Conference proceedings

Transcription

Systemisches
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement
Komplexität, Resilienz
und Systemdenken
Hrsg. André Martinuzzi, Norma Schönherr
Institute for Managing Sustainability
Herbsttagung der Kommission Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement
des Verbandes der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft,
7. und 8. Oktober 2013, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
Herausgeber:
André Martinuzzi ([email protected])
Norma Schönherr ([email protected])
Kontakt:
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
Welthandelsplatz 1, A-1020 Wien, Österreich
www.sustainability.eu
Cover-Foto:
© Kirsty Pargeter - Fotolia.com
Die Serie der Project Reports und Working Papers des Institute for Managing Sustainability dient
einer raschen Verbreitung wissenschaftlicher Ergebnisse zu den Themen „Nachhaltige
Entwicklung“ und „Corporate Social Responsibility“. Sie präsentiert aktuelle Forschungsarbeiten
und lädt zu Feedback und Diskussion ein. Bei den Veröffentlichungen handelt es sich um topaktuelle Forschungsergebnisse die in der Folge einer weiteren wissenschaftlichen Verwertung in
internationalen Journalen zugeführt werden sollen. Die Project Reports und Working Papers
werden von André Martinuzzi, Leiter des Institute for Managing Sustainability gemeinsam mit
Kolleg/inn/en und Gästen herausgegeben.
Unsere Forschungsfelder auf
www.sustainability.eu





Corporate Social Responsibility
Governance for Sustainable Development
Evaluating Sustainable Development
Innovation and Resource Efficiency
Sustainable Consumption
Das Institute for Managing Sustainability der
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien ist ein auf nachhaltige
Entwicklung und Corporate Social Responsibility
spezialisiertes
Forschungsinstitut.
Seit
seiner
Gründung vor rund 10 Jahren hat sich das Institut zu
einem anerkannten Think-Tank entwickelt. Das Team
koordiniert EU-weite Forschungsprojekte und führt
Auftragsforschung für fünf EU Generaldirektionen,
Eurostat, das EU Komitee der Regionen, UNDP und
eine
Vielzahl
nationaler
und
regionaler
Entscheidungsträger durch.
Willkommen
Welcome
Willkommen
Welcome
Vorwort der Herausgeber
(André Martinuzzi & Norma Schönherr)
Editorial
(André Martinuzzi & Norma Schönherr)
Die letzten 20 Jahre haben gezeigt, dass es
keine raschen und einfachen Lösungen für die
globalen Herausforderungen gibt:
The past twenty years have shown that
there are no simple and quick solutions for
global sustainability challenges: efficiency
gains have been compensated by reboundeffects; voluntariness often ends where
global competitive pressure is too high;
responsibility is at risk of being discredited
as an organisational facade.
Effizienzgewinne wurden durch
ReboundEffekte wettgemacht, Freiwilligkeit endet häufig
dort wo der globale Wettbewerbsdruck zu groß
ist und Verantwortung läuft Gefahr als
Organisationsfassade diskreditiert zu werden.
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement muss sich daher
auch
mit
Widerständen,
Trade-Offs,
Widersprüchen,
Ambiguitäten
sowie
den
Rahmenbedingungen
nachhaltigen
Wirtschaftens auseinandersetzen.
Therefore, Sustainability Management has
to
deal
with
resistance,
trade-offs,
contradictions, ambiguities as well as the
general framework of sustainable economic
management.
Systemische Ansätze bieten dazu einen
innovativen und verlässlichen Bezugsrahmen.
Sie stehen im Mittelpunkt der Herbsttagung
2013
der
VHB
Kommission
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement deren Beiträge im
vorliegenden Tagungsband zusammengestellt
wurden.
For this purpose, systemic approaches
provide innovative access. They are in the
focus
of
the
2013
VHB
Section
Sustainability
Management
autumn
meeting.
The
contributions
of
this
symposium are in the centre of this
volume.
Ziele dieser Tagung waren:
Objectives of the autumn meeting were

einen Überblick über den Stand der
Forschung
im
systemischen
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement zu bieten

providing an overview on the state-ofthe-field of research on systemic
sustainability management

innovative
Forschungsarbeiten
zu
diskutieren, die beide Forschungsfelder Systemdenken (Systems Thinking) und
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement - verbinden

discussing
innovative
research
approaches, which connect both fields
– systems thinking and sustainability
management

neben theoretischen und wissenschaftlichen
Inhalten
auch
Erfahrungen
aus
der
Unternehmens- und Beratungspraxis zu
berücksichtigen

incorporating
in
addition
to
theoretical and scientific results experiences
from
corporate
and
consulting practice

englischund
deutschsprachige
Forscher/innen
gleichermaßen
anzusprechen und über die Tagung hinaus
zu vernetzen

addressing researchers from different
communities, English and German
speaking alike, and enable them to
network even beyond that meeting

developing further skills in constellation
work and/or scientific publishing based
on the workshops following the
meeting
Proceedings of the Autumn Meeting of the Section Sustainability Management of the German Academic
Association for Business Research (VHB), Vienna, October 2013.
1
Systemdenken
Systems Thinking
Traditionelle Management-Ansätze sind meist
auf kurz- und mittelfristige ökonomische Ziele
innerhalb
eines
begrenzten
Entscheidungsrahmens
ausgerichtet.
Das
Prinzip
der
Nachhaltigen
Entwicklung
erfordert jedoch eine Erweiterung dieses
Rahmens. Dies betrifft auf der einen Seite die
zeitliche und räumliche Dimension, sowie die
Zielstellungen von Entscheidungen. Auf der
anderen Seite werden soziale Normen und die
Perspektive
von
Stakeholdern
immer
wichtiger.
Gegenstand: Nach dem Prinzip der TrippleBottom-Line
(Elkington,
1998)
müssen
unternehmerische Entscheidungen neben den
ökonomischen,
auch
soziale
und
Umweltaspekte berücksichtigen.
Traditional management approaches are
frequently focused on relatively short-term
economic targets within a clearly defined
scope. However, the general principles of
sustainable
development
require
an
enhancement of objectives, temporal and
spatial perspectives. At the same time,
stakeholders and social values are becoming
more and more relevant.
Subject matter: According to the concept of
the Triple-Bottom-Line (Elkington, 1998)
business
decisions
must
account
for
economic, environmental and social factors in
a balanced way.
Time: The principle of intergenerational
justice requires looking beyond short-term
optimisation but rather focusing on mediumand long-term impacts (Epstein & Roy,
2001).
Zeit:
Nach
dem
Prinzip
der
Generationengerechtigkeit
müssen
unternehmerische Aktivitäten auch auf ihre
mittelund
langfristigen
Auswirkungen
geprüft werden.
Space:
Entrepreneurial
responsibility
increasingly implies liability for the whole
supply chain (Mamic, 2005), working
conditions, consumption of resources and
global impacts (Hind et al. 2009:16).
Raum: Unternehmerische Verantwortung
erstreckt sich zunehmend auf die gesamte
Lieferkette (Mamic, 2005), z.B. in Bezug auf
Arbeitsbedingungen,
Ressourcenverbrauch
und globale Wirkungen (Hind et al.,
2009:16).
Stakeholders: The number of stakeholders
such as clients, employees, suppliers and
residents voicing their expectations towards
companies is increasing (Freeman, 1984).
Moreover, civil society organisations play an
ever larger role as well.
Stakeholders: Die Anzahl von Gruppen, die
ihre
Erwartungen
an
Unternehem
herantragen steigt stetig und umfasst
beispielsweise Konsumenten, Arbeitnehmer,
Anwohner und Zulieferer (Freeman, 1984).
Darüber hinaus spielen Nichtregierungsorganisationen
und
andere
zivilgesellschaftliche Gruppen eine immer größere
Rolle.
Values: Sustainable development is a
values-based concept (Davidson, 2000), in
which values do not serve as a control
mechanism but rather act as a guiding
principle for moral and responsible decisions.
Werte: Nachhaltige Entwicklung gründet sich
auf einen Wertekanon (Davidson, 2000), der
nicht nur als Kontrollmechanismus fungiert,
sondern auch Orientierung für ethisches und
verantwortungsvolles
unternehmerisches
Handeln bietet.
Sustainable Development presents companies
with situations in which highly complex
decisions are needed. These by far exceed
the capacities or traditional optimisation and
control approaches to management. Systems
thinking can therefore help managers and
leaders cope with the challenges of
sustainable development and deal with
increasing
complexity
of
management
decisions (Hummelbrunner & Williams, 2011;
Reynolds & Holwell, 2010; Williams & Imam,
2006).
Nachhaltige Entwicklung stellt Unternehmen
vor hochkomplexe Entscheidungssituationen.
Diese
übersteigen
bei
Weitem
die
Interdependance: Interdependence is a key
concept of systems thinking. It focuses on
how things are connected, by what, to what
2
Optimierungslogik
traditioneller
Ansätze.
Systemdenken kann hier einen verlässlichen
Bezugsrahmen bieten, der Managern helfen
kann besser mit der steigenden Komplexität
unternehmerischer
Entscheidungen
umzugehen (Hummelbrunner & Williams,
2011; Reynolds & Holwell, 2010; Williams &
Imam, 2006).
Eine besondere Rolle spielt dabei das
Konzept der Wechselbeziehungen. Dieses
Kernkonzept des Systemdenkens befasst sich
mit der Frage, wie Entscheidungsparameter
miteinander verknüpft sind. Wenn wir über
gesellschafltiche Systeme sprechen (das
Gesundheitssystem beispielsweise), stellen
wir uns darunter vielfach eine Reihe von
Zielen, Akteuren und Faktoren vor, die
miteinander vernetzt sind. Eine besondere
Herausforderung ist hier die Abgrenzung
relevanter Wechselbeziehungen, da Systeme
einander vielfach überlappen. Es ist daher
nötig, Systeme sowohl in ihrer vertikalen, als
auch in ihrer horizontalen Dimension zu
untersuchen
und
zu
verstehen.
Systemdenker befassen sich daher vielfach
auch mit Faktoren außerhalb, zwischen oder
neben den angenommenen Systemgrenzen.
Insbesondere
trägt
das
Systemdenken
dadurch den nicht-linearen, dynamischen
Aspekten
von
Wechselbeziehungen
Rechnung.
Das
systemische
beschäftigt
sich
insbesondere mit den Wechselwirkungen
von
Unternehmen
mit
den
sie
umgebenden Systemen, aber auch mit
den
Dynamiken
der
Sub-Systeme
innerhalb des Unternehmens, sowie der
zeitlichen und räumlichen Dimension von
Interaktionen innerhalb und zwischen
Organisationseinheiten
und
ihrer
kommunikativen
und
symbolischen
Interpretation.
Systemdenken setzt aber weit mehr voraus
als die Bewertung von Welchselbeziehungen.
Es verlangt ein grundlegendes Verständnis
dafür, wie verschiedene Aktuere diese
wahrnehmen
und
interpretieren.
Systemdenken
erkennt
verschiedene
Perspektiven auf ein und dasselbe System als
gleichwertig an. Dies erweitert den Diskurs
immens, da verschiedene Sichten auf
Gegenwart
und
Zukunft
vielfach
mit
Widersprüchen und Ungereimtheiten
and
bearing
which
consequences.
Interdependences as a concept is most
strongly
embedded
in
the
common
imagination of societal systems (e.g. the
health care system) we frequently imagine a
set of actors and factors that are
interconnected in some way to make the
system work. A major challenge in systems
thinking
is the
definition
of
system
boundaries since systems frequently overlap
or are embedded in other systems. It is
therefore necessary to study both the vertical
and horizontal interdependencies of a
system. Systems thinkers deal with outside
factors as well as in between factors of a
system. Systems approaches are particularly
interested in the dynamics of these
interdependencies, their non-linearity, and
the sensitivity to context.
Systemic
sustainability
management
thus is particularly concerned with the
interaction of companies with the
surrounding systems, but also with the
dynamics of the sub-systems within the
company, as well as the temporal and
spatial dimension of interactions within
and between organizational units and
their
communicative
and
symbolic
interpretation.
Perspectives: A systemic approach requires
more than assessing the interdependencies,
i.e. it is necessary to take a look at the bigger
picture taking into account that people
observing
these
interdependencies
will
perceive and interpret them in different ways
as well. Systems thinking thus acknowledges
that there is no single reality but rather a
broad variety of equally valid perspectives
people have on the same system and that
these perspectives will affect how they
perceive the system at hand. This widens the
discourse since similarities and differences
between the present and expected future
developments
create
puzzles
and
contractions that stimulate a much deeper
understanding.
Using the concept of perspectives in
systemic
sustainability
management
allows for taking into account the
different perceptions of the same
system, and thus create solutions that
are more comprehensive than popular
one-size-fits-all or easy-fixes. Moreover,
it allows for a greater understanding of
the structure of the problem and timely
detection of potential ambiguities.
Boundaries: It is important to distinguish
between the boundaries of a system in
question. As any endeavour makes a choice
between what is included and what is
3
einhergehen.
Diese
können
jedoch
umfassende Lernerfahrungen stimulieren.
Die
Akzeptanz
unterschiedlicher
Perspektiven
im
Rahmen
des
systemischen
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements
erlaubt
es,
ein
umfassenderes
Verständnis
von
Problem-stellungen zu entwickeln und
Ambiguitäten frühzeitig zu entdecken.
Umfassend bedeutet dabei aber nicht, dass
alle Faktoren in die Entscheidung einfließen.
Die Festlegung von Systemgrenzen erfolgt als
bewusste
Entscheidung.
Wer
diese
Entscheidungen trifft ist ein zentraler
Gegenstand der Forschung im Bereich
Systemdenken. Das Studium von Systemgrenzen und die Kritik an den Kriterien ihrer
Festlegung stehen hier im Mittelpunkt.
Systemische
Ansätze
versuchen,
die
wichtigsten Systemgrenzen zu identifzieren
und ihre Auswirkungen in der praktischen
Umsetzung abzuschätzen.
excluded, what is deemed relevant or
irrelevant; systems thinking studies these
boundaries and evaluates these boundary
decisions (and who made them). Recent
systems thinking approaches try identify the
most important boundaries and assess the
consequences of those boundary choices in
practice.
Following
a
systems
thinking
perspective
on
sustainability
management means to accept different
world views on equal grounds, develop
criteria for assessing boundary decisions
in
terms
of
advantages
and
disadvantages and take values and
power relations into consideration while
reflecting on the explicit and implicit
decision premises themselves.
Das
systemische
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement akzeptiert die Existenz
verschiedener
gleichwertiger
Perspektiven auch in Bezug auf die
Definition von Systemgrenzen. Es hat
den
Anspruch
Kriterien
für
die
Bewertung von Grenzentscheidungen zu
entwickeln, unter Einbeziehung von Vorund
Nachteilen,
Wertund
Machtgefügen, sowie der systemischen
Entscheidungsprämissen selbst.
4
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
Georg Müller-Christ
Als Hochschullehrer an der Universität Bremen vertritt Georg Müller-Christ
das Fachgebiet Nachhaltiges Management. Er hat sich auf den
ressourcenorientierten Nach-haltigkeitsbegriff spezialisiert, der Nachhaltigkeit
als Rationalität der Substanzerhaltung versteht. Mit zahlreichen Publikationen
in renommierten wissenschaftlichen Journalen ist Georg Müller-Christ ein
Experte auf diesem Gebiet der betrieblichen Nachhaltigkeit. Darüber hinaus
experimentiert er mit der neuen Methode der Systemaufstellung, um
Kompetenzen eines Sustainable Leadership in Lehre und Weiterbildung zu
vermitteln.
Georg Müller-Christ is a full professor at the University of Bremen and represents the Department
for Sustainable Management. In his academic work he applies a resource-based perspective on
sustainability, which follows the logic of resource conservation. With numerous publications in
renowned scientific journals, he is an expert in his field. Furthermore, he has been experimenting
with using systems constellations as a method for integrating sustainable leadership competences
in education and training.
Der Umgang mit Komplexität und Widersprüchen im Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement: Ein Blick auf das Prämissensystem betrieblicher Entscheidungen
Die zunehmende Komplexität ist ein beliebtes Thema in der Managementlehre. Mit ihr werden viele
Forschungsfragen und Forschungsansätze begründet. Nachhaltigkeit und Komplexität werden
hingegen noch selten in Beziehung gesetzt. Und wieso entstehen bei der Verbindung
Widersprüche? Der Vortrag versucht anhand des Umgangs mit Entscheidungsprämissen
aufzuzeigen, dass ohne ein Systemdenken die Widersprüche zwischen den betrieblichen
Entscheidungsprämissen nicht erkannt und somit bewältigt werden können.
Entscheidungsprämissen
Die Betriebswirtschaftslehre versteht sich schon lange als eine entscheidungsorientierte
Wissenschaft. Die präskriptive und die deskriptive Entscheidungstheorie haben ihren festen Platz
im Denkgebäude der BWL. Seltener werden die Entscheidungsprämissen thematisiert, den
Unternehmen gerecht werden wollen. Unter Entscheidungsprämissen werden dabei die Kriterien
und Handlungsrationalitäten verstanden, denen einen Entscheidungsprozess gerecht werden muss.
Die Betriebswirtschaftslehre eines Gutenbergs fügte der fast alleinigen Entscheidungsprämisse der
Funktionalität der Produktion die Entscheidungsprämisse der Produktivität und daraus abgeleitet
die der Effizienz hinzu. Mit der zunehmenden Komplexität folgte die rechtliche Legalität, dann die
der
Sozialverträglichkeit
und
später
die
der
Umweltverträglichkeit.
Moral
als
Entscheidungsprämisse war immer im Hintergrund vorhanden und erlangte durch die Diskussion
um eine Wirtschaftsethik mehr Bedeutung. Seit Beginn des Jahrtausends ist Nachhaltigkeit eine
weitere Entscheidungsprämisse für betriebliches Handeln, welche häufig zerlegt wird in ÖkoEffizienz,
Verantwortung
(CSR)
und
auch
Substanzerhaltung.
Mit
Blick
auf
die
Entscheidungsprämisse entsteht Komplexität nicht alleine durch eine Ausdifferenzierung der
Prämissen, sondern vor allem durch deren unklare, weil nicht sichtbaren Beziehungen.
Tatsächlich kennt die BWL das Thema der multikriteriellen Entscheidungsprozesse mit
Zielkonflikten. Gleichwohl scheint es so zu sein, dass die Regeln zur Lösung solcher
Entscheidungsprozesse
von
einer
Gleichwertigkeit
der
Entscheidungskriterien
oder
Entscheidungsprämissen ausgeht. Dann müssen diese durch unterschiedliche Verfahren in eine
Rangfolge gebracht werden, wobei die Entscheidungsprämissen dann eine absteigende Bedeutung
erhalten. Die neue Prämisse der Nachhaltigkeit verdeutlicht indes immer mehr, dass es zwischen
den Prämissen Spannungen und Anziehungskräfte gibt, die Entscheidungsprozesse nach
5
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
herkömmlichen Kriterien sehr komplex machen. Aus systemischer Perspektive lassen sich einige
der Beziehungen ganz anders beschreiben.
Systemischer Blick auf Entscheidungsprämissen
Die verschiedenen Prämissen betrieblicher Entscheidungen können als Elemente eines
Prämissensystems betrachtet werden. Kennzeichnend für den systemischen Blick ist der Fokus auf
die Beziehungen zwischen den Elementen. Diese können neutral, komplementär (anziehend, sich
wechselseitig verstärkend) oder konfliktär (in Spannung zueinander, dilemmatisch) sein.
Konfliktäre Beziehungen verkomplizieren den Entscheidungsprozess und werden daher gerne
vermieden. Dies geschieht zuweilen durchaus auch durch Umdefinitionen. So versuchen weite Teile
der Politik und der Wirtschaft Nachhaltigkeit als eine komplementäre Prämisse zur Effizienz zu
definieren, um Spannungen zu vermeiden. (Interessanterweise ist dabei deutlich geworden, dass
Effizienz bei weitem nicht immer die leitende Prämisse betrieblichen Handelns ist. Ansonsten hätten
wir schon eine ausgeprägtere Ressourcenleichtigkeit von Produktion und Konsum.) Wie aber kann
man herausfinden, wie sich die faktische Beziehung zwischen Nachhaltigkeit und Effizienz
gestaltet?
Systeme lassen sich sehr gut visualisieren, indem die einzelnen Elemente im Raum aufgestellt
werden. Dies ist möglich mit Figuren auf Tisch und Boden oder mit Menschen als
Stellvertreter/innen für die Elemente. In diesem dreidimensionalen Bild müssen sofort mehr Fragen
beantwortet werden, als in einer zweidimensionalen Betrachtung: In welchem Abstand stehen die
Elemente zu einander, was ist ihre Blickrichtung, welche Elemente fühlen sich verbunden, welche
erleben eine Spannung zwischen sich, welche sind klar und stark, welche sind diffus und schwach?
Vielleicht neigen einige dazu, die Prämissen alle nebeneinander zustellen, gegebenenfalls sortiert
nach ihrem zeitlichen Erscheinen in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Schon allein dadurch wird dem
Beobachter und der Beobachterin deutlich, dass fünf bis sechs Entscheidungsprämissen
nebeneinander Entscheidungsprozesse sehr komplex machen. Gleichgewichtig können sie nicht
berücksichtigt werden, also verlieren sie mit ihrem Abstand zum Entscheidungsträger – also dem
Unternehmen – an Macht. Fallweises Umsortieren fördert noch einmal die Komplexität, weil in
jedem Entscheidungsprozess nach begründeten, aber situativen Kriterien für die Verschiebung der
Prämissen gesucht werden müssen.
Was bedeutet es für einen betrieblichen Entscheidungsprozess, wenn die Prämissen nicht in einer
Reihe neben dem Entscheidungsträger stehen, sondern verteilt im Raum. Kann es sein, dass es
klare, starke Prämissen und dass es eher diffuse, schwache Prämissen gibt? Und wie müssen dann
Entscheidungsprozesse aussehen, die aus faktischen Gründen nach eher diffusen und schwachen
Prämissen ausgerichtet werden müssen, die starken Prämissen aber das Prämissensystem
dominieren? An dieser Stelle wird bereits deutlich, dass eine Aufstellung von Prämissen im Raum
zu ganz neuen Fragen an das Prämissensystem führt, die vermutlich aus Texten und Tabellen nur
schwer zu assoziieren wären.
Das Prämissengerangel
Mit diesem Ansatz wird die Hypothese verfolgt, dass die Unklarheiten über das Prämissengerangel
die Ursache dafür ist, dass Nachhaltigkeit in Unternehmen so selten intensiv angestrebt wird. Jede
neu auftretende Entscheidungsprämisse verändert das Zusammenspiel der vorhandenen Elemente
des Prämissensystems. Die systemische Perspektive ermöglicht es, Veränderungen einer ganz
anderen Art zu thematisieren: Prämissen können durch das Auftauchen anderer Prämissen stärker
oder schwächer werden, sie können ihre Position im Prämissensystem verändern oder sie können
gar durch das neue Beziehungsgefüge sich inhaltlich verändern. Diese Veränderungen können nur
sehr begrenzt durch kognitive Beobachtungen und kausale Erklärungen erfasst werden. Wie bei
allen anderen Beziehungen auch, wird die Qualität des Aufeinanderbezogenseins durch viele
unsichtbare Faktoren gesteuert. Zur Beobachtung der systemischen Veränderungen sind Methoden
wie Systemaufstellungen hilfreicher, die durch Intuition auch implizites Wissen sichtbar machen
können.
Seit ca. 20 Jahren wird von vielen Seiten versucht, Ethik als neue Entscheidungsprämisse in das
betriebliche Prämissensystem als neues Element einzufügen. Ein Großteil der theoretischen
Bemühungen geht in die Richtung zu begründen, dass Ethik einen Platz im Prämissensystem
braucht. Ein weiterer Teil der Argumentationen versucht, Ethik einen Platz ganz nahe am
Entscheider oder der Entscheiderin zu geben, also das Primat der Ethik vor der Effizienz zu
6
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
begründen. All diese rhetorischen Verortungen haben aber bislang nicht dazu geführt, dass in der
Praxis Ethik zu einer dominanten Entscheidungsprämisse von Unternehmen geworden ist. Dasselbe
gilt für die Prämisse der Nachhaltigkeit.
Aus der Forschungsperspektive stellen sich mehrere Fragen:







Warum tauchen überhaupt neue Prämissen auf, wenn ein System von allein vor allem an
seinem Bestand interessiert ist?
Gibt es eine feste Ordnung der Prämissen, die sich nach einiger Zeit des Gerangels unter
Einbeziehung der neuen Prämisse wieder einstellt?
Oder ist die Position der Prämissen situativ zu wählen: Für jedes Entscheidungsproblem stellt
sich die Ordnung der Prämissen anders dar?
Verdrängen triviale Prämissen komplexe Prämissen an den Rand des Systems?
Wirkt die gewählte Ordnung der Prämissen in vergangenen Entscheidungsprozessen in laufende
Entscheidungen hinein?
Was müssen Menschen können, um die Ordnung von Elementen im Prämissensystem zu
erkennen und sie gegebenenfalls neu auszurichten?
Sind Spannungen im Prämissensystem die Quelle von innovativen Lösungen?
Der Blick auf das Prämissensystem lässt erahnen, warum es seit Jahren so schwierig ist,
Nachhaltigkeit und Ethik an betriebliche Entscheidungsroutinen anzuschließen. Die schwer
erfassbare Komplexität der Prämissenbeziehungen und ihrer Widersprüchlichkeit stellt eine
erhebliche Herausforderung für Entscheidungsträger/innen dar. Sustainable Leadership kann daher
als Aufgabe verstanden werden, das Kräftespiel von herkömmlichen, bereits vorhandenen und
neuen, nachhaltigkeitsbezogenen Entscheidungsprämissen nach neuen Regeln zu gestalten und
damit Entscheidungsprozessen eine Struktur zu geben, die intelligente Abwägungsverfahren
zwischen kurz- und langfristigem Erfolg dauerhaft ermöglicht. Diese neuen Regeln und intelligente
Abstimmungsverfahren werden nicht alleine nach rationalen Kriterien zu gestalten sein. Die
Bereitschaft, sich auf Intuition zu verlassen, ist eine der Voraussetzungen für ein Sustainable
Leadership. Neben die bisher schon bekannten Kompetenzen zur Bewältigung von Komplexität
treten als neue Herausforderung vor allem die Fähigkeit, systemisch sehen zu können und
Dilemmata konstruktiv zu bewältigen.
Literatur
Müller-Christ, G. (2013): Konzepte in Beziehung setzen. Systemaufstellungen in der universitären
Managementlehre und -forschung. In: Praxis der Systemaufstellung, Heft 1/2013.
Müller-Christ, G./Nikisch, G. (2013): Sustainable Leadership - Ressourcenkompetenz zur
Strukturierung von Entscheidungsprämissen. In: Müller-Christ, G (Hrsg.): Sonderheft Die
Unternehmung: Managementkompetenzen für Nachhaltigkeit. 67 Jg. Heft 2/2013, S. 89-108.
Müller-Christ, G. (2013): Wo stehen Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenorientierung im
Unternehmen? Ordnungsangebote im Prämissengerangel durch Systemaufstellungen. In:
Klinke, S./Rohn, H. (Hrsg.): „RessourcenKultur: Vertrauenskulturen und Innovationen für
Ressourceneffizienz im Spannungsfeld normativer Orientierung und betrieblicher Praxis.
Baden Baden 2013, S. 392.
7
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
Nigel Roome
Nigel Roome studierte an der Universität Cambridge bevor er international Erfahrungen in der
Konzipierung und Umsetzung von Programmen im Bereich Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Verantwortung
und Globalisierung an verschiedenen Business Schools und Universitäten sammelte. In Forschung
und Lehre hat er sich auf die Gebiete CSR und Nachhaltige Entwicklung in
enger Verzahnung mit der Praxis spezialisiert.
Originally educated at Cambridge University, Nigel Roome has gained
international experience setting up programmes on sustainable development,
responsibility and globalisation in business schools and universities in the UK,
Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium. His research and teaching on
responsible business and sustainable development are at the leading-edge of
practice. He draws on experience with companies and managers pushing the
boundaries by embedding responsibility across the organisation and their
business models.
The ‘systems’ roots of Sustainable Development and Corporate Social
Responsibility
The argument in this introductory presentation is that the original view of sustainable development
that led to Agenda 21 in 1992 envisioned it as a ‘systems problem’ that would require solutions
that were operationalized through a ‘systemic approach’. This original conceptualisation
constituted what could be understood as a new paradigm intended to replace established
approaches to development.
However, for many reasons, it seems this new paradigm was poorly understood and it was soon
succeeded by non-systemic interpretations of sustainable development. This led to a curious
paradox: More and more practitioners, policy-makers and academics introduced the idea of
sustainable development into their thinking at the same time the paradigm changing nature of the
concept was diluted and lost. The outcome was the introduction of some rather weak and
inadequate responses to the challenge of sustainable development over the past 20
years. Consequently the cumulative impact of human activity on the Planet has become manifestly
greater. While there is increasing discourse and activity on sustainable development the goal of
sustainable development has become more difficult and elusive. The presentation explores why
this has happened.
It begins by outlining the main strands of thinking that went into the original notion of sustainable
development as a systems problem. I then look at the connection between business activities on
the one hand and sustainable development on the other, as this is critical to any insight into the
contribution of business and its management in securing sustainable forms of development.
With this background four key ideas that are crucial to an understanding of a systems view are
introduced:

the phenomenon of systems,

the systems approach to understanding problems,

the contribution of systems thinking, and

a systemic approach, to resolving problems.
By defining these key terms it becomes possible to highlight some of the many competing
conceptions that have divided scientific understanding and managerial approaches to sustainable
development.
With these definitions in mind the presentation concludes by highlighting some of the very real
current-day challenges to researchers, to organisations and their managers and to management
educators that arise when a systems view of sustainable development is adopted.
8
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
Joana Krizanits
Joana Krizanits ist systemische Organisationsberaterin in Wien, mit den
Beratungsfeldern Strategieentwicklungsprozesse, Umstrukturierungen, Kulturveränderungsprojekte, Führungskräfteentwicklung und Berater-ausbildung. Ein
thematischer Schwerpunkt sind komplexe Entscheidungsprozesse.
Joana Krizanits is an independent management consultant specialising in systemic
organisational development. Her areas of expertise include strategic development
processes, restructuring, cultural change projects, management training, and the
training of consultants. One thematic focus of her work is the management of
complex decision making processes.
Systemische Organisationsentwicklung und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement
Systemische Organisationsberatung versteht Organisationen als komplexe soziale Systeme und
setzt ein Methodenset für Diagnose und Intervention ein, das – aus verschiedensten Disziplinen
wie Kommunikationsforschung, Konstruktivismus, Familientherapie, Evolutionsbiologie, Physik,
Soziologie usw. zusammengetragen – gemeinhin unter dem Begriff des “systemischen
Beratungsansatzes” bekannt ist (Krizanits 2013).
Sie referenziert auf die Systemtheorie des Soziologen Niklas Luhmann (Luhmann 2000), wenn sie
Organisationen als Ketten von Kommunikationen sieht. Eine wesentliche Form von
Kommunikationen
sind
Entscheidungen.
Entscheidungen
beziehen
sich
rekursiv
und
selbstreferenziell auf vorangegangene Entscheidungen bzw. auf Entscheidungsprämissen.
Was kann systemische Organisationsberatung zum Thema Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement beitragen?
“Ziel systemischer Beratung ist es, langfristige, nachhaltige Lern- und Erneuerungsprozesse zu
initiieren und zu begleiten, um Systeme (Organisationen) überlebensfähiger, erfolgreicher und
effizienter zu machen” (Königswieser u. Hillebrand 2004). Wiewohl sie sich der Förderung
nachhaltiger Entwicklungsprozesse verschreibt, besetzt die systemische Organisationsberatung
nicht explizit ein Fachgebiet Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement. Ihr Biotop sind Organisationen, deren
Kommunikationsanschlüsse und Entscheidungsprozesse; ihr Gestaltungsbereich erstreckt sich auf
Prozesse der Strategieentwicklung und –umsetzung, der Struktur- und Kulturveränderung und den
Bereich der Führungskräfteentwicklung. Sie arbeitet also mit einem anderen Bezugsrahmen und
mit anderen Begriffen.
Dieser Beitrag will einige Erfahrungen aus der systemischen Organisationsberatung vermitteln –
Sie einladend, Verknüpfungen herzustellen.
Komplexität und Steuerung
Denn
in
der
Alltagspraxis
von
Entscheidungsträgern
stellt
sich
das
Thema
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement weniger als ethische oder programmatische Frage, sondern vielmehr
als pragmatisch zu lösendes Problem: wie gehe ich mit der Komplexität um? Wie kann ich, wie
können wir im Team, bei hoher Komplexität entscheiden und steuernd handeln?
Ansatzpunkt des Seminars ist die Unterscheidung zwischen technischen und komplexen
Wirkungsgefügen (Snowden u. Boone 2007). Technische Systeme mögen über eine Fülle von
Variablen, Kopplungen und Rückkopplungen verfügen; sie bleiben aber letztlich über berechenbare
Algorithmen in ihren Funktionsmustern stabil. Komplexe Wirkungsgefüge hingegen, ändern immer
wieder ihren “inneren Zustand”, d.h. ihre Funktionslogiken; sie verarbeiten Inputs pfadabhängig,
es besteht keine Kausalität von Input und Output, strenggenommen kann man gar nicht mehr
zwischen Input und Output unterscheiden (Krizanits 2012).
Im Seminar arbeiten wir mit einer Matrix, die in einem Brainstorming des Soziologen Niklas
Luhmann mit Mitgliedern der Beratergruppe Neuwaldegg entstanden ist und seither
weiterentwickelt wurde. Eine Achse dieser Matrix bildet die Stabilität von Entscheidungsprämissen
ab, die andere den Führungs- und Koordinationsaufwand, der sich aus der in der Organisation
herrschenden Varietät ergibt (Aufgabe von Führung ist ja spezifisch die Koordination von Verhalten
auf Ziele).
9
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
Die Auswahl dieser zwei Bestimmungsvariablen für Entscheidungsverhalten lässt sich pragmatisch
dadurch begründen, dass zum einen die Varietät in Organisationen durch eine Fülle neu
ausdifferenzierter Funktionen, Prozesse, Systeme, Management Approaches und Policies (Krizanits
2011), aber auch durch schieres Größenwachstum und Internationalisierung in einem Ausmaß
zugenommen hat, wie dies noch vor 30 - 40 Jahren unvorstellbar war. Zum anderen sind in diesem
Zeitraum Entwicklungen auf Kapitalmärkten, in Technologie, Gesellschaft, in regulatorischem und
internationalen Umwelten immer schneller, turbulenter und volatiler geworden.
In dieser Matrix lassen sich vier Paradigmen für Steuerung abtragen:

Ordnung und Effizienz – dieses Paradigma eignet sich für einfache Steuerungskontexte, die
sich durch stabile Entscheidungsprämissen und geringe organisationale Varietät
auszeichnen; es hat als mentales Bild für Steuerung den Demingkreis (Plan-Do-Check-Act)
hinterlegt.

Expertensteuerung – dieses Paradigma eignet sich für komplizierte Kontexte, die durch
stabile Entscheidungsprämissen und hohe organisationale Varietät gekennzeichnet sind; es
hat als mentales Modell die systematische Verbindung von Expertise mit linearem
Fortschritt bis zur Zielerreichung nach dem Prinzip des Management by Objectives
hinterlegt.

Kontextsteuerung – dieses Paradigma eignet sich für komplexe Kontexte, für die geringe
Stabilität von Entscheidungsprämissen und hohe organisationale Varietät gelten; es hat als
mentales Bild für Steuerung den Schleifengang hinterlegt.

Krisenmanagement – dieses Paradigma ist indiziert bei chaotischen Kontexten, die sich
operationalisieren lassen durch
geringe Stabilität von Entscheidungsprämissen
und
geringe organisationale Varietät; es hat als mentales Bild den Blitzableiter hinterlegt.
Mentale Modelle sind hochwirksame, unbewusste Überzeugungen, wie bei Problemlösungen
grundsätzlich vorzugehen ist. Auf gesellschaftlicher Ebene hat uns das Paradigma von Ordnung und
Effizienz den Rationalitätsglauben gebracht, das Paradigma der Expertensteuerung den
Fortschrittsglauben; was uns heute fehlt, ist ein Steuerungsparadigma, das Nachhaltigkeitsglauben
expliziert und verankert. Heute bilden alle Systeme und Entscheidungsprogramme in
Organisationen die mentalen Modelle des Rationalitäts- und Fortschrittsglaubens ab – und diese
sind auch unverzichtbar für den arbeitsteiligen Aufgabenvollzug. Für die Steuerung komplexer
Kontexte reichen sie aber nicht hin; sie führen zu unangemessenen, unterkomplexen
Entscheidungen, die morgen mehr Probleme schaffen können, als sie heute lösen.
Tools für das Denken und Kommunizieren bei hoher Komplexität
Statt automatisch aus dem Denkrahmen eines unbewussten mentalen Modells zu agieren, sollten
Entscheidungsträger – in allen Organisationen – sich zuerst die Frage stellen: In welchem Film
befinden wir uns – handelt es sich um einen einfachen, einen komplizierten, einen komplexen oder
einen chaotischen Kontext? Welcher Steuerungszugang ist angemessen? Diese Aufforderung löst
bei Verantwortungs- und Entscheidungsträgern trotz der hochtheoretischen Herleitung in der Regel
hilfreiche Aha-Effekte aus.
Das Seminar vertieft dann das Steuerungsparadigma des Schleifengangs für Kontextsteuerung
und vermittelt – veranschaulicht durch Fallarbeiten - von uns entwickelte bzw. aus anderen
Kontexten adaptierte Werkzeuge für das Problemlösen und Entscheiden im Team. Der
Steuerungszugang des Schleifengangs besagt, dass nur die wiederholte erkundende Beobachtung
und vielfältige Interpretation des Systemverhaltens schließlich zu einem tiefen Verständnis der
Systemgrenzen und -dynamiken führen können. Das Primat der Kontextsteuerung besagt, dass
Systemgrenzen und –dynamiken jeweils nur für einen gegebenen Kontext gelten; da komplexe
Systeme ihre Grenzen und Funktionsmuster immer wieder ändern, gilt es, die Prämissen des
Kontextes zu verstehen und gewahr zu sein, wie rahmensetzend – auch für andere mögliche
Kontexte – Enscheidungen wirken.
Alle Tools lassen sich him Rahmen von Regelkommunikationssettings von einem Managementteam
anwenden; sie benötigen 2-4 Stunden im Rahmen eines Jour fixe und können nach Einübung in die
Methodik von den Führungskräften selbst praktiziert werden. Die Funktion der Tools ist es, die
Aufmerksamkeit beim Denken und Kommunizieren so zu lenken, dass dies der Art der
Problemstellung angemessen ist - denn dies wird mit Scharmer (Scharmer 2011) als ureigene
10
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
(Selbst-)Führungsaufgabe definiert. “Angemessen für die Art der Problemstellung” bedeutet: je
nach Entscheidungshorinzont und Überblickbarkeit der Systemgrenzen und -dynamiken ist jeweils
die richtige “Flughöhe” anzuwenden, um nach dem Prinzip des Schleifengangs die Funktionsmuster
des Systems in den Blick zu bekommen.





