of systems interact, dynamic structures emerge over time due to self-organisation. As with any structured system, patterns of hierarchy exist. Western (2010, p. 43) is very clear in this regard, noting that ‘[s]tructure, power, and authority do not disappear in some utopian dream when we move towards eco-leadership, environmental awareness, and social responsibility.’ However, issues of power and authority are thought of differently in eco-leadership. Western (p. 44) notes that ‘[c]entral power and control do exist but they have a fragile existence, resilient but also fluid and changeable. Power is much more distributed than we usually recognize in our narratives about how “the social” functions’.

A consequence of this view of power is that eco-leaders are challenged to deal with a number of paradoxes that emerge from the distributed nature of leadership. Collier and Esteban (2000, p. 212-213) have identified certain significant paradoxes of systemic leadership, which are also applicable to eco-leadership, and which we would do well to note in this context. They are: the paradox of hierarchy-participation, whereby leadership is viewed as the responsibility of all, but is exercised by one person at a time; the paradox of unity-diversity, whereby ‘leadership works with the unity of purpose, but with a diversity of ideas and interests, so that conflict is inevitable’; the paradox of asymmetry-mutuality, which amounts to the fact that eco-leaders rely on the principle of mutuality and on the existence of a level playing field, yet, it is also clear that the process is asymmetric in that the weight of influence and power shifts as people assume different roles and responsibilities at different times; the paradox of discipline-creativity, whereby it is recognised that although ideas are the lifeblood of generative organisations, they must be managed in a disciplined manner as not all ideas can be implemented; and lastly, the paradox of creation and destruction, which implies that developing new perspectives often means destroying old processes and practices, which in human terms can be painful.

Although not specifically referred to as a paradox, Wielkiewicz and Stelzner (2010) also identify a tension between the traditional approaches to leadership (which are premised on the industrial paradigm) and the ecological approach. They argue that in order to deal with the current-day adaptive challenges faced by business the focus must shift to the ecological approach, but they also argue that the industrial approach still has its place, since ‘too much emphasis on process (the ecological side of the tension) can interfere with timely and effective decision-making’ (p. 27). They conclude that ‘[t]he ideal organization has a clear vision of the industrial versus ecological tension and has introduced mechanisms into leadership processes that counter the attributional biases that cause some to see leadership as “owned” by positional leaders’ (p. 31). At the same time eco-leadership practices, such as a broader distribution of power and authority, should not lead to the avoidance or dilution of responsibility for action and decision.

3.6 Imaginiation: driving forward the restorative economy Natural systems are undeniably complex and the move towards a restorative economy necessitates that we carefully consider the complex inter-dependencies between organisational systems (including the inter-personal and institutional inter-dependencies and the systemic factors that may influence leadership processes) and between organisational systems and the environment. Wielkiewicz and Stelzner (2010) argue that the eco-leadership paradigm provides us with a useful organisational metaphor for seeing and responding to the complexities of organisational and adaptive challenges. They further argue that the ecological metaphor serves as a useful reminder of the environmental challenges that the human race faces, and to which each organisation must respond as effectively as possible.

The role of poignant metaphors in facilitating innovative thought processes and practices should not be underestimated because, as Gareth Morgan argues in his influential book, entitled Images of Organizations (1986, p. 12), ‘the use of metaphor implies a way of thinking and a way of seeing that pervade how we understand our world generally.’ In the final chapter of his book, Morgan (1986, p. 339) argues that ‘some of the most fundamental problems that we face stem from the fact that the complexity and sophistication of our thinking do not match the complexity and sophistication of the realities with which we have to deal.’ Morgan (p. 399) notes that his approach in Images of Organizations was to use metaphor as a means for addressing this challenge and for stimulating the critical thinking needed to grasp ‘the multiple meanings of situations and to confront and manage contradiction and paradox, rather than to pretend that they do not exist.’ Yet images and metaphors do not only facilitate new ways of seeing the world, but also serve as frameworks for action. To this end, Morgan introduces the concept of ‘imaginization’ which, for him, represents a way of linking thought and action. In other words, metaphors and images are not only interpretative constructs, but ‘are central to the process of imaginization through which people enact or “write” the character of organizational life’ (p. 344).

The current economic system is not ‘built to fly’ and is rather in free fall, taking all life on the planet along with it over the precipice. It is designed to break limits, rather than to respect them (Hawken, 1993). In contrast to this economy, a restorative economy is ultimately ‘a prosperous commercial culture that is so intelligently designed and constructed that it mimics nature at every step, a symbiosis of company, customer and ecology’ (p. 15). As we hope to have demonstrated in this paper, transformational, visionary, charismatic leadership alone cannot accomplish the transformation from the current economy to a restorative economy. This is because the tenets of transformational leadership are incongruent with the tenets of ecological thinking and eco-leadership, specifically with regard to understanding the systemic and embedded nature of leadership and organisational processes. In contrast to transformational leadership, eco-leadership, and the idea of the economic sphere mimicking the processes of natural production and distribution, works with – rather than against –

Page 29

nature, and can be understood, as a powerful manifestation of ‘imaginization’. On the basis of this metaphor, we can begin to rethink the concept of visionary leadership (which is so central to the paradigm of transformational leadership), and to re-inscribe our visions for the future ‘in more powerful, larger, more stratified contexts’ (Derrida, 1988, p. 146).

Furthermore, and as demonstrated in this paper, the transformational paradigm promotes an atomistic understanding of the world, and may encourage organisational monocultures and totalising mindsets. By understanding leadership as a complex phenomenon, eco-leadership is able to overcome the dangers associated with transformational leadership. In so doing, eco-leadership resists ‘the colonization of the life-world’ (Habermas, 1984 in Western, 2010, p. 48) which causes employees to become stuck in a given ideology. This is because eco-leadership facilitates ‘imaginization’ to the extent that it recognises the importance of diversity and narrative, and the unavoidability of complexity and paradox; and, in so doing helps ‘individuals and organizations to become decolonized’ (p. 48).

4. (Endnotes)1. Both authors are lecturers in the Department of Philosophy, University of Stellenbosch.

2. In terms of the arguments developed in this paper, the neat categorisation of critique as ‘outside’ to the global economic and industrial system, is (self-)deceiving. This is due to the fact that we are all (to a greater or lesser extent) caught within the same web, and are reliant on the economic system for our survival; the very same economic system that is threatening to destroy the conditions on which most forms of life depend.

3. Paul Hawken does not really address the question regarding the nature of leadership in a restorative economy in either The Ecology of Commerce (1993) or in Blessed Unrest (2007).

4. A year before the publication of The Ecology of Commerce in book form, Hawken published an essay with the same name, which appeared in the business journal Inc. This essay can be read as a summary of his main argument in the book, and the 1992 Hawken citations in this paper are taken from this essay.

5. The Corporation is a Canadian documentary film written by University of British Columbia Law Professor, Joel Bakan, and directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott.

6. See also: Environmental Leadership Equals Essential Leadership: Redefining Who Leads and How (2006).

5. ReferencesAllen, P (2001). A complex systems approach to learning, adaptive networks. International Journal of Innovation Management 5(2), p. 149-180.

Bass, BM (1985) Leadership and performance. Free Press, New York.

Bass, BM (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, Winter, p. 19-31

Burns, JM (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row, New York.

Casey, C (1995). Work, self, and society: after industrialism. Routledge, London and New York.Cilliers, P (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: understanding complex systems. Routledge, London.

Code, L (2006). Ecological thinking: the politics of epistemic location. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Collier, J and Esteban, R (2000). Systemic leadership: ethical and effective. The Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(4), p. 207-215.

Derrida, J (2002). Ethics and politics today. In E. Rottenberg (ed. and trans.), Negotiations: Interventions and interviews, 1971-2001, (p. 295-314). Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Derrida, J (1988). Afterword. In G. Graff (ed.), S. Weber (trans.), Limited Inc (p. 111-160). Northwestern University Press, Evanston.

De Wit, TWA (2010). Dies Irae. De sekularisering van het laatste oordeel. University of Tilburg, Tilburg.

Forbes, LC and Jermier, JM (2010). The New Corporate Environmentalism and the ecology of commerce. Organization and Development, 23(4), p. 465-481.

Gordon, JC and Berry, JK (2006). Environmental leadership equals essential leadership: Redefining who leads and how. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

Grebe, E and Woermann, M (2011). ‘Institutions of integrity and the integrity of institutions: integrity and ethics in the politics of developmental leadership, Research paper, Developmental Leadership Program.

Habermas, J (1984). The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press, Boston.

Hawken, P (1992). The ecology of commerce. Inc., April, p. 93-100.

Hawken, P (1993). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. Harper Business, New York.

Hawken, P (2007). Blessed unrest. Penguin, London.

Hawken, P, Lovins, A, and Lovins, LH (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. Little Brown, Boston, MA.

Jermier, JM, Forbes, LC, Benn, S and Orsato, RJ, (2006).

The new corporate environmentalism and green politics. In SR Clegg, C Hardy, TB Lawrence and W Nord (eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies, 2nd edition, (p. 618-650). SAGE, London.

Kohlberg, L (1981). Essays on moral development, volume I: The philosophy of moral development. Harper & Row, San Francisco, CA.

Kunda, G (1992). Engineering culture: culture: control commitment in a high tech corporation. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Landrigan, P (2001). Trade secrets: A Moyers Report. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org.

Morgan, G (1986). Images of organization. SAGE, California and London.

Morin, E (2007). Restricted complexity, general complexity, trans. C Gershenson. In C Gershenson, D Aerts, and B Edmonds (eds.), Worldviews, science and us: Philosophy and complexity (p. 5-29). World Scientific, Singapore.

Peters, T and Waterman, H (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best run companies. Harper & Row, New York.

Redekop, B (2010). Introduction: Connecting Leadership Sustainability. In BW Redekop (ed.), Leadership for environmental sustainability (p. 1-16). Routledge: New York and London.

Schmidheiny, S (1992). Changing course: A global business perspective on development and the environment. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Tronto, J (2006). Vicious circles of privatized caring. In M Hamington and DC Miller (eds.), Socializing care, (p. 3-26). Rowman & Littlefield, Oxford, U.K.

Uhl-Bien, M (2006). Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, p. 654-676.

Vandenberg, R, Richardson, H and Eastman, L (1999). The impact of high involvement work processes on organisational effectiveness: A second-order latent variable approach. Group and Organization Management, 24(3), p. 300-339.

Western, S (2010). Eco-Leadership: Towards the development of a new paradigm. In BW Redekop (ed.), Leadership for environmental sustainability, (p. 36-54). Routledge, New York and London.

Wielkiewicz, RM and Stelzner, SP (2010). An ecological perspective in leadership theory, research, and practice. In BW Redekop (ed.), Leadership for environmental sustainability, (p. 17-35). Routledge, New York and London.

Page 31

PAPER 3

Strategising for Sustainability: Measurement and Validation Through an Applied Case Study

Prof Marius Pretorius and Catherine le Roux

AbstractThe purpose of this research was to investigate if the Strategising for Sustainability Index (SSI) tool could be applied in practice with the use of practitioner validated measures. The SSI tool is theoretically founded in literature on sustainability and strategising; there is however no empirical research that supports its validity and application in practice. This article seeks to address this gap. For this, a target company was identified; a listed company ranked 39th on the JSE ALSI (March 2011). The target group were managerial practitioners on all levels, across divisions, involved in company strategising. Practitioners were asked four questions: How supported is each element as a measurement/indicator to determine sustainability strategising in a company? How embedded is each element on the SSI tool in Growthpoint’s strategising? How do you agree with the researcher’s SSI rating score of the organisation for each element? Considering all the elements for strategising for sustainability, how would you rank them? The process relied on facilitated guidance, participant observation and a documentation method involving a post-mortem analysis process. The ten elements of the SSI tool for determining sustainability embeddedness in strategy for a company were rated and found to be ‘somewhat’ to ‘highly’ supported as indicators. Practitioners were able to identify elements of the SSI tool that were embedded in their company’s strategising for sustainability. Practitioners revealed agreement for the measures and the application of the SSI tool relative to the researcher’s view. Practitioners identified ‘Specific measures and targets for sustainability’ to be the most important element of the SSI tool for embedding sustainability. The findings confirm the SSI tool elements as measures for sustainability embeddedness in strategising. The SSI tool can be rated and elements are incorporated into strategising. The SSI tool measures embeddedness and practitioners can obtain direction from results.

Key words: sustainability, strategising, measurement, practice

1. Introduction The sustainability movement is near its tipping point. Seventy percent of executives surveyed in a recent study said that their companies have made sustainability a ‘permanent fixture on the management agenda’. The Boston Consulting Group and MIT Sloan Management Review surveyed data from more than three thousand corporate leaders in a hundred and thirteen countries and on twenty nine in-depth interviews with industry experts and academic scholars. It was found that two thirds of respondents said management attention to, and investment in, sustainability had increased in the previous year (2010-2011). Additionally, two thirds of companies said that sustainability is ‘necessary to being competitive in today’s marketplace’ (Haanaes, Reeves, Von Streng Velken, Audretsch, Kiron, & Kruschwitz, 2012, p. 1). On this point, some authors have suggested that sustainability is vital for companies to ‘survive’ and ‘thrive’ (Adams & Frost, 2008, p. 289; Bonn & Fisher, 2011, p. 5)

To truly prosper, corporate leaders need to ‘move with the culture’ (Trendwatching, 2010; Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011, p. 18). The term ‘sustainability’, the new media and business buzzword, yields twenty eight million results when a Google search of the term is conducted. But more than that, sustainability is creating a permanent shift in the very nature of business (Crews, 2010, p. 15) and is considered more than just a trend (Bonn & Fisher, 2011, p. 14). The tendency is for leading businesses to embed sustainability into corporate strategising. They are motivated by the connection between sustainability and performance and profits (Haanaes, et al., 2012, p. 1).

Some of the benefits associated with sustainability embeddedness include the building of a strong positive corporate brand, employee retention, cost savings, enhanced innovation and sales (Adams & Frost, 2008, p. 299; Cowan, Dopart, Ferracini, Sahmel, Merryman, Gaffney & Paustenbach, 2010, p. 525; Hillestad, Xie & Haugland, 2010, p. 441; Bonn & Fisher, 2011, p. 5).

Embedding sustainability is a company’s response to a radically different market reality and business dimension, one that unifies the profit, ecological and social spheres in a single integrated value creation space (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011, p. 2). The head of strategy and environment at a corporate emphasised the impact of embedding sustainability into strategising. He postulates that it ‘allows us to continue to profit and grow, it helps us to be a responsible business and it is crucial for our competitive advantage.’ (Haanaes, et al., 2012, p. 1).

Studies indicate the ‘here-to-stay’ nature of sustainability for organisations everywhere. Those companies that are enjoying the profit and performance benefits of embedded sustainability have, at a much higher rate than other companies, changed their organisational structure, their business models and their operations to support more sustainable business practices (Haanaes, et al., 2012, p. 1). Companies acclaiming to be enjoying the profit benefits associated with sustainability tend to all have a distinctive organisational mindset and design that supports sustainability. Compared to other businesses, the leaders are three times more likely to have a business case for sustainability. They are also fifty percent more likely to have CEO commitment to sustainability, twice as likely to have a separate sustainability reporting process and twice as likely to have a separate function for sustainability. They are also fifty percent more likely to have a person responsible for sustainability in each business unit and more than two and half times as likely to have a chief sustainability officer (Haanaes, et al., 2012, p. 1; Sustainable Business, 2012).

Literature supports the process of embeddeding sustainability into strategising by offering various models, suggestions and tools for leadership in their role of strategising (Lacy et al., 2009, p. 489; Reilly, 2009, p. 33; Quinn & Dalton, 2009, p. 21; Searcy, 2009, p. 50; Holton, Xie & Haugland, 2010, p. 152; Crews, 2010, p. 17; Elmualim, Shockley, Valle, Ludlowb, Shah, 2010, p. 58; Leon-Soriana, Munoz-Tirress & Chalmeta-Rosalen, 2010, p. 249; Bonn & Fisher, 2011, p. 6). This is to be expected given its importance and connection to profit and performance. The tools and models are of such a quantity that practitioners and experts are feeling ‘overwhelmed’ by the information on sustainability and are in search of practical frameworks and tools to measure their sustainability embeddedness (Klaine & Von Hauff, 2009, p. 520).

Efforts to harness the benefits of sustainability, secure and assure stakeholders and protect company reputation has resulted in firms using to their most public and global form of communication; their websites (Coupland, 2005, p. 256; Bowers, 2010, p. 250). Research indicates a significant rise in the use of corporate websites for reporting Triple Bottom Line (TBL) activities amongst companies attempting to acknowledge and respond to changing local, national and global societal expectations concerning business practices (Lee et al., 2009, p. 141). In 2007 two thirds of the Global Fortune 500 corporations issued a form of stand-alone, non-financial report addressing sustainability issues (Reilly, 2009, p. 33).

Riccaboni and Leone, (2010, p. 131) relay that if companies are seeking to report on their strategising for sustainability, one may expect that there are some internal mechanisms which guide their activities towards this goal. This appears to be a challenge, many of reports have been criticised as mere ‘public relations stunts’ or ‘empty talk’ (Bowers, 2010, p. 250; Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka, 2010, p. 301). This coincides with concerns that these external communication mechanisms are not actually aligned with management’s agenda, leading to the premise that external communication mechanisms are not actually integrated into the company’s existing strategy and structure (Klaine & Von Hauff, 2009, p. 520; Reilly, 2009, p. 33; Hillestad et al., 2010, p. 440).

Prof Marius Pretorius is Professor in Strategy, Leadership and Turnaround in the Department of Business Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa. As a strategy consultant and facilitator he focuses on distressed ventures in search of rescue and growth. Research interests from his publication record suggest turnaround modelling, leadership, entrepreneurial strategy and simulation as focus areas.

Catherine has specialised in Business Strategy and Sustainability. During the past 6 years she has completed her B.Com Honours degree in Business Management from the University of Pretoria and has recently completed her Masters Degree in Strategising for Sustainability. The Masters investigated the level of sustainability embedded in strategising of organisations. She currently consults to businesses on embedding sustainability into strategising.

Page 33

this information, management is able to model a framework for the company to address the elements that the company does not achieve on. Their motivation to be aware of weak areas is so that improvements may be made to attract the socially responsible investor.

• Sustainability investing: The benchmarking quality of the SSI tool affords investors comparability and the ability to discriminate between companies to invest in. Investors who want to ensure the sustainability embeddedness and longevity of a company’s strategising can interpret the level with this SSI tool.

• Holistic sustainability measurement: The SSI tool was formulated on literature on the topic as well as an incorporation of best practice for sustainability. Measurement criteria included these and as such, the level of sustainability embeddedness of a company that was determined provides management with a holistic picture of sustainability in strategising as communicated.

• Quick access to information: This SSI tool can be used without internal investigation and access to restricted strategies and policies. It can be used with easily accessible publicly available communication. It doesn’t require confidential information. Managers who want the year on year results of their level of sustainability embeddedness in public communication can acquire outside skills for application of the tool without disruption of day to day activities.

• Discriminating quality of SSI tool: The SSI tool contextualises sustainability within strategising and provides a level of embeddedness. This offers management the ability to determine the sustainability embeddedness level of their company in a way that is different to the current indexes and market capitalisation rankings.

As a result of the potential of the SSI tool, the following future research was proposed:

‘It is recommended that future research addresses and further investigates the implementation gap between what is said and what is done. Future research should draw a comparison between what was communicated publically (the level of strategising for sustainability determined by the researcher on the SSI tool) and what is actually occurring in the JSE ALSI Top 40 companies. A thorough internal analysis of a case company could support the making of the SSI tool and provide greater insight into the implementation gap. The research could also serve to reveal the reasons for a company’s strategising for sustainability embeddedness rating by assessing how practitioners rate, rank and support the level of sustainability embeddedness in elements of strategising. Further research could seek to challenge the legitimacy of sustainability claims by determining on the ground ratings for embeddedness of sustainability.’

To expand on the development of this SSI tool, research needs to be conducted on its applicability in practice. While this research briefly describes the SSI tool, it mainly investigates the SSI tool’s application within an organisation to determine its validity for use in practice.

This research, therefore, addresses the implementation gap through the application of the SSI tool to a case company. Literature encouraged clarifying if and to what extent sustainability forms part of ‘management’s agenda’ and strategising. For this, a sample of practitioners was investigated in search of the embeddedness of sustainability within internal structures. The following research question was asked: ‘Can the Strategising for Sustainability Index (SSI) tool be supported in practice?’ This lead to further questions of whether 1) elements contained in the SSI tool can be rated by practitioners and if they are in fact 2) incorporated into strategising. The research aims to determine the level of support by practitioners for the SSI tool, asking if 3) practitioners support the SSI as a means of measurement of sustainability embeddedness and finally we ask, 5) if practitioners can obtain direction from results.

3. Background to this Research: Context and TheoryMany firms claim to be focused on a sustainability agenda, however, when digging deeper and through informal investigation, it appears as if many of these claims have little substance – not much more than talk or sometimes lacking real intent.

Sustainability has become a boardroom-level strategic business issue associated with business’s ability to ‘survive’ and ‘thrive’ (Adams & Frost, 2008, p. 289). In fact, there is consensus that the ‘case for change’ (referring to sustainability’s place in strategising) has been successfully made (Skinner & Mersham, 2008, p. 239; Lacy, Arnott & Lowitt, 2009, p. 485; Lee, Fairhurst & Wesley, 2009, p. 2; Crews, 2010, p. 15; Elmualim et al., 2010, p. 58).

Whilst the case for change is made, executives express a lack of skills, awareness and knowledge adequate to meet this challenge (Crews, 2010, p. 17). Kane, 2011, proposes that the radical transformation that is required of businesses (in terms of sustainability) cannot possibly be driven by environmental managers hidden away in their environmental silos.

Literature highlights the challenges and suggests that, in order to address the sustainability of business, there is a need to

The sustainability movement may be at its tipping point, however, academics and practitioners are of the opinion that sustainability has more ground to gain. While sustainability has made it onto many management agendas, responses from the Boston Consulting Group and MIT Sloan Management Review also indicate that it ranks an unimpressive eighth in importance among other agenda items. This could be on account of many companies ‘still struggling to define sustainability in a way that is relevant to their business’ and managers feeling overwhelmed and distracted by the ‘daily grind of business’ (Smith & Sharicz, 2011, p. 74; Velazquez, Esquer & Munguia, 2011, p. 36; Haanaes, et al., 2012, p. 1).

The key organisational features and actions of embedded sustainability strategies are not always clear or absent in sustainability company reports, stated vision and mission statements, corporate communication messages. The concerns surrounding the embeddedness of sustainability in strategising are raised in reference to the internal structures and practices of organisations. Managers have even come forward to declare the concept of embedding sustainability in strategising to be both ‘complex’ and ‘elusive’ (Elmualim, Shockley, Valle, Ludlowb, & Shah, 2010, p. 58).

There appears to be a gap between the official declarations of companies (the talk) and actual organisational behaviour through execution (the walk) - that is lagging behind (Riccaboni & Leone, 2010, p. 130). An implementation gap is brought to attention by the criticism of external and publically available communication, coupled by managers’ challenges in integrating sustainability into strategising. This raises the following questions: Is there a link between the critics of reporting and the cries of management? Could the lack of strategic focus in reporting have to do with managers’ inability to embed sustainability into strategising on a daily basis?

2. Key Focus of the ResearchSustainability is no longer a question of ‘if’ but rather a question of ‘how?’ Organisations have started incorporating sustainability into their vision and goals but whilst noises are being made, implementation is suspect. To address the gap, the researchers propose a framework for a SSI tool which measures the embeddedness of sustainability in strategising (see Table 1). In the development of this tool, a literature study was conducted on all literature pertaining to these search terms: ‘sustainability,’ ‘strategy,’ ‘strategising,’ ‘integration of sustainability,’ ‘triple bottom line,’ ‘reporting,’ ‘sustainability measurement’ and ‘corporate social responsibility.’ Then a content analysis was executed by the researcher on criteria set out for inclusion. The purpose was to identify key elements for the SSI tool to measure the extent to which companies’ sustainability was embedded in sustainability. The research considered three broad concepts: compliance, strategy formulation and strategy implementation. Two elements for compliance were identified; four elements for strategy formulation measurement and four elements to measure strategy implementation. The element titles and criteria were sourced from the content analysis. Support was found for each element. The SSI tool was created to describe the status of strategising for sustainability and to determine if there was any evidence that sustainability was embedded into strategising amongst the ALSI Top 40 companies. The SSI tool was applied to publically available documents and information. The SSI tool presents sufficient measurement criteria for determining sustainability embeddedness given that its elements were derived from literature tools, models and sources on the topic of sustainability and strategising. The same key factors provided to practitioners to aid the process of embedding sustainability into strategising were used as measurement criteria in the research.

To support the research in determining the sustainability embeddedness, the researcher utilised a measurement criteria document. This document incorporated the 5-point scale on which companies’ sustainability embeddedness was measured in each element of strategising. The SSI was found to have discriminating value for determining strategising for sustainability embeddedness, in fact, the SSI tool was able to address the potential ‘superfluous’ claims surrounding sustainability and put into perspective those companies that have successfully demonstrated that sustainability is not just for reputational purposes and that it is part of their strategising and their operational activities as a listed company.

Smith and Sharicz (2011, p. 76) posed the question of how it is possible for organisations to demonstrate that their sustainability declarations are not just ‘good looks’. The researchers believe that the SSI tool addresses this challenge and supports managers in the following ways:

• Addressing strategising gaps and better informed decision making: Knowledge of the communicated level of embeddedness in strategising affords management the opportunity to evaluate the strategising for sustainability process internally and ensure it is aligned with what is communicated. The findings afford management the chance to future informed decision-making on strategising and on the communication to stakeholders.

• Improvement of communication strategy: Awareness of the status of one’s company offers a basis to improve or redesign the existing communication, reporting processes, marketing and corporate website design to project sustainability embeddedness as opposed to ad hoc sustainability claims and implementation efforts.

• Company benchmarking: The Top 40 leading companies on the JSE were benchmarked on the embeddedness of strategising. Companies were measured on their external communication that is relayed to investors. With

Page 35

accounting and reporting, in contrast to management accounting and management, has largely ignored practice within organisations’. Moreover, Owen (2008, p. 248) argued that fieldwork studies have great potential for going beyond the analysis of the contents of official statements and reports, as well as for understanding organisational processes and managerial motivations underpinning reporting initiatives and evaluating their effectiveness in promoting organisational transparency and accountability (Riccaboni & Leone, 2010, p. 130). Lee et al., (2009, p. 141) note that there is little research investigating the degree to which companies detail Triple Bottom Line (TBL) initiatives publically, or into the level of sustainability in strategy formulation and implementation.

Before proceeding, it is critical to define the key constructs of this research. Sustainability creates long term shareholder value by taking up opportunities and managing associated risks that derive from TBL (economic, environmental and social) developments (Crews, 2010, p. 15; Elmualim et al., 2010, p. 59) and is often mentioned in association with responsible leadership, the use of resources and corporate social responsibility. Sustainability claims, on the other hand, are distinctive remarks, marketing labels and brands, developed by public and private sector institutions (UNCTAD, 2011) about sustainability achievements and projects. They are generally communicated through websites, public documents and with products and services. They attest that the company itself, its products and supply chains incorporate the pillars of sustainability (economic, social and environmental). Strategising – the process of formulating and implementing a strategy by practitioners (Hodgekinson & Clarke, 2007, p. 243). The interest of strategising is how initiatives (practices and praxis) are approached and resources applied to eventually achieve competitive advantage.

Through reviewing the literature, sustainability embeddedness in strategising was proposed in the SSI tool. Ten elements are put forward as components and determinants in the SSI tool, two of which measure compliance, four strategy formulation and four strategy implementation. Together the three categories form the SSI tool for determining sustainability embeddedness in strategising. Table 1 and Figure 1 show the detail and measurements for each elements contained in the SSI tool. These categories and elements of sustainability embeddedness used in the SSI tool were determined from literature and are described in Table 1. The case company was evaluated based on this tool.

Table 1: The SSI Tool categories, elements, descriptors and supporting authors as applied to target companies

ELEMENT NUMBER AND

TITLE:DESCRIPTION OF ELEMENT: SUPPORTING

AUTHORS:

COMPLIANCE:1.

INTEGRATED REPORTING

• A product of a process or system of processes that seeks to inform stakeholders of an organisation’s ability to heed to stakeholder and or societal concerns and to provide meaningful performance information to support assertions suggesting effective management. To demonstrate how well an organisation has embedded a comprehensive view of sustainability into the strategic fabric of the organisation that leads the reader to understand whether the organisation is well placed to adapt to economic, social and environmental factors.

• The users of an organisation’s integrated report (the stakeholders) should be able to determine from the report whether the organisation has sufficiently applied its collective mind in identifying the social, environmental, economic and financial issues that impact on the organisation’s business, and whether these issues have been appropriately incorporated into its strategy.

• Reporting ranges from mere compliance, disclosure and the acknowledgement of sustainability to a fully integrated annual and sustainability report called an Integrated report.

• The accessibility of the report demonstrates a willingness to disclose information.

• Excellent reports consider KING III, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, UN Global Compact, JSE SRI Index, and the ISO 2600 sustainability reporting and performance frameworks and communicate a balance of TBL sustainability indicators.

Bowers, 2010, p. 250

Coupland, 2005, p. 256

Dawkins & Ngujiri, 2008, p. 236.

Gill, Dickinson & Scharl, 2008, p. 244

Ince.motiv, 2010, p. 18

Rolland & Bazzoni, 2009, p. 249

Smith & Sharicz, 2011, p. 78

Sustainability Services, (2011).

Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka, 2010, p. 300

Velazquez et al.,2011, p. 36

2.

SUSTAINABILITY RECOGNITION AND AFFILIATION

• Recognition by third parties can be through endorsements, awards, partnerships and affiliations.

• Companies that are confident in their efforts towards sustainability embeddedness seek connections with other leading organisations that share the same beliefs and intentions.

• Awards include those such as ‘responsible retailer of year’ show a level of accountability for actions.

• Voluntary additional reporting such as the Carbon Disclosure Project CDP displays efforts to go beyond minimum reporting.

ACCA

Bonn & Fisher, 2011

Cowan et al.,2010, p. 524;

Ernst & Young

Searcy, 2009, p. 52

SRI


understand its connection to strategising. White (2009, p. 386) emphasises this relationship with the article title: ‘Building a Sustainability Strategy into Business’. The key is to build sustainability into the business strategising (Lacy et al., 2009, p. 484). Bonn and Fisher, (2011, p. 6) suggest that for businesses to be more sustainable, they need to ensure that sustainability is integrated into the strategy process from the beginning and on an ongoing basis. This notion highlights the need to look at strategy from a practitioner’s level, within organisations, and identify the ‘detailed aspects of strategising’ (Jazarbkowski & Spee, 2009, p. 69).

Sustainability theory has provided leadership with various tools for embedding sustainability into strategising (Klaine & Von Hauff, 2009, p. 520; Riccaboni & Leone, 2010, p. 131; Bonn & Fisher, 2011, p. 6). The Five Levers Framework is one such tool which is used by high performing companies and aspires to generate impressive business value by executing sustainability strategies (Lacy et al., 2009, p. 489). Business leaders can use the tool to address the elements within the business to achieve the goals of strategising for sustainability. It is suggested that successful companies make organisational changes such as altering business processes to maximise the value generated by their sustainability efforts. Another tool providing guidance on embedding sustainability in strategising is the model titled: ‘sustainability as an integral part of strategy.’ It promotes sustainability integration by means of discussing each element in the model with regard to sustainability embeddedness (Bonn & Fisher, 2011, p. 6).

