Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
behaviours of employees:
Harnessing organisational culture for
sustainable success
Nadine Exter
Head of Business Development
Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility
October 2014
The Doughty Centre aims to combine rigorous research and leading‐edge practice. We focus on three things:
knowledge creation: rigorous and relevant research into how companies can embed responsible business
into the way they do business;
knowledge dissemination: introducing Corporate Responsibility more systemically into existing graduate
and executive education (both in relevant open programmes and customised, in‐company programmes);
and
knowledge application: working with alumni, corporate partners and others to implement our knowledge
and learning.
We welcome enquiries for collaborations including around:
speaking and/or chairing conferences and in‐company events
facilitating organisations in the public, private or voluntary sectors who wish to produce their own think‐
pieces/ "white papers" on Corporate Responsibility, sustainability or public‐private‐community
partnerships
practical projects to embed CR in an organisation
scenario‐development and presentations to help organisations envision a more responsible and sustainable
future
co‐creation and joint publication of research, think‐pieces and practical "how‐to" guides
design and delivery of organisation‐customised and open learning programmes around CR, sustainability or
public‐private‐community partnerships
The Author
Nadine Exter is the Head of Business Development at the Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility. Her
specialist research and teaching areas are organisational cultures, engaging employees and impacting mindset
and behaviours of employees. At the Doughty Centre she also leads the Advisory Services and helps organisations
at all stages of the sustainability journey. With experience in developing and running employee engagement
programmes, defining materiality and development of sustainability strategies, mentoring sustainability teams,
running cross‐sector collaborations and partnerships, Nadine helps organisations to embed business sustainability
into the realities of business operations.
INTRODUCTION
A fable
A scorpion stands by the side of a river, wondering how to get across.
He sees a frog frolicking in the water, and asks:
“Will you please carry me over?”
“Well, no, you will sting me – you are a scorpion” says the frog.
“No I won’t,” reassures the scorpion. “If I sting you, you would sink and I would also drown.”
So the frog agrees and begins carrying the scorpion,
but midway across the scorpion does indeed sting the frog,
dooming them both.
“Oh why did you sting me?” asks the dying frog. “Now you will die too.”
“I know, I’m sorry – but it’s in my nature.” replies the dying scorpion.
It is probably safe to assert that first and foremost we are human beings – meaning we are capable of
amazing feats of ingenuity, innovation and stupidity; rational and irrational, smart and stupid ... a riddle
wrapped inside a mystery inside an enigmai.
Why then do we all too often set this aside when it comes to running businesses? We focus on numbers,
measurements, growth, monetary success, and use these to manage how we do business. In short, we
forget that we are humans. We forget that what really gets us out of bed in the morning is not an 8%
growth target, but the opportunity to work with a group of people we respect. That when describing
what we do we probably don’t give a functional list of tasks, but the contribution we make: “Why,
grandmother, I help provide refreshing healthy drinks” or, “I teach teenagers to think” – but not: “I
helped achieve an average project IRRii of 12% this quarter.”
Behavioural economics is having its moment – whether it’s ‘people are irrational, possibly dumb, and
need guiding’ (Freakanomics Levitt & Dubner; Nudge economics Thaler & Sunstein; Kahneman’s
Thinking, Fast and Slow) or the approach that ‘people are not stupid, just ill‐educated in risk literacy’
(Gigerenzer’s Risk Savyiii). But whatever school of thought you follow there is growing recognition that
how we do business – how we interact as humans, how our values guide our behaviour, and how we
assess and make decisions based on a set of criteria that fit with our personal ethics – is intensely
powerful. It’s what differentiates us from each other and also what we bond over, and is an integral
recipe for success. ‘How we do business’ has to be recognised and therefore managed well because we
are more than numbers, growth targets, and items to be measured – and because if we don’t manage
‘how we do business’, then that mismanagement will contribute to failure.iv We know that culture has a
significant financial long‐term impact; two long‐term studies published in Harvard Business Review
found financial performance was respectively enhanced or conversely worsened if culture was or was
not managed.v Human nature and culture is inevitable, ever present and will develop with or without
strategic management – “Culture eats strategy for lunch!vi”
This occasional paper is an introduction to how organisational culture (‘how we do business around
here’) can contribute to your efforts to create sustainable and responsible organisations – or conversely
how a badly managed culture can contribute to failure. We use occasional papers to raise awareness of
a research area we feel is underutilized in efforts to embed sustainability. Thus, this paper is not
intended as a ‘How to guide’.
As ‘culture’ is such an amorphous subject, this paper attempts to establish the breadth and depth of
‘culture’ specific to how it relates to embedding sustainability, hopefully proving why understanding
your culture can be useful. This paper cannot cover everything that sits under this big umbrella term,
but I hope to introduce you to – and whet your appetite via – real examples that will demonstrate why it
is (in my opinion) critical to understand culture. This is only the first part of the research however, and
the next phase of the research, Phase 2, will explore specific cultural characteristics to see how they
manifest in ‘high’ and ‘low’ sustainability companies. Are there specific characteristics that need to
1
manifest in a certain way, that are essential for creating sustainable companies? What is unique about
the culture of a sustainable organisation vs. an unsustainable one? At this point, I have some suspicions
and this paper shares some initial research, but Phase 2 research will address these questions more
robustly.
Research – and our experience – has demonstrated that creating a sustainable organisation is like a
journey. There are various stages to the journey, which can feel very different to each other and it may
be hard to articulate the evolution from one stage to the next when you are in the middle of this
transition. But these stages are important to build upon and progressvii; the successes and lessons
learned from one stage empower you at the next and teach you better and faster ways to work. The few
organisations that are sustainably mature1 have evolved with cultures that nurture sustainable mindsets
and behaviours and helped them to ‘capture value from sustainability’viii; however for all other
organisations at earlier stages of embedding sustainability there are cultural ‘levers’ described in this
paper that you can use to help you on your journey. This applies even if you do not have the remit,
positional power, or know‐how to make large‐scale impact – there is still a lot you can do to craft your
strategy and tactics for faster and deeper sustainability success.
Thus, the knowledge shared here is intended (although not exclusively) for use by sustainability teams
who have taken the first few steps towards creating a sustainable organisation but are now
experiencing a slowing down of momentum (and you may not be sure why); and also for those tasked
with managing or changing culture where necessary. We define sustainable business as one that creates
long‐term shareholder and societal value by embracing the opportunities and managing the risks
associated with social, environmental and economic developments. This includes how a business
operates, the products and services it produces and sells, how it treats its stakeholders, the impacts it
has, and the decisions it makes. The focus of this paper is to show how appreciating and then harnessing
organisational culture can help create sustainable organisations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the University of Cambridge Masters in Sustainability Leadership for hiring me to
teach this material and, therefore, inspiring me to articulate it better – much of this text started from
what I wrote for the Cambridge curriculum and pre‐reading on Employment Practices for Sustainability;
research partners change management consultancy Methodos who are forever grounding me in the
practicalities of running a change programme and realities (and irrationalities) of business; a few
corporate partners I can’t name for confidentiality reasons but are wonderful for being my test sites;
and Cranfield School of Management, for giving me free reign to explore this very amorphous subject.
With thanks to all those who reviewed and commented, especially Oonagh Harpur, Tom Woollard,
Kenneth Amashi, Ron Ainsbury, and an informal group of HR professionals who kindly discussed in‐
depth with me on values and behaviours.