Bei konkreten Wirkungsgefügen lässt sich ein erster Hubschrauberrundflug mit der
“Komplexitätsspinne” erzielen; mit ihrer Hilfe kann ein Team explorieren, welche Einflüsse
inhaltlicher, sozialer, psychischer, organisationsstruktureller und umweltbedingter
Provinienz aufschlagen könnten.
Bei überschaubaren Wirkungsgefügen mit kurzfristigem Entscheidungshorizont wirkt die
“systemische Schleife” wie ein Flug mit der Cessna; man fliegt ein Gelände ab und sucht
gezielt Entscheidungsoptionen.
Die “Komplexitätsroutine” entspricht der Propellermaschine, mit der man aus größerer
Höhe mehr Landschaft überblickt; die eignet sich für grundsätzliche Fragestellungen,
ungenaue Informationslagen und mittelfristige Entscheidungshorizonte.
Bei langfristigen Entscheidungshorizonten, unklaren Systemgrenzen und wenig Kenntnis
von Funktionsmustern sind wir auf unser emotionales Erfahrungsgedächtnis als Instanz der
Erfahrungsverarbeitung angewiesen. Wie bei einem Flug mit der Boeing vermittelt es uns
Gesamtzusammenhänge, Landschaftsansichten und Muster; es lässt sich produktiv stellen
durch Metaphern, Szenarien und positive Affektlagen. Hier arbeiten wir u.a. mit speziell
angeleiteten Darstellungen auf dem Systembrett.
Schließlich gibt es Kontexte, die so herausfordernd und so unkonturiert in ihren Grenzen
und Entscheidungsfolgen sind, dass es eine Orbitbahn braucht, in der man - als Individuum
oder als Team – immer wieder quasi die Welt umkreisend Orientierung findet in den
eigenen Entscheidungen. Eine solche langfristige Verankerung von Fragestellungen in
identitätsrelevanten Haltungen und Einstellungen ist z.B. für Entrepreneurship oder für
genuine Innovationen unverzichtbar. Hier arbeiten wir im Seminar mit Mottozielen (nach
dem Zürcher Ressourcenmodell (Storch 2005, 2009)) und mit der Methode des
generativen Dialogs (Isaacs 2004).
Führung als Profession
Was die beiden letzen Kategorien betrifft – hochkomplexe, in ihren Grenzen und Dynamiken noch
kaum absehbare Entscheidungssysteme – sind Organisationen grundsätzlich in stärkerem Maß auf
Personen als Entscheidungsprämissen, d.h. auf deren Werthaltungen, Kompetenzen und
Entscheidungsstile verwiesen. Tatsächlich lässt es sich beobachten, dass Organisationen mehr
Geld denn je investieren, um begabte Personen an Board zu bekommen, zu entwickeln und zu
halten - Personalmarketing, Employer Branding, Talent Management, Management Development …
das sind hier nur einige Buzzwords.
Dazu past der Trend, dass heute in Fachkreisen zunehmend von “Führung als Profession”
gesprochen wird. Dahinter liegt nicht nur die die Schlussfolgerung, dass professionalisierte
Organisationen professionelle Führung brauchen, nicht nur Unterscheidung zwischen Job und
Beruf/ung, sondern die Beobachtung, dass die Funktion Führung heute eine Reihe von Kriterien
erfüllt, die die Professionssoziologie als Merkmale einer Profession definiert hat. Sie verfügt über
eigene Expertise mit einem Markt für Nachfrage und Angebot und besitzt Unabhängigkeit in
Urteilen und Entscheidungen; hier geht es vor allem um soziale Unabhängigkeit und um
Entscheidungen in hoher Unsicherheit. Führung hat heute eine profunde Wissensbasis, die
zunehmend in akademischen Einrichtungen verankert ist und durch lange interne
Qualifikationswege ergänzt wird. Es gibt eine Fachsprache, eigene Methoden und Instrumente, eine
erkennbare Professionskultur (Stichwort „Management als globaler Kulturstil“ (Hickson & Pugh
1995)) und eine Professionsethik (Stichworte “Ethik im Management”, “Compliance”, “Governance”
…). Führungsleistungen werden durch eine Reihe von Verfahren (360-Grad-Feedback, Management
Audits, Selbstassessment Tools usw.) evaluiert. Führungskräfte organisieren sich in Interessensund Standesvertretungen. Konstitutives Merkmal einer Profession ist auch, dass sie mit
Problemlösungen von grundlegender Bedeutung für die Gesellschaft betraut wird. In einer auf
Organisationen beruhenden Gesellschaft ist nicht nur die professionelle Führung von
Organisationen ein zentrales gesellschaftliches Anliegen. Zunehmend werden auch “gute” d.h. in
gesamtgesellschaftlicher Abwägung getroffene Entscheidungen zu einem Kernanliegen einer
komplexen Gesellschaft. Denn viele Entscheidungen, die für eine Organisation oder aus Sicht eines
11
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
“Funktionssystems” (Wirtschaft, Politik, Gesundheitswesen, Rechtswesen, Sport, Kultur …)
optimiert werden, externalisieren nachteilige Effekte in die Gesamtgesellschaft. Dieser
Grunddynamik lässt sich nicht auf Ebene der Organisation, wohl aber auf Ebene der Profession
Führung entgegenwirken.
Wenn es Ziel ist, Kriterien des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements wirksam zu etablieren, scheint mir –
neben einem fixen Platz im Kanon der inhaltlichen Entscheidungsprämissen einer Organisation –
auch die Verankerung in der Sozialisierung von – zukünftigen und gegenwärtigen –
Führungskräften eine wichtige Stoßrichtung dazu zu sein.
Conclusion
Verantwortungs- und Entscheidungsträger in ihrer Doppelmitgliedschaft zu ihrer Organisation
einerseits und zu ihrer Profession andererseits sollten heute willens und befähigt sein, die ihrem
Entscheidungsverhalten vorgelagerten mentalen Modelle zu reflektieren, das Steuerungsparadigma
für komplexe Kontexte zu differenzieren und beim Denken, Problemlösen und Entscheiden das
mentale Modell des Schleifengangs zu praktizieren. Dazu helfen spezifische Tools für das Denken
und Kommunizieren im Team, denn die bestehenden Denk- und Kommunikationsroutinen bilden
einseitig die “unterkomplexen” mentalen Modelle des Rationalitäts- und des Fortschrittsglaubens
ab.
Literatur
Dörner, D. (1989): Die Logik des Misslingens: Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen.
Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. 7.Aufl.: 2008
Hickson, D..J. a. Pugh, D.S. (1995): Management Worldwide. London: Penguin Group
Hüther, G. (2007): Biologie der Angst: Wie aus Stress Gefühle werden. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht
Isaacs, W. (2004): Der Dialog. In: Senge, P. et al.: Das Fieldbook zur Fünften Disziplin. Stuttgart:
Klett-Cotta. S 412–446
Königswieser R. u. M. Hillebrand (2004): Einführung in die systemische Organisationsberatung.
Heidelberg: Carl Auer Compact
Krizanits, J. (2011): Professionsfeld Inhouse Consulting Praxis und Theorie der internen
Organisationsberatung, Heidelberg: Carl Auer
Krizanits, J. (2012): Denken, Kommunizieren, Entscheiden in hoher Komplexität – Wie man’s
macht. In Graf, J. (Hg.): Das Jahrbuch der Management-Weiterbildung 2012. Bonn:
ManagerSeminare
Krizanits, J. (2013): Einführung in die Methoden der systemischen Organisationsberatung
Heidelberg: Carl Auer Compact
Luhmann, N. (2000): Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag
Snowden, D. J., Boone, M. E. (2007): Entscheiden in chaotischen Zeiten. In: Harvard Business
Manager. Hamburg: Manager-Magazin-Verl.-Ges. 12/2007. S 28–42
Scharmer, C. O. (2011): Theorie U: Von der Zukunft her führen: Presencing als soziale Technik.
2.Aufl. Heidelberg: Carl Auer
Storch, M. (2005): Das Geheimnis guter Entscheidungen: Von somatischen Markern, Bauchgefühl
und Überzeugungskraft. München: Goldmann
Storch, M. (2009): Motto-Ziele, S.M.A.R.T.-Ziele und Motivation. In: Birgmeier B. (Hg.):
Coachingwissen. Denn sie wissen nicht, was sie tun? Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften /GWV Fachverlage GmbH, S. 183–205
12
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
Gandolfo Dominici
Gandolfo Dominici ist Professor für Business Management und Organizational
Processes im SEAS Department der Universität von Palermo (Italien),
Vorstandsmitglied der WOSC (World Organisation for Systems and Cybernetics),
Mitbegründer und wissenschaftlicher Leiter des Business Systems Laboratory
(B.S.Lab), sowie Mitherausgeber mehrerer internationaler wissenschaftlicher
Journale. Sein akademisches Interesse gilt dem Viable Systems Approach. Er ist
spezialisiert auf die Entwicklung von systemischen Ansätzen für nachhaltige
Unternehmensführung,
Kybernetik
und
Systemdenken
im
Bereich
Managementstudien.
Gandolfo Dominici is chair of Business Management and of Organizational Processes at the
Department SEAS of the University of Palermo (Italy); Board member of the WOSC (World
Organisation for Systems and Cybernetics); Co-founder and Scientific Director of the Business
Systems Laboratory (B.S.Lab); and a member of the editorial board of several international peerreviewed journals. His main research interest is the Viable Systems Approach where he focuses on
the conception of viable systems for responsible and sustainable businesses. His core competencies
are in the areas of cybernetics and systems thinking applied to managerial studies.
Sustainability according to the Viable Systems Perspective
In this speech, I aim to point out some relevant ways in which organizations can decide and act
sustainably according to a cybernetic and viable systems perspective.
Introductory note on the approach: Viable Systems in Business Sciences
Numerous developments of the Viable Systems perspective have applied to organizational studies.
In general, we can say that Viable Systems perspectives are scientific approaches that integrate
the systemic theory introduced by the seminal works of von Bertalanffy (1968) and the cybernetics
approach of Ross Ashby (1956, 1958, 1960, 1964).
Stafford Beer is considered the father of ‘Management’ or ‘Organizational Cybernetics’, which has
led the development of cybernetics in the study of business organizations. Beginning from Weiner’s
cybernetics, as ‘the science of communication and control in systems’ (1948), Beer redefined
cybernetics as ‘the science of effective organization’ (Beer 1974, p.13). Since the publication of his
first book, Cybernetics and Management, in 1959, Beer focused on the enforcement of systems
thinking and on the relevance of cybernetics and modeling in the search for a universally valid
approach to modeling and designing organizations (Dominici & Palumbo, 2013). With his ‘Sketch
for a cybernetic factory’ (Beer, 1959), Beer introduced the Viable System Model (VSM) as a settheoretical model based on the systems approach and cybernetics systems viability. The VSM is a
sophisticated model incorporating Ashby’s law of requisite variety (LRV) and insights from
neurophysiology (inspired by the work of McCulloch) for enterprises.
Beer recognized a parallelism between the brain of a viable human organism and those of the
management systems of a viable organization in terms of their capabilities and basic structural
patterns. In Beer’s VSM, the brain is conceived as an open system involved in constant relations
with the context (Dominici & Palumbo, 2013). When it receives an external stimulus, it is capable
of activating a decision-making process and translating perceptions into actions. Its mission is to
control (Wiener 1948, 1965) and harmonize all of the organism’s functions (subsystems), and to be
adaptive and proactive to the external context.
Cybernetic systems’ main feature is their viability, which is the ability to successfully face the
problems of a complex context, to self-regulate, and to settle down (Dominici & Palumbo, 2013).
Therefore, we can assert that an organization is viable only if it survives in a particular sort of
context. A Viable System is a set of operational elements that are held together in balance with the
external context; when the context changes, the organization responds accordingly. The VSM
focuses mainly on the study and understanding of organizational internal functioning in order to
conduct external adaptation (Espejo & Harnden, 1989).
The external aspects of organizational viability have been developed by the Italian school of the
VSA. The Viable Systems Approach, starting from the theoretical set of rules of the VSM, further
13
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
developed the study of the adaptation of viable systems to the context, emphasizing the influence
that derives from other overlying systemic entities in the external environment (i.e., the suprasystems) and from the continuous quest for structural coupling with them (called consonance in
this approach). The VSA deeply analyzes the homeostatic interactions between the viable system
and its supra-systems, which lead to unbroken changes in the system.
The VSA highlights the richness of interdependencies in the environment, which is perceived as an
ecology of more or less viable supra-systems. Supra-systems are systems in the environmental
context that are evaluated as relevant by the ‘organ of governance’ (OoG) (referred to here as the
kybernetes), which is the decider (as in Miller, 1978).
Sustainability Awareness -The role of the kybernetes for organizational viability and
sustainability
The most important aspect that should be considered is 'sustainability awareness' in decisions and
actions. Accordingly, we now examine this aspect thorough the lens of the VSA (Golinelli, 2010).
To claim that sustainability awareness is needed in order to achieve sustainability in an
organization means that every actor inside (sub-system) and outside (supra-system) the
organizational system needs to be enabled to make informed decisions about important choices.
The VSA is an effective methodology to understand and evaluate the consequences of managerial
action by emphasizing the role of the "thinking core" of the organization (Golinelli & Volpe, 2012).
The organizational thinking core is the kybernetes (κυβερνήτης is the ancient Greek word for “sea
captain,” “steersman” or “governor”) (Dominici, 2013).
As we underscored above, Beer (1974, p.13) defined "cybernetics" as the "science of the effective
organization". I would add that cybernetics can be also defined as "the art and science of the good
kybernetes" (Dominici, 2013, p.39). I personally conceive of cybernetics as both an art and a
science, while asserting that is more than a mere technique. As the art of governing, it is by
definition the discipline of leading, deciding, and managing social organizations of all levels,
including nations, firms, and families.
The kybernetes is the organ of governance (as in the VSA), the decisional subject (as in Miller's
Living Systems Theory) who dynamically construes the context and creates the reality in which the
organization acts. What is not construed by the kybernetes doesn't exist in the organizational
decision-making and action-taking process. Therefore, the reality of the actor is that that the actor
can feel and perceive, as pointed out by the so-called "second-order cybernetics" (von Foerster,
1974, 1979 and 2003; Bateson, 1972; Krippendorff, 1996).
Being aware of the subjective nature of "the science/art of effective organization" (cybernetics)
leaves the kybernetes all the power and responsibility to outline reality and direct the organization
towards its goals. In other words (Dominici, 2013, p. 40):The kybernetes creates through the very
act of creation. Hence, to introduce the values of sustainability into the organizational decisionmaking and action-taking process, it is necessary that the kybernetes is aware of sustainability
issues.
Sustainability in the "viable organization"
Beer (1981, 1985, 2002) states that an organization is viable if it survives, remains united and is
complete; it is homeostatically balanced both internally and externally and furthermore has
mechanisms that allow it to grow, learn, develop, and adapt, and thus become increasingly more
effective in its environment. The more the organization is able to preserve and regenerate the
"commons", the more possibilities it has to maintain viability in the long term (Rullani, 2010).
Viability assumes the relevance of "time" as an important factor in decision-making and action.
This implies that, if we consider the organization to be a dissipative system (Prigogine & Stengers,
1984), then in order to counterbalance the consumption of relevant resources, it is necessary to
think ahead to a time horizon that extends beyond the mere achievement of functioning resources
in the short to middle term.
14
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
Therefore, we can consider sustainability as systemic viability in the long term. This broader time
horizon entails that the role of the kybernetes not be limited to the quest for functioning resources
within a limited timeframe but rather must be developed in a more general way as a philosophy
guiding the kybernetes in every decision and action.
The above-mentioned philosophical orientation of the kybernetes towards sustainability represents
the set of basic principles according to which the supra-systems can be shaped, thereby creating a
"reality" of the organization that includes sustainable issues in a long-term perspective. This is the
starting point for creating and implementing a sustainable organizational vision and set of values
that will ultimately direct the "praxis" and implement actions to achieve structural coupling
(consonance) with the supra-systems.
The search for consonance with supra-systems beyond the “immanent” context requires that the
kybernetes be able to imagine and consider a number of possible scenarios and wider horizons
than those usually included in a business plan. In fact, the recognition of the relevant supra-system
in a wide horizon of time and possibility drastically increases the complexity of decisions and action
plans. This implies that it is impossible to seek consonance through mere negotiations, but rather it
is essential to involve "values" in the decision-making and action-taking processes. For these
reasons, the kybernetes’ role, values and education are of extreme importance to the
sustainability –and thus the long-term viability – of human organizations.
References
Ashby, W.R. (1956) Introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, London
Ashby, W.R. (1958) Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems.
Cybernetica 1(2):83–99
Ashby, W.R. (1960) Design for a brain: the origin of adaptive behaviour. Wiley, New York
Ashby, W.R. (1964) The set theory of mechanism and homeostasis. In: von Bertalanffy L,
Rapoport A (eds). General systems: yearbook of the society for general systems research, vol 1.
Society for General Systems Research, Ann Arbor, pp 83–97.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.
Beer, S. (1959) Cybernetics and management. English University Press, London
Beer, S. (1974). Designing Freedom. Wiley, London
Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the Firm, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley.
Beer. S. (2002). What is cybernetics? Kybernetes, 31(2): 209–219.
Bertalanffy, L. von (1968) General system theory: foundations, development, applications.
Braziller, NewYork.
Dominici G. (2013) Complexity and Action: Reflections on Decision Making and Cybernetics.
Business Systems Review 2(2): 38-47.
Dominici, G. & Palumbo, F. (2013). Decoding the Japanese Lean Production System according to
a Viable Systems Perspective. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26(2):153–171.
Espejo R. & Harnden R.J. (1989). The Viable System Model. Wiley, London
Foerster, H., von (1974). Cybernetics of cybernetics or the control of control and the
communication of communication. Minneapolis (USA): Future Systems.
Foerster, H., von. (1979). Cybernetics of Cybernetics. In Krippendorff, K. (ed.) Communication
and Control in Society, 5-8. New York (USA): Gordon and Breach.
Foerster, H., von (2003). Understanding Understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition.
Heidelberg (Germany): Springer.
Golinelli G.M. (2010) Viable Systems Approach (VSA). Cedam, Padua
Golinelli G.M. & Volpe L. (2012) Consonanza, Valore, Sostenibilità. Cedam, Padua
Krippendorff, K. (1979) Communication and Control in Society, 5-8. New York (USA): Gordon and
Breach
15
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
Krippendorff, K. (1996). A Second-Order Cybernetics of Otherness. Systems Research, 13(3):
311–28.
Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill
Prigogine, I. & Stengers I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos. Bantam Books, NY.
Rullani E. (2010). Impresa e produzione di valore nell'era della complessità. Sinergie, 81: 225241.
Wiener, N. (1948) Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine.
Wiley, New York.
Wiener N. (1965) Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine, 2nd
edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
16
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
Hans-Ulrich Zabel
Hans-Ulrich Zabel ist Professor für BWL und betriebliches Umweltmanagement
an der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Seine Forschungsinteressen
liegen unter anderem in den Bereichen Nachhaltigkeitsorientierung von
Politikbereichen und Verhalten, Betriebliches Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement,
sowie Nachhaltigkeit und ökonomische Theorie. Darüber hinaus ist er Mitglied
der Kommission Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement und der sächsischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
Hans-Ulrich Zabel holds a full professorship for business administration and corporate
environmental management at Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg. His main areas of
academic interest are the sustainability orientation of policy fields and behaviour, corporate
sustainability management, environmental ethics, and sustainability in economic theory. Moreover
he is a member of the Commission for Sustainability Management and the Saxon Academy of
Sciences.
Nachhaltigkeitsorientierte Unternehmensethik – systemische Konzeption einer
integrierten Individual- und Institutionenethik
A. Nachhaltigkeitsorientierte Unternehmensethik – Erfordernis, Charakteristika und
Anforderungen
Eine reine geld-, egoismus- und wachstumsfixierte Wirtschaft erzeugt systematisch ökologische
und soziale Knappheiten, die gravierende Effektivitäts- und Effizienzeinbußen bzw. Probleme und
Krisen auslösen, wie Ressourcen-, Finanz- und Klimakrisen, Ungerechtigkeiten, Artensterben,
Umweltbelastungen, Gewaltausbreitung, Trinkwasserverknappung, Ertrags-einbußen, zunehmende
Staatsverschuldung, Arbeitsplatzverluste u.a.
Der systematische Ansatz zur Überwindung dieser Krisen, Probleme und Herausforderungen bzw.
zur Vermeidung/Verringerung der ökologischen und sozialen Knappheiten stellt das Nachhaltige
Wirtschaften dar, in dem ökologische und soziale Knappheiten in die Bewirtschaftung einbezogen
werden. Da diese Einbeziehung nur bedingt dem monetären Kalkül zugängig ist, werden die
jenseits dieses Kalküls liegenden ethischen Regulative zu Säulen des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements,
zumal diese mit der interund intragenerativen Gerechtigkeit einen weiteren ethischen Inhalt
fokussiert. Eine nachhaltigkeitsorientierte Unternehmensethik muss unternehmerische Aktivitäten
auf die Nachhaltigkeitszielstellung „Sicherung der Einheit von Überleben, gut, sinnvoll und frei
leben“ ausrichten.
Dabei sind folgende Aspekte zu integrieren:



intra- und intergenerative Gerechtigkeit
Einbeziehung ökonomischer, ökologischer und sozialer Zielkriterien unter dem Primat der
Überlebenssicherung
sozial- und ökologieverträglicher Technikeinsatz.
Die Konzeption einer nachhaltigkeitsorientierten Unternehmensethik sollte zur Umsetzung der
Nachhaltigkeitszielstellung
ethikimmanente
wissenschaftliche
Erkenntnisse,
Ansätze
und
Instrumente nutzen.
B. Systemtheoretische
Untermauerung
Unternehmensethik (NUE)
einer
nachhaltigkeitsorientierten
Neben der ethikbezogenen wissenschaftlichen Untermauerung sollte eine NUE auch
systemtheoretisch untermauert sein. Diese systemtheoretische Untermauerung der NUE sollte
folgende Komponenten beinhalten:
1.
Systemtheoretische Fundierung der Gegenstandsbeschreibung bzw. Zielbildung der NUE
mit folgenden Aspekten:
a. Stakeholderbezug (die Stakeholder verkörpern systemische Einflussnahmen und
Bedingungen)
17
Plenarbeiträge
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Key note speeches
Verbindung von NUE und Wirtschaftsethik
Betrachtung der gesamten Supply Chain unter Nachhaltigkeitsgesichtspunkten
Wahrnehmung ökologischer und sozialer Verantwortung in Dialektik zur
betrieblichen Erfolgssicherung
Dialektik von Individual- und Institutionenethik
Dialektik von Stabilität und Wandel
Dialektik von deontologischer und teleologischer Ethik
Dialektik von Vorsorge- und Nachsorgeorientierung (Ethik gleichermaßen als
Vorsteuergröße und als Korrektiv – was über den Steinmannschen Ansatz
hinausgeht)
Ethikausrichtung
auch
auf
die
Spielregelfindung
(Normierungsbzw.
Normsetzungsverantwortung – was über den Hohmannschen Ansatz hinausgeht)
(Letzt-)Begründungsfragen (z.B. bezogen auf den guten ökologischen Zustand, die
soziale Gerechtigkeit, den ökonomischen Erfolg).
2.
Systemtheoretische immanente Betrachtungen zur Sicherung von Effektivitäts- und
Effizienzbeiträgen einer NUE:
a. Dialektik von Zielbildung, Störungsbeherrschung, Zielerreichung und Dynamik
b. Selbstreferentialität, Selbststeuerung und Selbstlernen
c. Systemische Vernetzung von Individual- und Institutionenverhalten und ihres
Managements
3.
Die Anwendung systemtheoretischer Ansätze, wie
a. Autopoiesis
b. biokybernetische Grundregeln
c. Kreislaufprinzipien/Rückkoppelungseffekte
d. Theorie verschachtelter Regelkreise
e. Resilienzansätze
f. transformationale Führung
g. Strukturationstheorie von A. Giddens
h. ganzheitliche Verhaltensmodellierung.
C. Vortrag
Ausgehend von den unter A. genannten Punkten soll im Vortrag das Konzept einer
nachhaltigkeitsorientierten Unternehmensethik vorgestellt werden, dass die unter B. genannten
systemtheoretischen Aspekte integriert bzw. umsetzt. Dabei betrifft die systemtheoretische
Fundierung einer NUE sowohl den Inhalt (soziale und ökologische Verantwortung) als auch die
Prozessabläufe, die Methoden/Instrumente und die Organisation.
Dabei werden folgende Komponenten integriert:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Die Steuerung des individuellen Verhaltens erfolgt innerhalb von 5 verschachtelten
Regelkreisen, die die Determinanten kulturelle Prägungen, genetische Prägungen und
situative sowie gruppendynamische Einflüsse systemisch verknüpfen.
Eine NUE muss die strukturellen Aspekte der organisatorischen Verankerung in einem
betrieblichen Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement mit den inhaltlichen Aspekten der Wahrnehmung
ökologischer und sozialer Verantwortung verknüpfen.
Die Wahrnehmung ökologischer und sozialer Verantwortung durch das Unternehmen
verkörpert
einerseits
das
Unterlassen
unethischer
Nachhaltigkeitszielstellungen
konterkarierender Verhaltensweisen und andererseits das Aktivieren von Beiträgen zur
betrieblichen Erfolgssicherung.
Die
Forderung
nach
interund
intragenerativer
Gerechtigkeit
ist
in
den
Verantwortungskontext einzubringen.
Die Beförderung ethischen, nachhaltigkeitsorientierten Verhaltens muss sowohl die internen
als auch die externen Stakeholder betreffen.
Zielbildung, Zielerreichung, Systementwicklung und Störungsbeherrschung sind durch
adäquate Regelkreise in ihrer Einheit zu gewährleisten.
Bezogen auf die inhaltliche und methodische Durchdringung werden zahlreiche
wissenschaftliche
Befunde
aus
dem
Forschungsfeld
des
Betrieblichen
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements
eingearbeitet,
wie
z.
B.
zu
den
Stichworten
Ressourcenbewirtschaftung (Müller-Christ), Kreislaufwirtschaft (Souren u.a.), praktische
Beurteilungsmaßstäbe von Nachhaltigkeitsbeiträgen (Letmathe u.a.), Unternehmen als
18
Plenarbeiträge
Key note speeches
(struktur)politischer
Akteur
(Wagner,
Matten,
Schneidewind,
Scherer
u.a.),
Nachhaltigkeitsorientierung der Supply Chain (M. Müller, Seuring), Umwelt- und
Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung
(Steven
u.a.),
Legitimation(-sgrenzen)
privater
Gewinnerwirtschaftung
(P.
Ulrich),
wirtschaftsrelevante
Ethikansätze (Hohmann,
Steinmann, Ulrich, Kreikebaum u.a.), Ethik und Wettbewerb (E. Günther),
Nachhaltigkeitsorientierte Unternehmensleitlinien (Hahn u.a.)."
Problem- und Gegenstandsanpassungen sowie Weiterentwicklungen der systemtheoretischen
Fundierungen
einer
NUE
sind
Gegenstand
weiterer
Forschungen.
19
Workshops
Workshops
Praxisworkshops
Workshops
Im Workshop „Praxis der Systemaufstellung“ zeigten Professor Georg Müller-Christ, vom
Forschungszentrum Nachhaltigkeit der Universität Bremen und Ursula Kopp vom Forschungsinstitut
für Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement der WU Wien unterschiedliche Möglichkeiten für den Einsatz von
Systemaufstellung in der universitären Nachhaltigkeitsbildung.
Fred Luks, der neue Nachhaltigkeitsmanager der WU und frühere Nachhaltigkeitsbeauftragte der
Unicredit Bank Austria brachte das Thema „Finanzsektor und Nachhaltige Entwicklung“ ein. Die
Entscheidungsprämissen wie z.B. Rendite, Reputation, Compliance, Langfristigkeit, Nachhaltigkeit
wurden zum Finanzsystem in Beziehung gesetzt und in einer sehr lebendigen Aufstellung
beobachtet und reflektiert. Der Nachmittag stand im Zeichen der individuellen Wahrnehmung und
Reflexion von unterschiedlichen Bewusstseinsebenen, die für Nachhaltige Entwicklung relevant
sind.
Die 22 großteils interdisziplinär tätigen TeilnehmerInnen machten zum Teil ihre ersten Erfahrungen
mit Systemaufstellungen, ein kleiner Teil waren AufstellungsexpertInnen, die ein neues
Anwendungsfeld kennenlernen wollten.
Im Rahmen des zweiten Praxisworkshops „Publish or Perish“, wurden die expliziten und
impliziten Spielregeln verschiedener wissenschaftlicher Communities und die wichtigsten
Erfolgsfaktoren und Stolpersteine auf dem Weg zu einer erfolgreichen wissenschaftlichen
Publikation diskutiert.
Dabei ging es u.A. um Fragen: Wie adressiere ich meine Zielcommunity? Was ist bei der
Publikationsplanung zu beachten? Welche Rolle spielt die Methodik und Quellenauswahl auf die
„Publizierbarkeit“ meiner Arbeit? Wie läuft der Reviewprozess ab?
Publikationserfahrene Wissenschaftler gaben Anregungen und diskutierten mit den 15
TeilnehmerInnen anhand von ausgewählten Beispielen Anregungen für die eigene wissenschaftliche
Publikationstätigkeit. Impulsreferate wurden von Stefan Seuring (Universität Kassel) und Timo
Busch (Universität Hamburg) beigesteuert.
20
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Nachhaltigkeitspolitik aus systemtheoretischer Perspektive - Am Beispiel
nachhaltiger Industrieparkentwicklung
Katja Nowak
Universität Leipzig, IIRM – Institut für Infrastruktur und Ressourcenmanagement, Grimmaische
Straße 12, 04109 Leipzig, [email protected]
Keywords: Social System Theory, Eco-industrial Park, Nachhaltigkeitspolitik
Das Eco-industrial Park-Konzept in Theorie und Praxis
Industrieparks sind kein neues Konzept. Ihre Entstehung lässt sich bis zum Beginn der
Industrialisierung
zurückverfolgen.
Begründet
werden
kann
ihre
Existenz
mit
den
Agglomerationsvorteilen, welche sich aus der räumlichen Nähe von Industrieunternehmen ergeben.
Industrieparks sind aber gleichzeitig eine große ökologische Belastung für die sie umgebende
Region. So stellen das erhöhte Verkehrsaufkommen, die Emission von Schadstoffen, die Erzeugung
von Abfällen sowie der Flächenverbrauch für industrielle Zwecke in Zusammenhang mit
Industrieparks ein ernstes Problem dar. Als Reaktion der Wissenschaft auf die verursachten
ökologischen Risiken, ist das Konzept der Eco-industrial Parks (EIP) entwickelt wurden. Das EIPKonzept ist ein systemwissenschaftlicher Ansatz, welcher insbesondere die Metapher des
natürlichen Ökosystems als Vorbild für die Arbeitsweise der Industriesysteme nutzt. Es werden
dabei die Grundsätze der Industriel Ecology auf den konkreten Untersuchungsgegenstand
Industriepark übertragen mit der Zielstellung die Umweltwirkungen zu minimieren. (Mc Manus und
Gibbs 2008)
Das Interesse der öffentlichen Hand an EIPs ist groß (und damit auch die Bereitschaft die
Entwicklung zu Unterstützen), da EIPs neben einer Verbesserung der Umweltleistung auch zur
Entstehung von Arbeitsplätzen und einer Zunahme der Investitionstätigkeit in der Region
beitragen. Einen Beitrag zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung liefert das wissenschaftliche Konzept zuletzt
aber nur, wenn sie in der Praxis Verbreitung finden. Und genau in diesem Punkt liegt das Problem.
Der Erfolg von EIPs basiert insbesondere auf der Zusammenarbeit der Akteure. Damit sind nicht
nur die Anrainer und der Betreiber eines Parks gemeint. Auch weitere wirtschaftliche und politische
Akteure müssen für die Entstehung eines EIP-Systems kooperieren. Eine flächendeckende
Umsetzung des EIP-Gedankens ist in der Praxis aber bislang gescheitert.
Anwendung der Systemtheorie nach Luhmann
Ursächlich für die Umsetzungsprobleme könnte die primäre Fokussierung auf stofflich-technische
Merkmale der EIPs sein. Dies mündet in einer auf effiziente technische Lösungen fokussierenden
und entsprechend instrumentell ausgerichteten Umsetzung ohne die Funktionsweise sozialer
Systeme zu verstehen. Die nachhaltige Industrieparkentwicklung wird aber ebenso durch die
vorherrschende Kultur, Informationsflüsse, Machtpotentiale etc. geprägt, insbesondere wenn
technische Lösungen zwar ökologische Probleme lösen aber nicht gleichzeitig positive ökonomische
Effekte versprechen. Ein ausgereifter technisch-naturwissenschaftlicher Ansatz stößt damit auf
Umsetzungsprobleme aufgrund der gesellschaftlichen Komplexität. Dennoch wird der soziale
Charakter industrieller Systeme in der Wissenschaft weithin ausgeblendet. Zwar hat es in den
letzten 20 Jahren immer wieder Hinweise auf die Bedeutung der sozialen Dimension gegeben. Eine
wirkliche Integration von soziologischer Analyse findet bisher jedoch nur in Ansätzen statt. Dabei
sind soziale Systeme als Sinnsysteme noch weitaus komplexer als ökologische Systeme.
(Isenmann und Hauff 2007)
Die Idee der Arbeit besteht darin, mithilfe des Theoriegebäudes sozialer Systeme von Niklas
Luhmann den bestehenden EIP-Ansatz neu zu beleuchten. Dabei werden zunächst die
Funktionsmechanismen sozialer EIP-Systeme analysiert. Erst dadurch lassen sich auch
21
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Gestaltungsoptionen entwickeln, die praxistauglich sind. Die Zielstellung der Arbeit ist weniger
konkrete Lösungsmöglichkeiten für die Entwicklung von EIPs bereitzustellen. Das Anliegen ist viel
grundlegender: Die Arbeit soll zur Sensibilisierung gegenüber Übertragungsproblemen des
wissenschaftlichen Konzeptes in die Praxis beitragen. Insbesondere soll auch analysiert werden,
welche Rolle die Politik bei der EIP-Entwicklung spielen kann.
Herausforderungen und Grenzen politischer Steuerung
Die gescheiterten politischen Bestrebungen, gesellschaftliche Vorgänge zu steuern, bezeichnete
man als „Steuerkrise“, „überlasteter Staat“ oder „Staatsversagen“. (Hein 2011) In der
traditionellen Politikwissenschaft wird ein Steuerungsversagen des politischen Systems mit einer
„Willensschwäche" des Staates begründet. (Scharpf 1988) Es wird suggeriert, dass der Staat etwas
nicht schafft, was er eigentlich schaffen müsste, nämlich die Gesellschaft dermaßen zu steuern,
dass beispielsweise zentrale Probleme gelöst werden können. Da aber die Vorhersagbarkeit der
Wirkungen alternativer Steuerungsstrategien limitiert ist, verlaufen Steuerungsbemühungen unter
Umständen im Leeren. Die Politik will dennoch die an sie gestellten Anforderungen erfüllen. Es
kommt zur Selbstüberforderung des politischen Systems. (Mayntz 1997) Übersehen wird, dass die
Gründe für verfehlte Steuerungsbemühungen nicht nur in der Steuerungsfähigkeit der Politik
liegen. Vielmehr muss auch die Steuerbarkeit der Adressaten und damit dessen Struktur,
Eigendynamik oder Autonomie berücksichtigt werden. (Hein 2011)
Die Systemtheorie bemüht sich um eine umfassendere Analyse und ermöglicht es systematisch die
Grenzen politischer Steuerung aufzuzeigen. Neben dem autopoietischen Charakter sozialer
Teilsysteme ist auch die besondere Dynamik komplex strukturierter Gesellschaften Grund für ein
Scheitern des traditionellen Steuerungsbegriffs. Aus systemtheoretischer Sicht kann es für die
Zielverfehlung politischer Steuerungsbemühungen verschiedene Ursachen geben. Sie kann
scheitern, weil die normierenden Programme nicht implementierbar sind, sei es, dass die
Adressaten
die
Befolgung
verweigern
(Motivationsproblem).
Denn
gerade
bei
Nachhaltigkeitsthema treffen potentiell konfligierende Perspektiven, Werte und Interessen und
damit nicht auflösbaren Ambivalenz von Nachhaltigkeitszielen aufeinander. Zudem kann ein Mangel
bei
den
Vollzugsinstanzen
bestehen,
die
Normen
nicht
durchzusetzen
vermögen
(Implementationsproblem). Ganz andere Probleme werden offensichtlich aufgeworfen, wenn
selbst im Falle einer erfolgreichen Beeinflussung des Adressatenverhaltens das Ausgangsproblem
ungelöst bleibt oder im Zuge seiner Lösung massive unerwünschte Nebenwirkungen auftreten.
Hierfür mag entweder das mangelnde Wissen des politischen Systems über steuerungsrelevante
Wirkungszusammenhänge (Wissensproblem) oder aber die prinzipielle Unmöglichkeit
verantwortlich sein, mit den der zentralen Steuerungsinstanz verfügbaren Instrumenten zielsicher
steuernd in bestimmte Systemprozesse einzugreifen (Steuerbarkeitsproblem). (Mayntz 1997)
Bei aller Steuerungsskepsis bestreitet Luhmann nicht die Notwendigkeit des politischen Eingriffs.
Auch wenn sie keinen oder kaum Aussicht auf Erfolg besitzt. Denn die Gesellschaft als Ganzes kann
nicht auf Umweltgefährdung reagieren. Die Reaktion auf Umweltgefährdung ergibt sich nur aus den
Einschränkungen der Möglichkeiten ihrer Teilsysteme. (Luhmann 1990) Andererseits hat die Politik
aufgrund ihrer speziellen Funktion und Leistung eine besondere gesellschaftliche Stellung unter den
Teilsystemen. Die Politik tritt dort in Erscheinung, wo in anderen Systemen bindende
Entscheidungen benötigt werden. So darf Politik gezielt in ökonomische Sachverhalte eingreifen
und hat damit über das eigene System hinaus eine Definitionsmacht für das öffentliche Interesse.
(Ulrich 1994) Wenn aber die Politik als gesellschaftliches Funktionssystem vorgestellt wird, das –
wie alle anderen Funktionssysteme ebenso – eigendynamisch operiert, wodurch nicht zuletzt
Steuerungsintentionen an den funktionssystemischen Grenzen abprallen, wie ist dann in
systemtheoretischer Sicht gesellschaftliche Steuerung und Regulierung durch die Politik überhaupt
noch denkbar? Wie kann die Politik von außen auf ein EIP-System steuernd einwirken?
Neufassung des Steuerungsbegriffs
Jedes System muss sich an seine Umwelt anpassen, da es sonst nicht existieren kann. Somit
besteht ein Eigeninteresse des Systems sich an aktuellen gesellschaftlichen Ansprüchen zu
orientieren, quasi die eigene Operationsweise an seine Umwelt zu koppeln. Entfernt sich die
Rationalität des Systems zu weit von der Gesellschaftsrationalität, ist das Überleben des Systems
gefährdet. In Bezug auf die ökologische Gefährdung hat sich dadurch ein recht stabiler
22
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
intersystemischer Nachhaltigkeitsdiskurs ausgebildet. Dieser hat gesellschaftsweite und
systemübergreifende Effekte und wirkt so auch in das EIP-System zurück, welches dadurch
Nachhaltigkeit thematisiert. Somit erfolgt sehr wohl ein Einbezug von Umweltbedingungen in die
Selbstreproduktion des EIP-Systems. Dadurch kann zwar ein Teilsystem nicht über ein anderes
bestimmen – Systeme vollziehen Operationen weiterhin autonom – diese Operationen finden aber
im Möglichkeitsraum statt, den die Kopplung den Systemen offen lässt. (Melde 2012)
Konsequenzen für das Verständnis von Nachhaltigkeitspolitik
Als Fazit lässt sich formulieren, dass im Sinne der Systemtheorie eine Fremdsteuerung, genauer
eine Steuerung nach hierarchischem Verständnis, unmöglich. Das begründet sich aus den
Konsequenzen der operativen Geschlossenheit und der Selbstbezüglichkeit funktional
differenzierter gesellschaftlicher Teilsysteme. (Wiesenthal 2006) Damit ist Steuerung im Sinne der
Systemtheorie immer Selbststeuerung. Denn, determiniert durch die systemspezifische
Operationsweise, produziert und reproduziert ein System seine eigenen Elemente und Strukturen.
Steuerung ist eine Form spontaner Ordnungsbildung bezüglich systeminterner Verhältnisse. Dieser
Ansatz ist nicht neu. Auch im Gedankengebäude der Ökonomie übernimmt der Markt dezentral und
nicht-intentional die gesellschaftliche Selbstregulierung. (Ulrich 1994) Nun muss die Politik einen
Weg finden diese Selbststeuerung von außen zu beeinflussen. Ob und wie Steuerungsversuche der
Politik nun tatsächlich vom Wirtschafssystem wahrgenommen werden, hängt von der
Resonanzfähigkeit des wirtschaftlichen Teilsystems ab. Bestimmt wird die Resonanz eines
Systems durch dessen systemspezifische Operationen, also dem Code und Programmen. Nur
wenn die Umweltdaten diesen Doppelfilter durchlaufen, gewinnen sie systemintern Relevanz.
(Luhmann 1990) Weitere Möglichkeiten der politischen Steuerung ergeben sich aus
intersystemische Beziehungen und struktureller Kopplung. Die Gesellschaft ist zwar in
verschiedene Teilsysteme differenziert, unter Verwendung eines generalisierten Mediums ist die
Inklusion aller gesellschaftlichen Teilsysteme dennoch möglich. Bekanntermaßen arbeiten alle
Teilsysteme auf der Grundlage der Aktualisierung von Sinn durch Verwendung von Sprache. Damit
sind Beziehungen zwischen sozialen Systemen enger als Beziehungen zur Umwelt und Störungen
des Wirtschaftssystems durch das politische System viel wahrscheinlicher als eine Irritation durch
die außergesellschaftliche Umwelt. (Luhmann 1990; Kropp 2002) Auf dem Weg der Partizipation
können die funktionalen Teilsysteme ebenfalls aufeinander einwirken. Der Staat bedient sich dabei
der wirtschaftlichen Leitdifferenz Zahlung/nicht Zahlung. (Melde 2012) Damit wird deutlich, dass
auch aus Sicht der Systemtheorie eine Beeinflussung des EIP-Systems durch die Politik möglich
scheint. Nur muss der Begriff der Steuerung überdacht werden. Die Politik schafft eher den
Rahmen, um dem EIP-System eine Selbststeuerung in Richtung Nachhaltigkeit zu ermöglichen.
Literaturverzeichnis
Hein, Michael (2011): Systemtheorie und Politik(wissenschaft) – Missverständnis oder produktive
Herausforderung? In: Gansel, Christina (Hrsg.): Systemtheorie in den Fachwissenschaften.
Zugänge, Methoden, Probleme. Göttingen, V&R unipress, pp. 53–77.
Isenmann, Ralf; Hauff, Michael von (Hrsg.)(2007): Industrial Ecology. Mit Ökologie nachhaltig
wirtschaften. München, Elsevier.
Kropp, Cordula (2002): Natur. Soziologische Konzepte, politische Konsequenzen. Opladen, Leske
und Budrich.
Luhmann, Niklas (1990): Ökologische Kommunikation. Kann die moderne Gesellschaft sich auf
ökologische Gefährdung einstellen? 3. Aufl. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag.
Mayntz, Renate (1997): Soziale Dynamik und politische Steuerung. Theoretische und
methodologische Überlegungen. Schriften des Max-Planck-Instituts für Gesellschaftsforschung
Köln, Band 29. Frankfurt/New York, Campus Verlag.
McManus, Phil; Gibbs, David (2008): Industrial ecosystems? The use of tropes in the literature of
industrial ecology and eco-industrial parks. In: Progress in Human Geography 32(4). pp. 525–540.
Melde, Thomas (2012): Nachhaltige Entwicklung durch Semantik, Governance und Management.
Zur
Selbstregulierung
des
Wirtschaftssystems
zwischen
Steuerungsillusionen
und
Moralzumutungen. Wiesbaden, Springer VS.
23
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Scharpf, Fritz W. (1988). Verhandlungssysteme, Verteilungskonflikte und Pathologien politischer
Steuerung. In Manfred G. Schmidt (Hrsg.), 1988: Staatstätigkeit. International und historisch
vergleichende Analysen. Politische Vierteljahresschrift. Sonderheft 19. Opladen, Westdeutscher
Verlag, pp. 61-87.
Ulrich, Günter (1994): Politische Steuerung. Staatliche Intervention aus systemtheoretischer Sicht.
Opladen, Leske und Budrich.
Wiesenthal, Helmut (2006): Gesellschaftssteuerung und gesellschaftliche Selbststeuerung: Eine
Einführung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
24
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATION OF BUSINESS PROCESSES: Integrated water
management in agriculture as a use case
Nana Karlstetter
Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Department of Business Administration, Economics and
Law, Ammerländer Heerstr. 114-118, 26129 Oldenburg, [email protected]
ABSTRACT
A growing number of studies identify global resource budgets (e.g. Rockstroem et al., 2009; WBGU,
2011; Bardi 2013). The “safe operating space” (Rockstroem et al., 2009) within which human
consumption is sustainable differs widely from the actual status quo and its development (Turner,
2008). Transformation of economic processes is urgently required. This contribution describes key
points of ecosystem service1 based business process management under uncertainty (cf. Scholes et
al., 2013; Munang et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2013). A complex adaptive systems perspective2 is used
to describe the relationship between endogenous business and external ecological processes.
According to Anderies and Norberg (2008) this firstly implies that there is constant change and no
long-run optimal configuration. A second key principle of complex adaptive systems is that diversity of
components is important for function, taking into account that vital interactions occur across multiple
scales (ibid.; Cash et al., 2006). This perspective is combined with a dynamic capabilities approach3
from organizational theory to frame organizational capacities in dealing with turbulent environments –
not only in an economic but also an ecological sense (e.g. Teece, 2007; Easterby-Smith, 2009;
Fratesi, 2010). The presented approach utilizes results from the last 5 years of research on
sustainable climate adaptation in agriculture: Qualitative and quantitative methods have been used for
assessing vulnerability, analyzing innovation potentials, establishing transformation processes (e.g. for
regulating land use conflicts or defining milestones for long-term development goals), dynamic
modeling and defining indicators for ecosystem service based decision support (e.g. in land use)
(Karlstetter, 2011; Karlstetter, 2012; Karlstetter and Gasper, 2012; Karlstetter et al., 2012;
Karlstetter et al., 2013a; Karlstetter et al., 2013b and 2013c).
Achieving a socio-economic reality that stays within a safe operating space implies the realization of
transition processes that pose profound challenges to economic sectors, businesses and their supply
chains (Grin et al., 2010). Aside from being an ethical question, interconnected volatile (world)
markets add difficulties across scales to the fact that current production strategies in many respects
are not sustainable (cf. Beddington et al., 2012; Bardi, 2013). Issues such as climate or other
environmental impacts factor in on endogenous business processes and require integrated assessment
and measures. At the same time businesses have impact on their external environments. This coevolutionary relationship spans across time, spatial and organizational scales (Karlstetter, 2012; Cash
et al., 2006; Norberg and Cumming, 2008; Gual and Norgaard, 2010; Global Risks Report, 2013). The
systems involved are vulnerable to risks in specific ways, but the vulnerability of different parts or
systems often is interdependent4. Transition steps within individual businesses may be carefully taken
for the purpose of the enterprise - and nevertheless be (ecologically) unsustainable on an aggregate
level (cf. Karlstetter et al., 2013b). The linchpin for sustainability lies in concatenating transformative
capabilities (e.g. of enterprises) with identifying those relationships that are relevant for the
identification of solutions across scales (cf. Karlstetter, 2012). A cost benefit calculation hence always
1
„[E]cosystem services are the aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to produce human wellbeing.“ (Fisher et al., 2009).
2
„Complex adaptive systems […] are adaptive in the sense that they have the capacity to change and learn from
experience. Formulated otherwise, they are able to respond to and adjust themselves to changes in their
environment. What makes a complex adaptive system special is the set of constantly adapting non-linear
relationships. Examples of complex adaptive systems are the stock market, ant colonies, living organisms, cities,
the human brain, business companies, political parties and communities.“ (Grin et al., 2010, 117).
3
„A dynamic capability is a learned and stable pattern of collective activity through which the organization
systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness. […]In a context
where technological, regulatory, and competitive conditions are subject to rapid change, persistence in the same
operating routines quickly becomes hazardous.“ (Zollo and Winter, 2002, 341f).
4
„A comprehensive theory of vulnerability must be capable of addressing the interrelated dynamics of social
structure, human agency and the environment(s).“ (McLaughlin and Dietz, 2008, 104).
Proceedings of the Autumn Meeting of the Section Sustainability Management of the German Academic Association
for Business Research (VHB), Vienna, October 2013.
25
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
requires explicit definition of reference frames and addressees of costs and benefits (cf. Ostrom,
1999). Feasibility of transition processes thus is restricted by three factors: (1) socio-economic
transformative capacities, (2) bio-physical boundaries (e.g. related to global or regional thresholds)
and (3) the uncertainty of the situation. Likewise sustainability refers to maintaining business as well
as ecosystem services. The allocation of risks for an enterprise and its environment requires
integration in concrete decisions under uncertainty. Data based decision support instruments that link
specific organizational conditions (business process capabilities and vulnerabilities) with ecological
capacities and vulnerabilities are a means to closer link financial and environmental performance
indicators (Akzente, 2012; Teuteburg and Marx Gómez, 2010). From the ecological perspective
detailed ecosystem service based data for the real situation (management by objectives) is a way to
establish dialogue and support decisions (Karlstetter et al., 2013b and 2013c). Water management in
agriculture under changing climatic conditions is an example that poses severe problems already
today (ibid.). These problems probably will accelerate – regionally and globally – in the future. Quality
and availability of water are central and relatively well defined ecosystem services, meaning the
ecological water situation and water flows within enterprises are rather well documented. To connect
pollution and consumption by water intensive enterprises such as intensive livestock farming and
vegetable production5 with the regional ecological capacity, a regional management approach is
currently under development. The aim is to establish an integrated data based platform for different
actors in order to provide monitoring and simulation features. The conceptual design of the platform
addresses (i) the agricultural cluster and its supply chain, (ii) individual enterprises, (iii) water
providing and administrative authorities. This use case describes ecosystem service based key points
for water management. The approach is designed to advance water footprinting along supply chains
based on integrated indicators. The main findings of the development so far are: (1) Reducing
uncertainty in decisions has to be related to organizational capacities of the deciding enterprise and its
concrete circumstances. This means transition processes towards sustainability require a detailed and
reliable (data based) connection between environmental ecological conditions and endogenous
business processes to be feasible. (2) Data based management of resources can be a way to support
transformation processes, given that a transparent and doable integration of scales and issues is
realized in the analytical approach and the used indicators. (3) Since shifts in transition towards
sustainability are highly specific and heterogeneous, data driven prototypes (as the presented use
case) for managing business models, supply chains, specific regions or certain ecosystem services are
a way to reduce complexity and work out adaptive solutions for dynamic systems. This can enhance
development and comparison of strategies in an iterative compound between research and practical
implementation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The presented research is part of the project northwest2050. The named studies have been conducted
together with the team “Cluster Ernaehrungswirtschaft”, University of Oldenburg, Chair of Leadership,
and with associated colleagues in Germany and Maryland. I want to thank all involved colleagues as
well as the Ministry of Education and Research, who has funded this project for the period of 20092014.
REFERENCES
Akzente (2012): Integrierte Berichterstattung. Von der Herausforderung zum Praxismodell. Studie
unter börsennotierten Unternehmen in Deutschland, München und Hamburg.
Anderies, J.M.; Norberg, J. (2008): Information Processing and Navigation in Social-Ecological
Systems. In: Norberg J, Cumming G (eds) Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future. Columbia
University Press, pp 155–179.
Bardi, U. (2013): Plundering the Planet. Oekom.
5
Use case is the Oldenburger Muensterland in Northwestern Germany where agriculture is the 2nd largest economic
sector. Excessive nitrogen pollution as well as scarcity of groundwater in dry times is a massive current problem.
The concerned actors are highly heterogeneous. Regulation measures lack specific and well-framed management of
individual enterprises and the regional ecological situation.
26
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Beddington, J.; Asaduzzaman, M.; Clark, M.; et al. (2012): Achieving food security in the face of
climate change: Final report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change.
Cash, D.; Adger, N.; Fikret, B.; et al. (2006): Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and
Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society 11 (2).
Easterby-Smith, M.; Lyles, M.; Peteraf, M. (2009): Dynamic Capabilities: Current Debates and Future
Directions. British Journal of Management 20:S1‐S8.
Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. (2009): Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision
making. Ecological Economics 68 (3), pp. 643‐653.
Fratesi, U. (2010) Regional innovation and competitiveness in a dynamic representation. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics 20:515‐552.
Global Risks Report (2013): http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalRisks_Report_2013.pdf
Grin, J.; Rotmans, J.; Schot, J.W. (2010): Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in
the study of long term transformative change. Routledge.
Gual, M.A.; Norgaard, R.B. (2010): Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and
proposal: Special Section: Coevolutionary Ecological Economics: Theory and Applications. Ecological
Economics 69(4):707‐717.
Karlstetter, N.; Gasper, R.; Boules, C. (2013a): Klimaanpassung im Agrarsektor in Marylands Eastern
Shore. nordwest2050 Werkstattbericht (online verfügbar ab August 2013).
Karlstetter, N.; Oberdörffer, J.; Scheele, U. (2013b): Land availability as a limit to climate adaptation
in the energy and food sector: New approaches to overcome land use conflicts. In press.
Karlstetter, N.; Oberdörffer, J.; Scheele, U. (2013c): Indikatorenentwicklung für skalenübergreifende
Transformationsprozesse - Am Beispiel nachhaltige Klimaanpassung in der Landnutzung. In press;
published by Springer.
Karlstetter, N.; Beermann, M.; Akamp, M. (2012): Innovationspotenzialanalyse
Ernährungswirtschaft, nordwest2050 Werkstattbericht Nr. 16.
im
Cluster
Karlstetter, N.; Gasper, R. (2012): Methodische Herausforderungen in der Entwicklung von
Klimaanpassungsoptionen für den Agrarsektor in Nordwestdeutschland. Oekologisches Wirtschaften
Sept. 2012.
Karlstetter, N. (2012): Unternehmen
Flächennutzungskonflikte. Metropolis.
in
Koevolution:
Ein
Regulierungsansatz
für
regionale
Karlstetter, N. (2011): Co-evolution and co-management of economic and ecological sustainability. In:
Golinska, P.; Fertsch, M.; Marx-Gómez, J. (eds) Information Technologies in Environmental
Engineering. Environmental Science and Engineering, vol 3. Springer, pp 213–228.
McLaughlin, P.; Dietz, T. (2008): Structure, agency and environment: Toward an integrated
perspective on vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 18(1):99‐111.
Munang, R.; Thiaw, I.; Alverson, K.; Liu, J.; Han, Z. (2013): The role of ecosystem services in climate
change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Terrestrial systems 5(1):47–52.
Norberg, J.; Cumming, G. (eds) (2008): Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future. Columbia
University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1999): Die Verfassung der Allmende: Jenseits von Staat und Markt. Mohr Siebeck.
Rockstroem, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; et al. (2009): Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe
operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2):32.
Scholes, R.J.; Reyers, B.; Biggs, R.; et al. (2013): Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social–
ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Terrestrial systems 5(1):16–25.
Teece, D. (2007): Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal 28:1319‐1350.
27
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Teuteberg, F.; Marx-Gómez, J.C. (2010): Green Computing & Sustainability: Status Quo und
Herausforderungen für betriebliche Umweltinformationssysteme der nächsten Generation. In: Marx
Gómez JC (ed) Green computing & substainability. dpunkt-Verlag, pp 6‐17.
Turner, G.M. (2008): A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality: Globalisation and
Environmental Governance: Is Another World Possible? Global Environmental Change 18(3):397‐411.
WBGU (2011): Welt im Wandel: Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation. Hauptgutachten.
WBGU.
Wang, S.; Fu, B.; Wei, Y.; Lyle, C. (2013): Ecosystem services management: an integrated approach.
Terrestrial systems 5(1):11–15.
Zollo, M.; Winter, S.G. (2002): Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities.
Organization Science 13(3):339‐351.
28
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Mentale Modelle unternehmerischer Nachhaltigkeit: Systemisches
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement mittels qualitativ-empirischer Textanalyse
am Beispiel der BASF AG
Stefan Hielscher; Matthias Will; Till Vennemann
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, [email protected]
EINLEITUNG
Die vorliegende Projektskizze verdeutlicht das Potential der qualitativ-empirischen Methode „GABEK®“
für das systemische Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement. Systemansätze unternehmerischer Nachhaltigkeit
betonen, dass das Unternehmen und seine Umwelt eine soziale Konstruktion beteiligter Akteure
darstellt, und dass hierbei die mentalen Modelle der Akteure eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Die
Besonderheit von „GABEK®“ besteht darin, die mentalen Modelle von Akteuren in Umwelt-SystemStrukturen analysieren zu können. Das Argument dieses Beitrags lautet, dass GABEK einen wichtigen
Beitrag zum systemischen Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement leisten kann, indem es die mentalen Modelle
verschiedener Akteure für das Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement zugänglich macht. Der Beitrag illustriert
dieses Argument anhand der Fallbeispiels des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements der BASF AG und zeigt
Wege auf, wie eine empirisch-angewandte, systemische Nachhaltigkeitsforschung ausgerichtet werden
könnte.
SYSTEMISCHES
NACHHALTIGKEITSMANAGEMENT
UND
DIE
METHODE
GABEK®:
SYSTEAMTISCHE ANKNÜPFUNGSPUNKTE
Systemansätze
im
Bereich
unternehmerischer
Nachhaltigkeit
betonen,
dass
wirksame
Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien nur dann entwickelt werden können, wenn das Unternehmen nicht als
mechanistische Organisation interpretiert wird, sondern vielmehr zusammen mit seiner Umwelt als
eine komplexe Einheit verstanden wird, das durch soziale Konstruktion verschiedener beteiligter
Akteure entsteht (Porter, 2008; Hammond, 2003; Waddock, 2006). Im Mittelpunkt vieler Ansätze im
Bereich des systemischen Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements steht daher die Frage, (a) welches
Verständnis die einzelnen Akteure von den Nachhaltigkeitsaktivitäten des Unternehmens haben
(Mental Model) und (b) wie sich diese einzelnen Mental Models zu einem Shared Mental Model des
Nachhaltigkeitsverständnisses der gesamten Organisation verdichten (Porter, 2008; Hatch und Yanow,
2003). Häufig zielt ein besseres Verständnis der zugrundeliegenden Denkstrukturen von UmweltSystem-Strukturen darauf ab, (c) etwaige Konflikte im Bereich der unternehmerischen Nachhaltigkeit
zwischen dem Management und den Stakeholdern durch konstruktive Dialoge zu überwinden
(Jackson, 1991; Ulrich, 1993).
Die computergestützte Methode GABEK® (Ganzheitliche Bewältigung von Komplexität) ist eine
Methode qualitativ-empirischer Forschung, die in der Lage ist, die drei skizzierten Aspekte des
systemischen Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements auf besondere Weise zu adressieren. Sie beruht auf der
Theorie linguistischer Gestalten und erlaubt es, geordnete und ungeordnete normalsprachliche Texte
so zu analysieren, dass Begriffsverständnisse und Mentale Modelle von Akteuren in Umwelt-SystemKontexten systematisch herausgearbeitet werden können (Zelger; 2008).
Der Prozess der
Datenanalyse erfolgt dabei auf der Grundlage eines regelbasierten Daten-netzwerks, dass sowohl die
Syntax (Satzbau) als auch die Semantik (Sinn, Bedeutung) berücksichtigt (Zelger, 2000; Müller et al.,
2011). Der Text wird hierbei mit Hilfe standardisierter Routinen in eine Metasprache übertragen,
geordnet und systematisiert. Diese Schritte werden durch das Computerprogramm WinRelan®
(Windows Relationen Analyse) unterstützt.
Im Vergleich zu anderen Methoden der Content-Analyse von Textdaten bietet GABEK Vorteile in Bezug
auf alle drei Aspekte des systemischen Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements. (a) Das regelbasierte Vorgehen
bei GABEK erhöht die Treffsicherheit der Analyse. Es ermöglicht sowohl die Bearbeitung konkreter als
auch abstrakter Fragen (Buber und Kraler, 2006). Im Hinblick auf die Ebene konkreter Fragen können
linguistische Netze genutzt werden, um etwa das Mental Model eines Akteurs zu analysieren.
Linguistische Netze sind Assoziationsgrafiken. Sie zeigen alle Verbindungen auf, die etwa das Thema
„Nachhaltigkeit- oder Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement“ zu allen anderen Sinneinheiten des Textes
aufweisen. Sie dienen als Orientierung in einer Landschaft diverser Meinungen und Perspektiven und
können innerhalb eines sozialen Kontextes analysiert werden, so etwa im Hinblick auf Branchen- oder
Sektorenunterschiede (Zelger, 2008). (b) Im Hinblick auf die abstrakte Ebene ermöglicht GABEK eine
29
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Darstellung und Analyse mit Hilfe eines Gestaltenbaums. Der Gestaltenbaum gibt einen Überblick über
Shared Mental Models, so etwa darüber, welche Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede das Verständnis
unternehmerischer Nachhaltigkeit bei unterschiedlichen Akteure aufweist. Alle Sinneinheiten wer-den
zu diesem Zweck mit Hilfe einer Cluster-Analyse geordnet und daraufhin in Beziehung zueinander
gesetzt (Müller et al.; 2011, S. 131). (c) Linguistische Netze und der Gestaltenbaum geben schließlich
gemeinsam einen wichtigen Überblick darüber, wie unterschiedliche Akteure – etwa Unternehmen und
ihre Stakeholder – auf unterschiedliche oder ähnliche Weise Umwelt-System-Rekonstruktionen
vornehmen und auf welcher Ebene eine Basis für konsensuale Entscheidungen gefunden werden kann.
DAS VERSTÄNDNIS VON NACHHALTIGKEIT IN DER BASF AG: EINE FALLSTUDIE
Die vorliegende Fallstudie der BASF AG ist Teil eines größeren qualitativ-empirischen Projekts, welches
das Verständnis von Corporate Social Responsibility (gesellschaftliche Verantwortung von
Unternehmen, CSR) bei Unternehmen in Deutschland untersucht. Grundlage dieser Untersuchung sind
die entsprechenden Abschnitte in den Geschäftsberichten der deutschen DAX-30-Unternehmen aus
dem Jahre 2012.
Die Fallstudie wertet den Abschnitt zu CSR und Nachhaltigkeit des Geschäftsberichtes der BASF aus
dem Jahr 2012 aus (BASF, 2012). Dieser Teil informiert über die Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien, über
deren konkrete Umsetzung sowie über die Effekte der einzelnen Maßnahmen. Im Kern findet sich hier
das grundlegende Verständnis von Nachhaltigkeit, das das (Top)Management der BASF seiner Umwelt,
konkret seiner Anteilseignern und potentiellen Investoren, vermittelt bzw. zu vermitteln gedenkt. So
weist die entsprechende Passage im Geschäftsbericht Begründungen für Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement
auf, und es erfolgen Rollenzuschreibungen. Zudem finden sich Hinweise darauf, wie
Nachhaltigkeitsprobleme und die hierfür erforderlichen Lösungen rekonstruiert werden.
Um das mentale Modell dieses speziellen sozialen Kontextes zu analysieren, geht die strukturierte
Textanalyse bei GABEK in mehreren Schritten vor: Erster Schritt: Zunächst wird der Ausgangstext in
Sinneinheiten untergliedert. Der Ausgangstext wird dafür so untergliedert, dass jede Einheit den Sinn
bzw. die Aussage möglichst vollständig wiedergibt. Eine zweckmäßige Sinneinheit in der vorliegenden
Untersuchung ist etwa folgender Textabschnitt:
[(Karteikarte XY): Wir verankern Nachhaltigkeit strategisch und organisatorisch im
Unternehmen. Das Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement unterstützt unser strategisches Prinzip "Wir
treiben nachhaltige Lösungen voran" entsprechend unserem Unternehmenszweck „We create
chemistry for a sustainable future".]
Zweiter Schritt: Daraufhin werden die Sinneinheiten mittels einer Identifizierung von
Schlüsselbegriffen kodiert. Allgemein handelt es sich bei dieser Meta-Sprache um diejenigen
Satzbestandteile, die den Inhalt des Satzes maßgeblich bestimmen, wie beispielsweise Subjekt,
Prädikat und Objekt. Dritter Schritt: Anschließend erfolgt eine Kategorisierung der Sinneinheiten. Die
Kategorisierung
hat
einerseits
zum
Zweck,
wichtige
Informationen
über
den
Untersuchungsgegenstand aufzunehmen (z.B. Unternehmensname, Branche, Firmengröße, etc.).
Andererseits unterstützt die Kategorisierung eine theoriegeleitete Analyse. Entsprechend der
theoretischen Ausgangsfragestellung können Informationen gesammelt werden, die unmittelbar in den
einzelnen Sinneinheiten enthalten sind (z.B. dient aus Sicht des Unternehmens Nachhaltigkeit lediglich
der Gesellschaft oder auch den Zielen der Unternehmung). Vierter Schritt: Abschließend werden mit
Hilfe von Win-Relan Netzwerkgrafiken für linguistische Netze erstellt, die einen Rückschluss auf die
mentalen Modelle des Unternehmens zulassen. Die Grafiken illustrieren hierbei, wie die einzelnen
Schlüsselwörter in den Ausgangstexten strukturell miteinander verknüpft sind. Abbildung 1
veranschaulicht das Mentale Modell des „Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements“ auf Basis des
Geschäftsberichts der BASF AG.
30
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Geschäftschancen erschließen
{Unternehmensnutzen}
Nachhaltigkeit
Geschäftsstrategie
Risiken minimieren
Wasser
Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie
Biodiversität
{Risk Management}
Prioritätsthemen
Kunden
Nachwachsende Rohstoffe
Stakeholder
Klima
Materialitätsanalyse
Energie
Produktverantwortung
Personalentwicklung
Abbildung 1: Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement bei BASF: Mentales Modell als Assoziationsgrafik6
Was versteht das Management der BASF konkret unter Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement? Worin besteht
das Mental Model der unternehmerischen Nachhaltigkeit, das die BASF in ihrem Geschäftsbericht der
Öffentlichkeit kommuniziert? Zunächst verdeutlicht die Assoziationsgrafik, dass die BASF verschiedene
Prioritätsthemen im Bereich des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements festgelegt hat (Grafik links unten). Alle
Prioritätsthemen beziehen sich auf den Umweltschutz, wobei das Unternehmen konkreten
Handlungsbedarf bei Wasser, Biodiversität, nachwachsenden Rohstoffe, Klima(-schutz) und Energie
sieht. Diese Prioritätsthemen sind aus Sicht des Unternehmens eng verknüpft mit wichtigen
Managementfeldern der Produktverantwortung und der Personalentwicklung (Grafik unten). Die für
das Unternehmen wichtigen Prioritätsthemen erarbeitet BASF auf Basis einer Materialitätsanalyse und
führt diese in einer Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie zusammen. Von besonderer Bedeutung in diesem Prozess
ist der Dialog mit der Stakeholdergruppe der Kunden.
Generell begreift BASF unternehmerische Nachhaltigkeit als ein strategisches Thema, das einen engen
Bezug zur unternehmerischen Wertschöpfung aufweist (Grafik rechts oben): Nachhaltigkeit ist
einerseits eng verbunden mit der Geschäftsstrategie und wird als Herausforderung gesehen, um dem
Unternehmen neue Geschäftschancen zu eröffnen. Andererseits besteht der unternehmerische Nutzen
des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements darin, wichtige unternehmerische Risiken zu minimieren. Insofern
kann das Mentale Modell unternehmerischer Nachhaltigkeit bei BASF als ein systematisch
ineinandergreifendes Innovations- und Risikomanagement interpretiert werden.
IMPLKATIONEN
FÜR
EINE
EMPIRISCH-ANGEWANDTE,
SYSTEMISCHE
NACHHALTIGKEITSFORSCHUNG
Die vorliegende Projektskizze zeigt anhand des Fallbeispiels des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements der
BASF AG, wie die qualitativ-empirische Methode GABEK einen Beitrag zum systemischen
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement leisten kann, indem es mentale Modelle von Akteuren in spezifischen
sozialen Kontexten systematisch analysiert und auf diese Weise für das Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement
zugänglich macht. An dieser Stelle soll kurz erläutert werden, wie (a) die hier dargestellte
Projektskizze
weiterentwickelt
wird
und
(b)
eine
empirisch-angewandte,
systemische
Nachhaltigkeitsforschung generell ausgerichtet werden könnte.
(a) Das hier erläuterte Fallbeispiel ist Teil eines äußerst umfangreichen Datensatzes, der die CSR- und
Nachhaltigkeitsabschnitte der Geschäftsberichte aller deutschen DAX-30-Unternehmen umfasst und
gerade analysiert wird. Insofern stellt die hier vorliegende Skizze „work in progress“ dar, die in den
6
Quelle: Eigene Darstellung basierend auf BASF (2012; S. 27-29). In dieser Grafik sind Schlüsselbegriffe
abgebildet, die in mindestens zwei Sinneinheiten gleichzeitig auftreten (n = 2).
31
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
nächsten Wochen in verschiedene Richtungen weiterentwickelt wird. Auf Basis des vorliegenden
Datensatzes werden folgende Fragestellungen verfolgt:

Vergleichsstudien: Welche Bedeutung hat der soziale Kontext für die Ausprägung von
mentalen Modellen? Konkret geht es um Unterschiede im Nachhaltigkeitsverständnis innerhalb
von Branchen (etwa der Chemieindustrie) und über Branchengrenzen hinweg.

Systemverständnis: Haben Unternehmen ein aktives Nachhaltigkeitsverständnis, bei dem
Systeme aktiv gestaltet werden können, oder ein reaktives Nachhaltigkeitsverständnis, bei
dem lediglich Gefährdungen durch das System vermeiden werden sollen? Gibt es hierfür
jeweils Best-Practice-Beispiele?

Mental
Models:
Welchen
Einfluss
haben
unterschiedliche
Managementsysteme auf niedrigen Systemebenen der Organisation?
Mental
Models
auf
(b) Das hier erläuterte Fallbeispiel arbeitet mit Texten, die eine absichtsvolle Erstellung nahe legen
und Analysen nur für einen Stakeholder-Kontext zulassen. Eine naheliegende Weiterentwicklung zur
Erweiterung des Stakeholder-Kontextes besteht darin, Interviews mit unterschiedlichen Vertretern von
Unternehmen (CSR-Manager, Controller und Führungskraft) sowie mit verschiedenen Vertretern von
NGOs zu führen. Hier können Kontextanalysen noch bessere Wirkung entfalten und mentale Modelle
erstellt werden.
LITERATUR
BASF (2012): BASF Bericht 2012: Ökonomische, ökologische und gesellschaftliche Leistung, im
Internet:
http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/de_DE/function/conversions:/publishdownload/content/aboutbasf/facts-reports/reports/2012/BASF_Bericht_2012.pdf, Zugriff am 12.07.2013, S. 27-29.
Buber, R.; Kraler, C. (2000): How GABEK and WinRelan support qualitative research, in Buber, R. and
Zelger, J. (Eds): GABEK II: Zur Qualitativen Forschung, StudienVerlag, Innsbruck.
Hammond, D. (2003): The Science of Synthesis: Exploring the Social Implications of General Systems
Theory. Boulder, CO.
Hatch, M. J.; Yanow, D. (2003): Organization theory as an interpretive science, in: Tsoukas, H. und C
Knudsen (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, Oxford, S. 63–87.
Jackson, M. C. (1991): Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences, New York.
Müller, J.; Abfalter, D.; Hautz, J.; Hutter, K.; Matzler, K.; Raich, M. (2011): Corporate
Environmentalism: A comparative analysis of country and industry differences in leading US and
German companies. European Journal of International Management., Vol. 5, No. 2, S. 122-148.
Ulrich, W. (1993): Some difficulties of ecological thinking, considered from a critical systems
perspective: A plea for critical holism, Systems Practice, Nr. 6(6), S. 583–611.
Waddock, S. (2006): Leading Corporate Citizens: Vision, Values, Value-Added, 2. Aufl., New York.
Zelger, J. (2000): Twelve steps of GABEKWinRelan, in Buber, R. and Zelger, J. (Eds): GABEK II. Zur
Qualitativen Forschung, Studienverlag, Innsbruck/Wien.
Zelger, J. (2008): The representation of verbal data by GABEK®-nets, in Zelger, J., Raich, M. and
Schober, P. (Eds): GABEK II, Studienverlag, Innsbruck.
32
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
The Nature of Service and the Service of Nature: Using Luhmann’s System Theory
for an Integrating Perspective
Helge Löbler
Institut für Service und Relationship Management ISRM, Universität Leipzig, Grimmaische Str. 12,
Raum 473, 04109 Leipzig, [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Service is ubiquitous and it has been written a lot about service and services. It has been tried to
understand and define what service is in different disciplines and most of the work is important and
helpful. Service is a very common phenomenon in human coexistence and everybody has experienced
service.
However service is not only a man made phenomenon it also exists in the natural world e.g. between
organisms of low and high developed species. There are two untapped areas of service research
outside Management and /or Marketing. Firstly, service is addressed in the biology of symbiosis
(Boucher, 1985, Douglas, 1994, 2010) not related to humans and secondly service is discussed in
ecology (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007) where ecosystems (nature) offer service for humans. Research on
symbiosis goes into the question why “different kinds of organisms help each other out” (Boucher
1985, p. 1) whereas ecosystems service research researches the service provided by nature for
humans (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). Not only food and fresh water are coming from nature. Hence
three fundamental realms of service can be distinguished. Service in nature is by far older than human
made service as it already exits long before humans were on earth. Hence service as a general
phenomenon can’t be explained by human motives or intentions. What lies behind the existence of
service? Are there common denominators for manmade and natural service and what is the role of
value? Is there common frame of natural and human service that deepens our understanding of the
phenomenon of service? What can humans learn from understanding the service of nature as nature
without humans is sustainable? Integrating natural and man-made service enables humans to reembed into nature without losing technological and cultural development. This paper is organized as
follows (not all in this 4 page summary): Section 2 identifies realms of service in the man-made and
non man-made word. Section 3 describes and identifies three common denominators of man-made
and non man-made service. Section 4 uses Luhmann’s system theory to identify the service system’s
single mode of operation which according to Luhmann defines the system and its environment
(Luhmann 1995, 1996, 2006, 2008). Section 5 discusses academic and managerial challenges and
implications.
FOUR REALMS OF SERVICE
As shown in figure 1 four realms of service can be distinguished: Service exchanged between non
human beings (nature to nature); service provides by nature to humans (e.g. ecosystem service) and
service exchanged between humans and finally service from humans for nature.
As shown in figure 1 four realms of service can be distinguished: Service exchanged between non
human beings (nature to nature); service provides by nature to humans (e.g. ecosystem service) and
service exchanged between humans and finally service from humans for nature.
Figure 1: Realms of Service
33
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
The first realm of service contains all services exchanged by non humans; this service is provided by
nature for nature and often discussed under the term symbiosis (Lewis 1985; Janzen 1985; Boucher
1985). Different categorical systems have been used to describe different kinds of symbiosis (Starr
1975; Lewis 1985; Conner 1995). Authors agree that in these kinds of interactions, “one of the
species provide some kind of ‘service’ that its partner species cannot provide for itself” (Yamamura et
al. 2004, p. 421).
The second realm of service is all service provided by nature for humans these are ecosystem
services. Its ecosystems also provide less obvious service such as storm protection and pollination.
Pollination of crops by bees is required for 15-30% of U.S. food production; most large-scale farmers
import non-native honey bees to provide this service. (Kremen, 2005). “Ignoring these services in
public and private decision making threatens our ways of living and impedes our ability to achieve our
aspirations for the future.” (Ranganathan et al. 2008, p. 2). Humans benefit from a manifold of
resources and processes that are offered by natural ecosystems. While environmentalists have
discussed ecosystem services for decades, these services were popularized and their definitions
formalized by the United Nations 2004 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005), a four-year
study involving more than 1,300 scientists worldwide.
The third ream is not described here because it is the best known realm for humans.
The fourth realm is not only covering preservation of natural heritage but also originally very natural
service is to be substituted by man. In Europe for example, already 40 percent of the bee colonies
have disappeared. In China, there are only 10 percent. Nevertheless, the Chinese take this threat for
man and nature seem more serious than the Europeans. You have started trials for artificial
pollination. (arte TV) What are the common denominators of all these different kinds of service?
COMMON DENOMINATORS FOR NATURAL AND HUMAN SERVICE
An extended review of different streams of literature served for identifying three joint denominators
for human and non human service (e.g. Douglas, 2010 for Symbiosis; e.g. Boyd and Banzhaf 2007 for
Ecosystems and e.g. Vargo & Lusch 2004, 2008 and Maglio & Spohrer 2008 for Human service):
1. Use or integration of resources. All service can only be performed by use of some kind of
resource whether these resources are material (land, seeds, food, etc.) or immaterial (sunlight,
information, wind, etc.).
2. Exchange/Transfer of resources. To get these resources an entity has to exchange them with
other entities or with its environment.
3. Transformation (change) of the receiver’s state by use of resources. Resources are not
integrated (used, consumed) for their own sake but for a change in a service receiver’s state whereby
the receiver usually also changes (consumes or wear down) the resources.
4. Contextuality of value (benefit) of service. Value or survival is not inherently a service
characteristic. Value can emerge via resource integration depending on the relationship between
service receiver and its environment hence value as well as survival is contextual. (e.g. Blaser and
Atherton 2004 for Symbiosis; e.g. Turner & Daily; e.g. Chandler & Vargo 2011 for human service).
A LUHMANNIAN SERVICE SYSTEM
Luhmann’s system theory is a consequence out of his critics to how systems are often defined.
“Usually, systems are described through a plurality of terms. For example, systems are relations
between elements; or a system is the relation of structure and process, a unit that directs itself
structurally in and through its own processes. Here you have unit, boundary, process, structure,
element, relation—a whole bunch of terms—and if you ask what the unity of all these terms is, you
end up with the word ‘and’. A system then is an ‘andness’. Unity is provided by the ‘and’ but
not by any one element, structure or relation.” (Luhmann 2006, 46). In a very condensed version
describing a system and simultaneously avoiding “andness” we find three important properties of the
system (Luhmann, 2006, 37):
1) The system is the difference between system and environment
2) A system can be defined through a single mode of operation
3) Every system observes internally its own system/environment distinction
34
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Applying this to service and referring to the common denominators a service system can be defined by
the single mode of operation of an ongoing process of exchange and change of resources. Since
resources are not but become the service system is open to things becoming resources in the service
system however the system is closed with respect of the operational mode the ongoing process of
exchange and change. By the process of exchange and change system and its environment are
defined because the process of exchange and change needs entities performing exchange and change.
However these entities are not part of the system but belong to the system’s environment and like the
psychic system are the environment of the social system (Luhmann 1995, 1996). In addition for the
service system the social and the psychic systems are environment. Figure 2a shows the ongoing
process of exchange and change in nature. Figure2b shows how the natural process is interrupted by
humans “creating” waste where waste in this systems theoretical terminology can simply be
understood as resources which cannot be integrated in the process of exchange and change (change
in particular; and with this becoming part of the ongoing process) in a specific time frame. The service
system as proposed her is in line with the cradle-to-cradle approach (Braungart & McDonough, 2002)
which is according to Braungart “Firstly … a business model” (den Held, 2009). The service system as
proposed here is explicitly bases on system theory and furthermore integrates exchange with change.
It goes beyond the idea of input is output and output is input as it focuses on the whole process
between input and output as well as between output and input. It also looks on value creating
exchanges and changes as contextual.
Figure 2a
Figure 2b
Sustainability can be understood in this terminology as keeping the ongoing process of exchange and
change uninterrupted in a specific time frame. As a first approach to specify the timeframe for
resources to be changeable can be found by taking into account the life time of exchanging entities. A
second approach to specify the timeframe for resources to be changeable can be seen in the growth
rate of the amount of a specific resource in relation to its declining rate.
IMPLICATIONS
The above conceptualization of service as an ongoing process of exchange and change is – as typical
for Luhmannian systems – a very abstract one. However it enables to integrate natural service and
man-made service for a re-embedding of human service back into a general activity which is
performed as well by nature and by humans. It further focuses beside exchange on the phenomenon
between exchanges which is change. Economics and other disciplines (e.g. Marketing) have very
elaborated understanding of exchange but a huge lack in understanding change as a second part of
the coin of an ongoing process. Even consumer theory has not fully understood the process of change
induced by consumption. It is important for politicians and managers to understand this under
researched part of the ongoing process: changes between exchanges.
REFERENCES
Braungart, M.; McDonough, W. (2002), Cradle to Cradle. Remaking the Way We Make Things. North
Point Press, New York.
Blaser, M. J.; Atherton, J.C. (2004), Helicobacter pylori persistence: biology and disease. Journal of
Clinical Investigation, 113(3): 321–333.
Boucher, D. H. (1985), The Idea of Mutualism, Past and Future. Boucher, D. H., Ed. The Biology of
Mutualism – Ecology and Evolution, New York: Oxfort University Press, 1-28.
35
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, S. (2007), What are ecosystem services? - The need for standardized
environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63 (2-3), 616-26.
Chandler, J.; Vargo, S. L. (2011), Contextualization: Network Intersections, Value-in-Context, and the
Co-creation of Markets. Marketing Theory 11(1), 35-49.
Conner, R.C. (1995), The Benefits of Mutualism: A Conceptual Framework. Biological Reviews, 70,
427-457.
Den Held, D. (2009), “Criticism on Cradle to Cradle? Right on schedule,” says Michael Braungart,
Interview published online on: http://www.duurzaamgebouwd.nl, 5. July 2013.
Douglas A. E. (1994), Symbiotic Interactions, New York: Oxfort University Press.
Douglas A. E. (2010), The Symbiotic Habit, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Janzen, D. H. (1985), The Natural History of Mutualism. Boucher, D. H., Ed. The Biology of Mutualism
– Ecology and Evolution, New York: Oxfort University Press.
Kremen, C. (2005), Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology?
Ecology Letters, 8, 468–79.
Lewis, D. H. (1985), Symbiosis and Mutualism: Crisp Concepts and Soggy Semantics. Boucher, D. H.,
Ed. The Biology of Mutualism – Ecology and Evolution, New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Luhmann, N. (1995), Social Systems, Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1996), Memberships and Motives in Social Systems, in: System Research, 3, 341-348.
Luhmann, N. (2006), System as Difference. Organization, 1, 37-57.
Luhmann, N. (2008), The autopoiesis of social systems. Journal of Sociocybernetics, 6, 84-95.
Maglio, P. P.; Spohrer, J. C. (2008), Fundamentals of Service Science. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36, 18-20.
Ranganathan, J.; Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Lucas, N.; Irwin, F.; Zurek, M.; Karen Bennett, K.; Ash, N.;
West, P. (2008), Ecosystem Services - A Guide for Decision Makers. World Resources Institute.
Starr, M. P. (1975), A Generalized Scheme for Classifying Organismic Associations. Symposia of the
Society for Experimental Biology, 29, 1-20.
Turner, R. K.; Daily, G. C. (2008), The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital
Conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics 39, 1, 25-35.
Vargo, S. L.; Lusch, R. F. (2004), Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68 (1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L.; Lusch, R. F. (2008), Service-dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1–10.
Vargo, S. L.; Lusch, R. F. (2011), “It's all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the
Market,” Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 181–7.
Yamamura, N.; Higashi, M.; Behera, N.; J. Y. Wakano, J. Y. (2004), Evolution of mutualism through
spatial effects. Journal of Theoretical Biology 226, 421–28.
36
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Socially Responsible Supplier Development in Dairy Supply Chains in India
Sadaat Ali Yawar; Stefan Seuring
Chair of Supply Chain Management, University of Kassel, Germany. [email protected];
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Supply Chain Management (SCM) has developed on the origins of inter-linking and dependencies of
the firms from the point of production to the end user (Svennson 2007). SCM is defined as a
“systematic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and the tactics across these
business functions within a particular company and across businesses within the supply chain for the
purpose of improving the long term performance of the companies and the supply chain as a whole”
(Mentzer et al.2001). This definition calls the firms to work with their partners to achieve performance
outcomes. Apart from this, increasing internationalization of business has come with a new set of
environmental and social challenges which affect the sustainability of the firms in the long run. While
research has focused more on environmental issues, the impact of social issues on supply chains is
hardly explored (Ashby et al. 2012).Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the most prominent
strategy adopted by the firms to address social issues at the supplier level in supply chains. According
to Davis (1973), CSR is defined as “the firm’s consideration of and response to, issues beyond the
narrow economic, technical and legal requirements of the firm which results in accomplishing social
benefits along with the traditional economic gains which the firms seek”. The “social benefits” in this
definition broadly include societal and human development aspects apart from issues like labour
conditions, child labour, health and safety, wages, gender equity etc. The relationship between
business and society is in constant flux and societal issues in developing economies differ significantly
from the developed ones (Blowfield 2004) forcing the firms to adopt strategies that benefit both of
them. Supplier development strategy is often suggested as an important mechanism for businesses to
work with their suppliers and improve financial performance over the long run. Supplier development
is defined as an approach where both buyer and the suppliers through collaborations and long term
relationships can achieve performance outcomes which can be extended to the entire supply chain
(Krause et al. 2007, 1999, 1997).Direct and indirect supplier development strategies are identified as
two different ways of developing suppliers. Lu and Cheng (2012) define socially responsible supplier
development as “concerted efforts to improve its important suppliers’ capabilities and commitment to
CSR implementation”. However, this definition does not include the broader view of businesses as
being entities working towards improving the quality of life and bringing change in the society at large
as suggested by World Business Council for Business Development (WBCSD). A number of studies
have explored the use of CSR as a supplier development strategy in addressing social issues and
improving the performance at the supplier level (Krause et al. 2000, 2007). However, the link
between societal issues (that extends to the overall wellbeing of the suppliers) and supplier
development strategies is missing in the literature despite the increasing interdependencies between
focal firms and small and medium scale suppliers. Most of the literature is geared towards exploring
the performance of the buying firm by implementing supplier development strategies, whereas the
perceptions and impact of such strategies on suppliers is relatively unexplored (Nagati and Rebolledo
2013), with few exceptions like Krause (2000) and Humphrey and Chan (2004). However, a better
understanding of the impacts of supplier development programs on a supply chain can be obtained
when both upstream and downstream actors are involved. To define, socially responsible supplier
development in the present context is the “development strategies take up by the firms to address
both social and societal issues while focusing on supporting the well being of the suppliers by bringing
change in their livelihood”.
PURPOSE OF THE PAPER
This research fills the gap by bringing the literature on CSR and supplier development together to
explain the role of socially responsible supplier development and its impact on the overall well being of
the suppliers in Dairy supply chains in India. The role of socially responsible supplier development in
attaining performance improvements has not received much attention in the literature so far. Most of
the studies till date are from a buying firm perspective, and mainly offer insights from developed
countries. Moreover, the impact of socially responsible supplier development on local supply chains is
37
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
hardly found in the literature. This paper on the dairy supply chains in India fills the gap by exploring
the role of socially responsible supplier development and its impact on overall performance of the
supply chain.
DESIGN / METHODOLOGY/ APPROACH
An exploratory, empirical study with 20 semi-structured interviews involving different actors across
the supply chain from public and private dairies in Hyderabad region of India was carried out. Data
collection at the dairy supply chains can be seen in table 1. Related themes in the interview were
coded against constructs derived from the literature review.
Type
of
Dairy
Private
firms
Public
firms
Total
number
16
4
Ownership
Owned by an individual /
Big private dairy farms and
retailers;
Owned by a federation/
Union/ Cooperative/ and
controlled directly or
indirectly by the
government.
SC Activities
Social Issues /Societal issues
Own farms,
Procurement,
Processing and
Selling.
Labour, Wages, Child labour, Gender,
Health and Safety, Decent work
conditions, financially secured
livelihood of small scale suppliers.
Procurement,
Processing,
Distribution and
Selling.
Income levels, Empowerment,
Community development, logistics and
technical inputs, access to loans,
securing livelihoods of small and
medium scale suppliers.
Table 1: Data collection at local dairy supply chains in Hyderabad, India.
FINDINGS
The results show that supplier development strategies are extensively used by firms to address social
issues in dairy supply chains. A high level of integration among the firms and the suppliers can be
seen in local dairy supply chains. Firms indulge in various supplier development activities like financing
the suppliers, providing inputs for the production processes, procuring the produce and even selling it
to the markets. Apart from this, direct (both technical and financial investments, training and
education programs) and indirect supplier development strategies (like assessing the supplier
capabilities and providing them with the information to do better) are adopted by the buyers to ensure
supply base continuity. Further, supplier development strategies seem to have an impact on the
average income levels of the small scale suppliers bringing change in their livelihoods. There are
perceptual differences between the suppliers of private and cooperative dairies in terms of the
changes in livelihood due to the supplier development programs. The findings also show public
undertakings like cooperatives and federations having greater degree of welfare effect on suppliers
than that are claimed by the big private dairy players. The public undertakings have greater
stakeholder involvement and the decision making process is done through consensus and
representation from small farmers and suppliers too. The decision making process in private dairies on
the contrary is from top to the down without any real stakeholder involvement. Top management
plays an important role in implementing and executing supplier development schemes concerning the
suppliers in both private and public dairies. However, supplier development programs implemented by
small and medium scale dairies differed significantly with those of the big private dairy firms with the
former focusing more on arms-length relationship and the later more on collaborative approaches.
These collaborative approaches are perceived as capacity building measures by the firms which
empower small and medium scale suppliers to raise their overall income levels. Further, there is a
strong element of local community development in the supplier development programs of cooperative
dairies contrary to that of the private ones. Small and medium scale suppliers have indicated that
supplier development programs have increased income levels which helped them in providing
education to their children and improved the quality of life. Labour conditions have improved due to
the shortage of labour in dairy sector which led to increase in wages for the existing dairy workers
and providing them with basic amenities like food, shelter and provision of free medical services.
38
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS / IMPLICATIONS
The major limitation is the sector specific nature of the study and restricted to a particulars state
within India. Dairy supply chains in other parts of the country and from other countries can offer
further insights into supplier development practices of the dairy firms. Future studies can include a
large scale survey or more structured approach of empirical analysis throughout the supply chain to
gain more insights about CSR as a SDS.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
These findings can be used both by practitioners and researchers to gain valuable insights into how
local supply chains use supplier development programs effectively to address social and societal
issues.
ORIGINALITY / VALUE
This paper offers insights into how socially responsible supplier development help in ensuring
performance improvements across supply chains. It contributes to the understanding of the supplier
development practices taken up by private and public firm towards social aspects, which enriches
respective literature. There is not much research so far on local dairy supply chains of low-income
countries. In this respect, the empirical contribution adds to further comprehending social
responsibility issues in such a context.
REFERENCES
Ashby, A.; Leat, M.; Hudson-Smith, M.; (2012): Making Connections: A review of Supply Chain
Management and Sustainability Literature, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
17(5), pp. 497-516.
Davis, K.; (1973): The Case for and against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities, Academy
of Management Journal, 16 (2) pp.312-322.
Humphreys, P.K.; Li, W.L.; Chan, L.Y.; (2004): The impact of supplier development on buyer-supplier
performance, Omega 32, pp.131-143.
Krause, D.R., Scannell.; T.V., Calantone, R.J.; (2000): A structural analysis of the effectiveness of
buying firms’ strategies to improve supplier performance. Decision Sciences, 31 (1),pp. 33–55.
Krause, D.R.; Handfield, R.B.; Tyler, B.B., (2007): The relationships between supplier development,
commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. Journal of Operations
Management 25 (2), pp. 528–545.
Lu, R.X.A.; Lee, P.K.C.; Cheng T.C.E.; (2012): Socially Responsible Supplier Development: Construct
development and Measurement Validation.
Mentzer, J.T.; DeWitt, W.; Keebler, J.S.; Min, S.; Nix, N.W.; Smith, C.D.; Zacharia, Z, G.; (2001):
Defining Supply Chain Management, Journal of Business Logistics, 22 (2) pp. 1-25.
Nagati, H.; Rebolledo, C.; (2013): Supplier Development Efforts: The Suppliers Point of View.
Industrial Marketing Management, 42, pp.180-188
Svensson, G.; (2007): Aspects of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM): Conceptual
framework and Empirical Example. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12 (4),
pp.262-266.
39
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Sustainable development and corporate global strategy: from vertical to horizontal
efficiency of production systems
Michele Pinelli
Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This paper joins the international business literature on corporate global strategy by highlighting a
dramatic limitation of mainstream theoretical frameworks that aim to explain the phenomenon of
value chains disintegration. These models (e.g. Contractor et al, 2010) usually assume that value
chains are doomed to further disintegration along both the organizational and geographical dimension:
that is, they assume that the level of offshoring and outsourcing practices are going to indefinitely
increase. This paper however remarks that elements related to the paradigm of sustainability (waste
minimization, product recovery, reverse logistics, eco-industrial sites, etc.) are pushing business
activities one towards the others, therefore increasing the level of geographical proximity of different
value chains. The paper therefore suggests that adopting a system-level perspective allows to reveal a
core flaw of one of the most ubiquitous assumptions in international business literature: if the unit of
analysis stays at the level of single firms or value chains and does not move to an aggregate level, the
actual level of value chains dispersion is not captured. In an age in which organizational exchanges
are the rule, value chains dispersion is not determined just by how much previously verticallyintegrated production processes are disintegrated: instead, their concentration is determined by the
degree at which business process once belonging to different value chains are getting in touch with
one another.
INTRODUCTION
The paradigm of sustainable development is having a strong impact on how firms run their business
operations: traditional value creation mechanisms and global value chains configurations are now
being challenged (Nidumolu, Prahalad and Rangaswami, 2009). The article points out that
internationalization strategy need to be re-thought in order to face the challenges of current economic
settings, as sustainability is changing the calculus behind offshoring rationale. Contrary to last
decades’ mainstream practices and academic theories, recent market evidence is showing that the
benefits of value chains’ fragmentation and scattering are decreasing. Geographical proximity among
activities and value chains’ concentration are becoming advantageous due to factors related to
sustainable development, namely the increased costs of energy and transportation, the necessities to
optimize the use of raw materials, to minimize the production of waste and to strengthen the links
with surrounding communities and businesses.
Competitive pressure forced firms to disaggregate value chains both geographically and
organizationally in order to reach foreign markets, to procure higher-quality or lower-cost inputs and
to establish relationship with new partners (Kedia and Mukherjee, 2009; Thakur and Contractor,
2010). The main driver for activities relocation has always been cost reduction, particularly for poorlyperforming firms looking for low-wages employees and low-cost inputs. However some important
conditions for the realization of such savings are changing: transportation costs are now much higher
than in the past and therefore distant procurement is losing part of its attractiveness; companies now
risk higher and higher reputational damages for exploiting poor working conditions or indulgent
environmental regulations of developing countries; labor cost, the strongest offshoring motivator, has
proven to increase over time; finally, when flexibility and quick time to market are crucial,
infrastructural features and human resources’ quality matter a lot.
Market evidence suggests that building industrial eco-systems and strengthening the link with
surrounding businesses and society is how companies can address the challenge of increased costs of
energy and transportation and the quest for the minimization of raw materials consumptions and
waste production. The Chinese government for example is experimenting with circular economies and
eco-industrial sites in order to overcome main limitations of its industrial system (Fang, Cotè and Qin,
2007): high levels of emissions, high consumption of natural resources’ and low productivity. Ecoindustrial sites may be firms, aggregates of firms or even cities and provinces, in which different
waste-producing processes, plants and consumers are connected into operating webs that minimize
the amounts of industrial materials wasted in intermediate processes. The underlying idea is to turn
40
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
isolated linear chains into cycles characterized by shared activities such as product-recovery processes
and reverse logistics. Such closed-loop circular economies involve forward movements of materials
(the traditional flows from suppliers to manufacturers) and inverse flows of wastes and by-products
(which are collected from manufacturers and consumers). These webs of connected processes create
geographically concentrated, hard-to-disintegrate and tightly coupled bundles of activities.
Sustainable development however is not just about optimization of inputs but also about productivity
and well-being maximization. Therefore firms not only need to strengthen their relationships with
partners but also with their broader ecology: firms’ competitiveness is dependent on the health of
surrounding communities and on the quality of local institutions and infrastructures (Porter and
Kramer, 2011). Developing the local ecology is how firms can foster innovation, productivity and
sustainability. This means: investing into local infrastructures; helping under-developed suppliers to
have access to financial resources, know-how and better technology; educating local communities;
allowing more pleasant working conditions.
The article would clarify the importance of eco-industrial sites building and ecology development by
describing how companies like the Chinese Guitang Group and Nestlè’s Nespresso arranged their
business models.
The article provides significant contributions at both practical and theoretical levels. On the one hand,
it helps firms to identify some the most cutting-edge social, environmental and economic challenges of
the current context; it warns firms against the assumed (and therefore often not challenged) dogma
of “offshoring advantage”; finally, by discussing successful examples of cluster development and ecoindustrial sites, it provides firms with possible solutions to the above-mentioned challenges. On the
other hand, the article highlights a dramatic limitation of theoretical frameworks incorporating the
assumption that value chains are doomed to further disintegration (e.g. Contractor et al, 2010): if the
unit of analysis stays at the level of single firms or value chains and does not move to an aggregate
level, the actual level of their dispersion is not captured. In an age in which organizational exchanges
are the rule, value chains dispersion is not determined just by how much previously verticallyintegrated production processes are disintegrated: instead, their concentration is determined by the
degree at which business process once belonging to different value chains are getting in touch with
one another.
REFERENCES
Azapagic, A. (2003). Systems Approach To Corporate Sustainability A General Management
Framework. Trans IChemE, 81, Part B, September, 303––316.
Contractor F., Kumar V., Kundu S. and Pedersen T., 2010. Re-conceptualizing the firm in a world of
outsourcing and offshoring: the organizational and geographical relocation of high value functions.
Journal of management studies 47:8, 1417 - 1433
Danskin, P., Dibrell, C., & Kedia, B. L. 2005. Revisiting the complex relationship between multinational
enterprises and organizations in transitions economies. Journal of World Business, 40: 223–234
Dunning, J. H. (1977). Trade, location of economic activity and the multinational enterprise: A search
for an eclectic approach. In B. Ohlin, P.Hesselborn, & P. Magnus (Eds.), The international allocation of
economic activity (pp. 395–418). NY: Holmes & Meier.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond The Business Case For Corporate Sustainability, Business
Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130.–141
Fang Y., Cotè R., Qin R., 2007. Industrial sustainability in China: practice and prospects for ecoindustrial developments . Journal of £Environmental Management, 83, 315 - 328
Grinde, Khare, 2008. The Ant, The Grasshopper Or Schrödinger’s Cat: An Exploration Of Concepts Of
Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 10(2), 115––141
Hart S.L., & Milstein, M.B. (2003). Creating Sustainable Value. Academy of Management Executive,
17(2), 56-69
Jacobides, M. G. (2005). Industry change through vertical disintegration: How and why markets
emerged in mortgage banking. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 465–498.
41
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Jacobides, M. G., & Winter, S. G. (2005). The co-evolution of capabilities and transaction costs:
Explaining the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 395–413.
Kedia, B. L., & Lahiri, S. (2007). International outsourcing of services: A partnership model. Journal of
International Management, 13: 22–37.
Kedia B. L., Mukherjee D., 2009. Understanding offshoring: a research framework based on
disintegration, location and externalization advantages. Journal of World Business 44 (2009), 205 261
Kuijis l., Wang T., 2006. China’s pattern of growth: moving to sustainability and reducing inequality.
China & Economy, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1 - 14
Nidumolu, Prahalad and Rangaswami (2009). Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation,
Harvard Business Review, September 2009
Parrish, B.D. (2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organization design. Journal
of Business Venturing, 2(5), 510.–523.
Porter M., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, New York
Porter, 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec 1996, pp. 61 - 78
Porter M., 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition, Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec.
pp. 77-90
Porter, Kramer, 2011. Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of
innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb 2001, pp. 63-70
Thakur P., Contractor F., 2010. Firm Level determinants f Offshoring and Outsourcing of Core
Activities, paper presented at the 2010 Academy of Management Annual Meeting
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers,S A., & Steger, U. (2005). The Business Case for Corporate
Sustainability: Literature Review and Research Options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27.–
36.
Schaltegger, S., & Synnestvedt, T. (2002). The link between ““green”” and economic success:
environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance.
Journal of Environmental Management, 65(4), 339-346.
Stocchetti, 2012. The Sustainable Firm: from Principles to Practice, International Journal of Business
and Management; Vol. 7, No. 21
Zott, Amit, Massa. 2011. The business model: recent developments and future research, Journal Of
Management, 37, 4, 1019-1042
42
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Structure and agency. Developing an interdisciplinary view on the transition
towards sustainable materials management.
Ann Crabbé
University of Antwerp, Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, research group Environment and
Society, [email protected]
Inge Vermeesch
HUB University College, Faculty of Economics & Management, Center for Sustainability Management,
[email protected]
Anne Bergmans
University of Antwerp, Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, research group Environment and
Society, [email protected]
Marc Craps
HUB University College, Faculty of Economics & Management, Center for Sustainability Management,
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION
As part of the research agenda of the Policy Research Centre on sustainable materials management
(SuMMa), this paper advances an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of Flanders’ transition to
sustainable materials management. We apply both political science’s structure perspective as well as
organizational science’s agency perspective to investigate the role of Flanders’ materials policy
program that supports this transition. This offers a dual systemic view on the materials domain with
its existing and developing policy arrangements and on the leadership processes that steer it. Our
exploration of the interplay between the structure and agency perspectives aims to advance
conceptual enrichment for both disciplines and to propose working hypotheses for future research.
TRANSITION TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS MANAGEMENT IN FLANDERS
The way we think about materials and natural resources for production and consumption has changed
significantly in recent decades. This change in thinking is the result of two complementing stimuli.
First, we now have better knowledge on and understanding of the impact of production and
consumption patterns on ecosystems. Our human ecological footprint overshoots earth’s carrying
capacity. Secondly, knowledge on available resources makes clear that, at the current rate of use,
several resources will be depleted within this and the next generations. This is perceived as a threat
for western societies to secure economic growth and welfare.
Sustainable materials management tries to steer the use of resources and materials in a sustainable
direction. This implies that the current material needs are provided for without endangering those of
future generations here or elsewhere. In sustainable materials management many strategies are
thinkable: limiting the use of natural resources (via dematerialization, substitution of materials,
cleantech, urban mining, landfill mining), efficient use of ore in production (via ecodesign, additive
manufacturing), building efficient life cycles (via high value use of waste, industrial symbiosis) and life
cycle thinking (via integrated assessments, focus on detoxification and safety). Moving towards
sustainable materials management takes more than making existing production processes more
efficient or minimizing waste. It also requires societal innovations and breakthroughs at the systemlevel. As such, striving for sustainable materials management is in essence a social problem and a
matter of changing behaviour of all actors in society: business, government, consumers, academia,
civil society or others.
Despite the global interconnectedness of environmental, societal and economic aspects of production
and consumption patterns, the Flemish region in Belgium has put the transition to sustainable
materials management on its policy agenda. Through various initiatives it seeks answers to questions
such as:
‐
‐
Can Flanders be (more) independent for its materials supply by designing and managing
materials from a life cycle perspective?
What scenarios are available and what is their environmental, economic and social impact ?
43
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
How to engage all stakeholders of the materials system to realize sustainable materials
management?
‐
How can progress be monitored for specific choices?
Flemish policy makers want to position the Flemish region as a European top region with regard to
sustainable materials management by means of a Flemish Materials Program (Vlaams
Materialenprogramma, VMP). In this program, business, government, knowledge producers and civil
society join forces in collaborative network initiatives. The VMP consists of three pillars: (1)
development of inspiring visions on the future in “Plan C”, (2) policy relevant research on sustainable
materials management in “SuMMa” and (3) development and implementation of concrete actions in
“Agenda 2020”, enclosing 9 leverage clusters that combine 45 priority actions. Plan C creates space
for innovative thinking on long term goals. SuMMa supports policy makers in their strategic policy
choices by means of policy-relevant knowledge production. Agenda 2020 focuses on realizing change
in practice by means on operational actions on the rather short term.
‐
DEVELOPING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY VIEW ON THE TRANSITION TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
SuMMa, a consortium of various Flemish universities and a public research centre, is responsible for
conducting research on the transition towards sustainable materials management in Flanders. One
part of this research is disciplinary, but the other part is explicitly aimed at producing integrated,
interdisciplinary research conclusions. SuMMa gathers expertise in engineering studies, economics,
legal studies, political and social sciences and organizational psychology.
Our paper for the Autumn meeting 2013 in Vienna is a coproduction of political scientists and
organizational psychologists, studying the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the
“Agenda 2020” initiative, described above. Combining insights from both disciplines offers a clear
added-value, as the political science perspectives naturally tends to explain stability and dynamics
more by means of ‘structural’, systemic factors while the organizational psychology approach
complements these insights with specific reflections on the role of ‘agency’. Hereafter we shortly
describe the input brought in by both disciplines. After that, we deal with the main research questions
in our paper, the research methodology and further ambitions with our research.
- Political science perspective: explaining stability and change from a policy arrangement approach
From a political science perspective, we are interested in analytically linking changes in day-to-day
policy practices to broader, structural changes in contemporary society. In political science literature,
several ‘meso level’ theories are available to this end, such as discourse analysis (Hajer, 1995),
various policy network approaches (Glasbergen, 1989; Marsh and Rhodes, 1992) or the advocacy
coalition approach (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). We make use of the Policy Arrangements
Approach (PAA) as it combines the strengths of some of these meso level theories (Liefferink, 2006).
The PAA allows to analyze and understand change and stability by describing and analyzing day-today policy processes by focusing on four dimensions: actors and coalitions, resources and power, rules
of the game, and discourses. The former three deal with the organization of policy arrangements, the
latter one with their substance. By means of a mixed-method approach, combining document analysis,
in-depth interviews and participatory observation, we provide in an analysis of policy processes on the
Flemish Materials Programme.
- Organizational psychology perspective: complexity leadership as an explanatory factor
The agency perspective of the organizational research focuses on the leadership processes that help
steer the investigated transition. We apply a systemic view on leadership and use the framework of
Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT) (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) to guide our analysis. With its outspoken
relational perspective on leadership (Dachler & Hosking, 1995; Uhl-Bien, 2006), CLT offers an
interesting view on leadership of complex networks. The theory defines leadership as a complex and
emergent dynamic between sets of network members who actively strive for innovative solutions. As
such, leadership is not concentrated within one person, but is enacted by many in different networks
(Termeer & Nooteboom, 2012). Through in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and nonparticipative observation of various meetings and events, we identify the different leadership networks
and analyze the relational leadership and power processes at play in Flanders’ materials system.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, METHODOLOGY AND AMBITION
44
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Our interdisciplinary reflections, that are part of our paper, contribute to the discussion on the
linkages and mutual added-value of combining systems thinking approaches to insights of
sustainability management, the central theme of the Autumn meeting 2013. In the interdisciplinary
integration of both analyses, we address questions on the interplay between them:

In what way and to which degree do the existing structures or policy arrangements in the
materials system stimulate or harness leadership initiatives of governmental and nongovernmental actors in the search for adaptive and innovative solutions?

