Advertisement

Seeing Versus Doing: How Businesses Manage Tensions in Pursuit of Sustainability

  • Jay Joseph
  • Helen Borland
  • Marc Orlitzky
  • Adam Lindgreen
Original Paper
  • 128 Downloads

Abstract

Management of organizational tensions can facilitate the simultaneous advancement of economic, social, and environmental priorities. The approach is based on managers identifying and managing tensions between the three priorities, by employing one of the three strategic responses. Although recent work has provided a theoretical basis for such tension acknowledgment and management, there is a dearth of empirical studies. We interviewed 32 corporate sustainability managers across 25 forestry and wood-products organizations in Australia. Study participants were divided into two groups: (1) those considered effective at corporate sustainability and (2) a status-quo group. Contrary to current theory, our findings showed that acknowledgment of organizational tensions was widespread in the Australian forestry and wood-products industry and not limited to those managers who are effective at managing corporate sustainability. What differed was the degree to which managers did something about the perceived tensions—with the effective group more consistently acting to manage and resolve paradoxical scenarios. Our findings suggest that existing theoretical constructs of tension management may not adequately capture the individual-level complexity involved with managing tensions in practice.

Keywords

Corporate sustainability Integrative view Paradox Resolution Separation strategy Synthesis strategy Tension management 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
  2. Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles and CSR practice: An examination of sensemaking, institutional drivers and CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 189–213.Google Scholar
  3. Beech, N., Burns, H., Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10), 1313–1332.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, J. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 2–21.Google Scholar
  5. Bento, R., Mertins, L., & Lourdes, F. (2016). Ideology and the balanced scorecard: An empirical exploration of the tension between shareholder value maximization and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(4), 769–789.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, I., Cunningham, P., & Drumwright, M. (2007). Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California Management Review, 49(4), 132–157.Google Scholar
  7. Blevis, E. (2007). Sustainable interaction design: Invention and disposal, renewal and reuse. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 503–512.Google Scholar
  8. Borland, H. (2009). Conceptualising global strategic sustainability and corporate transformational change. International Marketing Review, 26(4/5), 554–572.Google Scholar
  9. Borland, H., Ambrosini, V., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2016). Building theory at the intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 293–307.Google Scholar
  10. Borland, H., & Lindgreen, A. (2013). Sustainability, epistemology, ecocentric business and marketing strategy: Ideology, reality and vision. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 173–187.Google Scholar
  11. Borning, A., Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. (2004). Designing for human values in a urban simulation system: Value sensitive design and participatory design. The Eight Biennial Participatory Design Conference, pp. 68–71, viewed August 1, 2014, http://vsdesign.org/outreach/pdf/borning04urbansimandvsd.pdf.
  12. Bryson, J., & Lombardi, R. (2009). Balancing product and process sustainability against business profitability: Sustainability as a competitive strategy in the property development process. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(2), 97–107.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.Google Scholar
  14. Clegg, S., Cunha, J., & Cunha, M. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.Google Scholar
  15. Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.Google Scholar
  16. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics (Third edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Daly, H., & Cobb, J. Jr. (1990). For the Common Good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  18. DesJardins, J. R. (2007). Business, ethics, and the environment: Imagining a sustainable future. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Dobele, A., Westberg, K., Steel, M., & Flowers, K. (2014). An examination of corporate social responsibility implementation and stakeholder engagement: A case study in the Australian mining industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(3), 145–159.Google Scholar
  20. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, H. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.Google Scholar
  21. Easterly, W. (2014). The tyranny of experts: Economists, dictators, and the forgotten rights of the poor. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. London: Capstone.Google Scholar
  23. Fineman, S. (1996). Emotional subtexts in corporate greening. Organization Studies, 17(3), 479–500.Google Scholar
  24. Flannery, B., & May, D. (2000). Environmental ethical decision making in the US metal-finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 642–662.Google Scholar
  25. Fleischer, D. (2009). Green Teams: Engaging employees in sustainability. Mill Valley: Green Impact.Google Scholar
  26. Fremeaux, S., & Michelson, G. (2017). The common good of the firm and humanistic management: Conscious capitalism and economy of communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(4), 701–709.Google Scholar
  27. Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2013). Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 241–255.Google Scholar
  28. Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51–71.Google Scholar
  29. Given, L. (2008). The sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.Google Scholar
  31. Glen, J., Hilson, C., & Lowitt, E. (2009). The emergence of green talent. Business Strategy Review, 20(4), 52–56.Google Scholar
  32. Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organizations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.Google Scholar
  33. Gray, R., & Milne, M. (2004). Towards reporting on the triple bottom line: Mirages, methods and myths. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp. 70–80). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  34. Haffar, M., & Searcy, C. (2017). Classification of trade-offs encountered in the practice of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 495–522.Google Scholar
  35. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 217–229.Google Scholar
  36. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235–248.Google Scholar
  37. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316.Google Scholar
  38. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487.Google Scholar
  39. Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2003). The challenge of innovating for sustainable development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 61–68.Google Scholar
  40. Hayek, F. A. (1948). The intellectuals and socialism. University of Chicago Law Review, 16(3), 417–433.Google Scholar
  41. Hayek, F. A. (1958). Freedom, reason, and tradition. Ethics, 68(4), 229–245.Google Scholar