1
Sometimes called ‘embracers’, ‘high performers’, stages 4 or 5 on ‘corporate responsibility stages of maturity’; see also
Ainsbury & Grayson (2014).
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We know that humans working in organisations need to be managed, with the Human Resources (HR)
department being a well established entity in assisting with that. This specialism as a basic focuses on
training, talent development, recruitment, pensions and pay, and retention. However, all the other
‘components’ of an organisation overtly or unconsciously, planned or unplanned, having an effect on
how individuals and groups of employees behave also need to be seen in their totality – and then
managed accordingly. All those components are obvious and invisible and permeate across every
department, level and grade. That, when combined, create how we behave, how we innovate, how we
treat others, how we make decisions, and how we lead or follow. This is organisational culture ‐ our
behaviour, work mindset, choice of products, the way we treat customers and so on are outputs of the
culture. As gurus Deal and Kennedy summarise: “the way things get done around here”.ix
This is relevant for embedding sustainability because a ‘holy grail’ of success is to embed sustainability
into the mindset and behaviours of employees. This is so that every action taken, every decision made,
every product developed, every raw material sourced, and every interaction with a stakeholder is done
in a responsible way that together defines a sustainable organisation. Sustainable business is not a
small team of champions doing great things; it is the whole organisation having positive impacts. Thus,
we argue that embedding sustainability into the mindset and behaviours of employees – and the
systems that control or influence that behaviour (i.e. culture) – is critical.
This paper takes a dual viewpoint of the organisation:
from the viewpoint of an individual employee to understand what motivates them to behave
and/or change their behaviour;
and from the viewpoint of the organizational leaders coordinating and managing their group of
employees who have come together to achieve a common or overlapping goal. The group
organises and surrounds themselves with tools to do this, using a ‘system’ helps them to
cooperate, communicate, coordinate, prioritise and achieve shared goals – that system is the
culture of the organisation. Culture needs to be diagnosed to understand its impact on behaviours,
specifically for achieving a sustainability strategy, and could further be diagnosed for how it can
actually become a lever for success.
Each organisation is unique because of the unique context of that particular group and the individuals it
has attracted; its unique interlocking cultural components; the overall goal/mission; and how
management and leadership coordinate the organisation. Connecting the existing research that
identifies ‘component parts’ of organisational culture (one’s experience at work), with the research
specifically exploring ‘inputs’ (individual behaviour and values), has been very useful for understanding
a broader view of achieving sustainable outcomes:
input (i) + organisational culture (oc) = ‘sustainable outcomes’ (so)
Outcomes being sustainability embedded into mindset and behaviour of employees:
3
INDIVIDUAL INPUTS
Work is an important part of our lives; everyone is involved in work, one way or another and we spend
a good part of our day at work. However, research has also shown that some managers have:
“A tendency to suppress their humanity and become more robotic when they’re at work”x
Why is this? Looking from the individual perspective, at the interaction between personal and
organisational values, can help explain why employees act and react at work to create their resulting
sustainable – or unsustainable – behaviour. Our values help us define our beliefs and principles, which
in turn helps us to clarify the meaning of our lives. Having this clarity helps us to seek out appropriate
experiences that reinforce our values (such as our place of work) and avoid negative experiences. This
is why it is so important to have clarity and a degree of values congruence between individual and
workplace values; a significant enough disconnect can cause discomfort, or in worst case scenario can
cause dissonance (i.e. acting in an unsustainable manner).
However, we do not all act the same way when we integrate into work groups. Some of us will adopt
the behaviours (or a degree of the behaviours) of the work collective (whether or not congruent to our
own behaviours). Others exert their own free will in how to behave and may act contrary to group
behaviours – for positive or negative results. Both approaches can be useful for embedding
sustainability, as long as the reason for the behaviour is understood and channelled to good use. But it
is important to remember that a characteristic of successfully sustainable organisations is when the
personal values of managers (whatever those values are) are able to be active. This is why it is
important to appreciate that employees have personal values, seek varying degree of congruence with
organisational values, and that the strength of this relationship and ability to express their values can
affect their sustainable behaviour at work.
Thus, it is important to develop a clear enough organisational purpose and values for stakeholders to
recognise and connect with, yet be flexible enough for employees to explore the relevance of those
values in their context. Getting this right means sustainability can be cascaded into the different ‘ways
we do things around here’, whilst still having a strong organisation‐wide framework for consistent
sustainable results.
4
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE: EXPERIENCING LIFE AT WORK
Life at work is not static; employees enter the workplace with their own values and behaviours and
experiences of life outside of work. However, when employees join the group, they will seek
congruence with group norms present at work (to varying degrees). Their behaviour will be nudged and
influenced by their experience of work, to positive or negative effect. This is especially true if
organisational leaders do not realise that different components of the culture can send contradictory
messages of how employees should behave. Often this lack of recognition results in a difference in
what leaders say should be prioritised/occur vs. what actually occurs. Appreciating what influences the
cultural components (individually and collectively) have on employees will help ensure that this gap
between desired sustainable behaviours and real behaviours is kept to a minimum as possible.
These components include:
1. Purpose: Purpose explains why the organisation does what it does, and helps stakeholders
understand the business’s role, actions, priorities and relevance of products. Purpose can affect
how leadership and power is used to lead and direct the firm towards a sustainable future (the
rallying call to achieve said purpose, setting the tone); for translating the 'what', 'why' and 'how'
we work in the practical realities of operations and why therefore sustainable actions are so
important; how the needed green/diverse/transparency (etc) skills will be guided by what is
needed to deliver the ‘Purpose’; how control systems such as triple bottom line reporting are
structured so as to operationally support the delivery of the Purpose; or setting the ethical
standards of integrity, bravery (etc) for group behaviours and norms.
2. Control systems: the systems that control and influence our activity in – and experience of ‐ the
firm. Processes and procedures are important for communicating clearly how people should
behave and how resources should be used. Achieving a balance of compliance (especially legal and
health & safety) vs. discretion for individual thinking and empowerment requires careful planning.
Because processes often emerge organically and sporadically across the business as and when they
are needed, there can be unintended consequences. Too many policies with punitive action
attached to them could lead to a compliance driven culture where employees feel disempowered
to take action, and therefore disengaged with anything outside their functional tasks or for future
benefit. Not enough control leads to uncertainty of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour
and can lead to inefficiencies and lapses of judgement. Socialisation within the organisation
includes learning what these control systems are and how to work within – and often around –
them. Control systems can also be used to drive responsible employee behaviour, for example
through reward systems, promotions, codes and standards, the criteria for how investment or
costs are approved and how resource allocation occurs.
3. Group behaviour and norms: although individual values and behaviours contributes to work group
behaviours, so too does the experience of work when influenced by the various cultural
components. Although both these sources of influences can create complexity, one can still
exercise an element of control over work group behaviours and norms. One can develop
boundaries and expectations of behaviours that will enable strategy success – as long as the
current norms and desired behaviours have been identified first. Sub‐cultures will exist and
appropriate interpretation of the behaviours and group norms will be needed. Recognising how
your employees learn will also shape the approach needed for managing one’s employees;
behaviours are complex, can be situational, but can be coordinated as long as cues from, and
influences on, employees are recognised. Influences can include demographics and diversity,
emotional wellbeing, and (specifically for sustainability) instinctive responses to threats such as
climate change, famine or poverty.