What is the impact of stakeholders deploying relational power on the stability of the materials
system and its governing institutions?
These questions will in first instance be answered at a conceptual level. We will use a theorization
process to enrich the concepts used in both disciplines. After reinterpreting our empirical data with
these ‘interdisciplinary concepts’, we aim to formulate working hypotheses on the explanatory
strength of these concepts. Our long-term ambition is to test and validate these working hypotheses
in empirical studies. Our paper for the Autumn meeting 2013 will contain reflections on the options for
future research.
With regard to methodology, the conceptual work will be based on literature study and in-depth
reflections on the opportunities for developing ‘interdisciplinary concepts’. Empirical illustrations will be
distilled from our explorative research on the Agenda 2020 initiative. This research includes qualitative
and interpretative analysis, making use of documentary work, in-depth interviews, non-participant
observation and participatory action research techniques for data gathering.
REFERENCES
Dachler, H. P., & Hosking, D. (1995). The primacy of relations in socially constructing organizational
realities. In D. M. Hosking, H. P. Dachler, & K. . Gergen (Eds.), Management and Organisation:
Relational Perspectives. (pp. 1–23). Avebury: Ashgate.
Glasbergen, P. (1989), Beleidsnetwerken rond milieuproblemen, VUGA Uitgeverij, Den Haag.
Hajer, M.A. (1995), The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy
process, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hosking, D. M. (2006). Not leaders, not followers: A post-modern discourse of leadership processes In
B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A
tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Liefferink, D. (2006) ‘The Dynamics of Policy Arrangements: Turning around the Tetrahedron’, pp. 4568 in: Arts, B.J.M.; Leroy, P. (eds.), Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance
(Environment & Policy, 47) . Springer Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.
Marsh, D.; Rhodes, R.A.W. (eds.) (1992), Policy networks in British government, Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
Sabatier, P.A.; Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (eds.) (1993), Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition
approach, Westview Press, Boulder.
Termeer, C. & Nooteboom,S. (2012). Complexity leadership for sustainable regional innovations. In
M. Sotarauto, I. Horlings and J. Little (Eds). Leadership and Change in Sustainable Regional
Development. (pp. 234-251). London: Routledge.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and
organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership
from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.
45
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Transformation in the Food System: Sustainability Initiatives in the Conventional
Food Supply Chain
Georgina, Villarreal Herrera
Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University, [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Large scale conventional food producers are increasingly recognizing the impact of their operations,
the presence of planetary limits, as well as social expectations related to their performance. The
engagement of these companies with sustainability concerns happens through a variety of
approaches, ranging from isolated projects, to comprehensive sustainability codes and commitments.
However, companies still face unresolved questions when it comes to the scope and exact ‘how’s’ of
sustainability. In the literature, the inner workings and transformative potential of these industry-led
initiatives remain understudied. This paper presents the preliminary findings of a study focusing on
how food processors are approaching sustainability and how they are engaging (if at all) with a larger
transformation in the food system. These questions are investigated by looking at three case studies
of European dairy processors and their sustainability programs. Sustainability efforts are analyzed
through the resilience framework. This exercise points out that sustainability efforts are currently
focused on adaptation rather than systemic transformation. However, it is recognized that there is
potential in the legacy of such initiatives and it might be uncovered as further research develops tools
to clarify the nature and potential of such programs.
SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES AND THE ENGAGEMENT OF FOOD PROCESSORS
The conventional food system7 has significant negative impacts on the environment (Garnett 2008;
McIntyre et al. 2009; Metz 2007; Russell 2011). The amount of resources used to deliver the food on
our plates has turned conventional food provisioning into a source of environmental degradation,
economic pressures at the farm level, and social inequality. In short, a critical sustainability challenge
(Elzen et al. 2012; Millward and Garnett 2010; Pretty et al. 2005; Stuart 2009; Wiskerke 2009).
Major actors and stakeholders in the sector have recognized this critical challenge and the need for a
sustainability transition in the food system (Spaargaren, et al. 2012). This is interpreted in part as a
moral call related to their impact but largely as a business viability concern. The engagement of these
companies occurs through a variety of approaches, ranging from isolated (i.e. narrow in scope) pilot
projects, to commitments for environmental impact reduction, to comprehensive sustainability codes
or charters (which include all core areas of the business, some even stretching across the supply
chain), to participation in pre-competitive platforms, to collaborations with non-governmental
organizations. However, given the complexity of the food system as a whole, and the specificity of the
operations for each business, companies are not fully cognizant of the dynamics behind such
processes of change and engagement. The specific strategic models for sustainability and roles that
large food companies can take are thus, yet to be discovered (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund 2012).
DAIRY PROCESSORS AND LESSONS FROM THE FIELD
This study looks at the sustainability efforts of three European dairy food processors located in The
Netherlands, Ireland, and The United Kingdom. The focus is on the European dairy sector as it
illustrates well the sustainability challenges connected to the current food system. Firstly, dairy has
been identified as a significant agricultural driver of climate change, land, soil, and water degradation
as well as biodiversity loss (FAO 2010; Steinfeld et al. 2006). Secondly, even if EU dairy consumption
is not expected to grow significantly (it is currently three times higher than the global average)
prospective changes on production regulation will better place EU dairy producers to supply the
growing demand of emerging markets such Asia and Africa in the coming years (Astley 2013;
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food 2010; Rabobank Food & Agribusiness Research 2013;
Westhoek et al. 2011).
Data about the sustainability program as well as the dairy industry/context was collected for each of
the three cases through document analysis and semi-structured interviews. The interview selection
included not only internal actors from the dairy organizations but also farmers, retailers, consumers,
industry group actors, NGO staff, consultants, government agents, as well as academic experts.
A preliminary analysis of the data through the lens of resilience thinking points to the conclusion that
current sustainability efforts are increasing specific resilience rather than general resilience or
deliberate transformation. Internal efficiency programs rooted in the predominant eco-efficiency
7
The term ‘conventional food system’ is used in this paper to make reference to the industrialized system of food
production, processing, and distribution, which is often interconnected to the global flow of food inputs and
products.
46
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
approach prove effective in reducing costs and environmental impacts as they eliminate apparent
redundancies. However, it is argued that eco-efficiency considerably limits key sustainability enablers
such as innovation, adaptability and resilience, effectively limiting the potential for larger
transformation to occur (Korhonen & Seager 2008; Milestad et al. 2012).
As an illustration, if we look at efforts upstream the supply chain such as programs to source
sustainably, they show resilience strategies that respond to material and social thresholds. Regime
actors are increasingly aware of the linkages between business viability and resource scarcity as well
as society’s intolerance to unjust production and trading practices. Therefore they are building
adaptive responses to ensure their operations are not disturbed by shocks related to such thresholds.
From what has been reviewed and discussed so far in the study there is little evidence of engagement
with general resilience efforts (where companies would build capacity to unknown and unexpected
shocks across the whole system) or dialogue with the idea of transformation to a new resilient system.
This might have to do with the fact that sustainability challenges, although globally pertinent in many
ways, manifest in specific ways in different regions and local contexts. This results in different sets of
priorities and strategies across the sector. However, the legacy of sustainability efforts that can be
read through the theory relates to how they co-evolve with the system. Resilience thinking recognizes
the non-linearity of change dynamics as well as the interplay between gradual and rapid change.
Efforts coming from large food companies even if not completely radical in nature, have ripple effects
in the system (Spaargaren, et al. 2012). They point to general directions of how the system might coevolve, and this signals in turn stimulate other players to follow. Recognizing the influential power of
signals from large food companies in the directionality of the efforts that follow from other actors in
the system, reiterates the importance of assessing their potential.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that the preliminary review of the cases points to strategies of adaptation rather
than systemic transformation. However, this exercise recognizes that there is potential in the legacy of
such efforts and it might be uncovered as further research develops tools to clarify the nature and
potential of their impact.
The fact that sustainability is increasingly present in the debate around how food systems should
develop and perform makes for an exciting opportunity both for food companies as well as for
theoretical development of frameworks related to systems change. In terms of theoretical
development, the resilience framework would benefit from the development of tools that allow for a
more nuanced analysis of current dynamics; adaptation strategies coming from the conventional food
processors should be studied in the light of their transformative potential at the aggregate level of the
system. The potential in such a line of work resides in better understanding if there is room for current
sustainability initiatives to simultaneously support resilience and explore options for transformation
and if so, what are key processes to support. Key enablers for the lines of work mentioned above are
systematic assessment of current sustainability efforts as well as systemic analysis of how such efforts
dialogue with changes happening at different scales. The expectation is not for large food companies
to single-handedly transform the food system. The hope is that their sustainability efforts are
designed in a way that leverages current innovation dynamics and creates change at the aggregated
level. Insights from theory will be of most importance to inform and facilitate such development.
REFERENCES
Astley, M., 2013. Dutch dairy firms to invest €700m to meet export demand, says NZO. Available at:
http://www.dairyreporter.com/Manufacturers/Dutch-dairy-firms-to-invest-700m-to-meet-exportdemand-says-NZO [Accessed July 12, 2013].
Boons, F. & Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2012. Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and
steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, pp.1–30. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652612003459.
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, 2010. Food Harvest 2020, Dublin.
Elzen, B. et al., 2012. Stimulating transitions towards sustainable farming systems. In I. Darnhofer, D.
Gibbon, & B. Dedieu, eds. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 431–455.
FAO, 2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector, Rome.
Garnett, T., 2008. Cooking up a storm and our changing climate, Surrey.
47
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Korhonen, J. & Seager, T.P., 2008. Beyond Eco-Efficiency : a Resilience Perspective. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 17(7), pp.411–419.
McIntyre, B.D.. et al., 2009. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development. Synthesis Report, Washington.
Metz, B., 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change B. Metz et al., eds.,
Cambridge University Press.
Milestad, R. et al., 2012. Farms and farmers facing change: The adaptive approach. In I. Darnhofer,
D. Gibbon, & B. Dedieu, eds. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New
Dynamic. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 365–385.
Millward, D.J. & Garnett, T., 2010. Plenary Lecture 3: Food and the planet: nutritional dilemmas of
greenhouse gas emission reductions through reduced intakes of meat and dairy foods. The
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 69(1), pp.103–18.
Pretty, J. et al., 2005. Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly
food basket. Food Policy, 30(1), pp.1–19.
Rabobank Food & Agribusiness Research, 2013. Milk for the Tigers, Utrecht.
Russell, S., 2011. WORKING PAPER Corporate Greenhouse Gas Inventories for the Agricultural Sector :
Proposed Accounting and Reporting Steps. , pp.1–28.
Spaargaren, Gert; Oosterveer, Peter; Loeber, A. ed., 2012. Food Practices in Transition. Changing
Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity, New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Steinfeld, H. et al., 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options, Rome.
Stuart, T., 2009. Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Westhoek, H. et al., 2011. The Protein Puzzle, The Hague: PBL Publisers.
Wiskerke, J.S.C., 2009. On Places Lost and Places Regained: Reflections on the Alternative Food
Geography and Sustainable Regional Development. International Planning Studies, 14(4),
pp.369–387.
48
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Divergenz und Konvergenz nachhaltiger Entwicklung und resilienter Systeme:
Entwicklungspotenziale aus Sicht der Nachhaltigkeitsberatung
Marina Beermann
Systain consulting, Spaldingstrasse 218, 20097 Hamburg, [email protected] INTRODUCTION
Zwischen Fragen unternehmerischer Nachhaltigkeit und unternehmerischer Resilienz existieren
zum einen Konvergenzen als auch Divergenzen. Auf Grundlage einer umfangreichen
Literaturauswertung werden diese systematisch erarbeitet und dargestellt. Es wird deutlich, dass
aus Sicht der
Nachhaltigkeitsberatung
hier
interessante
Anknüpfungspunkte
für
die
Weiterentwicklung des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements, u.a. im Bezug auf ein Sustainable Supply
Chain Management bestehen. Hierbei stellt sich jedoch auch die Frage wie einerseits eine
Zusammenführung von Nachhaltigkeit und Resilienz auf unternehmerischer Ebene gelingen kann
und wie Beratung und Wissenschaft gegenseitig voneinander lernen können. Hierbei wird
Resilienz als analytische Kategorie im Kontext der Bewältigung von Nachhaltigkeitsfragen als
möglicher Zugang skizziert.
Die Forschung rund um das Konzept der Resilienz zeichnet sich inzwischen durch eine Vielzahl
unterschiedlicher Anwendungsfelder aus, wobei insbesondere die zwei unabhängig voneinander
entstandenen ursprünglichen Forschungszweige der Ökosystemforschung einerseits und der
1
Entwicklungspsychologie andererseits unterschieden werden sollten.
Der aktuelle Bezug zur Resilienz erfolgt oftmals, vor allem in der Praxis, vergleichbar zum
Konzept der Nachhaltigkeit, welches (leider) oft zur reinen Worthülse verkommt und so die
Gefahr einer Verwässerung der zur Grunde liegenden Idee besteht. In Deutschland wird
Resilienz vergleichsweise selten im öffentlichen oder praxisnahen Sprachgebrauch verwendet. In
den Vereinigten Staaten sowie zum Teil auch in Großbritannien werden Wörter wie “resilient,
resiliency, resilience” jedoch vermehrt u.a. zu Werbezwecken eingesetzt. Resilienz suggeriert
hierbei dann positive Eigenschaften wie Gesundheit, Kraft und Widerstandsfähigkeit.
Das Resilienz--‐Konzept wird in diversen wissenschaftlichen Fachdiskursen mit unterschiedlichen
Deutungen und Zielsetzungen eingesetzt, wie u.a. durch Brand/Jax (2007) verdeutlicht wird. In
der von Brand/Jax (2007) erarbeiteten Kategorisierung bestehender Resilienz--‐Deutungen werden
die Unter--‐ schiede in der jeweiligen Auslegung und Ausrichtung der Resilienz--‐Idee deutlich.
Bemerkenswert ist die vollzogene Öffnung des zunächst rein deskriptiven Konzeptes (Holling
1973) hin zu zunächst hybriden und schließlich zu normativen Konzepten (vgl. Ott/Döring 2004).
Brand/Jax (2007) argumentieren, dass die zunehmende Ausweitung auf fachspezifische
Anwendungsfelder (z.B. Ökonomie, Politologie, Soziologie) das ursprünglich von Holling (1973).
Ein Blick in die in den 1940/50er Jahren beginnende Forschung und Entwicklung der
Systemtheorie und Kybernetik weisen ebenfalls auf interessante inhaltliche Überschneidungen
hinentwickelte Resilienz--‐Konzept mehr und mehr verwässert. Sie schlussfolgern, dass Resilienz zu
einem “boundary object” geworden ist.
Dies kann wie die Autoren am Beispiel „Nachhaltigkeit“ festmachen, auch wissenschaftlichen
Fortschritt behindern. Sie fordern daher einerseits eine Rückbesinnung auf ein klar definiertes und
abgegrenztes Konzept im Sinne des ursprünglichen, auf Ökosystemtheorie basierenden, Resilienz-‐Gedankens und andererseits, dass Resilienz als “boundary object” so geformt und
weiterentwickelt werden sollte, dass es zielführend für interdisziplinäre Forschung genutzt werden
kann. Hierbei stellt sich jedoch die Frage wie Resilienz im unternehmerischen Kontext
konzeptionell gefasst und angewendet werden kann und welche Möglichkeiten und Formen für
eine sinnvolle Zusammenführung zwischen Resilienz und Nachhaltigkeit bestehen. Hierbei sind
verschiedene Ansätze denkbar: Resilienz kann im Sinne eines Managementtools eingesetzt
werden oder auch als operativer Richtwert für ökologische Parameter (vgl. Günther et al. 2007,
Günther 2009, McManus et al. 2007). Vor dem Hintergrund bestehender Divergenzen und
Konvergenzen nachhaltiger Entwicklung und resilienter Systeme jedoch, plädiert die Autorin dafür
Resilienz als analytische Kategorie zu fassen (vgl. Beermann 2013)
Divergenz und Konvergenz nachhaltiger Entwicklung und resilienter Systeme
Die klare systemische Ausrichtung des Resilienz--‐Konzeptes (nach Holling 1973) erlaubt es
Resilienz als eine Komponente systemischer Struktur aufzufassen, die abhängig ist vom
jeweiligen Kontext und übertragen auf sozial--‐ökologische Systeme bedingt wird von
gesellschaftlichen Wertvorstellungen. Resilienz an sich ist demnach kein eigenständiger Wert,
49
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
sondern gewinnt erst durch die Kontextualisierung gesellschaftlicher Wertsetzung eine normative
Ausrichtung. Die Frage, ob ein System oder ein Systemzustand resilient sein soll oder bleiben
soll, ist demnach eng gekoppelt an Fragen nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Carpenter et al. (2001,
766) verdeutlichen eindringlich, die beschriebene Zwickmühle:
“Unlike sustainability, resilience can be desirable or undesirable. For example, system states that
decrease social welfare, such as polluted water supplies or dictatorships, can be highly resilient.
In contrast, sustainability is an overarching goal that includes assumptions or preferences about
which system states are desirable.”
Resilienz und Nachhaltigkeit sind demnach zwei in erster Linie voneinander unabhängige
Konzepte, die es gilt je nach definitorischer Festlegung und Anwendungsgebiet zum einen klar
zu umreißen und zum anderen ggf. zielführend miteinander zu vereinen.
Resilienz als analytische Kategorie berücksichtigt dies explizit und umfasst folgenden Dreischritt:
Resilienz wovon? Bestimmung der relevanten Strukturen und Prozesse des zu analysierenden
Systems. Resilienz gegenüber? Bestimmung der zu berücksichtigenden Einflüsse wie z.B.
Umweltparameter. Und die Durchführung der Resilienzanalyse, wobei Resilienz als analytische
Kategorie fungiert. Unter Einbezug von Resilienz--‐Komponenten wie Redundanzen, Modularität,
Diversität, Dezentralität sowie im allgemeineren Sinne dem Aufbau von Pufferkapazitäten und
Anpassungsfähigkeit
kann so ein Entscheidungskorridor für die Entwicklung von Strategien
erarbeitet werden (vgl. Beermann 2013, 265). Resilienz als analytische Kategorie kann somit als
“Add on” in bestehende Nachhaltigkeitssysteme integriert werden.
50
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Empirical research on organisational resilience: How far have we come? Developing a
research agenda by means of a systematic literature review
Julia Hillmann
Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden Leibniz Graduate School, [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
„Forget about Sustainability – It is about resilience” was a critical discussion that was raised within the
New York Times in November 2012 by Andrew Zolli8. “Among a growing number of scientists […] a
new dialogue is emerging around a new idea, resilience: how to help vulnerable people, organizations
and systems persist, perhaps even thrive, amid unforeseeable disruptions. Where sustainability aims
to put the world back into balance, resilience looks for ways to manage in an imbalanced world.”9
Recently, resilience is intensively being discussed within the field of urban planning and within this it is
also being discussed how to make organisations more resilient. One might argue that within the field
of urban planning the link between resilience thinking and sustainable development seems to be more
discussed and clearer (see e.g., Handmer and Dovers, 1996; Pisano, 2012) then within the field of
management. Within management research Winn and Kirchgeorg (2005) discussed that research in
the field of sustainability focused too much on the mitigation part, that is, how companies influence
the environment (inside-out effect). The authors pointed out that the influence from the environment
(i.e., ecological discontinuities) on companies has to be taken into account as well (outside-in effect).
Resilience thinking is exactly about this outside-in effect as resilience is defined as the ability to
bounce back and to adapt to changing environments, hence to survive on the long term. However,
resilience research in the past focused too much on certain phenomena such as natural catastrophes,
terrorist attacks, or financial crisis. Looking at resilience research within management field the notion
of uncertainty, complexity, and turbulence is added to resilience (e.g., McCann and Selsky, 2012;
Välikangas and Romme, 2012; Ismail et al., 2011; Reinmoeller and van Baardwijk, 2005). Ensuring
the survival of companies and supporting them to create capabilities that help them to survive and
thrive in these environments is what interests’ organisational resilience researchers. How can
companies become resilient? What capabilities, structures, or processes are supporting resilience of
companies? I argue that answering this question will also contribute to how we can sustain economic
performance of companies.
PRIOR RESEARCH
Burnard and Bhamra (2012) and Erol et al. (2011) reviewed parts of the organisational resilience
literature but also focused very much on resilience research in general, having a very interdisciplinary
view on resilience. In the context of resilience within business the most cited10 authors are Hamel and
Välikangas (2003) who define resilience as ability to “continuously anticipat[e] and adjust[…] to deep,
secular trends that can permanently impair the earning power of a core business. It’s about having
the capacity to change before the case for change becomes desperately obvious (p.53)”. The authors
give a detailed and practice-oriented overview of challenges companies need to overcome in order to
become resilient but the findings lack of scientific observations. Early research on organisational
resilience was done by Weick (1993) which was the basis for Mallak (1998) who extended his findings
and empirically investigated resilience against modern pace of change and work stress within the
healthcare industry. He surveyed 445 nursing executives and built a construct of resilience comprising
of 6 main factors. Somers (2009) based his research on Mallak’s identified factors and observed
resilience in the context of crisis planning of 142 full-service municipal public works departments. He
extended the construct by the ideas of disaster literature and continuity planning. However, as he
comes from a technological background his ideas do not integrate findings and theories from
management research. Nevertheless, Mallak (1998) and Somers (2009) provide first ideas for
measuring resilience. The work of McManus et al. (2007) provides further background on that issue.
8
See also the Book: Zolli, A.; Healy, A.M. (2012) ‘Resilience: Why things bounce back.’
New York Times (2012): Learning to Bounce Back. [Online] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/forgetsustainability-its-about-resilience.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [15 June 2013].
10
See Publish or Perish (www.harzing.com).
51
9
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
They interviewed 11 case companies across sectors and derived 15 indicator reflecting resilience.
Their work was extended in a dissertation project on benchmarking resilience within organisations.
Nevertheless, how to measure organisational resilience still remains vague and the link to existing
management theories should be strengthened. I argue that there is a need for compliance of
resilience research with management research; otherwise findings from resilience research might not
find the necessary acceptance by management scholars.
This paper aims at reviewing existing literature in the field of organisational resilience focusing on how
scientists within that field empirically studied organisational resilience by taking 69 articles into
account.
METHODOLOGY
A systematic literature review is applied to identify empirical literature on organisational resilience.
This method is an important research tool, especially in emerging areas, where the amount of studies
is too small and to explore new hypotheses or new ways of thinking about a topic (Mertens, 2005).
Moreover, it is bounded to more methodological standards such as transparent procedures allowing
the reader to critically appraise and to replicate the review (Littel, 2004). A systematic literature
review is usually divided into 4 or 5 steps depending on the author (Fink, 2010; Seuring and Müller,
2008; Cooper, 1998).
I searched within the top tier Journals Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management
Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, and Organization Science as suggested by Short et al.,
2002) for empirical literature. Aside from Journal search I searched within the database Business
Source Complete (EBSCO) and Emerald. The terminology used for identifying literature on resilience
within organisations resulted from reading the main authors with a high citation impact (i.e., Publish
or Perish Analysis). For empirical literature I used the search strings suggested by Davis and Han
(2004) that are data OR empirical OR finding* OR test OR statistical OR evidence OR result*. I only
included literature on resilience within the organisational context. Overall, the search yielded 1042
results. The search results were reduced by eliminating redundant results and results which are not
available. In the first round, I included all articles focusing on the organisational context and as
exclusion criteria I decided on excluding book reviews and articles discussing resilience as personality
trait, resilience in the context of communities, or resilience of built environment. The analytical
categories for the qualitative analysis of the references were derived based on the above reviewed
literature and the aspects which are of interest for (1) identifying research gaps, and (2) development
of future research agenda, that is the context in which resilience is studied (phenomena), factors of
resilience, underlying theoretical concepts and debates, relationships in which resilience is being
studied.
RESULTS
Overall, the literature search yielded 69 articles. Analysing the references based on some bibliographic
data shows that the reference pool is very heterogeneous. The search within top tier journals did not
yield many results (13). Roughly half of the studies were empirical studies (31) even though we tried
to find empirical papers only. While only 11 papers did a quantitative study the remaining empirical
paper did a qualitative study applying case study methodology. Main results of the literature review
are that even though there is a growing body of literature on organisational resilience, research still
misses to provide a valid construct of resilience. Empirical literature still remains on a conceptual and
exploratory level using case study methodology for providing deeper understanding for resilience of
companies. Focus in resilience research is often put on resilience to disruptions. However, continuous
change and small-scale events do also play a crucial role because these types of changes are not
easily perceived by companies but may have a higher impact on the long-term as they accumulate
over time and may result in an even bigger crisis (e.g., Rudolph and Repenning, 2002). This finding
also supports the argument of Sutcliffe and Vogus (2007) and McCann and Selsky (2012) that
resilience can not only be reduced to episodic changes such as shocks and disruptions. Therefore, I
argue that future research on organisational resilience should focus on (1) providing more empirical
evidence, (2) should integrate the aspect of continuous changes and small-scale events, and (3)
develop a valid construct for measuring resilience.
52
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
REFERENCES
Burnard, K.; Bhamra, R. (2011): Organisational resilience: development of a conceptual framework
for organisational responses. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), pp. 5581–5599.
Davis, R. J.; Han, S.-K. (2004): A Systematic Assessment of the Empirical Support for Transaction
Cost Economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25, pp. 39-58.
Erol, O.; Sauser, B. J.; Mansouri, M. (2010): A framework for investigation into extended enterprise
resilience. Enterprise Information Systems, 4(2), pp. 111–136.
Fink, A. (2010): Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to the Paper. SAGE
Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks.
Handmer, J. W.; Dovers, S. R. (1996): A Typology of Resilience: Rethinking Institutions for
Sustainable Development. Industrial and Environmental Quarterly, 9(4), pp. 483-511.
Hamel, G.; Välikangas, L. (2003): The Quest for Resilience. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), pp. 52–
63.
Ismail, H. S.; Poolton, J.; Sharifi, H. (2011): The role of agile strategic capabilities in achieving
resilience in manufacturing-based small companies. International Journal of Production Research,
49(18), pp. 5469-5487.
Littell, J. H. (2004): Lessons from a systematic review of effects of multisystemic therapy. Children
and Youth Services Review, 27(4), pp. 445-463.
Mallak, L. A. (1998): Measuring resilience in health care provider organizations. Health Manpower
Management, 24(4), pp. 148–152.
Mertens, D. M. (2005): Research and evaluation in education and psychology: integrating diversity
with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks.
McCann, J.; Selsky, J. W. (2012): Mastering Turbulence: The Essential Capabilities of Agile and
Resilient Individuals, Teams and Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
McManus, S.; Seville, E.; Brunsdon, D.; Vargo, J. (2007): Resilience Management. A Framework for
assessing and Improving the resilience of organisations. www.resorgs.org.nz [27 March 2012].
Reinmoeller, P.; van Baardwijk, N. (2005): The Link Between Diversity and Resilience. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 46(4), pp. 61–65.
Rudolph, J. W.; Repenning, N. P. (2002): Disaster Dynamics: Understanding the Role of Quantity in
Organizational Collapse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), pp. 1–30.
Pisano, U. (2012): Resilience and Sustainable Development: Theory of resilience, systems thinking
and adaptive governance. ESDN Quarterly Report 26. ww.sd-network.eu [09 July 2013].
Seuring, S.; Müller, M. (2008): From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, pp. 1699-1710.
Somers, S. (2009): Measuring Resilience Potential: An Adaptive Strategy for Organizational Crisis
Planning. Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management, 17(1), pp. 12–23.
Sutcliffe, K. M.; Vogus, T. J. (2007): Organizational Resilience: Towards a Theory and Research
Agenda. Conference Proceedings. ISIC. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics.
Välikangas, L.; Romme, G. L. (2012): Building resilience capabilities at „Big Brown Box, Inc.”,
Strategy & Leadership, 40(4), pp. 43-45.
Weick, K. E. (1993): The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), pp. 628-652.
Winn, M.; Kirchgeorg (2005): Herausforderungen des Managements bei zunehmenden ökologischen
Diskontinuitäten. In Burmann, C.; Freiling, J.; Hülsmann, M. (2005): Management von Ad-hoc-Krisen:
Grundlagen - Strategien – Erfolgsfaktoren. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 245-268.
53
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Human Rights in Multinational Corporations: An investigation of Human Resource
Management´s Contribution
Nina Königslehner
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Human Resource Management,
[email protected]
Eva, Szigetvari
[email protected]
Claudia, Brechelmacher
[email protected]
Michael, Müller-Camen
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Organizations need to manage a broad and multifaceted range of topics in sustainability. Human
Rights (HRights) are an issue where there is ample public evidence (for example the Rama Plaza
factory building collapsing in April 2013 in Bangladesh, killing 1,200 workers) that Multinational
Companies (MNCs) have to strengthen their efforts to comply with stakeholder expectations.
Despite this issue, however, International Human Resource Management (IHRM) scholars have not yet
shown a great interest in applying an ethical sensitivity to their models, theories or practices. Several
reasons are suggested for this. One is that the main IHRM models were developed in the 1990s, when
CSR was of much less importance. As a result these “models have yet not adequately considered the
rights and interests of internal and external stakeholders, including employees, consumers,
communities and business partners” (Shen, 2011: 1352). Furthermore, IHRM scholars` managerialist
perspective and emphasis on performance as the end-goal of their analysis may also explain the lack
of ethical sensitivity in their theories and models. (Delbridge et al. 2011, Janssens and Steyaert,
2012: 61).
Only recently a literature emerged under the term Sustainable HRM which explicitly aims to go beyond
the financial bottom line and to consider how the HR function or HRM policies can contribute to the
achievement of environmental and social goals. It is proposed that the importance of HRM could grow
and the HR function become a strategic partner by establishing responsible leadership and mobilizing
employees for the social good (Gond et al., 2011).
Linked to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and particular relevant to IHRM is business ethics.
Scholars in the field of Ethics and HRM question whether “HRM is, can be or should be ethical” and
thus “the legitimacy, relevance and morality of HRM“ (Jack et al., 2012: 2). It is suggested that this
applies even more for IHRM, which requires an even stronger ethical stance and sensitivity (Doh et
al., 2010; Janssens and Steyaert, 2012). Building on theories of ethical decision making, this
literature points to ethical issues faced by MNCs such as corruption, child labour and other human
rights violations (Janssens and Steyaert, 2012). IHRM´s emphasis on competitiveness, efficiency and
normative recommendations, needs to be complemented by research on the “what” (e.g. what is the
MNC or the manager doing, and what are its ethical implications)” (Janssens and Steyaert, 2012: 62)
Therefore the aim of the research presented here is to investigate whether and how Sustainable HRM
can support HRights activities of MNCs. For this purpose a computer based content analysis of CSR
and Sustainability reports of the Forbes 250 largest companies was conducted. First results will be
presented which will broaden the current Sustainable HRM literature, and implications for further
research will be discussed.
RESEACH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
To investigate the role of HRM in HRights practices of MNCs we conducted a qualitative content
analysis of the HRights sections of the CSR and Sustainability reports of the Forbes 250 World´s
largest companies. All selected reports are based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework,
54
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
which requires to report on HRights issues. As contrasted with other qualitative methods such as
grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), the goal of qualitative content analysis is not to generate
a theory that relates to a particular situation but rather contribute to an existing theory (Hsieh and
Shannon, 2005; Potter and Levine-Donnerstein 1999, Remler and van Ryzin, 2011). The existing
research on HRights and HRM provides predictions about the variables of interest and about the
tradeoffs between the variables and thus help us to determine the initial coding scheme or the
relationship between the codes. This directed approach is a more structured process than the
conventional approach and offers the requirements of a good and comprehensible coding scheme
(Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Mayring, 2007). By using ATLAS.ti7, a qualitative data analysis software,
it´s possible to include a relatively broad amount of data, create coding categories, as well as edit and
rearrange categories in a flexible way, group or combine codes together into themes and visualize
qualitative data as graphs or models (Remler & van Ryzin, 2011). Within this empirical framework also
steps of quantitative content analysis are integrated. This may contribute to overcome the critical
dichotomy of qualitative versus quantitative and fulfill the call for combining both methods (e.g.
Creswell, 2011).
FIRST FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
During the coding process, we identified the following practices that either directly or indirectly involve
HR contributions: ‘training (internal, external to suppliers or both)’, ‘organizational and or functional
role of HRM’, ‘role model for suppliers’ and ‘diversity in the supply chain’. Our preliminary results
indicate that only a minority of the companies report either one or more of these practices with
training for internal staff and security being the most frequent approach. Interestingly, US companies
provide more and more detailed information on concrete practices and examples of HRights activities
involving HRM than MNCs from other countries. Furthermore companies providing evidence of IHRM
contributions also emphasize their commitment to such multistakeholder initiatives as the UN Global
Compact, the ILO and relevant NGOs as opposed to those simply pointing to host country national
laws.
The research gives an indication for the potential role the HR function can play in HRights activities
and points to the fact that international institutions have a significant role in shaping the HR function
in this area.
REFERENCES
Creswell, J. (2011): Controversies in mixed methods research. in: Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S.
Lincoln (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. pp.
269-284.
Delbridge, R., Hauptmeier, M., and Sengupta, S. (2011): Beyond the enterprise: Broadening the
horizons of International HRM, human relations, 64 (4), pp. 483 – 505.
Doh, J., Husted, B.W., Matten, D., and Santoro, M. (2010): Ahoy There! Toward Greater Congruence
and Synergy Between International Business and Business Ethics Theory and Research, Business
Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), pp. 481-502.
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Gond, J.-P., Igalens, J., Swaen, V., and El Akremi, A. (2011): The HR Contribution to Responsible
Leadership: An Exploration of the CSR-HR Interface, Journal of Business Ethics, 98, pp. 115-132.
Hsieh, H.-F., and Shannon, S. E. (2005): Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis,
Qualitative Health Research, 15, pp. 1277-1288.
Jack, G., Greenwood, M., and Schapper, J. (2012): Frontiers, Intersections and Engagements of Ethics
and HRM, Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (1), pp. 1-12.
Janssens, M., and Steyaert, C. (2012): Towards an Ethical Research Agenda for International HRM:
The Possibilities of a Plural Cosmopolitan Framework, Journal of Business Ethics, 111, pp. 61–72.
Mayring, P. (2007): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken 9. Auflage. Weinheim:
Deutscher Studien Verlag.
55
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Potter, W. J., and Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999): Rethinking validity and reliability in content
analysis, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27 (3), pp. 258-284.
Remler, D. K., and van Ryzin, G. G. (2011): Research methods in practice: strategies for description
and causation. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Shen, J. (2011): Developing the concept of socially responsible international human resource
management, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(06), pp. 1351-1363.
56
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
A new language: competences, knowledge and skills for SD: An employers’ perspective on
competences, knowledge and skills for sustainable development as a reference framework
for higher education in the field of life sciences
Erika Quendler
Federal Institute of Agricultural Economics, Vienna, [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
In response to a growing need to move the world towards sustainable development (SD) and
sustainable practices, a variety of research and training activities addresses problem driven and
solution oriented (systematic) approaches (Grunwald, 2007; Martinuzzi and Zwirner, 2010; Sarewitz
and Kriebel, 2010; Van Ackere, Larsen, Morecroft, 1993; Robert, 2000; Scott and Gough, 2003;
Willard et al., 2010). The field’s development is a response to existing and expected complex SD
challanges including climate change, desertification, shortage of resources etc. — all featuring high
degrees of complexity, damage potential, and urgency, and all having no obvious optimal solution.
Indeed, the challenges towards a more sustainable life are inextricably linked. Economic growth, job
creation and incomes are related to — and can degrade — natural resources and systems. To solve
these and other sustainability challenges, use-inspired knowledge as well as appropriate competences
and skills are needed although transformational actions in participatory, deliberative, and adaptive
settings have already been set up (e.g. Local Agenda 21, sustainability management, life cycle
assessment).
The global agreements on sustainability and initiatives for SD can only become reality if people
support them locally. This, in turn, calls for education. It is only through education that individuals are
empowered to rethink their behaviour, to consider the idea of SD within the private and occupational
environment alike and to be trained in competences, knowledge and skills for SD. Beyond that there is
little agreement. People argue about the term SD and whether or not it is sufficiently prominent in
education and daily work life. Employers around the world are becoming aware of the role of
education and training as a key to moving the workforce and society in general toward a sustainable
living process. For many employers, the path to a sustainable future for their employees — and
citizenry in general — begins with greater access to basic higher education. The EU and many
European countries have already embraced the need for education in achieving SD (e.g. SD
strategies).
The principles of SD call for a holistic approach within the education offered by Higher Education
Institutions in the field of life sciences (HEIs) and the request by employers; one such pracital
example is Green Pedagogy (Hochschule für Agrar- und Umweltpädagogik, 2013). In the long run
education alone cannot ensure the full integration of SD into our professional life if insufficient
progress is made regarding what competences, knowledge and skills are required. The implementation
of SD in educational programmes in the field of life sciences presupposes that the market-relevant
competences, knowledge and skills related to SD have already been identified. However, an extensive
review of literature indicated that such information is not available in the European or international
context. So this work delves whether there are differences between competences, knowledge and
skills taught and required in daily work.
METHOD AND DATA
In this paper data of two surveys launched within the ISLE project have been used. The data were
collected by the ISLE network partners in two surveys. The first survey was launched from May 10th
to June 10th 2011. The total number of replies in the raw database was 2,937 students and 852
academics. The second survey was kept active from August 1st till October 7th 2011. The total
number of replies in the raw database was 959. (Quendler et al., 2013).
In order to compare responses obtained from the HEIs coherently (HEIs survey: data on SD
competences taught at universities or colleges) and those obtained from the employers (company
survey: data on SD competences requested), the two data-bases had to be rearranged to allow a joint
data-set with a good matching between the variables (Quendler et al., 2013).
The comparison of competences, knowledge and skills taught and need in daily work is based on the
calculation of regression. Readers are reminded that results indicate a trend for Europe, the accuracy
57
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
of which depends, inter alia, upon the sample size and the number of collected answers. (Quendler et
al., 2013).
RESULTS
Generally, HEIs need to deliver the right mix of competences, knowledge and skills both to meet
student needs and to match the requirements of the labour market. By comparing competences,
knowledge and skills for SD at employers’ level to responses from the educational side figure 2 shows
that companies attribute more importance to all SD competences, knowledge and skills than
universities do in their education. This is substantiated by a significantly higher average score of
company (3.52) compared to education (HEIs) (2.79) results. Furthermore, ‘future orientation’ (C3)
and ‘social responsibility’ (C1) are considered the most important competences in general, both by
education (HEIs) and companies. Companies also consider ‘system orientation’ (C2) and ‘analysing
environmental impacts’ (S1) as very important. In contrast, skills like ‘pollution trading’ (S3) or
‘reducing environmental impacts’ (S2) are not considered very relevant. From the side of ‘education’,
‘analysing environmental impact’ (K3), closely followed by ‘social aspect of SD’ (K7) are the most
important ones; while ‘general SD knowledge’ (K1) and ‘reducing environmental impacts’ (K4) are the
least relevant. (Quendler et al., 2013).
Clearly employers are in a strong position to judge what mix of competences, knowledge and skills is
optimal for particular occupations (like farming). The interests of employers depend on the level at
which they are expressed. While locally employers may not wish their apprentices to have strong
transferable skills, collectively employers have an interest in a flexible and adaptable labour force in
their sector. Further on, if the principle of SD is to be implemented successfully in daily work life,
there is also a need for education and training in higher education in order to be well prepared for
work life. Professionals in SD will require new ways of thinking as well as certain competences,
knowledge and skills to be able to contribute to the achievement of the goals of SD. This will also
require changes in the training in life science of HEIs; furthermore, ‘education and training’ and ‘work’
will no longer be two separate entities. They will be much more integrated into a single lifelong
learning process, open to innovation and accessible to everybody (cf. Green Pedagogy). (Quendler et
al., 2013).
Figure 1. Comparison of the competences, knowledge and skills analyzed
in education (HEIs) and at employment level.
COMPETENCES (C): C1. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, C2. SYSTEM ORIENTATION, C3. FUTURE
ORIENTATION
58
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
KNOWLEDGE (K): K1. GENERAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT KNOWLEDGE, K3. HOW TO ANALYSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, K4. HOW TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, K5. ECONOMICS, K6.
VALUE OF NATURE, K7. SOCIAL ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
SKILLS (S): S1. ANALYSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, S2. REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
S3. POLLUTION TRADING, S4. ECONOMIC OPTIMIZATION, S5. COMMUNICATING, S6. IMPLEMENTING
SUSTAINABILITY, S7. LEADERSHIP AND TEAMWORK
CONCLUSION
Our prosperity, today and tomorrow, depends on how many people are in work and how they handle
SD issues in their daily work life. The correct competences, knowledge and skills for SD are the best
guarantee of our ability to sustain our life and secure lasting prosperity.
This empirical study shows that companies attribute more importance to all SD competences than
HEIs do in their education. ‘Future orientation’ and ‘social responsibility’ are considered the most
important competences, both by HEIs and companies. In contrast, skills like ‘pollution trading’ (S3) or
‘reducing environmental impacts’ (S2) are not considered very relevant.
Nevertheless, the results also reveal that there are several opportunities for improvement. Firstly, we
need thorough theoretical justifications as to why the proposed competences, knowledge and skills are
instrumental for SD and problem solving in daily (work) life. Secondly, we need to support proposed
competences, knowledge and skills with empirical evidence showing they enable successful real-world
SD problem solving and development. Thirdly, follow-up studies are needed that spell out the specifics
of the proposed competences, knowledge and skills including the kind of methodological expertise to
which they aspire.
Yet, the results presented are not intended to cast key competences, knowledge and skills ‘in stone’.
All of the following are needed to ensure high quality education in SD: continuous monitoring of
performances within and beyond the programs; reflection on achievements and shortcomings;
adaptation of the competences, knowledge and skills taught at HEIs and required by employers. Once
more, the most critical check for the adequacy of the competences, knowledge and skills is the degree
to which graduates can contribute to SD in the world — not only at work. Adaptation is required as SD
challenges and our insights on how to cope with them shift over time.
Finally, it must be stressed that overall educational efforts should be coordinated between the
educational institutions, the authorities and companies. There should be a combination of regulation,
which pushes companies towards new initiatives, and new training possibilities, which meet the needs
such regulation results in. The sustainable element must increasingly be incorporated gradually into
curricula but not forced on companies. The indications are that, if the incorporation of the concept of
SD in basic business decisions can be made both economically advantageous and a part of good
business management, companies will take more initiatives in this direction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A special thank goes to Corrine Stewart and her team for organising and managing the ISLE Erasmus
Thematic Network (Innovation in the teaching of Sustainable Development in Life Sciences in Europe,
http://www.isle-project.eu/) which is co-financed by the European Community in the framework of the
Lifelong Learning Programme, as well as all ISLE network partners for their contributions to the
publication ‘Sustainable development: an employers’ perspective’.
REFERENCES
Grunwald, A. (2007). Working towards sustainable development in the face of uncertainty and
incomplete knowledge. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9(3), pp.245–262.
Hochschule für Agrar- und Umweltpädagogik (2013). Grüne Pädagogik. Vom Theoriefundament bis zu
professionsorientierten Lernarrangements. Wien, AV Astoria.
Martinuzzi, A.; Zwirner, M. (2010): Transformational CSR–Lern-und Dialogfähigkeit als strategische
Wettbewerbsfaktoren nachhaltigen Wirtschaftens. Corporate Sustainability, Springer.
Quendler, E. et al. (2013). Sustainable development: an employers’ perspective. AWI Schriftenreihe
104, Vienna.
59
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Scott, W.; Gough, S. (2003): Sustainable Development and Learning: Framing the Issues.
RoutledgeFalmer, New York.
Robert, K.-H. (2000): Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a
general framework for sustainable development, and each other? Journal of Cleaner Production,
Volume 8, Issue 3; pp. 243-254.
Sarewitz, D.; Kriebel, D. (2010). The Sustainable Solutions Agenda. Consortium for Science, Policy
and Outcomes, Arizona State University and Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of
Massachusetts, Lowell.
Willard, M. et al. (2010). The Sustainability Professional: 2010 Competency Survey Report.
International Society of Sustainability Professionals. ISSP, Portland (OR) United States.
Van Ackere, A.; Larsen, E.; Morecroft, J. (1993): Systems thinking and business process redesign: an
application to the beer game. European Management Journal, 11(4), pp. 412-423.
60
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Deutsche Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen als lernende Organisationen mit Blick auf
Nachhaltigkeit
Marlen Arnold
Fakultät
für
Bildungsund
Sozialwissenschaften,
Arbeitsbereich
Weiterbildung
und
Bildungsmanagement, we.b V03-1-108, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, 26111 Oldenburg,
[email protected]
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen sind Unternehmen, die eine der wichtigsten Ressourcen der Erde zum
Kerngeschäft haben. Normativ gesehen verpflichtet es diese Unternehmen zugleich, den
Herausforderungen der Nachhaltigkeit und CSR gerecht zu werden. Mit Blick auf Nachhaltigkeit fordern
Corporate Governance und ethische Unternehmensführung die ausdrückliche Integration von
ökologischen
und
sozialen
Herausforderungen
ins
unternehmerische
Management
der
Wasserversorgung. Die sogenannte Nachhaltigkeitsleistung eines Unternehmens hängt entscheidend
davon ab, wie ökologischen und sozialen Herausforderungen konzeptionell begegnet wird, d.h.
organisationale Lernprozesse initiiert und langfristig ins Management integriert werden
(Schaltegger/Wagner
2008).
Die
besondere
Herausforderung
liegt
darin,
dass
die
siedlungswasserwirtschaftliche Infrastruktur in hohem Maße pfadabhängig ist (Loske/Schaeffer 2005).
Das System ist auf Massendurchsatz und Verbrauchswachstum angelegt und lässt sich an veränderte
Rahmenbedingungen nur bedingt anpassen. Die sich verändernden Randbedingungen erzeugen vor
diesem Hintergrund erhebliche Unsicherheiten bei den handelnden Akteuren. Die zentrale Aufgabe ist
in der notwendigen Anpassung an die veränderten Gegebenheiten zu sehen, wie beispielhaft die
Strategie eines nachhaltigen Ressourcenschutzes und einer nachhaltigen Ressourcennutzung (Kluge
2005). Die Herausforderungen einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung und von CSR-Themen liegen in der
Entwicklung und Umsetzung von intelligenten, auf Nachhaltigkeit ausgerichteten Infrastruktur sowie
integrierter bzw. systemischer Energie- und Managementsysteme. Um in der Lage sein, den
Anforderungen einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung sowie ihrer sozialen Verantwortung gerecht zu werden
und
vielfältige
nachhaltigkeitsbezogene
strategische
Optionen
zu
entwickeln,
sollten
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen kontinuierlich Nachhaltigkeitsinstrumente integrieren.
Die Erkenntnis, nachhaltigkeitsbezogene Änderungen in unternehmerischen Prozessen und entlang der
Wertschöpfungskette in einem integrativen Weg zu realisieren, sollte zugleich in einen messbaren
Beitrag zur Steigerung der Öko-Effektivität und der Corporate Social Responsibility münden. Der
Schwerpunkt einer nachhaltigen Änderung sollte sowohl auf die Endprodukte und Dienstleistungen
eines Unternehmens als auch zu einer Erhöhung des Wertes von Unternehmen und Gesellschaft
gerichtet werden (Arnold und Hockerts 2010). Lux et al. (2005) betonen erfolgreiche Beiträge von
Umwelt-und Sozialmanagement für die Unterstützung von Transformationsprozessen in Unternehmen.
Die Einflussmechanismen von Umwelt- und Sozialaspekten auf den wirtschaftlichen Erfolg eines
Unternehmens dürfen nicht unterschätzt werden, da Umwelt- und Sozialthemen sowohl einen
marktlichen als auch außermarktlichen Charakter haben, deren Wirkungsweise sich über Markt- und
gesellschaftliche
sowie
politische
Prozesse
auf
den
Unternehmenserfolg
auswirken
(Schaltegger/Wagner 2006).
Die Lern- und Entwicklungsfähigkeit bildet eine zentrale Grundlage für die Wettbewerbs- und
Innovationsfähigkeit von Unternehmen (Siebenhüner/Arnold 2006, Hartmann et al. 2006). Die
lernende Organisation wird in der Literatur durch vielfältige Konzepte diskutiert (Fischer 2007).
Steinmann und Schreyögg (2005) verstehen Lernen als Wandel und sehen die Vorstellung einer
lernenden Organisation im Kontext eines kontinuierlichen organisatorischen Wandels. Thommen und
Achleitner (2004) stellen organisationales Lernen in direkten Bezug zu Wissensmanagement. Sie
verstehen unter organisationalem Lernen einen Veränderungsprozess der organisationalen Wert- und
Wissensbasis, um die Problemlösungs- und Handlungskompetenz zu erhöhen sowie den
Bezugsrahmen einer Organisation zu verändern. Der Aufbau einer unternehmensspezifischen
Wissensbasis ist zentral, d.h. der Aufbau von Wissen, welches von allen Unternehmensmitgliedern
geteilt wird. Die Wissensbasis umfasst die Dimensionen individuelles vs. kollektives sowie
dokumentiertes vs. mentales Wissen. Dafür sind beispielhaft offene und transparente betriebliche
Kommunikations- und Kooperationsstrukturen notwendig, die es ermöglichen, innerbetriebliche
Dialogräume für den Aufbau der Wissensbasis sowie von Lernprozessen zu schaffen (Ammon et al.
2002). Bruch und Vogel (2005) betonen die Bedeutung organisationaler Energie in einem
61
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Unternehmen und die Realisierung eines gemeinschaftlichen Commitments bzw. einen proaktiven
Einsatz von Akteuren, sogenannten Change Agents oder Intrapreneuren für nachhaltige
Unternehmensziele (s.a. Fichter 2005, Arnold 2007). Organisationales Lernen befähigt Unternehmen
zur Realisierung nachhaltiger Innovationen (Pfriem et al. 2006, Linne und Schwarz 2003, RüeggStürm 2001) und zur Wahrnehmung ihrer gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung im Sinne des CSRAnsatzes. Proaktives Generieren von Nachhaltigkeitsinnovationen leistet nach Loew und Braun (2006)
einen Beitrag zur Sustainable Corporate Governance.
Um zu erfassen, inwiefern Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen sich als lernende Organisation mit Blick auf
Nachhaltigkeit
entfalten,
wird
die
zentrale
Fragestellung
untersucht,
wie
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen Nachhaltigkeit und CSR-Anforderungen umsetzen und in ihr
Management integrieren. Diese Studie untersucht, inwieweit Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen
Instrumente und Normen des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements (z.B. ISO 14001, ISO 9001, Balanced
Scorecard, etc.) CSR-Aspekte gemäß ISO 26000 implementieren und sich als lernende Organisation
mit Blick auf Nachhaltigkeit verstehen.
Mittels
Literaturstudium,
Web-Analyse
und
Befragung
von
100
deutschen
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen wurden die relevanten Daten erfasst. Die Daten wurden mit Hilfe von
Kategorien und der Schlüsselwörter aufbereitet (Bryman und Bell 2009). Die entsprechenden
Managementkonzepte
und
-instrumente
(einschließlich
Energiestrategien
und
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement) sowie die CSR-Kriterien wurden auf der Basis von qualitativen und
quantitativen Inhaltsanalyse und mittels Kontingenzanalyse interpretiert.
Durch die Analyse konnte festgestellt werden, dass die Sicherheit der Versorgung (TSM) gegenüber
öko-effizienten
Wirtschaften
dominiert.
Innovative,
systemorientierte
Ansätze
der
Ressourcenökonomie
(Stoffstrommanagement,
Ökobilanzierung,
ökologieorientierte
Beschaffungsstrategien
und
-management
etc.)
werden
nur
unzureichend
von
den
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen genutzt und in das strategische Management transformiert – das zeigt
auch die geringe Häufigkeit der Balanced Scorecard. Darüber hinaus gibt es einen Mangel in CSRKommunikation und macht CSR glaubwürdig Öffentlichkeit. Die Ergebnisse machen deutlich, dass es
Unterschiede
zwischen
kommunalen
und
privaten
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen
gibt.
Umweltpolitische Instrumente und Managementansätze wie EMAS II werden beispielhaft von
kommunalen Versorgungsunternehmen stärker realisiert. Die ökologische und soziale Verantwortung
eines Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmens zeigt sich insbesondere darin, wie ökologische und soziale
Herausforderungen konzeptionell, institutionell und instrumentell umgesetzt werden, d.h.
unternehmerische und soziale Lernprozesse initiiert und in die langfristige Transformationsprozesse
integriert werden. Klimawandel und Nachhaltigkeit sind große Herausforderungen für die
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen, sie sind aber noch nicht ausreichend in die Managementprozesse und
externe
Kommunikation
integriert.
Die
ökologisch-soziale
Verantwortung
eines
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen hängt entscheidend davon ab, wie ökologischen und sozialen
Herausforderungen konzeptionell, institutionell und instrumental begegnet wird, d.h. soziale
Lernprozesse initiiert und in das ökonomische Management langfristig integriert werden. Ein
glaubhaftes CSR-Engagement kann kaum ein Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen aufweisen, wie die
qualitative Inhaltsanalyse zeigt. Wenn überhaupt beschreiben einige Unternehmen ihr Engagement in
den jeweiligen CSR-Bereichen eher normativ als mit Bezug zu konkreten Kernbereichen. Unter diesem
Aspekt ist Nachhaltigkeit eine Herausforderung für Organisationales Lernen in den drei
Managementdimensionen (ökologisch, ökonomisch, sozial), um die Nachhaltigkeitsleitung eines
Unternehmens zu ermöglichen. Gute Ansätze hierfür liefern Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen mit
teilweise
eigener
Energieerzeugung
und
einem
strategisch
ausgerichteten
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement. Diese lassen sich auch im kommunalen Bereich finden. Das
Energiemanagement der Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen erlangt in diesem Zusammenhang eine
fundamentale Bedeutung (u.a. Anwendung der ISO 16001) und adressiert strategische
Entscheidungen bezüglich lokaler, dezentraler Versorgungsnetze und eine Entkoppelung zentraler
Energieversorgungsprozesse. Mit Blick auf Mehrspartenunternehmen (Stadtwerke) lassen sich
dahingehend eine große Option und Hebelwirkung auf die Diffusion, Investition und Nutzung
erneuerbarer Energieträger vermuten. Diese Unternehmen sind zum Großteil lokal und regional
ausgerichtet im Vergleich zu großen Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen mit z.T. auch internationaler
Ausrichtung.
62
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Corporate Governance und ethische Unternehmensführung im Nachhaltigkeitskontext erfordert explizit
die Integration der ökologischen und sozialen Herausforderungen in das unternehmerische
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement der Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen durch eine Steigerung der ÖkoEffektivität (beispielsweise durch Implementierung von EMAS, ISO 14001 oder eines gezielten
Energiemanagements) und der Sozio-Effektivität (Personalentwicklung, SA 8000 oder ISO 26000; von
Öko- und Sozio-Effizienz, wie ISO 9001, ISO 17025, Energiemanagement (Steigerung ihrer
Integration mit Hilfe von Öko-Controlling), NH-Marketing, Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung,
Sustainability Balanced Scorecard. Die Anwendung und Kommunikation dieser Managementtools
erhöhen die Glaubwürdigkeit und Sichtbarkeit von gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung der
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen. Ihr Einsatz signalisiert die spezifische Auseinandersetzung mit der
CSR-Thematik und Übernahme unternehmerischer wie gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung. Insbesondere
die
Auswirkungen
des
Klimawandels
stellen
eine
große
Herausforderung
für
die
Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen dar, die jedoch bisher noch unzureichend in die Managementprozesse
und Außendarstellung integriert sind. Unter diesem Gesichtspunkt sind Transformationsprozesse von
Erfolgskriterien in das Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement der Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen essentiell und
zu optimieren, um hier Systemveränderungen in der Wasserwirtschaft realisieren zu können. Hierfür
ist jedoch ein Paradigmenwechsel von der Kosteneffizienz über die Ökoeffizienz hin zur Nachhaltigkeit
der Dienstleistung erforderlich. Dazu zählen auch integrierte strategische Managementansätze, die
externe negative vorund nach gelagerte Wertschöpfungsstufen noch stärker berücksichtigen. Diese
stehen bereit, wenngleich sie für die Besonderheiten der Wasserwirtschaftsunternehmen angepasst
werden müssten. Weiterhin ist ein Paradigmenwechsel von Kosten zu Nachhaltigkeit und Cradle-toCradle erforderlich. Das umfasst integrierte und systemische Ansätze des strategischen Managements,
die bereits theoretisch entwickelt sind, jedoch praktisch bis dato kaum zum Einsatz kommen.
REFERENCES
Arnold, M. (2007): Strategiewechsel für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Prozesse, Einflussfaktoren und
Praxisbeispiele. Metropolis: Marburg.
Arnold, M / Hockerts, K. 2010: The Greening Dutchman: Philips 'Prozess von Green Flagging zur
nachhaltigen Innovationen, die Geschäftsstrategie und die Umwelt Fahren, Vol. 20, Heft 6, S. 394407, Article first Online 2010 veröffentlicht: 21. Oktober 2010, DOI: 10.1002/bse.
Ammon, U.; Becke, C.; Göllinger, Th. & Weber, F.M. (2002): Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften durch
dialogorientiertes und systemisches Kennzahlenmanagement. Landesinstitut Sozial Forschungsstelle
Dortmund und Institut für Ökologische Betriebswirtschaft, Band 126. Dortmund.
Bruch, H.; Vogel, B. (2005): Organisationale Energie. Wie sie das Potenzial Ihres Unternehmens
ausschöpfen. Gabler: Wiesbaden.
Bryman und Bell 2009. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Oxford University Press.
Fichter, K. (2005): Interpreneurship. Nachhaltigkeitsinnovationen in interaktiven Perspektiven eines
vernetzten Unternehmertums. Metropolis: Marburg.
Fischer, D. (2007): Die lernende Organisation als Erfolgsfaktor der Strategieumsetzung. Bern.
Hartmann, D.M.; Brentel, H.; Rohn, H. (2006): Lern- und Innovationsfähigkeit von Unternehmen und
Organisationen, Kriterien und Indikatoren. Wuppertal Papers 156.
Kluge, T. (2005): Ansätze zur sozial-ökologischen Regulation der Ressource Wasser – neue
Anforderungen
an
die
Bewirtschaftung
durch
die
EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie
und
Privatisierungstendenzen. netWORKS-Papers, 15. Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung, Frankfurt.
Linne, G.; Schwarz, M. (2003)(Hrsg.): Handbuch nachhaltige Entwicklung. Wie ist nachhaltiges
Wirtschaften machbar? Leske + Budrich: Opladen.
Loew, T., Braun, S. (2006): Organisatorische Umsetzung von CSR: Vom Umweltmanagement zur
Sustainable Corporate Governance. Institute 4 Sustainability & future e.V., Berlin.
Loske, R., Schaeffer, R. (Hrsg.) (2005): Die Zukunft der Infrastrukturen. Intelligente Netzwerke für
eine nachhaltige Entwicklung, Marburg.
63
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Lux, A., Scheele, U., Schramm, E. (2005): Benchmarking in der Wasserwirtschaft - möglichkeiten und
Grenzen der Erweiterung des Benchmarking um ökologische und Soziale Aspekte. netWORKS-Papers,
17.
Pfriem, R.; Antes, R.; Fichter, K.; Müller, M.; Paech, N.; Seuring, S. & Siebenhüner, B. (2006):
Innovationen für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. DUV: Wiesbaden.
Rüegg-Stürm, J. (2001): Organisation und organisationaler Wandel: Eine theoretische Erkundung aus
konstruktivistischer Sicht. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen/Wiesbaden.
Schaltegger S., Wagner, M. (2006): Managing and Measuring the Business Case for Sustainability. The
Integration of Social, Environmental and Economic Performance, Sheffield, 1-27.
Schaltegger S, Wagner M. 2008. Arten von nachhaltigen Unternehmertums und die Bedingungen für
Nachhaltigkeit Innovation. In Sustainable Innovation und Unternehmertum, Wüstenhagen R,
Hamschmidt J, Sharma S, M Starik (eds). Elgar: Cheltenham. 27-48.
Siebenhüner, B., Arnold, M. (2007): Organizational learning to manage sustainable development, in:
Business Strategy and the Environment 16 (1): 339–353.
Steinmann, H.; Schreyögg, G. (2005): Management. Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung. Konzepte
– Funktionen – Fallstudien. Gabler: Wiesbaden, 6., vollst. überarb. Auflage.
Thommen, J.P.; Achleitner, A.-K. (2011): Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Umfassende Einführung
aus managementorientierter Sicht. Gabler: Wiesbaden.
64
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
CSR and Diversity Management: Similarities, Differences and Contradictions
Edeltraud Hanappi-Egger
WU Vienna, Department Management, [email protected]
Verena Schuhbeck
WU Vienna, [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
While CSR has been a topic in research and practice for several years now in the European context,
diversity and diversity management have been put only recently on the agenda of scholarly work.
In several communities CSR and diversity management are used synonymously – or at least it is
assumed that both concepts are based on similar paradigms:
CSR is defined as a voluntary commitment of companies to integrate social and environmental issues
in their business practices in order to contribute to sustainable welfare (EC, 2001: 7). In particular
anti-discrimination in the human resource management is considered as important feature of
sustainability and contribution to the company’s economic success. Hence, the societal engagement is
part of the business case of CSR (Angerle, 2013).
Diversity management is defined as a management approach focusing on the creation and
maintenance of inclusive working conditions to benefit from the diverse background of its workforce
(compare Hanappi-Egger, 2012a; Hanappi-Egger, 2012b). The clear business case focus is often
criticized, but nevertheless seems to be one of the main reasons for company to pro-actively
implement diversity management.
Although there are obviously some shared features of CSR and diversity management – such as
stakeholder involvement, commitment to anti-discrimination and human rights – a closer look shows
differences as well (compare table 1):
Organizational Concept
Commitment
Driver
Focus
Strategic focus
Management concept
Main terms
Legitimation
Evaluation model
CSR
open system
voluntary
ecology, demography
stakeholder
external/internal
top-down
sustainability
societal responsibility
balanced scorecard
Diversity Management
open system
voluntary
demography, legal framework (anti-discrimination)
individual, structurally disadvantaged groups (big 6)
mainly internal (eventually external)
top-down and bottom-up
competiveness
economic benefit
diversity scorecard
Table 1: Comparison of CSR and Diversity Management (adapted from Hanappi-Egger, 2012b: 184)
In practice there seems to exist some confusion on how CSR activities and diversity management are
linked. Segert et al. (2012) e.g. emphasize that 87% of Austrian companies are implementing
diversity programs, but only 25% have integrated diversity issues in their strategy. 13% of the
companies with diversity programs defined them as part of their CSR strategy. In order to study the
evolvement of diversity issues in companies in more detail, the following section presents the main
results of a case study focusing on the discursive construction of diversity management in
sustainability reports.
Discursive Constructions of Diversity Management, CSR and Sustainability
Schuhbeck (2013) has studied the sustainability reports from 2001 to 2011 of a petroleum company.
The company was founded in 1956 and became in the meantime an internationally active company
with more than 30.000 employees worldwide.
The case study was based on critical discourse analyses (Jäger, 2008) of the published sustainability
reports of the years 2001 until 2011. Additionally the CSR reports of the years 2001 to 2006 were
deconstructed.
It can be seen that the company changed the title of the reports – while in 2001 and 2002 the
“corporate responsibility reports” were published, the proceeding report as well as the reports from
2005/06 were called “Corporate Social Responsibility Report”. In all these reports there was no link to
diversity management. From 2007 the reports were published as Sustainability Reports. In 2009 for
65
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
the first time a section on diversity was included and in 2010 a diversity strategy was specified in the
report – still under the header of sustainability and with the same programs and measures. Hence, it
was more an update of the wording than substantial changes in the company’s policy. When diversity
management was presented as part of the company’s strategy it was positioned as a top-management
concept and integrated in the balanced scorecard. The mentioned need for stakeholders’
communication is a further evidence for the company’s understanding of diversity management as
part of CSR. The discourse analyses highlight how the company e.g. changed its evaluation mode
from employees’ surveys to a broader set of feedback features such as online-chat with the CEO and
sustainability blog.
All in all it can be shown that the company historically started from the CSR concept and step by step
updated the strategy in terms of diversity and diversity management. This went hand in hand with the
political and societal situation of the company: new legal frameworks as well as the perception of e.g.
the lack of female employees and the growing diversity among the workforce forced the company to
react to the new environmental settings. Also changes in shareholders’ structures caused adaption of
the company’s strategy.
CONCLUSION
The in-depth study of the sustainability reports of a petroleum company highlighted the historical
bondage of the given understanding of a concept such as CSR, sustainability or diversity
management. If, as in the presented case, the company starts from a specific strategy described in
terms of social responsibility, new concepts are integrated smoothly – but the basic philosophy stays
the same. E.g. the subtly negative connotation of diversity maintains even if there is a commitment of
anti-discrimination. The discourse analysis makes the underlying assumptions visible: CSR is a
reaction to the necessity to get societal acceptance and legitimation – and consequently some
programs are initiated but nevertheless the strategy and its aims stay vague.
Diversity management would force a company to identify the business case of their actions – which is
not an easy task. It furthermore would require an implementation plan and participative bottom-upactivities including monitoring and evaluation features. And the most difficult task – it requires
challenging given structures and processes to come up with a changed organizational culture. This is
definitely different from CSR – if not contradicting given inertia.
REFERENCES
Angerle, E. (2013): CSR-Indikatorenkatalog – Musts für sozialverantwortliche Unternehmen
aus
Sicht
der
ArbeitnehmerInnen.
http://portal.wko.at/wk/format_detail.wk?angid=1&stid=433852&dstid=8683&titel=CS (downloaded
5. July 2013)
EC (2001): Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (2001): Grünbuch – Europäische
Rahmenbedingungen für die soziale Verantwortung der Unternehmen. Brussel.
Hanappi-Egger, E. (2012a): Die Rolle von Gender und Diversität in Organisationen: Eine
organisationstheoretische Einführung. In Bendl R.; Hanappi-Egger E.; Hofmann R. (eds): Diversität
und Diversitätsmanagement, Facultas, pp. 175-201.
Hanappi-Egger, E. (2012b): Diversitätsmanagement und CSR. In Schneider,A.; Schmidpeter, R. (eds):
Corporate Social Responsibility, verantwortungsvolle Unternehmensführung in Theorie und Praxis.
Springer, pp. 177-189.
Jäger, M. (2008): Diskursanalyse: Ein Verfahren zur kritischen Rekonstruktion von Machtbeziehungen.
In Becker, R.; Kortendiek R. (eds.): Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung. VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden, 2nd edition.
Schuhbeck, V. (2013): Kommunikation von Vielfalt in Nachhaltigkeitsberichten: Eine kritische
Diskursanalyse am Beispiel der OMV AG
Segert, A.; Weghuber, E.; Wondrak, M. (2012): Quo vadis Diversity in Austria - Diversity Management
in ATX-Unternehmen zwischen sozialer Verantwortung und Business Case. Diversitas – Zeitschrift
für Managing Diversity und Diversity Studies. Ausgabe 1-2/12, pp. 5-14.
66
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Interrelations among Corporate Environmental Performance, Corporate
Environmental Disclosure and Corporate Financial Performance: Addressing the
endogeneity problem
Christoph Trumpp
Lehrstuhl für Betriebliches Rechnungswesen / Controlling, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften,
01062 Dresden, [email protected]
Prof. Dr. Thomas W. Günther
Lehrstuhl für Betriebliches Rechnungswesen / Controlling, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften,
01062 Dresden, [email protected]
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Almost thirty years ago, Ullmann (1985) described the research on the relationship between Corporate
Environmental Performance (CEP), Corporate Environmental Disclosure (CED), and Corporate Financial
Performance (CFP) as data in search of a theory (Ullmann, 1985). He stated that from the previous
research, no clear tendency can be derived for the interrelations between the three constructs
(Ullmann, 1985). This statement is still true today. In the recent years, CEP has become of increasing
interest to customers, investors, and other stakeholders (de Villiers and van Staden, 2011). This is
due to the fact that every company decision “generates an impact on the natural environment, even
though the organization may be unaware of what these impacts are” (Etzion, 2007, p. 637-638). The
focus on environmental impacts of a company’s activities is also demonstrated by the increase of
social responsible investments all around the world (Clarkson et al., 2011b). This increase is reflected
in the growth of CED in the last years (KPMG, 2011). Related research shows, however, it is not clear
why firms expand their disclosure and what they expect to gain from it. It is therefore interesting to
know what the driving factors of voluntary disclosure are, especially if CED is driven more by CEP or
CFP. If this disclosure indicates something about the true environmental performance, then it is
connected to the question whether “it pays to be green”. Finally it is unclear if CFP is more affected by
CEP or CED.
CEP is defined as the “results of an organization’s management of its environmental aspects” (ISO,
1999, p. 5). “Corporate environmental disclosure is the set of information items that relate to a firm’s
past, current and future environmental management activities and performance” (Berthelot et al.,
2003, p. 2). CFP can be defined as “economic outcomes resulting from the interplay among an
organization’s attributes, actions, and environment” (Combs et al., 2005, p. 261). It can be stated
that CFP consists of four separate dimensions: liquidity, profitability, growth, and stock market
performance (Hamann et al., 2013). In the research on the relationships between CEP, CED and CFP
the distinction between profitability and stock market performance plays an important role.
Previous research concerning CEP, CED, and CFP analyses, mostly, relationships between two of the
constructs and have contradictory results (e.g. King & Lenox, 2001 in contrast to Cordeiro & Sarkis,
1997 for the CEP-CFP relationship). Ullmann (1985) explains contradictory results with different
models, methods, measures, and analyzed time periods. Busch and Hoffmann (2011) focus especially
on the CEP-CFP relationship. In order to explain the contradictory results, they add measuring
problems, small samples, and endogeneity problems (Busch and Hoffmann, 2011). These endogeneity
problems are possibly due to an omitted factor influencing both CEP and CFP (Ambec and Lanoie,
2008). We think that environmental disclosure is the omitted variable of interest, because there is a
theoretical assumed and empirical tested relationship to both CEP and CFP. Besides the omitted
variable bias, endogeneity can also be caused by simultaneity (Chenhall and Moers, 2007). The
simultaneity bias is present if interrelations exist between the analyzed constructs. Theoretical
considerations and previous research demonstrated that CEP can affect CFP and as well CFP can affect
CEP (e.g. Clarkson et al., 2011a; Nakao et al., 2007). This is at least true for the CED-CFP relationship
(e.g. Jones et al., 2007; Clarkson et al., 2011c). In sum we think that the endogeneity problem is the
crucial one to explain the contradictory results of previous research examine the association between
two of the constructs. Therefore we want to analyze the interrelations between the three constructs
Corporate Environmental Performance, Corporate Environmental Disclosure and Corporate Financial
Performance at the same time.
67
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
There is already one existing empirical study which addresses this research question before. AlTuwaijri et al. (2004) argued that there are interrelations between the three constructs and analyze a
US sample of 198 firms with a minimum of environmental exposure. CEP is measured with data from
the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Corresponding to that data, they build a content analysis index
comprising of four indicators with respect to toxic emissions, in order to construe a CED variable (AlTuwaijri et al., 2004). As well it is argued that mixed results of prior analysis can be due to
endogeneity problems. Al-Tuwaijri et al. (2004) using the Hausman (1978) test for endogeneity with
respect to CEP, CED and CFP and identify endogeneity for their CEP variable. The results of threestage least squares (3SLS) simultaneous equation modeling indicate a significant positive influence of
CEP on CED and CFP, when CFP is measured with stock market performance. It is further
demonstrated that prior disclosure affects CEP (Al-Tuwaijri et al., 2004). Clarkson et al. (2011a)
examine the relationship between CEP and CFP and use the method of Al-Tuwaijri et al. (2004) as a
robustness check to validate their results. They investigate a sample of 191 US companies from five
polluting industries. Like Al-Tuwaijri et al. (2004) CEP is operationalized by TRI data. To measure CED,
they use the disclosure score developed by Clarkson et al. (2008). The enterprise value, which can be
characterized as stock market performance indicator, represents CFP (Clarkson et al., 2011a). The
results imply a significant positive association between CEP and CFP and between CEP and CED. It is
also demonstrated that CED affects CFP positively (Clarkson et al., 2011a). Overall the results of
simultaneous equation modeling verify the robustness of the conclusion drawn from CEP-CFP
investigation, which indicates that there is no endogeneity problem with respect to the CEP and CFP
variable. This is opposing to the results of Al-Tuwaijri et al. (2004). In sum from prior investigations
no clear conclusion can be drawn if endogeneity problems exist in the relationships between CEP, CED
and CFP.
We want to extend prior empirical research by bringing more clarity to the problem of endogeneity in
the context of CEP, CED and CFP relationships. Our analysis wants to gain new insights to the
conflicting results of previous research on pairwise investigations. First, we analyze the related
literature in the three separate research streams of pairwise investigations and derive hypotheses.
Second, we transfer our hypothesis to a simultaneous equations model with three structural equations
and test for endogeneity with the test recommended by Hausman (1978). Third, we estimate the
system with the three-stage least squares (3SLS) estimator by using an international panel dataset.
Finally, we compare the results to ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. We concentrate our
investigation on one of the most impressive environmental aspects around the world: greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and their disclosure. Carbon emissions have a broader and more global effect to the
environment than other emissions used in prior research (Luo et al., 2012). We obtain our data from
the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). In addition to the performance data, we incorporate the
questionnaire based disclosure score to measure CED. This kind of carbon disclosure can be
characterized as voluntary but not discretionary. With respect to CFP, we differentiate between
profitability and stock market performance as CFP variables because of different theoretical assumed
and empirical tested associations. We analyze companies which are part of CDP Global 500, S&P 500
or FTSE 350 reports from 2008 to 2011. Our sample comprises of 643 firms with 1,870 firm-years.
The Hausman (1978) test suggests endogeneity for CEP, CED and CFP in the empirical model. Our
analysis with 3SLS simultaneous equation modeling shows a significant positive relationship between
CEP and CFP for both profitability and stock market performance. We find empirical evidence for a
significant positive association between CED and stock market performance. Furthermore, the
empirical results indicate a weak but positive influence of CED on CEP in the context of profitability.
Compared to the OLS regression, without considering endogeneity, different findings become
apparent, which corroborates the results of the Hausman (1978) test.
We contribute to the literature in four ways. First, our results imply that CEP, CED and CFP are jointly
interrelated. Therefore, in pairwise investigations the problem of endogeneity exists. Second, the
analysis suggests that profitability and stock market performance achieve different results for the
relationships. Third, we find empirical evidence for the virtuous cycle between CEP and CFP, for both
profitability and stock market performance. Fourth, the result demonstrates that carbon disclosure is
driven more by the capital market than by CEP, which underpins voluntary disclosure theory and the
agency theory for carbon disclosure.
68
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
REFERENCES
Al-Tuwaijri, S. A.; Christensen, T. E.; Hughes II, K. E. (2004). The relations among environmental
disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: a simultaneous equations
approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29 (5-6), pp. 447-471.
Ambec, S.; Lanoie, P. (2008). Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 22 (4), pp. 45-62.
Berthelot, S.; Cormier, D.; Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental Disclosure Research: Review and
Synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, pp. 1-44.
Busch, T.; Hoffmann, V. H. (2011). How Hot Is Your Bottom Line? Linking Carbon and Financial
Performance. Business & Society, 50 (2), 233-265.
Chenhall, R. H.; Moers, F. (2007). The Issue of Endogeneity within Theory-Based, Quantitative
Management Accounting Research. European Accounting Review, 16 (1), pp. 173-196.
Clarkson, P. M.; Li, Y.; Richardson, G. D.; Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between
environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 33 (4-5), pp. 303-327.
Clarkson, P. M.; Li, Y.; Richardson, G. D.; Vasvari, F. P. (2011a). Does it really pay to be green?
Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Accounting and
Public Policy, 30 (2), pp. 122-144.
Clarkson, P. M.; Overell, M. B.; Chapple, L. (2011b). Environmental Reporting and its Relation to
Corporate Environmental Performance. Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business Studies, 47 (1),
pp. 27-60.
Clarkson, P. M.; Fang, X.; Li, Y.; Richardson, G. (2011c). The Relevance Of Environmental Disclosures
For Investors and Other Stakeholder Groups: Are Such Disclosures Incrementally Informative?
Working Paper.
Combs, J. G.; Crook, T. R.; Shook, C. L. (2005). The dimensionality of organizational performance and
its implications for strategic management research. In D. J. Ketchen (Ed.), Research Methodology in
Strategy and Management, 2, pp. 259-286.
Cordeiro, J. J.; Sarkis, J. (1997). Environmental Proactivism and Firm Performance: Evidence from
Security Analyst Earnings Forecast. Business Strategy and the Environment, 6, pp. 104-114.
de Villiers, C.; van Staden, C. J. (2011). Where firms choose to disclose voluntary environmental
information. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30 (6), pp. 504-525.
Etzion, D. (2007). Research on Organizations and the Natural Environment, 1992-Present: A Review.
Journal of Management, 33 (4), pp. 637-664.
Hamann, P. M.; Schiemann, F.; Bellora, L.; Guenther, T. W. (2013). Exploring the Dimensions of
Organizational Performance : A Construct Validity Study. Organizational Research Methods, 16 (1),
pp. 67-87.
Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica, 46 (6), pp. 1251-1271.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1999). ISO 14031: 1999. Environmental
Management - Environmental Performance Evaluation - Guidelines. Geneva.
Jones, S.; Frost, G.; Loftus, J.; van der Laan, S. (2007). An empirical examination of the market
returns and financial performance of entities engaged in sustainability reporting. Australian Accounting
Review,17 (1), pp. 78-87.
King, A. A.; Lenox, M. J. (2001). Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm
environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5 (1), pp. 105-116.
KPMG (2011). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2011, Amsterdam.
69
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Luo, L.; Lan, Y.-C.; Tang, Q. (2012). Corporate Incentives to Disclose Carbon Information: Evidence
from the CDP Global 500 Report. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 23 (2),
pp. 93-120.
Nakao, Y.; Amano, A.; Matsumura, K.; Genba, K.; Nakano, M. (2007). Relationship Between
Environmental Performance and Financial Performance: an Empirical Analysis of Japanese
Corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16 (2), pp. 106-118.
Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among
social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of
Management
Review,
10
(3),
pp.
540-557.
70
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Will Integrated Reporting lead to Integrated Thinking?
Christine Jasch
Ernst & Young Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft g,b,H, Climate Change & Sustainability Services,
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Corporate Reporting is undergoing significant changes in the previous years. Request for
transparency, inclusion of stakeholder concerns and new media have resulted in Sustainability
Reporting in addition to Financial Reporting. The related topics and procedures are increasingly
gaining the attention of top management and financial accountants, especially, as the European Union
is advocating a more mandatory approach.
Partly initiated by South Africa´s move towards mandatory reporting on significant stakeholder
concerns in the financial report, partly driven by financial investors requests, there currently is a
strong move towards Integrated Reporting, in an attempt to condense communication about how an
organisation´s strategy, governance performance and prospects lead to the creation of value over
time. This paper critically discusses the concept of Integrated Reporting as proposed by the IIRC and
its relation to inclusion of stakeholder concerns. It is based on experiences with several longterm
sustainability reporters, who are currently trying to align or even merge their financial and
sustainability reports and on discussions held during the IIRC comment period. These pilot projects
show the difficulties of overcoming the separate responsibility functions in an organisation and
condensing material topics into an integrated strategy and reporting framework. The concepts of
materiality, value creation and the different capitals are discussed in more depth to highlight current
implementation challenges.
THE INTENDED USER OF AN INTEGRATED REPORT
The IIRC, the International Integrated Reporting Council, launched its consultation draft for the
Integrated Reporting Framework on April 16th (IIRC, 2013). On the very same day, the European
Commission released its long awaited amendment to existing accounting legislation in order to
improve transparency of certain large companies on social and environmental matters (European
Commission, 2013). Companies concerned will need to disclose information on policies, risks and
results as regards environmental matters, socials and employee related aspects, respect for human
rights, anti-corruption and bribery issues, and diversity on the boards of directors.
While the release of both documents was clearly and intentionally linked to each other, the link with
Sustainability Reports and especially the reporting framework therefor developed by the Global
Reporting Initiative, GRI (GRI, 2013) has undergone several changes during the two years preparation
period of the IIRC Consultation Framework.
This ambiguity is reflected in the discussions during the comment period around the intended user of
an Integrated Report.
While in principle the idea of one concise report was applauded by many in the search for less
complexity when the IIRC started, it now turns out that the Integrated Report in effect requires an
additional report, at least as long as mandatory financial reporting requirements don't change. But the
added value of IR for many people was seen in the combination of reports and in focussing of
resources of report providers.
The current draft framework provided by the IIRC mainly sees the providers of financial capitals as its
audience. With regard to sustainability reporting, if the reporting perspective is taken only from the
shareholders perspective, and not from a stakeholder approach, the information needs of all other
stakeholders will not be covered in the IR, thus requesting an additional Sustainability report.
From a systemic view, it can be discussed if it would not be more appropriate to take a stakeholder
perspective for the intended users and the definition of materiality regarding sustainability effects. In
addition, in order to really become integrated, better alignment with financial and sustainability
reporting requirements would be helpful.
71
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
MATERIALITY TO WHOM?
The IIRC draft framework defines a matter as material only, if ”in the view of senior management and
those charged with governance, it is of such relevance and importance that it could significantly
influence the assessments of the primary intended report users with regard to the organisation´s
ability to create value over the short, medium and long term (IIRC, 2013, p. 23).
The providers of financial capital are defined as the primary intended report users in order to support
their financial capital allocation assessments (IIRC, 2013, p. 10). The IIRC states, that the interests of
providers of financial capital with a longterm view are likely to align with interests of other
stakeholders (IIRC, 2013, page 10). This statement still needs to be proven by reality. Current
materiality assessments performed with leading sustainability reporters in Austria suggest, that there
is a significant difference, if the materiality assessment is done from a broad stakeholder or a reduced
shareholder perspective.
If materiality is determined from the focus of the providers of financial capital only, this adds nothing
to existing financial reporting. In addition, the financial perspective tends to take a monetary focus
only, sometimes resulting in discussions about monetarisation of external effects, instead of focus on
impact related towards material issues from a stakeholder perspective.
On the other hand, the American Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, SASB, (SASB, 2013), a
non-profit organization that provides standards for use by publicly-listed corporations in the U.S. in
disclosing material sustainability issues for the benefit of investors and the public, has provided a
common and sector specific approach for the assessment of materiality from a sustainability
perspective and for linking the capitals with performance indicators, which may also gain importance
in Europe.
WHAT CONSTITUTES VALUE?
Companies no longer state, that they are maximising profits, but that they are creating value. The
IIRC also suggests, that “the integrated report explains how an organisation creates value over time.”
It notes however, that ”Providers of financial capital are focussed on value in the form of financial
returns.“ and assumes that “ those returns are dependent on inter-relationships between various
types of capital in which other stakeholders have an interest. (IRC, 2013, p.18)
The concept of Value is linked to Integrated Thinking. The IICR defines Integrated Thinking as the
“active consideration by an organisation of the relationships between its various operating and
functional units and the capitals, that the organisation uses and affects. Integrated Thinking leads to
integrated decision making and actions, that consider the creation of value over the short, medium
and long term”. Integrated thinking is contrasted with “silo thinking”, as it “takes into account the
connectivity and interdependencies between the range of factors that have a material effect on the
organisations ability to create value.” (IIRC, 2013, p. 11)
However, value means quite different things to different audiences. It sometimes is related to
monetarization of external effects, a concept discussed further in the next section.
THE CONCEPT OF THE CAPITALS
Based on Porritt (Porrit, 2007) the IIRC Framework distinguishes between financial, manufactured,
human, intellectual, nature, social and relationship capital and encourages companies to describe the
inputs from the capitals to the business model, as well as its outputs and outcomes (final effects)
again on the capitals (IIRC, 2013, p.13ff.)
The differenciation between input, output and outcome regarding the capitals is common practice for
some capitals, but poses conceptual challenges for other capitals.
E.g. for the nature capital, emissions are not identical to imissions. ISO 14031 on Environmental
Performance Indicators already 20 years ago differenciated between the operational system, related
to the inputs/outputs and the environmental condition indicators (ISO 14031, 2000). The same
concept is reflected in ISO 14040 for Product Life Cycle Assessments (ISO 14040, 2006). Also in social
sciences and systems theory, the distinction between the output of a sending system and its effect on
the environment or recieving system is a standard concept. The German concept of Wissensbilanzen
developed stock and flow related indicators for the social capital (Alvert, 2004), (Mertins, 2005).
72
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
For the nature capital the ISO 14000 Series of Standards for Environmental Management as well as
the SEEA System for National Environmental Economic Accounting (United Nations Statistical Division,
2013) have developed helpful definitions and methodological frameworks, which should be made use
off for Integrated Reporting.
Financial accounting will never directly include external costs, but externalities can be calculated by
applying different tools, if necessary (e.g. Hein, 2006). The tools for Environmental Management and
Material Flow Cost Accounting (UNDSD, 2001), (IFAC, 2005), (Jasch, 2009), (ISO 14051, 2012)
clearly separate between internal and external costs, distinguish between stock and flow related
concepts, as well as physical and monetised performance indicators. It certainly makes sense for
organisations and environmental protection, when companies install environmental management
systems, to record mass balances and reduce inputs as well as outputs, perform environmental impact
assessments for planned investments and product life cycle assessments to reduce the environmental
impact of products. But it is doubtful, if a monetization of these tools really adds input to the decisions
regarding reduction of environmental impact. Experience shows, that often the high level aggregation
into one figure, regardless if monetized or artificially calculated “green dots” actually disguises areas
of significant impact and is more a tool for “easy marketing communication”.
The concept of the different capitals in Integrated Reporting will spur interest in methodologies and
case studies for assessing internal and external aspects, internal and external costs and related
performance indicators for stocks as well as flows, in physical as monetary terms. The tools described
above have their specific fields of application, but it is questionable, if a monetisation of all aspects,
impacts and values from the perspective of a financial investor is needed from companies or even
desired.
CONCLUSION
It remains to be seen, if the concept of Integrated Reporting developed by the IIRC will actually lead
to integrated thinking and reduced negative external effects, as the current draft framework is too
much biased by the focus on the providers of financial capital. But it has and will continue to spur the
discussion around transparency on external effects and stakeholder concerns, which will hopefully
improve disclosure, accountability and how mankind treats people and nature.
REFERENCES AND CITATIONS
Alwert, K.: Bornemann, M; Kivikas, M, (2004), Wissensbilanz – Made in Germany. Leitfaden 1.0.
Herausgegeben durch das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie BMWi Berlin,
http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Navigation/Service/publikationen,did=41128.html
European Commission, (2013), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parlament and the European
Council amending council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC as regards disclosure of non
financial and diversity information by certain large companies and groups, Brussels
Hein L., et.al.., (2006), Spacial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services,
Ecological Economics, 57, 209 – 228, www.sciencedirect.com
IFAC, (2005), Environmental Management Accounting, International Guidance document, IFAC,
International Federation of Accountants, New York
GRI, (2013), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Version 3.1. und Version 4, www.globalreporting.org
IIRC, (2013),
www.theiirc.org
Consultation
Draft
of
the
International
Integrated
Reporting
Framework,
ISO, ISO 14031, (2000) Environmental Performance Evaluation, Geneva
ISO, ISO 14040 (2006), Life Cycle Assessments – Principles and Framework, Geneva
ISO, ISO 14051, (2012) Material Flow Cost Accounting, Geneva
Jasch, C., (2009), Environmental and Material Flow Cost Accounting - Principles and Procedures, EcoEfficiency in Industry and Science, Vol. 25, Springer, Heidelberg, New York
73
Vortragsskizzen
Mertins, K.; Alwert, K.; Heisig, P. (Hrsg.), (2005),
erfolgreich nutzen und entwickeln. Berlin, Springer
Abstracts
Wissensbilanzen – Intellektuelles Kapital
Porritt J., (2007), Capitalism as if the World matters, Earthscan, London, Sterling
SASB, (2013), www.sasb.org, assessed on 12.7.2013
United Nations Division for sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Jasch Ch., (2001), Environmental Management Accounting, Procedures and Principles, New York
United Nations Statistical Division, (2013) SEEA, System of Environmental Economic Accounts,
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea.asp, 21.6.21013
74
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
SUDEST – Decision Support for Sustainable Management: Operationalizing
corporate sustainable performance
Barnim Jeschke
FOM Hochschule, Munich (Germany), Professor for Sustainable Management; [email protected]
Nils Mahnke
Hochschule München, Munich (Germany), Professor for Applied Mathematics; [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Corporate strategy is embedded in an increasingly complex environment: A vivid range of
stakeholders claims some multi-perspective perception of company decisions, environmental dynamics
advise against simply extrapolating best practice of the past – and manifold interdependencies
demand patience to account for long-term effects. Given such challenges, mechanistic decision
support tools do not suffice anymore.
System complexity can be described by the multiplicity, diversity, interdependency and dynamics of
its system constituents and their interrelations. How can corporate context complexity be appreciated
and, at the same time, be translated into commercial sense? How can decision support tools be
instrumental in conceptualizing and implementing “better”, more sustainable strategies? And how can
“sustainable” corporate action be described, operationalized and evaluated?
This paper provides an overview of models and tools which are supportive to a sustainable
management approach. Further, it introduced an innovative decision model (“SUDEST”) aiming to
transform the bio-cybernetics of applied system’s theory into pragmatic analysis and advise.
CONCEPTUAL BASIS
Historically, three strategic management paradigms can be distinguished: The adversarial strategy
paradigm draws on militaristic experience, elaborating on “how to fight the enemy” (e.g. Clausewitz,
1880). Such viewpoint reduces a stakeholder map to the two combatants in the ring. With the
emergence of over-supplied markets in the post WW II era, scientists such as Ansoff (1965), Abell
(1980) and Porter (1980) constituted the competitive strategy paradigm. Here, environmental
analysis focuses on interacting market partners, such as suppliers, intermediaries, competitors and
customers: “How do companies position themselves to please the customer?” The increasing impact of
non-market stakeholders on corporate success reasons the third paradigm - the sustainable strategy
paradigm: “How does a company legitimize its actions towards its corporate environment?”
What roles do companies assume in responding to sustainability claims? Companies with a
shareholder-centered agenda consider the implications of the sustainable strategy paradigm as
additional expense, diminishing their profits (e.g. through labor laws or environmental directives).
Companies in line with Elkington’s triple bottom line approach (1999) will attain a more pro-active
approach, utilizing the quest for sustainability to differentiate from the competition. However: It needs
to make (measurable) commercial sense; otherwise, sustainable action will be off the corporate radar.
In contrast, companies pursuing legitimacy free themselves from such company-centric view, aligning
their strategy to areas which stabilize the surrounding system (i.e. increase system resilience) in the
long-term.
Approaches to support companies in its sustainability efforts are subject to the next section.
SUPPORTING CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT
An accelerating sustainability discussion has yielded an abundance of related approaches, to be
categorized by a) their focus of application and b) their explanatory value.
With respect to its focus of application, an approach may either be specific (e.g. carbon footprint
approaches) or generic (e.g. cross impact analysis). The former approaches focus on particular system
parameters, e.g. certain ecological indicators. Such specific focus, however, neglects the manifold
implications of system’s dynamics and its inherent trade-off effects.
In terms of the underlying explanatory value, descriptive approaches (e.g. stakeholder mapping) can