Other suggestions to help firms embed sustainability are: incorporating it into the balanced scorecard card (BSC) and embarking on a sustainability performance measurement (Searcy, 2009, p. 50). Although initially developed for the purpose of linking strategic goals in its four dimensions to the financial bottom line and increasing business profitability, most research considers the tool suitable for the management of sustainability and CSR. The BSC has been found to not be a tool for the formulation of strategies but part of a wider competitive positioning. Leon-Soriano et al. (2010, p. 249) propose a Sustainability Balanced Score Card (SBSC) that takes into account the ‘human’ and ‘green’ cases in order for the company to act according to all three elements of TBL. This is so that they can offer a framework to include the necessary steps to grant the integration of sustainability.

Literature has provided suitable tools for aiding practitioners to embed sustainability into either strategy formulation, or implementation, or both. The challenge identified in the process of embedding sustainability is that, despite the extent of support offered, the desired outcome of sustainability embeddedness is not always be achieved. Leaders are ‘still struggling to define sustainability in a way that is relevant to their business’ and are feeling overwhelmed and distracted by the ‘daily grind of business’ (Smith & Sharicz, 2011, p. 74; Velazquez, Esquer & Munguia, 2011, p. 36; Haanaes, et al., 2012, p. 1). Practitioners express that, despite the frameworks, tools and models provided, the goal is ‘complex’ and an ‘elusive’ one (Elmualim et al., 2010, p. 58).

Despite the powerful forces for corporate sustainability - including global pressure, informed leadership, available tools and frameworks, and clarity on the sustainability business argument - a focus on sustainability may be impeded by equally strong forces against its implementation (Klaine & Von Hauff, 2009, p. 520; Reilly, 2009, p. 33; Hillestad 2010, p. 440). Strategising for sustainability is not a trivial task (Holton et al., 2010, p. 152). Research linking corporate strategic change and sustainability has identified some counter forces to implementing corporate sustainability initiatives (Reilly, 2009, p. 35).

In addition to the challenges that leadership face in embedding sustainability in their strategising, various stakeholders have raised concerns pertaining to the actions taken by organisations in communicating their sustainability goals. The legitimacy of sustainability claims on corporate websites have been criticised both inside and outside of corporate walls (Coupland, 2005, p. 256; Bowers, 2010, p. 250). These internal and external concerns emphasise that the concept of sustainability may not be successfully embedded in the ‘doing of strategy’ (Jazarbkowski & Spee, 2009, p. 69).

There appears to be a gap between the official declarations of companies and actual organisational behaviour (Riccaboni & Leone, 2010, p. 130). As a result of leadership’s struggles with the embedding of sustainability in business strategising and the concerns over the legitimacy of sustainability external communication, the research focus on these topics has shifted to a more practice approach (Riccaboni & Leone, 2010, p. 130). Literature presents some case study approaches to studying the sustainability and strategising. The case studies were on various case companies across different industries. The purposes of the studies applying case research methodology included were: ‘To investigate how the leaders incorporate sustainability in the precast industry were managing for sustainability,’ (Holton, 2010, p. 154) ‘To explore if and how management control systems (MCS) have a role in implementing sustainable strategies’ (Riccaboni & Leone, 2010, p. 130) and ‘To present a case study of how a global consumer company, with over 300 brands sold in 180 countries, and 138 000 employees, is building sustainability into the rhythm of its business.’ (White, 2009, p. 386).

These studies motivated for case study approaches and in some cases, single case design, on the basis that it is a suitable research methodology for types of explanatory questions focusing on contemporary events (Yin, 2003) and because researchers made observations that case studies offer the possibility of understanding the nature of the study in practice, both in terms of techniques, procedures, systems which are used and the way in which they are used (Scapens, 2002; Riccaboni & Leone, 2010, p. 130).

With specific reference to Social and Environmental Accounting related research, many scholars (Gray, 2002, p. 697; Adams, 2004; Parker, 2005) called for further employment of case and field studies, in other words, research that was more engaged with practice. Adams and Larrinaga-Gonza´lez, (2007, p. 333) found that the ‘extant literature on sustainability

Page 37

8.

DEDICATED STAFF FOR SUSTAINABILITY

• Good governance is essentially about effective leadership. Leaders need to define strategy, provide direction and establish the ethics and values that will influence and guide practices and behaviour with regard to sustainability performance.

• For the achievement of a sustainable organisation, responsible leadership is required for leaders to be change agents.

• Evidence of decision makers at senior leadership level portrays accountability and governance.

• Staffing at middle and operational levels suggests sustainability is truly being implemented.

• Companies give special recognition to individuals and teams for sustainability.

• Implementation of a sustainability embedded strategy is evident from names/photos and titles of sustainability dedicated staff.

Adams & Frost, 2008

Bonn & Fisher, 2011, p. 12

Cowan et al.,2010, p. 154

Holton et al.,2010, p. 152

KING III

Klaine & Von Hauff, 2009, p. 520

Lynch, 2009, p. 492

Quinn & Dalton, 2009, p. 21

Reilly, 2009, p. 34

Uusi-Rauva, 2010, p. 300

White, 2009, p. 329

9.

SPECIFIC MEASURES AND TARGETS

• Companies that communicate specific measures and targets for sustainability portray embeddedness of sustainability in the implementation of strategy.

• The disclosure of successes or failures towards set goals and objective on a year on year basis shows progressive improvement.

• Targets and measures indicate a commitment to sustainability.

• Performance management systems e.g.: Balanced Score Cards and Key Performance Indicators for sustainability targets.

• Companies that use both qualitative and quantitative means to describe the achievement on efforts towards sustainability reveal embeddedness.

Adams & Frost, 2008, p. 29

Bonn & Fisher, 2016


KPMG, 2008

Lacy et al.,2009, p. 491

Leon-Soriano et al., 2010, p. 249

Quinn & Dalton, 2007, p. 21

Reilly, 2009, p. 41

Riccaboni & Leone, 2010, p. 130

Smith & Sharicz, 2011, p. 73:

Searcy, 2009, p. 50

10.

SUSTAINABILITY INNOVATION

• Sustainability innovation encapsulates the ability of the company to allow for sustainability to inform strategy decisions.

• Innovation, fairness, and collaboration are key aspects of any transition to sustainability embeddedness – innovation provides new ways of doing things, including profitable responses to sustainability.

• The cost of implementing sustainability is a chief barrier to the adoption. Costs including: capital outlay, additional resources, time and the costs of certification where applicable. Leaders are hesitant to make an economic outlay in the short term in spite of the opportunities and often tangible return on investment, e.g.: energy efficiency savings.

• Companies that are able to turn their business inside out find that addressing sustainability issues can change from being a burden or cost to an opportunity for efficiency and profit.

• Businesses who demonstrate innovative thinking in such a way that their understanding of the concept of sustainability informs products, services and processes.

• Mainstream consumers want products that are more affordable, better-performing, healthier, longer-lasting, with added appeal – in other words, it is ‘smarter’ rather than greener or more responsible, that they are after.

• The creation of business plans and decision framework models demonstrate how sustainability forms part of strategising.

• Confident statements such as; ‘sustainability elements are built into how we do business and our decision making.’


Collins et al., 2007, p. 736.

Holton et al., 2010, p. 157

KING III

Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011, p. 20


Setthasakko,2009, p. 169

The research identified that literature was able to provide support for the creation of the SSI tool and the tool’s application showed an ability to discriminate companies on the JSE ALSI Top 40 (South African Bourse) for the level of embeddedness of sustainability in strategising activities when applied by a researcher.

Leading on from the development of the SSI tool, this research poses the following investigative questions: Can the proposed SSI tool be supported in practice? Can practitioners rate the elements? Are the elements of strategising incorporated into the doing of strategy? Do practitioners support the measurement tool and can direction be derived?

These questions aspire to deliver insight and the ability to comment on the gap between what is communicated externally

STRATEGY FORMULATION3.

VISION & MISSION INCLUDES SUSTAINABILITY

• Vision and mission statements and the core values of a business are crucial to the formulation of strategy.

• A sustainability embedded vision, mission and core values demonstrate the focus and intent of the organisation towards sustainability.

• A sustainability philosophy, statement from the CEO or a sustainability slogan does not demonstrate a high level of embeddedness and in fact can portray half-heartedness by the company.

• All three elements of sustainability and the word itself appear on the front page of the website and both in the annual report and the sustainability section.

Adams & Frost, 2008, p. 288


Bowers, 2010, p. 249

Carpenter & Sanders 2009, p. 35

Coupland, 2005, p. 356 Capriotti & Moreno, 2007, p. 221

Leon-Soriana et al., 2010, p. 252

Lynch, 2009, p. 490

Reilly, 2009, p. 34

Searcy, 2009, p. 52

4.

RISK MANAGEMENT: MACROECONOMIC IDENTIFICATION OF RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES

• A connection between sustainability risks and company strategy formulation affecting strategic, operational and tactical decisions.

• Identifying the macroeconomic and industry risks and opportunities associated with sustainability.

• Companies that acknowledge the impact of climate change and social challenges and the role the company plays in achieving sustainability.

• A visible system to manage the risk including a model or clear plans.

Lynch, 2009, p. 351

KING III


Searcy, 2009, p. 50

Velazquez et al., 2011, p. 36

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION:5.

PROGRAMMES & STAFF LEARNING

• To harness the staff buy-in, companies need to train and educate employees on sustainability embedded company goals and educate them on their role in the desired outcome.

• Staff are seen as critical to the success of a strategy and inasmuch, pivotal to one that incorporates sustainability.

• Employee engagement has an impact on company performance; embedding social and environmental considerations into the company’s operations spurs engagement and the achievement of financial return and an embedded sustainability strategy.

• Learning and education are fundamental methods to communicate to staff the ‘revolutionary’ drive towards a shift to sustainability.

• Photos from sustainability awareness contract sessions, campaigns, drives, community outreach and formal staff training demonstrate embeddedness of sustainability in strategising.

Elmualim et al., 2010, p. 58

Holton et al. 2010, p. 157

Klaine & Von Hauff, 2009, p. 520

Lynch, 2009, p. 550

Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011, p. 20;

Reilly, 2009, p. 34

Lacy et al.,2009, p. 491

Reilly, 2009, p. 34

White, 2009, p. 392

6.

SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY

• A firm’s goals and objectives are commitments to actions to achieve the strategic vision of the company.

• These goals need to incorporate a sustainability focus.

• Sustainability embeddedness is determined through communicating specific sustainability statements that are visible to stakeholders.

• Clear goals such as ‘we are committed to integrating sustainability into our strategy.’

Lynch, 2009, p. 491

Lee et al., 2009, p. 146


7.

CLEAR SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES AND PROGRAMMES

• Actions and initiatives are tangible efforts that serve as evidence that a company has interacted with stakeholders and made a commitment of resources.

• The actions need to be aligned with corporate goals and vision and should not just be ad hoc projects.

• Sustainability actions and projects display decision-making in the direction of sustainability through the commitment of resources and capital outlay.

Bonn & Fisher, 2011, p. 7; Hallstedt et al.,2010, p. 703



Reilly, 2009, p. 35

Page 39

5. Research Objectives and QuestionsThis research poses the following investigative questions: Can the proposed SSI tool be supported in practice? Can practitioners rate the elements? Are the elements of strategising incorporated into the doing of strategy? Do practitioners support the measurement tool and can direction be derived?

6. The Potential Value-Add of the ResearchHallstedt et al., (2010, p. 708) present that very few companies comply with a ‘fully integrated’ status of sustainability embeddedness in strategising. Smith and Sharicz (2011, p. 73) investigated the extent to which organisations have, in practice, begun to make the shift towards sustainability. Holton et al. put forward the progress of an organisation towards becoming a ‘sustainable organisation.’ These authors have highlighted the concerns that sustainability and its integration with company strategy may be a seemingly ‘elusive goal’ for business leaders (Elmualim et al., 2010, p. 58). These concerns are amidst criticism of external communication, reporting and information put forward on corporate websites (Bowers, 2010, p. 250; Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka, 2010, p. 301).

Concerns about the legitimacy of sustainability claims have highlighted an implementation gap. We applied the proposed SSI tool and measured the level of embeddedness of the sustainability claims in strategising of the JSE ALSI Top 40 companies. The research was conducted through a process that involved interpretation by a single researcher. This research attests to further investigate the implementation gap through the application of the SSI tool. The research aim was to validate the tool’s effectiveness in measuring the embeddedness of sustainability in company strategising.

and the internal practices of sustainability embeddedness. Given the call for case study methodology in this field and the purpose of this research, the research proposes case study design to address further research. The case company selected (convenience sample) for this research was Growthpoint Properties in South Africa (Growthpoint). They are a listed company ranked 39th on the JSE ALSI Top 40 and their level of sustainability embeddedness in strategising was measured as 34 out of 50 upon application of the SSI tool. This case company was investigated for their sustainability embeddedness in strategising based on their external and publically available communication.

This research takes a case study approach to investigate the internal strategising of Growthpoint Properties with the intention to challenge support (or not) for the SSI tool and to comment on the implementation gap between what is said and what is done.

4. Context for Delineation of Sustainability Embeddedness in StrategisingThe notion that there is a complementary relationship between strategising and sustainability is supported in the literature by several authors (Collins, Lawrence, Pavlovich & Ryan 2007, p. 729; Hallstedt, Ny, Rovert & Broman, 2010, p. 704). Bonn and Fisher (2011, p. 5) highlight and emphasise the connection by suggesting that sustainability is in fact the ‘missing ingredient in strategy.’ They stress that a proper understanding of the relationship between strategy and sustainability is crucial in gaining a sustainable competitive advantage in the twenty first century.

Companies have responded to this shift by creating sustainability management positions, resulting in the increased complexity of strategising (Kane, 2011). These managers have described sustainability strategies as a complex process (Crews, 2010, p. 17). Companies’ sustainability efforts are further driven by society that offers support for companies’ sustainability efforts and puts pressure on those who do not take strides towards transparent initiatives (Lacy et al., 2009, p. 485).

Strategising for sustainability refers to embedding sustainability in strategising and the alignment of sustainability initiatives with short and long term business decisions. This concept is emphasised in the latest governance report, the KING III, which states that ‘Strategy, risk, performance and sustainability have become inseparable’ (Ince.motiv., 2010). This statement emphasises the connection between company performance, strategising and sustainability and lends support to the investigation of practices of strategising for sustainability.

Strategy is the coordinated means by which an organisation pursues its goals and objectives (Carpenter & Sanders, 2009, p. 35). Leaders identify risks and opportunities from internal and external sources and include an analysis of industry and macro environment. Strategy formulation, the process of deciding what to do, involves the formulation of vision, mission, setting of goals and objectives and determining of sources of competitive advantage (Lynch, 2009, p. 490).

Strategy implementation, the process of performing all the activities necessary to do what has been planned, encompasses formulating action plans, aligning organisational structure, setting systems and measures in place and rewards to achieve the firm’s goals and objectives (Carpenter & Sanders, 2009, p. 35; Lynch, 2009, p. 490).

Strategising (strategy formulation and implementation) can be achieved through a prescriptive or an emergent approach (Lynch, 2009, p. 6). The prescriptive approach to strategising involves deliberate planning by the firm, it is one where the objective has been defined in advance and the main elements have been developed before strategy commences (Lynch, 2009, p. 37). Leaders are expected to devise thoughtful, informed and deliberate directives and decisions that will lead to achieving organisational goals. The leader is expected to ‘know the way and show the way and go the way’ (Crews, 2010, p. 18).

The emergent approach strives towards an objective which is often unclear and whose elements are developed during the course of the strategising process. It suits fast developing markets as it considers the dynamic changes in the environment and adjusts to accommodate them, offering flexibility. Leaders are guided by strategic intent and the outcome is unknown (Lynch, 2009, p. 225).

Most literature sources addressing strategising for sustainability identify it as being a continual process, a continuum towards an ultimate sustainability and business goal (Bonn & Fisher, 2011, p. 12). The process is viewed as ‘gradual, planned, continuous and ongoing incremental change’ (Holton et al., 2010, p. 153; Smith & Sharicz, 2011, p. 5; Velazquez et al., 2011, p. 41). The interest of this article leans towards the deliberate approach.

Page 41

7.4 Epistemological positionsThe theory of knowledge (epistemology) of the researchers diverged to some extent, allowing for interplay on how decisions on the social phenomena can be known and how knowledge can be demonstrated.

Researcher A primarily worked from a scientific paradigm, supported by a consultant paradigm. Working as a strategy consultant influenced the search for factual directives, business patterns and answers to existing situations of similar nature. Researcher B worked from an academic learning paradigm in order to meet the requirements for a master’s degree and simultaneously give guidance to the demands she faces as the person contributing to the development of a company’s sustainability strategy.

7.5 Case study as a research strategyStake (1994, p. 244) suggests that a case study is useful when the ‘opportunity to learn is of primary importance.’ A case study approach provides a mode of inquiry for an in-depth examination of phenomenon. Yin (1989, p. 23) characterises case study research as empirical inquiry that ‘investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used.’ Yin (2003) suggests the uniqueness of a situation as sufficient rationalising for using a single case and that the ‘distinctive need’ for case study research ‘arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena.’

The researchers believe that given the nature, uniqueness and complexity of the relationship between sustainability and strategising, there is a need for case study research methodology. Literature has titled sustainability in every sense of the word, meaning and implementation as complex in nature. Strategising literature also communicates the complexity of strategising for organisations. For these reasons, the researchers desired to understand the relationship between these complex social phenomena and as such, there was a distinctive need for a case study research approach, using a single case, into strategising activities and sustainability embeddedness.

Yin (1989, p. 48) further argues that a single case design is warranted or appropriate on the basis the case is revelatory. A revelatory case is one for which there is a belief or assumption that the problems discovered in a particular case are common to other cases as well. If the chosen case study can serve as a revelatory case then there is basis for discovering and describing problems that may be common to other businesses struggling to embed sustainability into strategising (Yin, 1989, p. 48).

Beyond the aspects of the development of the case study methodology, which makes this case company an interesting case, two further points suggest why this research was conducted by single case design. First, Stake (1994, p. 237) describes three types of case studies:

Intrinsic: The exploration of a particular case to gain a better understanding of it.

Instrumental: A particular case is examined to provide information or insight on issues or the refinement of theory.

Collective: A number of cases are studied jointly in order to inquire into the phenomena, population or general condition.

The researchers believe that this research can warrant a single case design given that it is revelatory by means of it fulfilling both intrinsic and instrumental purposes. The research question is: Is the proposed SSI tool valid (accurate and relevant as measurements) for application in practice? This research explores and describes the embeddedness of sustainability in strategising of a JSE listed company, utilising the experiences and judgements of those strategising: the practitioners. The SSI tool represents a tool with significant potential, yet better understanding of its ability to be applied in practice is necessary. Greater insight into the embeddedness of sustainability in strategising, through an internal analysis, presents an opportunity to provide information on the strategising processes for sustainability. This will also contribute to the researchers’ ability to comment further, adding to theory and subject matter, on the implementation gap between what is said and what is done.

Given that the case study company is a leader in industry and amongst the JSE Top 40, the documenting and understanding of their embedded sustainability is valuable for its own sake, thus the research serves intrinsic purposes. In fact, the findings will be presented back to the case company for all round learning.

The research is instrumental to the extent that it will shed light on problems and issues that may be common to other listed companies on the JSE index. The research aims to produce evidence of strategising and a validated SSI tool for measuring the embeddedness of sustainability in strategising. The tool is utilised to describe and represent the embeddedness of sustainability of this case company. The tool may have utility and be instrumental in investigations of other listed companies, especially since the JSE Top 40 companies have had their external communication measured with the same tool – providing reason for further investigation and applicability of a validated SSI tool.

7. Research Design

7.1 Research approachA conceptual analysis was applied to the SSI tool which contains the published works and proposed standards and frameworks on the topics of sustainability and principles of strategy. From the content used to design the measurement tool, ten elements (of sustainability) were identified to measure the degree to which sustainability was embedded in the process of strategy formulation and implementation. The SSI tool measures sustainability embeddedness.

The analysis began with identifying research questions and choosing research subjects. A sample of Growthpoint Properties staff members participated willingly. The object of this research was to answer the research propositions. For this a facilitation session was conducted with the subjects at Growthpoint Properties premises. The facilitation process was broken down in two stages with four instructions in the first stage and three instructions in the second stage. The facilitator broke down the research content into meaningful and pertinent units of information and instructions. Implicit and explicit terms were explained and clearly defined by the facilitator to the practitioners before the beginning of the process. To limit the subjectivity in the definitions of concepts, a standard document with definitions was used to bring clarity.

Referring to the research design in Table 2, this research focused on investigating the practicality of the SSI tool.

Table 2: Research design components

Component Description

Research question / problem

Is the proposed SSI tool valid (accurate and relevant as measurements) for application in practice?

Propositions P1: SSI elements can be rated by practitioners

P2: Practitioners support the SSI as a means of measurement of sustainability embeddedness

P3: Elements are incorporated into strategising

P4: Practitioners obtain direction from the results

Unit of investigation Elements that make up sustainability embeddedness within the strategising of a company as measured by the SSI tool.

Unit of analysis Managers and staff involved with strategising for sustainability

Logic linking the data to the propositions

Practitioners in a ‘typical’ company can judge the measurements of elements for accuracy, relevance and utilisation. Their ratings in support (or not) can give direction to the usefulness of the SSI rating for practical application.

Criteria for interpreting the findings

1 Practitioners’ independent ratings and ranking of each element (for relevance)

2 Practitioners’ agreement about incorporation into strategising measurement

3 Practitioners’ agreement about the ‘researcher ranking’ for each element

4 Practitioners’ reasoning about action to increase embeddedness

Source: Own compilation based on the Yin (2003, p. 21) design

7.2 Key scientific beliefs of the researchersTo answer the above questions, the researchers were aware of their own methodological values, beliefs and particular philosophical assumptions. These assumptions could influence the way in which the research was conducted and are stated to understand the ‘intellectual climate’ in which the research was undertaken.

7.3 Ontological positionsThis position states the researchers’ views and the very nature and essence of research reality. Researcher A is an objective realist who believes that knowledge comes from facts associated with the case and the context. If repetitive and consistent conditions of sustainability claims are found in the top companies, they can be generalised. His interest was to approach the research question from a strategy as practice view. Researcher B was tasked with a practitioner role in the creation of an organisation’s sustainability strategy. She seeks the truth through objective judgement of best practices and scientific proof.

Page 43

8.1.2 Data collection methodsA qualitative research study imitating grounded theory for the literature search and a case study as inductive research approach that involves a focus group through action research was used. The data collection method was based on a modified process described by Bjornson, Wang and Arisholm (2008) to gather specific data to support (or not) the measurement tool. The method included the use of Post-It stickers (with responses) for documentation of responses. The process collected responses on participant rankings, agreement and ratings. It relied on facilitated guidance, participant observation and a documentation method on Post-Its.

Data were collected by asking the following questions:

Question 1: How supported is each element as a measurement/indicator to determine sustainability strategising in a company? 5 = highly supported. 1 = not at all supported.

Question 2: How embedded is each element on the SSI tool in Growthpoint’s strategising? 5 = embedded. 1 = missing.

Question 3: How do you agree with the researcher’s rating score of Growthpoint for each element? What is your agreement rating? 5 = completely agree. 1 = completely disagree.

Question 4: Considering all the elements for strategising for sustainability, how would you rank them? 10 = most important. 1 = least important.

Time was allocated as each element was presented individually and consecutively for subjects to evaluate in a focused manner.

8.1.3 Data analysisData were collected on multiple coloured and adhesive cards (Post-Its). Prior to distribution, shapes had been drawn on the cards for responses and for ease of carrying out instructions. It was in this form that the primary data were initially analysed. The process of reducing data to a manageable size involved capturing the data into interpretable Excel spread sheets. This was done by using colour and coding the data to make the different data sets and criteria easily recognisable. Part of the analysis process included the application of descriptive statistics including Average, Deviation, Mode and Rank. Findings were reported as graphs and tables to synthesise data into information.

8.1.4 Data criteriaResearcher A facilitated the session where practitioners were asked to rate, support, agree and rank elements from the evaluation tool used in the first research. Data were judged on a 5-point scale where 5 represented the most supported and 1 the least supported.

8.1.5 Strategies employed to ensure quality of dataData were collected at one point in time from the primary practitioners onto Post-Its. These were gathered after the session and placed into a sealed envelope. There was a record of biographical data of every participant in reference to all response cards. The data were captured directly from the primary source by one researcher and without distraction. The practitioners were coded so as to avoid any potential biases based on a practitioner’s position and hierarchy in the organisation.

8. Research Method

8.1 Research setting and backgroundLeading up to the date and session planned for gathering data, a meeting invitation was extended to practitioners from Growthpoint Properties using MS Outlook. Practitioners were given the option to ‘Accept’ or ‘Decline’ attendance which represented consent to participate in the research. The following information was made available to the 17 practitioners prior to the session.

The session time slot was scheduled for the duration of 2 hours on 5 September 2011. The purpose of the workshop was communicated to the CEO and practitioners as: ‘To investigate and evaluate the Strategising for Sustainability Index (SSI) allocated to the company and evaluate strategising actions currently used. The workshop will engage with staff members on the elements of strategising and integration of sustainability. The information from the session will give immediate feedback to decision makers and eventually form part of a master’s thesis.’ Practitioners were informed that an external strategy facilitator would be present and were provided with the following programme for the workshop:

1. Introduction of strategy consultant and workshop facilitator (outsider)

2. Introduction of the tool and the research process

3. Discussion on the topic

4. Collect input from practitioners on their views and opinions

5. Feedback on session

As part of the motivation to receive permission for this research, this outcome was offered as: ‘An opportunity for staff to give their thoughts and input on the concept of strategising for sustainability.’ Staff were invited to participate and judge the measurement tool that was used in earlier research on the company’s corporate strategising.

8.1.1 SamplingSampling method: The sampling method was a combination of convenience and purposive sampling.

Sampling frame: The target group consisted of managerial practitioners on all levels involved in company strategising. Due to busy schedules, a convenience approach was taken in the inviting of attendees. The sample frame included Growthpoint Properties practitioners from various management positions including top, middle and other functional practitioners. The sample included members from across divisions and in line functions. It included members of the sustainability division counting the sustainability coordinator.

Sample size: Seventeen Growthpoint practitioners participated willingly. The sample consisted of professionals with practical experience in strategising for their company. As this study aims to determine if the SSI tool can be supported in practice, the obvious choice was to test the tool on those professionals involved in strategising. The sample includes a consistency of practitioners representing more than fifty percent of the population at the company directly involved in strategising. The sample size is further motivated by the monetary value of the time of each key practitioner in the sample. Key practitioners exchanged attention towards important business practices associated with the operating of the business for participation in the research. Increasing the number of the sample could have adversely impacted the case company.

Page 45

Growthpoint. The researcher reported more strategy implementation than formulation present on the corporate website and other sources. This confirms a degree of disjointedness between what is said and what is done, however, it also determines that the SSI tool is very accurate in measuring the level of embeddedness as the deviation is miniscule.

In reference to figure 1, when a comparison is made between the ratings by practitioners and those findings from the researcher, both using a 5-point scale and the elements of the SSI tool, the largest deviation is found in the element of dedicated staff for sustainability. Practitioners indicated there is less embeddedness of dedicated staff in company strategising than reported by the researcher. The external messages/claims communicated greater embeddedness of dedicated staff in strategising for sustainability in the case company. A rating of 4 was given to the existence of dedicated staff for sustainability by the researcher on the SSI tool. This differed to the mean rating by practitioners which was 3. This may indicate that practitioners do not believe that dedicated staff for sustainability are as embedded in strategising to same degree as the researcher judged it to be when using the external communication of the company. This rating was given despite the presence of the case company’s sustainability division (ie dedicated staff) in the session. This may suggest another measure of disjointedness both between what is said and what is done but also amongst Growthpoint divisions, in order to gain more insight into the embeddedness of sustainability and specifically, that of the dedicated staff as well as the differences in opinion, the following comparison was made.

The average score per element as rated by practitioners from all departments except for that of sustainability, was compared to the average score per element as rated by practitioners in the sustainability department. The three elements with the largest average differences are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of the average embeddedness ratings between the practitioners from the sustainability department and other staff divisions in the case company, on the three elements with the largest average differences.

Vision & Mission includes Sustainability Risk Management Programmes &

Staff Learning

Average score of embeddedness per element for all divisions in the sample except Sustainability (n = 14)

3.071 2.642 2.786

Average score of embeddedness per element of the sustainability division (n = 3)

1.333 4.667 4.667

Differences between average score per element of the practitioners from all divisions except sustainability to those in the Sustainability department

1.73 -2.023 -1.881

Table 3 indicates there are differences in ratings between the sustainability department (dedicated staff for sustainability) and the rest of the practitioners. The level of embeddedness for risk management was rated as far more embedded by the sustainability department than by the other divisions (4.667). The sustainability department were also of the opinion that sustainability programmes and staff learning were strongly embedded in strategising (4.667), more so than the rest of the subjects. This differed from the other divisions who did not rate the embeddedness of this element very highly (2.786). This may suggest that programmes may not be as widely integrated with other divisions and general strategising. Interestingly, the other subjects rated the embeddedness of sustainability in Growthpoint’s vision and mission higher than the sustainability department.

Agreement: finally, at the end of the facilitation process, practitioners were shown the results of the application of the SSI tool to their company’s external communication by the researcher. The SSI tool’s score for the case company was based on application of the SSI tool to all publically available communication including reports by the researcher. The scores indicated the level of agreement by practitioners towards the researcher’s score with 5 being total agreement. Table 4 shows the practitioners’ average agreement rating towards the researcher’s score on the SSI tool for each element, the element rankings by agreement and importance rankings.

9. Findings

9.1 Research findingsFrom the literature, ten elements of strategy formulation and implementation were identified which formed the basis of the SSI tool as shown in Table 1. These were applied to the strategic communication of companies on the JSE to judge the level of sustainability embeddedness which resulted in a score. The SSI tool was then further developed and applied to company practice in the case study. The individual elements and their ratings are described for easy interpretation. Each measurement outcome is individually discussed.

Figure 1: Radar diagram depicting elements, support, embeddedness and agreement ratings from practitioners and embeddedness ratings for Growthpoint Properties using the SSI Tool.

Figure 1 demonstrates the average ratings by practitioners on elements of SSI tool describing their level of support for the elements as indicators and measures for sustainability strategising in a company. The graph also portrays the average embeddedness ratings by practitioners on each element of the SSI tool pertaining to Growthpoint’s sustainability strategising. The figure further indicates the practitioners’ average level of agreement with the researchers’ scoring of each element on the SSI tool. Figure 1 also portrays the SSI tool rating for embeddedness by the researchers on publically available communication and documents of Growthpoint.

Support: all elements were supported as indicators and valid measures for determining strategising for sustainability although practitioners differed on the extent of their support. Interpretation of the information in figure 1 suggests that all measures for determining strategising for sustainability were considered primarily to be ‘somewhat’ (4) to ‘highly’ supported (5) by practitioners. However, practitioners were less sure (3) about the occurrence of sustainability in company vision and mission as being an indicator that the company is strategising for sustainability. The highest supported elements were the presence of ‘specific measures and targets’ for sustainability, evidence of clear sustainability initiatives and sustainability innovation.