4. Leadership and power: leadership refers to the formal, earned and informal positions given, with
associated power, to a relatively small group of people in the organisation to control and direct the
group and resources. How these are used to embed sustainability is critical, both in terms of
leadership and power being exercised in a responsible way and in terms of using it to create
sustainable organisations. Leaders direct employees through their every day actions (leading by
example) and the way they manage the systems and processes directly in their control. Leaders,
and the use of leadership, can create an enabling working environment for sustainability to occur.
However, personal character and values, approach, and the support (such as governance and
accountability) put in place will dictate the success a leader can have for creating a sustainable
5
organisation. Whereas formal leadership can be more directive and overtly champion change (in a
fair and transparent way), informal and earned leadership can also be powerful and instigate
change or champion sustainability through utilising relationships, reputation or even by taking
power.
5. Organisational structures: these are the physical organisation of employees and assets, including
property and locations, hierarchy, and how people are grouped. Structures influence the way we
interact with each other, group norms, and if employees can work toward a common goal, such as
disseminating a new sustainable way to do business. For example, structures can help or hinder
how roles and responsibilities are fairly planned, cascaded and delegated around sustainability
efforts; how related work is effectively cascaded; and how employees learn from each other, form
extra‐departmental working relationships and build trust, and group together to disseminate
accepted (or new sustainable) norms. How the cascade of levels of a firm are designed –
bureaucratic, flat, matriarchic, hierarchical, monolithic etc – influences culture, and specifically
whether employees behave ethically or not. Whereas traditionally, structures were used to limit
manager power, ‘job design’ theories connect increased job autonomy with employees feeling a
greater ownership and responsibility for the outcomes of their work. This can positively affect
employee engagement and performance. Sustainability‐related behaviour amongst employees’ en
mass has been negatively affected if transparency is lost and hierarchy is seen as unfair. Cascading
a sustainable mindset can be made harder by silos and division (although there are ways around
that) because cross‐functional socialisation is difficult when silos exist.
6. Skills and competencies: developing the skills and competencies of your employees is essential not
just for day‐to‐day operational effectiveness, but also for ensuring the ability to manage complex
sustainability challenges and opportunities that businesses face. This includes skills, competencies,
knowledge, and perspective. Stakeholder engagement and partnering is a way that successful
companies think and act differently to others. However, employees requires the right skill set to do
this – as well as the perspective of outside‐in. Understanding where agendas align, cultivating
relationships, maintaining transparency, bravery, and patience are all needed. Likewise, teaching
employees flexibility – or self‐organisation – so that employees can adapt to change and innovate
is an important skill. Appropriate skills and competencies specifically for leading sustainable
organisations have been researched and if developed will help to embed sustainability. However,
both formal and informal learning should be explored throughout the learning lifecycle of an
employee: recruitment, socialisation, and development.
7. External influences: It is important to recognise that employees and an organisation and its culture
do not operate in isolation from the rest of the world; it will exist within an ecosystem that it both
is affected by and affects. These external forces can be described as:
Strategic: market forces, political, legal/regulatory, socio‐economic, environmental, technical,
and industry. These forces impact on the strategy of the firm, for example regulation, technical
innovation, recession, and the political structures of the region.
Cultural: geographical cultures, religion, socio‐economic, social norms. These forces influence
the motivation and behaviour of employees and set expectations for how organisations and
people act.
All these external influences impact on the ‘social norm’ of understanding, abilities, priorities, and
motivations for being part a sustainable organisation and therefore need to be considered. As
these external influences peak and wane they can also become triggers/reasons for an
organisation to change or better address sustainability.
OUTCOMES: MOVING FROM ‘AS IS’ TO ‘TO BE’ STATE
Conversations about any change – especially systemic change – can discourage organisation leaders
and employees to engage with the topic. We like stability, or the illusion of stability, and it takes a
strong leader to recognise that change is needed and then to find the right catalyst to initiate that
change. Often, an ethical, legislative, or environmental crisis or an external event – such as a
competitor taking leadership position on sustainability – can trigger leaders to initiate the sustainability
journey. Sustaining the change offers even more barriers – especially relevant for sustainability which is
a long‐term mindset and where outcomes and benefits are often not seen in the short‐term. Sustaining
6
transformational change for sustainability requires internal culture alignment, an external enabling
context (some of which can also be used as a trigger for change, such as legislation), and some basic
management tools. The state of ‘change readiness’ (where organisational readiness for change is high)
will make it more likely for organizational members to initiate change, manage it better, exert greater
effort, exhibit greater persistence, and display more cooperative behaviour. The result is more effective
implementation of a new strategy. Becoming ‘change ready’ for sustainability (whether for a small,
focused change or wide‐scale systemic change) requires a fundamental question answered, which any
culture audit should help you to do:
Does your organisation need to fundamentally change (a transformational sustainability change
programme) and therefore need to be made ‘change ready’, or are there enough ingredients present so
that what is actually needed is better culture management or alignment so that sustainable mindset
and behaviours can emerge and be better directed for strategy achievement?
Some organisations don’t actually need to change. Very few organisations have no sustainable aspects
about them, even if deeply embedded or present in a small department isolated from the core of the
business. Often it is the case of finding these aspects, connecting and cascading them to create new
norms, rather than creating something new from the ashes of destruction. But this only works if the
prevailing culture already supports both strategy and sustainability mindset and behaviours. If culture is
not proactively managed, despite many pockets where it may work, then this mismanagement can
create behaviours and mindset that may be negative and hinder sustainable strategy achievement.
I personally believe that – outside of a few incidences where transformational change is needed – a
well managed culture is usually what is needed to embed sustainability rather than dramatic change, as
long as the culture (as it is) works in the long‐term for the organisation. The role of the sustainability
change‐makers is to identify if transformational change or if better culture management is needed. In
both cases aligning sustainability with existing culture (if it works) should help to embed sustainability.
Clarifying the desired ‘To be’ state will help set the ambition and give a tangible goal to achieve. This
helps change‐makers to identify what to keep, change, and adapt. For any ‘culture‐for‐sustainability’
programme it is critical to understand this desired state you are working towards – what will it look like
when employees and the organisation are more successfully sustainable? If change is needed, it is
important to remember the role of clear organisational purpose, values and boundaries of behaviour. A
gap analysis between the ‘As is’ state and the desired ‘To be’ state will help identify a starting point and
priorities. I suggest, following a cultural analysis and gap analysis, it is best to start with what already
works.