be distinguished from evaluative (e.g. eco check lists) and from prescriptive ones (e.g. Sigma
guidelines). While descriptive and evaluative approaches both refer to past company performance,
prescriptive approaches aim at directly supporting future decision making. Therefore, prescriptive
75
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
approaches appear to embody the most supportive potential for corporate planning - as past solution
patterns may not readily be extrapolated for future strategy scenarios.
The SUDEST model represents a generic-prescriptive approach, as it is universally applicable when
assessing the effects of simulated future decision making.
SUDEST MODEL PILLARS
Applying SUDEST, the company’s system environment is described by its system constituents. System
constituents are either involved stakeholders (as “decision subjects”) or system relevant products (as
“decision objects”). The analysis is based on a chronologically ordered interaction diagram of the
underlying system constituents and their functional interrelationships. Such relationships express the
effect of impacting constituents (as independent variable) on impacted ones (as dependent variable).
In case of lacking quantitative data, the input of qualitative data (e.g. by applying a 5-step, discrete
Likert scale) will do.
Figure 1 displays the SUDEST Matrix, as it reflects future system constellations at a given point in
time. As chronological diagram, the “SUDEST Moment Matrix” represents the situation between each
interaction (“decision moments”). At the next level of inquiry, the “SUDEST Phase Matrix” stands for
the aggregated constellation of an interaction phase (the “decision phase” as cluster of decision
moments). Eventually, the “SUDEST Overall Matrix” sums up the entire simulated decision process in
one final set of matrix indicators. The idea of sequencing matrices reflects a trivial, yet basic, effect:
Preceding decisions impact successor decisions. Therefore, a preceding SUDEST matrix will be the
starting point for each consecutive matrix.
Impacted
S
S
S
S
P
P
P
+
O
O
+
O
O
O InformationO
+
S
S
S
O Exchange ‐
+
S
‐
‐
+
‐
P
O
O
+
P
‐
O
O
P
Product O
‐ Absorbtion
P
O
O
‐
+
O
++ strong consent
+ rather consent
d
P
O
Product ‐
Yield
‐
‐
‐
+
+
O
O
Product ‐
O Interaction ‐
O
+
‐
neutral
Figure 1: Exemplified SUDEST Matrix
With the SUDEST Matrix, each considered system situation is described by a set of four sub-matrices.
All four sub-matrices aggregated into the SUDEST matrix represent the entirety of interactions at each
given point in time - either for an individual decision moment, for a decision phase or for the overall
decision complex. Wherever certain constellation fields are not relevant to the specific situation, the
respective sub-matrix will be neutralized. For instance a sheer negotiation situation would have no
interaction among impacting and impacted products; therefore, the sub-matrix “Reciprocal Product
Effects” would be neutralized.
76
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
The SUDEST matrix contains all information of quantitative and qualitative exchange properties which
are transferred among the constituents related to each relevant decision moment. The chronologically
ordered product of all SUDEST matrices and the connected matrix cascade open the field of simulation
for alternative action paths, resilience tracking (i.e. system stability indicators) and sensitivity testing.
EIGHT STEPS SUDEST APPLICATION
The SUDEST application includes the following 8 steps of analysis:
1. Situation mapping within the underlying system: system constituents (stakeholders, products),
relationships and system boundaries
2. Situation structuring into decision phases and, further, into decision moments
3. Tracking of possible relationships among system constituents by applying the SUDEST matrix
4. Scope of action and action alternatives to be considered along the decision path
5. Simulation of decision outcomes for different time frames and decision scenarios
6. Result mapping: stakeholder profiles, product amounts, system stability
7. Interpretation of results in the light of the underlying corporate value system
8. Continuous learning by updating and completing the information basis to provide more profound
decision making with smaller confidence intervals.
SUDEST data processing results in a set of indicators (and an overall index) that establish a
comprehensive information basis for the respective decision. The emerging data set includes a) the
development of consent/dissent profiles of the involved stakeholders, b) the development of involved
products, c) sensitivities of alternative action paths with respect to decision implications, and d)
resilience levels for the underlying relationships of the derived scenarios. As one piece of information,
resilience drivers and preventers are identified with regard to their system impact.
SUDEST IN CORPORATE PRACTICE
As a generic tool, SUDEST can be applied to manifold decision scenarios. The range of past
applications includes situations with emphasis on technical, social, economical or ecological
parameters. More often, however, SUDEST applications are subject to a mixture of different types of
products, as suggested by the underlying system. By doing so, both, quantitative and qualitative data
feed can be processed.
Real life SUDEST applications include:
a) Global incident management of a large corporation: Here, hard factors (e.g. equipment, contract
specifications) and soft factors (e.g. cultural background, work pressure, education) refer to both,
social and technical parameters. The resulting “Incident Indicator” reveals the accidents proneness
of construction sites.
b) Approval procedure for developing gravel pits: Here, an overall „Approval Indicator“ shows in how
far gravel pit projects are likely to succeed in their approval process.
c) Sustainability Index for alternative paper products, considering the complete value chain
The SUDEST analysis results in a set of key indicators, facilitating the comparison of alternative action
scenarios and the application of sensitivity analysis. With respect to the above mentioned practical
examples, this could mean that a) different preventive measures are scrutinized with respect to its
effect on the “Incident Indicator”, b) alternative stakeholder considerations are analyzed with respect
to the “Approval Indicator” perspectives and c) alternative value chain designs are compared with
respect to the resulting “Sustainability Indicator”.
Further, simulated action effects can be associated with the assumed company investments, therefore
deriving ROI figures with respect to the „best system sustainability effect for money“.
CONCLUSIONS
SUDEST fulfills the “SMARTFUL” criteria set for decision support systems: It is specific, measurable,
attainable, relevant, time-bound“, flexible“, usable, and learning. It can, however, only support
decisions – not determine them.
REFERENCES
77
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Abell, D.F. (1980): Defining the Business. The Starting Point of Strategic Planning, Englewood Cliffs.
Ansoff, H.I. (1965): Corporate Strategy, New York.
Elkington, J. (1999): Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Oxford.
Porter, M.E. (1980): Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New
York/London.
78
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Zur Realisierung von Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien. Formen der Bewältigung organisationaler
Herausforderungen und Zielkonflikte.
Alexandra Sporbert
Freie Universität Berlin, [email protected]
Christian Härtwig
Kathrin Heinitz
EINLEITUNG UND FRAGESTELLUNG
Bevor ein Unternehmen eine Balance aus ökonomischen, ökologischen und sozialen
Nachhaltigkeitsaspekten erreichen kann, offenbaren sich innerhalb der Organisation vielfältige
Zielkonflikte. Die vorliegende Studie betrachtet die Umsetzung von Nachhaltigkeit auf strategischer,
struktureller und individueller Ebene sowie verschiedene Formen der Bewältigung von Zielkonflikten.
Basierend auf dem Konzept der Nachhaltigen Unternehmensführung (Loew et al., 2004) war das Ziel
des hier verwendeten qualitativen Ansatzes, aktuelle organisationale Herausforderungen und
Zielkonflikte bei der Realisierung von Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien und dafür förderliche bzw. hinderliche
Faktoren zu identifizieren sowie daraus Handlungsempfehlungen abzuleiten.
METHODIK
13 Großunternehmen aus Deutschland, darunter knapp 50% gelistete DAX-30-Unternehmen, wurden
im Zeitraum von November 2012 bis Januar 2013 mittels eines teilstandardisierten Interviewleitfadens
zur aktuellen Realisierung ihrer Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien befragt. 12 der 13 Interviewpartner hatten
zum Zeitpunkt der Befragung eine Leitungsposition im Nachhaltigkeitsbereich inne, 67% davon die
Gesamtleitung. Annähernd zwei Drittel der befragten Unternehmen konnten dem Dienstleistungs- und
Informationstechnologiesektor zugeordnet werden, mehr als ein Drittel dem Industriesektor.
Im Anschluss wurden die Interviewdaten anhand des Verfahrens der qualitativen Typenbildung
ausgewertet (vgl. Kelle & Kluge, 2010). Dabei konnten mehrere übergeordnete Themenfelder
identifiziert werden, nach denen die Gruppierung in vier Bewältigungstypen vorgenommen wurde:
Unternehmensstrategische
Bedeutsamkeit,
Organisationale
Einbindung,
Relevanz
auf
Mitarbeiterebene, Zielkonflikte, Barrieren & Hindernisse sowie Aktuelle Herausforderungen.
ERGEBNISSE
Es zeigte sich, dass die Unternehmen nach vier unterschiedlichen Bewältigungstypen bezüglich ihrer
Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie im Umgang mit organisationalen Herausforderungen und Zielkonflikten
differenziert werden können: reaktiv, schwankend, proaktiv und ganzheitlich.
1. „Reaktive Bewältigung“:
Dieser erste Typus betreibt Nachhaltigkeit lediglich reaktiv aufgrund externen Drucks (z.B. durch
Gesellschaft oder Stakeholder) und mit so wenig innerorganisationalem Aufwand wie möglich. Im
Vordergrund des unternehmerischen Handelns steht der kurzfristige Erfolg des Kerngeschäftes.
Nachhaltigkeit ist ein „notwendiges Übel“ bzw. „Luxusgut“, welches nur realisiert wird, solange
das Kerngeschäft rentabel ist. Mitarbeiter werden im Zuge der Realisierung der
Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie gänzlich außen vor gelassen. Es entsteht der Eindruck, dass diese
Unternehmen nicht an einer ernsthaften Weiterentwicklung Nachhaltiger Unternehmensführung
interessiert sind. Im Unterschied zu den anderen Bewältigungsformen wird Nachhaltigkeit weder
auf individueller, struktureller oder strategischer Ebene verfolgt, sodass insgesamt der Verdacht
des Greenwashing naheliegt.
2. „Schwankung zwischen reaktiver und proaktiver Bewältigung“
Dieser Bewältigungstypus ist bezüglich des Ausmaßes der Integration von Nachhaltigkeit noch
unsicher. Er unternimmt qualitativ mehr als der reaktive Typus, z.B. indem der Vorstand das
Thema Nachhaltigkeit vorantreiben möchte, um sowohl extern als auch intern eine größere
Glaubwürdigkeit und Entschlossenheit zu vermitteln. Trotz eines starken Handlungsimpules
verzögert sich die Umsetzung durch die nicht weiter angepassten Unternehmensstrukturen sowie
79
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
die fehlenden Implikationen für das berufliche Alltagshandeln der Beschäftigten. Aufgrund der
fehlenden festen Verankerung in den internen Geschäftsprozessen und weiterer Unsicherheiten
zwischen allen Ebenen entsteht ein Konfliktpotenzial, welches nur unzureichend bewältigt wird.
Es besteht die Gefahr, dass Nachhaltigkeit zugunsten des Kerngeschäfts letztlich wieder
zurückgedrängt wird. Die Integration von Nachhaltigkeit wurde zwar auf strategischer Ebene
begonnen, die weitere Implementierung bleibt allerdings offen.
3. „Proaktive Bewältigung“
Im Gegensatz zu den vorherigen Bewältigungsformen motiviert diesen und den vierten Typus
etwas anderes als die ersten beiden Formen: Hier steht die langfristige Zukunftssicherung im
Mittelpunkt. Nachhaltigkeit ist bereits ein größerer Teil der Unternehmensstrategie und wird
schon länger verfolgt. Schritt für Schritt haben Unternehmen dieser Art die leichter zu
bewältigenden Maßnahmen bereits erledigt und sind nun dabei, einen aktiven
Bewusstseinswandel in der Belegschaft zur Integration langfristig nachhaltigen Handelns in den
Berufsalltag herbeizuführen. Sukzessive wird Nachhaltigkeit auf persönlicher, struktureller und
strategischer Ebene integriert.
4. „Ganzheitliche Bewältigung“
Diese Form der Bewältigung grenzt sich noch einmal deutlich von den anderen Formen ab, indem
ein vollständiger Wechsel hin zu einer nachhaltigen Unternehmensstrategie stattfindet.
Nachhaltigkeit wird in allen Strukturen, Prozessen, Entscheidungen und auf Mitarbeiterebene in
das berufliche Handeln festgeschrieben und bildet als übergeordnetes Integrationsziel einen
Ansatz zur Bewältigung von Zielkonflikten. Insgesamt soll diese Form der Bewältigung die
langfristige Zukunft der Unternehmen sichern, indem sich Nachhaltigkeit ausgehend von der
strategischen Umstrukturierung auch auf die strukturelle und individuelle Ebene niederschlägt.
DISKUSSION
Im Umgang mit organisationalen Herausforderungen und Zielkonflikten bei der Realisierung von
Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien lassen sich vier verschiedene Bewältigungstypen differenzieren, die sich auf
individueller, struktureller und strategischer Ebene sowie in der Art und Weise der Reflexion und
Bewältigung von Zielkonflikten unterscheiden.
Auf strategischer Ebene zeigt die Bewältigungstypologie, dass Unternehmen, in denen Nachhaltigkeit
nicht nur als „Anhängsel“ betrachtet, sondern in der Gesamtstrategie verankert wird, entsprechende
Herausforderungen proaktiv und ganzheitlich auf der strukturellen und individuellen Ebene bewältigen
können. Auf struktureller Ebene lassen sich organisationale Herausforderungen und Zielkonflikte
besser bewältigen, wenn eine eigenständige Abteilung eingerichtet und diverse weitere institutionelle
Verankerungen umgesetzt werden – gleichzeitig beugt dies dem Verdacht des Greenwashing vor.
Nachhaltigkeit auf individueller Ebene bedeutet, dass die Unternehmensziele in das Handlungsfeld
jedes/r Mitarbeiters/in integriert werden. Dies reduziert langfristig negative Auswirkungen wie die
Diskrepanz zwischen wahrgenommenen Nachhaltigkeitsaktivitäten in der Öffentlichkeit und
tatsächlichen Handlungen (vgl. Glavas & Godwin, 2013), eine geschwächte organisationale Identität
und sowie daran anschließende Folgeproblematiken für das Unternehmen (vgl. Bansal, 2005).
Im Hinblick auf den Triple-Bottom-Line-Ansatz ist dabei die ganzheitliche Bewältigungsform des
vierten Typs die einzige, die der Balance aus sozialer, ökonomischer und ökologischer Nachhaltigkeit
nahe kommt (vgl. Van Marrewijk & Werre, 2003). Hier wird nachhaltiges Handeln nicht als Ursache
von Zielkonflikten angesehen, sondern dient als übergeordnetes Leitbild zur Bewältigung von
Konflikten. Dagegen fokussieren die beiden ersten Typen auf grundsätzliche Fragen und schwer
lösbare Zielkonflikte, die eine erfolgreiche Realisierung von Nachhaltigkeit eher verhindern. Zudem
wird ersichtlich, dass sowohl die Art und Weise der Verortung von Nachhaltigkeit in den
Unternehmenszielen, als auch deren konsequente Operationalisierung in der Unternehmensstrategie,
in der Organisationsstruktur und in den einzelnen Hierarchieebenen als zentrale Erfolgsfaktoren für die
Bewältigung aktueller und zukünftiger Herausforderungen angesehen werden können. Durch die
Berücksichtigung von reflexiven Formen der (Ziel-)Konfliktbewältigung (vgl. Petersen et al., 2005)
wird zudem den bisher existierenden theoretischen Modellen zu Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien in
Organisationen eine wichtige Erklärungskomponente hinzugefügt.
80
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Die vorliegende Arbeit steht mit ihrem vorstrukturierenden Charakter erst am Anfang des
Forschungsprozesses, die hier vorgestellten Bewältigungsformen sollen kritisch geprüft und
ausdifferenziert werden. Da es sich um die Darstellung von IST-Zuständen handelt, kann der
Fortschritt in der Entwicklung einzelner Themenfelder nicht abgebildet werden. Zudem wurden bisher
nur Großunternehmen befragt – kleine und mittlere Unternehmen wurden nicht berücksichtigt. In
zukünftigen Forschungsprojekten soll sowohl die Datenbasis verbreitert, die Integration von
Nachhaltigkeitsansätzen mit Erkenntnissen der psychologischen Ziel- und Konfliktforschung
vorangetrieben sowie Maßnahmen zur Unterstützung von Unternehmen entwickelt und evaluiert
werden.
SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN
Aus den vorgestellten Ergebnissen ergeben sich auch praktische Konsequenzen für das systemische
Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement: Zunächst kann sich ein Unternehmen anhand der Bewältigungstypologie
grob selbst einschätzen. Darüber hinaus kann die Übersicht dazu dienen, zukünftige
Entwicklungsfelder anhand der Typen und Themenfelder zu identifizieren. Für die Unterstützung von
Organisationen lassen sich weitere Ansätze ableiten, die der kompetenten Bewältigung von
Zielkonflikten dienen. Diese beziehen sich erstens auf die handlungsleitende Zielbildung (auch über
verschiedene zeitliche Reichweiten von kurzfristigen „Alltagszielen“ bis hin zu langfristigen Zielen), die
Entwicklung passender Strategien zur Zielrealisierung unter Berücksichtigung gegebener Ressourcen
und Widerstände sowie die Balancierung von Strategien zur flexiblen Zielanpassung und hartnäckigen
Zielverfolgung angesichts sich wandelnder Rahmenbedingungen und Herausforderungen für
Organisationen (Hoff, 2006). Zweitens müssen für den angestoßenen Veränderungsprozess weitere
Erfolgsfaktoren berücksichtigt werden wie z.B. die zielgerichtete Führung und umfassende
Partizipation der Beschäftigten, eine offene und transparente Kommunikation des Prozesses, eine
strukturierte Projektorganisation sowie die Konsultation von Experten (vgl. Lauer, 2010), damit
Nachhaltigkeit in der Organisationskultur erfolgreich verankert werden kann (vgl. Lozano, 2012).
Literatur
Bansal, P. (2005): A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management
Journal, 26(3), pp. 197-218.
Glavas, A.; Godwin L. N. (2013): Is the perception of ‘goodness’ good enough? Exploring the
relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational
identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), pp. 15-27.
Hoff, E.-H. (2006): Lebensgestaltung, Zielkonflikte und Bewältigungskompetenzen. Theoretische
Überlegungen zur Entwicklung junger Erwachsener im Wandel der Arbeitsgesellschaft. In E. Ewers, E.H. Hoff, J. Geffers, O. Petersen & U. Schraps (Eds.), Arbeit als Lebensinhalt? Neue Formen der
Lebensgestaltung bei Beschäftigten im IT-Bereich (pp. 252-274), Waxmann.
Lauer, T. (2010): Change Management. Grundlagen und Erfolgsfaktoren, Springer.
Loew, T.; Ankele, K.; Braun, S.; Clausen, J. (2004): Bedeutung der internationalen CSR-Diskussion
für Nachhaltigkeit und die sich daraus ergebenden Anforderungen an Unternehmen mit Fokus
Berichterstattung. Endbericht an das Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und
Reaktorsicherheit
(Geschäftszeichen
GI2
46043/136).
Retrieved
from:
http://www.upj.de/fileadmin/user_upload/MAINdateien/Themen/Einfuehrung/ioew_csr_diskussion_2004.pdf
Lozano, R. (2012): Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability?
An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. Advance online publication.
Kelle, U.; Kluge, S. (2010): Vom Einzelfall zum Typus, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Petersen, O.; Hoff, E.-H.; Ewers, E. (2005): Expansion kleiner IT-Startups: Organisationale Krisen und
individuelle Konflikte. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 4, pp. 29-40.
Van Marrewijk, M.; Werre, M. (2003): Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business
Ethics, 44, pp. 107-119.
81
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
“Everyone a Changemaker”: Social Entrepreneurship as new Hegemony?
Hanna Schneider
WU Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, [email protected]
Florentine Maier
WU Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, [email protected]
Pascal Dey
University of St. Gallen, [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
As multiple social, economic and ecological crises continue to linger, the belief that governments,
purely profit-oriented corporations, or traditional nonprofit organizations could provide effective
solutions is evaporating. We are thus witnessing struggles for the formation of a new hegemony to
replace the neoliberal belief in the power of markets and the profit-seeking motive. By hegemony, we
mean a system of ideas and rules that regulate the general direction of social life, including politics
and economics, building a compromise, albeit an asymmetric one, among the interests of various
social groups. Hegemony means dominance by means of consent, i.e., subaltern groups voluntarily
consent to the arrangements sketched out by various elites (Gramsci, 1971:12). When a hegemony
has lost its persuasiveness, but no attractive alternative is available, social instability ensues
(ibid.:276). Recent riots and protests rippling through Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece, U.K., France,
Sweden,…) may well be read as symptoms of such a crisis of hegemony.
The contours of a new hegemony are arguably emerging. A new vision of socially responsible ecocapitalism (Žižek, 2009:34) is currently being forged, where market and social responsibility shall be
reunited for mutual benefit. The central idea is that “business-like” methods and approaches should be
put to work for worthier ends than just for profit maximization, for example to stop the degradation of
our natural environment and to overcome poverty. The paradigmatic case of this vision is social
entrepreneurship (SE). The popularity of this concept has been ever-growing in practice and academia
although – or rather because? – concrete meanings of SE have remained evasive, with understandings
diverging to the point of incommensurability.
Against this backdrop, our paper pursues two aims: Firstly, to dissect the converging and diverging
meanings that underly the concept of SE and thereby shed light on distinctive characteristics of the
possible new hegemony of socially responsible eco-capitalism. Secondly, to illuminate the concrete
discursive mechanisms by which a particular understanding of SE manages to establish itself as
universally positive, necessary, and thus potentially hegemonic.
We base our analysis in neo-Gramscian thinking, particularly the political theory of Laclau and Mouffe
(Laclau, 2005; Laclau and Mouffe, 2001), to suggest that which articulation of SE will eventually
become hegemonic ultimately depends on the ability to mobilize adherents. Our empirical data
consists of websites of eleven support organizations for SE in Austria, which we subject to qualitative
text analysis.
ARTICULATIONS OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
We find that articulations of SE among support institutions in Austria can roughly be distinguished into
four groups, three of which can be characterized as intensive and one of which can be characterized
as extensive. Intensive articulations have a relatively specific content, and their appeal is rather
particularistic. The extensive articulation is characterized by unspecific ontents that are almost
universally accepted. It is thus the extensive articulation of SE that stands the greates chance of
becoming part of a new hegemony.
The Extensive articulation of SE coalesces around the highly positively connoted notion of solving
social problems in an innovative, entrepreneurial way with the aim of achieving positive social change.
The earning of commercial income is viewed as a positive option of SE, but not as an obligatory
attribute. Methods from modern business management are seen as useful. Social entrepreneurs are
portrayed as outstanding people, and the world of social entrepreneurship as one of collaboration and
adventure, fun and excitement. Much reference is made to the necessity to not just cure the
symptoms of particular problems but to achieve “systemic change”. This change is meant to be
82
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
“revolutionary” but pragmatic at the same time, improving or re-shaping specific systems of care
provision, education, environmental protection, etc., but not the economic or political system at large.
The contents of this articulation are therefore affectively appealing, not very extreme, and elusive in
terms of their ideological content.
The three intensive articulations of SE can be labelled “SE as Social Enterprise”, “SE as Charity” and
“SE as Radical Alternative”. They replicate the core of the extensive articulation, but enrich it with
additions or downplay some elements, thereby creating further distinctive articulations of SE.
The Social Enterprise articulation strongly emphasizes that SE have to be funded by commercial
income, at least in the long run, thus manoeuvring SE into more concrete, less ambiguous territories.
At the same time, this discourse leaves out important parts of the Extensive articulation, presenting
itself as rather humble and down-to-earth. It states that social enterprises should not just aim to
influence governments, but also work on behalf of governments. It neither promises great social
change nor ventures into the terrain of stirring up positive emotions.
The Charity articulation, while drawing heavily on the signifiers of the extensive articulation,
additionally speaks about helping the needy, thus invoking a terminology reminiscent of traditional
Christian charity.
Last but not least, the Radical Change articulation portrays SE as a practical and radical – more
equitable, sustainable, and participatory – alternative to the current capitalist system. Rather than
seeing SE as something that can only be done by a few outstanding people, low thresholds of
participation and the empowering of the many is deemed crucial. Social change is paramount and
advocacy oriented activities are viewed as important. The idea of entrepreneurship is decoupled from
commercial income generation. The Radical Change articulation adds spiritual ideas (e.g. about a deep
interconnectedness of human beings and nature, body and soul) to the notion of SE.
DISCURSIVE MECHANISMS FOR THE HEGEMONIZATION OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
A striking similarity of the various articulations is that they produce a general sense of SE as
something positive, beneficial, ethical, understandable, necessary, and important. As the second step
of our analysis, we show how articulations of SE draw on specific discursive mechanisms with
distinctive signifiers as central elements. It should be noted that the different discursive mechanisms
overlap quite substantially, wherefore the ensuing separation should be seen mostly as serving
analytic purposes.
We identify six discursive mechanisms, which are brought to perfection in the extensive articulation of
SE:
1. Synthesis of Different (Sometimes Contradictory) Discourses: SE creates linkages between
signifiers stemming from the business world and those coming from the non-profit world, with the
effect of creating a sense of win-win. Management (and to a lesser extent commercial income) are
central signifiers. They are carefully and very reflectively framed as potentially positive, but also
involving practical obstacles and risks of mission drift.
2. Vague and Ambiguous Signifiers: The Extensive articulation of SE makes frequent reference to
vage signifiers (such as “problem solving” or “social change”, leaving the exact causes of problems,
and the aspired changes unspecified) or ambiguous signifiers (such as “sustainable” or
“entrepreneurial”, which suggest financial soundness and businesslike demeanour just as much as
environmental and social responsibility or excitement and risk-taking).
3. Silences and Absences: The Extensive articulation of SE is purified from everything that might be
controversial or irritating, for example reference to the exact causes of “social problems”, its stance
towards governments, or the less rosy aspects of life as an entrepreneur.
4. Utopian Trajectory: All articulations of SE sketch out a particular trajectory of salvation. SE is
presented as a panacea for a broad set of problems. “[…T]here is hardly a social problem in this
world that has not yet been solved by at least one Ashoka Fellow who has thereby changed the
world for the better at least regionally.” It is said that problems can be solved “pragmatically”, and
solutions can immediately be put into practice with concrete projects. What remains to be done in
83
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
the future, then, is just to expand these solutions to the necessary scale. SE is universally
portrayed as getting active from the bottom up, and not wasting time on pondering ideological
questions: “Instead of ‚yes we can‘, we practice ‚yes we do‘.”
5. Mobilizing Positive Emotions: Most articulations (with the exception of the Social Enterprise
articulation ) describe SE as involving intense positive emotions: of belonging to an attractive
group (“Everyone a changemaker”), of excitement, and joy.
6. Creating a Sense of Security: SE is described as a relatively safe endeavour. Although it
promises excitement and adventure, the risks and unpleasant aspects typically associated with
entrepreneurship said to be cushioned by a network of support institutions and friendly other social
entrepreneurs.
We thus contend that the Extensive articulation of SE is so appealing to a broad variety of social
groups – progressive or conservative, feeling close to for-profit businesses, governments, civil society,
or none of the above – not so much because it constructs consent around clearly delineated accounts
of meaning, but rather because its meaning remains open to all sides while generating general
sentiments of joy, excitement and hope.
REFERENCES
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Laclau, E. (2005). Populism: What's in a Name? In F. Panizza (Ed.), Populism and the Mirror of
Democracy (pp. 32-49). New York: Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony & socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic politics:
Verso Books.
Žižek, S. (2009). First as tragedy, then as farce. London: Verso.
84
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
SD STRATEGIC AIMS IN PROJECTS
Lynn A. Keeys
Ph.D. Student, SKEMA Business School, [email protected]/[email protected]
INTRODUCTION
This paper, based on Ph.D. research, presents early findings for a study that explores two areas (1)
the integration of sustainable development (SD) principles in corporate projects.--project SD strategy
from a corporate perspective-- as projects are a subsystem of the corporate SD micro system and (2)
the nature of projects as strategy formulators within the SD context through alignment with
organizational objectives and emergence with stakeholders as important for understanding how
sustainable development is drilled down to business operations. The perspective of this research is
that as a temporary organization, involved in social and value creation processes, a project is a
subsystem within the SD micro context of the corporation and contributes to and is an object of
corporate SD.
RESEARCH SUMMARY
The study is intended to refine a working model that contributes to theory, is viable in practice and
adds new insight for how business can integrate SD principles into core business operations such as
projects. The research, using a social constructivist paradigm, utilizes interviews and document
review in an effort to refine and demonstrate the viability of a working research model. The model is
based on six propositions rooted in project management, strategic management and corporate
sustainability literature. The model variables, operating in a cyclical relationship are: (1) corporate
sustainability strategy as initial parameters; (2) project strategizing; (3) knowledge of corporate
sustainability and business case at project level; (4) project autonomy; (5) stakeholder management
capability; and (6) capability to translate and define corporate sustainability objectives at the project
level. The study uses the theoretical lenses of sensemaking (Weick, 1979) and (2) emergent strategy
(Mintzberg & Waters, 1985) to provide insight.
The burning challenge of business in the 21st century is to mainstream SD principles into the daily
practice of business (UN Global Compact-Accenture 2010). As core business activities, projects have
not escaped this challenge. Projects need to integrate holistic SD principles, while contributing to
sustainability at the corporate and global level in the short, medium and long term. A literature
review has revealed that SD principles are not largely considered in projects or project management
processes (Labuschagne et al. 2005; Gareis et al, 2010), although companies say they consider
sustainability and have corporate sustainability strategies. As sustainable development is a systems
problem, the corporation operates at the micro system level where it must translate macro concerns
to micro level concerns within the operating context-- local, national and regional. Because projects
engage with stakeholders within the project environment, they are able to identify more closely with
stakeholder concerns. Thus projects are able to help form and refine corporate SD aims. Therefore,
projects need to have a strategic focus to successfully integrate SD objectives (Englund & Graham,
1999). As stakeholder participation is a principle value of sustainable development (Brundtland), this
implies strategy may not be best formulated only from the top and cascaded down to projects. In
dynamic multi stakeholder environments, the emergence of strategy in concert with stakeholders may
be a more appropriate approach to SD strategy formulation (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985) in concert
with initial project alignment. The relationship between SD at the corporate level and SD at the
project level involves making sense of corporate and business strategic aims by the project regarding
the fluctuating reality of sustainable development in relation with stakeholders. A project must be able
to “…to scan and sense changes in task and contextual environments, [of being able] to bridge and
manage critical boundaries and areas of interdependence, and [of being able] to develop appropriate
operational and strategic responses (Morgan, p. 39).”
REPORT OF EARLY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents early findings from Ph.D. research interviews. The findings cover six interviews,
out of a minimum of 10 planned interviews, with corporate sustainability executives, project
executives, project leaders, project managers, and business consultants across various sectors,
including engineering, construction, mining, information technology, food distribution and business
85
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
consulting. Early findings point to possible issues that create a disconnection between corporate SD
aims and the integration of these aims in corporate projects from an alignment perspective. These
issues are, inter alia, strength and maturity of corporate SD identity, ability to negotiate and maintain
corporate SD identity in the project context, importance of the project context for project identity and
plausibility of SD approaches, nature of the contractual relationship governing the project and key
stakeholder, and the difference in performance metrics.
The client versus contractor perspective
appears to have a distinguishing impact on the model. The findings appear to indicate the importance
of the play between alignment and emergence in SD strategy formulation in projects with a view to
understanding how these issues influence plausibility of the constructed strategy. These issues will be
further explored as more data is collected and analyzed and will serve to refine and adapt the model
for viability for practice and further research
RESEARCH DESIGN
The study employs a working model that the researcher developed inductively from the literature
review and insights from the researcher’s experience in organizational and program strategy and
projects (see Figure 2 below). The model incorporates six variables or constructs as a guide to
explain the formulation of holistic project SD strategy in relationship with corporate SD strategy. The
variables have been explained above.
The research model is comprised of propositions for each variable and is presented as an “evolving
guide” to explore the research questions. Therefore the research model will guide the investigation as
an initial construct and will be refined by the research findings.
The model of inquiry presents one
general proposition which is supported by six sub propositions. The propositions are not a set of
normative statements but hunches about the possible reality of integrating holistic SD principles in
projects.
General Proposition 1: Corporate sustainability strategy determines parameters for addressing
sustainability issues in a project at the project definition and initiation stage (project front end).
However, a project, as a temporary organization, engaged in value creation and social processes,
competes for survival and competitive advantage in its context.
In the case of sustainable
development, the project context involves a complex set of stakeholders with multiple perspectives
and understandings of value (benefit). Thus project SD strategy begins to emerge at the project front
end and is refined during the project planning and implementation stages depending on SD
understanding of key personnel and whether a project has autonomy to identify and address SD
issues with stakeholders in the project environment.
Proposition 1a: The type of corporate sustainability strategy indicates whether or not SD principles
will be integrated in a project, establishing parameters for considering SD principles in projects
(establishing project strategy) holistically—addressing all three economic, environmental and social
principles or as single sustainability issues.
Proposition 1b: The nature of strategizing process at the front end (initiation stage) of the project
will influence whether and how sustainable development principles are integrated in projects (project
SD strategy).
Proposition 1c: The autonomy of projects in the organizational environment is necessary for
projects to adapt corporate sustainability strategy and to emerge and refine project SD strategy from
its stakeholder environment.
Proposition 1d: Key project personnel—project manager and project sponsor—understanding of
corporate sustainability strategy influences whether and how sustainable development is understood
at the project level and considered in projects.
Proposition 1e: The project manager approach to project stakeholder management influences
whether, what and how SD issues are identified and formulated into project sustainability strategy.
Proposition 1f: The ability of key project personnel to translate corporate SD aims to project SD
strategy influences whether and how SD principles are integrated in projects.
86
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
The study is empirically based qualitative exploratory research. The unit of analysis is the corporate
business project. The philosophical orientation is subjective, constructivism (a form of interpretivism).
The data collection method is primarily semi-structured interview, supplemented by document review.
The study uses purposive sampling. The sample includes individuals who are experts in sustainable
development/corporate sustainability and strategy and project management (senior strategy
executives, project executives, project managers, business/portfolio managers, project sponsors,
project team members) and other project stakeholders. Constructivist research leads to transactional
knowledge, created by the interaction of the researcher’s construct of the reality (propositional model)
of the research subject (“etic”) and the research subject’s construct of reality (“emic”). This
transactional knowledge is context based and involves a dialectic and consensus process to achieve
new interpretations, understanding and reconstruction between the researcher’s etic and research
subject’s emic. This process results in more informed and sophisticated constructions (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994). The intent of the research is to (1) further develop, refine and adapt the model so that
it is viable for practice and (2) to advance one or more new propositions.
REFERENCES AND CITATIONS
Bagheri, A. & Hjorth, P. (2007). Planning for sustainable development: a paradigm shift towards a
process-based approach. Sustainable Development, 15, 83-96.
Clifton, D. & Amran, A. (2011). The stakeholder approach: a sustainability perspective. Journal of
Business Ethics, 98, 121-136.
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A. & Rouleau, L. (2007). Strategizing in pluralistic contexts:
theoretical frames. Human Relations, 60 (1), 179-215.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Rethinking
Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability.
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130-141.
Ebner, D. & Baumgartner, R. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and
maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18, 76-89.
Ebner, D. & Baumgartner, R. J. (2006). The relationship between sustainable development and
corporate social responsibility. Paper presented at the Corporate Responsibility Research Conference
2006, Dublin, Ireland, 4-6 September, http://www.crrconference.org.
Edum-Fotwoe, E. & Price, A. (2008). A social ontology for appraising sustainability of construction
projects and developments. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 313-322.
Englund, R. & Graham, R. (1999). From experience: Linking projects to strategy. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 16, 52-64.
Epstein, M.J. (2008).
Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring
corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.
Eskerod, P. & Huemann, M. (2011). Project management stakeholder practices—In the light of
modern stakeholder theory and sustainability principles. Paper presented at Nordic Academy of
Management Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, August 22-24, 2011, Nordic Academy of Management.
Gareis, R., Huemann, M. & Martinuzzi, A., with the assistance of Weninger, C., & Sedlacko, M. (2013).
Rethinking Project Management. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute (forthcoming).
Labuschagne, C. & Brent, A. (2004). Sustainable project life cycle management: aligning project
management methodologies with the principles of sustainable development. Paper presented at PMSA
International Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa 10-12 May, 2004.
87
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. & Claasen, S. J. (2005). Environmental and social impact considerations
for sustainable project life cycle management in the process industry. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, 12, 38-54.
Linneluecke, M., Russell, S. & Griffiths, A. (2009). Subcultures and sustainability practices: the
impact on understanding corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 432452.
Lorbach, D., van Bakel, J., Whiteman, G. & Rotmans, J. (2010). Business strategies for transitions
towards sustainable systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 133, 133-146.
Mintzberg, H. & Walters, J. (1985).
Journal, 6, 257-272.
Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management
Mir, R. & Watson, A., (2000). Strategic management and the philosophy of science: The case for a
constructivist methodology. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 941-953.
Morris, P. & Jamieson, A. (2005).
Management Journal, 36(4), 5-18.
Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy.
Morris, P. (2008). Implementing strategy through project management:
Unpublished manuscript.
Project
managing the front-end.
Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage
and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, reprint, 78-92.
Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, reprint, 1-17
Pratt, M. (2009). From the editors. For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing)
qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856-862.
Presley, A., Meade, L. & Sarkis, J. (2007). A strategic sustainability justification methodology for
organizational decisions: a reverse logistics illustration. International Journal of Production Research,
4(18-19) 4595-4620.
Robert, K.-H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., de Larderel, A., Basile, G., Jansen, J. L., Kuehr, R., Thomas, P. P.,
Suzuki, M., Hawken, P. & Wackernagel, M. (2002). Strategic sustainable development—Selection,
design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 197-214.
Shenhar, A., Dvir, D. Guth, W., Lechler, T., Milosevic, D., Patanakul, P., Poli, M. & Stefanovic, J.
(2007). Project strategy: The missing link. In A. J. Shenhar, D. Milosev, D. Dvir & H. Thamhain
(Eds.), Linking Project Management to Business Strategy. Newtown Square, PA.: Project Management
Institute.
Silvius, G., Schipper, R., Planko, J., van den Brink, J. & Kohler, A. (2012). Sustainability in project
management. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Turner, J.R. & Muller, R. (2003). On the nature of project as temporary organization. International
Journal of Project Management, 21, 1-8
UN Global Compact-Accenture (2010). A New Era of Sustainability.
CEO Study. New York: Accenture and UN Global Compact.
UN Global Compact-Accenture
Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between
agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 95-105.
88
Vortragsskizzen
Williams, T. & Samset, K. (2010).
Management Journal, 41(2), 38-49.
Abstracts
Issues in front-end decision-making on projects.
Project
Wiltbank, R., Dew, N., Read, S. & Sarasvathy, S. (2006). What to do next? The case for nonprescriptive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 981-998.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P. & Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project
management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal
of Project Management, 24, 638-649.
89
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Public CSR Policies and responsible competitiveness
Maria Jell-Ojobor, Andre Martinuzzi, WU, Institute for Managing Sustainability,
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study explains Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a strategy which contributes in providing
sustainable competitive advantage to the firm. We view CSR as a strategy of superior stakeholder
management that creates value inside the firm as well as a strategy of cost and risk reduction for
firms in responding to adverse market conditions and stakeholders so as to guarantee firm survival.
Thereby, we introduce public policies as an enforcing complement into the firm-market-stakeholder
construct that creates a “market for CSR” (De Schutter, 2008) and promotes a strategic
understanding of CSR. The interplay between public CSR policies, stakeholders, and the firm results in
situations of “responsible competitiveness”, which is defined as enhanced productivity (and as such
financial performance and competitiveness) by explicitly taking account of the business’ social,
economic and environmental impacts (Zadek, 2006). In this light, we combine concepts of strategic
management (i.e. resource-based and organizational capabilities theory) and organizational
economics (i.e. transaction cost theory, resource dependency theory and institutional theory) with a
political science perspective in a multi-theoretical framework on “responsible firm competitiveness”.
INTRODUCTION
CSR consists of three processes, i.e. environmental assessment (e.g. detecting shifts in stakeholder
interests, regulatory environment, new technologies), stakeholder management (e.g. garner
legitimacy benefits and reputation by balancing conflicting stakeholder interests and creating trust and
interorganizational relationships) and issues management (e.g. developing legitimate responses, such
as progressive human resource management programs, supporting local businesses and social
services, proactive environmental practices and embodying products and services with social
attributes) (Wood, 1991; Bansal, 2005; Sirsly and Lamertz, 2008; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). The
corporate gains from CSR investments are, among others, innovations, greater output and
productivity, lower labour turnover, increased customer base and sales, the possibility to charge
premium prices, and granting of government contracts (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; De la Cruz
Déniz-Déniz and De Saá-Pérez, 2003).
However, investment in CSR will not simultaneously guarantee profit maximization and long-term
competitive advantage for the firm (Jensen, 2001). The business case for CSR, i.e. deriving economic
and financial benefits from CSR activities, does not hold because of the existence of specific market
conditions (De Schutter, 2008) and the negligence of a strategic approach (Ullmann, 1985;
Chakravarthy, 1986). In this respect, studies attest that the link between CSR and corporate financial
performance (CFP) is not direct but dependent and mediated by the existence of complementary,
intangible assets, such as trust, reputation and knowhow. Only firms that explore complementary
assets from CSR investment can generate cost savings and competitive advantage with CSR
(Christmann, 2000; Husted and de Jesus Salazar 2006). Grounded in resource-based and
organizational capabilities theory, CSR investment must be considered as an embedded, valuecreating strategy through which firms ensure long-term adaptation of the business to constantly
changing environments, by attending to fluctuating and conflicting stakeholder demands and
exploiting complementary, intangible resources inside the firm (Chakravarthy, 1986; Bansal, 2005).
In this respect, the stakeholder model becomes a centrepiece to explain the firm’s achievement of
competitive advantage through its superior capability to respond to stakeholders with valued CSR
investment (Peloza and Shang, 2011).
Despite the potential of strategic stakeholder management for superior firm competiveness, CSR
literature has shown that strategic CSR and stakeholder management faces limitations. Relating to
transaction cost theory, market conditions, such as uncertainty and information asymmetry, make it
difficult for firms to evaluate the success of CSR investment and increase the firm’s transaction costs.
Furthermore, based on resource dependency theory and institutional theory, firm response to
stakeholder demands is guided by deliberately managing scarce resources and manipulating
institutional pressures from stakeholders. Therefore, from a cost- and risk-related perspective,
companies will only invest into CSR and attend to stakeholders to the point that it pays off and not
any further (Doane, 2005; De Schutter, 2008).
The development of a responsive public policy mechanism (e.g. law, regulation, litigation, public
agendas) can provide a solution to the adverse market conditions which jeopardize the firm’s
voluntary adoption of responsible competiveness strategies (Karnani 2011). Public policies signify “an
absence of force (regulation), but not an absence of power” (Vallentin and Murillo, 2012: p.827).
90
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Public policy makers have an instrumental motive to promote national competitiveness by elevating
CSR to the strategic resource level and connecting it to the competitive advantage and performance
of the firm (Marcus and Geffen, 1998; Aguilera et al., 2007; Carroll and Shabana, 2010).
Summarising, there is a need for public policy makers to support businesses in developing strategic
CSR opportunities. Therefore, our study applies an integrative model based on resource-based and
organizational capabilities theory, resource dependency theory, institutional theory and transaction
cost theory which explains the interplay between public CSR policies, stakeholders and the firm,
ultimately stimulating “responsible competitiveness”.
What is the contribution of our study? This study provides a theoretical contribution to the CSR
literature as it develops a new model of responsible firm competitiveness by integrating organizational
economics and strategic management perspectives and applying a political perspective. The strategic
management perspective (in particular the resource-based and organizational capability view)
explains the firm’s CSR investment to gain competitive advantage by exploring firm-specific resources
and organisational capabilities, and the organizational economics theories (transaction cost theory,
resource dependency theory and institutional theory) focus on the firm’s CSR investment to reduce
transaction costs or increase firm survival, due to uncertainty/information asymmetry or institutional
pressures. Accordingly, CSR investment is not only a cost- and risk-minimizing mechanism as argued
in transaction cost theory, resource dependency theory and institutional theory, but simultaneously a
value-creating mechanism in order to gain competitive advantage as argued in resource-based and
organizational capabilities theory. The political science literature moderates these theoretical
constructs by reducing market inefficiencies and increasing the value-creating potential of CSR
(Schepers, 2006; Aguilera et al., 2007; Vallentin and Murillo, 2012). Therefore, this study provides
new theoretical insights by demonstrating how the combination of organizational economics and
strategic management perspectives with political science literature extends our understanding of the
determinants of responsible competitiveness of the firm.
Overall, this study contributes to the much-discussed criticism in CSR literature for the integration of
complementary theoretical perspectives and fragmented ideas, models and concepts on CSR (e.g.
Ullmann, 1985; Wood, 1991; Jones, 1995; Mitchell et al., 1997; Rowley, 1997; Freeman, 2004;
Vilanova et al., 2009; Orlitzky et al., 2011; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). Particularly, developing a
multi-theoretical framework that integrates public policies into the firm-stakeholder relationship can
potentially inform theory and guide the structure on responsible competitiveness (Donaldson and
Preston, 1995; Wood and Jones, 1995; Bansal, 2005; Aguilera et al., 2007). Finally, our study aims to
support public policy makers with effective strategic management approaches on fostering responsible
firm behaviour (Clemens, 2006).
RESEARCH MODEL
As explained in the previous section, “responsible competitiveness” of the firm is achieved through
CSR investments that directly improve stakeholder relations and social welfare. Figure 1 gives an
overview of the research model. In our research model, we integrate resource-based theory (RBT)
and organizational capabilities theory (OCT), resource dependency theory (RDT), institutional theory
(IT) and transaction cost theory (TCT). The following variables influence responsible competitiveness
of the firm: Intangible assets (based on RBT and OCT), resource allocation (based on RDT),
institutional legitimacy (based on IT) and environmental uncertainty (based on TCT). In addition,
public CSR policies moderate the impact of these variables on the responsible competitiveness of the
firm. Furthermore, environmental uncertainty moderates the impact of resource allocation and
institutional legitimacy on the responsible competitiveness of the firm. In the following, we will first
explain the main hypotheses, and second the moderator effects of public policies and environmental
uncertainty.
Resource-based theory and organizational capabilities theory
CSR investment will only increase financial performance and competitive advantage if it directly
improves stakeholder relations through social welfare creation (Barnett, 2007). The reason is
grounded in resource-based and organizational capabilities theory (e.g. Nelson and Winter, 1982;
Wernerfelt, 1984; Rumelt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Conner, 1991; Foss, 1993; Madhok, 1996).
Accordingly, investment in CSR through stakeholder management (i.e. capital suppliers and
shareholders, employees, resource suppliers, customers, community, the natural environment,
government) is a relational, firm-embedded process that, in addition to firm survival and continued
participation, creates valuable complementary assets, such as reputation, trust, customer, employee
and supplier loyalty, corporate culture and knowhow. These intangible assets are generated in a long
term process, thus are causally ambiguous, socially complex, path dependent, valuable, rare,
inimitable and non-substitutable (the so-called “VRIN”-attributes of intangible assets, Barney, 1991).
These assets cannot be acquired on the market and hence, have the potential to differentiate the firm
from its competitors and become the source of competitive advantage, ultimately also increasing
91
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
shareholder value and financial performance (Hillman and Keim, 2001; De la Cruz Déniz-Déniz and De
Saá-Pérez, 2003; McWilliams and Siegel, 2011; Hult 2011).
In the same vein, the natural resource-based view of the firm argues that sustained competitive firm
advantage is rooted in VRIN-resources and capabilities that facilitate environmentally sustainable
activities, i.e. proactive pollution prevention (associated with lower costs due to enhanced operating
facilities towards waste and emission prevention), product stewardship (addressing the entire value
chain, including stakeholder integration) and sustainable development (involving not only reduction of
environmental burden but also creation of economic and social benefits) (e.g. Hart, 1995; Russo and
Fouts, 1997; Sharma and Vredenburg 1998; Marcus and Geffen, 1998; Klassen and Whybark, 1999;
Martin-Tapía et al., 2010; Hart and Dowell, 2011). Hart and Dowell (2011) contend that capabilities,
such as pollution prevention, most likely will not result in a sustainable competitive advantage per se,
as these might also be available to competitors. It is the combination of these capabilities with
complementary ones, among others increased stakeholder management that will provide firms with a
competitive advantage. Consequently, as compared to relational CSR investments which are directly
targeted towards superior stakeholder management, CSR investments which do not directly address
primary stakeholder relationships, such as corporate donations (i.e. “agency losses”), direct influence
tactics and process improvement efforts (i.e. energy conservation, waste reduction, pollution
abatement) are considered transactional investments that can be copied and duplicated by other
firms, and hence cannot be the source of competitive advantage (Barnett, 2007; Hart and Dowell,
2011; Hillman and Keim, 2001).
Summarising, there is a positive relationship between CSR and CFP (e.g. Callan and Thomas, 2009).
However, the link is indirect and mediated by the intangible assets of the firm (Surroca et al., 2010).
If the firm has a consistent stakeholder management approach resulting in intangible assets, it will
ultimately achieve a sustainable competitive advantage (Litz, 1996; Barnett, 2007; Harrison et al.,
2010; Hult, 2011). The impact of intangible assets on the responsible competitiveness of the firm is
summarised as follows (see figure 1):
H1: The more important the intangible assets for value creation, the higher the firm’s tendency
towards responsible competitiveness becomes.
Resource dependency theory
According to resource dependency theory (e.g. Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978), resources are allocated
between stakeholders and the firm. Because firms are not self-contained or self-sufficient, they must
strategically attend to the demands of those stakeholders, they consider controlling the scarce and
critical resources they require. Each firm is defined by various, different stakeholder groups, e.g.
consumers, owners, employees, suppliers and competitors (also called “primary” stakeholders), and
firms in specific industries face specific sets of primary stakeholders (Wood, 1991).
The stakeholders' importance derives from their power to control resources required by the firm, such
as monetary, physical, knowledge, information and social legitimacy (Ullmann, 1985). Firms
strategically, actively and deliberately respond to the pressures from the primary stakeholders in
order to control, manage and manipulate scarce resources and resource flows on which they depend.
Given that any kind of strategic change and adaption results in additional costs, for example due to
CSR-related product differentiations and process changes (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001), the firm
aims to satisfying only the issues of those stakeholders who have power, control and leverage over
critical resources, exercised through exit threats and resource withdrawal, and therefore to jeopardize
firm survival and competitive advantage (Oliver, 1991; Hill and Jones, 1992; Frooman, 1999).
Overall, the allocation of critical resources determines the firm responses towards the specific
stakeholder groups. The impact of stakeholder resource allocation on responsible firm competitiveness
is summarised as follows (see figure 1).
H2: The more important the stakeholders’ resource allocations for firm survival, the higher the
firm’s tendency towards responsible competitiveness becomes.
Institutional theory
Based on institutional theory (e.g. Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), beside the
firm’s strategic decision-making influenced by resource scarcity and resource allocation
considerations, its behaviour also depends on the institutional contexts, i.e. common and accepted
values, rules and norms, formed by formal and informal institutions such as the state, government,
society and cultures (Oliver, 1991; Hill and Jones, 1992; Mitchell et al., 1997; Hoffman, 1999;
Campbell, 2007). Institutions allocate power and define rights and responsibilities, and thus shape the
identities, legitimacy and awareness of stakeholders and their subsequent influence on corporate
responsible behaviour. Deviant actions from institutionalized values will be sanctioned by stakeholders
with loss of reputation, trust, legitimacy, fines, and other punishments and financial disadvantages
92
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
(Rowley and Berman, 2000; Bansal, 2005; Doh and Guay, 2006; Brammer et al., 2012). Overall, the
firm consciously and strategically complies with those institutional pressures that secure its survival,
economic gain and competitive advantage. The impact of institutional legitimacy on responsible firm
competitiveness is summarised as follows (see figure 1):
H3: The more important the institutional legitimacy of stakeholders for firm survival, the higher the
firm’s tendency towards responsible competitiveness becomes.
Transaction cost theory
Firms that invest into CSR activities will have higher costs per output than firms that do not invest
into CSR and produce similar products (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). On the other hand, higher
financial performance is gained through the avoidance of higher costs, such as compliance costs due
to irresponsible firm behaviour (Ruf et al., 2010). There again, firms view legal penalties as “normal
costs of doing business” (Wood, 1991: p.141). Based on TCT (Williamson, 1975, 1985; Jensen and
Meckling, 1976; Klein et al., 1978; Rubin, 1978), specific market conditions, i.e. environmental
uncertainty and information asymmetry, intensify the financial burden of CSR investment, especially
search, monitoring, information processing, adaptation and bonding costs (e.g. Williamson, 1991),
and constrain the firm’s achievement of competitive advantage with responsible behaviour (De
Schutter, 2008; Valor, 2008).
Environmental uncertainty can be distinguished according to institutional (regulatory) uncertainty and
economic uncertainty. Institutional uncertainty refers to the changes in political, regulatory and
judicial rules and policies. Economic uncertainty refers to the unpredictability of the demand and
competition. Environmental uncertainty requires responsiveness and adaptation of business processes
to the dynamic market changes and results in increased transaction costs which might prevent
responsible investments by the firm. For example, regulatory uncertainty increases market access
costs (entry barriers) and as a consequence, will be accompanied by competitive uncertainty
(Birnbaum, 1984; Carter, 1990; Pashigian, 1984; Dean and Brown, 1995), deterring the firm’s
provision of public goods (Bagnoli and Watts, 2003). Furthermore, demand uncertainty increases the
firm’s bonding costs, i.e. advertising costs towards consumer awareness on products and services
with a CSR attribute, which is vital for the firm to charge premium prices (McWilliams and Siegel,
2001; 2011; Bagnoli and Watts, 2003). Finally, under environmental uncertainty, regulatory agencies
and other stakeholder groups (e.g. activists) face higher transaction costs to monitor firm compliance
with regulations. Since individuals and firms will act opportunistically, i.e. self-interested and with
guile, in the pursuit of profit maximization (Campbell, 2007), this will result in more “irresponsible”
firm strategies, to avoid costly adaptation and burdensome stakeholder relationships (e.g. Russo,
1992). The impact of environmental uncertainty on responsible firm competitiveness is summarised as
follows (see Figure 1):
H4: The higher the transaction costs due to environmental uncertainty, the lower the firm’s
tendency towards responsible competitiveness becomes.
Environmental uncertainty moderator effect
Environmental uncertainty moderates the impact of the stakeholders’ resource allocations and
institutional legitimacy on the responsible competitiveness of the firm. Environmental uncertainty
results from changes of economic and institutional factors, such as market conditions, technological
innovations and political systems and regulations, leading to unpredictability and information
asymmetry (Bergen et al., 1992). These adverse market conditions result in increased monitoring
costs and reduced power for stakeholders. For example, firms can strategically invest in the creation
of market disequilibrium through product and market diversification which results in information
asymmetry. Overall, under high environmental uncertainty and information asymmetry, stakeholders
will find it difficult to determine if a firm meets their expectations towards CSR or not (Rowley and
Berman, 2000; McWilliams et al., 2006; McWilliams and Siegel, 2011).
H2-4: Environmental uncertainty negatively moderates the impact of resource allocation on the
firm’s tendency towards responsible competitiveness.
H3-4: Environmental uncertainty negatively moderates the impact of institutional legitimacy on the
firm’s tendency towards responsible competitiveness.
Public policy moderator effect
Public policy activities can be classified in 10 key themes, i.e. setting and ensuring compliance with
minimum standards, public policy role of business, corporate governance, responsible investment,
philanthropy and community development, stakeholder engagement and representation, pro-CSR
production and consumption, pro-CSR certification, “beyond compliance” standards and management
93
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
systems, pro-CSR reporting and transparency, and multilateral processes, guidelines, and conventions
(Fox et al., 2002).
The development of industry-specific public policies can help to elevate CSR to a strategic resource
level, reducing corporate responsible investment distortions resulting from adverse market conditions
(i.e. uncertainty, information asymmetry and opportunism) and ultimately increase responsible firm
competitiveness. Specifically, public policies can overcome the negative impacts of issues
mismatching, power distortions and transaction costs on responsible firm competitiveness. Therefore,
public policies set industry- and sector-specific norms, rules and incentives and create an
institutionalised “market for CSR” (De Schutter, 2008). This will help to organize effective and
coordinated stakeholder claims toward firms and drive responsible firm behaviour that corresponds
with stakeholder demands.
Since a firm’s stakeholder constellation is complex and industry-specific (Rowley and Berman, 2000),
also firm responses towards stakeholder claims are not “universal”. For firms to capture the benefits
from CSR investments, i.e. intangible assets such as reputation and trust that generate the
sustainable competitive advantage, they must be able to match the CSR strategies with the
expectations of their particular stakeholder set (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Wood and Jones, 1995;
Brammer and Pavelin, 2006; Peloza and Shang, 2011). Investing into CSR to achieve legitimacy
among stakeholders and firm survival is not a sufficient guarantor for improving financial
performance. In the worst case, issues management with no relation to a firm’s business and industry
may be interpreted by stakeholders as misdirected investment efforts and corrupting the firm’s
reputation (e.g. Branco and Rodrigues 2006; Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006; Brammer and Pavelin,
2006; Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Du et al., 2010). Therefore, designing industry-specific public
policies supports the firm’s acquisition of specific competencies and promotes national
competitiveness with CSR policies, such as fuelling innovation, enhancing customer reputation,
creating high-performance workplaces, and maintaining intangible assets, such as community trust
and employee goodwill (Aguilera et al., 2007; Marcus and Geffen, 1998; Williamson et al., 2006).
H1-5: Public policies positively moderate the impact of intangible assets on the firm’s tendency
towards responsible competitiveness.
For stakeholders to become a powerful and credible threat and pressure to firms it is necessary that
stakeholders are cognizant of the firm’s behaviour, be willing to take action to influence the firm and
have the capabilities to do so (Rowley and Berman, 2000). Each firm faces a different set of
stakeholders, which aggregate into unique patterns of influences. The firm does not respond to
individual, sparsely connected, competing stakeholders but instead to the simultaneous demands of
multiple stakeholders. Individual, fragmented and conflicting stakeholder actions and claims which
result from adverse market conditions are inefficient (e.g. stakeholder free-riding on collective actiontaking) as they limit the credibility of stakeholders’ exit and resources withholding threats (Mitchell et
al., 1997; Rowley, 1997; Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003; Neville and Menguc, 2006; Valor, 2008).
Third parties, such as government, non-profit organizations, labour unions, consumer unions, special
interest groups, and hence, public policy makers can tackle the problem of achieving collective action
among diffused stakeholders. Public policies may change the power distribution in favour of the
stakeholders by providing a centralized structure that economises on transaction (coordination) costs,
re-establishing the credibility of the stakeholder exit-mechanism and limiting the firm’s discretionary
autonomy (Hill and Jones, 1992; Gargiulo, 1993; Frooman, 1999; McWilliams et al., 2006; Baron,
2001). Public policies shift norms and social expectations and harness latent consumers and investor
pressure. As such, public policies and standards established by law have a particularly strong potential
in strengthening stakeholder pressure for firms to meet the established social expectations (Jennings
and Zandbergen, 1995; Aguilera et al., 2007; Valor, 2008).
H2-5: Public policies positively moderate the impact of resource allocations on the firm’s tendency
towards responsible competitiveness.
H3-5: Public policies positively moderate the impact of institutional legitimacy on the firm’s
tendency towards responsible competitiveness.
The competing and incompatible demands of multiple stakeholders result in demand uncertainty and
the firm’s efficiency losses to respond to multiple pressures. Furthermore, stakeholder beliefs about
CSR are often inconsistent with their behaviours (Mohr et al., 2001). If there are no “good”
consumers who value the firm’s CSR investments by paying higher prices, there can be no “good”
companies benefitting from strategic CSR (Valor, 2005). The relationship between stakeholder beliefs
and behaviours will be stronger, the more knowledgeable stakeholders are about CSR issues and the
more important they judge these issues to be (Mohr et al., 2001). Furthermore, regulatory
uncertainty due to the inconsistency of regulations with organizational goals may affect firm survival.
For example, compliance with proposed legal changes to production standards may drive specific
firms out of business. This may motivate adverse corporate behaviour or manipulation strategies
94
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
(Oliver, 1991). Public policies that consider the specific market situations and design industrycoherent public policy actions, such as reducing environmental uncertainty, i.e. regulatory,
competitive and demand uncertainty, and information asymmetry, can help to decrease stakeholder
scepticism and market entry barriers. This will result in the firm’s higher propensity towards
responsible competitiveness due to decreased transaction costs.
H4-5: Public policies negatively moderate the impact of environmental uncertainty on the firm’s
tendency towards responsible competitiveness.
CONCLUSIONS
This study explains the determinants that impact on the firm’s sustainable competitive advantage
through corporate responsible investments from a value-creating and cost-reducing perspective.
Thereby, we derive propositions from resource-based and organizational capabilities theory, resource
dependency theory, institutional theory and transaction cost theory. The following variables impact on
responsible firm competitiveness: Intangible assets, resource allocation, institutional legitimacy and
environmental uncertainty. Up until now, research that supports governments on designing
appropriate innovative regulatory approaches to drive responsible corporate behaviour and
competitiveness is scarce (Fox et al., 2002; Kagan et al., 2003; Clemens, 2006; Albareda et al., 2007;
Midttun, 2008; Matten and Moon, 2008; Steurer, 2010; Steurer et al., 2012). Therefore,
understanding how these variables impact on responsible firm competitiveness is important among
others, for the development of effective public policies. For example, it can assist public policy makers
in the evaluation of the relative efficacy of different initiatives, programmes and regulations (Bansal,
2005).
95
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
REFERENCES
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A., Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social
responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of management review,
32(3), 836-863.
Aguinis, H., Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility - a
review and research agenda. Journal of management, 38(4), pp. 932-968.
Bagnoli, M., Watts, S.G. (2003). Selling to socially responsible consumers: competition and the private
provision of public goods. Journal of economics & management strategy, 12(3), 419-445.
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development.
Strategic management journal, 26(3), 197-218.
Barnett, M.L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to
corporate social responsibility. Academy of management review, 32(3), pp. 794-816.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,
17(1), 99-120.
Baron, D.P. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of
economics & management strategy, 10(1), 7-45.
Bergen, M., Dutta, S., Walker, O.C., 1992. Agency relationships in marketing: a review of the
implications and applications of agency and related theories. Journal of marketing, 56(3), 1-24.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Korschun, D., Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships
through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of business ethics, 85(2),
257-272.
Birnbaum, P.H. (1984). The choice of strategic alternatives under increasing regulation in high
technology companies. Academy of management journal, 27(3), pp. 489-510.
Brammer, S.J., Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of
fit. Journal of management studies, 43(3), 435-455.
Brammer, S., Jackson, G., Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory:
New perspectives on private governance. Socio-economic review, 10(1), 3-28.
Branco, M.C., Rodrigues, L.L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives.
Journal of business ethics, 69(2), pp. 111-132.
Callan, S.J., Thomas, J.M. (2009). Corporate financial performance and corporate social performance:
an update and reinvestigation. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 16(2),
pp. 61-78.
Campbell, J.L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional
theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management review, 32(3), 946-967.
Carter, N.M. (1990). Small firm adaptation: responses of physicians' organizations to regulatory and
competitive uncertainty. Academy of management journal, 33(2), pp. 307-333.
Carroll, A.B., Shabana, K.M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of
concepts, research and practice. International journal of management reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Chakravarthy, B.S. (1986). Measuring strategic performance. Strategic management journal, 7(5),
pp. 437-458.
Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage:
the role of complementary assets. Academy of management journal, 43(4), pp. 663-680.
Clarkson, M.E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance. Academy of management review, 20(1), pp. 92-117.
Clemens, B. (2006). Economic incentives and small firms: does it pay to be green?. Journal of
business research, 59(4), pp. 492-500.
Conner, K.R., 1991. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and 5 schools of thought within
industrial-organisation economics - Do we have a new theory of the firm. Journal of management,
17(1), 121-154.
Darnall, N., Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P. (2008). Do environmental management systems improve
business performance in an international setting?. Journal of international management, 14(4), 364376.
Dean, T.J., Brown, R.L. (1995). Pollution regulation as a barrier to new firm entry: initial evidence and
implications for future research. Academy of management journal, 38(1), pp. 288-303.
De la Cruz Déniz-Déniz, M., De Saá-Pérez, P. (2003). A resource-based view of corporate
responsiveness toward employees. Organization studies, 24(2), 299-319.
De Schutter, O. (2008). Corporate social responsibility European style. European law journal, 14(2),
203-236.
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2), pp. 147-160.
96
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Doane, D. (2005). Beyond corporate social responsibility: minnows, mammoths and markets. Futures,
37(2), 215-229.
Doh, J.P., Guay, T.R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in
Europe and the United States: an institutional‐stakeholder perspective. Journal of management
studies, 43(1), pp. 47-73.
Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence,
and implications. Academy of management review, 20(1), 65-91.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social
responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of management reviews,
12(1), 8-19.
Fombrun, C., Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy.
Academy of management journal, 33(2), 233-258.
Foss, N.J. (1993). Theories of the firm: contractual and competence perspectives. Journal of
evolutionary economics, 3(2), pp. 127-144.
Fox, T., Ward, H., Howard, B. (2002). Public sector roles in strengthening corporate social
responsibility: a baseline study. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Freeman, R.E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und
Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228-241.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of management review, 24(2), pp.
191-205.
Gargiulo, M. (1993). Two-step leverage: managing constraint in organizational politics. Administrative
science quarterly, 38(1), pp. 1-19.
Harrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A., Phillips, R.A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility
functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 31(1), pp. 58-74.
Hart, S.L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of management review, 20(4),
pp. 986-1014.
Hart, S.L., Dowell, G. (2011). Invited Editorial: A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm Fifteen
Years After. Journal of management, 37(5), 1464-1479.
Hill, C.W., Jones, T.M. (1992). Stakeholder‐agency theory. Journal of management studies, 29(2), pp.
131-154.
Hillman, A.J., Keim, G.D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues:
what's the bottom line?. Strategic management journal, 22(2), pp. 125-139.
Hoffman, A.J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the US chemical
industry. Academy of management journal, 42(4), pp. 351-371.
Hult, G.T.M. (2011). Market-focused sustainability: market orientation plus!. Journal of the academy
of marketing science, 39(1), 1-6.
Husted, B.W., de Jesus Salazar, J. (2006). Taking Friedman Seriously: Maximizing Profits and Social
Performance*. Journal of management studies, 43(1), 75-91.
Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh perspective into
theory and practice. Journal of business ethics, 82(1), pp. 213-231.
Jennings, P.D., Zandbergen, P.A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: an institutional
approach. Academy of management review, 20(4), 1015-1052.
Jensen, M.C. (2001). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function.
European financial management, 7(3), pp. 297-317.
Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4), pp. 305-360.
Jones, T.M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy
of management review, 20(2), pp. 404-437.
Kagan, R.A., Gunningham, N., Thornton, D. (2003). Explaining corporate environmental performance:
how does regulation matter?. Law & society review, 37(1), 51-90.
Karnani, A. (2011). “Doing well by doing good” The grand illusion. California management review, 53
(2), pp. 69-86.
Klassen, R.D., Whybark, D.C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing
performance. Academy of management journal, 42(6), 599-615.
Klein, B., Crawford, R., Alchian, A.A., 1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents and the
competitive contracting process. Journal of law and economics, 21(2), 297-326.
Litz, R.A. (1996). A resource-based-view of the socially responsible firm: Stakeholder
interdependence, ethical awareness, and issue responsiveness as strategic assets. Journal of business
ethics, 15(12), 1355-1363.
97
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Luo, X., Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market
value. Journal of marketing, 1-18.
Madhok, A. (1996). The organization of economic activity: transaction costs, firm capabilities and the
nature of governance. Organization science, 7(5), pp. 577-590.
Marcus, A., Geffen, D. (1998). The dialectics of competency acquisition: Pollution prevention in electric
generation. Strategic management journal, 19(12), 1145-1168.
Martín-Tapia, I., Aragón-Correa, J.A., Rueda-Manzanares, A. (2010). Environmental strategy and
exports in medium, small and micro-enterprises. Journal of world business, 45(3), pp. 266-275.
Matten, D., Moon, J. (2008): “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative
understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management review, 33(2), pp. 404-424.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective.
Academy of management review, 26(1), pp. 117-127.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S. (2011). Creating and capturing value strategic corporate social
responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of
management, 37(5), 1480-1495.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., Wright, P.M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: strategic
implications. Journal of management studies, 43(1), 1-18.
Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), pp. 340-363.
Midttun, A. (2008). Global governance and the interface with business: new institutions, processes
and partnerships. Partnered governance: aligning corporate responsibility and public policy in the
global economy. Corporate governance, 8(4), 406-418.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review,
22(4), pp. 853-886.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J., Harris, K.E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially
responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of consumer
affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
Nelson, P.R., Winter, S.Q. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. American economic review,
72(1), pp. 114-132.
Neville, B.A., Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the
interactions between stakeholders. Journal of business ethics, 66(4), 377-391.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review,
16(1), pp. 145-179.
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility and
environmental sustainability. Business & society, 50(1), 6-27.
Pashigian, B.P. (1984). Effect of environmental regulation on optimal plant size and factor shares. The
journal of law & economics, 27(1), pp. 1-28.
Peloza, J., Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for
stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 39(1), pp. 117-135.
Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence
perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Rowley, T.J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy
of management review, 22(4), pp. 887-910.
Rowley, T.J., Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business &
society, 39(4), pp. 397-418.
Rowley, T.J., Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identitybased model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of management review, 28(2), pp. 204-219.
Ruf, B.M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R.M., Janney, J.J., Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the
relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: a stakeholder
theory perspective. Journal of business ethics, 32(2), 143-156.
Rumelt, R.P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. R.B. Lamb (ed.), Competitive Strategic
Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Russo, M.V. (1992). Power plays: regulation, diversification, and backward integration in the electric
utility industry. Strategic management journal, 13(1), pp. 13-27.
Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental
performance and profitability. Academy of management Journal, 40(3), pp. 534-559.
Schepers, D.H. (2006). The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social responsibility
strategies of multinational corporations. Business & society, 45(3), 282-299.
98
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Sharma, S., Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development
of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic management journal, 19(8), pp. 729753.
Sirsly, C.A.T., Lamertz, K. (2008). When does a corporate social responsibility initiative provide a firstmover advantage?. Business & society, 47(3), 343-369.
Steurer, R. (2010). The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: characterising public
policies on CSR in Europe. Policy sciences, 43(1), pp. 49-72.
Steurer, R., Martinuzzi, A., Margula, S. (2012): Public policies on CSR in Europe: themes, instruments,
and regional differences. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 19(4), pp.
206-227.
Ullmann, A.A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among
social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of
management review, 10(3), pp. 540-557.
Vallentin, S., Murillo, D. (2012). Governmentality and the politics of CSR. Organization, 19(6), 825843.
Valor, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: towards corporate
accountability. Business and society review, 110(2), 191-212.
Valor, C. (2008). Can consumers buy responsibly? Analysis and solutions for market failures. Journal
of consumer policy, 31(3), 315-326.
Vilanova, M., Lozano, J.M., Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR
and competitiveness. Journal of business ethics, 87(1), pp. 57-69.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), pp.
171-190.
Williamson, O.E., 1975. Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free
Press.
Williamson, O.E., 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting.
New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O.E., 1991. Comparative economic organisation - The analysis of discrete structural
alternatives. Administrative science quarterly, 36(2), 269-296.
Williamson, D., Lynch-Wood, G., Ramsay, J. (2006). Drivers of environmental behaviour in
manufacturing SMEs and the implications for CSR. Journal of business ethics, 67(3), 317-330.
Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of management review, 16(4),
pp. 691-718.
Wood, D.J., Jones, R.E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical problem in empirical research
on corporate social performance. International journal of organizational analysis, 3(3), pp. 229-267.
Zadek, S. (2006). Responsible competitiveness: reshaping global markets through responsible
business practices. Corporate governance, 6(4), 334-348.
99
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Organizational continuous improvement from the perspective of conservation psychology
Viktor Kulhavý
Department of Corporate Economy, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University,
Brno, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
The issue of sustainability is inherently a multidisciplinary topic settled on the edge of several
disciplines of human understanding of the complex world. Psychology has to offer a helping hand in
blending together the economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability, because it is
evident that the cornerstone of sustainability is a change in behaviour (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; in
Saunders, 2003, p. 142). In the past decades there has been a change in the questions environmental
psychology is dealing with. From the questions „How are the environmental factors affecting human
society?“ or „How do people perceive the environment?“ the shift has been towards the issues of
reciprocal relationship between human beings and the environment, the ways people influence the
environment and finally the means by which psychology can take part in heading towards a more
sustainable society. Conservation psychology is a new discipline dealing with these issues in the past
years (Saunders, 2003; Bonnes et al., 2002).
It seems that multinational corporations (MNCs) which possess sufficient resources – both human and
financial - will in future play a crucial role in solving the sustainability issues (Andersson, et al., 2005).
They are more flexible and less tied to the political cycles than national governments (Hertz, 2001).
However, according to some authors, there is not a common understanding of the sustainability issue
in companies – what it is, what topics should be prioritized and how these should be strategically
approached (Bateman and Anderson, 2000; Holmberg and Robèrt, 2000). A usual way how the
companies demonstrate their sustainability commitment is through issuing an environmental policy.
Nevertheless, some studies (Ramus and Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2001) has shown that there might be a
difference in the values the MNCs present themselves by and the way they actually “live” the values in
a day-to-day business. Businesses that really want to push the sustainability agenda should try to
integrate the environmental aspects in all levels of its operations (Robèrt et al., 2002). From the
system point of view that means not only develop attractive visions and viable strategies, but also
ensure these thoughts transfer into practical measures and tools that workers in organizations will use
for their decision making. It also encompasses a shift in a paradigm towards the biocentric
understanding brought by the ecological economics (Costanza, 1991). Environmental awareness of the
workers could be enhanced by understanding of the wider system the company is operating in and the
consequences of production for the environment (Hallstedt et al., 2010).
One of the most efficient means of enhancing company´s environmental performance is to engage the
employees in environmental innovation activities (eco-innovations), i.e. to stimulate the workers to
propose improvements that will lower or diminish the negative impact of company´s production on the
environment (Rennings et al., 2001; Rogers, 2003). Environmental innovations coming from within
the company are more successful than those attained by the top-down approach (Oreg et al., 2011).
Direct participation of employees supports implementation of innovations and lowers the workers ´
resistance to change (Busck, 2006; Getzner, 1999; Oreg et al., 2011). Line managers seem to play a
crucial role in helping their subordinates to propose and realize an improvement. Research conducted
in the USA (Ramus, 2001; Ramus and Steger, 2000) showed that the most important managerial
behaviour that supported eco-innovation activities were communication of environmental issues,
environmental competence building, rewards and recognition for innovation activities, openness to
innovation and management of environmental goals and responsibilities.
The conducted research deals with the issue of innovation introduction and environmental innovation
development. In a particular business environment the innovation process has been researched from
the point of view of the conservation psychology stressing the role of the line managers and other
employees supporting the innovation birth. The theoretical ground for the conducted research was the
Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour - DTPB (Ajzen, 2001) enriched with the environmental
incentives component. The aim of the study was to explore the ways in which the employees perceive
the innovation process, how the line managers and other support staff influence the manual workers
in order to stimulate their innovation activity and finally how the employees generally perceive the
environmental aspects of continuous improvement. The secondary goal was to develop a pilot version
100
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
of a survey instrument that could be used to investigate the employee attitudes towards the
innovation activities.
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in August 2012 in cooperation with a company based in the Czech Republic
that wanted to stay anonymous because of possible disclosure of internal processes. The company
was chosen for cooperation based on these criteria: environmental values are part of the business
strategy, line managers´ agenda includes environmental goals management, workers have an
opportunity to propose improvements, organization and its employees are willing to be a subject of
the research. There were several participants of the research within the chosen company: 515
workers and 19 moderators11 took part in a self-completion survey, 6 workers took part in a focus
group, the coordinator of continuous improvement (CI) and 6 moderators/foremen were interviewed.
The return rate of the survey was 55 %. Data for the research were systematically gathered through
several means of qualitative and quantitative research. For workers´ perception of moderators
assessment a self-completion survey has been used. The items of the survey were developed based
on semi structured interviews within the company and a focus group in order to tailor the survey for
the specific business environment. Data were triangulated using different means of obtaining data and
also different groups of respondents (CI coordinator, moderators, foremen, workers). The thematical
analysis approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006) has been used for the interview data processing, for the
survey data relative frequencies have been used. The research concept was inspired by the works of
Rothwell et al. (2011), where the authors used such approach to research a shared service centre.
The theoretical grounds are based on model of pro-environmental behaviour - Theory of Planned
Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).
RESULTS
By the means of the thematical analysis the crucial themes and subthemes were identified (see Figure
1 below) which represent an employee perception of the innovation process. On the basis of thematic
analysis a pilot survey was conducted. It was focused on the main components of enriched DTPB:
attitudes towards innovation behaviour, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, behavioural
intentions, and perception of environmental incentives. The labourers stressed both benefits but also
drawbacks of the innovation process. Especially the role of fairness and adequacy of compensation for
the innovation proposals was a focal point of discussion. From the perspective of the moderators it
was the appropriate conditions for their work and particularly harmonization of the moderator role
with other duties. Environmental innovation proposals were not perceived by the employees of the
company as a common practice in the process of innovation development. The innovation activities
have from a point of view of the foremen and the moderators the aim of productivity increase and
making work easier. For the labourers it means above all financial gain as a reward for the innovation
proposals. The moderators - according to their opinion - invite the labourers to suggest ecoinnovations; however the labourers alone do not perceive their improvement proposals to be
environmentally sound.
11
The moderators are workers that are assigned a task to encourage and support other workers to propose an
improvement. They cooperate with line managers (foremen).
101
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Figure 1 Identified themes and subthemes – workers´ innovation process perception
DISCUSSION
The innovation process is among workers perceived inconsistently. Even though half of the
respondents were satisfied with it, others point out some negative aspects. According to Ajzen (1991)
behavioural intention (i.e. proposing an improvement in this case) is determined by: the sufficiency of
opportunities to perform the behaviour, having enough resources including time, being in volitional
control of such behaviour. According to the results low perceived behavioural control manifesting itself
as dissatisfaction with quota setting and little time for reflection upon improvements might represent a
resources barrier. Attitudes toward the improvement themselves seem to be of higher importance.
Negative feelings, loss of meaningfulness, perceiving such activity as a formal duty without any real
contribution can undermine the workers´ motivation. Together with low perceived financial stimuli and
uncertain improvement realization, expected value of innovation proposal does not seem to be
appealing for the workers. According to Ajzen (1991) negative attitudes towards the behaviour and
low behavioural control can consequentially arouse the feelings of distrust and demotivation.
Regarding the role of the moderator according to Ramus and Steger (2000) the workers who perceive
strong signals of support from their superior propose and implement innovation at higher rate.
However, the survey results show that this support is lacking from some of the moderators. These are
for example: missing argumentation of decisions concerning the proposal approval or belief of the
worker that his job does not provide enough opportunities for improvement. Ramus (2001) is
describing a similar issue that significant number of respondents considered their superior as
uninterested in how the subordinates engage in environmental agenda. It was surprising that even the
managers who were cooperative in other areas did not perform well. Ramus concludes that the
organization failed in persuading the line managers that the environmental agenda is part of their
competence. Concerning the willingness to propose eco-innovations Ramus and Steger (2000) stress
that employees are more willingly proposing innovation when they see an environmental commitment
of the organization. However in the conducted research it seems that the labourers perceive the area
of environmental sustainability as an isolated domain which is taken care of by a specialized
department. According to Ajzen (1991) if the worker perceives costs connected with behaviour to be
102
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
higher than corresponding benefits he is more likely to stay passive. As a solution Andersson et al.
(2005) present two specific ways how to strengthen the role of managers as moderators for
sustainability values – the first is a supervisor training in environmental awareness and sensitivity.
The latter is connected with rewarding achievement of environmental goals.
CONCLUSION
The article presents theoretical foundations of continuous improvement and environmental innovation
in a selected company. The interdisciplinary issue is being scrutinized from the perspective of
management, sustainability and conservation psychology. The survey results could be used as a probe
into the system of business innovation support and also show a picture of the employee view on the
environmental aspects of innovation activities. The continuous improvement process is in the case of
the researched business environment perceived by the workers in contradiction. Although the role of
moderators/foreman seems to be crucial for the innovation birth, the conditions for their influence
could be improved. The workers do not connect the issue of continuous improvement with ecoinnovations as this is perceived to be out of their competence. Building workers´ environmental
awareness through system thinking to understand interconnectedness of the company activities within
the socio-economical subsystem could bring sense of competence and meaning to propose ecoinnovation so as the moderator engagement in fulfilling specific environmental targets.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all the workers of the cooperating company for their participation in the research
and also the company management and the coordinator of CI for their support.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991): The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), pp. 179–211.
Andersson, L.; Shivarajan, S.; Blau, G. (2005): Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of
an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(3), pp. 295–305.
Bateman, T. S.; Andersson, L. (2000): Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural
environmental issues in US business organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), pp.
548–570.
Bonnes, M.; Bonaiuto, M.; Betche l, R.; Churchman, A. (2002): Environmental psychology: From
spatial-physical environment to sustainable development. Handbook of environmental psychology, pp.
28–54.
Busck, O. (2006): Employee participation in environmental work in companies. In Kørnøv, L.; Lund,
H.; Remmen, A. (eds.): Tools for a Sustainable Development. Aalborg: Aalborg University, pp. 109135.
Costanza, R.; Daly, H. E.; Bartholomew, J. A. (1991): Goals, agenda and policy recommendations for
ecological economics. In Costanza, R. (Ed.): Ecological economics: The science and management of
sustainability, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1- 20.
Getzner, M. (1999): Cleaner production, employment effects and socio-economic development.
International Journal of Technology Management, 17(5), pp. 522–543.
Hallstedt, S., Ny, H., Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G. (2010): An approach to assessing sustainability
integration in strategic decision systems for product development. Journal of Cleaner Production,
18(8), pp. 703–712.
Hertz, N. (2001): The silent takeover: global capitalism and the death of democracy. London: Arrow.
Holmberg, J.; Robèrt, K.-H. (2000): Backcasting from non-overlapping principles – a framework for
strategic planning. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 7, pp. 1-18.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000): Fostering sustainable behavior
marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), pp. 531-537.
through
community-based
social
103
Vortragsskizzen
Abstracts
Oreg, S.; Vakola, M.; Armenakis, A. (2011): Change Recipients’ Reactions to Organizational Change:
A 60-Year Review of Quantitative Studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), pp. 461524.
Ramus, C. A. (2001): Organizational support for employees: Encouraging creative ideas for
environmental sustainability. California Management Review, 43(3), pp. 85–86.
Ramus, C. A.; Steger, U. (2000): The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy
in employee„ ecoinitiatives“ at leading-edge European companies. The Academy of Management
Journal, 43(4), pp. 605–626.
Rennings, K., et al. (2001): The Impact of Clean Production on Employment in Europe: An Analysis
using
Surveys
and
Case
Studies
(IMPRESS).
Mannheim:
Zentrum
für
Europäische
Wirtschaftsforschung.
Robèrt, K.-H., et al. (2002): Strategic sustainable development -- selection, design and synergies of
applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3), pp. 197–214.
Rogers, E. (2003): Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rothwell, A.; Seal, W.; Herbert, I. (2011): Shared service centres and professional employability.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, pp. 241–252.
Saunders, C. D. (2003): The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review,
10(2), pp. 137–149.
104
Nachhaltigkeit an der WU
Sustainability at WU
Der
neue
WU-Campus:
nachhaltiges Großprojekt
Ein
Ein nachhaltiger Universitätscampus
Der neue Campus markiert eine neue Ära für
Europas größte Wirtschaftsuniversität. Das
ganze Areal symbolisiert Offenheit und
Kommunikation – Werte, die nicht nur für eine
Hochschule wichtig sind, sondern auf für eine
Gesellschaft,
die
sich
nachhaltig
und
zukunftsfähig entwickeln will. Die WU steht mit
den neuen Campus buchstäblich „in der Mitte
der Gesellschaft“.
Bauökologie – die Umweltdimension
Besonders
hervorzuheben
ist,
dass
Nachhaltigkeitskriterien
von
Anfang
an
Berücksichtigung
gefunden
haben.
Der
gesamte Campus ist als „Green Building“Konzept errichtet. Auch in Sachen Mobilität
setzt das Campus-Konzept auf nachhaltige
Verkehrsformen.
Campus
für
alle
–
Barrierefreiheit,
Studien- und Arbeitsplatzqualität
Neben der Ökologie ist das Soziale eine
Kerndimension der Nachhaltigkeit, bei einem
nachhaltigen
Bauvorhaben
ist
hier
die
Barrierefreiheit von zentraler Bedeutung. Kaum
je zuvor hat bei einem Bauvorhaben dieser
Größenordnung die Barrierefreiheit einen so
hohen Stellenwert gehabt wie beim neuen WUCampus.
Gesundheit,
Behaglichkeit
und
Nutzerzufriedenheit waren wichtige Planungsund Errichtungskriterien.
Die WU ist in Bewegung. Nachhaltig.
Auch dafür steht die neue Architektur.
The new Campus WU: sustainability
on the large scale
A sustainable campus
The new campus marks a new era for EU’s
largest educational institution for business and
economics. The whole area is a symbol for
openness and communication – values, which
are not only of high importance for a
university, but also for a society where
sustainable development should play a major
role in the future. WU with its new campus is
literally at the heart of society.
Green building – the environmental
dimension
It has to be highlighted that sustainability
criteria have been considered right from the
beginning of the planning of the new campus.
The whole campus has been constructed as a
green building. Regarding mobility the whole
concept of the campus promotes sustainable
modes of transport.
Website:
http://www.wu.ac.at/highlights/structure/servicecent
ers/procurement
Campus for everyone – accessibility,
quality of studying and working
Besides the environment the social dimension
is one of the main dimensions of sustainability,
regarding
sustainable
building
projects
accessibility is of highest importance.
Hardly any other building project of this
magnitude has considered accessibility as such
a high priority as the new WU-campus.
Health, comfort and user satisfaction were
important
criteria
when
planning
and
constructing the campus.
Kontakt/Contact: Campusmanagement,
Christoph Kecht, [email protected]
WU is moving towards sustainability.
This is also symbolised by the new campus.
105
WU-Kompetenzzentrum für Nachhaltigkeit
WU-Competence Center for Sustainability
Die WU bekennt sich zur Nachhaltigkeit. In Lehre,
Forschung,
Wissenstransfer
und
Hochschulmanagement ist die WU diesem Prinzip
verpflichtet
und
wird
damit
ihrer
gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung als Universität
gerecht. Die größte Wirkung des Tuns der WU
entsteht durch das, was sie ihren Studierenden
mit auf den Weg gibt: Wer an der WU studiert
hat,
soll
um
den
gesellschaftlichen
und
ökologischen Kontext wirtschaftlichen Handelns
wissen.
Lehre basiert an einer Universität auf Forschung.
Mit ihrer Forschung leistet die WU wichtige
Beiträge zur öffentlichen Debatte. Die WU als
forschungsstarke Universität will im Hinblick auf
Verantwortungsbewusstsein und Nachhaltigkeit in
der Forschung deutliche Zeichen setzen.
Das Kompetenzzentrum bringt sich auf all diesen
Feldern ein und beteiligt
sich an der Konzeption
und
Durchführung
konkreter Maßnahmen im
Bereich
der
Nachhaltigkeit.
Aktuelle
Beispiele sind:



Wir
organisieren
Workshops
zum
Thema
„Nachhaltigkeitsforsch
ung an der WU“, um
entsprechende
Aktivitäten
zu
identifizieren, zu vernetzen und zu fördern.
Wir erstellen eine „Nachhaltigkeitslandkarte“,
aus
der
die
zahlreichen
bestehenden
Aktivitäten der WU hervorgehen.
Wir bringen uns aktiv in die strategische
Weiterentwicklung der WU ein. Dabei ist die
langfristige Veränderung der Lehre
ein
besonderes Anliegen, denn hier liegt – neben
der Forschung – das „Kerngeschäft“ jeder
Universität.
Die nationale und internationale Vernetzung der
WU in Nachhaltigkeitsfragen gehört zu unseren
wichtigsten Aufgaben, daher sind wir aktive
Mitglieder
bei:
Österreichische
Allianz
nachhaltiger
Universitäten,
„Copernicus“Netzwerk und Initiative „50+20“. Wir gehen aktiv
auf die Stakeholder der WU zu und kooperieren
mit anderen gesellschaftlichen Akteuren. Last but
not least arbeiten wir intensiv mit den
Studierenden zusammen, um das Bekenntnis der
WU zur Nachhaltigkeit mit Leben zu erfüllen.
WU is committed to sustainability. We apply the
principles of sustainability to teaching, research,
and university management so that we as a
university can fulfill our responsibility to society.
Of all of our actions, what we teach our students
will have the greatest impact. Whoever studies at
WU should be made aware of the social and
environmental context of business activities.
University teaching is based on research. Our
research findings offer valuable contributions to
public discourse. As a strong research university,
WU wants its research to help heighten
awareness of responsibility and sustainabilityrelated issues.
The Competence Center for Sustainability
supports the integration of sustainability in
teaching, research and university management
and is involved in the
conception
and
implementation
of
sustainability
related
measures.
Current
examples are:

We are organising
workshops
about
“Research in the area of
sustainability at WU” in
order to identify existing
and
promote
further
activities
as
well
as
providing an opportunity


for networking.
We create a “sustainability-map”, which
depicts
the
many
already
existing
sustainability-activities at WU.
We play an active part in the strategic
development of WU. The modification of
teaching in the long-term is a matter of major
concern as it is besides research the core
competency of a university.
As the national as well as international
cooperation of WU in sustainability-related issues
is one of our main tasks we are active members
at: Austrian Alliance of sustainable universities,
Copernicus Alliance and Initiative „50+20“.
Furthermore,
we
actively
approach
our
stakeholders and cooperate with other members
of society. Last but not least we work closely
together with our students to truly “live”
sustainability.
Website:
www.wu.ac.at/sustainability
Kontakt/ Contact:
Fred Luks,
[email protected]
106
Nachhaltigkeit im Grundstudium
Sustainability in undergraduate programmes
Im
Bereich
der
Lehre
verfolgt
die
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien das Ziel, dass
Studierende Wissen über den gesellschaftlichen
und
ökologischen
Kontext
wirtschaftlichen
Handelns
erlangen.
Absolventinnen
und
Absolventen sollen über die Kompetenz verfügen,
nachhaltig zu denken und zu wirtschaften. Hierzu
liefert das vom Department Sozioökonomie
veranstaltete
Studienmodul
„Zukunftsfähiges
Wirtschaften“ einen zentralen Beitrag. Das
Studienangebot umfasst eine Vorlesung und ein
darauf aufbauendes Seminarprogramm.
Die Vorlesung wird von Studierenden fast aller
Studienrichtungen absolviert und erreicht pro
Semester rund 3.000 Teilnehmerinnen und
Teilnehmer. Ein interdisziplinäres Team von
Vortragenden führt Studierende an große Themen
der
Nachhaltigkeitsforschung
heran.
Ausgehend
vom
Themenkomplex „Krisen und
Nachhaltigkeitsprobleme
gegenwärtiger
Gesellschaften“ werden in der
Vorlesung
verschiedene
Perspektiven
von
Gerechtigkeit
in
sozialökologischer
Perspektive
erörtert
(z.B.
Gendergerechtigkeit). Aspekte
der
interund
intragenerationellen
Gerechtigkeit stehen hierbei im
Vordergrund. Den Abschluss
bilden
Szenarien
der
Transformation zu einer nachhaltigeren
Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.
Die auf die Vorlesung aufbauenden Seminare
sind
verpflichtender
Studienbestandteil
im
zweiten
Abschnitt
der
Studienrichtungen
Betriebswirtschaftslehre,
Internationale
Betriebswirtschaftslehre sowie
Wirtschaftsinformatik. Derzeit besuchen bis zu 900
Studierende einen der rund 30 Seminarkurse. Die
Kurse widmen sich unterschiedlichen Themen.
Ziel der Seminare ist die Vertiefung und
Anwendung des im Rahmen der Vorlesung
erworbenen
Wissens
auf
ein
spezifisches
Anwendungs- bzw. Praxisfeld (z.B. nachhaltiger
Konsum).
Zentraler Bestandteil der Learning Outcomes ist
der Erwerb von Reflexionswissen, im Hinblick
auf die Befähigung der Studierenden zu
nachhaltigem Denken und Handeln. Zentrales
Anliegen im Rahmen der Qualitätskontrolle des
Programms ist die Umsetzung innovativer Lehr/ Lernkonzepte.
The competence to think and act sustainably is at
the core of higher education at the Vienna
University of Business and Economics. The aim of
the undergraduate study programme “Sustainable
Economics and Business” is to provide knowledge
about the social and ecological impacts of
economic activities and decision-making. The
course programme is run by the department of
Socioeconomics and comprises a lecture series
complemented by seminars.
Each semester, about 3000 students from nearly
all study programmes at the Vienna University of
Business and Economics attend the lecture
series. An interdisciplinary team of lecturers
introduces the main themes of sustainability
research. Starting with an introduction to “Crises
and
problems
of
sustainability
in
contemporary societies”, the
lecture series discusses several
dimensions of justice from the
socio-ecological perspective
(e.g. gender inequality). In this
context, aspects of inter- and
intragenerational
equity
are
especially
important.
The
lecture
series
closes
with
scenarios of a transformation
toward a more sustainable
economy and society.
The complementary seminars
are mandatory in the second
part of the undergraduate programmes in
Business Administration, International Business
Administration
and
Information
Systems.
Currently, up to 900 students attend a total of 30
seminars every semester. These courses address
different sustainability-related topics. The aim of
the seminars is to deepen the knowledge gained
in the lecture series by applying it to specific
fields of practice (e.g. sustainable consumption).
A central part of the learning outcomes is the
development
of
reflexive
knowledge,
particularly with regard to the ability to think and
act sustainably. In this context, implementing
innovative learning and teaching concepts is
an essential component of the programme’s
quality management.
Website:
http://www.wu.ac.at/sozio/en/teaching
Kontakt/ Contact:
Johanna Hofbauer, Karl-Michael Brunner
107
Master Programm “Socio-Ecological
Economics and Policy”
Master Program “Socio-Ecological Economics
and Policy”
Das Masterstudium “Socio-Ecological Economics
and Policy” bietet die einzigartige Möglichkeit die
Werkzeuge sozioökonomischer Analysen kennen
zu
lernen
und
anzuwenden.
Besonders
ökologische, ökonomische, soziale Krisen und
“burning issues” des 21. Jahrhunderts und deren
Interdependenzen stehen dabei im Mittelpunkt.
Das interdisziplinäre Design des Studiums und der
internationale Ansatz bauen auf drei Säulen auf:
Theorie, Methodik und Anwendung.
Die Theoriekurse vereinen sich ergänzende
Wissenschaftsdisziplinen,
die
relevant
und
adäquat dafür sind globale Herausforderungen zu
studieren und lernen diese zu analysieren. In den
Methodenkursen werden sowohl quantitative, wie
auch qualitative Paradigma erarbeitet und
darüber reflektiert, welche Kombination dieser bei
empirischen Analysen bestmöglich entspricht.
Policy making als nächster Schritt der Analyse ist
ein bestimmender Lehrinhalt während des
gesamten
Studienverlaufs.
Die
Entwicklung
innovativer
Policy-Maßnahmen
bedarf
einer
ganzheitlichen, deskriptiven und institutionellen
Analyse,
genauso
wie
die
Kenntnis
der
gesetzlichen und rechtlichen Auflagen und
Bestimmungen.
Konkret werden Theorie, Methodik und Analyse in
zwei
„Concentration
Areas“
gelehrt
und
erarbeitet.
Folgende
Kursangebote
können
selbstständig von den Studierenden gewählt
werden: (1) Environmental Change and Policy,
(2) Population, Human Capital and Policy, (3)
Globalization and Multi-Level Policy, und (4)
Globalization and Social Policy.
Das Masterstudium wird von Studierenden mit
einem vielfältigen lokalen Hintergrund besucht,
die das intensive Auswahlverfahren positiv
absolviert haben. Das Masterstudium zieht so
Studierende an, die nicht nur die sozioökologischen
Herausforderungen
des
21.
Jahrhundert analysieren lernen wollen, sondern
auch bereit sind ihren Beitrag zu leisten
Möglichkeiten der Transition aufzuzeigen und
anzustoßen.
The program offers training in socioeconomic
analysis and focuses on the interfaces between
environmental, economic and social challenges.
This interdisciplinary and internationally oriented
approach builds upon three major pillars: theory,
method, and application. The theory courses
include concepts from different disciplines,
selected for their content and adequacy for
studying global challenges.
The method courses offer an integrated
introduction to qualitative and quantitative
methods and thus illustrate how they are best
combined in empirical analyses. Relevance for
policy making and organizational practice is
emphasized throughout the program.
Developing innovative and novel policy responses
to global change demands approaches that
include historic, descriptive, and institutional
analyses as well as understanding of legal
frameworks and regulatory constraints.
In particular, theories, methods, and analyses are
brought together in two concentration areas,
which students choose themselves out of four
subject areas, namely (i) Environmental Change
and Policy, (ii) Population, Human Capital and
Policy, (iii) Globalization and Multi-Level Policy,
and (iv) Globalization and Social Policy.
Open to a select group of students from all over
the world, this program combines academic
excellence with practical and political relevance.
The program, started in October 2012, is aimed
at students with a diverse array of backgrounds,
who have a deep concern for the challenges
arising from rapid environmental change,
population dynamics, poverty, and exclusion, and
are keen to find ways to enhance environmental
sustainability,
opportunities
for
community
livelihoods, and human well-being. The program
equips
graduates
with
the
socioeconomic
concepts
and
qualitative
and
quantitative
research skills to undertake high-quality analysis.
Website:
http://www.wu.ac.at/programs/en/master/seep
Kontakt/ Contact:
Andreas Novy, [email protected]
108
Führungskompetenz und Nachhaltigkeit in
Executive Programs
Responsible Leadership in Executive
Programs
Seit längerem stehen MBA Programme in der
Kritik, zu faktenlastig zu sein und ManagerInnen
nicht mit den nötigen Kompetenzen auszustatten,
um verantwortungsvoll zu führen.
Das Responsible-Leadership-Konzept der WU
Executive Academy bietet den MBA Studierenden
ab Herbst 2013 die Möglichkeit, sich mit
persönlicher
Führungskompetenz
und
Nachhaltigkeit über die gesamte Dauer des MBA
auseinanderzusetzen.
Ziel dieses ganzheitlichen Ansatzes ist es, im
Laufe des Studiums das eigene
Entwicklungspotential
zu
erarbeiten, um mit der eigenen
unternehmerischen Verantwortung
noch kompetenter umgehen zu
können. Der Ansatz sieht gezielte
Maßnahmen zur Förderung des
Verantwortungsbewusstseins, der
Führungskompetenz
und
ser
Selbstreflexion vor:
Double-Loop-Learning:
Der
Business Core startet und endet
mit den drei Modulen Leadership,
Managing
People
and
Organizations und CSR & Ethics. Nach dem
Prinzip des „Double-Loop-Learnings“ werden hier
alle Maßnahmen gebündelt in der Gruppe
reflektiert.
Self-Assessment: Die Studierenden werden
gebeten, ein Online-Self-Assessment zu machen.
In einer persönlichen Einführung im ersten Modul
lernen sie, die Ergebnisse zu interpretieren und
Handlungsmöglichkeiten daraus abzuleiten.
Peer Coaching: Jeweils drei Studierende bilden
eine Gruppe, um gegenseitig ihre LeadershipEntwicklung im Laufe des Programms zu
diskutieren und zu reflektieren.
Personal Development Plan: Jeder Studierende
erarbeitet einen Personal Development Plan und
diskutiert den Fortschritt in Peer Coachings
während des Programms.
Learning Diary: Jeder Studierende wird dazu
angehalten, ein persönliches Lerntagebuch zu
führen.
MBA programs have long been criticized for
focusing too much on conveying hard facts and
knowledge while failing to provide managers with
the skills they need in order to be responsible
leaders who grasp the implications of their
actions.
To address this issue, the WU Executive Academy
has developed a responsible-leadership concept
for its MBA programs. As of Fall 2013, MBA
students will be able to sharpen their personal
leadership skills and are tasked to take account of
sustainability not just during dedicated modules,
but throughout the program. This
holistic approach will encourage
participants to become more
responsible leaders who embrace
sustainability in every aspect of
their decision making.
Taken collectively, the responsible
leadership program of the WU
Executive Academy extends the
demand put on leadership quality
and self-reflection and strengthen
the
understanding
of
the
important role sustainability plays
in business.
Elements
of
Leadership:
Teaching

