Abstract
This is a chapter about how to organise sustainability in the twenty-first century. Multiple sources from within and outside academia support the central argument that sustainability does indeed matter and that business is part of the problem and part of the solution. Following decades of talking about sustainability, we have hardly made real progress. Furthermore, the quest for implementation has only recently appeared on the organisational radar. What has actually been implemented under the umbrella of sustainability is limited in its design and scope. The past decade has shown that these approaches and actions have not done what they were supposed to do. They do not reflect the urgency of the rapidly expanding group of issues we have assembled under the term sustainability. Central to the on-going debate regarding sustainability and responsibility is that something obvious is missing. The missing link is how we organise sustainability, not only as an organisational issue but as a collaborative challenge. The argument is built upon two elements. The first is that no organisation can achieve sustainability on its own. New and intense collaboration between organisations is needed in order to shape the process of transformation. This first element is called “an organisational ecology for sustainability”. The second element is that this new way of working will require transitions—fundamental change in a technological, organisational and social sense. This line of reasoning is developed from the past to the present. This leads to a compact overview of where we have come from and what we stand for now. It also provides a perspective of the work that needs to be accomplished in the years to come: work on new forms of collaboration, on leadership and on transition thinking. As a whole, this contribution can be read as an urgent call to develop a new generation of thinking around the theme of sustainability.
Forests are being destroyed. Mountains are ripped open for the metals streaming in their veins. And man cherishes and celebrates those who do the greatest of damage to nature and humanity. Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519).
Nature never deceives us; we deceive ourselves. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778).
On every human journey, unique as it may seem, the entire mankind gets involved. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980).
The debate has just started in search […] of ways of integrating the economy with the environment. But substantive decisions […] are hard to find. Missing is the leadership that can translate emerging values into […] decisions that would change trends. We must find ways to make it happen. Charles Caccia (1930–2008).
Et nous avons agi comme quand on marche dans le brouillard, empruntant des chemins au fur et à mesure qu’ils apparaissaient, sans être sur de là ou ils nous menaient. Portrait J. J. Abrams, Libération, 22 Juillet 2009.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The research for this report was initiated by the Club of Rome, a think-tank of European scientists, to stress their concerns about the future of the world. The club originally consisted of 36 members who assembled together for the first time in April 1968 in Rome. The club still exists, see http://www.clubofrome.org.
- 2.
In this concept, which was originally proposed by John Elkington in 1997 (Elkington 1997), the design of sustainability at an organisational level is central. Over the past 10 years, this concept has helped many organisations to give design and content to their sustainability efforts for the first time. The fact that this concept has been used so much on a global scale is positive, yet at the same time it shows some kind of poverty. It leads to the situation in which, in our efforts to organise, we try to achieve at best two Ps, with the third one (planet) often coming too little too late. Therefore, the relationship between “organising” and “doing business” has become obscure, if not perverse.
- 3.
Variety of sources, including the UN, World Bank, WIPO, and, e.g., http://www.worldometers.info.
- 4.
“The solution lies in the principle of shared value, which involves creating economic value (read corporate growth or profit) in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. Businesses must re-connect company success with social progress. Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success. It is not on the margin of what companies do but at the centre” (Porter and Kramer 2011).
- 5.
The UN Environmental Program (UNEP) defines the green economy as: “An economy that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.”
- 6.
Eco-efficiency is first-order change: improvement. An incredibly large number of people within companies and organisations are working on eco-efficiency and progress is being made. Though much appreciated, such progress ultimately merely reflects improvements, which are not sufficiently fundamental to solve the actual problems. However, while it does offer some more time to work on the fundamental issues, this change is needed quickly.
- 7.
A COP is focused on a particular area of activity (or) body of knowledge around which it has organised itself. It is a joint “enterprise” in so far as it is understood and continually re-negotiated by its members. In many cases, it is not a formally constituted group and membership is entirely voluntary. In some cases, the organisation might not even be aware of its existence. The members create an agreed set of collective resources over time. This “shared repertoire” of resources represents the material traces of the community. Members will have some sort of common goal or purpose, which is often internally motivated; that is, driven by the members themselves as opposed to some external driver. Relationships are key and based on trust, values and identity (adopted from Wegner 1998).
- 8.
Underlying this argument is an elaborate discussion on organisational change. The essence of that discussion is the current thought on change, with its focus within the boundaries of an organisation; this is inadequate for addressing the consequences (with an eye on change) of sustainability issues between organisations. It is also not sufficient for addressing systematic change. Regarding this discussion, it is common to refer to first-, second- and third-order change, usually labelled as improvement, transformation and transition, respectively (see De Witte et al. 2012).
- 9.
Retrieved September 13, 2009, from http://www.worldconnectors.nl.
- 10.
Retrieved December 23, 2009, from http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/newsletter.cfm.
References
Brafman, O., & Beckstrom, R. A. (2006). The starfish and the spider. New York: Penguin Group.
Brundtland, G. H. (Ed.). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.