Embeddedness: practitioners rated the level of embeddedness of each element of the SSI tool in Growthpoint strategising. The practitioners used their experiences and understanding as a frame of reference when answering this question. The mean rating of 3.4 for the compliance elements (integrated reporting and sustainability recognition and affiliation) suggested a relatively high level of embeddedness of sustainability compliance in the case company strategising. Practitioners rated sustainability embeddedness in strategy formulation elements as 3.12. They rated sustainability embeddedness in strategy implementation elements a mean rating of 2.94. The findings for embeddedness rating by practitioners indicate that sustainability is embedded evenly across the elements of strategising for sustainability. The strategy implementation mean rating according to practitioners was slightly less than formulation, which suggests more strategic planning than executing. This contrasts the finding by the researcher on the SSI tool as applied to publically available communication of

Page 47

responses. The mode was determined for each element on the SSI tool on agreement ratings (also see table 4). The mode of 4 occurred most frequently indicates strong agreement by the practitioners. A mode equal to 4 was obtained for two compliance elements, two strategy implementation elements and one strategy formulation element. The remaining elements on the SSI tool have a mode of 2, suggesting less agreement. Practitioners agreed mostly with the researcher on the researcher’s score for the compliance elements. Figure 2 indicates the modes for the data set on agreement. The modes were ranked by the importance of the element.

Figure 2: Bar graph indicating the modus frequency of elements by agreement

Rank: practitioners ranked the ten elements by importance for sustainability. The rank revealed that practitioners found the element: specific measures and targets for sustainability, as most important by ranking it first (rank score = 10). Practitioners ranked the integrated report as least important suggesting that it demonstrates the least embeddedness of sustainability in strategising. An integrated report is the product of a process or system of processes that seeks to inform stakeholders of an organisation’s ability to heed to stakeholder and or societal concerns and to provide meaningful performance information to support assertions suggesting effective sustainability management. It is to demonstrate how well an organisation has embedded a comprehensive view of sustainability into the strategic fabric of the organisation that leads the reader to understand whether the organisation is well placed to adapt to economic, social and environmental factors (Sustainability services, 2011). Despite the integrated report’s purpose being to communicate the company’s embedded view of sustainability, subjects proposed that integrated reporting is not an important factor for determining sustainability embeddedness. Practitioners rated it the lowest on the SSI tool. This suggests that practitioners do not think that the compliance element is a strong indicator for sustainability embeddedness. An integrated report was as such not considered as important as measures and targets for sustainability, nor more important than initiatives or programmes for sustainability, both of which are strategising activities. Also see table 4 and figure 1.

The insight gained from these questions offers support for the relevance and applicability of this SSI tool. The ability to have elements ranked by the practitioners discloses the suitability of these elements as indicators in measuring a firm’s strategising for sustainability embeddedness.

Finally, table 5 shows the difference between the two methods for embeddedness measures. The practitioners rated the embeddedness lower than the researcher. As far as compliance and formulation was concerned, the differences were small but for implementation, much lower (no significance determined). This finding is interesting, as the two evaluations were based on difference sources of information. The researcher used the public documents as source data while the practitioners used their own experience and perceptions to base their judgment on. What can be deduced from table 5 is that the actual rating of implementation is not as high as claimed.

Table 5: Comparison of SSI category based on different strategising components compiled on SSI ratings of researcher and practitioners for the case company.

STRATEGISING CATEGORY Compliance Formulation ImplementationResearcher rating SSI Mean / category for embeddedness out of 5 3.5 3.25 3.5

Practitioner rating SSI Mean / category for embeddedness out of 5 3.4 3.12 2.94

Difference 0.1 0.13 -0.56

Table 4: The practitioners average agreement rating towards the researcher score on the SSI tool for each element, element rankings by agreement and importance rankings.

Agreement to SSI Tool evaluation Mode for agreement Rank by Importance of elements

Element: Researcher

Score on SSI Tool

Practitioners average agreement rating on the SSI tool’s score for each element

Rank based on agreement

(10 = high)

Mode determined from agreement score

Practitioner

Average score for rank of elements by importance

Rank of averages based on importance

(10 = high)

Sustainability recognition & affiliation

3 3.812 10 4 3.375 2

Integrated reporting

4 3.688 9 4 3.25 1

Dedicated staff 3 3.235 8 4 6.470 7

Specific measures & targets

3 3.176 7 4 8.588 10

Specific Goals and Objectives to achieve sustainability

3 3.118 6 4 6.882 8

Risk management

4 2.941 5 2 4.353 3

Sustainability innovation

4 2.882 4 2 5.23529 6

Programmes & staff learning

3 2.823 2.5 2 4.824 4

Clear Sustainability Initiatives and Programmes

4 2.823 2.5 2 7.176 9

Vision & Mission includes Sustainability

3 2.353 1 2 4.941 5

Table 4 shows the findings from the agreement and importance questions. In the table, the rank based on agreement shows the element with the highest level of agreement between the practitioners’ and the researcher’s score. The mode shows the rating of agreement out of 5 towards the researcher’s score that occurred the most. The table also includes the average rankings by practitioners, according to importance, between 1 and 10. Their average responses were ranked to show which elements are considered most and least important as elements for determining sustainability embeddedness in strategising.

The highest ranking deviations between the researchers score and the agreement of practitioners to the score are explained as follows:

The rank based on agreement demonstrates that practitioners were in most agreement (10) with the SSI tool’s score for the element: sustainability recognition and affiliation. This element pertains to the recognition and affiliation of a company with/towards associations sharing the same sustainability values. The average agreement response for this element was 3.812 indicating strong agreement.

Practitioners highly agreed with the researcher’s score for the element: integrated reporting. The average agreement response was 3.688. The rank based on agreement demonstrates that practitioners were in high agreement (9) with the researcher’s score for this element.

These elements show that there is much support for these ratings by the researcher using the SSI tool. At the bottom end, practitioners showed an average agreement score of 2.353 for the element: vision and mission includes sustainability. The rank based on agreement reveals that practitioners disagreed (1) most with the researcher’s score for this element (mode = 2). The researcher awarded a score of 3 according to the criteria on the SSI tool.

Mode: the value that occurs most frequently for each element (the mode) was evaluated for this data set on the agreement

Page 49

11. Case Study as a Valid Research MethodologyGiven the insight gained from these findings and the support found in answering the propositions, the researchers believe that the use of a single case study approach has been confirmed as suitable methodology for this research.

The case company practice approach presented a significant opportunity to learn and the researchers assert that the findings of this research have produced insight for both the case company and to the academic body of knowledge and theory on the embeddedness of sustainability in strategising.

The case study research approach enabled the use of multiple methods for data collection and analysis. Patton (1990) suggests that, to improve the quality of research findings, research methodology should include multiple sources of evidence and different data collection techniques. The researchers believe that there was a sufficient variety of methods for data collection and analysis in the research for a case study approach. Annexure A provides a summary of the specific types of information, the data sources, data collection technique, data recording method and type of data collected through this research of a case company.

Many well-known case study researchers such as Stake (1994), Simons (2009) & Yin (1989; 2003) have written about case study research and suggested techniques for organising and conducting the research successfully. The researchers have taken their suggested techniques into consideration. Annexure B describes the technique and subsequent measures to ensure that the case study was organised and conducted to be exemplary in nature and to yield successful research outputs.

12. Management ImplicationsThe purpose of this research was to determine if the SSI tool can be applied in practice through measurement and validation of the elements of the SSI tool. The decision to apply the SSI tool to practice was derived from a desire to address an implementation gap in strategising for sustainability.

The research explored the practical value of the SSI tool by searching for the embeddedness of sustainability in internal structures of strategising. The following questions were asked; ‘Can the Strategising for Sustainability Index (SSI) tool be supported in practice?’ This leads to questions of whether 1) elements can be rated by practitioners and if they fact 2) support the SSI as a means of measurement of sustainability embeddedness followed closely by inquiring into 3) the extent to which elements are incorporated into strategising and 4) if practitioners can obtain direction from results.

The outcome of the research was that the SSI tool could be supported in practice and all propositions have been supported. It has also been determined that the SSI tool is an accurate measure for embeddedness showing minimal difference in embeddedness ratings between its application to external documents and internal practices

The ratings by practitioners for embeddedness on the SSI tool’s elements were closely aligned with those scores given by the researcher. This means the SSI tool can be applied to a company’s external communication and give an accurate reading for embeddedness internally. It also further supports the SSI tool’s ability to be used in practice. The strategic focus of this SSI tool overcomes empty talk and false sustainability claims by focusing on strategising and thereby identifying sustainability.

After concerns about the legitimacy of sustainability claims, this research revealed that claims are aligned with practice for compliance and formulation while implementation should be further investigated. The external communication of Growthpoint, thus; suggests greater implementation of sustainability practices than present internally. There was a deviation of -0.56.

Deviation was greatest within the sample where the sustainability team of Growthpoint rated sustainability embeddedness quite differently to the rest of the sample. Practitioners’ average response to the embeddedness of dedicated staff in strategising was a rating of 3. This indicates that practitioners were not as convinced as the researcher of the embeddedness of dedicated staff in company strategising. This rating was in spite of the existence of a sustainability department and their presence in the research. The explanation of this is that practitioners – even though they knew of the existence of and achievements of the sustainability team - believe that these practitioners are not embedded in the organisation’s strategising for sustainability. On this continuum of thought one can deduce that there is a degree of disjointedness between corporate strategising for sustainability and the practice of a sustainability division.

Kane (2011) confirms the disjointedness and addresses this issue by proposing that the radical transformation that is

10. Propositions and DiscussionThis section links the propositions and the findings before the discussion takes place in the next section.

10.1 P1: Elements of SSI can be rated by practitionersSufficient support was found as practitioners in the research were able to rate the elements of the SSI tool on the provided 5-point scale. They could use the indicators to discriminate sustainability strategising in a company for embeddedness, agreement and importance. Practitioners identified those elements as most and least important using rank. The results of practitioners’ ability to rate indicate that the elements were understood and substantial enough to be rateable. The SSI tool is supported by practitioners as a measure of strategising for sustainability. Based on the support for proposition 1, it was meaningful to progress to the next propositions.

10.2 P2: Practitioners support the SSI as a means of measurement of sustainability embeddednessSufficient support was found, in that practitioners, by means of rating and judging the elements of the SSI tool as measures for determining sustainability embeddedness in strategising, supported the SSI tool as valid for sustainability measurement. Further support for the SSI tool as means of measurement was derived from the practitioners’ ability to determine the level of embeddedness for sustainability in strategising within their own working environment. They used the elements of the SSI tool to determine the case company’s sustainability embeddedness. Practitioners were asked: How embedded is each element on the SSI tool in Growthpoint’s strategising? Their ability to respond, supports the SSI tool’s ability to measure sustainability embeddedness in an organisation.

10.3 P3: Elements are incorporated into strategisingSufficient support was found as practitioners, using the elements that they supported, were able to judge the extent to which elements of sustainability were embedded in strategising. The level of embeddedness of sustainability was rated in the company using the elements. Practitioners described the extent to which sustainability was embedded in strategising which suggests that the elements should form part of strategising for sustainability if rated.

10.4 P4: Practitioners obtain direction from the resultsSufficient support was found, as much direction can be obtained from the results. Practitioners can boast the following benefits from the SSI tool and its findings:

Resource and time allocation: the results highlight the embeddedness ratings of Growthpoint according to practitioners in the company. These have also been compared to the publically available communication. Knowledge of company embeddedness allows for improvement and heightened awareness of shortfalls for resources to be allocated accurately towards. The results also show those elements that practitioners find most important in determining sustainability embeddedness allowing more attention to be paid towards those indicators.

Knowledge: results show management the opinions, views and experience of staff towards strategising for sustainability. Few companies are informed of their staff perceptions. This knowledge can transcend into informed organisational restructuring and management knowhow.

Legitimacy: the findings also compared the embeddedness rating of the SSI tool on public communication to the ratings by practitioners. The results indicated the alignment of claims with actions. This SSI tool will aid them to monitor this result to uphold legitimacy. The differences observed in Table 5 can be used as feedback for evaluation and investigation. While the researcher evaluation is the cheapest option, it should probably be supported by practitioner evaluations to gain the management benefits from involvement, reflection and measurement.

Page 51

13. Limitations of the Research and Future Research SuggestedSimons, 2009, reports that critics of the case study method believe that the study of a small number of cases can offer no grounds for establishing reliability or generality of findings, and that it is too subjective to contribute to grounded theory or policy making on the topic. Others propose that the intense exposure to the study of the case in fact biases the findings. Some dismiss case study research as useful only as an exploratory tool. Yet researchers continue to use the case study research method with success in carefully planned and crafted studies of real-life situations, issues, and problems (Yin, 2003).

13.1 LimitationsDuring the facilitation session there were these limitations and biases:

Noise and distraction: The sample of practitioners involved colleagues of the researchers, resulting in conversations sometimes starting up among colleagues. Also, on occasion practitioners left the room to take phone calls. Other noise disturbances occurred when people arrived late or left early. The facilitator tried to minimise these break out discussions or attention paid to the distractions through mechanisms of engagement.

One senior management practitioner became aggressive and did not support the methodology of the evaluation and facilitation process used by the facilitator, resorting to verbal outbursts and leaving half way through the session. Other participants were surprised at this colleague’s behaviour. This served as a distraction and interruption of the process. The results obtained were considered for skewness, however it was found to have had no drastic impact on the research.

Time constraints: In view of needing to get through the necessary questions during the period allocated, questions were asked directly with a short explanation. Little time was provided for discussion or in-depth thinking and practitioners needed to respond quickly.

13.2 Case study as a limitation:Case study research, while an appropriate research approach for studying sustainability embeddedness of companies on the JSE ALSI Top 40, it is not without its limitations and problems. A major limitation of a single case study is the lack of statistical generalise- ability (Simons, 2009). This study did not have a goal of generalise ability but one of understanding a complex phenomenon. This study was an exercise in developing a descriptive model that would be supported in practice on its ability to describe the status of an investment portfolio case company’s strategising for sustainability. The researchers believe however, that insofar as Growthpoint may be a revelatory case of strategising for sustainability, it was possible to abstract or distil important conclusions and learning from the study including:

• The SSI tool can be supported in practice and is an accurate measure for embeddedness showing minimal difference in embeddedness ratings between its application to external documents and internal practices.

• The strategic focus of this SSI tool overcomes empty talk and false sustainability claims by focusing on strategising, thereby identifying sustainability and thereby addressing the criticism of company external communication on sustainability claims.

• There is a disjointedness between corporate strategising for sustainability by the company and the practices of dedicated staff in the sustainability division.

• It was found that embeddedness could be measured, which supports the existence of sustainability embeddedness in strategising. The practitioners’ ability to rate the extent of sustainability embeddedness in their company revealed that the process of embedding sustainability may be complex, but the goal is not totally elusive.

• Practitioners rated the elements of strategising according to their importance for embedding sustainability. This was measured twice in different ways. The knowledge of those elements considered important to measuring embeddedness may speed up resource allocation decisions into improving the level of embeddedness in those elements considered most important to practitioners.

The researchers believe the findings of this study offer significant use and insight for the case company, as well as for academics and practitioners who stand to learn from the strategising activities and the implications of embeddedness in strategising.

Findings and conclusions that may be tested in other contexts include:

required of businesses (in terms of sustainability) cannot possibly be driven by environmental managers hidden away in their environmental silos and staff functions. It appears that this might be the case with Growthpoint strategising and the sustainability department.

These findings echo the cries of sustainability management who find embedding sustainability into strategising as a ‘complex’ and ‘elusive’ goal (Elmualim et al., 2010, p. 58). There is disjointedness and not all staff views and understanding are the same. The struggles of sustainability management can be sympathised with when considering that practitioners did not rate the dedicated staff highly present in company strategising for sustainability. This emphasises the sustainability division ‘silo’ Kane refers to.

The findings from the research also support literature on sustainability and strategising and has further explored the concept of embeddedness of sustainability. It was found that embeddedness could be measured, supporting the existence of sustainability embeddedness in strategising. The practitioners’ ability to rate the extent of sustainability embeddedness in their company revealed that; the process of embedding sustainability may be complex but the goal is not totally elusive.

In reference to the agreement question, practitioners agreed strongly with the researcher’s score for embeddedness (mode of 4) for five elements on the SSI tool. The highest agreement rating for the researcher’s score was for the element: ustainability recognition & affiliation. The agreement ratings, however, were not aligned with the embeddedness ratings given by the same practitioners. The findings from practitioners’ agreement ratings reveal that practitioners were harsher in their agreement ratings when judging the SSI tool’s application to the company. Practitioners were harsher in their ratings than when asked to give their own opinion of embeddedness. There was an inconsistency between the ratings of embeddedness using the SSI tool and the agreement to researcher’s rating of embeddedness, despite the use of the same elements on the SSI tool.

It is suggested that these findings derive from a form of self-evaluation bias. Practitioners may have experienced discomfort at being judged and this affected their agreement ratings but decided to be more honest when asked their opinion of the level of embeddedness of sustainability in strategising activities.

Rank findings showed that when practitioners were asked to discriminate the elements by importance, they became selective and ranked those they felt most important for determining the embeddedness of sustainability in strategising. The integrated report was ranked least important as an indicator for determining sustainability embeddedness. It is also rated one of the least supported elements by respondents who rated it second to last in the support question. This indicates that an integrated report, in spite of its definition, is not considered very important as a measure of sustainability embeddedness. An integrated report could therefore exist despite an absence of sustainability embeddedness. This knowledge may speed up resource allocation decisions to improving the level of embeddedness in those elements considered most important to practitioners.

Through this research, the SSI tool has received validation and support by obtaining practitioner support for the elements as valid measures, their ability to rate the embeddedness using the elements, their agreement with the application of the tool and their ranking the importance of the elements. The results of this research reveal that the SSI tool can, in fact, be applied and has value in practice. Practitioners were able to use the same elements to rate embeddedness of sustainability in strategising of their own company. The SSI tool has discriminating value through its application. Figure 3 shows the support and validation for the SSI tool through this research.

Figure 3 Reasoning of this research

Page 53

14. References

Adams, CA (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), p. 731-57.

Adams, CA and Frost, GR (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum, 32(4), p. 288-302.

Adams, CA and Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C (2007). Engaging with organizations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), p. 333-355.

Aldama, LRP, Amar, PA and Trostianki (2009). Embedding corporate responsibility through effective organizational structures. Corporate Governance, 9(4), p. 506-516.

Bonn, I and Fisher, J (2011). Sustainability: the missing ingredient in strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(1), p. 5-14.

Bjornson, FO, Wang, AI and Arisholm, E (2008). Improving the effectiveness of root cause analysis in post mortem analysis: A controlled experiment. Information and Software Technology. 50(4), p. 280-295.

Bowers, T (2010). From Image to economic value: the genre of sustainability reporting. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(3), p. 249-262.

Carpenter, MA and WG Sanders. (2007). Strategy Management: a dynamic perspective. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Collins, E, Lawrence, S, Pavlovich, K and Ryan, C (2007). Business networks and the uptake of sustainability practices: the case of New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(8&9), p. 729-740.

Coupland, C. Corporate Social Responsibility as Argument on the Web. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(62), p. 355-366.

Cowan, DM, Dopart, P, Ferracini, T, Sahmel, J, Merryman, K, Gaffney, S and Paustenbach, DJ (2010). A cross-sectional analysis of reported corporate environmental sustainability practices. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 58(1), p. 524-538.

Crews, DE (2010). Strategies for Implementing Sustainability: Five Leadership Challenges. Advanced Management Journal, 75(2), p. 15-21.

Elmualim A, Shockley, D, Valle, R, Ludlowb, G and Shah, S (2010). Barriers and commitment of facilities management profession to the sustainability agenda. Building and Environment. 45(1), p. 58-64.

Gray, R (2002). The social accounting project and accounting, organizations and society: privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?, Accounting Organisations and Society, 27(7), p. 687-708.

Growthpoint Properties (2012). About Growthpoint: Core Values. [Online] Available from: http://www.growthpoint.co.za/Pages/AboutGrowthpoint.aspx

Hallstedt, S, Ny, H, Rovert, K and Broman, G (2010). An approach to assessing sustainability integration in strategic decision systems for product development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(8), p. 703-712.

Haanaes, K, Reeves, M, Von Streng Velken, I, Audretsch, M, Kiron, D and Kruschwitz, N (2012). Sustainability nears a tipping point: full report. MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 53(3), p. 1-17.

Hillestad, T, Xie, C and Haugland, SA (2010). Innovative corporate social responsibility; the founder’s role in creating trustworthy corporate brand through ‘green innovation’. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(6), p. 440-451.

Hodgekinson, GP and Clarke, I (2007). Conceptual note: Exploring the cognitive significance of organisational strategising: A dual-process framework and research agenda. Human Relations, 60(1), p. 243-255.

Holton, I, Glass, J and Price, ADF (2010). Managing for Sustainability: Findings from four cases studies in the UK precast concrete industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(1), p. 152-160.

Ince.motiv. (2010). Audit of the 2010 Annual Review - KING III and best practice guidelines and recommendations for Growthpoint Properties. Ince.motiv, p. 18-23.

Jarzabkowski, P and Whittington, R (2008). A strategy-as-practise approach to strategy research and education. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), p. 282-286.

Kane, G (2011). The Green Executive: Corporate Leadership in a Low Carbon Economy. UK: Earthscan.

Klaine, A and Von Hauff, M (2009). Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: application of the Integrative Sustainability Triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, (2009) 85, p. 517-533.

Lacy, P, Arnott, J and Lowitt, E (2009). The challenge of integrating sustainability into talent and organisation strategies: investigating into the knowledge, skills and attitudes to achieve high performance. Corporate Governance, 9(4), p. 484-494.

Laszlo, C and Zhexembayeva, N (2011). Embedded sustainability: the next big competitive advantage. UK: Greenleaf Publishing

Leon-Soriana, R, Munoz-Tirress, MJ and Chalmeta-Rosalen, R (2010). Methodology for sustainability strategic planning and management. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(2), p. 249-268.

Lee, MJ Fairhurst, A and Wesley, S (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of the Top 100 US Retailers. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(2), p. 140–158.

Lynch, R (2009). Strategic Management. 5th ed. Italy: Prentice Hall.

1. Practitioner support for the SSI as a means of measurement of sustainability embeddedness.

2. The extent to which elements are incorporated into strategising.

3. The relationship between the score given on external communication and the level of embeddedness by practitioners.

4. Congruence between the agreement with the researcher’s score for sustainability embeddedness and practitioner rating for embeddedness.

13.3 Suggested future researchStrategising for sustainability and the embedding of sustainability as a strategic process has been partially explained by the SSI tool. The tool has been applied to external communication and then applied internally to a company. However, this begs the question of how strategists go about strategising for sustainability. Various researchers have sought to explore the ‘doing of strategy’ (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007, p. 5; Jazarbkowski & Spee, 2009, p. 69). Their research asks strategy questions such as ‘how is it done?’, ‘who does it?’ and ‘what do they use to do it?’ Findings support the field of practice research to address the theory gap between the theories of strategy and actual practice.

Future research should investigate those practices of strategists and identify and explore those practices and praxis applied by practitioners in the process of strategising for sustainability. Future research should be directed to this with a case company, with leading research questions such as: what are those practices and praxis’s for embedding sustainability into strategising? In other words, what are practitioners doing (or not doing) to embed sustainability into strategising?

Future research could expand the scope to further explore the gap between what is said and what is done with other Top 40 JSE companies. The research could also address the gap between what they claim and what they are doing with regard to other case companies. The study could contribute to the body of literature on the topic and yield much practical value for another case company.

Page 55

14.1 Annexure A: Data collected for case studyTable describing the types of information, data sources, data collection techniques, data recording methods and type of data collected through this study of a case company

Type of information Data source Date collection technique Data recording Type of data

Approval and consent CEO and practitioners Verbal request and written response

Written document Qualitative

Biographic information Practitioners in sample Handing out of questionnaires

Questionnaire Qualitative and Quantitative

Support for the SSI elements as measures/indicators to determine sustainability strategising in a company on a 5-point scale.

Sample practitioners in top, middle and lower management across functional and line divisions and including the sustainability coordinator

Facilitated focus group session with instructor and prepared questions

Post-It stickers with responses on 5-point scale; a modified process described by Bjornson, Wang and Arisholm (2008)

Quantitative

The extent of embeddedness of each element on the SSI tool in Growthpoint’s strategising on a 5-point scale




Quantitative

The extent of agreement with the researcher’s rating score of Growthpoint for each element on a 5-point scale




Quantitative

The rank of all 10 SSI tool elements by importance




Quantitative

14.2 Annexure B: Techniques for exemplary case study research

TECHNIQUE FOR EXEMPLARY CASE STUDY RESEARCH:

MEASURES TAKEN BY RESEARCHERS:

Form questions about the situation or problem to be studied and determine a purpose for the study.

The researchers utilised Table 2 titled: Research Design Components. This table was adapted from Yin’s (2003, p. 21) design and guided the researchers about the problem being studied.

Create a guide for how the study will be designed, conducted, and publicly reported.

A programme for the session was designed to form part of the Workshop plan which guided the process and the facilitator.

Carefully examine the choices available from among many research tools available in order to increase the validity of the study.

This research incorporated Post-It stickers to document responses, a research tool adapted from a process described by Bjornson, Wang and Arisholm (2008). This tool was used to record the data from the questions pertaining to the primary research tool: the SSI tool for measuring the embeddedness of sustainability in strategising.

Research cases that are unique in some way may include more than one unit of embedded analysis.

The following unit of investigation was applied in the research: Elements that make up sustainability embeddedness within the strategising of a company as measured by the SSI tool. The following unit of analysis was embedded: Managers and staff involved with strategising for sustainability.

Use multiple sources and techniques in the data gathering process.

Refer to Annexure A.

Prepare designated data gathering tools in a systematic way and apply properly in collecting the evidence.

Data were recorded on Post-It stickers, sealed in an envelope and then systematically captured and coded in Excel. The evidence remained preserved throughout the research.

Owen, D (2008). Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research. Accounting. Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), p. 240-267.

Mintzberg, H (1979). Patterns of strategy formulation. Management science, 24(9), p. 934-48.

Mintzberg, H (1987). Crafting Strategies. Harvard Business Review, 65(4), p. 65-75.

Mintzberg, H (1998). Strategy formation: schools of thought. In: Fredrickson, JW. Perspectives on strategic management. Frand Rapids, Philadelphia, United States of America: Harper Business.

Mintzberg, H and Waters, JA (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, p. 257-272.

Parker, LD (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the

commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), p. 842-860.

Patton, MQ (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Reilly, AH (2009). Communicating Sustainability Initiatives in Corporate Reports: Linking Implications to Organisational Change. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 74(3), p. 33-43.

Riccaboni, A and Leone, EL (2010). Implementing strategies through management control systems: a case of sustainability. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 59(2), p. 130-144.

Scapens, RW (2002). Methods of case study research. In Ryan, RJ, Scapens, RW & Theobald, M Eds, Research methods and methodology in accounting and finance. London: Thomson Learning.

Searcy, C (2009). Setting the course in corporate sustainability performance measurement. Measuring Business Excellence, 13(3), p. 49-57.

Simons, H (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. UK: Sage Publications.

Skinner, C and Mersham, G (2008). Corporate social responsibility in South Africa: Society and Business Review. 3(3), p. 39-255.

Smith, PAC and Sharicz, C (2011). The shift needed for sustainability. The Learning Organisation, 18(1), p. 73-86.

Stake, R (1994). Case study. In N Denzin and Y Lincoln. Eds., Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.

Stake, RE (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sustainable Business (2012). Corporate sustainability

nearing tipping point. Available at: SustainableBusiness.com. [Accessed: 2012-May-15]

Sustainability Services (2011). KING III AND GRI 2011: A 2011 review of sustainability reporting in South Africa. South Africa: Lawprint.

UNCTAD (2011). Definition of sustainability claims. Available at http://193.194.138.42/en/Sustainability-Claims-Portal/ [Accessed: 2011-May-21]

Uusi-Rauva, C and Nurkka, J (2010). Effective internal environment-related communication: An employee perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(3), p. 299-314.

Velazquez, LE, Esquer, J and Munguia, NE (2011). Sustainable learning organizations. The Learning Organization, 18(1), p. 36-44.

White, P (2009). Building a sustainability strategy into business. Corporate Governance, 9(4), p. 386-394

Yin, RK (1989). Case study research: design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Yin, RK (2003). Case study research: Designs and methods: Applied social research methods. 3rd ed. Series 5. London: Sage Publications.

Page 57

PAPER 4

Systemic In-formation LeadershipDr Elisabeth Dostal and Dr Rias van Wyk

AbstractSystemic in-formation leadership is the missing ingredient in the current global debate on problems ranging from poverty, finance crisis to climate change. These issues span dimensions (eg ecological, cultural, economic, political and technological) and levels (eg planetary, international, national, organisational, personal, physiological, cellular, molecular, atomic and sub-atomic). They mutually co-produce each other and new problems emerge from their interaction.

Although an abundance of research and many solutions exist, these are partial, uncoordinated and mostly insufficient in the context of a systemic dynamic. They typically co-produce problems in other systems, are based on the problem logic and often cannot be implemented because of the resistance of some key stakeholders.

Conventional leadership is powerless in dealing with global systemic problems. Even if leaders have knowledge of systemic problem (dis)solving and ideal system (re)design, they are constrained by existing social structures (eg organisations, national governments, industry lobbies) which assume a life of their own and resist change from within and without.

To facilitate change, in the context of complexity, requires in-formation leadership. Its purpose is to in-form (put form into) existing systems so that they function sustainably and for the benefit of all stakeholders. This requires theoretical and practical knowledge of both, creating sustainable strategic designs (ie what needs to change) and managing the change (ie how to enrol stakeholders in co-producing a shared design and implementing it).

Since complex problems are inter-disciplinary, discipline specific knowledge needs to be extended and contextualised by a trans-disciplinary theory and methodology of system organisation. Biomatrix Systems Theory, which is a meta-systems theory, is such a body of knowledge. It can facilitate, integrate and contextualise an inter-disciplinary interaction for (dis)solving systemic problems. It provides generic theoretical frameworks and principles of system organisation. These do not provide answers to complex problems per se, but give rise to systemic questions that elicit systemic answers by the interacting disciplines that can co-produce the emergence of sustainable solutions.

Also, most complex problems are global in nature and (dis)solving them requires global participation. On-line methodologies (eg the BiomatrixJam) can be useful in facilitating this.

Key Words: in-formation leadership; systemic in-formation leadership; systems theory; biomatrix systems theory; applied systems thinking; complex problem (dis)solving; ideal system design; systemic change management; systemic change facilitation; systemic public policy design; stakeholder planning; stakeholder democracy.

Exemplary case study design ensures that the procedures used are well documented and can be repeated with the same results over and over again.

The research methodology and design procedure has been described in full in this document and the researchers believe repetition of the research using the same procedure and sample will yield congruent results.

Exemplary case studies use field notes and databases to categorise and reference data so that it is readily available for subsequent reinterpretation. Field notes record feelings and intuitive hunches, pose questions, and document the work in progress. They record testimonies, stories, and illustrations which can be used in later reports. They may warn of impending bias.

The researcher made notes during the facilitated session. The field notes recorded the responses of participants to the questions, their ability to answer and any changes to the process. The field notes recorded noise disturbances as well as the behaviour of one practitioner which could have skewed the results, but it was found to have made no significant impact on the research. The field notes also recorded obvious limitations of the research and highlighted the areas for future research.

The investigator training program should cover the basic concepts of the study, terminology, processes, and methods, and teach investigators how to properly apply the techniques being used in the study.

The facilitator was well prepared on the topic, the research questions and the procedure for capturing the data. The facilitator prepared a PowerPoint slideshow to guide the session and had terminology readily available to clarify any discrepancies.

Throughout the evaluation and analysis process, the researcher should remain open to new opportunities and insights.

The researchers remained open to all possibilities as to what the outcome of the application of the SSI tool to practice may be and were able to use insights from the findings to describe the management implications of the research results.

Source: Own compilation from principles of case study research methodology: Stake (1994), Simons (2009) and Yin (1989; 2003).

Dr. Elisabeth Dostal is a futurist, management consultant and management educator.