7
CONTENTS
1. SETTING THE SCENE: I + OC = SO 9
1.1 Making ‘culture for sustainability’ tangible 10
1.2 The lens this research uses 11
2. INPUT: THE HUMAN ELEMENT TO WORK 14
2.1 Appreciating the interaction between personal and organisational values 14
2.2 Engagement with sustainability 15
3. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE: EXPERIENCING LIFE IN THE ORGANISATION 17
3.1 Organisational purpose 17
3.2 Control systems 18
3.2.1 Using control systems to drive responsible workforce behaviour 18
2.2.2 Resource allocation and decision‐making 19
2.2.3 Reward and recognition 20
3.3 Group behaviours and norms 21
3.3.1 Group norms 22
3.3.2 Group values and behaviours 23
3.3.3 The challenge of sustainability on individual norms 26
3.4 Leadership and power 27
3.4.1 Formal leadership and power 28
3.4.2 Earned leadership and power 29
3.4.3 Informal leadership and power 30
3.5 Organisational structures 30
3.5.1 Physical structures and design 31
3.5.2 Layers of hierarchy 32
3.5.3 Physical groupings 32
3.6 Skills and competencies 33
3.6.1 Skills and competencies for sustainability change‐makers 34
3.6.2 The learning lifecycle 35
3.7 External influences 37
3.7.1 Technological influences 38
3.7.2 Sustainability macro trends 38
3.7.3 Social movements 39
3.7.4 Cultural influences on behaviours and norms 40
4. OUTCOMES: MOVING FROM ‘AS IS’ TO ‘TO BE’ STATE 41
4.1 Change readiness: transformational change or better culture management? 42
4.2 Initiating and sustaining culture change for sustainability 44
5. IN CONCLUSION 46
References 47
8
1. SETTING THE SCENE: I + OC = SO
We know that humans working in organisations need to be managed – it is probably fair to say this is
not in dispute, with the Human Resources (HR) department being a well established entity in assisting
with that (whether effective or not is a different conversation). This specialism as a basic focuses on
training, talent development, recruitment, and retention. But all the other ‘components’ of an
organisation that overtly or unconsciously, planned or unplanned, have an effect on how individuals
and groups of employees behave does not usually fit within the basic remit of a typical HR department.
How the tone and message of processes and procedures ‘nudge’ our behaviour, the assumptions we
make about what is expected of us beyond what is written down, the relationships we form that
enables us to learn from each other and share ideas and innovations, the values we bring into the
workplace and use to guide our ethical behaviour, how leaders use power and if that is fairly done with
good effect … and so on.
This is what organisational culture is: all those components that are obvious and invisible and permeate
across every department, level, and grade. That when combined create how we behave, how we
innovate, how we treat others, how we make decisions, and how we lead or follow. Our behaviour,
work mindset, choice of products, the way we treat customers and so on are outputs of the culture. As
gurus Deal and Kennedy summarise: “the way things get done around here”.xi
This paper aims to show you how ‘culture’ – the systems, practices and processes, mindset, behaviours,
values and norms, structures, and purpose and strategy – impacts on coordinating the firm to achieve
improved sustainability performance. It is critical to understand first how the organisation’s system of
coordinating employees impacts on current efforts to be sustainable (a top‐down view), to then be able
to deploy employees and related practices more effectively. It is also critical to understand from an
individual employee’s viewpoint (from bottom‐up) what from the organisation is influencing them to
behave as they do – from various experiences of life in the organisation as well as from their own self.xii
We start with the premise that an organisation is essentially a group of people (a ‘collective’) who have
come together to achieve a common or overlapping goal. They organise themselves and surround
themselves with tools to do this ‐ such as machinery, vehicles and computers ‐ and create a system
(often organically or unconsciously developed) by which they all (unconsciously or consciously) agree to
collaborate in. That ‘system’ helps them to cooperate, communicate, coordinate, prioritise and achieve
shared goals.
“Organisations are social arrangements for achieving controlled performance in pursuit of collective
goals.”xiii
The system will be influenced by external factors ranging from socio‐economic, political, religious,
technological, environmental and social norms – and other people will overlap with and influence the
system, such as suppliers, customers, regulators, unions, and politicians. The core system, however,
functions as the infrastructure guiding the collective’s achievement of organisational objectives. That
system is the ‘culture’ of the organisation:
Organisational culture
The collective behaviour of individuals in an organisation, based on a set of shared assumptions (emerging from the
infrastructure of the firm such as systems, processes & procedures, and control systems dictating the expected and
acceptable behaviour) that guide interpretation, motivation and behaviour (Ravasi & Schulz, 2006). This is ‘Culture‐
as‐variable’, meaning culture is an independent variable that needs to be managed (Buchanan & Huczynski, 1997):
1. Provides a sense of identity for employees, increasing commitment, making work more intrinsically rewarding
and increasing collective identity
2. Allows employees to make sense of their world around them and interpret what different events mean
3. Helps to reinforce the values of the organisation
4. Is a control devise for managing the human resource behaviour
Sub‐cultures can exist, arising from hierarchical, regional, or job type (e.g. customer facing vs. operational focused)
influences. This is not necessarily bad but does need to be appreciated.
9
1.1 MAKING ‘CULTURE FOR SUSTAINABILITY’ TANGIBLE
Culture management has been an established field of research in academia for the last 40 years, even if
it has not yet become common management practice. Management gurus Schein, Sengexiv, Deal &
Kennedy, Kotterxv, Ravasi & Schultzxvi, Handy, and Hofstede have all researched and written extensively
on organisational culture:
Various ‘types’ of cultures have been postulated (such as Deal & Kennedy’s 4 types of
organisational culturexvii, Handy’s 4 types of culturexviii or Denison’sxix more vs. less participative
cultures)
Influences on culture identified (such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theoryxx or Cameron &
Quinn’s Competing Values Frameworkxxi)
Components of culture identified (such as Johnson & Scholes Cultural Webxxii or Schein’s 3 layers of
culturexxiii)
And even measurement scales exist to diagnose various interpretations of culture (mainly focusing
on behaviours and values) such as Cooke & Lafferty’s OCIxxiv (Organisational Culture Improvement,
which focuses on behaviours) or Sashkin’s OBQxxv (Organisational Beliefs Questionnaire, which
focuses on values).xxvi
All these approaches are valuable for identifying, understanding and monitoring the manifestation of
human values and resulting behaviours in the workplace.
The Johnson & Scholes Cultural Web has particular relevance when looking at culture in the
organisation and its impact on us. In the 1990s they identified 6 key component parts of culture which
together creates an organisation’s culture – the Cultural Web. They do not look at individual values and
behaviours, but their model does helpfully focus on how an employee/group of employees experience
life in the organisation and thus how that experience, and an employee’s learned coping mechanisms
of the experience, contribute to their behaviour (which, combined with our own values, creates the
‘outcomes’ of culture). Johnson & Scholes research recognises that how organisational cultural
components manifest and influence individuals and groups is a strategic asset to use. At the very least
culture needs to be diagnosed to understand its impact on strategy achievement, and could further be
diagnosed for how it can actually become a lever for success.
More recently a few researchers have been exploring the link between creating sustainable
organisations and organisational culture, notably:
• Linnenlueke and Griffith, who suggest there is not one culture type that is sustainable, rather the
ideological underpinnings of the organisation influences employees to create their emphasis on
specific sustainability issues, thus influencing how sustainability is implementedxxvii;
• Wirtenberg, who identifies essential cultural elements for embedding sustainability of values,
mindset, leadership, transformational change process, employee engagement, learning,
diversity/inclusion & social justice, and intelligencexxviii; and
• Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim at Harvard, who found a clear positive link between managing some
components of culture for sustainability (specifically board/director responsibility and
compensation, established stakeholder engagement processes, long‐term orientation,
measurement and disclosure of non‐financial information) and financial successxxix.
However, beyond the organisational culture research it is also important to 'deep‐dive' into the role
personal values and behaviours have upon individuals when at work. Research focusing on this looks at
how we ‐ as individuals ‐ are conflicted or enhanced because of where we work and how we experience
that work. This research looks at proximate behaviour (relatively immediate triggers for behaviours
such as cultures, incentives, learning and values) rather than evolutionary perspectives.xxx This is not to
say evolutionary behaviour is not relevant – it is, such as our species tendency to discount the future
and social imitation – but sustainability evolutionary behaviour research is still nascent.