De Bakker, F. G. A., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283–317.
De Bruijn, H., & Ten Hevelhof, E. (2007). Management in Netwerken; Over veranderen in een multi-actorcontext (Management in networks; About change in a multi-actor context). Den Haag: Lemma.
De Witte, M., Jonker, J., & Vink, M. J. (2012). Verandermanagement: Betekenisverlening in Actie (Change management: Meaning grant in action). Deventer: Kluwer.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.
Foley, K. (2006). Third generation quality management: Is it all too little too late? Conference Proceedings, QUALCON 2006, Sydney, Australia.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (2006). Stakeholder theory as a basis for capitalism. Presentation IEA Conference Trento. http://www.econometica.it/allegati/IEA%20TRENTO/Freeman%20-%20Wicks%20-%20Parmar.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2014.
Freeman, R. E., Pierce, J., & Dodd, R. (2000). Environmentalism and the new logic of business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hajer, M. (2011). De energieke samenleving; Op zoek naar een sturingsfilosofie voor een schone economie (The energetic society; Looking for a guiding philosophy for a clean economy). Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. N. (2007). In search of sustainable enterprise. http://www.valuenewsnetwork.com/read-the-magazine/search-sustainable-enterprise. Accessed 13 April 2014.
Hildreth, P., & Kimble, C. (2002). Knowledge networks: Innovation through communities of practice. Hershey: Idea Group Pub.
Homan, T. (2005). Organisatiedynamica: De complex autonomie van de beweging (Organization dynamics: The complex autonomy of the movement). Schiedam: Academic Service.
Jonker, J. (2003). In search of society: Redefining corporate social responsibility, organisational theory and business strategies. In J. A. Batten & T. A. Fetherson (Eds.), Social responsibility: Corporate governance issues (pp. 423–439). Oxford: Elsevier.
Jonker, J. (Ed.). (2011a). Duurzaam Denken Doen. Deventer: Kluwer.
Jonker, J. (2011b). Duurzaam Ondernemen: naar een organisatie-ecologie voor duurzaamheid (Sustainability: Towards an organizational ecology to sustainability). Inaugural speech (in Dutch). Radboud University Nijmegen.
Jonker, J. (Ed.). (2011c). Duurzaam Denken en Doen: Inspiratieboek voor onze gezamenlijke toekomst (Sustainable thinking and doing: Inspiration for our common future). Deventer: Kluwer.
Jonker, J., & De Witte, M. (Eds.). (2006). The challenge of organising and implementing corporate social responsibility. Hampshire: Palgrave.
Kaats, E. A. P., & Opheij, W. (2011). Over ‘vermogen tot verbinden’ gesproken (About ‘ability to undertake’ speaking). M & O, 1(Jan/Feb), pp. 51–68.
Kauffeld, R., Malhotra, A., & Higgins, S. (2009). Green is a strategy: Five steps to “differentiated” sustainability for a full embrace of environmentalism. http://www.strategy-business.com/article/00013?pg=all. Accessed 22 March 2014.
McVeau, J. J., & Freeman, R. E. (2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 57–69.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.
Mouritsen, J. (2000). Valuing expressive organisations: Intellectual capital and the visualisation of value creation. In M. Schulz et al. (Eds.), The expressive organisation: Connecting identity, reputation and the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olson, R. L. (1994). Alternative images of a sustainable future. Futures, 26(2), 156–169.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
Shell. (2009). Energy scenarios to 2050. http://www-static.shell.com. Accessed 13 April 2014.
UN Millennium Eco-system Assessment. (2005). Living beyond our means: Natural assets and human well-being. New York: UN.
Visser, W. (2011). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. Hoboken: Wiley.
Vob, J. P., Newig, J., Kastens, B., Monstadt, J., & Nolting, B. (2007). Steering for sustainable development: A typology of problems and strategies with respect to ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 193–212.
Vollenbroek, F. (2009). Towards an economy of abundance. http://www.dandelionproject.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Towards-an-economy-of-abundance-15-12-09.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2014.
Waggoner, P. E., & Ausubel, J. H. (2002). A framework for sustainability science: A renovated IPAT identity. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.122235999. Accessed 13 April 2014.
Wagner, M. (2009). Innovation and competitive advantages from the integration of strategic aspects with social and environmental management in European firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(5), 291–306.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Werbach, A. (2009). Strategy for sustainability: A business manifesto. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Wesselink, M., & Paul, R. (2010). Handboek Strategisch Omgevingsmanagement. Deventer: Kluwer.
Witt, S., Hearn, S., Apse, S., Poole, K., & Stine, J. (2009). Working Paper Series, E. F. Schumacher Society. http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/. Accessed 14 Sept 2009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jonker, J. (2015). The Future of Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Ecology of Organisations Focused on Sustainability. In: O'Riordan, L., Zmuda, P., Heinemann, S. (eds) New Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility. FOM-Edition. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06794-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06794-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-06793-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-06794-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)