As a futurist and senior researcher at the Institute for Futures Research of the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa (1977-1991). Elisabeth holds a PhD in Systems Theory from the University of Cape Town, South Africa and a Master’s Degree in Social Sciences from Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria.

Dr. Rias van Wyk is the Director of Technoscan® Centre in Minneapolis, USA. His academic qualifications include a Master’s degree from Harvard focusing on science, technology and public policy.

Page 59

still have the same (or very similar) formal education systems, corporations, financial institutions and economic theories that evolved in the industrial age.

We would argue that unlike the previous shifts, the shift to the information age is more fundamental, because it embodies a shift from predominantly organising physical reality (ie matter and energy based) to one that embraces the conceptual reality associated with information. The significance of this shift is that matter and energy (at least the harnessing thereof) are finite and scarce. If shared (eg land and other things), one party benefits at the expense of the other, while the total amount remains the same (ie it is zero sum). Sharing of scarce resources involves win / lose and gives rise to competition. By comparison information is governed by win / win. By sharing it, one does not lose it. It is also synergistic which means that by exchanging information new information can arise that was not inherent in the interacting parties.

The competitive mindset and scarcity thinking is appropriate in the context of dealing with a matter-energy reality. In the context of information it is inappropriate, as it prevents the creation of synergy which is a core competitive advantage in the information economy.

The synergistic reality of information also provides a challenge to some scientific theories. For example, the economic law of diminishing returns evolved in the context of evaluating physical goods and services which indeed diminish in value with their increasing supply. By comparison, the wealth of Microsoft and Google could be explained by a law of increasing returns of information. One could also argue that the continuing financial crisis is a manifestation of the synergistic nature of information for at least two reasons. The first is that information has become the main means of production (as opposed to land in the agrarian age and physical capital in the industrial age). Being synergistic, it is not governed by the law of diminishing returns and takes on its own synergistic reality, as exemplified by the dot com bubble some years ago. Different approaches for managing are required. The second reason is that de-regulation allowed the financial system to evolve from mostly dealing with information about real economic value and providing services accordingly to the economy, to generating information from this information (ie derivatives) and trading with it. This being synergistic and unlimited by regulation has a run-away effect and becomes increasingly unrepresentative of the physical economy. By 2008 the traded derivatives amounted to 13 times the global GDP (ie the physical reality of the collectively produced goods and services). Since then it must have increased even more. Since the financial markets use the same currency as the real economy, they have a disturbing influence on it and can even destroy it.

Besides the synergistic nature of information, the unsolved problems that emerged in the industrial age (eg poverty, population explosion, impacts of industrialization on nature) have become global challenges. They are beyond the reach of governing bodies which are still grounded in the nation based reality of the industrial age. The paradigm and institutions established in the industrial age are unable to deal with them. We need information savvy and globally orientated leaders.

The challenges associated with dissolving humanity’s complex problems can be summarised and illustrated by the following comments:

• ‘We know what caused the finance crisis, but we don’t know what to do about it’(Statement by the G20, March 2009).

• ‘With current strategic thinking, global poverty is not only unsolvable, but could get worse’ (Comment by a World Bank Official, 2010).

• (Note: There can be a decline in poverty in relative terms, yet an increase in absolute numbers, due to population growth.)

• ‘We know what needs to be done, but we don’t know how it can be done’ (German Chancellor Merkel commenting on the Euro-crisis, 2012).

The first two statements illustrate a need for reviewing what needs to be done to solve our problems (ie our designs and strategies of systems), whereby the first statement illustrates that we don’t know the solutions to some problems, while the second statement refers to the ineffectiveness of current solutions. The third statement indicates that we need to re-think of how we go about solving them (ie our change management and governance approaches).

Both are derived from the way we view the world (ie our paradigm). The current problems of humanity arise from the current paradigm. (Dis)solving them requires a new paradigm. We propose that systems thinking and more specifically, Biomatrix Systems Theory because of its meta-systems approach, can be this paradigm.

1.4 Worldview of in-formation leadershipWe propose systems thinking as the appropriate paradigm for in-formation leadership for the 21st Century.

Systems thinking is a body of knowledge that provides concepts, frameworks and principles that guide the understanding of how systems are organised, function and change. It is also concerned with the emerging complexity and inter-relatedness of systems in nature (ie the naturosphere), psychological and societal systems (ie the psycho-sociosphere) and technological systems (ie techno-sphere).

While the systems of nature, society and technology are researched by a range of scientific disciplines in great detail and with excellent results, there is a lack of knowledge about the emergence from the interaction of these systems. This would be the realm of a trans-disciplinary exploration. For example, there is no overarching trans-disciplinary theory of

1. Systemic in-formation leadership1.1 What is systemic in-formation leadership?Leadership is usually defined as ‘organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal’ (eg http://www.wikipedia.net, Wikipedia). And while there may be many other definitions, a brief scan through the leadership literature seemed to confirm a people centered approach and a focus on leadership.

However, it is the experience of the author as a futurist and management consultant in the public and private sector, that leaders at all levels are constrained by social structures, be they organisational structures or national and international governance structures. Even if leaders want to do things differently, they are eventually prevented in doing so by limiting structures, and rendered powerless by them.

In-formation leadership addresses this problem specifically. It is concerned with organising stakeholder representatives to re-design their interacting systems that co-produce the complex societal and organisation problems that concern them in such a way that they function sustainably and co-produce more desirable outcomes for their stakeholders.

Human beings have a great deal of freedom in choosing the form that cultural, economic, political and technological systems take. Unfortunately, in the course of social evolution, many of those systems have become unsustainable. The outcomes they produce create complex systemic problems such as such as the finance crisis, poverty, war, population explosion, unsustainable energy supply and climate change. These, and similar problems, seem be unsolvable and even threaten the continued survival of humanity and other forms of life.

The purpose of in-formation leadership is not to describe the specific outcomes that a system should achieve, this is typically the realm of the visionary leader, but rather to ensure that the vision of stakeholders and the systems that co-produce them are sustainable. In other words, its aim is to make sure that they meet the legitimate aspirations of their stakeholders and operate within the limits of nature.

From a change management perspective the core challenge of the systemic in-formation leader is to facilitate change in such a way that stakeholders are aligned around their shared design and committed and able to implement it.

In order to facilitate the development of sustainable systems the in-formation leader needs to understand how systems change and are organised. This requires knowledge of systems theory and its practical application.

In summary, systemic in-formation leadership ensures that the content and management of change are systemic.

1.2 Note on in-formationThe term information is derived from Latin and means putting form into. To emphasise this form changing and governing force of information and distinguish it from the more common use of the word, we spell it as in-formation. This spelling was introduced by David Bohm (1980) and is associated with his concept of an implicate order according to which the observable explicate order of the physical universe unfolds (Laszlo, 2007).

To understand in-formation leadership we need to distinguish between the following related concepts:• Data is a unit of quantitative or qualitative description of a phenomenon in physical or conceptual reality.• Information is meaningful data about a phenomenon relevant to an observer or user.• In-formation is generic information that determines the form and functioning of the phenomenon.

For example, the world-wide-web is a vast collection of data. A search produces information. The information associated with the search engine (ie algorithms) is in-formation. It represents the implicate order according to which data are generated and information provided.

Knowledge is associated with the data, information and in-formation of which we are aware (ie know about).

Experience is associated with the phenomenon that the data, information and in-formation describe.

1.3 Why do we need systemic in-formation leadership?As humanity moved through various ages and stages of development, such as hunting-gathering, agrarian, industrial and more recently the advent of the information age, its cultural, economic and political institutions have undergone fundamental transformations. Our reach has spread out from the extended family to tribal, national and now global interaction. Technological development has diversified and accelerated. World-views have changed fundamentally with each stage of societal development.

The transition from the industrial to the information age started merely a few decades ago, therefore our mindsets and institutions are still grounded in the industrial age, even if some changes have taken place. For example, the nation state with its number based representative governance is still the dominant governance unit in international relations and we

Page 61

We keep ‘doing more of the same’ even if we know that it will not deliver the desired results, merely because we do not know what else to do. For example, the above mentioned comment that with current strategic thinking poverty is unsolvable implies that more of the same problem solving approaches will not yield better outcomes. Yet, we keep advocating them, such as promoting the trickling down effect of economic growth, or more of the same type of education which results in youth unemployment and the educated unemployed.

Moreover, as the environment changes, strategies that worked in the past will not produce the same outcomes and even create new problems. This is exemplified by the concerns of having an outdated education system, including management education which is an outflow of the functional separation of the industrial age.

In-formation leadership is required to guide and facilitate the re-design of unsustainable traditional systems.

1.5.3 Distinction between problem solving and dissolvingThe distinction between problem solving and dissolving is related to that of a problem and solutions logic.

• Problem solving restores a system to its original functioning, as determined by its design (eg repairing a malfunctioning car), or evolved functioning (eg inserting a heart pace maker). The method of problem solving starts with problem analysis to find the cause of the problem (typically involving root cause analysis), identify the solution and implement it.

• The problem solving approach works well with systems that malfunction and need to be restored to their previous functioning. Even well designed social systems that experience a temporary problem (eg because a member is making mistakes) can benefit from problem solving.

• The logic of the design of the system dictates the solving of the problem. The logic of the problem therefore is the logic of the solution.

• Problem dissolving changes the functioning of the interacting systems so that they co-produce new outcomes that do not reproduce the problem. For example, by creating peace, conflict dissolves, or by creating health the disease dissolves. The method involves creating an ideal design of the interacting systems and designing and implementing the strategies that allow the systems to co-produce the outcomes intended by the design. The functioning based on the problem logic is replaced with a functioning derived from a new solutions producing logic.

The problem dissolving approach is required in the context of complex systemic problems. It demands that systems function on the basis of a new logic. To arrive at such a logic requires creativity.

In praxis, systemic problems require a combination of the two approaches. For example, finding a vaccine for HIV / AIDS would imply solving the problem of that epidemic. However the implementation of a worldwide vaccination drive requires problem dissolving in many related areas. Likewise, technological developments in electricity generation can provide solutions to many problems. Implementing them within the current system will, however, require system re-design and appropriate planning with relevant stakeholders.

1.5.4 Multiple stakeholdersSystemic problems are always co-produced by different stakeholders and require their cooperation in (dis)solving them. This includes stakeholders from different dimensions (eg cultural, economic, political, ecological and technological) and levels (eg societal, organisational, individual, as well as levels associated with natural systems like the planetary, physiological, cellular, atomic, etc.)

Decision-makers associated with the different dimensions and levels of a problem need to cooperate in order to co-produce the dissolving of the problem.

Unfortunately the current atomistic paradigm (eg the separation of science into independent disciplines, the autonomy of self-governing social systems, and the emphasis on self-interest in economic thinking) leads to an ignoring and abdication of responsibility for impacts on the collective. While systems are interdependent in reality, their governance is disjointed. Their self-governance is not coordinated. Thus any cooperation between the stakeholders is largely voluntary, at least until we evolve different governance paradigms. This is the challenge faced by leaders at all levels. Even if they know how to solve societal problems, they do not know how to implement them if a stakeholder is not willing to cooperate because their self-interest is affected (even if it is only reduced or temporarily affected).

Especially in a global problem (dis)solving context, our political (ie collective change management) processes become increasingly ineffective and leaders are powerless. For example, the recent Rio+20 conference had its outcomes determined before it started - a sad illustration of our global impotence. As globalization proceeds, even large nation states and regional alliances of states become impotent against powerful transnational economic and political lobbies which pursue their self-interest at the expense of the other stakeholders.

This demands in-formation leadership and the use of a guiding theory to impose a trans-disciplinary order on the management of change. However, even with a guiding theory leaders face a huge change management challenge. The re-design of problem producing systems is urgently needed. Before we know how such systems could function differently,

sustainability, although the concept of sustainability is associated with the interaction of social, technological and natural systems.

Since complex societal problems (eg poverty and climate change) are emergent problems from the interaction of systems studied and shaped by different scientific disciplines, we require a trans-disciplinary approach to (dis)solving them.

Trans-disciplinary research is the realm of systems theory, being concerned with the interaction between systems and the emergence resulting from it.

Systems theory and related paradigms (eg cybernetics, operations research, complexity theory, chaos theory and field theory) have evolved during the last 80 years and many different thinkers from different scientific disciplines have contributed to them. They are a conglomerate of different concepts, models and approaches (eg systems dynamics and ideal design approaches) that overlap with and even contradict each other and use different language for the same or similar concepts.

Biomatrix Systems Theory is an attempt to integrate and synergise the various concepts, models and approaches into an internally consistent meta-systems theory with a coherent language. The systems thinkers whose ideas were considered and integrated (not necessarily using the same language or in its entirety) are listed in the References on systems thinking. Their integration into a coherent theory was possible due to unique conceptual contributions by the multi-disciplinary research team that co-produced the theory in the context of a PhD programme at the University of Cape Town. The theory has been presented in scientific articles, as well as defended and applied in several PhD and Master Theses in different scientific disciplines (Dostal, et al.,2005, 2012; http://www.biomatrixtheory.com).

The approach and methodology of in-formation leadership presented in this paper is based on Biomatrix Systems Theory.

1.5 Key challenges of in-formation leadershipIn facilitating the dissolving of complex societal problems and the re-design of current systems to ensure their sustainability, the in-formation leader has to consider the following challenges:

1.5.1 Systems are dynamic Systems impact on each other. The effect of making a change in one part of a system ripples through to other parts of the system and to the systems it interacts with. These effects are largely unpredictable, due to emergence. Likewise systemic problems spread from one system to another across levels and dimensions, as exemplified by the domino effect of the finance crisis or the impacts of climate change.

Systems thinkers have described the nature of systemic problems as being systems of interacting problems and have given them different names, such as mess (Ackoff, 1974), problematique (Checkland,1981; Ozbekhan, 1977), wicked problems (Churchman, 1976) and complex problems (Senge, 1990; Flood & Jackson, 1991), amongst others.

Through their mutual impact on each other, systems co-produce each other as well as unpredictable outcomes (ie emergence).

Emergence implies that characteristics emerge from the interaction of systems that are not present in those systems and therefore no single system can be held responsible for it. For example, climate change emerges from the interaction of humanity’s economic, cultural, political and technological systems. We cannot blame corporations if we keep investing in them, consuming their products, demanding lower prices, higher wages, tolerate non-transparent governance systems, support a growth philosophy and follow the logic of the legal system that seeks a guilty party, to mention just a few of the ‘conspiring’ systems.

Systemic problems can even emerge from systems that in themselves seem to be functioning well, or from solutions in other areas. For example, the more successful the education system is in reducing school drop-outs, the greater the problem of youth unemployment will be.

In-formation leadership is required to guide and facilitate the dissolving of emergent problems by re-designing the interacting systems that co-produce them.

1.5.2 The logic of the problem is not the logic of the solutionKnowing the causes of a complex problem but not their solution is typical for systemic problems. Albert Einstein observed: ‘We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.’ Yet this is typically what we do.

We tend to react to problems with the logic of current thinking. One of the worst examples of current logic problem solving was rescuing the finance system by throwing trillions at it without addressing its underlying problems or even making a serious and sustained effort at re-designing the problem producing system.

Such strategies exacerbate the problem and keep re-creating it. For example, banks which did not trade in derivatives before 2008 have since added them to their services, thereby increasing the problem in future.

Page 63

2. A methodology of systemic in-formation leadership

2.2 IntroductionA systemic in-formation leader needs to be able to facilitate all steps in the methodology as well as manage the change systemically.

This section is an outline of the systemic methodology that we have found comprehensive enough for dealing with problem (dis)solving and system re-design in the public domain.

This problem (dis)solving methodology is in the tradition of ideal system re-design and incorporates the ideas of other systems thinkers of both the

• system dynamics approach (Dostal et al., 2005, 2012; Forrester,1969; Flood & Jackson, 1991; Keys, 1990; Meadows et al., 1974; Gomez & Probst, 1987; Roberts et al., 1983; Senge, 1990, 1999) and

• ideal design approach (Ackoff, 1974, 1999; Ackoff & Rovin, 2003; Banathy, 1994; Checkland, 1981; Churchman, 1971; Cross, 1984; Dostal et al., 2005, 2012; Flood & Jackson, 1991; Gharajedaghi, 1985, 1986, 2006; Nadler, 1981; Warfield, 1990).

It also includes new contributions based on Biomatrix Systems Theory (eg generic frameworks for problem analysis and design).

The steps involved in systemic problem dissolving are the following:

• Problem analysis: Unlike the problem solving logic that identifies root causes, the systemic problem logic is one that is an emergence from the interaction of multiple causes. The co-factors need to be identified and the logic of their interaction explored (eg in a systems dynamics model).

• Brainstorming solutions: Since systemic problems have no pre-determined solutions, new ideas have to be generated. This requires systemic brainstorming techniques.

• System(s) redesign:The collection of diverse and even ‘way out’ ideas that is produced by brainstorming needs to be reviewed and integrated into a coherent design.This is facilitated by a generic design framework and generic principles of systemic organization that need to be incorporated into the design.

• Implementation planning: While problem solving is associated with established functioning, problem dissolving requires the establishment of new behaviour, as well as different resource use. This needs to be carefully planned in a step by step manner.

• Implementation: In problem solving, the implementation is easier, because the system is familiar with the required behaviour. In a re-design situation new behaviour needs to be learned. This requires support, re-inforcement and careful monitoring of outcomes, including more changes in behaviour if necessary.

• Systemic change management: Systemic change management refers to how the above steps are planned and facilitated. Thus change management is a parallel process to the sequential steps outlined above. Because systemic problems do not have pre-determined solutions, the change management approach needs to elicit the creativity of the participating stakeholders and needs to ensure their synergistic integration in an internally consistent and containing ideal design, as well as its implementation.

Each of the steps is discussed in more detail in the following sections.

2.3 Problem analysisThe systemic in-formation leader needs to facilitate an understanding of the complexity, multi-dimensionality and systemic dynamics of the problem.

2.4 Methods of problem analysisThe methods employed during problem analysis include the following:

2.4.1 Identifying problems and problem co-factorsStakeholders identify problems they experience with regard to the societal issue under investigation, as well as the co-factors of the problems. The latter refer to the causes of each problem.

we do not know what changes to initiate. Fortunately, stakeholder representatives can voluntarily participate in re-design exercises to create new possibilities for humanity. This can involve on-line applications, as for example the BiomatrixJam which is a systemically structured on-line design application (this methodology was explained and demonstrated at the AficaLeads Conference, 18-21 November 2012. An overview of it can be viewed on www.biomatrixweb.com).

1.6 Approach of systemic in-formation leadershipSystemic in-formation leadership involves the contribution of generic organising frameworks and systemic organising principles, as well as a systemic methodology to guide the

• analysis of a complex societal issue (eg poverty, climate change, war) or an industry related issue(eg education, finance, health, energy, transport) and exploring its complexity;

• re-design of the stakeholder systems associated with the issue on the basis of a new, solution logic, and

• management of the change in systemic ways through participative stakeholder planning around the issue of consideration.

Thus systemic in-formation leadership is facilitative. The leader introduces relevant systemic frameworks, concepts and principles to assist participating stakeholders to see their ideas in a systemic light.

Philosophy of science distinguishes between deduction and induction. From this perspective, systemic in-formation leadership is deductive, being deduced from systems theory. It imposes a systemic order on the generation of content around a specific issue. It does not prescribe or promote specific content. It provides a generic deductive order of contextualization of content and process, while encouraging inclusive and comprehensive inductive contributions from the stakeholders. The former relates to a prescription of systemic frameworks and principles. The latter includes all information derived from problem analysis and brainstormed solutions for a specific issue of inquiry.

Likewise, the unfolding of the change management process is an emergence from top down generic approaches and specific demands by participants. Working with willing or resistant stakeholders will call up different approaches and influence the way a specific change management process will unfold without compromising the overarching systemic guiding principles.

Conventional facilitation approaches do not impose an implicit order. They typically allow a free-flowing emergence according to the suggestions of participating stakeholders.

We are aware of the potential criticism of being ‘prescriptive’ (and of course ‘value laden’ or ‘ideological’) because we advocate a systemic contextualizing order. Our answer is two-fold:

• If stakeholders who co-produce a problem are asked to decide how to find a solution, they are guided by the problem logic. They will merely perpetuate the problem (or even make it worse). Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening within organizations and in the public domain across organizations and in governments. By comparison, systemic in-formation leadership allows stakeholders to find a new (systemic) logic.

• Systems theory is a scientific discipline and has been argued within and across various scientific disciplines (even if it is not ‘mainstream’ yet, largely due to its trans-disciplinary nature and its core concept of emergence). It is thus, as much or as little an ‘ideology’ (depending on the definition of ideology) as a scientific theory in any other scientific discipline. Having participated in a philosophy of science debate for many years, the author makes no apology for proposing that systems thinking is the paradigm of the information age.

In the context of science, systemic in-formation leadership depends on the acknowledgement of systems theory (under whatever name) as a formal trans-disciplinary approach, its continued scientific development, methodological application and use in trans-disciplinary academic debate.

Page 65

individuals in written form which are then clustered to be used as input for the brainstorming and plotting of the dynamics of the system.

Using on-line surveys (eg the BiomatrixJam) to identify problems and their problem co-factors is an especially useful method for allowing input from large numbers of stakeholder members. Having a guiding framework elicits submission of problems from all parts and perspectives of the system, ensuring an understanding of all facets of the issue in detail. Anyone can participate and all can view all outputs, making the analysis transparent. The zooming in and out between an overview of the whole issue and each of its parts in increasing detail, automatically provides systemic education to the interested public. They not only get educated about the issue as a whole but also experience a mindshift change towards more systemic thinking. Thereby collective wisdom is deepened.

2.7 Brainstorming solutionsThe systemic in-formation leader needs to facilitate the exploration of future possibilities and stimulate creativity amongst participating stakeholders.

2.8 Brainstorming methods There are many brainstorming methods available. We like to group them into success-based, problem-based and ‘a-rational’ brainstorming methods.

2.8.1 Success-based brainstormingSuccess-based brainstorming input can be derived from an exploration of the strengths of the current system, best practice, past success experiences, role models and benchmarking. The aim is to enhance and amplify successful strategies and operations and to reproduce it in other systems or parts of the same system. These are however not necessarily indicative of a new solutions logic.

2.8.2 Problem-based brainstormingProblems are very useful for kick-starting creativity. The more problems a system has, the more opportunities there are for inducing change. Besides being boring, only perfect systems cannot be changed.

A useful method for inspiring a higher order systems logic is the frogs / prince method. It proceeds by transforming problems into their ideals and designing strategies to achieve the ideal.

We refer to this as the frogs / prince method, based on the metaphors of the ‘boiling frog’ as an illustration for a deteriorating problem and the prince which is liberated from the frog by the kiss of the princess (ie the intuition) according to a fairy tale.

2.8.3 Existing solutionsWhatever the issue, there is typically an abundance of researched and intuited, tested and untested solutions for different parts of the problem that exist amongst stakeholders. These need to be collected, contextualised and explored in a brainstorming manner. Even if they have been rejected in the past for a variety of reasons, in the context of a larger whole they can become a valuable part or spark new ideas.

2.8.4 A-rational brainstormingThis refers to brainstorming methods like drawing, sculpting, mood boards, song-writing, dancing, story-telling, images and symbols, analogies and metaphors, amongst others. These methods tap into the creativity of the subconscious mind and its pattern recognition ability. Besides being fun, they can yield amazing results.

2.9 Theoretical and methodological considerationsSocial systems (eg a marriage, education, finance or energy supply system) have a choice in how they can function, as there is no ‘law of nature’ that pre-determines it. If the system is problem riddled, it needs to be transformed according to a new, problem transcending logic.

While the analysis of a problem riddled system reveals the problem logic of the system, brainstorming needs to create a problem transcending solutions logic.

Clustering the brainstorming output allows stakeholders to view the brainstorming output associated with different parts of the system and according to different systemic categories. One can zoom in and out to view the ideas pertaining to different parts (ie levels) and categories. Iterating between categories and levels typically contributes to the emergence of a higher order solutions logic.

2.4.2 Exploring the dynamics of the systemThe mutual interactions between the co-factors can be explored through a systems dynamics model. Depending on the nature of the problem being explored, this step could be a broad exploration in order to illustrate the systemic complexity of an issue. We find this useful in the context of social systems as well as for illustrating the interaction between social, natural and technological systems.

In the case of systems with fixed functioning (eg natural systems) the exploration of the dynamics of the system need to be more comprehensive, as this could reveal solutions to how the system can be restored to its ‘healthy’ functioning.

We use the Biomatrix method of telentropy tracing for this. This method is more detailed than conventional systems dynamics models as it considers levels, dimensions and the distinction between conceptual and physical reality of systems (Dostal et al., 2005, 2012).

2.4.3 Forecasting current futuresA current future describes what could happen if the current behavior of the system persists. Depending on anticipated future environmental changes, alternative futures can be forecast. Often these are presented as alternative scenarios.

Current futures are rarely desirable because they imply deterioration of the system in interaction with a changing environment.

2.5 Theoretical and methodological considerationsAs repeatedly argued in the systems literature (eg Ackhoff, 1974; Capra, 1982, 1996; Gharajedaghi, 1986), the paradigm of systems thinking is a meta-paradigm that serves a trans-disciplinary debate. Such a debate is required in the context of systemic problems that span different dimensions and levels in the systems hierarchy which are represented by different scientific disciplines. Thus, systems thinking recognises the multiple truths of a collective challenge as represented by different stakeholder perspectives and it is a core function of the systemic in-formation leader to ensure that all stakeholder perspectives are explored and heard.

By exploring the truth of each stakeholder, the collective truth can be approximated, which may well contain contradictions and shift according to context. For example, we need to understand the functioning of the current financial system or what brings about climate change from the perspective of stakeholders at all relevant levels and in all dimensions, both in overview as well as detail.

Since the pursuit of truth is the realm of science, this places systemic in-formation leadership into the camp of science, albeit in a trans-disciplinary manner (as mentioned previously). By comparison, other societal pursuits (Gharajedaghi, 1986), such as health, peace, wealth, beauty or God, amongst others, involve ecological, political, economic, artistic or religious leadership. These are discipline specific and have a complementary role to play in understanding a systemic societal issue by representing different valid perspectives and different ways of knowing. At the same time, they are in themselves insufficient in dealing with a systemic societal issue such as transforming the global financial system, dissolving poverty or preventing climate change (if tipping points have not been reached yet, in which case we would have to design strategies to minimise its effects).

2.6 Change management considerationsProblem analysis serves more than one purpose, which may be more or less relevant in different situations. The systemic in-formation leader needs to facilitate accordingly. More specifically, problem analysis can facilitate the

• understanding of the complex nature and dynamics of the issue under investigation;

• understanding of the magnitude of the change required and the areas that need changing,

• change in the worldview of the participating stakeholders (ie to replace one-dimensional thinking and over-simplified and ‘naive’ solutions thinking with the understanding that a fundamentally new approach is required),

• emotional satisfaction to stakeholders about being heard and considered (eg those that are ignored by the stakeholders with more power), or relieved of a burden of guilt and blame (eg apparent ‘perpetrators’ that are believed to cause the problem),

• identification of the root cause (in the case of a system characterised by fixed functioning), and

• the use of problems as input to brainstorming solutions.

It is also our experience that in problem dissolving situations, the discussion of the problem(s) keeps stakeholders stuck in the problem logic and re-inforces it. It will not lead to a new, problem transcending logic and is therefore counter-productive (an exception could be societal problems associated with trauma which need face to face interaction for emotional and not necessarily analytic reasons). We therefore prefer the surfacing of problems and identification of problem co-factors by

Page 67

3.2.2 Iteration Systems design is not a linear process. It requires iterations within each (sub) design as well as between the overarching design and the various sub-designs. This allows stakeholders to explore and reconsider their options in relation to the overarching design and the impacts they have on each other and the containing whole. For example, the speed at which the coal industry can transform itself (given the legacy technologies that are still in place), could have an effect on the strategies of other stakeholders as well as the country and region as a whole. It will also affect the overall implementation plan for the country’s transition to renewable energy use.

3.2.3 Balancing self and collective interestsA systemic ideal design (eg of an industry supply chain, or a regional development) should deliver win / win outcomes for all stakeholders. This evolves through iteration between considerations inspired by self-interest and consideration of the shared interests of the containing whole.

The current systemic problems are largely an emergence from the ‘bottom up’ causality of uncoordinated strategies and inadequate ‘top down’ governance.

The ‘bottom up’ causality arises from the self-interest of stakeholders, inspired by a paradigm that implies a belief in an invisible hand and that the sum-total of self-interest adds up to collective interest.

The ‘top-down’ causality arises from the lack of shared ideas about the containing whole, as well as from non-systemic governance (systems theory distinguishes between different types of governance and advocates their balanced interaction). Systemic governance aims at coordinated self-governance for the benefit of the whole and its interacting parts. It does not refer to top-down decision-making of an authoritarian regime (which does not work in a complex world, as demonstrated by the demise of the centralised economies of former communistic regimes).

An inspiring design provides each stakeholder with a long-term strategic direction for its self-governance. It also acts as an incentive for bridging over short-term disadvantages until longer-term benefits are reaped.

3.2.4 SustainabilityMost societal issues are an interface between social (ie psychological, cultural, economic and political) systems, technological systems and systems of nature (ie ecological, physiological, biological and physical).

To be sustainable, the design needs to accommodate the laws of nature and limits imposed by the carrying capacity of natural systems. For example, in re-designing the energy supply chain, environmental considerations are a major factor in choosing between different technologies.The sovereignty and integrity of nature must be respected.

Within the limits imposed by natural systems, the social systems are free to determine their own form and functioning. They can change and transform. For example, the competitive economic ethos, behavior of financial markets, or the representative democracy model are created by humans, not by inevitable laws and can be re-designed.

3.3 Change management considerations

3.3.1 Design teamThe design of a system (using the brainstorming output, a systemic framework and systemic principles) is best done in a small design team. Large groups paralyze a design process and tend to yield the lowest common denominator output.

It is also important to note that the systemic in-formation leader and at least some of the team members should have patterned thinking skills (ie not every personality type is good at making a design). Team members should also have issue specific expertise, as well as knowledge of systems theory and how to apply it.

The most important consideration of a design is that it is formulated as a high level ideal. The loftier the ideal is, the more innovative the strategies will be. By comparison, mediocre aims give rise to mediocre systems. Thus visionary leaders need to be involved in shaping the content of the design.

The art of design also involves balancing the benefits of the whole and parts in the long-term and short-term and from multi-dimensional perspectives. This demands skills in managing paradox.

Depending on the size of the issue, there could also be sub-designs, involving sub-design teams. These need to be coordinated (eg a representative of each sub-team is also a member of the overarching design team).

3.3.2 Brainstorming inputThe design team uses the brainstormed information (as clustered in the relevant design notebook) and reflects it against the generic systemic frameworks and organising principles.

2.10 Change management considerations Most facilitators are familiar with brainstorming techniques and know how to facilitate them. To make brainstorming systemic requires the

• inclusion of systemic brainstorming techniques (eg the frogs / prince method) and

• use of a systemic framework (eg as derived from Biomatrix Systems Theory) in order to ensure that brainstorming is comprehensive (ie covers all parts of a system, all categories of the systemic framework and all stakeholders); it also facilitates the clustering, categorising and integrating of the brainstorming output.

Since systemic problems have many sub-problems and problem co-factors, the brainstorming output can be considerable. It is therefore useful to produce design notebooks for the different (parts of the) systems that are being re-designed. These are used as inputs for creating the ideal (sub) design(s).

In an on-line application (eg BiomatrixJam) the notebooks are posted on-line. This enhances transparency, as well as inviting more brainstorming input (eg by stakeholders that were not included in previous rounds).

3. Ideal system (re)designThe systemic in-formation leader needs to facilitate the re-design of the interaction of the systems that co-produce the systemic problem(s) under consideration.