10
For understanding personal values and behaviours, the paper focuses mainly on proximate behaviour,
and at the individual level how three elements influence one’s behaviour at work: self‐identity, values,
and behaviours. These elements can be described as ‘inputs’ that each individual brings with them to
their workplace which:
influence the meaning they give to their work
influence how they behave at work
are influenced by their experiences at work (positively or negatively)
and is the lens through which they see their organisation.
Research has attempted to understand the influence of our personal values on our workplace
behaviour. For example, a recent tool called ‘moralDNA’ is used by some businesses in recruitment to
identify if an individual has compatible values and behavioursxxxi. This is a personality profile that looks
at ‘inputs’ (individual decision‐making preferences of law, love and logic) and eventual outcomes
(behaviours after experiencing the organisational culture vs. their behaviours otherwise).
1.2 THE LENS THIS RESEARCH USES
Despite the very good work of existing research approaches, I suggest there are two main issues:
Most existing culture scales and approaches tend to focus on either:
A. the initial individual employee ‘input’ to culture (i.e. their personal values, desires and
identity) and the subsequent ‘outcomes’ when at work (i.e. employee behaviours); or
B. life within the organisation, where behaviour is shaped by its culture, impacting on
‘outcomes’ (in this instance efforts to embed sustainability into mindset and behaviours).
B on its own can discount the individual initial ‘inputs’, whereas A may not take into account life at
work. Valuable as these two approaches are, they need to be brought together to capture the
totality of the journey we undergo as employees. I propose ‘outcomes’ are shaped not just by our
own individuality (A: the ‘input’ of values, identity and purpose) but also by the learned
experiences and coping strategies we have of our organisation’s culture (B). In my opinion, the
existing values and behaviour scales do not explore enough what it is inside the firm that creates or
influences behaviours and values, such as processes, leadership, skills development, group
assumptions, individual identity and desires etc. But existing approaches to culture (such as the
Cultural Web, which captures life inside the firm) on its own underplays the importance of our
individuality on our behaviour at work.
Most ‘types’ of culture postulated tend to be between 4‐6 types and therefore the categories are
quite broad, which is not representative of the rich diversity of organisations across the world.
The recent research looking at sustainability and organisational culture – robust and valid for what they
explore ‐ also have these issues. Therefore, to overcome these two issues of existing culture research, I
started by first looking at ‘inputs’ ‐ from the individual point of view and engaging employees as
individuals.xxxii This focused on identity, values, and behaviours. I then adopted a ‘Systems thinking’
approach (a way of viewing the firm as an organised collection of interlinked parts that are integrated
to achieve an overall, common goal) and looked at organisational culture (life inside the firm).
Originating from Systems Theory, organisations are a whole system of interacting parts that influence
each other and the role of management and leadership is to coordinate the parts in order to achieve
organisational objectives. Using ‘systems thinking’ helped me to see how ‘organisational culture’ is
‘omnipresent’ inside a firm and how it guides or influences our behaviour. A field of study called
‘Functionalism’ describes the organisation as a natural system whereby organisational culture is
necessary for its survival; each component of culture has a relevant role within that systemxxxiii. From
this, I hypothesise that each organisation is unique because of: the unique context of that particular
organisation and the individuals it has attracted; its unique interlocking cultural components; the
overall goal/mission; and how management and leadership coordinate the organisation.
11
Connecting the existing research that identifies ‘component parts’ of organisational culture (one’s
experience at work), with the research specifically exploring ‘inputs’ (individual behaviour and values),
has been very useful for understanding a broader view of how:
Input (i) + organisational culture (oc) = ‘sustainable outcomes’ (so)
Outcomes being sustainability embedded into the behaviours of employees (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Embedding sustainability: i + oc = so
Over the last 2 years I have been testing and adapting this approach, and are now exploring subsequent
insights and continuing to test its robustness with consultancy partners Methodos. This research is
helping us to develop guidance on why an organisation’s culture, once diagnosed, is helping or
hindering their sustainability efforts. We are identifying specific and unique cultural enablers and
barriers organisations face in their efforts to embed sustainability.xxxiv
This dual approach identifies not just what is seen (the obvious behaviours – the tip of Schein’s iceberg)
but also what is going on under the ‘water level’ which creates responsible – or irresponsible ‐
behaviour. We have found that combining these two areas of research has helped to turn an intangible
concept into a tangible way to identify and manage organisational culture as a whole system.
Combining this research also allows us to avoid labelling culture as a certain ‘type’ and instead simply
provides a diagnosis of the culture so that management can see if it supports or hinders achieving their
particular strategy. This is only the first step on the journey to create a sustainable culture, but it is an
important one.
For this report I use my research only as a framework for the paper so as to have a systematic way to
introduce you to organisational culture and how it is relevant for creating sustainable organisations.
This is not a ‘how to’ guide for how you can diagnose your organisational culture – although I hope it
gives you many moments of enlightenment!
12
Example of uncovering cultural enablers and barriers
The sustainability team of a leading UK‐based energy company recognised in 2013 that – despite
previous good momentum – efforts to embed sustainable mindset and behaviours into the workforce
was being hindered by barriers that were (at that point) unknown. They invited us in to test my
approach and explore what cultural enablers and barriers to embedding sustainability we could
identify.
Using the framework summarised in Figure 1, via an action‐research based approach, we realised that
there was a prevailing and dominant risk management approach (which had spread from H&S across all
departments to e.g. HR and how people were recruited, Finance and their cautious approach to signing
off budgets, project risk forms, physical signage and architecture, to how power and authority was
protected). This combined effect was unwittingly telling most employees not to be empowered or
innovate, to only do actions that comply with a written out process. This was a significant reason why,
to a large degree, employees who entered the firm valuing entrepreneurialism and innovation changed
their behaviours (as seen by not getting involved in the sustainability change programme) once inside
the firm ‐ despite emotionally connecting with sustainability.
Our challenge back to the company, on this observation specifically, was that whereas risk and safety
was very important they needed to decide how much that should dictate other aspects of the system
and employee behaviour such as team working, sharing of ideas, recruitment, approvals, leadership
etc. How much should risk mentality be the overriding factor in all areas of the business when they
were trying to enable employees to be more innovative, responsible and empowered?
13
2. INPUT: THE HUMAN ELEMENT TO WORK
Work is an important part of our lives; everyone is involved in work, one way or another. If in small fields
growing foods to keep themselves alive … working in a shop … in an employer’s premises for a wage etc.
According to sociologists, work (regardless of the degree of importance we place on it) contributes to
how we shape our lives and identities;
“…by the circumstances in which they have to work. The work people do becomes closely bound up with
their conception of self … Work is a social, economic and cultural phenomenon.”xxxv
However, research has also shown that managers have:
“A tendency to suppress their humanity and become more robotic when they’re at work”xxxvi
Why is this if work is such a big part of our lives? Looking at the broader picture of employees ‐ at home
outside of the organisational setting and at work ‐ can help explain this; influences from other aspects of
our lives affect our behaviour inside the organisational setting. This is especially relevant when
considering how to embed sustainability into ‘how we do things around here’, which relies on integrating
sustainability into employee’s mindset and behaviours.
2.1 APPRECIATING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PERSONAL AND ORGANISATIONAL VALUES
Values relate to the beliefs we hold about aspects of life; our guiding principles for our behaviour. Why
are values so important to us? First, because values help us define our beliefs and principles. Having
clarity on these then helps us to seek out appropriate experiences that reinforce our values (such as our
place of work) and avoid negative experiences. Reinforced values provide a source of meaning,
specifically because that helps to clarify the meaning of our lives.xxxvii This is why it is so important to have
a degree of values congruence between individual and workplace values; a significant enough disconnect
can cause discomfort, or in worst case scenario can cause dissonance (i.e. acting in a way contrary to
organisational benefit, or leaving the organisation).
Also complicating the interaction between personal and organisational values is that we don’t all react
the same way in how we integrate into groups. Some of us will adopt the behaviours of the collective (the
law of interdependence, a way of viewing the world as interconnected, discussed in section 3.3 Group
values and behaviours). However, others exercise the law of free will, whereby they actively break away
from social conditioning and norms to exercise their own free will in how to behave. This can actually
work well for creating sustainable organisations, as many employees with a passion for sustainability
have shown to be ‘deviants’ to group behaviours and habits. They can be good catalysts to test, showcase
and then ‘normalise’ sustainable behaviours. They can take on roles of: champions, social Intrapreneurs,
godparents, specialists, and unsung heroes tackling culture change.xxxviii It is important to recognise this,
and help both ‘deviant’ employees and employees en‐mass to transition through a planned engagement
approach so as to socialise and normalise desired sustainability‐related behaviours. This needs to be done
in a way that still celebrates their unique identity. It helps that sustainability is proven to be a strong
platform for engaging employees, with outcome benefits including lowering recruitment and retention
costs, improved productivity and innovation, and skills development.xxxix
Research has also shown that a characteristic of successfully sustainable organisations is when the
personal values of managers are active. This is why it is important to appreciate that employees have
personal values, seek a degree of congruence and enactment with organisational values, and that the
strength of this relationship can affect their behaviour at work. Behaviour affected includes ethical
behaviour (such as adhering to codes, treatment of customers) and specific sustainability‐related
behaviour such as considering social impact, recycling or transparency & reporting. Thus, appreciating
how personal values and organisational espoused values are linked is important to understand when
embedding sustainability; such as when choosing how the organisation clearly communicates and
facilitates employees to bring values to lifexl.
“The personal values of managers may contribute to the creation and maintenance of ‘CSR cultures’ in
their organisations…”xli
14
2.2 ENGAGEMENT WITH SUSTAINABILITY
The field of employee engagement has advanced significantly in recent years, including the role of
employee engagement in creating sustainable organisations. Consultancy in ‘employee engagement’ has
benefited from this, although I argue that in many instances this tends to be about communicating,
informing, or promoting – but not engaging. In 2012 I wrote a ‘how to’ guide on employee engagement
that tried to address this misconception. I argued that engagement is about first understanding the
context – or culture – of an organisation, and therefore the employee types, motivation, identity,
collective norms, and desired ‘To be’ state. From that an engagement plan can then be developed that
has the appropriate tactics relating specifically to the unique organisational context. In fact, running the
tactics is the easy part – understanding context and building the strategy is the complex part! In my
experience, without that initial context assessment an engagement plan can go wrong.
Key to getting context analysis right is first understanding your employees, their life at work, and key
influences outside work. Choosing appropriate tactics can then be done in a more informed way.
Engagement at work also relates to one’s motivation to be at work, motivation to change behaviours, and
the degree to which employees relate to sustainability. When planning engagement therefore, one needs
to understand the context and employee type, and appreciate the transition employees’ en mass need to
go through, which Figure 2 shows can have three distinct stages. Many engagement programmes simply
communicate the importance of recycling in a fun, informative manner. This may provide the first step of
‘informing’, but further actions are needed to interest and engage.
Figure 2: Three steps to employee engagement in sustainability, after context analysis
Note: The left hand column clusters available platforms for engagement tactics. The top row shows a proposed 3‐step
developmental journey of engagement, and the rows give example tactics that build during the engagement stages –
tactics need to be carefully chosen to be appropriate to the organisational culture. Developed by the author.
So what are these personal aspects that affect how we engage with sustainability at work, and what are
our personal motivations to engage with an organisation in the first place?
First, as discussed earlier, the congruence between our personal and organisational values helps to
build our self‐identity. Being a sustainable organisation, and related activities and actions, provides
clarity and demonstrations of organisational values. This helps individuals to identify with those
15
group values and find a degree of congruence; subsequently building loyalty for the organisation and
hopefully taking part in reinforcing those group values.
Second, although having a source of income is important, for organisations we commit to and have a
successful relationship with, many will look for more meaning than just a pay‐check ‐ even if that is
sub‐consciously donexlii. Specifically, the degree to which the workplace reinforces the broader
identity we have of who we are. In defining our ‘sense of self’ we tend to self‐classify in a social
context; social groupings we are part of, including family, friends, and work. We look to those social
groupings to prescribe to their identity, and thus reinforce our own identity (especially if there is a
social purpose)xliii. If the workplace provides this, it can become a source of satisfaction, commitment,
and positive attitudesxliv. Work can also be a source of distinctiveness if we have that identity and
congruence, and if we have the opportunity to enact this congruence. Sustainability, because it
relates to values and behaviours, can provide a source of identity ‘reinforcement’. For example, being
a Green Champion, Social Intrapreneur or Godparentxlv. However, if something disrupts that
connection, we can react badly – which is why it is important to be clear on organisational identity,
and then ensure that, on the whole, the way the organisation operates is in line with that identity.
The bad news is that knowing how all your employees have congruence with organisational values and
identity is practically impossible for all but the smallest organisations. Likewise, I suggest the purpose is
not to inflict your values on employees, rather to help them to have clarity of organisational values
enough to be attracted to the organisation. Even then, a degree of interpretation is needed so that the
values are relevant in China, US, in a factory or in a retail unit. This means focusing on understanding the
sub‐cultures and their dominant characteristics which help develop employees as citizens, and finding the
fit between those cultural norms with your own organisation’s values and identity. Thus, developing a
clear and stable enough organisational identity and values to be a framework for behaviour needs to be
matched with flexibility so that employees can explore the relevance to them.
This is why appreciating the human element to work is so important for embedding sustainability. Getting
this right means sustainability can be cascaded into ‘the way we do things around here’ in any employee’s
specific setting, whilst still having a strong organisation‐wide framework for:
how effective governance works
what appropriate skills and competencies are needed to be sustainable
how leadership needs to operate to lead sustainable organisations
how structures can help cascade these norms, and
how control systems provides the guidance for behaving in a responsible, sustainable way.
16
3. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE: EXPERIENCING LIFE IN THE ORGANISATION
Life at work is often very different from life outside, not least because we may have a different set of
needs, wants, and communities we engage with at work vs. our personal lives. Thus, our organisations
can have very different influences on us vs. the ‘ecosystems’ we are part of outside work. So what
specifically at work (i.e. its organisational culture) influences our behaviour in a sustainable way?
3.1 ORGANISATIONAL PURPOSE
Underpinning any experience of work is ‘Purpose’. For organisations, this refers to the Purpose of an
organisation, or its role in society – its specific Purpose for being. Sometimes called ‘Mission’, the Purpose
explains why the organisation does what it does, and helps stakeholders understand the business’ role,
actions, priorities and relevance of products. The Purpose needs to articulate the organisation’s intended
role in society, its industry, and the reason why it exists. This then helps to set the direction of the
strategy. A clear Purpose articulates the message of why a stakeholder should engage with them – and
can attract or detract appropriate people (or inappropriate if the Purpose is badly communicated). Many
enduring purpose‐driven organisations exist whose purpose was articulated at birth, but this can also
exist and be uncovered for organisations later in life as they evolve to become more sustainable.
Example of historical purpose: The Guardian News and Media Group
GNM has a historical liberal purpose set at inception in the early 19th Century – to hold power to account
and champion social justice. This permeates into product choice (e.g. what stories it will cover),
behaviours (e.g. be brave in the face of power), and identity (e.g. as a slightly left‐of‐centre paper). This
helps send a clear message of what stakeholders can expect, will find in common, and why the
organisation behaves the way they do.
Example of reinvigorated purpose: DESSO
In the last decade DESSO underwent a transformational change journey when they realised the
importance of being a sustainable business. Their purpose became much clearer and was re‐articulated as
“… ensuring that we develop unique products that deliver a much improved indoor environment that
maximises people’s health and wellbeing and ultimately their performance.”
In 2002 Collins & Porrasxlvi described ‘visionary companies’ who exhibit a ‘core ideology’: core values and
a sense of purpose beyond just making money, that guides and inspires people through the organisation
and remains relatively fixed for long periods of time.xlvii I suggest that Purpose should permeate through
everything the organisation does and is – for example, translated into the framework for recruitment,
reward and recognition, decision‐making for product and services and so on.
In an ideal world, ‘Purpose’ would exist before the culture of an organisation is developed (i.e. at
inception). This is because Purpose is relevant for every ‘component’ of culture and enables organisations
on the journey to be sustainable. For example, having – or not having – a clear relevant Purpose can
affect how Leadership and Power is used to lead and direct the firm towards a sustainable future (the
rallying call to achieve said Purpose, setting the tone); for translating the 'what', 'why' and 'how' we work
in the practical realities of operations and why therefore sustainable actions are so important; how the
needed green/diverse/transparency (etc) skills will be guided by what is needed to deliver the ‘Purpose’;
how control systems such as triple bottom line reporting are structured so as to operationally support the
delivery of the Purpose; or setting the ethical standards of integrity, bravery (etc) for group behaviours
and norms, where a clear Purpose is the common reason why employees come together and develop a
common understanding and identity. A good, relevant, and clear Purpose that is cascaded and reflected
in the culture can explain the reason for the direction of travel towards a sustainable future and become
the focus of the firm and the identity of the collective. It can attract stakeholders and is the case for why
you conduct your business in the particular sustainable way you want to.
17
3.2 CONTROL SYSTEMS
Control systems refer to the systems that control and influence our activity in – and experience of ‐ the
firm, such as:
1) allocation of resources
2) governance systems
3) formalised policies and procedures
4) quality and audit systems
5) reward and accountability systems including targets, objectives and personal accountability
6) risk identification and management
7) codes and standards
Control systems does not refer to a control culture, rather to the systems that (intended or not, and to
varying degrees) control employee behaviour.
Processes and procedures are important for communicating clearly how people should behave and how
resources should be used. Achieving a balance of compliance (especially legal and health & safety) vs.
discretion for individual thinking and empowerment requires careful planning. Because processes often
emerge organically and sporadically across the business as and when they are needed, there can be
unintended consequences. Too many policies with punitive action attached to them could lead to a
compliance driven culture where employees feel disempowered to take action, and therefore disengaged
with anything outside their functional tasks or for future benefitxlviii. Not enough control leads to
uncertainty of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and can lead to inefficiencies and lapses of
judgement. Socialisation into the organisation includes learning what these control systems are and how
to work within – and often around – them.
3.2.1 USING CONTROL SYSTEMS TO DRIVE RESPONSIBLE WORKFORCE BEHAVIOUR
A perennial question for sustainability is whether to make responsible behaviour compulsory through
control systems such as rewards, compliance, codes and approvals (the ‘carrot and stick approach’), or
patiently use rewards and examples of desired behaviours so that behaviours emerge and ‘stick’ because
mindset has changed. In truth, it depends on the prevalent social norms of the organisation and the
culture you want to encourage, and on the existing state of irresponsibility (i.e. legal and moral lapses
that need to be addressed promptly). If compliance is preferred as a social norm, then I propose a
‘compliance first and mindset second’ approach may be more appropriate.
Barclays Bank instigated a culture change programme following a culture diagnosis that suggested:
“…the business practices for which Barclays has rightly been criticised were shaped predominantly by its
culture …”xlix
The focus of the culture change programme is not on restricting behaviours, but on how the firm
organises itself – on clarifying, engaging, coordinating, and empowering employees. Barclays talk about:
“…enabling behaviours to emerge by ensuring the purpose and infrastructure of the firm creates an
environment where responsible behaviour is enabled and rewarded.”l
Control systems can be powerful for encouraging behaviours into a certain direction – “help people help
themselves” (beyond nudge economics to include behaviour and sociology – see Royal Society of Arts
2011 reportli). This requires understanding the existing – and desired – social norms.
18
Social norms
The “expected modes of behaviours and beliefs that are established either formally or informally by the group”.
Socialisation helps employees to learn what those social norms are, and to accept or decline them. For
sustainability, it is critical to know what the existing social norms are and if they facilitate or impede sustainable
business decisions and actions. Jones & Gerrard (1967).
Some research suggests changing some of the control systems – such as symbols and imagery used,
physical assets (see the example in Section 3.5.1 of Wouter in Facilities Management at Reed Elsevier)
and formal communications – can ‘reverse engineer’ behaviours by first changing the ‘espoused’ norms
which then start to influence the ‘real’ normslii. Other researchers suggest we have too much choice and
limiting choice through using control (such as targets and quality systems) can help drive desired
behaviours (similar to choice‐editingliii practiced with consumers). These repeated behaviours become
habits which then become the new normal.liv However, this may not work where the new desired
behaviours only exist in a small sub‐set of employees (such as sustainability championslv), or where
desired behaviours are so far outside the current expected norms that they may break the psychological
contracts employees have with their collective. Therefore, the use of control systems needs to be
relevant for the organisation, fitting with the desired dominant leadership style, accepted social norms,
and desired organisational characteristics (e.g. ‘innovative’, ‘safe’, ‘trustworthy’ etc) that underpin
behaviours. Each sustainability change‐maker must decide if they want to use control systems to work
with the human behaviour of the employee collective, or against itlvi.