Double-Loop_Learning

Self Assessment

Peer Coaching

Personal Development Plan

Learning Diary
Responsible-
Website:
https://www.executiveacademy.at/en/aboutus/news/Pages/responsible-leadership.aspx
Kontakt/ Contact:
Bodo B. Schlegelmilch, [email protected]
Astrid Kleinhanns-Rollé, [email protected]
109
Nachhaltiges Personalmanagement
Sustainable Human Resource Management
“Sustainable HRM is the utilization of HR tools to help embed a sustainability strategy in the organization and
the creation of an HRM system that contributes to the sustainable performance of the firm.”
(COHEN, E., TAYLOR, S. & MÜLLER-CAMEN, M. 2012. HRM´s Role in Corporate and Environmental
Sustainability Society for HR Management (SHRM): 3)
Im
Einklang
mit
diesem
Verständnis
von
Nachhaltigem
Personalmanagement
werden
Forschungsprojekte zu den Themen „Human
Rights“, “Comparative Age Management and
Age Images”, „Employee Well-Being“, „Green
HRM“, „HRM, Spirituality and Religion“,
„Staffing in Corporate Responsibility Jobs”
und „Sustainable Careers“ durchgeführt.
Human Rights (HRM in the Supply Chain)
Bis
dato
werden
Menschenrechte
nicht
als
integraler
Bestandteil
des
Personalmana-gements
gesehen.
Im
Nachhaltigkeitsdiskurs
werden Menschenrechte
zunehmend
der
sozialen Dimension der
„triple
bottom
line“
zugeschrieben.
Die
weltweit
größten
Unternehmen
behaupten
über
Menschenrechte nach den GRI Richtlinien in ihren
CSR Reports zu berichten. Bei näherer Betrachtung
zeigt sich, dass wichtige Informationen fehlen bzw.
irreführend dargestellt werden. Eine aktuelle Studie
beschäftigt sich mit dem Zusammenhang von
Menschenrechten und Personalfunktionen.
Comparative Age Management and Age
Images
Gemeinsam mit englischen WissenschaftlerInnen
wurde
eine
vergleichende
Analyse
von
Altersmanagement in GB und DE durchgeführt. Ziel
war
es
herauszufinden,
ob
das
Personalmanagement älterer ArbeitnehmerInnen
von institutionellen Faktoren beeinflusst wird. Erste
Publikationen wurden bereits veröffentlicht. Zurzeit
wird nach Förderungsmöglichkeiten gesucht, um zu
beforschen, wie das Alters-Image die institutionelle
Umwelt beeinflusst
In line with this understanding of Sustainable HRM
we are working on several research projects
focusing on Human Rights; Comparative Age
Management and Age Images; Employee
Well-Being; Green HRM; HRM, Spirituality and
Religion; Staffing in Corporate Responsibility
Jobs and Sustainable Careers.
Human Rights (HRM in the Supply Chain)
So far Human Rights is not a topic perceived as an
integral part of HRM.
However, through the
CSR discourse it has
been widely accepted
as a key part of the
social dimension of the
triple
bottom
line.
Initially research with
colleagues from the UK,
Germany and Belgium
shows that although the
World’s
largest
corporations claim to
report about Human
Rights in their CSR
reporting according to GRI standards, the
necessary information is often missing or texts are
misleading. Currently a further analysis aims to
identify links between human rights and the HRM
function such as training, communication and
auditing of HRM practices in the supply chain.
Comparative Age Management and Age
Images
With colleagues from the UK a comparative analysis
of age management in British and German
organisations has been conducted to identify how
the HRM of older workers is affected by institutional
factors. First journal publications have appeared
and currently funding is sought for an analysis of
how age images affect the relevant institutional
environment.
Website:http://wu.ac.at/persm
Kontakt/ Contact: Michael Müller-Camen;,
[email protected]
110
Responsible Global Leadership
Responsible Global Leadership
Leading Responsibly in a Global Stakeholder
Community
Unsere Forschung zu Responsible Global Leadership
(RGL) untersucht globale Führungskräfte im
komplexen Multi-Stakeholder-Kontext und deren
Beitrag
zum
Drei-Säulen-Modell
sozialer,
ökologischer und ökonomischer Nachhaltigkeit.
Dabei geht es um die Verbindung zwischen
globalem Führungsverhalten und Corporate Social
Responsibility
(CSR
–
Unternehmerische
Gesellschaftsverantwortung).
Responsible
Global
Leadership
Die
RGL-Forschung
vereint
verschiedene
konzeptionelle Ebenen, u.zw. Mikro (individuelle
Führungskraft), Meso (globale Unternehmen und
deren Führungsteams) und Makro (institutionelle
und kulturelle Einflüsse). Neben Theorieentwicklung
besteht ein Schwerpunkt in empirischer Arbeit
anhand von Simulationen, Datenbankforschung,
Inhaltsanalysen, Experimenten und Interviews.
Our RGL research spans multiple conceptual layers
(see graph) which bridge themicro level - the
individual business leader; the meso level –
multinational companies and their top management
teams; the macro level - the institutional and
cultural environment.
Our Responsible Global Leadership (RGL) research
investigates how global leaders, who operate in a
complex
environment
of
multiple,
diverse
stakeholders, can achieve the “triple bottom line” of
social, environmental, and economic sustainability.
We thus examine how leadership in a global
stakeholder community is connected to Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR).
Central research questions include:
Zentrale Fragen umfassen:

Welchen Einfluss haben sozial-kognitive und
emotionale Prozesse auf RGL?

Welche interkulturellen Kompetenzen helfen
globalen Führungskräften beim Erreichen von
CSR-Zielen?


Welchen Einfluss haben Führungsteams auf
das Erreichen von CSR-Zielen?
Wie können
entwickeln?
globale
Unternehmen
RGL

How do social-cognitive and emotional
processes affect RGL behavior?

Which intercultural competencies support global
leaders in achieving CSR outcomes?

How do top management teams affect the CSR
performance of multinational companies?

How can multinational companies develop RGL?

How do cultural and institutional differences
across countries affect RGL?
Publikationen
Publications

Miska, C., Stahl, G. K., & Mendenhall, M. E.
(2013).
Intercultural
Competencies
as
Antecedents of Responsible Global Leadership.
European
Journal
of
International
Management, 7(5), 550–569.

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011).
Developing
Responsible
Global
Leaders
Through
International
Service-Learning
Programs: The Ulysses Experience. The
Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 10(2), 237–260.

Stahl, G. K., Miska, C., Noval, L., Patock, V.
(forthcoming). The Quest for Corporate Social
Responsibility: How Global Leaders Make a
Difference
in
Achieving
Triple-Bottom-Line
Outcomes. In L. Zander (Ed.), Research
Handbook of Global Leadership. Edward Elgar
Publishing.

Stahl, G. K., Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2013).
Responsible
Global
Leadership.
In
M.
E.
Mendenhall, et al. (Eds.), Global Leadership:
Research, Practice, and Development (2nd ed., pp.
240–259). Routledge.
Website:
www.wu.ac.at/iib
Kontakt/ Contact: Günter K. Stahl,
[email protected]
111
Rethink!Project Stakeholder Management
Rethink!Project Stakeholder Management
Projektziele
•
Analyse von Projekt Stakeholder Management
im Kontext von Nachhaltiger Entwicklung
•
Berücksichtigung von neuen Entwicklungen in
der Generellen Stakeholder Theorie
•
Experimentieren
mit
systemischen
Arbeitsformen
(wie
Systemaufstellung,
Systembrett) um einen besseren Umgang mit
der Komplexität von Projekt Stakeholder
Landschaften zu ermöglichen.
Forschungsansatz
•
Systemisch-konstruktivistischer
Forschungszugang
•
Durchführung
von Fallstudien und
Focus
Group Workshops
•
Co-creation des Wissens in einem Dialog
zwischen Forschenden und Praktiker/innen
Erste Ergebnisse (Auswahl)
•
Eskerod, P. & Huemann, M., 2013, Sustainable
Development and Project
Stakeholder
Management:
What
standards
say,
International Journal of
Managing
Projects
in
Business, 6(1) 36-50.
•
Eskerod, P. & Huemann,
M., 2013, Stakeholder
Analysis
Eruptions
–
Advancing
Project
Management with the Method Systemic
Constellation, Nordic Academy of Management
(NFF) Meeting, Iceland.
•
Eskerod, P. & Huemann, M., 2013, Improved
Decision Making by Systemic Stakeholder
Analysis Methods in Projects, Decision Sciences
Institute, Annual Meeting – Baltimore.
•
Huemann, M., Eskerod, P. Weninger, C.,
Aaarseth, W. 2013, Towards a new project
stakeholder
management
approach
considering contemporary stakeholder theory
and social system theory, IRNOP, Oslo.
Project objectives
•
Analyze project stakeholder management in
the context of sustainable development to
support value creation for the project investor
and other stakeholders
•
Consider managing of and for stakeholder
approaches derived from General Stakeholder
Theory
•
Experimenting with systemic methods (such as
system board, system constellation) to deal
with the complexity of project stakeholder
landscapes
Research approach
•
Systemic-constructivist research approach,
•
Practice case studies, demonstration case
studies, focus group workshops
•
Co-creation of knowledge between theory and
practice
First results (selection)
•
M.,
2013,
Sustainable
Development
and
Project
Stakeholder
Management:
What
standards
say,
International
Journal
of
Managing
Projects
in
Business, 6(1) 36-50.
•
M.,
2013,
Stakeholder
Analysis
Eruptions
–
Advancing Project Management with the
Method Systemic Constellation Nordic Academy
of Management (NFF) Meeting, Iceland.
•
Eskerod, P. & Huemann, M., 2013, Improved
Decision Making by Systemic Stakeholder
Analysis Methods in Projects, Decision Sciences
Institute, Annual Meeting – Baltimore.
•
Huemann, M., Eskerod, P. Weninger, C.,
Aaarseth, W. 2013, Towards a new project
stakeholder
management
approach
considering contemporary stakeholder theory
and social system theory, IRNOP, Oslo.
Website:
http://www.wu.ac.at/pmg
Kontakt/ Contact:
Martina Huemann, [email protected]
112
Social Entrepreneurship als neue Hegemonie?
Social Entrepreneurship as new hegemony
Das Thema „Social Entrepreneurship“ erlebt
derzeit einen Aufmerksamkeitsboom. Aber warum
eigentlich? – Dieser Frage gehen Hanna Schneider,
Florentine Maier und Pascal Dey mit Methoden der
quantitativen Netzwerkanalyse und qualitativen
Textanalyse nach.
Sie untersuchen Websites von zehn österreichischen
Support-Organisationen für Social Entrepreneurship,
um die zentralen Bedeutungselemente von Social
Entrepreneurship aufzuspüren. In einem Sample von
über
1300
Akteuren
im
Feld
der
Social
Entrepreneurship in Österreich werden mittels
netzwerkanalytischer Verfahren die Verbindungen
zwischen Support-Organisationen und affiliierten
Akteuren untersucht. So kann unter Einsatz
verschiedener Zentralitätsmaße festgestellt werden,
welche Artikulationen von Social Entrepreneurship in
der Praxis besonders attraktiv, populär und
mobilisierungskräftig – also potentiell hegemonial –
sind.
Es zeigt sich, dass dies vor allem Artikulationen sind,
die
an
vorherrschende
Diskurse
der
Managerialisierung, privaten Eigenverantwortung,
Innovation,
usw.
anschließen.
Randständigere
Themen wie Kapitalismuskritik, christlich motivierte
Wohltätigkeit oder Wohlfahrtsstaatlichkeit zeigen
weniger Mobilisierungspotential.
In einem weiteren Schritt werden diskursive
Mechanismen entdeckt, über die Artikulationen von
Social
Entrepreneurship
ihre
Anziehungskraft
entfalten.
Bisherige Veröffentlichungen (Auswahl):
Maier, Florentine; Schneider, Hanna (2012) A Study
of Social Entrepreneurship in Austria. ISIRC,
Birmingham, Großbritannien, 12.09.-14.09.
“Social entrepreneurship” is a booming topic that
is attracting increasing attention. – But why? Hanna
Schneider, Florentine Maier and Pascal Dey
investigate this question by means of quantitative
network analysis and qualitative text analysis.
They examine the websites of ten Austrian support
organizations for social entrepreneurship to identify
crucial meanings of social entrepreneurship. In a
sample of over 1300 actors in the Austrian social
entrepreneurship field, they use methods of network
analysis to examine relationships between support
organizations and their affiliates. Using various
measures of centrality they illuminate which
articulations
of
social
entrepreneurship
are
particularly attractive, popular, and mobilizing in
practice – thus potentially hegemonic.
It turns out that those are articulations that expand
on well-established discourses of managerialism,
individual agency, innovation, etc. More marginal
topics such as critique of capitalism, Christianinspired charity, or the welfare state have less
mobilizing potential.
In a further step, they explore discursive
mechanisms by which entrepreneurship unleashes its
power of attraction.
Publications (selection):
Maier, Florentine; Schneider, Hanna (2012) A Study
of Social Entrepreneurship in Austria. ISIRC,
Birmingham, United Kingdom, 12.09.-14.09.
Schneider, Hanna; Dey, Pascal; Maier, Florentine
(2013) “Everyone a Changemaker”: An Analysis of
Discursive Mechanisms for the Hegemonization of
Social Entrepreneurship. EGOS, Montreal, Canada.
Schneider, Hanna; Dey, Pascal; Maier, Florentine
(2013) “Everyone a Changemaker”: An Analysis of
Discursive Mechanisms for the Hegemonization of
Social Entrepreneurship. EGOS, Montreal, Canada.
Website:
http://www.wu.ac.at/npo/group/research/seaustria
Kontakt/ Contact:
Florentine Maier, [email protected]
113
Sustainable Information Systems
Sustainable Information Systems
Die Gestaltung nachhaltiger Informationssysteme
versucht ihre soziale Verträglichkeit zu steigern.
Wir
folgen
einem
dreidimensionalen
Forschungsansatz
unter
Verwendung
von
technischen,
ökonomischen
und
sozialwissenschaftlichen Analysemethoden.
Ethisches System-Design: Das übergeordnete
Ziel unserer Arbeit ist System-Entwicklung zu
verbessern. Wir arbeiten an einer Methode, die
System-designern bei der besseren Integration
moralischer Überlegungen in Informationssysteme
hilft (1).
Besitzpsychologie persönlicher Daten: Wir
führen Experimente zur Bereitschaft persönliche
Informationen
preiszugeben,
und
zur
Wahrnehmung
und
Bewertung
dieser
(z.B.
Facebook-Daten) (2).
Elektronische
Privatsphäre:
Märkte
personenbezogene
Daten
können nur nachhaltig sein,
wenn Menschen ihr Recht auf
Privatsphäre ausüben können
und angemessen für ihre
Daten kompensiert werden.
Wir haben ein Marktmodell,
welches
Privatsphäre
mit
nachhaltiger Wertschöpfung
und Innovation ausgleicht (3)
und
ein
Privacy
Impact
Assessment (PIA) - Verfahren (4) entwickelt.
für
Recht auf Vergessenheit im Internet: Die EUDatenschutzgesetzgebung sieht ein "Recht auf
Vergessenheit" vor. Wir leiten Anforderungen an
Technologien für ein vergessendes Internet ab.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Spiekermann (2014). The Human Use of
Machine Beings: A Guide to Ethical IT System
Development. Taylor & Francis. forthcoming
Spiekermann et al. (2012). Psychology of
Ownership and Asset Defense: Why People
Value their Personal Information Beyond
Privacy. In ICIS 2012, Orlando
Novotny et al. (2013). Personal Information
Markets AND Privacy: A New Model to Solve
the Controversy. In WI 2013. Leipzig
Oetzel et al. (2013) Privacy-By-Design through
systematic privacy impact assessment –
presentation of a methodology, European
Journal of Information Systems, forthcoming
2013
BSI (2011). Privacy Impact Assessment
Guideline for RFID Applications
Sustainable IS is designing technologies to enhance
their social compatibility. A sustainable IS
environment is created by integrating ethical
reflections and moral norms in the development
of information systems. We follow a threedimensional research approach, considering and
using technical, economic and social methods of
analysis in our work.
Ethical System Design: The overarching goal of
our work is to improve system development. We
are working on a method that helps engineers to
better integrate moral reflections in their systems
(1). This implies that the system development life
cycle is complemented by a moral toolset. It also
implies that engineers are becoming more
accountable for the work they are doing.
Ownership of Personal Data: The Institute
carries out experiments and surveys dealing with
various issues of user behavior, especially the
willingness
to
disclose
personal information and the
perception and valuation of
personal data and privacy.
We examined, for instance,
how users assess the value of
their personal Facebook data
(2).
E-Privacy: Personal data
markets
can
only
be
sustainable if individuals can exercise their privacy
rights in them and are adequately compensated for
their data. We have developed a market model
balancing privacy with sustainable economic value
creation and innovation (3). We developed a
method
for
carrying
out
Privacy
Impact
Assessments (PIA) (4).
Right to be Forgotten Online: The European
Union’s (EU) legislation on data protection foresees
a “right to be forgotten”. The proposed right is a
key control for individuals to sustain endured
privacy and autonomous self-presentation when
personal information already circulates. We
investigate how the misjudging of an information
piece’s age can affect decision-making. We derive
requirements
for
technologies
enhancing
a
forgetting Internet.
Website:
http://www.wu.ac.at/ec
Kontakt/ Contact:
Sarah Spiekermann, [email protected]
114
Sustainable Supply Chains
Sustainable Supply Chains
Die Nachfrage nach einem schnellen und sicheren
Transport von Gütern steigt ständig und erzeugt so
nicht
nur
Belastungen
für
die
Transportinfrastruktur, sondern auch für das soziale
und
ökologische
Umfeld.
Insbesondere
die
Reduktion von Leerfahrten und die verbesserte
Nutzung von unterschiedlichen Transportmodi auf
einer bestimmten Strecke (Multimodalität) stehen
im Zentrum der vorgestellten Forschungsprojekte
und sollen mittelfristig zu einer Reduktion von
Verkehr, Staus und Umweltbelastung führen.
Aktuelle Forschungsprojekte im Bereich Sustainable
Supply Chain Management:
GET Service (EU – FP7): Service Platform for
Green European Transportation
Im Zuge des Projekts „GET Service“ befasst sich ein
internationales Konsortium unter der Leitung der
Technischen Universität Eindhoven über die
nächsten drei Jahre mit der Umsetzung einer
„Service
Platform
for
Green
European
Transportation“. Diese Plattform dient zur
Sammlung, Aufbereitung und Bereitstellung von
Echtzeitinformationen
auf
Europas
Transportwegen. Die Verfügbarkeit solcher Daten
erlaubt
nicht
nur
eine
nachhaltige
Transportplanung, sondern auch die Steuerung
und Kontrolle des Transports in Echtzeit im Falle
unvorhergesehener
Situationen.
Mittelfristig
kommt es so zu einer Reduktion von Verkehr im
Allgemeinen, sowie Staus und Umweltbelastung
(durch
den
verringerten
Ausstoß
von
Treibhausgasen) im Speziellen.
LogMan
(EU
–
FP7):
LOGistics
&
MANufacturing
trends
and
sustainable
transport
Das Projekt wurde von einem internationalen
Konsortium unter der Leitung von Austria Tech
GmbH durchgeführt. Das Ziel des Projekts war es,
Supply Chains so zu reorganisieren, dass sowohl
ökonomische Nachhaltigkeit (total landed costs,
customer service) als auch ökologische
Nachhaltigkeit
(CO2
Emissionen)
erreicht wird. Die Analyse umfasste
sämtliche Stufen der Supply Chain
vom Rohstofflieferanten bis hin zum Kunden und
auch
etwaige
Rückflüsse
von
neuen
und
gebrauchten Gütern. Damit sollten Empfehlungen
für die künftige europäische Transportpolitik
entwickelt werden. Im Rahmen des Projekts lag der
Schwerpunkt
des
Instituts
für
Produktionsmanagement
auf
der
Analyse
bestehender Supply Chains sowie der Entwicklung
von Supply Chain Strategien zur Erreichung
ökonomischer und ökologischer Nachhaltigkeit.
The structure of manufacturing and logistics
networks, also known as supply chains, is
determined by different trends and best practices
that have turned out to be advantageous in the
past. While these strategies (e.g. outsourcing) have
led to reductions in supply chain costs, they have
also increased transport activities and greenhouse
gas emissions. A strategic goal of the European
Union is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
order to achieve sustainable economic growth.
Recent research projects on Sustainable Supply
Chain Management:
GET Service (EU – FP7): Service Platform for
Green European Transportation
The currently ongoing project “GET-Service”
approaches the goal of achieving economic and
environmental
sustainability
in
freight
transportation from a micro-economic perspective.
It is the goal of this project to develop an
integrated information platform that facilitates
increased “Green European Transportation”. This
information platform will greatly simplify the
provisioning and the exchange of information
between transport planners, professionals and
governmental bodies. This will lead to faster and
safer freight transportation in Europe, which,
consequently, has positive effects on the overall
traffic situation, but also on congestion and on
CO2 emissions.
LogMan
(EU
–
FP7):
LOGistics
&
MANufacturing
trends
and
sustainable
transport
The project “LOGMAN” aimed at identifying
“Logistics and Manufacturing Trends” and their
impact on sustainability in supply chains. Whereas
some trends and best practices (e.g. offshoring)
have turned out to be advantageous in the past
concerning economic criteria, they have also
increased transport activities and, consequently,
greenhouse gas emissions. In the course of the
project, case studies with European
companies from different industries
have been conducted. The identified
trends and best practices have then
been analysed according to their effects on
economic and environmental sustainability based
on a three-dimensional framework. Based on that,
scenarios have been developed and evaluated using
macro-economic transport- and emission-models in
order to derive recommendations for pan-European
transport policies.
Website:
GET: http://getservice-project.eu
LogMan: http://logman-footprint.eu
115
Sustainable Transport and Logistics
Sustainable Transport & Logistics
Das Institut für Transportwirtschaft und Logistik
und
das
Forschungsinstitut
Supply
Chain
Management
bearbeiten
diverse
Forschungsbereiche in der Transportwirtschaft und
Logistik. Besonders im Laufe der letzten Jahre hat
der Forschungsschwerpunkt „Nachhaltigkeit“ enorm
an Wichtigkeit gewonnen. Im Folgenden werden
drei ausgewählte Studien näher vorgestellt:
CO2-TEC Transport Emission Calculator
www.co2-tec.com ist ein Online-Service zur
Berechnung
der
CO2-Emissionen
von
Straßengütertransporten unter Berücksichtigung
von
Teilladungen,
gemischt
beladenen
Ladungsträgern und Touren auf Basis in der Praxis
verfügbarer
Informationen.
Die
Modellierung
mehrstufiger
Transportketten
in
CO2-TEC
ermöglicht eine Abbildung
unterschiedlicher
Produktionsformen
des
Transports und trägt zur
Realisierung
des
Product
Carbon
Footprints
aus
logistischer Sicht bei.
Consolidation
and
Coordination
in
urban
areas
Das Projekt untersucht eine
integrierte,
städtische
Frachtsimulation,
ein
neuartiges
Rahmenkonzept
zur
Erhebung
eines
ökologischen
Fußabdrucks
von
Transportund
Logistikbewegungen und konzepten. Die zentrale Idee
dabei ist, den Fokus nicht auf einzelne Sendungen,
Akteure oder Fahrzeuge zu legen, sondern diese als
Komponenten eines integrierten Logistiksystems zu
sehen, das es zu optimieren gilt.
Umweltmanagement im Straßengüterverkehr:
eine quantitative Analyse
Der Schwerpunkt der Studie liegt auf der
Implementierung von Umweltmanagement im
österreichischen Straßengüterverkehr. Eine OnlineErhebung (N=259) überprüfte den Status-quo in
österreichischen
Unternehmen
sowie
deren
Einstellung und Zukunftseinschätzung. Trotz eines
generellen Bewusstseins für die Wichtigkeit von
Nachhaltigkeit im Straßengüterverkehr, bestätigen
die
Ergebnisse
dringenden
Handlungsbedarf.
Gesetzliche Anpassungen, Anreizsysteme sowie die
Verbreitung von Wissen und „best practices“
erscheinen
zentral,
um
die
zukünftigen
Herausforderungen zu bewältigen.
The
Institute
for
Transport
and
Logistics
Management and the Research Institute for Supply
Chain Management tackle various research topics in
the domain of transport and logistics. Projects
focusing on sustainability have gained significant
importance over the past years. In the following,
three selected research projects are illustrated:
CO2-TEC Transport Emission Calculator
www.co2-tec.com
(CO2-TEC)
is
an
online
application for the calculation of CO2 emissions of
road freight transports. The modeling of multistaged transport chains enables the illustration of
different forms of transport and contributes to the
realization of the Product Carbon Footprint from a
logistics point of view.
Consolidation and Coordination in urban areas
The project investigates an integrated urban freight
simulation environment, a unique measurement
framework
for
the
environmental footprint of
transport
and
logistics
operations and concepts. The
fundamental idea is to stop
considering each shipment,
actor and vehicle in isolation,
but as components of an
integrated logistics system to
be optimized.
Environmental
Management
in
Road
Freight Transport
The study focused on the
implementation
of
environmental management
in Austrian road freight
transport using an online
questionnaire (N = 259). Despite a general
awareness for sustainability, the results indicate
serious
hindering
constraints.
Regulations,
incentive schemes and know-how spreading will be
important future challenges to improve the
situation.
Website:
www.wu.ac.at/itl
Kontakt/Contact:
Wolfram Groschopf, [email protected]
Vera Hemmelmayr, [email protected]
Elmar Fürst, elmar.fü[email protected]
116
RCE – Regional Centre of Expertise in
Education for Sustainable Development
RCE – Regional Centre of Expertise in
Education for Sustainable Development
Das Regionale Expertisezentrum zur Bildung für
nachhaltige Entwicklung Wien ist ein Netzwerk
für Forschung, Bildung und Wissenstransfer zu
Fragen regionaler und transregionaler nachhaltiger
Entwicklung.
Inhaltlich
fokussiert
das
RCE
vorwiegend
auf
Themen einer
sozioökonomischen
und
umweltgerechten
Entwicklung und sucht
Lösungen
für
aktuelle
Herausforderungen, u.a.
in den Bereichen:
Wo we are
The RCE Vienna is the regional network for research,
education and knowledge interactions on questions
related to regional and trans-regional sustainable
development. We focus on topics in the field of
ecologic
and
socioeconomic
development
and
seek
to tackle
challenges such as:








nachhaltige Stadtund Regionalentwicklung,
Smart City Prozesse,
sozialer Zusammenhalt,
Klimawandel,
nachhaltiges Unternehmertum und
gemeinschaftlicher Konsum (collaborative
consumption).




Wien weist eine starke und wachsende Gemeinschaft
an
Initiativen,
Organisationen,
Universitäten, •
Unternehmen und zahlreichen weiteren Akteuren auf,
die in den Bereichen nachhaltige Entwicklung und •
Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung aktiv sind.
Zusammen schaffen sie einen umfassenden Pool an
Expertise und bilden einen der wichtigsten Faktoren
für die zukunftsfähige Entwicklung des Großraums
•
Wien.
Das RCE Vienna versteht sich als Schnittstelle dieser
Organisationen, fördert den Austausch von Wissen
und schafft eine Plattform für das gemeinsame •
Arbeiten
von
Forschungsinstitutionen,
Bildungseinrichtungen, öffentlichen Körperschaften,
Akteuren der
•
Wirtschaft, des
Kulturlebens und
einer
Reihe
anderer Stakeholder.
Durch
die
Stärkung
transformativer Bildung bereitet das RCE Vienna
damit den Weg von nachhaltigen Visionen hin zu
konkreten Aktionen und gibt Impulse für die
nachhaltige ökonomische Entwicklung im Großraum
Wien bzw. der CENTROPE Region.
•
sustainable urban and regional development,
smart city themes and processes (e.g. green
building, sustainable mobility)
social coherence,
sustainability entrepreneurship and
collaborative consumption.
What we do
Current RCE activities include amongst others:
G.B.S - Green Building Solutions summer school
Sustainability Challenge – an inter- and
transdisciplinary academic course taking place each
summer semester
ALTECS – fostering knowledge exchange in the
context of alternative economic systems to promote
sustainable regional development
EMAH Eco-Mobility in the Austro-Hungarian Border
Region
Website:
www.rce-vienna.at
Kontakt/ Contact:
Christian Rammel, [email protected]
117
Organisationsteam
Organizing committee
André Martinuzzi ist Vorstand des Institute for Managing Sustainability (www.sustainability.eu) und
Associate Professor an der WU Wien. Seit mehr als zehn Jahren ist er als Koordinator von Projekten in
EU-Forschungsrahmenprogrammen tätig, hat Forschungsarbeiten für sechs EU Generaldirektionen,
das Europäische Statistische Amt, das UN Development Programme, für Bundes- und
Landesverwaltungen
durchgeführt.
Seine
Forschungsschwerpunkte
sind
Corporate Sustainability, Nachhaltigkeitspolitik, Evaluationsforschung und
Wissensmanagement. In den nächsten Jahren wird er gemeinsam mit einem
internationalen Team ein Tool-Kit entwickeln mit dem multinationale
Unternehmen ihre Beträge zur Entwicklungspolitik managen können.
André Martinuzzi is the Head of the Institute for Managing Sustainabiliy
(www.sustainability.eu), associate professor at the Vienna University for
Business and Econmics. For more than 10 years, he is functioning as the
coordinator of EU research framework program projects, research projects for six
EU Directorate General, the European Agency for Statistics, the UN Development
Programme as well as for federal and state administrations. His research foci are
Corporate Sustainability, Sustainable Policies, Evaluation Research and Knowledge Management. In
the next couple of years, he and an international team will be developing a tool kit that will support
Multinational Corporations managing their contribution to development policies.
Fred Luks leitet das Kompetenzzentrum für Nachhaltigkeit an der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien. Er
beschäftigt sich seit langem in Forschung, Lehre und Management mit Nachhaltigkeitsthemen. Luks
war Vorsitzender der Vereinigung für Ökologische Ökonomie. Zu seinen
beruflichen Stationen gehören die Leitung eines interdisziplinären
Forschungsprojekts, eine Gastprofessur an der Universität Hamburg und
die Tätigkeit als Nachhaltigkeitsmanager eines großen Unternehmens. Er
hat zahlreiche Publikationen zu verschiedenen Nachhaltigkeitsthemen
vorgelegt, u.a. sieben Bücher.
Fred Luks is managing the Competence center for sustainability at the
Vienna University for Business and Economics. He is experienced in
dealing with research, education and management, focusing on topics in
the area of sustainability. Fred Luks was a chairman of the association
for Ecological Economics. His professional background includes leading an interdisciplinary research
project, being a guest professor at the University of Hamburg and sustainability manager of a large
company. He has published numerous publications on different sustainability topics, inter alia, seven
books.
Norma Schönherr ist wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin und Projektkoordinatorin am Institute for
Managing Sustainability (www.sustainability.eu). Sie studierte Politikwissenschaften in Maastricht,
Niederlande, und Toulouse, Frankreich, sowie Ressourcenökonomie in Berlin,
Deutschland. Sie war vor Ihrer Tätigkeit an der WU Wien unter anderem
Mitarbeiterin einer globalen Umweltorganisation und Politikanalystin an einem
unabhängigen Forschungsinstitut. Am Institute for Managing Sustainability
beschäftigt sie sich vorrangig mit den Themengebieten CSR, globale Entwicklung
und ist spezialisiert auf das Management von EU-Projekten.
Norma Schönherr is a Research Fellow and Project coordinator at the Institute
for Managing Sustainability (www.sustainability.eu). She has studied Political
Science in Maastricht, the Netherlands, and Toulouse, France, as well as
Resource Economics in Berlin, Germany. She worked for a global environmental
organization and as a policy analyst at an independent research institute before
joining the institute. In her current position, she focuses on CSR and global development and
specializes in the coordination of EU research projects.
118
Editors:
André Martinuzzi ([email protected])
Norma Schönherr ([email protected])
Contact:
Vienna University of Economics and Business
Welthandelsplatz 1, A-1020 Vienna, Austria
Cover-Picture:
© Kirsty Pargeter - Fotolia.com
The series of Project Reports and Working Papers of the Institute for Managing Sustainability is
geared toward the rapid dissemination of research results on "Sustainable Development" and
"Corporate Social Responsibility". It presents current research and invites feedback and
discussion. The series publishes cutting-edge research results intended for further dissemination
in international scientific journals. The Project Reports and Working Papers are published by
André Martinuzzi, director of the Institute for Managing Sustainability together with colleagues
and guest authors.
Visit www.sustainability.eu for

More information about our projects

News and events

Downloads and publications

Registration for our newsletter

Getting in touch with us
The Institute for Managing Sustainability at the Vienna
University of Economics and Business is a think-tank
focusing on the areas of Sustainable Development and
Corporate Social Responsibility. Since its establishment
around 10 years ago the institute has acquired a
Europe-wide recognition, having conducted projects
within five different research fields for several EU
Directorates General, as well as the EU Committee of
Regions, European Statistical Office, UN Development
Programme and a variety of national ministries.
Systemic
Sustainability
Management
Complexity, Resilience
and System Thinking
André Martinuzzi, Norma Schönherr (ed.)
Autumn meeting of the Section Sustainability Management
of the German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB)
7 and 8 October 2013, Vienna University of Economics and Business

Conference proceedings

Transcription

Similar documents

Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung von Unternehmen

die geschichte - VerkehrsRundschau.de

WilsonWendy - Georgetown University

Die Grenzen des Wachstums – Die große Transformation

16 - Allgemeinmedizin

Computerspielen

integrierte management- konzepte

Dokument 1.

Gewaltrituale in Jugend- und Sportverbänden

econetmonitor - AHK Greater China

Elternkurse als Methode der Gewaltprävention in Familien mit

Fan und Flaneur: Public Viewing bei der FIFA

L - ITAS

Let`s talk about Porno

Jahresbericht 2009 - Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien

Ärzteblatt Baden-Württemberg 08-2007

Allrounderin Zukunftsmobil Adventszeit

InfoRetica - Rhätische Bahn

forum ware 40 - DGWT - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Warenkunde und

Programm - Institute for Managing Sustainability

Resilienzbuch - Matrix

Pressemitteilung