3.1 Design methodTo make a systemic design requires knowledge of how systems are organised and function based on a comprehensive systems theory. The design team needs both issue specific expertise and systemic organisation related expertise. The latter provides the systemic frameworks and generic organising principles according to which the issue specific brainstormed ideas are selected, interpreted and synthesized into a coherent design.

Systems theory advocates the formulation of the design in idealized terms. Ideals are by definition not attainable or can only be attained momentarily before shifting again. The reasoning behind this is that ideals are timeless and remain relevant in any context and continue to inspire the system to approximate them. They can be re-interpreted according to changing needs and changing context and induce creativity and innovation in trying to attain them.

3.2 Theoretical and methodological consideration

3.2.1 Sub-designsTo dissolve a systemic societal problem (eg. poverty, or problems with education and energy supply) requires an ideal design that in-forms stakeholders of different levels (ie societal, organisational and individual) and dimensions (ie economic, political, cultural, technological, ecological). It inspires stakeholders to design strategies that will co-produce the intended outcomes of the design. They become sub-designs for the overarching design. Thus the overarching design automatically coordinates the strategies of autonomous stakeholders. Since these strategies are typically associated with different stakeholders, each stakeholder will need to make a design around the strategy.

For example, Germany’s vision of moving towards electricity generation from renewable sources will affect all stakeholders along the electricity supply chain, from suppliers to electricity generators, the generators of electricity (both renewable and non-renewable), organisations associated with the storage and transmission of electricity and the various consumer groups. One of the strategies is to use non-renewable energy (eg coal) as back-up when renewable energy (from sun and wind) is not available. For the coal industry this implies a re-design of the business model from being a continuous electricity generator to becoming a complementary one that increases and decreases generation according to demand. Amongst other things, this requires a change in the generating technology they use.

Thus to transform a societal issue (eg electricity generation in a country or region) according to an overall design (eg renewable energy generation) requires coordinated change within and between the co-producing stakeholder systems. This typically involves a strategic re-orientation of these systems. More often than not a strategic re-orientation by a stakeholder involves breaking new ground and needing new business models, as exemplified by the changing role of coal-fired electricity generation.

Page 69

3.7 Change management considerationsThe broad collective implementation planning is done by a task team with specialised expertise. They represent the various stakeholder systems. The participation of the systemic in-formation leader and a representative of the ideal design team ensure continuity and coherence with the design.

Since a design is implemented by the sum total of actions by the co-producing stakeholders, implementation planning also occurs within each stakeholder system. This involves cascading the aims from the design and the collective implementation plan into system specific ones. Participation by a member from the collective implementation planning team ensures coherence and continuity.

In praxis, there are overlaps between the design and implementation phases which mutually in-form each other, involving increasingly detailed planning.

4. Implementation4.1 Method of implementation Implementation occurs according to the implementation plan. Each stakeholder is responsible for implementing its planned strategies.

4.2 Theoretical and methodological considerationsThe desired outcomes of the overarching design cannot be attained unless each stakeholder implements its share of strategy.

Since most of the co-producing stakeholders are relatively independent decision-makers this requires commitment by each stakeholder. Their commitment can be reinforced by:

• Visionary leadership: Leaders within each stakeholder organisation need to uphold the vision of the stakeholder design and its contribution to the overarching design of the containing whole

• Regulation: If the overarching design is systemic, it will incorporate appropriate regulation. Adherence needs to be monitored and sanctioned.

• Public / private sector partnership: The establishment of such a partnership is typical in the context of societal issues in the public domain. Its role is to monitor outcomes, provide strategic support, make strategic changes (if necessary) and motivate stakeholders, amongst other things.

4.3 Change management considerationsThe creation of ideal designs in the public domain (eg public policy designs), their implementation and the continued performance of these systems are the function of public government.

From a systemic perspective, the current nation and majority based representative model of democracy is insufficient to deal with the challenges of global systemic problems and problem-riddled legacy systems, such as education, finance, transport, energy and governance systems.

The current governance model is numbers-based, representative democracy within national boundaries. From the perspective of systems theory this is an entity system governance model. It would need to be complemented by an activity system (or function specific) governance model which involves the stakeholders of the function (ie a stakeholder democracy).

The challenge of such a governance model includes the following:

• activity systems form supply chains that cross national boundaries(eg no nation can by itself manage the dissolving of the finance crisis or pollution and resource depletion of the planet) and

• each stakeholder is equally important to the functioning of the whole, irrespective of size (be it number of persons or amount of any other resource). For example, the stakeholders of a school are the pupils, parents, teachers, school principal, administrators and department of education, amongst others. Each stakeholder has a different function. The success of the education system depends on the fulfilment of each function.

However, not all brainstormed solutions will necessarily be incorporated into the design. Each idea needs to be evaluated within the larger whole of the design. For example, the evaluation of a solution from an economic perspective could reveal that it is economical at the level of the organization, but not at the level of society, or vice versa. Benefits in the short-term may also become uneconomical in the long-term and vice versa. Or a solution would be viable if supported by changes in other systems (eg political or legal changes, or changes in values or consumption patterns).

3.3.3 Design iterationsThe design made by a design team is merely a draft design. Stakeholders need to review it and give their input. This involves a series of design iterations (see also the later section on change management).

In facilitating design iterations, the design team must stay open to new input from stakeholders and be willing to change the draft design accordingly. At the same time they need to ensure that the design remains coherent and systemic and they need to inspire stakeholders accordingly (the re-design of Paris, described in a following section on Systemic Change Management, serves as an inspiration for the design iterations).

The design is accepted as final when sufficient alignment amongst stakeholders is reached and the design is approved by the relevant authority (eg a government department or industry body).

3.4 Implementation planningThe systemic in-formation leader ensures that the design gets operationalised through an implementation plan.

3.5 Method of implementation planning Implementation planning follows a project management approach and its principles.

It determines the strategies and sub-strategies needed for implementing the design and who is responsible for each. It describes the intended outcomes for each (sub) strategy and plots the goalposts along the way under consideration of the sequencing and time-frames associated with each (sub) strategy.

An implementation plan also estimates the resources required for each (sub) strategy and considers their availability.

3.6 Theoretical and methodological considerations

3.6.1 Ideal design versus implementation plan An ideal design is not an implementation plan. The ideal design represents the overarching vision, while the implementation planning grounds it in physical reality.Without an implementation plan the design is merely a day-dream.

Failing to plan the implementation will not only result in a failure of the design but could also make current problems worse. The South African education and health care systems are sad examples of having been seriously damaged through failing to carefully plan the implementation of the Outcomes-Based Education and Primary Health Care designs.

3.6.2 Cascading The principle of cascading in space (from the containing whole to its parts) and time (from the time-less ideal to long and medium-term strategic plan and short-term operational plan) applies. It ensures that strategies are coherent.

3.6.3 FeasibilityDuring implementation planning the feasibility of the design in terms of available resources is assessed. Once the implementation has been thought through in planning, it can be implemented.

3.6.4 IterationIf resources are insufficient for implementing the design, different strategies need to be considered. It is also possible that there is a need for changing the design. Therefore there could be iteration between the design and implementation planning steps.

There could also be iterations between the broad implementation plan of the overarching design that in-forms all stakeholders and their sub-designs and corresponding implementation plans. Thereby the overarching and more specific designs and implementation plans will mutually in-form each other.

Page 71

and integrating them within a larger context would demonstrate the dynamics of the current system and its underlying problem logic on the one hand, and the emergence of a higher-order systemic solutions logic on the other. Instead we have a conglomerate of isolated solutions to isolated (ie separated from a larger context) aspects of larger systemic problems, argued in highly specialized conference papers or working groups (the latter often ‘behind the scenes’). Thereby maintaining the current problem producing logic in both, analysis and reactive and isolated solutions design.

To integrate and clearly present large volumes of information (to make it in-formation) would have been a daunting task in the industrial age (that is why representative decision-making in a majority based democracy model became so important). With the data processing capabilities and the development of the worldwide web of the information age, new ways of problem solving and decision-making present themselves, provided they are coupled to in-forming systemic frameworks.

By applying systemic frameworks and principles to both, problem analysis and solutions design, the systemic in-formation leader can facilitate a higher order sense making. The stream of puzzle pieces can be integrated into a clearly distinguishable picture (ie the kind of pictures that form the basis of visionary leadership).

Besides allowing direct participation of large numbers of stakeholder representatives in on-line applications (like the BiomatrixJam), the systemic design allows zooming out to summarize overviews within the framework categories, as well as zooming in to increasing detail.Thereby contextualizing each idea and making them part of a greater whole.

While the jam organizes complexity, the face to face interaction during the design sessions of the conference synergize the jam data and facilitate the emergence of designs based on a new, problem transcending logic.

We like to believe that the BiomatrixJam and the BiomatrixConferencing are useful contributions to the emergence of a function specific participatory stakeholder governance.

6. ConclusionSystemic in-formation leadership complements visionary leadership. At the same time, it has its own vision.

6.1 Systemic in-formation leadership versus visionary leadershipThere is a difference between the systemic in-formation leader and the visionary leader.

The visionary leader formulates and / or promotes a vision (or dream) about a specific issue on behalf of the collective. For example, Chancellor Merkel promotes the vision of a transformation to renewable energy in Germany. Such a grand vision demonstrates political will on the behalf of the collective. It also requires skills in promoting and communicating it to inspire followers (eg organisations associated with a whole industry, as well as the consuming and taxpaying public) to interpret and act on it.

This vision can however only be achieved if the stakeholders (eg the stakeholders associated with the electricity generation supply chain) change their functioning to bring this about. This requires systemic in-formation leadership. It uses systemic stakeholder planning as a methodology.

In summary, systemic stakeholder planning is a generic systemic methodology that involves stakeholders in:

• fleshing out the vision into an overarching ideal design (eg for the whole electricity supply chain);

• cascading the design into sub-designs relevant to each stakeholder,

• making the relevant implementation plans, and

• monitoring and reinforcing implementation.

The same methodology can guide the design and implementation of any other vision. It is ‘neutral’ in terms of any preferred content of a vision, design or specific solution. It is however not neutral in terms of the change management approach. As a paradigm it has its own ethos, namely; systems thinking. It ensures that designs and implementation plans, as well as the management of the change process are systemic (ie incorporate generic systems principles as outlined by systems theory). Amongst other things, systems thinking promotes coordinated self-governance, the balancing of self-interest with that of the containing whole and the participatory and transparent involvement of all key stakeholders in planning. As previously explained, the methodology in-forms the design with a generic systemic order. By comparison, the visionary leader provides content.

Ideally, the two types of leadership work together and provide mutual support and credibility. A design without a dream is dry, while a dream without a design is merely a day-dream. For example, the German energy transformation vision is still a dream without a coordinating design (or ‘Masterplan’, as some commentators call for). Although this vision receives considerable attention through commentaries by the media and discussion forums (eg the technology dialogues), there

5. Systemic change management approach5.1 MethodologyThe generic change management approach of the systemic in-formation leader is using design and planning as tools for:

• changing the mindsets of stakeholders to become more systemic;

• aligning them around a shared design of the containing whole, and

• committing them to the implementation of their share of strategies to co-produce the desired outcomes inspired by the ideal design.

Dwight D Eisenhower, commander of the Allied Forces in World War II and later president of the US, proclaimed a similar approach through his famous statement: ‘Plans are nothing. Planning is everything.’

The power of stakeholder co-design and planning as a methodology of change management was demonstrated most powerfully in the re-design of Paris which was facilitated by Ozbekhan (1977). It started with an initial ideal design of Paris made by a small design team, who interacted with widening circles of stakeholders to amend and flesh out the design.

5.2 Theoretical and methodological considerationsUnless stakeholders have bought into a shared vision and are committed to bring it about, the desired change will not happen.

Participation in design and planning generates this. The biggest lesson from the re-design of Paris was that it demonstrated the power of a collective creativity that is unleashed by a participatory process. In hindsight, it was the process of engaging stakeholders in a participatory process of interacting with the design, rather than the specific content of the original design, that contributed to its success. This change intervention has inspired the systems thinking community ever since and set a powerful benchmark.

As (parts of) systems participate in the formulation of a shared ideal design, they bring their unique information to bear on it, making it more holistic. Participation also implies interacting with the ideas of the design, becoming familiar with it and owning it (ie the design becomes part of the guiding ethos of each stakeholder).

By participating in implementation planning, the design acts as a force of inspiration for making appropriate changes in the own system AUTHOR PLEASE CLARIFY to help bring about the design. This type of planning entrenches practical application.

As circumstances change and new threats and opportunities arise, strategic changes in some or all stakeholder systems will be required. The overarching design, being ideal and therefore continuously relevant, will ensure that the changes made by different systems in response to their changing environment and inspired by the overarching ideal, will maintain coherence with those made by the other systems. For example, the overarching vision of renewable energy generation will inspire the organizations along the electricity supply chain to choose from various technological options to comply with this vision.

5.3 Change management considerationsThe Paris re-design used a variety of ways of stakeholder participation, ranging from workshops, written submissions and surveys, to discussion in the public media.

In addition to those approaches we also advocate on-line stakeholder participation through the BiomatrixJam and a more systemic approach to running a conference, the Biomatrix Outcomes BasedConferencing (http://www.biomatrixweb.com). Both apply systemic frameworks and organising principles derived from Biomatrix Systems Theory to engage large numbers of participants in systemic problem analysis, brainstorming and ideal design around function specific issues in the public domain in such a way that integrated and synergistic outputs are created.

By comparison, the current conference model lacks coordination, let alone systemic integration. For example, where is the categorised and in overview summarised output of the apparently 6000 papers presented at one of the largest HIV congresses held in Durban, South Africa, several years ago? How can such amount of information be meaningfully presented – in overview - to stakeholders and their members for collective understanding, or as coordinated input to collective decision-making?

Also, most conference papers contain a mixture of both problems and solutions. By separating and then coordinating

Page 73

7. ReferencesAckoff, RL (1974). Redesigning the future.Wiley, New York.

Ackoff, RL (1999). Re-Creating the Corporation: A Design of Organizations for the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, New York.

Ackoff, RL and Rovin, S (2003). Redesigning Society. Stanford Business Books, Stanford.

Banathy, BH (1994). Designing social systems in a changing world: A graduate level text in systems design.25781 Morse Drive, Carmel, CA: Bela H Banathy (field test version, June 1994).

Bohm, D (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Capra, F (1982). The turning point: Science, society, and the rising culture. Wildwood House, London.

Capra, F (1996).The web of life.A new scientific understanding of living systems. Anchor Books, New York.

Checkland, P (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Churchman, WC (1976).Wicked problems. Management Science Vol 14 (4).

Cross, N (1984). Development in design methodology.John Whiley, New York.

Dostal, E in collaboration with Cloete, A and Járos, G (2005). Biomatrix. A Systems Approach to Organisational and Societal Change. BiomatrixWeb, Cape Town, South Africa.

Dostal, E in collaboration with Cloete, A and Járos, G (2012). Biomatrix. A Theory in Graphics. BiomatrixWeb, Cape Town, South Africa.

Flood, RL and Jackson, MC (1991). Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention. John Wiley, Chichester.

Forrester, JW (1969). Principles of systems. Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge Mass.

Gharajedaghi, J (1985). Towards a systems theory of organisation. Intersystems, California.

Gharajedaghi, J (1986). Prologue to national development planning. Greenwood Press, New York.

Gharajedaghi, J (2006). Systems Thinking. Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Gomez, P and Probst, JB (1987). Vernetztes Denken im Management. Die Orientierung. No 89. Schweizerische Volksbank, Bern.

http://www.wikipedia.net

http://www.biomatrixtheory.com

http://www.biomatrixweb.com

Laszlo, E (2007). Science and the Akashik Field:

An integrated theory of everything. Inner Traditions, Rochester, VT.

Meadows, DH et al. (1974). The limits to growth. Universe Books (2nd. Edition), New York.

Meadows, DH et al. (2004). Limits to growth: the 30 year update. Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, Vermont. Earthscan Publications Ltd, Beyond the limits. London.

Nadler, G (1981). The planning and design approach.John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Ozbekhan, H (1977). The future of Paris: A systems study in strategic urban planning. The Wharton School of the University of Pensylvania, Philadelphia.

Roberts, N, Anderson, D, Deal, R, Garet, M and Shaffer, W (1983). An introduction to computer simulation: A systems dynamics approach. Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Senge, PM (1990). The fifth discipline.The art and practice of the learning organisation. Doubleday, New York.

Senge, PM et al. (1999). The dance of change. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.

Warfield, J (1990). A science of general design. Intersystems Publishers, Salinas, CA.

Yaneer Bar-Yam (2005). Making Things Work: Solving Complex Problems in a Complex World. Knowledge Press, Cambridge, MA.

seems to be no coordinating overarching planning process in place. Judging by the current coordination problems within the industry itself and between different governing bodies, this vision will be unattainable, unless a coordinating process is introduced. It is also interesting to note that technological solutions exist, but political, economic and organizational interests hinder their coordinated implementation.

There are occassions when a dream does not need to go hand in hand with a design or plan. These are visions that represent not a re-design of systems in physical reality per se, but are concerned with a specific aspect of collective ethos (ie conceptual reality of a system). They are visions associated with change values and attitudes, which in their own in-forming ways will change physical reality in many unpredictable ways that do not need to or cannot be planned. Typical examples are Martin Luther King’s dream of racial harmony; or Nelson Mandela’s visions of the rainbow nation, forgiveness and reconciliation; or the ecumenical movement of various religions.

Such cultural visions are aimed to change the collective fabric of society through changes in worldview and attitude. They can be part of the energy supply industry or transformation of the education or health-care system of a nation or the global finance system but in themselves would be insufficient to transform them. For example, to make the Energiewende happen, the Germany nation and its various organisations and institutions need to ‘have a dream’ about sustainability and renewable resource use. At the same time, the energy industry needs to embark on a focussed and coordinating energy stakeholder planning process.

6.2 The vision of systemic in-formation leadershipSystemic in-formation leadership is essentially facilitative. So why do we elevate systemic facilitation to a leadership role?

One reason is that its dream is to change the fabric of society through a change in worldview to systems thinking which has its own inherent ethos of the unity, connectivity and at the same time diversity of all life, which is ordered through the mutual contributions of all systems (ie a balanced exchange that benefits all systems).

Unfortunately, resistance to this worldview is deeply entrenched in all spheres of society. In the economy, there is a paradigm of maximising self-interest instead of balancing mutual benefits, one-dimensional growth instead of multi-dimensional development and short-term benefits at the expense of long-term sustainable ones. Scientific structures perpetuate the separation of disciplines and a philosophy of science grounded in analysis and predictability through ceteris paribus of a mechanistic paradigm, instead of embracing the concept of emergence and a trans-disciplinary debate and its entrenchment in systemic curricula design for education. Societal governance involves numbers based representative decision-making which is so collective (ie of an anonymous majority) that it is essentially non-transparent, instead of function-based decision-making that is participatory and has function related accountability and transparency. And the ultimate challenge is that these systems mutually reinforce each other. They ‘conspire’ and re-enforce each other.

Breaking through this in its collective whole, or even in its parts, indeed requires systemic in-formation leadership of both an explicit and implicit kind.

The explicit systemic information leadership includes inspiring stakeholders to review the current assumptions on which their scientific discipline, organisation or function are based, including that of the body of knowledge related to systems thinking. This largely involves personal leadership of the visionary kind.

The implicit systemic in-formation leadership is located in the structures of a system, as for example, the design of a change intervention, education curriculum, action learning programme, function, industry, organisation or institution, so that the behaviour and outcomes of the systems concerned are automatically systemic. This type of leadership can be impersonal. The structure in-forms the activity, analogous to the structure of the riverbed which channels the flow of the water.

Ultimately, systems thinking is a worldview that shapes all systems and their behaviour. It represents a new set of values, inherent aims and guiding principles that in-form the ethos, aims, structure, behaviour and governance of all systems, including the way they use resources and interact with other systems.

Page 75

PAPER 5

Leadership and the Invisible virtue: hope in challenging contextsProfessor M. E. Smurthwaite

AbstractOn 11 May 2000, the Economist ran a headline Hopeless Africa, claiming that while ‘brutality, despotism and corruption exist everywhere’, ‘African societies, for reasons buried in their cultures, seem especially susceptible to them’. It added that, while Africa is plagued by disease, warfare, poverty and natural disasters like floods and famines, ‘most of the continent’s shortcomings owe less to acts of God than to acts of man’. In the same edition, an equally pessimistic article, entitled The heart of the matter and partly subtitled, Africa’s biggest problems stem from its present leaders…, claimed that ‘The new millennium has brought more disaster than hope to Africa. Worse, the few candles of hope are flickering away’. Despite such ‘hopelessness’, the article suggested Africa could change.

Ten years later, on 3 December 2011, the Economist declared that labelling Africa ‘the hopeless continent’ was ‘regrettable’ and that African economies were now ‘hopeful’, given better growth, productivity, trade etc. However, the Africa Progress Panel report (2011), cautioned against both unwarranted pessimism and ‘the current wave of blinkered optimism’ (cited in the Mail and Guardian online. Downloaded 22 May 2012).

It is against this background and in the context of the global economy that this paper reflects on the relevance and importance of the virtue of hope for leadership and of fostering an ethos of hope in current business organisations. Hope is largely unmentioned in the leadership literature, with greater attention given to many other virtues, leadership traits and activities. Hope is also not universally praised by philosophers, nor always prioritised in all world religions. The story of Pandora’s Box well reflects the less positive view of hope as being deceitful and evil. Yet, Ernst Bloch, in The Hope Principle (Das Prinzup Hoffnung (1938-1949)cited in J Moltmann (1975) The Experiment Hope p. 30 ff),

argues that hope is vital and integral to human life, the ‘key to human existence’, while Jürgen Moltmann in The Experiment Hope (1975, p.21) sees human beings as creatures of hope , unable to live without hope which ‘…is the breath of life’.

This paper seeks therefore to understand what I would call the ‘anatomy’ of hope and to explore its meaning and significance for business leadership in contemporary times. It will also argue that ethical business leaders have a responsibility to foster an ethos of hope, particularly given the global and national contexts of today. As Napoleon Bonaparte said ‘A leader is a dealer in hope’. However, it is unlikely that business leaders would be in a position to foster an ethos of hope without a greater awareness and understanding of hope, its significance as a key virtue in living a flourishing life and its importance in the context of leadership.

KEYWORDS: hope, leadership, assumptions about hope, studies on hope, anatomy of hope, hope in an African leadership context.

It is not unusual for most of us to assume we know the meaning of such terms as ethics, values, virtues, good and evil. We take for granted that we understand the meaning of concepts like faith, hope, love, integrity, wisdom and so on. In general, this suffices, because we are seldom asked to ‘unpack’ our understanding of such concepts. However, this taken-for-granted understanding does not always serve us well when, and if, we are required to articulate our exact understanding of one of these terms. In the case of hope and leadership, we have an added difficulty: the leadership literature does not really mention ‘hope’ and the silence suggests that either hope is irrelevant to leadership or it is assumed or taken-for-granted and so never mentioned. This is why, in considering hope in the context of leadership, our first step is to try to understand what we mean by hope.

This may be easier said than done, because, like the leadership literature, philosophy has also not given undue attention to hope over the centuries and has apparently left such considerations to the theologians and various other parties. As Lynch (1965, p.21) observed: ‘We human beings, who need hope more than anything else in life, have written little about it.’ Bloch, who was not a theologian but a Marxist atheist, wrote The Principle of Hope (1956) and noted that hope was not much studied prior to his work1. Schumaker (2003, p. 2) argued that hope was not a ‘dominant theme’ in philosophy and was given only passing treatment by most philosophers whether in the past or present. Philosophers like Descartes, Hobbes and Locke said little about hope, although Hume, Mill and Kierkegaard gave it some attention. Kant believed it to be one of the four key questions which philosophers should examine.

Schumaker found this lack of attention to hope surprising, given that the contemporary context seemed to speak of the need for hope (2003, p. 2). He considered hope to be philosophically important because ‘it constitutes a fundamental and central mode of human existence; it is the principle driving force of the historical-temporal being in via. A human being without hope is like a walking corpse...’ (Shumaker, 2003, p. 2). He therefore argued that hope should not merely be relegated to the disciplines of sociology, psychology and theology. At the same time he does point out, despite the tendency of many philosophers to ignore or marginalise hope, that there were various analyses of hope from perspectives which included ethics, anthropology, phenomenology, politics, and metaphysics in the 20th century (Schumaker, 2003, p. 3). These studies had a variety of foci such as hope as not-yet-being; hope as a passion; hope as different from ‘desire’ or ‘expectation’ and included nine German studies, four French, one Spanish and seven from the English speaking world.

So what can we learn about hope from those who have considered or studied it carefully?

One of the first things we would learn is that there was general agreement from the mid-20th century onwards, in that there was both a lack of and a need for hope in our society. Jacques Ellul (1972, p. 89), in his work Hope in Time of Abandonment, notes the necessity of ‘awakening people to hope’ in a time when people have no hope and hope is absent. Schumaker (2003, p. 1) refers to the ‘severe’ testing of hope as we entered the 21st century, to ‘pessimism’and to ‘a growing uncertainty about the future of human progress and the dignity of the human person.’ Bauckham and Hart (1999, p. 9) mention the ‘decline of secular hope’ in the wake of the ‘demise’ of the ‘myth of progress.’ This so-called ‘progress’ and effort to ‘control’ our future, spawned atrocities like wars, genocides, terrorism, torture and so on (Bauckham & Hart, 1999, p. 15). The outcome of all our so-called ‘progress’, economic growth, and technological development, has not been human equality and, in fact, the sources of ‘secular hope’ have all but dried up (Bauckham & Hart, 1999, p. 18). If those in the post-modern era are to remain hopeful, there is a need for humans to once again believe in God who is the source of hope in or for the future SHOULD THIS BE IN QUOTATION MARKS?(Bauckham & Hart, 1999). Jaques Ellul (1972) also believed hope to be centred in belief and relationship to God and it was Bloch, who observed that ‘Where there is hope, there is religion’ although the existence of religion, does not always mean there is hope (cited in Moltmann, 1975, p. 15). This latter remark seems to point to the ‘ambivalent relationship’ between various religions and hope (Moltmann, 1975, p. 15).

Secondly, we might learn that there are some challenges to our taken-for-granted notions of hope as a virtue and as being something good. The first such challenge lies in the fact that hope has not always been understood to be a good thing, despite what we may have assumed. This is well demonstrated in Greek mythology by the tale of Pandora, who opened Prometheus’ box and;

‘…out of the box came everything evil which from that time on has plagued mankind: sickness, insanity, vices, and, the worst of all, hope. For deceitful hope which Prometheus had also locked up in the box restrained men plagued by these evils from putting an end to their suffering through freely willed death’ (Moltmann, 1975, p16) (italics mine).

We are probably not often confronted by the idea of hope as ‘deceitful’, although we may be familiar with the idea that not all hopes are necessarily virtuous. However, the notion of hope as fundamentally ‘evil’ along with illness, madness and ‘vices’ is not one which we are easily able to accept.

Another such negative sentiment on hope emerges from those who criticise the Christian notion of hope as distracting attention from real issues and their solutions (eg the Marxist view of Christianity). Such views portray Christian hope as escapist, focused only on the ‘other world’ with little engagement or relevance to the present. As Moltmann notes,

‘For a long time hope has been counted among the affects and moods of humans and described only in psychological terms. Therefore its exchange rate has quite often fluctuated with the times. Spinoza thought that hope was always bound up with fear and that fear and hope betray the weakness of our souls. For many others hope was an opium for people who would like to escape reality and hence the most infantile form of the illusion principle’ (1975, p. 20) (italics mine).

Professor Smurthwaite holds The Bishop Fürst Chair of Applied Ethics in Catholic Social Teaching, is a Senior Research Fellow in the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Johannesburg, and is Head of the Department of Applied Ethics at St Augustine College of South Africa. She teaches Business Ethics

Page 77

While for most of us hope would not fall into the category of undesirable evil, deception or illusion, it does seem that hope has not only been neglected in certain disciplines and literature, but has also not enjoyed what we might refer to as a ‘wholly good press’. As Lynch (1965, p. 22) observes, ‘Hope has, apparently, a bad reputation; few people want to have anything consciously to do with it, much less write about it.’ In addition, given our contemporary context, we may well tend to agree with those who question the grounds for hope in the 21st century.

Given these reservations about hope, perhaps we need to consider if at least some of those who have undertaken a serious study of hope might confirm, even partially, some of our taken-for-granted notions that hope is a good thing, that we do have reasons for hope and that cultivating hope in a leadership context is both possible and our responsibility.

Such a consideration will reveal that, while there is not necessarily agreement on whether hope is actually a virtue as assumed by Christianity (Häring, 1972; Gula, 1989; Peschke, 2004), or whether it is better referred to as an affection (Bloch, 1956), emotion (Bloch, 1956), an attitude (Macquarrie, 1978) or a passion (Aquinas), it in fact seems, that humans have hope embedded in their DNA so to speak. This is borne out by the theologian Moltmann, in his work The Experiment Hope(1975), where he stated that the human being is a ‘creature of hope’ and, in fact, cannot live without hope for ‘It is the breath of life’ (p. 21). This idea of hope as integral and vital to our existence is mentioned or echoed by many others including:

• Bloch (1956, cited in Guiterrez 1988, p. 123) who pointed out that only humans can hope and believed hope to be the most ‘human’ of our emotions, looking to the better, the broader.

• Lynch (1965, p. 31) who said ‘Hope comes close to being the very heart and center of a human being’ (italics in original).

• Guiterrez who argued that hope is an emotion that ‘...emerges as the key to human existence oriented towards the future, because it transforms the present’ (1988, p. 123).

• Peschke who calls it ‘a vital condition for human life’ and notes that ‘without hope a person cannot exist’ (2004, p. 69).

• Maguire (2012, p. 57) who argues that the two necessities for a flourishing human life are respect and hope. He calls hope ‘the motor of the will’ without which we become paralysed and broken.

It does seem then that there is agreement that hope is essential to human beings and to human life. Given this, we might ask whether there is a similar degree of agreement as to what we may understand of the nature of hope. In this respect, it seems to me that we must consider two aspects: what hope is and what it does. These two aspects are not easily separable and are often treated together in works about hope. What follows is an attempt to consider the insights provided by a very small selection of work on hope mainly from the 20th century, with the exception of Aquinas, who is mentioned because of his great influence not only on Christian theology and philosophy but also on Pieper whose work on hope is very significant.

Let us begin with a very cursory reference to Aquinas (1225-1274), the well-known thirteenth century medieval theologian and philosopher, who has influenced Pieper’s work on hope and who considered hope to be a passion (a drive beginning in the body,) emerging from the ‘irascible appetite’. Hope’s object is some type of significant and future good rather than a present or trivial good. In addition, hope is directed at ‘something arduous and difficult to obtain’ (cited in Volf & Katerberg, 2004, p. 78). For Aquinas, hope is one of the three theological virtues whose ‘object’ is ‘God himself’. That hope is one of the key virtues in Christianity is well known to most people, Christian or not. But whether or not most people could articulate what the virtue means or how it applies to life is doubtful. What Aquinas teaches us is that hope comes from our human nature, is directed to a future and difficult to obtain good, and is ultimately transcendent: directed to God.

Bloch, by contrast, was not a Christian, but a Marxist atheist (1956 cited in Gutíerrez, 1988, p. 123). In his work on hope he suggests there are two types of affections: society’s, which are, for example, envy and avarice, and affections of ‘expectation’ namely hope (along with fear and anguish). While the ‘expectations’ all ‘anticipate the future’, hope is the most vital, the most ‘positive’ and the most ‘liberating’. The reason for this is that hope looks to what Bloch calls the ‘broadest and most luminous horizon’. Hope is ‘not yet’ but moves to become conscious and moves us to action. ‘Hope thus emerges as the key to human existence oriented towards the future, because it transforms the present’ (1988, p. 123). Thus Bloch’s understanding of the nature of hope incorporates both what it is and what it does. He therefore focuses not only on the future-orientation of hope and its importance for human existence, but also on its motivating force, ie on what it does to motivate us to action.

Josef Pieper, a German Catholic philosopher and sociologist, did considerable work on hope beginning in the 1950s, in the wake of such traumatic and disturbing events as Hiroshima and Auschwitz. He was influenced by Thomas Aquinas, Heidegger and Marcel’s and Bloch’s writings on hope (1944 and 1956 respectively), and tried to develop a philosophy of hope based on the idea that humans are inclined and open to a ‘future of possibilities’. He conceived of human hope as going from not-yet-being (minimal being) to being-fulfilled and distinguished between ‘ordinary hope’ (those daily and often recurring hopes about all sorts of small things) and ‘fundamental hope’. The latter is a deeper hope, possible despite hopes being previously disappointed. Such hope ‘sustains the person trapped in a limit-situation’ by which Pieper means something like being on death row or having a terminal illness (Schumaker, 2003, p. 102). Such an understanding of the distinctions between these two types of hope is found also in other writers like Bloch and would be important to bear in

mind in the context of leadership, given that both ‘ordinary’ and ‘fundamental’ hope are integral to human life and therefore would be part of the corporation as community. I will return to this later.

For Pieper, human hope has six characteristics which can be ‘determined’ ‘on the basis of ordinary language’ rather than on the basis of ‘jargon or artificial terminology’ (Schumaker, 2003, p. 64). While it is not possible in a paper like this to examine each of these in detail, it is worth noting them in brief as they too have relevance to our responsibility as leaders to foster hope. For Pieper, hope

• is accompanied by at least some certainty and assurance that what is hoped for is possible;

• the object for which we hope is ‘a good’, ie it must at least have something good to it for the hoper,

• this hoped for object must also not be easy to get,

• and cannot be something which would happen in any case (eg hoping day will come),

• it is not within the control of the one who is hoping, and

• finally, hope is characterised by an ‘attitude of expectant waiting’ (Schumaker, 2003, p. 65-66).

However, hope is not the same as optimism and both Pieper and Marcel argued this. Optimism, unlike hope, does not ‘penetrate to the existential and metaphysical depths of the person but remains on the surface’ (Schumaker, 2003, p. 84). It is characterised by a vague notion that everything will turn out for the best whether or not this is a reasonable thing to think. Optimism may be seen as a far more superficial or perhaps, even glib, notion than hope. Hope on the other hand emerges from hard situations or circumstances and contains at least some element of uncertainty, risk and fear (Edmaier, cited in Schumaker, 2003, p. 85). Pieper’s work on hope enables us to understand hope as integral to human life, as oriented to something good for the person, as open to the possibility of what lies ahead and as offering us only limited certainty about what will be. As Schumaker points out; ‘Human hope is intrinsically linked to the itinerant condition of human existence, which thus always implies uncertainty’ (2003, p. 6).

Lynch (1965, p. 32), a Jesuit, also writes that hope is ‘a sense of the possible’; which means that despite the fact that what we hope for may be difficult to attain, it is possible. By contrast, hopelessness is characterised by ‘the sense of the impossible’, by feelings of futility and by a sense that things are ‘too much’ for the person (Lynch, 1965, p. 48). This contrast gives us food for thought; leaders, in particular, would need to avoid creating an ethos permeated with elements of hopelessness, given our contemporary social, political and economic context. In a world where ethics often seems to be sidelined or ignored, where corruption, fraud and deception have become commonplace in both business and political contexts and where we are confronted with dire human suffering, much of which is the product of our current political and economic structures and practices, we are greatly in need of leaders who, despite the risks, uncertainties and difficulties can foster hope in the ‘sense of the possible’.

Macquarrie (1978, p. 4), a Christian theologian, says hope is an attitude, a ‘disposition of the whole person’, the opposite of which is fear. As in the case of Aquinas, he points to aspects of transcendence in hope as well as its importance for human freedom.

‘Hope implies that there is, so to speak, an empty space before us that affords us room for action.....Where everything is foreclosed, there is no hope. Thus hope is inseparable from human freedom and human transcendence’ (Macquarrie, 1978, p. 8).

Therefore, where oppression reigns and freedom is denied, the human person is ‘destroyed’ because he has no freedom and so no hope (Macquarrie, 1978, p. 9).

Gula (1989, p. 177), also writing from a Christian perspective, contends that , ‘hope is not a passive virtue’ but one based on God’s love and Christ’s resurrection, and enables us to live believing that those things which destroy ‘human well-being and fellowship can be restrained so that the possibilities for new achievements can be realised’. Hope enables us to trust that the future holds good and ‘... is the source of our energy to respond creatively to new possibilities for recreating society’ (Gula, 1989, p. 177). We hear echoes of transcendence here as well as of hope’s moving us to action and even social reform. A similar orientation is to be found in Gutíerrez (1988), a well-known liberation theologian, who believes that while hope cannot give us knowledge of the future, its meaning is to be found in being ‘open’ to that future, and in accepting the ‘gift’ of that future. However, Gutíerrez believes the way we accept this gift is by being rooted in our present and by working for justice, human rights and peace. Therefore hope is not passive, but ‘fulfils a mobilising and liberating function in history’ (Gutíerrez, 1988, p. 125).

Finally, a helpful addition to our consideration of what hope is and what it does, is provided by Smith’s phenomenological perspective on hope (2004, p. 200). Smith notes the ‘hopelessness’ of late modernity and the ‘apparent consensus’ regarding ‘postmodern hopelessness’, and then critiques two post-modern versions of hope, namely Derrida’s and Rorty’s, prior to presenting his own phenomenological account of hope. Both Derrida and Rorty are critical of Christian hope2. Smith’s view is that Rorty demonstrates a ‘pragmatist’ hope for the achievement of social justice while criticising Christian hope for focussing too much on the life hereafter. Derrida’s stance reflects a Marxist and utopian hope for justice, while criticising Christian hope ‘for its political violence’ (Smith, 2004, p. 204). Smith maintains that while these two seem to show that hopelessness is not the only avenue for post-modernity, Rorty’s argument lacks substantive grounds for hope and

Page 79

Derrida’s fails to point out the object or content of hope and so ‘lacks determination’. I will not debate the merits of Smith’s critique here, but mention it in passing to contextualise Smith’s phenomenological account of hope.

Smith believes that irrespective of content, ‘a phenomenological description of hope would distinguish five key structural elements of any hope...’ (2004, p. 207). These are:

• the ‘hoper’ (the subject who does the hoping);

• the object which is hoped for which points to a sense of expectation of what is good in the future,

• the act of hope which is a conscious hoping (and is not to be equated with hopeful actions like helping the poor),

• the ground of hope which can be within or outside the person who hopes and is the basis for differentiating between a hope and wishful thinking/illusions, and

• fulfilment, which he sees as an ‘integral part of hope’ (Smith, 2004, p. 209).

Smith argues that in the case of Christian hope both the object hoped for and the ground for that hope are the same: ie God. On the basis of this object-ground ‘grid’, Smith argues that the difference between Christian hope and that of hope in modernity and post-modernity lies not in what is hoped for, but rather in the fact that the ‘object hoped for lacks any transcendence’ (2004, p. 211). In other words, the ‘locus’ of hope in the modern and post-modern era shifts from the transcendent to a notion of hope to be fulfilled in this world. Given that the ground for hope is not transcendent, ‘...the confidence of modern expectation does not derive from anything like the providence or faithfulness of God but rather from the self-sufficiency of humans to realise their own hopes’ (Smith, 2004, p. 212). This ‘confidence’ may be based on various foundations: rationality (Kant); dialectical materialism (Marx), the power of technology and the market (perhaps Fukuyama), but the ground is ‘always immanent to humanity and history’ (Smith, 2004, p. 212). The difficulty with basing hope on a non-transcendent foundation is that hope is lost when ‘these foundations’ give way. This is a significant insight and points to the fact that hope rooted only in the human person and so-called human self-sufficiency, is limited rather than limitless and lacking a transcendent ground or object is, in the end, not sustainable.

Having considered the above perspectives on the nature of hope, let us try now to summarise something of what hope is as well as what it does because to foster an ethos of hope would seem to require that we understand both.

Let us begin with what hope is. While there are some notions of hope as evil or deceptive, there is general agreement that hope is essential to human existence and flourishing. Without hope we cannot act and can, in fact, die. Hope is future-oriented towards what we may call an object of hope. The latter holds promise of the good, is difficult, yet possible, to attain and is not within the control of the one who hopes. Hope looks to the better, the broader and is linked to trust that the better is possible. Hope may be divided into those hopes which are ‘ordinary’ and focus on all sorts of small things which are characteristic of everyday life and ‘fundamental’ hope which arises in difficult situations and, in fact, can sustain those caught in these limiting, even life-threatening situations. Hope is not to be confused with optimism which is a more general and more superficial notion. While hope is characterised by waiting expectantly, hopelessness, by contrast, is characterised by the ‘foreclosure’ of possibilities, by a sense of futility, impossibility and of things being overwhelming. Hope is destroyed by oppression and denial of human freedom. The ground and object of Christian hope is transcendent: God. Secular hope has neither a transcendent ground nor object. Instead the ground is centred in human self-sufficiency, the object varies depending on the prevailing socio-political-economic orientation, but is confined to ‘this world’. Structural elements of hope would include the hoper, the object hoped for, the act of hope, the ground for hope and fulfilment.

Having attempted to summarise what hope is and understanding its considerable significance for human life, let us also try to summarise what hope ‘does’, bearing in mind that as leaders, our responsibility to foster an ethos of hope must be grounded in an understanding of both what we are fostering and why it is important to do so.

Hope is transformative, liberating and energising rather than passive. It transforms the present, unleashes human creativity and impels us to action including action leading to social and other change. It involves the whole human person and has been described as ‘faith and love on pilgrimage’, an ‘internal dynamism’ and an ‘energy’ which encourages us to believe and love even when faced with despair (Dwyer, 1994, p. 453). As Peschke (2004, p. 81-2) observes, hope enables humans to undertake and persevere in those things they aim for and must do even in difficult times. It is hope which provides the strength for suffering and it is hope which provides the impetus for change, for transformation, for reforming society so as to ‘create better conditions of life for humans’ (Peschke, 2004, p. 85). Hope is generative, it sees possibility and enables us to create our future rather than waiting for it to come upon us and then reacting to it (Jaworski, 1996, p. 182). Such creativity, change and reform are sorely needed in our globalised world today, which is characterised by problems and difficulties in the social, economic and political arenas that have been endlessly noted. We hear often that our world is characterised by grave economic injustices, by poverty, inequality, exploitation, violence, corruption, financial instability and environmental degradation. Hope is a powerful antidote to an exclusively gloomy outlook and allows us to look to that broader and possible horizon of a better world. Most importantly, it can and does motivate us to action to achieve this. This is indeed the responsibility of leadership.

If indeed hope is integral, vital and transforming in human life, we might ask where it is to be found and nurtured? The answer is simple: in relationship. As Lynch (1965, p. 24) argues; ‘Hope cannot be achieved alone. It must in some way or other be an act of community, whether the community be a church or a nation or just two people struggling together to

produce liberation in each other’. Häring (1972,p.30) argues in a similar vein; Christian hope is ‘dialogical’, and centred in relationships. It is this concept of relationship which provides a link between hope, leadership and the business corporation understood as a community of persons. This connection emerges if we argue that leadership is also centred in and on relationship. Ciulla (2004, p. 302) has observed that leadership ‘is a particular type of human relationship’ characterised by such elements as power, influence, vision, obligation and responsibility.

Leaders are in relationship to their followers and have the power to foster or destroy an ethos of hope whether by what they say or by what they do or by the decisions they make or do not make. And it is regrettable that in our times and context the sayings and doings of too many business and political leaders are unethical or, as Ciulla (1995, p. 5) observes, ‘morally disappointing’. We have had many instances globally and in Africa of this moral disappointment in our times; a disappointment which perhaps could be seen to steadily erode our hope that leaders can lead with integrity, wisdom and service and together with us create a better world whether in the business, political or social sector.

It is both sad and significant that on 11 May 2000, the Economist ran a headline Hopeless Africa, claiming that while ‘brutality, despotism and corruption exist everywhere’, ‘African societies, for reasons buried in their cultures, seem especially susceptible to them’. It added that, while Africa is plagued by disease, warfare, poverty and natural disasters like floods and famines, ‘most of the continent’s shortcomings owe less to acts of God than to acts of man’. In the same edition, an equally pessimistic article, entitled The heart of the matter and partly subtitled Africa’s biggest problems stem from its present leaders…, claimed that ‘The new millennium has brought more disaster than hope to Africa. Worse, the few candles of hope are flickering weakly’. The article presented an unflattering and bleak analysis of African leaders as products of their society which is characterised by poverty, dependence, and a lack of confidence. Such leaders ‘personalised’ power, ‘undermined’ state institutions, failed to distinguish between the party and the government, had a desire for power and control, mismanaged financial and other resources and needed to show that they understood the ‘common man’ AUTHOR PLEASE CLARIFY even while themselves being richer and more powerful benefactors. Despite such ‘hopelessness’, the article suggested Africa could change3. However, that change would only be possible if African people regained their self-confidence.

Ten years later, on 3 December 2011, the Economist declared that labelling Africa ‘the hopeless continent’ was ‘regrettable’ and that African economies were now ‘hopeful’, given better growth, productivity, trade etc. However, the Africa Progress Panel report (2011), cautioned against both unwarranted pessimism and ‘the current wave of blinkered optimism.’4 Good governance and resource management were still required, corruption needed to be countered and African leaders were called to ‘convert their new-found economic growth to opportunities and deliverables for their people.’5

To ensure that all those living in Africa can live lives of human dignity and that growth benefits all persons, not just the elite, leaders must meet the challenges posed by such critiques. One way of doing this is for leaders to take responsibility for fostering an ethos of hope.

What does this mean and how can this be done?

Firstly what this means, is to try to apply an understanding of what I have called the ‘anatomy’ of hope in our leadership contexts. This means understanding the differences between hope, optimism and wishful thinking as well as those between ordinary hope and fundamental hope. But perhaps more important than this, is to understand that for human hope to be sustainable, the ground and object of hope must be transcendent. This means having the humility to acknowledge that humans are themselves not able to provide such hope; our history shows this as does the work done on hope. Mere immanent hope lacks the foundation of transcendent hope. Perhaps that is why the atheist Bloch acknowledged that the presence of hope indicated that there was an accompanying presence of religion.

Leaders must also try to bear in mind that hope looks to what is possible despite difficulties and that this future perspective of what might be, also transforms the present. The leader’s responsibility lies in discerning that present and providing the vision for what can be in the future, which will be good for those who look forward in hope. It is a leadership task to point the way, to engage with and facilitate the development of followers and to take the necessary risks to move towards that future. Our context calls for Pieper’s ‘fundamental’ hope to counter our fears and mobilise us to take the necessary risks and action even in the face of our current difficulties and crises whether in social, economic or political life.

Perhaps, fostering an ethos of hope also means that what we, in Africa and elsewhere, need is leadership for the common good, which ensures that resources are used for the benefit of all, not merely for elite groups. Business leaders could attempt such leadership in their own companies and in relation to their stakeholders. Such an attempt to create hope through a focus on all persons both participating in and benefiting from the common good, would at the very least counter self-aggrandising behaviour and serve as a role model to the wider community with whom business inevitably has a relationship. This would also serve to counter the erosion of trust in business which has been the inevitable outcome of the many examples of unethical corporate behaviour in recent years. Perhaps then, we would not have such television reports as one recent BBC newscast which asked whether fraud in business was now considered normal (May 2013). Such continued negative publicity for business does little to counter the moral disappointment in contemporary leadership of which Ciulla speaks (1995, p. 5).

Perhaps it is worth noting, by way of conclusion, that a model of leadership which seems to resonate with the understanding of hope attempted in this paper,is that of Greenleaf’s servant leadership. Here the leader is not the ‘big man’ leader criticised by the Economist as typical in the African context, but rather ‘servant’ and ‘healer’, whose priority is to facilitate

Page 81

the growth of persons in wisdom, respect, health and freedom. Such a leader has a broad span vision, is able to show the way to others and to inspire trust, leads by example and possesses the key qualities of intuition and foresight. Foresight begins with an understanding of the present, refers to the past and has the capacity to project to the future. A failure in foresight is, according to Greenleaf, an ethical failure (Greenleaf, 1977, p.26). Such leadership builds community, is holistic in approach and respects as well as empowers the person. Perhaps the adoption of such a people-centred approach to leadership may help to develop that self-confidence which the Economist noted was missing in Africa’s people. Jonathon Sacks (2000, p.256) observed that self-confident individuals and societies are more generous than others, but ‘they are more likely to be self-confident, when they have a strong moral code, an ethic of self-reliance and a clear sense of their own identity’.

Contemporary business leaders would do well to heed the call to ethics and morality and by so doing, attempt to foster an ethos of hope that the good rather than the corrupt may be evidenced in our business environment and in other contexts as well. Leadership in business contexts is not only about ensuring that profit is made; the corporation or company or business enterprise is a community of persons who have more than mere economic needs. One of the essentials for such a community to function well is to have hope; without hope, the human person and human institutions are not sustainable.

1. (Endnotes)1. His position was based “in a dialectical materialism….and in an interpretation of the left-wing Aristotelianism …”

(Schumaker 2003, p.43).

2. The works cited by Smith (2004, 202-203) are Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. Penguin, New York; and Derrida, J (1994) Spectres of Marx.Trans. Peggy Kamuf, Routledge, New York.

3. http://www.economist.com/node/333437. Downloaded 22 May 2012.

4. cited in Mail and Guardian online (Downloaded 22 May 2012).

5. http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-11-no-longer-the-hopeless-continent . Downloaded 22 May 2012.

2. References

Aristotle (1998). Nicomachean ethics.Dover Publications, New York.

Bauckham, R and Hart, T (1999).Hope against hope. Christian eschatology at the turn of the millennium. Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd., London.

Boros, L (1969). Living in hope. Search Press Ltd., London.

Boyett, J and Boyett, J (1998).The guru guide. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Byron, WJ (2006). The power of principles.Ethics for the new corporate culture. Orbis Books, New York.

Ciulla, JB (1995). Leadership ethics: mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly 5(1), 5-28.

Ciulla, JB (2004). Ethics and Leadership Effectiveness. In J Antonakis, A T Ciancolo and R J Sternberg, (eds.), The nature of leadership, (pp. 302-327). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Available online: http://strandtheory.org/images/Ciulla_-_Ethics_and_Leadership_Effectiveness.pdf

Dulles, A (1994). The assurance of things hoped for. A theology of Christian faith. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dwyer, JA (ed.) (1994). The new dictionary of Catholic social thought. The Liturgical Press, Minnesota.

Ellul, J (1972). Hope in time of abandonment. The Seabury Press, New York.

Gutiérrez, G (1988). A theology of liberation. Orbis Books, New York.

Greenleaf, RK (1977). Servant leadership. Paulist Press, New York.

Gula, RM (1989). Reason informed by faith. Foundations of Catholic morality. Paulist Press, New York.

Häring, B (1972). Hope is the remedy. Doubleday and Co., New York.

Jaworski, J (1996). The inner path of leadership. Berrett-KoehlerPublishers, San Fransisco.

Lynch, WF (1965). Images of hope. Imagination as healer of the hopeless. University of Notre Dame Press, London.

Maguire, DC (2010). Ethics. A complete method for moral choice. Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Macquarrie, J (1978). Christian hope. Seabury Press, New York.

Moltmann, J (1975). The experiment hope. Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Peschke, KH (2004). Christian ethics Volume 2. Moral theology in the light of Vatican II. Theological Publications in India, Bangalore.

Sacks, J (2000). The politics of hope. Vintage, London.

Mail and Guardian online (11 May 2012). No longer the hopeless continent. http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-11-no-longer--the-hopeless-continent/.Accessed 22 May 2012.

The Economist (11 May 2000). The Heart of the Matter. http://www.economist.com/node/333437.Accessed 22 May 2012.

Schumaker, B (2003). A philosophy of hope: Joseph Pieper and the contemporary debate on hope. Fordham University Press, New York.

Smith, JKA (2004). Determined hope: A phenomenology of Christian expectation. In Volf, M and Katerberg, W (eds.), The future of hope (p. 200-227). William B Eerdemans Publishing Company, Cambridge, UK.

Volf, M And Katerberg, W (eds.) (2004). The future of hope. William B Eerdemans Publishing Company, Cambridge, UK.

Page 83

PAPER 6

Enabling Sustainability through responsible leadership – an Action Research project with SMEsDr Patricia Hind and Dr Arnold Smit

AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to report the results of a study exploring the practices of responsible leadership in small and medium sized enterprises (SME’s). Working with South African SME’s from different sectors, the study sought to identify the key aspects of leadership that enable sustainability. The paper defines responsible leadership as leadership that demonstrates an awareness and consideration of the consequences of actions for all stakeholders, as well as actively influencing those stakeholders to move towards more sustainable practices and processes.

Apart from its specific purpose and focus, the paper forms part of a series of three papers, all generated from the work being done with the same cohort of SMEs over a period of 12 months. The project as a whole was titled Enabling Sustainability through Action Research, or commonly known as EStAR amongst the facilitators and participants. The first paper reported on the validity and efficiency of Action Research as a methodological framework for the development of responsible leadership and sustainable business practices. The second paper focused on how a change in organisational practices can simultaneously support environmental and social sustainability. This third and last paper focuses on responsible leadership and reflects on the changes in the personal journeys of the SME managers involved.

As already mentioned, the project adopted an Action Research approach – an approach to research that is specifically concerned with change and in particular with effective, permanent social change. Narrative analysis was furthermore used to understand how responsible leadership is perceived and defined by the participants in the project.

Based on the work with the participating SMEs the paper reports on how leaders grow in their own awareness, mindfulness and personal accountability and how they perceive, learn to work with and grow with respect to sustainability challenges at three organisational levels, namely;

• macro level, eg; business legitimacy, stakeholder engagement and social capital development;• mid-level, eg; brand identity, organisational culture/climate and performance measures, and• micro level, eg; personal interactions and impact on followers’ behaviours, attitudes, knowledge, motivation and job satisfaction.

Keywords: action research, action learning, sustainability, responsible leadership

1. IntroductionSustainability has become one of the dominant narratives of the 21st century. The most popular definition of sustainability can be traced to a 1987 UN report in which sustainable development is defined as ‘meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs’ (WCED, 1987). Known as the ‘Brundtland’ definition the concern expressed here is twofold. Firstly that humanity utilises more natural resources than the planet can supply in a sustainable way over the long term. Secondly, that, as a result, humanity itself is negatively affected in terms of social inequalities in the present as well as passing enormous social and natural ‘debt’ on to the next generation.

Apart from how sustainability is defined, it is often equated with the conditions in, and interdependence of, three large comprehensive systems; economy, society and environment. There is also a widespread consensus that the whole and the parts are all under stress. The global economy battles to find its way forward in the aftermath of a severe recession; global warming, climate change, resource depletion and ecosystem degradation are stark indicators of severe and intensifying environmental stress; and the fragility of the human sphere is emphasized by a deeply divided and conflict-ridden global society competing for power over, and ownership of, a limited resource base.

These conditions create a challenging and ambiguous environment for business. Enterprises, big and small, are being looked upon as sources of opportunity and entrepreneurship and creators of wealth and economic progress. Simultaneously they often stand under stringent scrutiny for their negative impact in terms of resource depletion, environmental degradation and pollution and its contribution to socio-economic division. Therefore the challenge for business is to continue with creating economic value and advancing human progress in ways that are environmentally sustainable and socially responsible. Sustainable development, from a business perspective, may inevitably imply change, but it should then be change that ‘demonstrates integration of economic, social and environmental goals, draws on economic, social and environmental information and leads to coherent choices’ (D’Amato & Roome, 2009, p. 422).

Against this background Maak and Pless (2009) suggest that business leaders should be agents of world benefit, taking an active co-responsibility in generating solutions to problems. The argument is that we need responsible global leaders who are aware of the pressing problems in the world, care for the needs of others, aspire to make this world a better place, and act in word and deed as global and responsible citizens.

Research has started to form a body of knowledge about these issues, for example, Doppelt (2003) argued that ‘for an organisation to make this kind of transformation to become truly sustainable, power and authority must be skilfully distributed amongst employees and stakeholders through effective information sharing, decision making and resource allocation mechanisms’. This is clearly an issue for the leaders of organisations. Supporting this view, Goehrig (2008) has pointed out the role of leadership in creating a sustainable and realistic business environment. He states that to change the business outcome requires changes to existing business structures and highlights the need for the executives, consultants and management leaders to understand and implement new strategies.

There is considerable evidence that the leadership role is critical in the implementation of any sustainability development. For example, with regard to environmental sustainability, a key finding (Branzei, Vertinsky, Zietsma, 2000) is that the higher the corporate environmental commitment perceived by leaders, the more likely the choice of pro-active strategy and subsequent environmental innovation. The authors then conclude that eco-sustainable management depends on the continued personal and corporate commitment of leaders toward the environment, enacted in pro-active strategy choices and the pursuit of environmental innovation.

In the scholarly literature, much has also been written about ethical leadership which suggests, from a philosophical, normative point of view, what leaders ‘should’ do (eg, Ciulla, 2004). There has also been a great deal of work which considers the personality traits that are perceived to be important to ethical leadership and its effectiveness. For example, research has linked perceived leader effectiveness with attributed honesty, integrity and trustworthiness (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quinanallia, and Dorfman, 1999).

However, as D’Amato and Roome (2009) argue, the leadership role to integrate sustainability is still unfamiliar territory. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity about the link between sustainability and the concept of ‘responsible leadership.’ The latter is often defined in moral or ethical terms, such as ‘…building, cultivating and sustaining trustful relationships to different stakeholders both inside and outside the organization, and in coordinating responsible action to achieve a meaningful commonly shared business vision’ (Maak, 2007). Herewith can also be added the view of Pless (2007), referring to responsible leadership as a ‘values based and ethical principles driven relationship between leaders and stakeholders who are connected through a shared sense of meaning and purpose through which they raise one another to higher levels of motivation and commitment for achieving sustainable value creation and social change’ (Pless, 2007).

As clear as the ethical connotations of responsible leadership might be, research concerning the organizational aspects of this type of leadership is under-represented in the literature. This research project aimed to operationalise these high level concepts. Defining responsible leadership as that which develops and implements sustainability strategies the project examines, in situ, the specific organizational structures and processes that enable responsible leadership.

This research presents a unique opportunity to study these issues within a developing economy. Much current thinking

Arnold is President at BEN-Africa, Extraordinary Associate Professor in Business in Society at University of Stellenbosch Business School, Director: Centre for Business in Society at USB Executive Development Ltd and Trustee at SEED Educational Trust

Patricia is a Senior Faculty member at Ashridge. Patricia has recently been appointed a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Stellenbosch; her most recent research interests include the role of responsible leadership in embedding sustainable businesses practices in organizations.

Page 85

has been developed from a developed economic perspective which often emphasises resource preservation. In the most comprehensive study of leadership and culture to date House et al. (2004) examined leadership in 62 countries and found clear evidence to show that operational and managerial practices in organisations tend to reflect the societal orientation or culture within which they operate. South Africa has a unique blend of values, incorporating the Afro – Centric (humanitarian principles based on consensus seeking and compassion) vs. Euro – Centric (bottom line thinking, business values of performance and production) which would suggest that perspectives of sustainability and responsibility will be unique. Previous research has already suggested (Visser, 2007) that the relative prioritisation of business responsibilities is different in Africa from classic western orderings, although specific differences have not been substantiated.

In South Africa, historic factors have long contributed to an awareness of responsible practices. The anti-apartheid movement positioned South Africa as fertile ground for values-based considerations. The country’s unique history in moving beyond the legacy of apartheid has obliged companies to address labour, affirmative action and health related issues with much more urgency and vigour than elsewhere, it is apparent that today no business in South Africa can be divorced from the fact that sustainability and social responsibility is entrenched in the business landscape.

Three core documents help to define the connection between sustainability and responsible leadership AUTHOR PLEASE CLARIFY find support in the South African landscape, namely, the country’s constitution, the King Report on Corporate Governance and the New Companies Act. In Article 24 the constitution notes that ‘everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development’ (Republic of South Africa, 1996).

The King Report on Corporate Governance in South Africa (Institute of Directors Southern Africa, 2009) takes great care in defining core concepts such as corporate citizenship, corporate responsibility and sustainability. For the latter the report largely relies on the Brundtland definition referred to earlier. The report refers to corporate citizenship as implying ‘an ethical relationship of responsibility between the company and the society in which it operates’ and then goes on to note that companies ‘should protect, enhance and invest in the wellbeing of the economy, society and the natural environment.’ What this practically means is expressed in the report’s definition of corporate responsibility, namely that it ‘is the responsibility of the company for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment through transparent and ethical behaviour that: contributes to sustainable development, including the health and welfare of society; takes into account the legitimate interests and expectations of stakeholders; is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behaviour; and is integrated throughout the company and practiced in its relationships. Activities include products, services and processes.’

What is even more significant about the King Report (Institute of Directors Southern Africa, 2009) is that it starts off with a chapter on ethical leadership and corporate citizenship. In this chapter responsible leadership is defined in terms of six statements in which it is connected to concepts such as good corporate governance, sustainable business, the impact of business decisions, institutional ethical fitness and a shared future with all stakeholders. These statements also link up to values such as responsibility, accountability, fairness, transparency, consideration for impact, doing business ethically and resistance to compromise.

South Africa’s New Companies Act 71 of 2008 requires companies to have a Social and Ethics Committee ‘to monitor the company’s activities with regard to the following five areas of social responsibility: (i) social and economic development; (ii) good corporate citizenship; (iii) the environment, health and public safety; (iv) consumer relationships; and (v) labour and employment’ (Rossouw, 2012). Although a Social and Ethics Committee is not relevant for SMEs, reference to this development in the Act offers further information about the thrust for sustainability and responsible leadership in a South African business context.

Much of the published research into sustainability practices investigates large multinational or global companies such as Unilever or Johnson & Johnson (Epstein, 2008; Haanaes K et al., 2011) as examples. These companies often have significant resources to devote to sustainability issues and see ‘operational effectiveness’ as the key business benefit of being a responsible business (BITC 2011). The experiences, and perceptions, of smaller businesses in implementing sustainability practices are largely unexplored. They pose special challenges for stakeholders interested in promoting sustainability practices. SMEs, are perceived as having greater barriers to implementing sustainability practices (Collins, et al., 2007, p. 729)

This area therefore merits further investigation, particularly in the light of the fact that smaller businesses represent some 80% of all worldwide enterprises (OECD 2002), are deemed to account for some 70% of the world’s production (O’Laoire & Welford, 1996), they may therefore contribute significantly to pollution, waste production and energy use.

There are clear differences in what smaller organizations refer to as business benefits (Hauser 2009). ‘Employees and the future workforce’ is more often seen as the key business benefit for SMEs. Therefore in the light of the critical focus on employment in South Africa this study focuses on SMEs who are keen to develop sustainability practices. Broad criteria for what constitutes an SME have been applied for this study. Private ownership, less than 1,000 employees, both full and part time, were the broad guidelines.

Against this background then of 1) the sustainability imperative of the 21st century; 2) the call for responsible business practices and leadership in particular and 3) the observation that SMEs represent a neglected area of research in this context. The objectives that steered this study were twofold:

• To examine the attributes of organizations – the structures, processes, cultures and/or resources that are most conducive to, or resistant to the ‘enablement’ of responsible leadership. Unlike ‘best practice’ approaches, the study sought to identify the processes and mechanisms that enable and encourage responsible leadership within a framework of a sustainability strategy in South African SMEs. This is an under investigated area in the literature and one which will offer practical developmental advice to companies seeking to embed sustainable strategies through leadership.

• Through the study of what South African organizations currently do to promote and enable sustainability, and what could be done in the future. The research contributes to the development of a uniquely South African understanding of the concepts of responsibility and sustainability.

Two papers have already been informed by this study and both are currently under review for publication. The first (Hind & Smit, 2012a) focuses on Action Research as a suitable methodology for the development and implementation of context relevant sustainable development initiatives and the second (Hind & Smit, 2012b) deals with the study’s findings on the sustainability practices developed by the participating companies.

This third and final paper of the study shifts the focus to the SME managers involved in the study and reports on their personal experiences, observations and reflections, and offers an indication of how their understanding and practice of responsible leadership changed and evolved as a result of the project.

2. Methodology

2.1 Action ResearchThe methodology selected for the study was Action Research - a means of conducting systematic enquiry into group phenomena - in this case the challenge for smaller companies of embracing sustainability. This is an approach to research that is specifically concerned with social change and in particular with effective, permanent social change. Lewin, the ‘founding father’ of Action Research, believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action; if people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. ‘Rational social management’, ‘proceeds in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of action’ (Lewin, 1958). In Action Research, knowledge is produced in the service of action rather than theory and the approach has been extensively explored for both individual and organisational learning (Revans, 1982, 1998).

Action Research has also been described as research ‘with’ people, rather than ‘on’ them (Bradbury, 2010). However, it also constitutes a rigorous and disciplined approach to knowledge and theory generation. Reason (2001) describes the objective of this participatory approach of Action Research as a twofold objective in which, firstly, knowledge is produced that is directly useful to a group of people and, secondly, they are empowered to construct and use their own knowledge. Reason (2001) further notes that ‘if one accepts that human persons are agents who act in the world on the basis of their own sensemaking; and that human community involves mutual sensemaking and collective action, it is no longer possible to do research on persons. It is only possible to do research with persons, including them both in the questioning and sensemaking that informs the research, and in the action which is the focus of the research.’

One of the objectives of this study was to offer more general insights into how companies can embed sustainability into their organisational practices and therefore collective insight was sought. Action Research was regarded to be an appropriate vehicle for this purpose, particularly because it does not try to create objective findings which can be generalised, but rather aims to be of use to practitioners by solving problems, answering questions, developing new practices and developing new understanding (Bradbury, 2010). A methodology was therefore designed to use a common iterative, or cyclical, process of investigation, with structured inputs, recordings and reporting.

Diagram 1: The Action Research Process

Page 87

2.2 Project participantsThe research reported in this paper focuses on a volunteer cohort of SMEs, operating in the Western Cape Province of South Africa, who were keen to develop sustainability practices. 21 small to medium sized companies, who showed an interest in developing sustainability practices in their organizations, were identified and formally invited to participate in the project.

Eight companies responded to the invitation and joined and completed the project. These companies covered both the lower and upper ends of the broad SME landscape in South Africa. Broad criteria for what constitutes an SME have been applied for this study. Private ownership, less than 1,000 employees, both full and part time, were the guidelines.

The participants on the projects represented the following businesses:

• A dairy farm and manufacturer and retail supplier of desserts

• A fruit farm and packager

• A retail pharmacy chain

• A software company

• A sugar processor and wholesaler

• A private equity investment company

• A publishing company

• A wildlife habitat conservation trust

In addition to company representatives, the participant group also included two independent consultants currently engaged separately with one of the companies, and a PhD student. These participants acted as project support contacts for the duration of the project.

2.3 Project designThe project consisted of two phases, the first of which focused on sustainability and the second on responsible leadership. In the first stage of the project each company was required to commit to attending two interactive workshops and to self-manage action learning experimentation in the six weeks between workshops. In the second stage the same participants were invited to reflect on their own personal journeys and how they have developed as leaders responsible for developing sustainability practices in their business.

In phase one participants were required to attend an initial day and a half workshop designed to set the scene and create an enabling framework for the project. They were furthermore enabled to consider the unique nature of sustainability for their companies and identify their own key issues regarded as imperative to work on. They were also trained in the application of Action Research methodology. Thereafter followed an experimentation phase of six weeks during which each company worked with a common Action Research structure to ‘experiment’ with their own projects, in their workplaces, supported by a dedicated member of the research team. This phase was completed by a research community workshop where participant companies presented the results of their experiments, their learning about embedding sustainability into their organisations and their future plans.

The second phase of the project was introduced by a workshop four months later, the purpose of which was twofold; to solicit feedback on continued progress with participants’ sustainability interventions and to invite them to participate in a three month period of personal reflection on their own leadership development in the context of their companies’ sustainability journeys.

In both phases of the project narrative analysis was used to make sense of the data, because ‘narrative’ became the vehicle for each of the companies as well as the participating individuals to express and further develop their in situ understanding of sustainability and responsible leadership. The narrative analysis in this study mainly focuses on written or oral texts through which the emergent themes, which constitute the key findings of the research, were extrapolated.

The interpretive nature of the approach did not seek to analyse the narratives in order to access underlying events but rather to focus on meaning making. Much of narrative analysis (Andrews, Squire & Tamboukou, 2008; Lieblich & Tuval-Maschiach, 1998) is based on the notion that how experiences are reconstructed and interpreted is important in itself.

Narrative data was collected from 5 sources:

• Research notes taken at the opening workshop of the project

• Visits to each of the companies and interviews with leaders involved in the projects

• The workbooks, one for each of the two phases, completed by participants

• Presentations made by participants at the final workshop of the project

• Research notes taken at the final workshop

3. Findings

3.1 Finding from phase 1: enabling sustainability through Action ResearchWhilst the focus of this paper is on responsible leadership and therefore concentrates on the second phase of the EStAR project, the findings relevant to this phase will only make sense against the background of what transpired during the first phase of the project.

Hind and Smit (2012a) report in their paper on methodology, that Action Research indeed provided the structure and support for participants to develop a context and business relevant understanding of sustainability whilst at the same time empowering them with a framework for developing and implementing business related change initiatives. Two further observations that are specifically relevant for this paper are the following: 1) the early identification of the importance of leadership commitment in driving sustainability in a business; and 2) a set of six characteristics for management behavior identified by the participants, namely:

• questioning business as usual;

• identifying stakeholders, and understanding their roles and interactions,

• building internal and external partnerships,

• engaging in dialogue and balancing competing demands,

• respecting diversity, and

• taking a strategic view.

In their second paper, which dealt specifically with the sustainability relevant dimensions of the project, Hind and Smit (2012b) summarise participants’ experience of implementing sustainability in their businesses as follows:

• A high level of specificity and focus about what actually needs to be done, by whom, and by when. A general commitment to ‘be more sustainable’ is ineffective.

• The buy-in and commitment of senior leadership and/or the board is critical.

• There is a need to involve all stakeholders, and responsibility should not be delegated either upwards or downwards. Mutual and shared responsibility needs to be adopted.

• People must be prepared to, and commit to, doing things differently; open mindedness is a pre-requisite for change.

From the above it is evident that ‘responsible leadership’ already emerged in phase one of the study as a critically important driver of sustainability practices in business. What is of great importance here is that it emerged in the context of an Action Research approach, and was therefore identified by the participants themselves, and that it emerged amongst SMEs, where there seems to be a lesser expectation about the prevalence of such concepts.

3.2 Findings from phase 2: enabling sustainability through responsible leadership

Similarly to the first phase, participants were also issued with a workbook at the beginning of the second phase of the EStAR project. The workbook offered an opportunity for participants to reflect on developments in their personal leadership journeys parallel to the sustainability agendas that were evolving in their businesses. The workbook created structured space for reflection on experiences, questions, plans, meaning, learning and actions. This was followed by a round of personal interviews with participants wherein the focus of the conversations was directed by six questions. The table that follows presents the questions and highlights some of the most pertinent reflections and comments coming from the participants.

Page 89

Table 1: Responsible leadership interview summaries

Interview questions Participant responsesHow would you describe your experience of keeping the leadership logbook?

• It was a bit of a chore, but it required honesty.

• It’s a good tool – if you don’t write things down you forget.

• It forced me to think and exposed what I had not done.

• It allowed for the recording of thoughts and ideas and brought further refinement.

• A good discipline that helped to keep focus and to distill the essence of the journey.

How have your leadership capabilities grown/changed through the experience?

• I became more structured, more considerate, less gut-feel. I need to give and take more feedback, people like to be asked, involved and taken seriously.

• I have discovered my strengths and weaknesses. One of my weaknesses is doing things on my own. We often don’t give younger people chances to explore themselves and their roles and to develop.

• The project has forced me to think about the way in which I spend my time and my personal leadership. My management has become very exclusive, I don’t get to talk to my partners about business issues.

• I grew in my ability to influence and engage external stakeholders and in doing team building and teamwork.

• I now have more comfort with the concepts and vocabulary of sustainability and responsible leadership.

• I have realised that I should let new people ‘run with it’ whilst I nurse the vision from the back.

• How I feel and what I do have implications for 300 other people’s experience of their work. My example is important.

How has your understanding about leading for sustainability developed throughout this second stage of the EStAR project?

• Now everybody is seeing business opportunities in sustainability, this works because we are a small company – changes can come about through 5 minute chats here and there, but we are now more structured about getting input from everybody.

• Motivation plays a big role, if you have to do a project you have to encourage people all the time, say thank you and well done, you need to inspire people, that’s also important.

• The concept is still very much at the forefront of my mind, through the original project there is a bigger awareness – it’s happening slowly, not a specific drive.

• Influencing by creating sound business objectives today to ensure the universal continuity and growth for future generations by way of solidifying a triangular link between people, planet and profit.

• The need to influence others, to have visibility, to develop relationships, all these things add up over time, buy-in is critical, you can’t force people to do this.

• I have realized the visionary piece is very important, but actually leading it – you need a more traditional leader, need to stick within the boundaries. The sustainable piece is the vision, then you just need good managers.

• My default, personality wise, is in responsibility. I have always fought for what is right. A leader is somebody with a good gut, developed through responsibility and hard work.

What advice would you give to other leaders as they take their organisations on a journey to sustainable growth?

• Include everyone. This is not a solo journey, but you must start by being fundamentally ethical and responsible, you must really believe in it, not just a thought for the day.

• The need to stay together, to focus, make sure you know what your vision is and communicate it. Listen to one another. Leadership is about giving direction, but also about listening to those underneath you, to get new ideas.

• Not to wait or look for the big bang – eat the elephant slowly – but make sure you implement good ideas when you have them.

• Involve all staff members in formulating sustainability policies. Senior management should take a leading role to drive this agenda. Engage with external stakeholders.

• Get buy-in from all stakeholders, create a joint mental model, become specific through specific resource oriented projects and drive the connection between responsible leadership and good business.

• Celebrate small successes, don’t do comparisons with bigger, more successful enterprises. Have patience.

• Leadership is about setting an example, being consistent and showing courage. A leader is somebody with good “gut” who develops good systems, takes calculated risks and works hard. It is important to maintain faith in yourself.

What are your key remaining challenges?

• Clients! Most people we work with are fundamentally unsustainable; there’s a lot of waste, no planning, monitoring, people overshoot deadlines, clients often don’t understand the knock on effects of their practices on others.

• We’re in crisis control mode every day and it’s not the right way to do things.

• Getting the ideas across to the team; it’s not difficult but we just need to do it, engage others, we mustn’t get so restricted that we can’t move forward, it needs careful decision making. We need to begin to measure cost benefits from energy saving, waste cutting measures, etc.

• Continuity, engagement and a precise reporting system.

• To develop youngsters/youth, by providing an opportunity for them to have a more successful future.

• This is not always easy, but you need to do your homework to be able to filter information to know what to do. I want to farm on this farm as sustainability as possible for as long as possible.

What resources or support would help you to further leverage the shift towards sustainability and responsible leadership?

• Workshops, coming together, looking at the latest thinking, not being alone. This is a big issue for small companies who are short of time and money.

• We need more decision makers; a management team to oversee things, at the moment we have six or seven people leading a business of about 120, we are bogged down with admin and can’t really focus on what we’re good at.

• A body to take responsibility, we can brain storm it, but somebody needs to actually do it.

• Funding to host workshops/seminars with other investment stakeholders in the impact investment space .

• Occasional, informal check-in discussions between leaders.

• Would like support network, not just in Ceres but also in South Africa, to share with and learn from others. A get together once or twice per year will be inspiring and helpful.

The following observations can be distilled from the above:

• Mindset: The project (EStAR) introduced a different way of thinking, processing and doing for the participants. Action Research as methodology, through the workbook as vehicle, availed them with an opportunity for guided and structured reflection. This brought mindfulness, focus, discipline and momentum in their journey of leading for sustainability.

• Boundaries: SMEs most often originate as owner-manager businesses and, as a result, core leaders are from the beginning used to resource scarcity and occupied with all aspects of the business. The leadership challenge here seemed to be one of ‘expanding boundaries’ to include others in decision-making, entrusting them with responsibilities, appreciating their ideas, etc. Both the internal team as well as the external stakeholder networks seemed to have grown in prominence and importance for these participants. The lesson seems to be that sustainability demands a team approach that taps into the energy of relationships, the diversity of talent and value of social capital in stakeholder relationships.

• Skills: Participants reported being comfortable with new vocabulary, a new emphasis in conversations, giving and taking feedback, self-reflection, importance of motivation and encouragement, influencing others, developing relationships, leading in the light of vision, the ability to fight for what is right. Leading for sustainability seemed to have called these skills forward, focusing them on a common objective and honing them for greater effectiveness.

• Attitude: Participants recorded changes in themselves described by words such as structured, considerate, example, appreciation, patience, ethical and responsible. It seems that the project introduced a new mindfulness and awareness about self and others, about the present and the future, about society and the environment. The demand for profitability and success does not disappear in the face of sustainability, but the disposition of the business leader changes to one that deals with the ambiguity and tension in a different way, taking on the responsibility with an attitude of constructive involvement.

• Constraints: Time, money, people and information are commodities that can be low in supply for SMEs. Although the participants in EStAR did discover the power of a supportive network and the encouragement provided by the stories of others.

What the above tells us about responsible leadership will be addressed in the next section.

Page 91

4. Discussion

4.1 Responsible leadership as a normative and relational conceptIn a study on Leadership Strategies for Sustainable SME Operations by Kerr (2006, p. 32), notes that ‘The SME leader has the responsibility to become more aware of environmental and social sustainability issues, of the pressures that have the potential to affect the enterprise and of the sources of resources and partnership networks available to it.’ This certainly happened with the SME leaders in the EStAR project. Parallel to the sustainability journeys that they have introduced in their companies, they have gone through a development trajectory of growing awareness of their own leadership roles in the process combined with the realization that they need the encouragement, wisdom and advice from others to sustain their focus, energy and progress.

However the question that we still need to answer is what this tells us about ‘responsible leadership.’ What is responsible leadership about and what is it for? Maak and Pless (2006, p. 1) answer the question by noting that ‘responsible leadership is a specific frame of mind promoting a shift from a purely economistic, positivist and self-centred mind set to a frame of thinking that has all constituents and thus the common good in mind too.’ Further on they refer to attributes that are the hallmarks of a responsible leader, namely ‘insight and foresight, empathy and listening skills, self-knowledge and a sense of community, moral imagination and a morally sound values base.’ The EStAR project certainly offers evidence of SME leaders that, in the notion of sustainability, found a higher level of purpose for their businesses (Hind & Smit, 2012b). Whereas some entered the project with a more internally focused understanding of sustainability as the ‘imperative to stay in business’ and others with an understanding that sustainability is ‘something beyond business that you attend to if you can afford it’ they have as a result of this project shifted to a position of understanding their businesses as being contributors to the common good in a web of stakeholder relationships. Hence we have observed in the interviews, as reported in Table 1, the emergence of a different consciousness about the skills required when one chooses to lead from a disposition of responsibility, skills that include both a renewed sensitivity about their personal impact and inclusivity with respect to others.

Maak and Pless (2006, p. 50) go further and regard relationships as the centre of leadership. Responsible leadership, they say, ‘is about building and sustaining trustful relationships to all relevant stakeholders by being servant, steward, architect, change agent, coach and storyteller – by serving, supporting and caring for followers, by making them partners on a leadership journey towards building a truly sustainable business, contributing to the development of others, and to the common good.’ The metaphors by which responsible leadership is defined here are different, they do not highlight individualistic or heroic perceptions of leadership. Instead they represent an understanding of leadership that explicitly includes others, internally and externally, on a journey towards increasing the common good. The discoveries by the participants in EStAR seem to suggest that responsible leadership is leadership that demonstrates an awareness and consideration of the consequences of actions for all stakeholders, as well as actively influencing those stakeholders to move towards more sustainable practices and processes. ‘Awareness and consideration of consequences of actions’ seems to point in the direction of guiding values whilst ‘actively influencing stakeholders’ seems to point in the direction of change towards a more desirable of sustainable state of affairs. Responsible leadership, one can conclude, embraces both ethics and transformation.

Some examples from the EStAR project help to highlight the above:

• The publishing company changed from ‘making their business sustainability’ to ‘making sustainability their business’ and with that the company redefined its sense of purpose, its branding approach and its stakeholder orientation.

• The pharmacy moved from ‘considering a take-back-old-medicine project’ as a worthwhile service to the general public to an imperative of ‘what we sell stays our responsibility’ combined with active stakeholder engagement to get the initiative implemented.

• The investment company was always intent upon the sustainability credentials of its portfolio companies, but grew even stronger in the understanding of its responsibility with respect to the balance between expecting a return on investment and investing in the ability of an investee company to deliver such an expected return.

• The conservation trust re-discovered the importance of stakeholder engagement in pursuing its environmentally oriented objectives, realizing that even a morally indisputable cause, as represented by a strong torch bearer, needs stakeholder support, collaboration and inclusive decision-making.

4.2 Responsible leadership as expanding circles of commitmentMaak and Pless (2006) unpack the challenges in responsible leadership in five categories; diversity, ethics, trust, stakeholders and values. Regarding the latter they identify four value circles, namely individual, inter-personal, organisational and societal values. All the specific values which they identify in each circle are of less importance for the purposes of our argument here. What is helpful though, is to observe that in the expanding nature of the model from circle to circle stakeholder complexity increases, thus also increasing the demand for focus and alignment in the exercise of responsible leadership.

A similar approach is to be found in the work of Roberts and Coghlan (2011), where they refer to concentric collaboration. Their model of leadership development contains four concentric circles, starting with the individual and expanding from there to the task, the support systems and the organisational setting environments.

A similar approach seemed sensible and viable for organizing the feedback from EStAR participants regarding their observations about changes in their leadership approach. The following model, or nested hierarchy, explains the point.

Diagram 2: Expanding circles of leadership responsibility

What the above illustrates is that the choice for sustainability as a central business imperative is dependent upon the commitment of responsible leaders to embrace a complex and challenging mix of vision, values, processes, systems and relationship. It is a journey that requires character, consistency and endurance.

In conclusion it can therefore be said that the EStAR project shed light on how leaders, with respect to sustainability, grow in their own awareness, mindfulness and personal accountability and how they perceive, learn to work with and grow with respect to sustainability challenges at three organisational levels, namely;

• macro level, eg; business legitimacy, stakeholder engagement and social capital development;

• mid-level, eg; brand identity, organisational culture/climate and performance measures, and

• micro level, eg; personal interactions and impact on followers’ behaviours, attitudes, knowledge, motivation and job satisfaction.

5. RecommendationsThis research has provided encouraging indications in terms of how responsible leadership (leadership that enables sustainability in SMEs) can be studied and developed through an Action Research approach.

Future research should address the following questions:

• What will be needed to support the leadership of these SMEs in maintaining their personal commitment and energy for the journey, whilst capacitating their organisations and collaborating with stakeholders to stay on track?

• Will the EStAR approach to the development of responsible leadership for sustainability be appropriate for and replicable in corporate settings, other cultures and a broader range of companies from different sectors, such as was the case for the participating companies in this project?

6. LimitationsThe sample for this research was relatively small and cannot be regarded as representative of the SME landscape in South Africa. The ideal would be to make the sample bigger and more diverse. However the chosen methodology proved to have been appropriate for this particular group and topic and can be replicated in similar studies in the future.

Page 93

7. ReferencesAndrews, M, Squire, C and Tamboukou, M (Eds) (2008). Doing Narrative Research. Sage, London.

Bradbury, H (2010). What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest? Action Research, 8 (1), p. 93-109.

Branzei O, Vertinsky I, Zietsma C (2000). From green-blindness to the pursuit of eco-sustainability: an empirical investigation of leader cognitions and corporate environmental strategy choices. Academy of Management Proceedings & Membership Directory, 2000, p. 1-6.

Collins, E, Lawrence, S, Pavlovich, K and Ryan, C (2007). Business networks and the uptake of sustainability practices: the case of New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, p. 727-740.

Cuilla JB (2004). Ethics, the heart of leadership.(2nd Ed.). Praeger, Westport CT.

D’Amato, A and Roome, N (2009). Toward an integrated model of leadership for corporate responsibility and sustainable development: a process model of corporate responsibility beyond management innovation. Corporate Governance, 9 (4), p. 421 – 434.

Doppelt R, (2003). The seven sustainability blunders. The Systems Thinker, 14 (5), p. 1 – 7.

Ellis JHM and Kiely JA (2000). Action Inquiry Strategies: taking stock and moving forward. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 9 (1).

Epstein Ml (2008). Making Sustainability Work: best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts. Greenleaf publishing, Sheffield UK.

Goehrig R (2008). The Role of Leadership in Building High Performing, Sustainable Organizations. Government Finance Review, 24 (6), p. 6-14.

Hauser B (2009). Action Learning in an SME: appetite comes with eating. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 6 (3), p. 349 – 355 .

Hind, P and Smit, AT (2102a). Enabling Sustainability through Action Research (EStAR). Under review.

Hind, P and Smit, AT (2012b). Global Interpretations of Sustainability: Enabling Sustainability through Action Research (EStAR). Under review.

Institute of Directors in Southern Africa (2009). King Report on Governance for South Africa 2009. Institute of Directors in Southern Africa.

Kerr, IR (2006). Leadership Strategies for Sustainable SME Operation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, p. 30-39.

Lewin, K (1958). Group Decision and Social Change. Halt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Lieblich, A, Tuval-Maschiach, R and Zilber, T (1998). Narrative Research: Reading, Analysis and Interpretation. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Lynham, SA and Chermack, TJ (2006). Responsible Leadership for Performance: A Theoretical Model and Hypotheses. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12 (4), p. 73-88.

Maak, T, and Pless, NM (2006). Responsible leadership: A relational approach. In Maak, M and Pless, NM (Eds). Responsible Leadership. Routledge, New York.

Maak, T, and Pless, NM, (2009). Business Leaders as Citizens of the World. Advancing Humanism on a Global Scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (3).

O’Laoire, D and Welford, R (1996). The EMS in the 5MB. In Welford, R (Ed.) Corporate Environmental Management. Earthscan, London.

OECD Publication Service (2002). OECD small and medium enterprise outlook. 2, Rue Andre Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, Fracne:OECD

Pless, NM (2007). Understanding responsible leadership: role identity and motivational drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, p. 437 – 456.

Reason, P and Torbert, WR (2001). The action turn: towards a transformational social science. Concepts Transform, 6 (1), p. 1-37.

Reason, P (2001). Learning and Change through action research. In Henry, J (Ed.) Creative Management. Sage, London.

Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future.

Republic of South Africa (2009). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.[Online] Available:http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/index.htm Downloaded 12 November 2012.

Revans, RW (1998). ABC of action learning. Lemos and Crane, London.

Revans, RW (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. Bromley. Chartwell Bratt, UK.

Riessman, CK (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Sage, Los Angeles, CA.

Roberts, C and Coghlan, D (2011). Concentric collaboration: a model of leadership development for health care organizations. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 8 (3), p. 231-252

Rossouw, D (2102). The Social and Ethics Committee Handbook. GIZ

Smit, A (2011). Virtuous Talent for a Sustainable Future. In Boninelli, I and Meyer, T (Eds.) Human Capital Trends: Building a Sustainable Organisation. Knowres Pusblishing, Johannesburg.

Visser, W (2007). Revisiting Carroll’s CSR Pyramid – An African Perspective. In Crane, A and Matten, D (Eds.) Corporate Social Responsibility, p. 195 – 212. Sage, London.

PAPER 7

Framing the agenda for appraising job sustainability: A multiple stakeholder perspectiveNoel J. Pearse and Leticia Greyling

AbstractThe sustainability imperative is requiring organisations to engage more constructively with a wide range of internal and external stakeholders. Linked with the constant pressure on government, business and entrepreneurs to create and sustain more jobs, the human resource imperative can clearly not be excluded from the journey towards more sustainable economies, especially in developing economies like South Africa. These imperatives are resulting in a shift within the Human Resource Management (HRM) field away from strategic HRM to a sustainable HRM approach, which is located in a multiple stakeholder perspective. In the South African context and from a sustainable HRM perspective, this paper examines how an organisation could conceptualise and appraise the sustainability of a job. In doing so, the concept of a sustainable job is constructed from a multi-disciplinary perspective by examining the primary interests of a wide range of organisational stakeholders. In particular, the paper explores the concept from the perspective of the employee, the trade union, the manager/owner/shareholder, the organisation, government, and society at large. It also gives a voice to the natural environment. It is proposed that this multi-stakeholder, multi-disciplinary perspective of the concept of a sustainable job provides the agenda for stakeholder engagement by HRM on this topic, but that further research is needed to test and refine this framework.

Key words: Decent jobs, Job creation, South Africa, Stakeholder engagement, Sustainable Human Resource Management, Sustainable jobs

Noel Pearse is an associate professor in the Rhodes Business School at Rhodes University, functioning as the Academic Co-ordinator. He lectures primarily in the fields of Leadership, People Management, Strategy Implementation, Change Management and Research Methodology.

Leticia Greyling is a senior lecturer at Rhodes Business School and holds 3 masters degrees (2 MSc from RAU & UCT, plus an MBA from Rhodes). Prior to joining Rhodes Business School in 2010, Leticia coordinated the sustainability efforts at Transnet National Ports Authority, based at their Head Office in Johannesburg.

Page 95

1. IntroductionWith the multitude of definitions surrounding sustainable development or sustainability, organisations sometimes find themselves confused with this concept’s meaning and especially its implementation. However, these various definitions often have the same underlying principles to align them, and for local South African purposes, are captured in the National Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Development (DEA, 2012). These principles include (1) the need for long term planning, (2) a responsible development path that leaves future generations with the same or improved opportunities, (3) the promotion of coordination and cooperation within and across sectors, and (4) the cultivating of partnerships between a variety of stakeholders. These same principles can apply to an organisation wanting (or needing) to engage in sustainability and become a sustainable organisation.

The sustainability challenge is increasingly receiving local and international attention, and although many organisations still treat this with a reactive approach, there are interesting lessons learnt in organisations that have embraced this challenge and used it to improve their business (eg Corporate Knights, 2012). For several years now there has been a growing trend to include and integrate sustainability into core HRM matters, especially in response to the increasing focus on the social aspects related to sustainability’s triple bottom-line. These impacts on HRM are evident in health and safety, HR development, employability, recruitment and retention of quality employees, in culcating lifelong learning, promoting work-life balance, promoting ethical behaviour, coping with an aging workforce, and so forth (eg WBCSD 2002, 2005, 2006 in Ehnert, 2009).

The sustainability imperative is requiring organisations to engage more constructively with a wide range of internal and external stakeholders. Freeman’s (1984) seminal work on stakeholder theory identifies stakeholders as a range of individuals or groups that are located both within and outside of the organisation, and that are affected by, and/or can affect the organisation’s attempts to achieve its purpose. A normative view of stakeholder theory makes the assumption that the interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value (Donaldson & Preston, 1995) and therefore need to - at a minimum – be acknowledged by the organisation. The challenge of course, is to deal constructively and effectively with the multiple and often competing interests of various stakeholders. When it comes to engaging stakeholders who have competing interests, Mitchell et al. (1997) argue that not all stakeholders are created equal, differing, for example, in their power, legitimacy and urgency. How this weighing up of stakeholder interests applies to the issue of job sustainability, is not straightforward. This paper attempts to identify the primary interests and perspective of various stakeholders as they relate to the issue of creating, developing and maintaining sustainable jobs.

2. The Jobs ImperativeIn the light of the faltering economic recovery subsequent to the global economic crisis of 2008/9, the creation of jobs has emerged as a top priority for many governments around the world. With official unemployment rates in South Africa at around 25% (Statistics South Africa, 2012) and youth unemployment around 50% (National Planning Commission, 2010), job creation is a critical concern. Not surprisingly then, Strategic Priority 1of the government’s Medium Term Strategic Framework for 2009-2014 is ‘Speeding up growth and transforming the economy to create decent work and sustainable livelihoods’ (The Presidency, 2010).

In turn, business is expected to contribute to job creation, particularly through small businesses growth, as research has identified the SMME sector has the most effective sector when it comes to creating jobs (Neumark et al., 2011; Engineering News, 2012). When reviewing recent developments, challenges and opportunities around job creation, and the ‘people side’ of responsible and sustainable organisations, it is encouraging to see calls for the human and social capital dimensions of jobs to be acknowledged and enhanced, making it especially apt for businesses, not only from a compliance perspective (where mandatory) but also a competitive and reputational advantage, if pro-actively addressed.

2.1 The potential in green jobsVarious benefits emerge when comparing the so-called ‘brown economy’ with the ideas and ideals around the increasingly popular ‘green economy’. South Africa’s view on a ‘green economy’ was the centre of discussion at its inaugural Green Economy Summit, held in 2010. It was then defined as ‘a sustainable development path based on addressing the interdependence between economic growth, social protection and natural ecosystem’, with its more formal definition viewed as a ‘system of economic activities related to the production distribution and consumption of goods and services that result in improved human well-being over the long term, while not exposing future generations to significant environmental risks or ecological scarcities’ (Department of Economic Development et al., South Africa, 2011). In contrast, the ‘brown economy’ signifies an ‘economic growth model which is based on extensive use of materials, energy and resources,

including the use of hazardous and other problematic substances that have a negative impact on the environment and on human beings. The environmental and health costs (or costs of avoided damage) are not taken into account in the brown economy. The latter also has a very short-term focus on maximizing private profit, often unsustainable and at a high cost to the general public’ (UN, 2010).

A key aspect of this economic debate relates to the energy efficiency and effectiveness approaches being adopted by organisations and governments across the globe, promoting a low carbon economy, which is often viewed as a cornerstone of a sustainable, ‘green economy’. Specifically of relevance to HRM, is the potential of low-carbon economy initiatives to contribute to job creation. For instance, in the European Union, Da Graҫa Carvalho et al., (2011) reviewed various studies to conclude that the creation of millions of new jobs and increased international investment was possible in a post-carbon society (meaning the inclusion of smart grids, improved energy storage and increased development in renewable energy).

In South Africa, a similar message is being sent. In the government’s strategy ‘New Growth Path’ (Economic Development, 2010), it identifies ten ‘job drivers’ of which the ‘green economy’ is one. In a comprehensive study by Maia et al., (2010) – one of the first of its kind in South Africa – job creation potentials were assessed for various sectors in the short, medium and long term. In total, the authors estimate the development of a South African ‘green economy’ could lead to an estimated 98,000 new direct jobs in the short term, growing to 255,000 in the medium term and ultimately 462,000 formal economic employment opportunities further down the road. This begins to make a compelling business case for sustainability as a key driver in employment, in the creation, development, evolution and continuation of jobs, or employment opportunities.

2.2 Multiple stakeholder perspectives of sustainable jobsLinked with the constant pressure on government, business and entrepreneurs to create and sustain more jobs, the human resource imperative can clearly not be excluded from the journey towards more sustainable economies. This and other contextual imperatives are resulting in a shift within the Human Resource Management (HRM) field. This shift is away from strategic HRM, which is located predominantly in a shareholder mindset, in preference for a sustainable HRM approach (Becker, 2011; Colbert & Kurucz, 2007; Harmon et al., 2010; Twomey et al., 2010; Wirtenber et al., 2007), which is located in a multiple stakeholder perspective.

According to Freitas et al. (2011), sustainable HRM aims to improve performance through innovation, diversity management and environmental management to support the strategy of the business and simultaneously strive for a balance between economic prosperity, social equity and environmental integrity. In the South African context and from a sustainable Human Resource Management (HRM) perspective, this paper examines how an organisation should conceptualise and appraise the sustainability of a job. In doing so, the concept of a sustainable job is constructed from a multi-disciplinary perspective and examines the primary interests of a wide range of organisational stakeholders. At the risk of over-simplification, identifying only the primary interests of particular stakeholders helps, somewhat paradoxically, to highlight the complexity of a multi-disciplinary and multiple stakeholder perspective, as it emphasises the primary interests upon which stakeholders are competing. In reality, stakeholders would have a wider range of interests, and many of these interests may be closer to the position of some of the other stakeholders. In particular, the paper explores the concept of a sustainable job from the perspective of the manager/owner/shareholder, the employee, the trade union, the organisation, government, society at large, and the natural environment. A second area of simplification in this paper is its focus on a single job as its frame of reference. Clearly, the concerns and interests of organisation stakeholders about a single job, intersect with their concerns and interests in other individual jobs, groupings or families of jobs, and other elements of organisational design. These issues are beyond the scope of this paper.

2.3 The manager/owner/shareholder perspectiveThe shareholder perspective has been the dominant perspective when viewing jobs in organisations, where economic concerns are most compelling. Drawing from economics, the shareholder perspective is concerned with matters of productivity, competitiveness, efficiency and economic value adding. One of the key issues for management is performance. Historically, this has focused almost exclusively on financial performance (eg Rowe, Morrow & Finch, 1995), a perspective that is still pervasive today. Maximising wealth is often the main goal for companies (see, for example, Welbourne & Andrews,1996; Becker & Huselid, 1998). When discussing jobs and employment from a performance perspective, there seems to have been an increasing obsession by academic researchers and practitioners within this arena to understand the link between company performance and managing its human resources (Rogers & Wright, 1998). Job considerations from this historical shareholder perspective include:

• Is there an efficient utilisation of human resources?

• Will this job contribute to an increased competitive advantage?

• Can we afford this position?

However, the last two decades have begun to witness a shift away from this dominant view. Some researchers have noted the importance of also considering issues of productivity, safety and/or pay equity when considering performance (eg Cowherd & Levine, 1992; Mac Duffie, 1995). When monitoring performance, there have also been suggestions of including

Page 97

the concept of purpose, as well as stakeholders’ objectives into the construction of performance measures (Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986). These days, performance around the triple bottom-line (financial, social and environmental performance) (first coined by Elkington in 1997) is receiving increasing attention. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, recently expanded this, referring to the ‘quadruple bottom-line’, which includes aspects around ‘ethics’ as a fourth component to performance (United Nations, 2012). Associated with this expanded view of performance will not only be improved financial performance arising from a job’s increased revenue, sales, and so forth, but also reduced liabilities and costs (short, medium and long term). Therefore, the considerations from management’s perspective for a particular job are as follows:

• Will this job add to the organisation’s financial, social, environmental and/or ethical performance?

• Will this job assist with reducing the organisations’ risks and liabilities?

• Will this job meet a legal or best practice requirement?

• Can we afford to not have this position?

2.4 The employee perspectivePsychological perspectives are at the forefront when viewing jobs from the individual perspective. While the concern of managers is the motivation or engagement of the individual, from the employee perspective, it is about having their needs met in the workplace. Various motivational theories have been developed and it has been argued that many of these can provide guidance to management in understanding the needs of employees, and designing jobs and their associated rewards, in a way that will meet these needs (Amos et al., 2008).

The idea of a psychological contract sheds further light on the employee perspective of jobs. The psychological contract can be described as ‘the expectations of employer and employee which operate over and above the formal contract of employment ... the perceptions of the different parties to the employment relationship of what each owes the other... It incorporates beliefs, values, expectations and aspirations of employer and employee’ (Smithson & Lewis, 2000, p. 681-682). A fundamental reason for the development of the psychological contract is to reduce uncertainty (or conversely, to increase predictability) regarding the obligations of the parties to the employment relationship (McFarlane-Shore & Tetrick, 1994). From the perspective of an employee, these obligations can be summarised as the organisation giving consideration to the unique needs of the individual (Makin Cooper & Cox, 1996). A critical question is therefore:

• How have the unique needs of the individual been taken into account in the design of the job?

Given that the needs of individuals are dynamic, a further question is:

• Is there sufficient flexibility built into the design of jobs so as to ensure that they continue to meet the changing needs of the incumbent?

2.5 The trade union perspectiveIt is argued that the trade union perspective is dominated by the sociological perspective, recognizing an inherent conflict of interest in the workplace between capital and labour. Key concerns relate to the prevention of worker exploitation and the creation and maintenance of decent jobs. The concept of decent jobs originates with the International Labour Organisation (ILO). In 1999, the then ILO Director-General, Juan Somavia, first introduced the decent work concept describing it as ‘opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity’ (ILO, 1999). A decent work agenda has subsequently been developed by the ILO, including the launch of Country programmes. In September 2006, at its 9th National Congress, South Africa’s largest trade union federation, COSATU, adopted a resolution calling for a ‘comprehensive plan to create quality jobs and to ensure that the millions of unemployed are able to work in conditions of decent work’ and ‘to address casualisation and labour broking through changes to the law’ (COSATU, 2006).

In developing the concept of a ‘decent work deficit’, Webster et al. (2008) identify seven factors of security in the workplace, namely:

1. Labour Market Security (higher national and regional employment levels create more secure workers as they face less competition from job seekers willing to work for lower wages)

2. Employment Security (having a contract of employment in the first place, and the amount of protection it affords against arbitrary treatment, and dismissal in particular)

3. Job Security (having the opportunity as an employee to build a career)

4. Work Security (health and safety related matters that protect workers against accidents and illness at work, as well as the adverse effects on health of excessive working hours)

5. Skills Reproduction Security (opportunities for employees to gain and retain formal skills)

6. Representation Security (having an independent collective voice in the labour market to represent workers’ interests)

7. Income Security (the amount of money earned per week, inclusive of issues such as its regularity, whether there is a minimum income, whether it includes non-wage benefits, and the number of people who depend on the income)

Many of these factors each pose critical questions relevant to appraising the sustainability of a job, including:

1. Does a contract of employment exist, and does it provide protection against arbitrary treatment and dismissal?

2. Is the job of a permanent nature so as to offer security of tenure to the employee?

3. Is the job related to other jobs in a systematic way, so as to create a career path for incumbents?

4. Is the job relatively free of health and safety risks? And are appropriate and sufficient measures taken to protect workers against accidents and illness in their jobs?

5. Are working hours reasonable [approximately 40 hours per week] with sufficient rest periods between shifts and with adequate rest intervals during working time?

6. Are there opportunities afforded to incumbents to develop their job relevant skills and knowledge, particularly when the job competency specifications are changing?

7. Does the job add sufficient economic value so as to ensure that the incumbent will receive adequate and regular income?

2.6 Government’s perspectiveWhile governments may contribute to job creation themselves, another prominent responsibility of the state is to regulate the employment conditions surrounding jobs. In the South African context, these regulations are often aimed at addressing many of the workplace security factors identified above. The legal perspective is very prominent here, and at a national government level is particularly evident in the legislation that governs the workplace. Key South African legislation that impacts upon jobs includes:

• The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997, which stipulates minimum employment and working conditions.

• The unfair labour practice provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. This Act also provides for the concluding of collective agreements between registered trade unions and employers or employers’ organisations to set out legally binding terms and conditions of employment that are more favourable than those set out in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

• The Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993, which aims to create a safe and healthy working environment.

• The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, which outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of a number of personal characteristics of employees, while simultaneously addressing the impact of Apartheid on job opportunities through its affirmative action provisions.

• The Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993, which provides for compensation to employees in the event of injury, disease or death while carrying out the job.

Clearly, there are many detailed stipulations contained in this legislation that impact upon the sustainability of a job. For the purposes of this paper, when appraising the sustainability of a job, a broad question that arises from the legislative framework is:

‘Are the legal requirements of the labour legislation framework upheld in the administration, design and management of the job, and supervision of its incumbent, in upholding both the letter of the law and its spirit?’

2.7 Organisational perspectiveIn the context of jobs, the organisation adopts a strategic management and governance perspective. Various authors have noted improved strategic effectiveness of HR systems when these are aligned with the entity’s mission, purpose, values and structure (Caldwell et al., 2011). The same could therefore be applied to a specific function or job when considering the organisational perspective. Issues around governance are also increasingly important to an organisation, especially in the South African context with the King III report and related requirements for JSE-listed companies around integrated reporting (eg SAICA, 2010).

Internationally, there has been momentum building towards the adoption of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), with over 8000 organisations now signed to this strategic policy initiative. Launched in 2000 (with a local network set up in South Africa in 2007), this agreement focusses on four key elements regarding an organisation’s sustainability

Page 99

responsibilities; human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption (UNGC, 2012; NBI, 2012).

Garavan (1995a) argued that the objectives of an organisation or job (function) are ‘a compromise between the different stakeholders’ of that. From this point of view, the organisation therefore needs to weigh up all the various stakeholders’ perceptions and requirements and find the balance between these. Although this often leads to conflict and disagreement, which inevitably leads to trade-offs. Freeman (2010, p. 7) reasons that ‘the idea that one particular group always gets priority is deeply flawed. The very nature of capitalism itself is putting together a deal, or a contract, or a set of relationships among stakeholders so that all can win continuously over a long period of time. As Rhenman, Ackoff and the early stakeholder theorists knew, if you take away the support of any stakeholder you simply do not have a viable business’. Although he acknowledges that trade-offs may seem to be an easier option than trying to accommodate these various interests, he makes a compelling argument for seeing stakeholders’ interests as ‘joint’ instead of conflicting, considering all stakeholders’ interests as being ‘inherently tied together’ (Freeman, 2010, p. 8). Although contrary to what Mitchell et al. (1997) indicated, this is supported by, amongst others, Steyn were she indicates that ‘[o]rganisations depend on these stakeholders, individually and collectively, for the goodwill required to sustain their operations and for maintaining their license to operate’ (PRConversations, 2008, p. 1).

In South Africa, the King III report and guidelines assist with aligning stakeholders’ interests. As one journalist concisely summarised it in the title of her article prior to the launch of the report; ‘King Report III on Corporate Governance institutionalises Stakeholder Relationship Management’ (PRConversations, 2008). This framework can assist organisations (public, private, or non-profit) to better understand their stakeholders and their viewpoints, facilitating a platform for dialogue and engagement in an effort to reach consensus and win-win management approaches for the organisation. The organisation therefore fulfils the role of the ‘ethical steward’ where it is required to balance the best interests of various stakeholders in decision-making and implementation. Ethical stewardship relates to good governance in the pursuit of ‘best interests of stakeholders by creating high trust cultures that honor a broad range of duties owed by organizations to followers’ (Caldwell & Karri, 2005 & Pava, 2003 in Caldwell et al., 2011, p. 173).

Questions that emerge from a holistic, organisational perspective can be summarised below:

• Is this job aligned with the organisation’s vision, mission, purpose, values, structure and strategic goals?

• Does this job represent the combined interests of all stakeholders?

• Does the job require an incumbent to demonstrate an understanding of the good governance principles and King III code and implement its requirements within the job’s sphere of responsibility and influence?

• Does this job meet the requirements set out in the UNGC, including the incumbent’s ability to practice, implement and influence the organisation’s operations aligned with these principles?

2.8 Society’s perspectiveIn the context of jobs, society is represented as a source of labour and as a market for products and services. Questions of social equity are pervasive, as are the organisation’s role in other issues such as human rights, education, fighting poverty, hunger and illiteracy, and community engagement (eg Garavan & McGuire, 2010). When considering organisations’ responsibilities toward society and communities, Bierema and D’Abundo (2004) provided insights into socially conscious human resource development. They highlighted the need for broadening the organisation’s traditional interests to also include the improvement of societal welfare and meeting society’s expectations. These roles encompass the following:

• serving an educative and supportive role to help organizations uphold implied contracts and expectations of the organization;

• promoting ethical management and leadership,

• advocating for stakeholders,

• broadening definitions and measures of organization performance,

• challenging and revising socially “unconscious” policies and practices,

• analysing and negotiating power relations, and

• promoting the use of organization resources to create social benefit and improve social welfare’ (Bierema and D’Abundo, 2004, p. 443).

As ‘society’ is also the market which engages with an organisation’s goods and/or services, the customer perspective should also be considered. Ferrell (2004, p. 126) explains that the relationship between a company and its customer occurs due to the ‘mutual expectations built on trust, good faith and fair dealing in their interaction’. Although there are some examples where customers have yielded a commanding voice over an organisation on issues of ethical behaviour (eg Walmart and Nike), it does seem as though they aren’t well organised and do not provide a ‘one-voice’ approach by customer groups (Ferrell, 2004). Customers however do offer financial resources and loyalty, and can increase an organisation’s reputation relating to its ethics and corporate social responsibility (Ferrell, 2004).

Although this group of stakeholders would be accounted for to some extent (at least indirectly) with some of the other perspectives discussed above (ie labour and government), one can summarise society’s view point on a job as follows:

• Does the job contribute to a more equitable society?

• Do the products and/or services produced by the job bring harm or benefit to society and/or the environment?

• Does the execution of the job contribute to the well-being of customers?

• Does the job advance the reputation (triple bottom line) and sustainability integrity of the organisation?

2.9 A natural environment perspectiveWhile the natural environment is often represented by pressure groups in society, or via legislative requirements set by government, in this paper, it has not been treated as a subset of the societal or governmental perspective. This is because its voice may be crowded out by the more immediate concerns of human society, such as issues of social equity, which are so prominent in developing countries such as South Africa. In other words pressing social concerns may be raised, without necessarily considering the impact of poor environmental and ecosystem health on communities and society at large – which ultimately impacts the economy.

Defining the natural environment as a stakeholder from an organisational perspective has been met with differing opinions. For example, by considering a fairness-based approach, Phillips and Reichart (2000) unpacked the stakeholder theory concept in relation to the natural environment and demonstrated how the environment can be accounted for through legitimate stakeholders of an organisation. They also highlight that stakeholder theory ‘has never claimed to be a comprehensive ethical scheme, it is argued that sound reasons might exist for managers to consider their organization’s impact on the environment that are not stakeholder-related’ (Phillips & Reichart, 2000, p. 185). Countering this position, the discussion below aims to bring forward some additional perspectives that advance the argument of formalising the natural environment as a key stakeholder.

Various authors have argued for a stakeholder theory which integrates the relationship between business and the environment within their management decision-making (Buchholz, 2004; Driscoll & Starik, 2004). After a critique of the Mitchell and Wood model (1997) of stakeholder identification, Driscoll and Starik (2004, p. 55) expanded this framework by ‘reconceptualising the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency, as well as by developing a fourth stakeholder attribute: proximity’; thereby providing a stronger argument for what they refer to as the ‘salience of the natural environment as the primary and primordial stakeholder’ of a business organisation. Despite the matter still being debated to some extent, the natural environment is increasingly receiving attention as a key stakeholder in organisations when ethics, inclusiveness, fairness and strategic perspectives are considered (eg Haigh & Griffiths, 2009; Laine, 2010). Even a capital-derivatives market perspective to traditional stakeholder theory has strengthened the importance of the natural environment as a stakeholder (Norton, 2007).

It is suggested here that according the environment legal status, is one option that provides it with a voice that cannot be ignored, not only on matters of legal compliance, but also in advancing the interests of the natural environment. Ground-breaking decisions and examples are increasing in this respect. Recently, a river in New Zealand was awarded ‘legal personhood status’ similar to a company’s status that ‘will give it rights and interests’ (Inhabitat, 2012). Here the government and local indigenous community were awarded joint-custodianship over the river, with the objective to protect and allocate its resources, with the intent of ‘ensuring its wellbeing’.

This aspect of environmental health and wellbeing is also enshrined in the South African Bill of Rights (Republic of South Africa, 1996, p. 1251), as follows – ‘[e]veryone has the right:

a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legisla-tive and other measures that

i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

ii. promote conservation; and

iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development’.

Although the Bill of Rights is drafted from the perspective of a citizen, resident and person, it can be argued that these rights are exercised on behalf of the actual natural (biophysical) environment, if it is viewed as a stakeholder. Therefore issues highlighted above, of ecosystem health and avoidance of degradation, conservation, pollution prevention, legal compliance, and the environmentally-responsible use of natural resources, all become critical when assessing the natural environment’s requirements as a stakeholder. This paper has therefore included the natural environment as a stakeholder, when developing the sustainable job framework, raising the following key questions about a job:

Page 101

• Have the job requirements adequately considered risk to the environment?

• Will or could the job harm the environment, either directly or indirectly?

• Will or could the job benefit the environment, either directly or indirectly?

2.10 A sustainable job frameworkIdeas and ideals relating to ‘decent’ and ‘sustainable’ jobs have been investigated and discussed. A framework is now proposed against which the sustainability of either existing jobs or a new job can be appraised. This appraisal highlights the potential deficits and opportunities in the sustainability of a job. Further work around these perspectives should consider a rating scale, whereby a job can be appraised along a sustainability continuum in line with an organisation’s sustainability and corporate social responsibility journey. Refinement of the Mirvis and Googins’ (2006) model seems to fit well here, but is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it should be emphasized that the purpose of this appraisal is not so much to be able to give a job a rating at a particular level of sustainability, but rather to help to set out an agenda for dialogue with various stakeholders. As such it identifies priority areas for HRM to engage with its stakeholders and therefore an agenda for intervention. The table below lists the various questions that have been generated when considering the issue of a sustainable job from the perspective of various stakeholders. The appropriate boxes are ticked or selected, based on the questions being answered. This is as illustration of the first step towards establishing a broad framework for a job’s sustainability, with refinement then taking place later as discussed above.

Table 1: A sustainability framework for a job

Questions

Not addressed in the job:

Unsustainable

Areas exist for

improvem

ent

Addressed in the job in a

sustainable way

This needs further investigation

How have the unique needs of the individual been taken into account in the design of the job?

Is there sufficient flexibility built into the design of jobs so as to ensure that they continue to meet the changing needs of the incumbent?

Does a contract of employment exist, and does it provide protection against arbitrary treatment and dismissal?

Is the job of a permanent nature so as to offer security of tenure to the employee?

Is the job related to other jobs in a systematic way, so as to create a career path for incumbents?

Is the job relatively free of health and safety risks? And are appropriate and sufficient measures taken to protect workers against accidents and illness in their jobs?

Are working hours reasonable (approximately 40 hours per week) with sufficient rest periods between shifts and with adequate rest intervals during working time?

Are there opportunities afforded to incumbents to develop their job relevant skills and knowledge, particularly when the job competency specifications are changing?

Does the job add sufficient economic value so as to ensure that the incumbent will receive adequate and regular income?

Are the legal requirements of the labour legislation framework upheld in the administration, design and management of the job, and supervision of its incumbent, in upholding both the letter of the law and its spirit?

Will this job add to the organisation’s performance?

Is the incumbent competent to meet the job requirements?

Efficient utilisation of human resources.

Will this position assist with reducing the organisations’ risks and liabilities?

Will this position provide a competitive advantage?

Will this position meet a legal or best practice requirement?

Can we afford this position (can we afford to not have this position)?

Is this job aligned with the organisation’s vision, mission, purpose, values, structure and strategic goals?

Will this job be able to fulfil the role of mediator between different stakeholders and their views?

Is the job’s incumbent able to demonstrate understanding of the good governance principles and King III code? And able to implement its requirements within its sphere of responsibility and influence?

Does this job meet the requirements set out in the UNCG, including the incumbent’s ability to practice, implement and influence the organisation’s operations aligned with these principles?

Does the job contribute to a more equitable society?

Do the products and/or services produced by the job bring harm or benefit to society and/or the environment?

Does the execution of the job contribute to the well-being of customers?

Does the job advance the reputation (triple bottom line) and sustainability integrity of the organisation?

Will or could the job harm or benefit the environment (directly or indirectly)?

Have the job requirements adequately considered risk to the environment?

Which skills are required beyond the traditional to ensure this position will adequately incorporate environmental sustainability thinking into its decision-making powers and influence sphere?

3. Discussion and conclusionThe main purpose of this paper has been to develop a framework against which the sustainability of either existing jobs or a new job can be appraised, and thereby shape the debates that HRM should be having with various stakeholders to enhance job sustainability. What was evident in developing this framework was the level of complexity of the debate surrounding sustainable jobs. Many of the stakeholder interests are divergent and contradictory, and difficult to reconcile.

Developing the framework has also highlighted the changing role of HRM. In line with an organisational shift away from a shareholder to a stakeholder perspective, the framework highlights the parallel shift from strategic HRM to sustainability HRM. In doing so, it frames a new role for the HRM function as an intermediary between various stakeholders, while simultaneously serving the short and long term interests of the organisation.

In developing sustainable jobs, HRM is challenged in weighing up the importance of the various interests of stakeholders, reflected in different aspects of the job. In terms of the framework, this could be reflected in the ‘weighting’ that is accorded to the various items or questions in coming to an overall appraisal of the sustainability of a job. This paper has not attempted to arrive at an overall rating, or even entered the debate on the relative importance of the various stakeholder perspectives. Similarly, it should be noted that the intent behind the framework was not to create a mechanism to compare or rate the sustainability of one job against another. This paper has simply highlighted the various perspectives as they apply to the sustainability of a job, and thereby created a framework for HRM to converse and engage with various stakeholders.

Finally, it is evident that further research is needed in this area to refine the framework and investigate its utility. In particular, the usefulness of the appraisal framework to HRM practitioners and their stakeholders, requires investigation. This could possibly be done most constructively in a focus group situation, with various stakeholders represented.

Page 103

4. ReferencesAmos, TL, Ristow, A, Ristow, L and Pearse, NJ (2008). Human Resource Management (3rd Ed.). Juta and Company Ltd, Cape Town.

Becker, BE and Huselid, MA (1998). High performance work systems and firm performance: a synthesis of research and managerial implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management Vol. 16. Edited by GR Ferris. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Becker, WS and Grove, JL (2011). Are You Leading a Socially Responsible and Sustainable Human Resource Function? People and Strategy 34 (1), p. 18-23.

Buchholz, RA (2004). The Natural Environment: does it count? Academy of Management Executive. 18(2), p. 130-133.

Caldwell, C, Truon, DX, Lunh, PT and Tuan, A (2011). Strategic Human Resource Management as Ethical Stewardship. Journal of Business Ethics 98, p. 171-182.

Colbert, BA, Kurucz, EC (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability and the role of HRM. Human Resource Planning, 30 (1), p. 21-29.

Corporate Knights (2012). Media Release: Corporate Knights Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations, Announced in Davos [online]. Available:http://www.global100.org/images/stories/global100_website_pdfs/Global100_2012_press_release.pdf Downloaded 19 March 2012.

COSATU (2006). Political Resolutions of the 9th National Congress (online). Available: http://www.cosatu.org.za/docs/resolutions/2006/resolutions.htm Downloaded 19 March 2012.

Cowherd, DM and Levine, DI (1992). Product quality and pay equity between lower-level employees and top management: an investigation of distributive justice theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 37, p. 302-320.

Da Graҫa Carvalho, M, Bonifacio, M, and Dechamps, P (2011). Building a low carbon society.

Energy, 36 (36), p. 1842 - 1847.

Departments of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs, Science and Technology, Trade and Industry – South Africa (2010). The Green Economy Summit Report (following the Green Economy Summit, 18-22 May 2010) (online). Available: http://www.environment.gov.za/greeneconomy_summit/docs/summitreport.pdf Downloaded 29 December 2011.

Department of Environmental Affairs (2012). National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Action Plan (online). Available: http://www.environment.gov.za/?q=content/documents/strategic_docs/national_strategy_sustainable_development/ Downloaded 5 May 2012.

Donaldson, T and Preston, LE (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. The Academy of Management Review 20 (1), p. 65-91.

Driscoll, C and Starik, M (2004). The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual

Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment. Journal of Business Ethics

49, p. 55–73.

Economic Development Department, South Africa (2010). The New Growth Path: The framework (online). Available: http://www.polity.org.za/article/new-growth-path-the-framework-november-2010-2010-11-23 Downloaded 19 February 2011.

Ehnert, I (2009). Sustainable Human Resource Mananagement. PhysicaVerlag, Heidelberg.

Elkington, J (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple-Bottom Line of 21. Century Business (Capstone/John Wiley, London, 1997).

Engineering News (2012). IFC sees SMEs as key to job creation, economic growth in SA (online). Available: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/ifc-sees-smes-as-key-to-job-creation-economic-growth-in-sa-2012-09-07 Downloaded 9 September 2012.

Freeman, RE (2010). Managing for stakeholders: trade-offs or value chain. Journal of Business Ethics 96, p. 7-9.

Freeman, R (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston, MA.

Freitas, WR, de Souza, Jabbour, CJC and Santos, FCA (2011). Continuing the evolution: towards sustainable HRM and sustainable organizations. Business Strategy Series 12 (5), p. 226-234.

Garavan, TN (1995a). Stakeholders and strategic human resource development. Journal of European Industrial Training 19 (10), p. 11-16.

Garavan, TN (1995b). HRD stakeholders: their philosophies, values, expectations and evaluation criteria. Journal of European Industrial Training19 (10), p. 17-30.

Haigh, N and Griffiths, A (2009). The natural environment as a primary stakeholder: the case of climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment 18, p. 347-359.

Harmon, J, Fairfield, KD and Wirtenberg, J (2010). Missing an Opportunity: HR Leadership and Sustainability. People and Strategy 33 (1), p. 16-21.

ILO (1999): Decent Work: Report of the Director-General, International Labour Conference, 87th Session, ILO, Geneva.

Inhabitat (2012). New Zealand’s Whanganui River is Granted Legal Personhood Status (article by Kristine Lofgren)(online). Available: http://inhabitat.com/new-zealands-whanganui-river-is-granted-legal-personhood-status/ Downloaded 7 September 2012.

Laine, M (2010). The nature of nature as a stakeholder. Journal of Business Ethics 96 , p. 73-78.

Mac Duffie, JP (1995). Human Resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organisational logic and flexible

production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48 (2), p. 197-221.

Maia, J, Giordano, T, Kelder, N, Bardien, G, Bodibe, M, Du Plooy, P, Jafta, X, Jarvis, D, Kruger-Cloete, E, Kuhn, G, Lepelle, R, Makaulule. L, Mosoma, K, Neoh, S, Netshitomboni, N, Ngozo, T, Swanepoel, J (2011). Green Jobs: An Estimate Of The Direct Employment Potential Of A Greening South African Economy. Industrial Development Corporation, Development Bank Of Southern Africa, Trade And Industrial Policy Strategies.

Makin, PJ, Cooper, CL and Cox, CJ (1996). Organizations and the Psychological Contract: Managing people at work. BPS Books, Leicster.

McFarlane-Shore, L and Tetrick, LE (1994). The Psychological Contract as an Explanatory Framework in the Employment Relationship. Chapter in: Trends in Organizational Behavior (Volume One), Edited by CL Cooper and DM Rousseau. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester.

Mitchell, RK, Agle, BR and Wood, DJ (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), p. 853-886.

Mirvis, P and Googins, B (2006). Stages of Corporate Citizenship. California Management Review, 48 (12), p. 104-124.

National Planning Commission (2010). Development Indicators 2010. Government Publishers, Pretoria.

Neumark, D, Wall, B and Zhang, J (2011). Do Small Businesses Create More Jobs? New Evidence for The United States from The National Establishment Time Series Review of Economics and Statistics, 93 (1), p.16-29.

Norton, SD (2007). The natural environment as a salient stakeholder: non-anthropocentrism, ecosystem stability and the financial markets. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(4) October 2007.

Phillips, RA and Reichart, J (2000). The Environment as a Stakeholder? A Fairness-Based Approach. Journal of Business Ethics 23, p. 185–197.

PRConversations (2008). King Report III on Corporate Governance institutionalises Stakeholder Relationship Management; article by Benita Steyn 24 August 2008. (online). Available: http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2008/08/king-report-iii-on-corporate-governance-institutionalises-stakeholder-relationship-management/ Downloaded 1 September 2012.

Republic of South Africa. Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997.

Republic of South Africa. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996.

Republic of South Africa. Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993.

Republic of South Africa. Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.

Republic of South Africa. Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.

Republic of South Africa. Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993.

Rogers, EW and Wright, PM (1998). Measuring organisational performance in strategic human resource management: problems, prospects and performance information markets. Human Resource Management Review 8 (3), p. 311-331.

Rowe, WG, Morrow, JLJ and Finch, JF (1995). Accounting, Market and Subjective measures of firm performance: three side of the same coin? Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Conference, Vancouver.

SAICA (South African Institute of Chartered Accountants) (2010). An integrated report is a new requirement for listed companies (online). Available: https://www.saica.co.za/tabid/695/itemid/2344/An-integrated-report-is-a-new-requirement-for-list.aspx Downloaded 4 June 2010.

Smithson, J and Lewis, S (2000). Is job insecurity changing the psychological contract? Personnel Review 29(6), p. 680-702.

Statistics South Africa (2012). Quarterly Labour Force Survey: Quarter 4, 2011. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.

The Presidency (2010).The Strategic Agenda of Government: A Summary (online). Available: http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/docs/strategy/2010-11-12-13/strategic_agenda.pdf Downloaded 10 April 2012.

Twomey, DF, Twomey, RF, ,Farias, G and Ozgur, M (2010). Human Values and Sustainability: Can Green Swim Upstream? People and Strategy 33(1), p. 52-59.

Venkatraman, N and Ramanujam, V (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review 11 (2), p. 801-814.

Webster, E, Benya, A, Dilata, X, Joynt, K, Ngoepe, K and Tsoeu, M (2008). Making Visible the Invisible: Confronting South Africa’s Decent Work Deficit. Research Report prepared for the Department of Labour by the Sociology of Work Unit, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (online). Available: http://www.labour.gov.za/downloads/documents/research-documents/webster.pdf Downloaded 20 March 2012.

Welbourne, TM and Andrews, AO (1996). Predicting performance of initial public offering: should human recourse management be in the equation? Academy of Management Journal 39 (4), p. 891-919.

Wirtenberg, J, Harmon, J, Russell, WG and Fairfield, KD (2007). HR’s role in building a sustainable enterprise: insights from some of the world’s best companies. Human Resource Planning 30 (1), p. 10-20.

United Nations (2010). Trade and Environment Review 2009/2010: promoting poles of clean growth to foster the transition to a more sustainable economy. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. United Nations Publication.

United Nations (2012). Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s statements. Video message to Rio+20 Corporate Sustainability Forum, Rio de Janeiro, 15 June 2012 (online). Available: http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=6121 Downloaded 15 June 2012.

Universiteit van Pretoria • University of Pretoria • Yunibesithi ya PretoriaPrivaat sak/Private bag/Mokotla wa poso X20 • Hatfield • 0028 • Suid-Afrika/South Africa/Afrika-BorwaTel: +27 (0)12 420 4111 • Faks/Fax/Fekse: +27 (0)12 420 4555

Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership - CiteSeerX