  42. Hayek, F. A. (2001). The road to serfdom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Hayek, F. A. (2011). The constitution of liberty (R. Hamowy (Ed.) Definitive edn.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hayek, F. A. (2014). The market and other orders (Vol. 15). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38–52.Google Scholar
  46. Institute of Foresters of Australia. (2018). Forest certification. Retrieved June 15, 2018, from https://www.forestry.org.au/about-forestry/forest-certification.
  47. Ivory, S. B., & Brooks, S. B. (2018). Managing corporate sustainability with a paradoxical lens: Lessons from strategic agility. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 347–361.Google Scholar
  48. Karjalainen, K., & Moxham, C. (2013). Focus on fair-trade: Propositions for integrating fair-trade and supply chain management research. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 267–282.Google Scholar
  49. Kluge, S. (2000). Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), art. 14.Google Scholar
  50. Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2014). Sustainable bonuses: Sign of corporate responsibility or window dressing? Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  51. Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  52. Lo, S. (2015). Individual determinants of workplace pro-environmental behaviors. In J. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The Psychology of Green Organizations (pp. 119–140). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lo, S., Peters, G., & Kok, G. (2012). A review of determinents of and interventions for proenvironmental behaviors in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2933–2967.Google Scholar
  54. Longo, C., Shankar, A., & Nuttall, P. (2017). It’s not easy living a sustainable lifestyle: How greater knowledge leads to dilemmas, tensions and paralysis. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3422-1.Google Scholar
  55. Marcus, A., & Fremeth, A. (2007). Green management matters regardless. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 17–26.Google Scholar
  56. Markman, G. D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G., Jennings, P., & Mair, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a platform for pursuing multiple goals: A special issue on sustainability, ethics, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 673–694.Google Scholar
  57. Mason, C., & Doherty, R. (2016). A fair trade-off? Paradoxes in the governance of fair-trade social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 451–469.Google Scholar
  58. Matos, S., & Hall, J. (2007). Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: The case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1083–1102.Google Scholar
  59. Milne, M. J. (2006). From sustainable management to sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(4), 219–241.Google Scholar
  60. Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126.Google Scholar
  61. National Forestry Policy Statement (1992). Common wealth of Australia 1992. National Forest Policy Statement: A new focus for Australia’s forests (2nd Edn., pp. 1–36). Canberra, Australia. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/forestry/australias-forest-policies/nat_nfps.pdf.
  62. Neugebauer, F., Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2016). Planned or emergent strategy making? Exploring the formation of corporate sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(5), 323–336.Google Scholar
  63. Nozick, R. (1997). Why do intellectuals oppose capitalism? Socratic Puzzles, 280–295. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Omanovic, V. (2009). Diversity and its management as a dialectical process: Encountering Sweden and the U.S. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(4), 352–362.Google Scholar
  65. Orlitzky, M. (2011). Institutional logics in the study of organizations: The social construction of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(3), 409–444.Google Scholar
  66. Orlitzky, M. (2015). The politics of corporate social responsibility or: Why Milton Friedman was right all along. Annals in Social Responsibility, 1(1), 5–29.Google Scholar
  67. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 3403–3441.Google Scholar
  68. Peloza, J., & Hassay, D. N. (2006). Intra-organizational volunteerism: Good soldiers, good deeds and good politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 357–379.Google Scholar
  69. Pohekar, S., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8(4), 365–381.Google Scholar
  70. Poole, M., & Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.Google Scholar
  71. Ravasi, D., & Stigliani, I. (2012). Product design: A review and research agenda for management studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), 1468–2370.Google Scholar
  72. Robertson, J., & Barling, J. (2015). The role of leadership in promoting workplace pro-environmental behaviors. In J. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The Psychology of Green Organizations (pp. 164–168). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rodell, J. B., Breitsohl, H., Schröder, M., & Keating, D. J. (2016). Employee volunteering: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 42(1), 55–84.Google Scholar
  74. Schumpeter, J. (1947). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (2nd edn.). New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  75. Seuring, S. (2011). Supply chain management for sustainable products: Insights from research applying mixed methodologies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(7), 471–484.Google Scholar
  76. Sharma, G., & Jaiswal, A. K. (2018). Unsustainability of sustainability: cognitive frames and tensions in bottom of the pyramid projects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 291–307.Google Scholar
  77. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.Google Scholar
  78. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  79. Smith, W., & Tushman, M. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.Google Scholar
  80. Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  81. Sustainable Forest Management Framework (2008). Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests. 2008. Australia's Sustainable Forest Management Framework of Criteria and Indicators 2008: Policy Guidelines (pp. 1–16). Canberra, Australia. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia/Documents/ciframework.pdf.
  82. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.Google Scholar
  83. Van der Byl, C., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 54–79.Google Scholar
  84. Wright, L., & Heaton, S. (2006). Fair trade marketing: An exploration through qualitative research. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(4), 411–426.Google Scholar
  85. Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. (2011). Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 577–590.Google Scholar
  86. Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Suliman S. Olayan School of BusinessAmerican University of BeirutBeirutLebanon
  2. 2.Aston Business SchoolAston UniversityBirminghamUK
  3. 3.School of ManagementUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Department of MarketingCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksberg CDenmark
  5. 5.University of Pretoria’s Gordon Institute of Business ScienceJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations