Sustainability Managers

8/12/2019 Sustainability Managers

1/25

Management Decisionmerald Article: Sustainability managers or rogue mid-managers?: A

ypology of corporate sustainability managers

evin Tang, David A. Robinson, Michael Harvey

rticle information:

cite this document: Kevin Tang, David A. Robinson, Michael Harvey, (2011),"Sustainability managers or rogue mid-managers?: A

pology of corporate sustainability managers", Management Decision, Vol. 49 Iss: 8 pp. 1371 - 1394

rmanent link to this document:

p://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111163179

ownloaded on: 25-05-2012

ferences: This document contains references to 104 other documents

copy this document: [email protected]

his document has been downloaded 932 times.

ccess to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by SYMBIOSIS CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT AND

r Authors:

you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

formation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help

r authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

bout Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

ith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in

siness, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as


2/25

Sustainability managers or roguemid-managers?

A typology of corporate sustainabilitymanagers

Kevin TangBond University, Gold Coast, Australia

David A. RobinsonCentral Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia, and

Michael HarveyUniversity of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA and Bond University,

Gold Coast, Australia

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to look into the motivations of managers to commit their time andenergies to look at environmental, social, and ethical issues. In short, this research set out to answer the

following research questions: What are the different types of change agents for sustainability, in terms

of their existential needs? What are the motivations and frustrations faced by sustainability managers

as change agents? and How are the motivations and frustrations of sustainability managers framed by

the sources of meaning in their life and work?

Design/methodology/approach As the research is still at an exploratory stage, a qualitativemethodology was adopted. This methodology was also appropriate for the purpose of this

research, which was focused on studying how meaning emerges and changes in situatedorganizational settings. The authors were engaged in 27 value-laden semi-structured interviews

where they were looking to build a close relationship between the researcher and what was

studied. The interview process was divided into three phases to ensure the planning and validity

of the process.

Findings It identifies four such categories of sustainability managers, those being Scientist,Messenger, Artist and Storyteller. The findings suggest the key role of expertise, empowerment,

values, inspiration, strategic thinking and social contribution as key meaning for these managers. The

empirical findings help build on understanding of the different psychological dimensions of corporate

sustainability management, and provides a useful tool for developing effective organizational

leadership, enhancing recruitment and retention of sustainability talent, and improving individual and

team performance for key sustainability growth.

Originality/value This research has helped to deal application of existential psychology theories

to complement corporate sustainability. The findings more or less confirm the usability of majorexistential psychology theories to find sources of motivations of sustainability managers.

KeywordsCorporate social responsibility, Corporate sustainability, Change agents,Environmental champions, Meaning in life, Psychology, Sustainability managers, Values, Scientist,Messenger, Storyteller, Artisan

Paper typeResearch paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Corporatesustainability

managers

1371

Management Decision

Vol. 49 No. 8, 2011

pp. 1371-1394

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0025-1747

DOI 10.1108/00251741111163179


3/25

Retraction noticeThe publishers of Management Decision wish to retract the article Sustainabilitymanagers or rogue mid-managers? A typology of corporate sustainability managers, byKevin Tang, David A. Robinson and Michael Harvey, which appeared in Vol. 49 No. 8,

2011.It has come to our attention that a large proportion of this article (including parts of

the introduction, methodology, findings, theoretical and practical implications, andconclusions) were copied by Kevin Tang, without attribution, from an earlier article byWayne Visser and Andrew Crane entitled: Corporate Sustainability and the Individual:Understanding What Drives Sustainability Professionals as Change Agents, whichappeared on the Social Science Research Network on 25 February 2010. Theco-authors, David A. Robinson and Michael Harvey were unaware of Mr Tangs actionsand he has accepted full responsibility.

TheManagement Decision submission guidelines make it clear that articles must beoriginal and must not infringe any existing copyright. The publishers of the journalsincerely apologize to the readers and the original authors, Wayne Visser and AndrewCrane.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens (managers) can change theworld; indeed its the only thing that ever has (Margret Mead).

IntroductionAs social and environmental issues like persistent poverty, climate change, andeconomic globalisation continue to become more prominent in geopolitical and economicagendas, corporate sustainability is increasingly touted as a timely and necessary

response by business to these complex issues (Dunphy et al., 2003; Welford, 2007;Wheeleret al., 2003). To fulfil this purpose, sustainability needs to take on a conceptualframework that can facilitate change in a practical and relevant way (Winn, 1995).

Attention to corporate sustainability has tended to focus on how change can beachieved at the organizational level (Benn et al., 2006). Comparatively little researchexists on the role of the individual manager as a change agent for sustainability (Weiss,2003). What literature there is on corporate sustainability and the individual leveltypically focuses on four areas:

(1) the importance of values congruence between managers/employees andorganizational values (Fryxell and Lo, 2003; Hemingway and Maclagan, 2004;Van Marrewijk, 2003);

(2) the instrumental association between individual concern, knowledge andcommitment and corporate social and environmental responsiveness (Bansaland Roth, 2000; Keogh and Polonsky, 1998);

(3) narrative accounts by sustainability managers of corporate greening(Andersson and Bateman, 2000; Prakash, 2001; Walley and Stubbs, 1999); and

(4) the role of sustainability managers as champions, entrepreneurs, or agents ofchange in their organizations (Fineman, 1997; Georg and Fussel, 2000; Starkeyand Crane, 2003).

MD49,8

1372


4/25

The present literature provides insight into our understanding of managers within acorporate sustainability context by highlighting the importance of intangibles, such asvalues, attitudes and beliefs in driving corporate sustainability. The crucial role ofeducation and awareness in achieving behaviour change are central to sustainability

because without new knowledge managers may be forced to apply yesterdays solutionseven when the problem has changed substantially. Sustainability provides perspectiveand the scope for managerial discretion in making change happen, the power of corporateculture in shaping a consensus story, i.e. shared understanding on sustainability. It canalso harness leadership has a pivotal role to play in supporting sustainability.

We still know little about what motivates individuals to be sustainability managers,sometimes without corporate direction, how this affects such individuals, and what theyseek to achieve from their actions on a personal level. Moreover, the notion of sustainabilitychampions, which is prevalent in the literature on the role of individuals in corporatesustainability, only presents a partial view of sustainability managers. What is needed is aclear picture of the psychological dimensions of sustainability managers to betterunderstand why they act in a manner that is different from that of managers in general.

To date, the literature on the psychology of sustainability has mainly focused onresponses to global environmental changes (Wolff, 1998). While this is valuable, it doeslittle to enhance our understanding of the personal motivations of sustainabilitymanagers within a corporate context. More specifically, we have almost no knowledgeof how sustainability-related work contributes to job satisfaction and personalmeaning in a work context.

This is where the discipline of comparative psychology can shed some light on theactions of sustainability minded managers. In particular, the application of psychologycan begin to answer questions such as: To what extent are sustainability managersmotivated by instrumental incentives, such as career advancement and salaryprospects, versus more normative aspirations, such as altruism or striving to make adifference in the world? Framed more broadly, To what extent is the business case for

sustainability as opposed to the moral case a driver of individual behaviour? (Smith,1994; Tsang, 1998; Tu, 1995).

Clearly, there is a compelling reason to examine these questions holistically. First,we are more likely to understand the relative contribution of corporate sustainability toan individuals overall motivation. For example, is it their all-consuming passion, or

just a marginal concern? Second, we are more likely to get an insight into individualsreal motivations, instead of the more predictable corporate sustainability narrative. Forexample, a sustainability manager may talk about how having children changes theirperception of the problems facing the world, rather than how they are engaged insustainability because they believe it is good for business (Colle and Werhane, 2008).

The academic importance of this research is two-fold. First, by contributing toexisting theory on sustainability practitioners, it helps to explain one of the key driversof sustainability performance (e.g. namely the actions of sustainability managersthemselves) within a significant and growing area of academic enquiry, namelycorporate social responsibility and sustainability (Alexander, 2007; Starkey and Crane,2003). Second, the research helps to explore the appropriateness of various existentialpsychology theories in an applied setting. The trans-disciplinary approach ofcross-fertilizing psychology and sustainability is unique and results in a new hybridtheory (Pfeffer and Fong, 2004; Starkey et al., 2004). This hybrid theory is used todevelop a typology of sustainability managers in this paper. Since sustainability is


managers

1373


5/25

now an industry in its own right, and a flourishing profession as well, any researchthat contributes to a better understanding of sustainability managers is likely to offerbenefits to growing numbers of practitioners. This addresses Gibbons et al.s (1994) callfor doing research that is useful to practice.

Corporate sustainability and at the managerial level of analysisThe role of the individual manager in corporate sustainability practice is embedded inthe broader literature on agency theory (Moore, 1999; Seifert et al., 2004) and moralagency theory in particular (Eisenhardt, 1989; French, 1979). Swanson (1995) refers tomanagers as moral actors and Wood (1991) finds that managers individual discretionis an important component of corporate social performance.

Bansal and Roth (2000) notes that the beyond compliance environmental policyliterature is weak on recognising internal dynamics (as opposed to external factors)and the role of individual managers (as opposed to treating firms predominantly asunitary actors). However, there are four discernible themes in the literature oncorporate sustainability and the individual, namely:

(1) individual values;

(2) corporate social performance;

(3) individual narrative; and

(4) environmental champions.

Each brings a different perspective to how individual commitment shapesorganizational performance on sustainability.

First, one set of scholars argue that the values of individuals influence corporatesocial and environmental responsiveness. Prakash (2000) suggest that this is expressedmainly through managerial discretion, while Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) arguethat it manifests in decision-making (e.g. providing the foundation for managers todiscriminate between more and less important ecological issues), motivation (inducingcertain individuals to champion ecological responses) and leadership (where topmanagement is more receptive to ecological reforms which are aligned to their personalvalues). According to Hostageret al.(1998) and Starik and Rands (1995), alignment ofthe personal and organizational values or morals of managers reduces dissonance andtherefore improves sustainability performance.

The instrumental link between the attributes of individuals and corporatesustainability performance (the second theme) has been studied by Bansal and Roth(2000). Focusing on environmental entrepreneurship rather than bureaucratic change,they find that it is personal commitment, defined as both a process and a resultantthrough which organizational members display environmental concern that results inchange. Such conceptual links made with the entrepreneurship literature are perhapsunsurprising. For example, Posner and Schmidt (1993) developed a model forenvironmental intrapreurship that illustrates how ability, efficacy (perceived ability),motivation and desirability (perceived motivation) affect the successful identificationof sustainable options/opportunities. Sharma (2000) similarly claim that individualsbring critical ideas and energy to the greening of their organizations and stressindividuals innovative resources in terms of ideas that can increase ecologicalsustainability. Some researchers have gone so far as to label this phenomenonenviropreneurship (Saiia et al., 2003; Tang et al., 2010).

MD49,8

1374


6/25


7/25


8/25

his Personal Meaning Profile: I believe that human life is governed by moral laws; andI seek higher values values that transcend self interests (Yalom, 1998, p. 138).

Self-transcendence is also common to both literatures. For example, Patterson andWatson (1996, p. 18) conclude that sustainability is aspirational in nature, a

meta-ideal, one inherently infused with societal values of justice, integrity, reverence,respect, community and mutual prosperity. Wong (1998), on the other hand,emphasises responsibility as central to the idea of deriving meaning from making asocial contribution. Frankls (1964) Personal Meaning Profile includesself-transcendence statements like: I believe I can make a difference in the world; Istrive to make the world a better place; it is important that I dedicate my life to a cause;I make a significant contribution to society; and I attempt to leave behind a good andlasting legacy (Frankl, 1964, p. 148).

These insights and linkages provide a useful platform from which to explore andunderstand the existential drivers of corporate sustainability managers. In particular,they set the stage for asking the following research questions:

. How do different types of change agents for sustainability, differ in terms of theirexistential needs?

. What motivates and frustrates sustainability managers as change agents? and

. How are the motivations and frustrations of sustainability managers shaped bythe sources of meaning in their life and work?

MethodologyIn order to address these research questions, a qualitative approach was adopted,drawing on the narrative and life-history techniques (Denzin, 1998; Guba and Lincoln,1994; Janesick, 1998). Qualitative methods were well-suited to the type of researchbeing conducted, which was largely exploratory, involving inductive reasoning andtheory building. It was also appropriate for the research objectives, which were focusedon studying how meaning emerges and changes in situated organizational settings(Stake, 1998; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Here, we were engaged in a value-laden inquirywhere we were seeking to build an intimate relationship between the researcher andwhat was studied (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). Significantly, although positivist-basedquantitative research has been dominant in the existential psychology field, weconsidered a qualitative approach to be consistent with the subjective and sociallyconstructed epistemology adopted by several key scholars in meaning research(Frankl, 1966; Yalom, 1980) and in organizational sustainability research (Bansal andRoth, 2000; Moon et al., 2005; Sharma, 2002).

The life-history method of data collection refers to the ways in which individualsaccount for and theorise about their actions in the social world over time (Cohen, 2003,p. 10) audit was therefore a natural choice for the type of research enquiry beingundertaken. Cohen (2003) notes that the life history method is particularly relevant ifthe research requires an understanding of the motivations and influences thatorganizational leaders, or specific groups, bring to bear on organizations.

In order for research participants to feel comfortable to share highly personalinformation about how they found meaning in their life, a high level of rapport, trust andcredibility was critical (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). In-depth interviewswith 30 sustainability managers across a diverse set of organizational and professionalcontexts in Australia, including business associations, large and small consultancies and


managers

1377


9/25

companies from the real estate industry. The intimate approach to the interviews wasconsistent with the beliefs of most qualitative scholars (Esterberg, 2002; Miller andGlassner, 1997) and so-called research romantics, who emphasise interactivity andcloseness to interviewees seen as participants (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 14).

Similarly, Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggest that attempting to preserve the distanceand hierarchy between interviewer and interviewee makes for poor interviews, sinceresearchers cannot expect intimacy if they are not willing to reciprocate.

The sample included sustainability managers from corporations (19), consultancies(nine) and government agencies (two). There was a spread of seniority, from executivedirectors (six) and senior managers (12) to middle managers (seven), junior managers (nine)and consultants (two). There was also a range of working experience, with respondentshaving worked on average for 18.5 years (minimum five years, maximum 38 years) for anaverage of two organizations (minimum one, maximum six). Their average working timein the sustainability field was 8.5 years (minimum one-and-half years, maximum 20 years).The majority of the managers described their roles in terms of sustainability (20) or

sustainable development and environment (18), although other labels such as corporategovernance, occupational health and safety, social responsibility, social investment, publicrelations, business ethics, corporate affairs and public relations were also used.

Data was gathered in three phases. In the first phase, a pilot interview, resulted inthe original unstructured interview approach being modified to a semi-structuredformat for the second phase, as well as the introduction of two psychometric meaningin life questionnaires as an orientation technique. These additions were made after thepilot interview revealed that some participants experienced difficulty understandingwhat was meant by meaning in life.

The second phase involved conducting 30 in-depth interviews with sustainabilitymanagers from the nineteen organizations, guided by thematic questions on personalmeaning and corporate sustainability. The incorporation of two psychometric tests ordiagnostic questionnaires was not to obtain quantitative data for statistical analysis,but rather to introduce participants to the way in which some existential psychologistsdiscuss meaning in life, as well as to stimulate reflection on how meaning applied totheir own life. Participants were free to question, criticise and discuss thequestionnaires during the interview.

In the third phase of data gathering, second interviews were conducted with twelve ofthe original thirty participants from phase 2. The purpose of the third phase was to presentthe initial findings, including the meaning framework which was developed out of Phase 2,in order to obtain feedback and add more depth to the data through further discussion.

When the interviews were transcribed and analysed, the interview content wascoded using an inductive approach, i.e. there was no pre-determined structure imposed

on the data or preconceived categorical coding, but rather themes were allowed toemerge from reading of the transcripts (Fontana and Frey, 1994; Taylor and Bogdan,1984). This resulted in the identification of 72 themes, which were then grouped into sixsources of meaning and four types of sustainability manager as depicted in Table II.These were presented to participants in the Phase 3 interviews for their criticalcomment, ultimately resulting in a revised framework, comprising six sources and fourcontexts of meaning, with the typology remaining unchanged. This remainder of thispaper focuses on presenting the typology.

MD49,8

1378


10/25

FindingsFrom the interviews in this study, four distinctive types of sustainability manageremerged, in terms of their meaning-driven role as change agents. A type is essentially acollection of attributes associated with sources of life satisfaction. Each type TheStoryteller, The Artist, The Scientist and The Messenger represents a relativeconstellation of meaning or centre of gravity for meaning in the sustainabilitymanagers work, i.e. the mode of operating in which they felt most comfortable, fulfilledand satisfied.

Figure 1 visually represents the idea that people derive meaning from a variety ofsources. The conceptual model is depicted as having two axes, being continua, namelythe horizontal-axis (technical detail-strategic vision) and vertical-axis (entrepreneurialfacilitator-servant like collaboration). The types are then depicted in each of fourquadrants. The relative size of the shaded boxes simply indicates how much meaningthe individual derives from each type. Hence, in the case depicted in Figure 1, there isan assumption of perfect balance, although the authors do not imply such a state existsor that it should be regarded as an ideal.

Every category is a combination of traits that have been pooled and identified.Therefore, it is highly likely to find managers with inter-related traits but they areunlikely to hold all the traits of any one type. The typology is also non-exclusive, in thatindividuals are likely to obtain their meaning from sources relating to more than one

type, rather than exclusively one or another. This is consistent with major existentialpsychology theories (Frankl, 1965; Wong, 1998; Yalom, 1980). What identifies someoneas a particular type, therefore, is the weight of emphasis, or the strength of attraction,associated with a particular constellation of meaning relative to the others.

Table II introduces the comparative features of the four types, each of which is thedescribed and illustrated in more detail in the sections to follow.The identified sustainability managers are visually represented in Figures 2-5 (note thatfor each type, the relative weights of the other three quadrants are arbitrarily depicted).

Constellation ofmeaning Scientist Storyteller Messenger Artist

Primary source of

meaning

Specialist input People

empowerment

Strategic input Societal

contribution

Level of concern Individual Group or team Organization Society

Source of worksatisfaction

Personaldevelopment,quality of input

Staff development,effectivefacilitation

Organizationaldevelopment,strategic change

Communitydevelopment,social change

Skills Technical, process Managerial,facilitation

Visionary, political Collaborative,questioning

Knowledge Specialist Generalist Key players,future trends

Community ormacro needs

Legacy Successful workprojects

Staff or teamsachievements

Organization orindustry

transformation

Sustainableenvironment and

equitable society

Table II.Summary features of the

four types of

sustainability managers


managers

1379


11/25

The ScientistThe first type of sustainability manager is the Scientist, depicted visually in Figure 2.The Scientist typically derives satisfaction from developing and offering specialist,technical input and conscientiously bringing a project to fruition. This source of

Figure 2.Scientist typesustainability manager

Figure 1.Four types ofsustainability manager

MD49,8

1380


12/25

meaning echoes (Battista and Almond, 1973) notion of work serving as a way for

individuals to formulate their unique contribution in relation to society. For example,

one participant believed his work fulfilled a specific need in the market, saying:

I actually found a niche so to say as an environmental scientist.

Figure 3.Storyteller type

sustainability manager

Figure 4.

Messenger typesustainability manager


managers

1381


13/25

To illustrate further, another Scientist-type sustainability manager explained: Therewere a couple of projects that I did find very exciting . . .to get all the bits and pieces inplace, then commission them and see them starting to work. Another said: I usuallyget that sense of meaning in work when Ive completed a particular task, for example aSustainability Report, Ive really put in a lot and here it is. Or you have had a series ofcommunity consultations and you now have the results.

In the general sense then, Scientists find their motivation through engaging with

projects or systems, giving expert input, focusing on technical excellence, seekinguniqueness through specialisation, and deriving pride from their problem solvingabilities. The sense of fulfilment from being able to give specialist input as asustainability manager manifests through the achievement of specific tasks orcompleting projects (Frankl, 1966). Underlying this seems to be a motivating concernwith quality improvements in processes or products. For example, one sustainabilitymanager explained: If I look at the products we have, the feed-stocks, [I think] how wecan improve this thing to become cleaner, more efficient? I like it when somethingworks well, its optimal and it has an inherent quality in it.

Frustrations for scientists arise when their expertise is not appreciated or theiradvice not heeded. One sustainability manager commented thus: You feel frustratedwhen you think out of the box and you want to implement something new like we

want to implement a software system to help us on the management side of an EMS[environmental management system] and you can run into a brick wall of resistance . . .That puts a big boulder in the way and sometimes, you say, You keep asking yourselfif it really worth doing?

StorytellerThe second type of sustainability manager is the Storyteller, depicted visually inFigure 3. Storytellers typically derive meaning in sustainability work from empowering

Figure 5.Artist type sustainabilitymanager

MD49,8

1382


14/25

other people. People empowerment draws on relationships as source of meaning (Frankl,1964) and could also be seen as a manifestation of altruism or self-transcendence (Wong,1998). This aspect of self-transcendence is particularly clear in the way one sustainabilitymanager of a large mining company reflected on his achievements: Its hardly the

individual successes along the way, professionally, that really mean much to one exceptthe difference one has made to peoples careers, peoples lives and to developing people. Itseems thats much more of a lasting type of fulfilment.

Furthermore, one Storyteller-type sustainability manager said: If you enjoyworking with people, this is a sort of functional role that you have direct interaction,you can see people being empowered, having increased knowledge, and you can seewhat that eventually leads to. Another explained: Training is something that Ialways look forward to, where I get the opportunity to work with a group of people to interact with people at a very personal level. You can see how things start to getclear for them, in terms of understanding issues and how that applies to what they do.

Common themes among Storytellers are the derivation of motivation from transferringknowledge and skills, focusing on people development, creating opportunities for staff,

changing the attitudes or perceptions of individuals, and team building.Consistent with their role as a team leader, Storytellers relish group learning

contexts. One talked about getting people to think through things differently . . .Itsthe teaching and the enlightenment. . .seeing people come in with one set of views andleaving with different set of views. And you think, That has been important.

Storytellers are typically more sensitive to interpersonal dynamics and this can alsolead to frustration. A manager of a large business ethics consultancy recounted: Whenpeople let you down, its always sobering [or] when someone is dishonest with you, oris really just so negligent that they let the whole team down. Another pointed tointerpersonal conflicts in the workplace as a frustration: It demoralizes people [and] itbecomes very tight and difficult.

MessengerThe third type of sustainability manager is the Messenger, visually represented in Figure 4.Being a Messenger, draws on elements of dedication to a cause and/or the company as wellas creative values as sources of meaning (Battista and Almond, 1973; Wong, 1998). It alsolinks strongly with the literature on social and environmental champions (Sharma, 2002),especially descriptions of their ability to identify, package and sell sustainability ideas(Bird and Smucker, 2007) and their reliance on being able to influence top management(Fineman, 1997). One sustainability manager, who spent many years leading a businessassociation, reflected that the most rewarding part of it has been seeing the progression incompanies . . . in terms of creativity around addressing social and environmentalproblems. Another, who headed the safety, health and environmental department of amajor company, saw his most rewarding task as identifying all these values which Iconsider important and then building it into a strategic focus area.

For instance, one Messenger-type sustainability manager involved in safety, health andenvironmental corporate policy claimed: The type of work that Im doing is . . . givingdirection in terms of where the company is going. So it can become almost a life purpose totry and steer the company in a direction that you believe personally is right as well.Another suggested: I like getting things changed. My time is spent trying to influencepeople. The real interesting thing is to try and get managing directors, plant managers,business leaders, and sales guys to think differently and to change what they do.


managers

1383


15/25

Other messengers emphasised the satisfaction to be derived from influencing thecompanys leadership. Referring to one case where he had to persuade the CEO to investsubstantially in tackling waste water management, one manager recounted that it wassatisfaction not just in terms of me getting something, but the sort of tangible

commitment from the executives saying we are going to do business differently. . .

thisactually makes business sense, this is part of our values, this is what we are about.

For Messengers, motivation is associated with initiating change, giving strategicdirection, influencing leadership, tracking organizational performance, and having abig-picture perspective.

The frustrations for Messengers are typically related, as one put it, to the speed atwhich I would like to move [rather] than the normal rate and the concomitant level ofconflict. Whilst trying to be a change agent, they often find that you think that youvegot messages across and then find that it just hasnt happened, or its died a death inthe cascading process. For one sustainability manager, the frustration was so acutethat he confessed that its time to jump ship and actually drive something where youleave a legacy behind.

ArtistThe fourth type of sustainability manager is the Artist, represented visually inFigure 5. Artists derive meaning from their perceived role in improving the lot ofothers at a broad societal level. There is a strong link here between corporatesustainability and existential psychology theory in terms of self-transcendence. Forexample, Miller and Glasner (1997) talk about the life satisfaction people derive fromleaving the world a better place to live in, serving others, [and] participation in charity(the greatest virtue of all) (431). Similarly, Ryff (1989) claims that many people lookfor new meaning potentials in work that benefit his co-workers, minority groups heidentifies with and causes he considers worth supporting (Miller and Glassner, 1997,

p. 316).One Artist-type sustainability manager said: I remember one hardcore poor

condition that I witnessed in one of my work assignment overseas. You dont realisehow fortunate you are until you see their living conditions, and you start askingquestion like: How fortunate am I? The other manager suggested: My goal is toassist others in one way or another and hoping that this will set a good example for myfuture generations to adopt.

One Artist-type in our study cited a case where he had investigated worker abuse,which resulted in the working conditions being improved for over 5,000 workers. Herecounted: I took great pride . . .I can go back to a workplace and people say, Ever sinceyou come on board theres been a change, were now being treated properly, and getrewarded for the work we do, our working environment its much better, theres fresh airand theres life, we actually enjoy it, we feel happy to come to work, and for me thats abig difference. Another manager also gave a specific example, in this case involvingphilanthropy: As of now, he said, were currently working on a big program wherewere rolling out six billion tablets to wipe out malaria in Africa. . .For sure you feel like,were making a difference. Another noted: When you slow down and reflect back,Look, I made a difference today and thats amazing.

For Artists, motivation comes from being aware of broader social andenvironmental issues, feeling part of the community, making a contribution to

MD49,8

1384


16/25

poverty eradication, fighting for a just cause, and leaving a legacy of improvedconditions in society.

Frustrations for Artists often seem to be around the limits of their power to effectchange, as compared to the scale and urgency of the problems. Or they feel that the

impact of their sustainability work is too indirect to give a feeling of satisfaction. Asone sustainability manager said, often its not something that we get a chance to see,or see the end product of. In some cases, there is also a sense of conflict betweensustainability ideals one person characterised themselves as a messenger of thecommunity and the organizations response.

We identified at the outset of this paper, that the researchers of corporatesustainability had paid little attention to date to the individual/managerial level ofanalysis. However, our findings clearly find resonance in the broader management,sustainability and psychology literatures. For example, the Messenger draws on astrategic role (Starkey et al., 2004) and applies it to sustainability through forms ofchange management (Walley and Stubbs, 1999). The Storyteller finds echoes in theservant leadership literature (Shrivastava, 1995a). The Artist is probably best described

in the work on social and environmental entrepreneurship (Schaper and Savery, 2004;Schmidt and Radaelli, 2004) and there are glimpses of the Scientist in much of the moretechnical scholarship on environmental and quality management (Roome, 1999).

Dynamics in the sources and contexts of meaningIn the same way as sources in meaning of life can vary over the life-cycle or otherchanging circumstances (Wong, 1998), there is ample evidence from our data tosuggest that sustainability managers default types can change as well. For some (butnot all) participants, this was shaped by their changing work roles. Hence, there is asuggestion that either people are naturally attracted to roles that fit with their types, orthat their roles shape the meaning they derive as certain types, or perhaps both.

One sustainability manager also pointed out that freedom to align with onesnatural type may vary over the career cycle: One of the things that you have to bear inmind is how much individual flexibility you get in working environments. I think at anearlier stage in someones career, no matter what their typology might be, they dontnecessarily yet have the luxury of finding themselves in the position that givesexpression to their preference. This adds some nuance to Posner and Schmidts (1993)argument that individual commitment is derived from managerial discretion towardssocial performance, in that discretion (and hence commitment) needs to be viewed in atemporal context.

Another influence that emerged was the organizational context. For example, onesustainability consultant, a self-declared Activist, observed that the organizationdynamics of corporate require conformism to the organizational culture, which to a

large degree requires maintenance of the status quo . . .

this makes it difficult forActivists. This recalls some of the literature cited earlier on narrative accounts ofsustainability and the importance of being in alignment with the dominant corporatenarrative (Post and Altman, 1994).

Some participants also related to a specific typology as an ideal or aspirational state.The notion that managers internalise the expectations of their formal job role andtranslate this into a meaning type, underscores the aspirational nature of sustainabilityitself (Prahalad and Hamal, 2000).


managers

1385


17/25

Theoretical and practical implicationsBuilding on Crumbaugh and Maholicks (1964) more general work in applied psychology,the application of existential psychology to corporate sustainability managers appears tohave proved fruitful. The research findings enrich the current literature on corporate

sustainability and the individual through our application of the existential psychologyconcept of meaning in life. In terms of the first theme in the literature identified earlier the importance of congruence of manager/employee values with organizational values(Gardberg and Fombrun, 2006; Grayson and Hodges, 2004; Hall, 2006) our findingsconfirmed such a relationship across all types of sustainability manager, showing thatsome are inspired by the perceived alignment between sustainability values (Andrewet al., 2005) and religious faith or personal beliefs (Frankl, 1964; Yalom, 1980; Wong, 1998),while others are frustrated in their work by the apparent contradiction betweensustainability ideals and more narrow organizational goals.

In particular, our research supports most of the theoretical sources of meaning in asustainability context. Additionally, it hints at a possible enhancement to existentialpsychology modelling as change agency, which was strongly in evidence in our data,appears to be absent from existing theories of sources of meaning. We suggest researchin further professional contexts could usefully explore and confirm the validity of thisas a possible additional dimension.

An important contribution of our work here is the recognition that whilstsustainability managers will be seeking a confluence of values with theirorganizations, such managers are not homogenous in terms of their sources ofmeaning. Scientists find satisfaction from doing and achievement, Storytellers focuson relationships, Messengers on creative values and dedication to a cause and Artisanstap into their altruistic need to make a social contribution (Frankl, 1964; Yalom, 1980;Wong, 1998).

With regard to the instrumental association between individual concern, knowledge

and commitment and corporate social and environmental responsiveness (Alexander,2007; Annandale et al., 2004), which was the second theme in the literature, ourevidence suggests some important influences on individual commitment, namelycommitment is shaped by an individuals sources of meaning. Therefore, in order tofully understand the relationship between commitment and sustainability performanceit is necessary to identify which constellations of meaning are driving individualcommitment, and in which role and organizational contexts this commitment willtherefore translate into improved performance.

The third theme, narrative accounts by sustainability managers of corporategreening (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Keogh and Polonsky, 1998), typically focuses on theneed to embed sustainability initiatives into organizational narratives oriented aroundthe business case. Our evidence, however, suggests that the personal sense making

narratives of managers are far richer and heterogeneous than these organizationalnarratives. These include narratives of professional accomplishment (Scientist), teamdevelopment (Storyteller), organizational transformation (Messenger) and socialchange (Artisan). One implication of this is that emphasising the positive associationbetween sustainability performance and financial performance (Diamantis, 1999;Elkington, 2001), may not be sufficient to motivate sustainability managers. A secondis that theories of organizational sustainability narrative may benefit from attention todeeper-level personal narratives, insofar as the latter provide critical insight into the

MD49,8

1386


18/25

obfuscations, diversions and psychological work involved in managers constructionsof organizational narratives.

The final theme alluded to in our review of the literature, is also addressed by ourresearch. Our findings confirm the importance of the role of sustainability managers as

champions, entrepreneurs or agents of change in their organizations (Crane, 2000;Fineman, 1996; Georg and Fussel, 2000), but suggest that different types ofsustainability manager represent different modes of change agency. For example, theScientist thrives when he/she can have an impact on projects or organizational systemsand Storyteller when they can see sustainability team members or trainees change.Crucially, our findings also demonstrate that the psychological drivers of such changeagents vary, and that these drivers in turn may vary over time and context. Thechange agent toolbox that has been identified in the literature may therefore need tobe revisited to explore how particular tools and strategies may be more appropriate forparticular change agents who are seeking to derive particular types of meaning fromtheir actions.

Whereas the sustainability management role has previously been portrayed

one-dimensionally (Gardberg and Fombrun, 2006), this research has show that not allsustainability managers derive satisfaction from the same things and individualsdisplay a natural predisposition for certain role types. If individuals can match theirsustainability manager roles with their meaning type, it is likely that job satisfaction,commitment, motivation and productivity will improve (Gillentine, 2006). For example,if a Storyteller-type sustainability manager is given substantial team management andemployee coaching responsibilities, they are more likely to perform well than if theyare designated technical tasks on a systems-oriented project (Gopinath, 2005).Likewise, Messengers have a very particular set of needs around change agency, whichwill benefit corporate sustainability management if they are recognised andaccommodated (Godfrey and Hatch, 2007). We would suggest therefore that therepresentation of the findings as a typology of meaning creates a useful management

tool, demonstrating various of Gummessons (1991) advantages of typologies it isdescriptive, reduces complexity and allows for the identification of similarities anddifferences. More specifically, it suggests a way for human resource managers andorganizational leaders to better recognise the motivational elements of sustainabilitymanagers sources of meaning.

An insight into the meaning types of sustainability managers can also improvesustainability team performance. Management literature has long recognised theimportance of high performance teams (Hansonet al., 2005) and the positive impact ofteam diversity (Balkundi and Harrison, 2006). Henriques and Sardosky (1996) point outthat team members ability and/or knowledge have been shown to play an importantrole in team performance (Henriques and Sardosky, 1996, p. 609). Similarly, Hopkins(2006) concludes that in innovative teams the more diverse the information andknowledge that are applied, the more novel is the output (Hopkins, 2006, p. 723). Thisresearch suggests that each different type of sustainability manager is likely to bringcomplementary skills and knowledge. Hence, the head of sustainability for anorganization may consciously seek to balance sustainability manager typesrepresented in the team.

Another way to think about team performance is to match the roles, skills andknowledge of individual team members to the tasks that are a priority for thesustainability department. This agrees with Balkundi and Harrisons (2006) conclusion


managers

1387


19/25

that task-related knowledge levels are likely to be even more important to teams(Balkundi and Harrison, 2006, p. 609). Hence, if the team has to deal a lot withoperations, Scientists may bring more credibility to the sustainability function,whereas a corporate policy advisory unit may have more need for Messengers.

At the level of personnel management, as corporate sustainability becomes an evermore significant career path (Irwin, 2002), human resource departments of largecompanies are likely to increasingly be involved in efforts to recruit and retainsustainability managers. The literature is beginning to explore the role of existentialissues in career decision-making ( Jensen and Meckling, 1976), especially as it relates tospirituality (Kirk, 1998), but to date, there has been little attention applied to thecorporate sustainability context (Fineman, 2006). In order to address this, our typologycould serve as the basis for the development of a psychometric diagnostic instrumentnot dissimiles to the indicator (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). The benefits of such tools inleadership, team building and organizational development are well documented inindustrial psychology literature (Leiss, 1976), as are its limitations (Maignan andFerrell, 2003).

A final area of application is leadership. Leaders who realise the powerful linksbetween their companys sustainability performance and employees satisfaction maychoose to emphasise their peculiar type more consciously as part of their leadershipstyle (Mathieu and Schulze, 2006) to create a meaningful work environment.

Future research could test the findings in other socio-cultural, organizational andprofessional contexts, and the typology could usefully be developed into a more robustand practical management tool, including possibly a psychometric diagnostic.

ConclusionsIn this paper, we have sought to demonstrate that the relationship between corporatesustainability and existential psychology represents an innovative, interesting and

important area of cross-disciplinary research. Corporate sustainability at the level ofthe individual currently represents an under-researched area of scholarly inquiry,which this research has helped to address through an empirical application ofexistential psychology to corporate sustainability. The results largely confirm theapplicability of the major existential psychology theories to the creation andmaintenance of meaning in the lives of sustainability managers. They also generate adistinctive set of sustainability manager types the Scientist, Storyteller, Messenger,and Artisan as shaped by the sources of meaning in their life and work.

The representation of these findings as a typology of meaning adds to corporatesustainability theory and creates a useful new management tool. The participants havereminded us that, for many, it is fulfilling in and of itself simply to be engaging withsuch a dynamic, complex and challenging concept as sustainability. The satisfactionis huge, said one sustainability manager, because there is no day that is the samewhen you get into your office. Its always changing, its always different. Anotherconcluded that sustainability was the epitome of meaningful work because it painteda much bigger picture and is just as holistic as you want it to be. It requires a farbroader vision.

This paper demonstrates that deeper investigation into corporate sustainability atthe level of the individual gives us a more holistic view of sustainability managementand a broader vision of why it is important.

MD49,8

1388


20/25

References

Alexander, J. (2007), Environmental sustainability versus profit maximization: overcomingsystemic constraints on implementing normatively preferable alternatives, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 155-62.

Andersson, L.M. and Bateman, T.S. (2000), Individual environmental initiative: championingnatural environmental issues in US business and organizations,Academy Management of

Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 548-70.

Annandale, D., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Bouma, G. (2004), The impact of voluntaryenvironmental protection instruments on company environmental performance, BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Antonovsky, A. (1979), Health, stress and coping, in Bailey, K.D. (Ed.), Typologies andTaxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques, Sage, London.

Balkundi, P. and Harrison, D.A. (2006), Ties, leaders and time in teams: strong inference aboutnetwork structures effects on team viability and performance,Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 49-68.

Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000), Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness,

Academy Management of Journal, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 556-67.Battista, J. and Almond, R. (1973), The development of meaning in life, Psychiatry, Vol. 36 No. 4,

pp. 409-27.

Benn, S., Dunphy, D. and Griffiths, A. (2006), Enabling change for corporate sustainability:an integrated perspective, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 13No. 3, pp. 156-65.

Bird, F. and Smucker, J. (2007), The social responsibilities of international business firms indeveloping areas, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Cohen, B.N. (2003), Applying existential theory and intervention to career decision-making,Journal of Career Development, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 195-209.

Colle, S.D. and Werhane, P.H. (2008), Moral motivation across ethical theories: what can welearn for designing corporate ethics programs?,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 81 No. 4,

pp. 751-64.Crane, A. (2000), Corporate greening as amoralization, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4,

pp. 673-96.

Crumbaugh, J.C. and Maholick, L.T. (1964), An experimental study of existentialism:the psychometric approach to Frankls concept of noogenic neurosis, Journal of Clinical

Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 200-7.

Denzin, N. (1998), Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century, SagePublication, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds) (2005),The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research , 3rd ed., SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Diamantis, D. (1999), Green strategies for tourism worldwide, Travel and Tourism Analyst,Vol. 4, pp. 89-112.

Dunphy, D., Benn, S. and Griffiths, A. (2003), Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability:A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future, Routledge, London.

Ehrenfeld, J. (2000), Being and havingness, Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy,Winter, pp. 35-9.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Agency theory: an assessment and review,Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-74.

Elkington, J. (2001),The Triple Bottom Line for 21st Century Business, Earthscan, London.

Esterberg, K.G. (2002), Qualitative Methods in Social Research, McGraw-Hill, London.


managers

1389


21/25

Fineman, S. (1996), Emotional subtexts in corporate greening, Organization Studies, Vol. 17No. 3, pp. 479-500.

Fineman, S. (1997), Constructing the green manager, British Journal of Management, Vol. 8,pp. 31-8.

Fineman, S. (2006), On being positive: concerns and counterpoints, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 270-91.

Fontana, A. and Frey, J. (1994), Interviewing: the Art of Science, Sage Publications, ThousandOaks, CA.

Frankl, V.E. (1964), Mans Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy , Hodder andStoughton, London.

Frankl, V.E. (1965), The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy, AlfredA. Knopf, New York, NY.

Frankl, V.E. (1966), Self-transcendence as a human phenomenon, Journal of HumanisticPsychology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 97-107.

French, P.A. (1979), The corporation as a moral person, American Philosophical Quarterly,Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 207-15.

Fryxell, G.E. and Lo, C.W.H. (2003), The influence of environmental knowledge and values onmanagerial behaviours on behalf of the environment: an empirical examination ofmanagers in China,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 46 No. 1, p. 45.

Gardberg, N.A. and Fombrun, C.J. (2006), Corporate citizenship: creating intangible assetsacross institutional environments, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2,pp. 329-46.

Georg, S. and Fussel, L. (2000), Making sense of greening and organizational change,BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 175-85.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S. and Scott, P. (1994), The NewProduction of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in ContemporarySocieties, Sage, London.

Gillentine, A. (2006), Corporate philanthropy is part of being a responsible corporate citizen,

Colorado Springs Business Journal (CO), available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?directtrue&dbbwh&ANL54175940CSBJ&siteehost-live

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for QualitativeResearch, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, NY.

Godfrey, P.C. and Hatch, N.W. (2007), Researching corporate social responsibility: an agenda forthe 21st century,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 87-98.

Gopinath, C. (2005), Trusteeship as a moral foundation for business,Business & Society Review,Vol. 110 No. 3, pp. 331-44.

Grayson, D. and Hodges, A. (2004), Corporate Social Opportunity: Seven Steps to Make CorporateSocial Responsibility Work for Your Business, Greenleaf, Sheffield.

Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994), Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Gummesson, E. (1991), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage Publications,Newbury Park, CA.

Hall, M.R. (2006), Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations: measuringrelationship-building results,Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Hanson, D., Dowling, P.J., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. and Hoskisson, R.E. (Eds) (2005), StrategicManagement: Competitiveness and Globalisation (Pacific Rim 2nd ed.), Thomson,Southbank.

Hemingway, C.A. and Maclagan, P.W. (2004), Managers personal values as drivers of corporatesocial responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 33-44.

MD49,8

1390


22/25

Henriques, I. and Sardosky, R. (1996), The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm:an empirical approach, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 30No. 3, pp. 381-95.

Hopkins, M. (2006), What is corporate social responsibility all about?,Journal of Public Affairs

(14723891), Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 298-306.Hostager, T.J., Neil, T.C., Decker, R.L. and Lorentz, R.D. (1998), Seeing environmental

opportunities: effects of intrapreneurial ability, efficacy, motivation and desirability,Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 11-25.

Howard-Greenville, J.A. and Hoffman, A. (2003), The importance of cultural framing to thesuccess of social initiatives in business,Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17 No. 2,pp. 70-84.

Irwin, D. (2002), Encouraging Responsible Business, Small Business Service, London.

Janesick, V.J. (1998), The Dance of Qualitative Research Design: Metaphor, Methodolatry andMeaning, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976), The theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costsand ownership structure,Journal of Finance Economics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 305-60.

Keogh, P.D. and Polonsky, M.J. (1998), Environmental commitment: a basis for environmentalentrepreneurship?, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 38-49.

Kirk, D. (1998), Attitudes to environmental management held by a group of hotel managers inEdinburgh, Hospitality Management, Vol. 17, pp. 33-47.

Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.

Leiss, W. (1976),The Limits to Satisfaction: An Essay on the Problem of Needs and Commodities ,University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O. (2003), Nature of corporate responsibilities: perspectives fromAmerican, French, and German consumers, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 1,pp. 55-67.

Mathieu, J.E. and Schulze, W. (2006), The influence of team knowledge and formal plans on

episodic team process-performance relationships, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 605-19.

Menon, A. and Menon, A. (1997), Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the emergence ofcorporate environmentalism as market strategy, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1,pp. 51-67.

Miller, J. and Glassner, B. (1997), The inside and outside: finding realities in interviews,in Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research, Sage, London.

Moon, J., Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2005), Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship asa metaphor for business participation in society, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3,pp. 429-53.

Moore, G. (1999), Corporate moral agency: review and implications,Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 329-43.

Patterson, C.H. and Watkins, C.E. (1996), Theories of Psychotherapy, 5th ed., Harper Collins,New York, NY.

Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C.T. (2004), The business school business: some lessons from the USexperience, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1501-20.

Posner, B.Z. and Schmidt, W.H. (1993), Values congruence and differences between the interplayof personal and organizational value systems, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 5,pp. 341-7.

Post, J.E. and Altman, B.W. (1994), Managing the environmental change process: barriers andopportunities, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 64-81.


managers

1391


23/25

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamal, G. (2000), The core competence of the corporation,Harvard BusinessReview, May/June, pp. 79-91.

Prakash, A. (2000), Greening the Firm: The Politics of Corporate Environmentalism, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Prakash, A. (2001), Why do firms adopt beyond-compliance environmental policies?, BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 286-99.

Reker, G.T. and Wong, P.T. (1988), Aging as an individual process: towards a theory of personalmeaning, in Birren, J.E. and Bengston, V.L. (Eds), Emergent Theories of Aging, Springer,New York, NY, pp. 214-46.

Roome, C. (1999), Integrating environmental concerns into corporate decisions, BetterEnvironmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses, Communities, IslandPress, Washington, DC.

Ryff, C.D. (1989), Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning ofpsychological wellbeing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 6,pp. 1069-81.

Saiia, D.H., Caroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2003), Philanthropy as strategy: when corporate

charity begins at home, Business & Society, Vol. 42 No. 2, p. 169.Schaper, M. and Savery, L. (2004), Entrepreneurship and philanthropy: the case of small

Australian firms, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 239-50.

Schmidt, V.A. and Radaelli, C.M. (2004), Policy change and discourse in Europe: conceptual andmethodological issues, West European Politics, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 183-210.

Seifert, B., Morris, S.A. and Bartkus, B.R. (2004), Having, giving, and getting: slack resources,corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance,Business & Society, Vol. 43 No. 2,pp. 135-61.

Sharma, S. (2000), Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors ofcorporate choice of environmental strategy, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43No. 4, pp. 681-97.

Sharma, S. (2002), Research in corporate sustainability: what really matters?, in Sharma, S. andStarik, M. (Eds),Research in Corporate Sustainability: The Evolving Theory and Practice ofOrganizations in the Natural Environment, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 1-29.

Shrivastava, P. (1995a), The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability,The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 936-60.

Smith, C. (1994), The new corporate philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 3,pp. 105-16.

Stake, R.E. (1998), Case Studies in Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Starik, M. and Rands, G.P. (1995), Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystemperspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 908-35.

Starkey, K. and Crane, A. (2003), Towards green narrative: management and the evolutionaryepic, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 220-37.

Starkey, K., Hatcheul, A. and Tempest, S. (2004), Rethinking the business school, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1521-31.

Stern, P.C. (1992), Psychological dimensions of global environmental change,Annual Review ofPsychology, Vol. 43, pp. 269-302.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998),Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview, Sage Publication,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Swanson, D.L. (1995), Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate socialperformance model, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 43-64.

MD49,8

1392


24/25

Tait, M., Padgett, M.Y. and Baldwin, T.T. (1989), Job and life satisfaction: a re-evaluation of thestrength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of the study,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 502-7.

Tang, K., Robinson, D.A. and Harvey, M. (2010), A typology of sustainability managers:

scientist, messenger, artisan and storyteller, paper presented at the Asia Academy ofManagement.

Taylor, S. and Bogdan, R. (1984), In-depth Interviewing, John Wiley and Son, New York, NY.

Tsang, E.W.K. (1998), Can guanxi be a source of sustained competitive advantage for doingbusiness in China?, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 64-73.

Tu, W.M. (1995), Is confucianism part of the capitalist ethic?, in Stackhouse, M.C. and McCann,D.P. (Eds), Moral Business Grand Rapids, Williams B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI,pp. 409-11.

Van Marrewijk, M. (2003), Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:between agency and communion, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 No. 2,pp. 895-1005.

Visser, W. (2008),Making a Difference: Purpose-Inspired Leadership for Corporate Sustainability

and Responsibility, VDM, Saarbrucken.Walley, E.E. and Stubbs, M. (1999a), Greenjacking a tactic for the toolbag of environmental

champions? Reflections on an SME success story,Eco-Management and Auditing, Vol. 6No. 1, pp. 26-33.

Weiss, J.W. (2003),Business Ethics A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach, Thomson,South-Western, Mason, OH.

Welford, R. (2004), Corporate social responsibility in Europe and Asia: critical elements and bestpractice, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 13, pp. 31-48.

Welford, R. (2007), Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: issues forAsia, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,pp. 42-51.

Wheeler, D., Colbert, B. and Freeman, R.E. (2003), Focusing on value: corporate socialresponsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world,Journal ofGeneral Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1-28.

Winn, M. (1995), Corporate Leadership and Policies for the Natural Environment, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT.

Wolff, R. (1998), Beyond environmental management perspectives on environmental andmanagement research, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 7 No. 5,pp. 297-398.

Wong, P.T.P. (1998), Implicit theories of meaningful life and the development of the personalmeaning profile, in Wong, P.T.P. and Fry, P.S. (Eds), The Human Quest for Meaning:

A Handbook of Psychological Research and Clinical Applications, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, London.

Wood, D.J. (1991), Corporate social performance revisited, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 691-718.

Yalom, I.D. (1980), Existential Psychotherapy, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Zika, S. and Chamberlain, K. (1992), On the relation between meaning in life and psychologicalwell-being, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 133-45.

Further reading

Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2005), Corporate citizenship: missing the point or missing the boat?A reply to van Oosterhout, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 681-4.


managers

1393


25/25

Appendix. Corporate sustainability interview guide

(1) What is the underlying philosophy driving your corporate sustainability (CS) activities?

. Key decisions (short term and long term-1 each) or internal and external.

.

SBUs (Purchasing, Marketing, HR).(2) Would you say that CS has become embedded in the way you run the business or is it a

separate function? What are you doing to try and embed it into the way you do business?

. MACRO (compliance-based, market-based, value based).

. Will regulatory and economic incentives to encourage economic development andmaintain bio diversity?

(3) For CS to be embedded in the organisations DNA, for a start employee has to believe in itand that it is genuine. How much are they contributors of your CS strategy and to yourreporting?

(4) Do you think CS is good for business or is it something that needs to be done to appeasethe NGOs and other pressure groups?

. Some companies (if not most) are still/always caught between sustainability &profitability (long term investment but short term loss).

. Positive influences (financial benefits, competitive advantage, image enhancement,stakeholder pressure, regulatory action) Negative influences (lack ofregulatory/market pressure, uncertainty, monetary bias which favour narrow,short term & economist).

(5) In terms of your CS reporting initiative, how have you evolved the process to make itbetter and what best practices in reporting can you share with other companies that arestarting on their reporting journey or want to improve on their reporting? Also, what isthe one thing companies should definitely avoid in their CS reporting?

. Internally (a dedicated SBU that look into Sustainability) or externally?

(6) Do you think being known as a company with a strong CS culture helps you attractbetter quality talent to the organisation?

. Green maverick or Managements role encourages/attract talent

(7) Case example: Airlines industry (September 11, Iraq war, Severe Acute RespiratorySyndrome (SARS), uncertain global economic condition)

. What about real estate industry (credit crunch, rising wage costs, emission taxes,increase in material price etc?

Complete this sentence. CS is not about . . .

Corresponding authorKevin Tang can be contacted at: [email protected]

MD49,8

1394

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Sustainability Managers

Documents

Transcript of Sustainability Managers