Conversely, some control systems can be used to change leadership or management styles by introducing
alternative means of working with or bypassing (in extreme situations where some power holders do not
want to engage) their power. A code of ethics or human rights charter (for how both employees and
external stakeholders are treated) that applies to everyone, for example, can help clarify unacceptable
behaviour regardless of what a direct line manager says. This is especially in matters of uncertainty such
as privacy, work‐life balance, facilitation bribes and customer treatment. But the code needs to be
relevant and legitimate to the organisation’s culture and ethical underpinning and have real
consequences if broken. A classic example is the code of ethics of Lehman Brothers; whereas they had
one, it was often overridden and the culture was not tied to the code nor did it play a significant role in
the organisation and therefore was not effective.lvii The UK Institute for Business Ethics recommend:
“Developing a code by ... translating the organisation’s values and its commitments to stakeholders into
the way it will operate … it will set out expected behaviours and provide guidance around the ethical
challenges and issues material to the organisation … objectives and scope of the ethics programme must
ensure that this aligns with the corporate purpose and strategy.lviii”
We do know that some specific approaches to control systems encourage employees to act in responsible
ways. For example: when fair reward and recognition schemes are used, when employees have platforms
for feeding back their opinions to managerslix, when formalised processes exist for reporting sustainable
performancelx, and when processes for stakeholder engagement and measurement & reporting
procedures exist for non‐financial informationlxi.
3.2.2 RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND DECISION‐MAKING
Allocation of resources and decision‐making processes are also powerful levers for action, and therefore
for embedding sustainability. This includes:
how physical resource (money, people, and time) is allocated
formal processes for employee actions such as getting approvals
criteria for investment decisions such as the private equity example below
and what criteria need to be achieved for a project/system (etc) to be considered a success.
19
The accumulated affect of these processes and criteria send a strong message to employees about what
is measured, valued, and important to the business. They become subtle incentives to decide how far to
consider sustainability when doing project approval, an investment request, or for determining what is
considered a success. Understanding the totality of affect these control systems have is important to
understand how much they enable or hinder sustainable business.
“Why are you asking me to change? I do what is in my job description, and by what I’m rewarded on. I
make decisions by the processes and policies. Are you telling me to go against all that?” Quote from an
employee interviewed during a culture audit.
This is where integrating sustainability into existing systems – such as balanced scorecards or
measurement and reporting (triple bottom line accounting, Integrated Reporting or Environmental Profit
& Loss) – can have a significant effect. Systems direct managers on what to invest in, call a success, and
what to manage employees to work and perform to. As well as ‘nudging’ behaviour, this also changes the
message of what is an important criteria for investment and success. Balanced scorecards that have
sustainability integrated, for example, help managers and employees to focus on social and
environmental responsibility, communicates the importance of the sustainability strategy, improves the
likelihood of success in achieving strategic objectives, and helps employees to recognise the
interconnection of sustainability with a ‘multidimensional set of corporate objectives’. It can help
reposition the organisation, and tell the story of sustainability in a business language.lxii
Example of using a control system for sustainability: Private equity
In 2008 a UK based private equity firm appointed a Head of Sustainability in the recognition that triple‐
bottom‐line thinking was essential for their core purpose of improving the value of the companies they
buy. Championed by the founder, a key role for the new person was to advise portfolio companies on
environmental, social, and governance issues. Recognising this advice had to be embedded into the core
of their decision‐making systems, the Head was specifically given a role on the acquisitions team doing
risk assessment, due diligence, and environmental/social/governance (ESG) reporting of all investment
companies. The analysts consider sustainability indicators as part of their job, for example the acquisition
assessment process includes sustainability criteria such as assessing the environmental risk profile of a
possible acquisition, and the Head of Sustainability sits on the Committee that approves acquisitions.
Today, every investment is automatically assessed including ESG criteria, integrating sustainability into
critical control systems and therefore embedded directly into an important decision‐making process.
3.2.3 REWARD AND RECOGNITION
Reward is commonly used as a way to control our performance, from having to achieve certain tasks to
earn our pay to the use of bonuses for specific targets. Economists have long advocated the link that
more money equals more motivation. However, this link has been challenged, with startling insights into
this assumption. An MIT‐led study (led by Dan Pinklxiii) concluded that this assumption does not work in
anything other than the simplest tasks (this study has been replicated by economists, psychologists etc).
It works for mechanical skills, but if tasks require even rudimentary or conceptual skills then higher
rewards lead to poorer or more unethical performance. This is especially relevant when it is felt that the
reward does not represent the effort or is randomlxiv. Therefore, as a control system, reward is often used
incorrectly. This is important to understand for embedding sustainability – if you don’t pay enough they
won’t be motivated because they are worried about bills (‘pay employees enough to take pay as a issue
‘off the table’), but after that what is then important for motivation is autonomy (self‐direction shown to
be especially important in achieving engagement), mastery (the desire to get better), and purpose
(making a contribution, being part of a bigger purpose that makes the world better – but this motive
needs to be carefully balanced with the profit purpose or it can be harmed). These are motivations that
sustainable business is well aligned to align with.
If new behaviours (contrary to the existing norms) are needed in order for employees and the business to
become more sustainable (considered by many to be the case in the banking sector – “…there is a strong
case for a collective effort to raise standards of behaviour and competence in the banking sector”lxv), then
20
careful use of recognition systems for new behaviours is a way to ‘control’ the employee base to accept
new behaviourslxvi. Behavioural psychologists call this ‘shaping’lxvii: selective reinforcement of desired
behaviours so as to progressively establish a desired behaviour as the new norm. Reward and recognition
control systems therefore become important levers for change. Of the three types of reward systems
available, two are based on non‐financial rewards:
1. Extrinsic rewards (material rewards, pay, bonuses, shares etc) – although consider the findings from
MIT (above) on the link between pay and performance.
2. Intrinsic rewards (psychological development of the individual, e.g. given challenging tasks, given
responsibilities, task autonomy, leadership training, mastering something).
3. Social rewards (working towards a higher purpose, development of interpersonal relationship, which
strengthens the identity of the collective the employee belongs to, including matching values and
ethics and promoting the individual’s role/contribution in that collective).
Because we learn in different ways it helps to recognise what is suitable for your employees (as a
collective) as rewards. Consider social exchange theorylxviii where the organisation provides social support
in exchange for enhanced work behaviours – intrinsic rewards such as training, away days and social
rewards. Self‐determination theorylxix (autonomy) postulates that as a reward the more we can self‐
determine our behaviour the more we are motivated to engage in such behaviour – and so setting the
right conditions for sustainable behaviour with intrinsic rewards such as autonomy or mastery, becomes
powerful. UK supermarket chain Sainsbury uses the organisation’s bigger purpose in society as a source of
pride, use symbols to showcase the right behaviour and outcomes, and significantly use social and
intrinsic rewards ‐ they use some monetary rewards but find the social rewards particularly powerful.lxx
3.3 GROUP BEHAVIOURS AND NORMS
There has been a lot of scrutiny of the behaviours seen in a few specific sectors such as pharmaceutical,
energy, and supermarkets – and notably investment/banking sector since the financial crash in 2007/8.
Why did many employees and organisations in this sector behave irresponsibly, developing products they
knew were unjust or no good for customers, and even today taking part in high frequency trading in order
to have an unfair advantage over competitorslxxi? Many major banks have initiated culture change
programmes, focusing on changing collective norms via clear group values and expected behaviours of
employees: Barclays, HSBC, UBS, and RBS to name a few. The EU are implementing new regulation on pay
as a way to control behaviour, and in the UK a government taskforce is recommending a professional
body is set up to improve banking standards, including setting out high level principles and responsibility
and focusing efforts more on behaviour. Unacceptable group values and behaviours are directly linked to
negative performance; a 2013 study found a clear set of core values (suggested as democratic, open,
trusting, enterprising, creative, and stimulating) would make a difference in the financial sector.lxxii Other
studies concur that a core set of pro‐sustainability values is critical.lxxiii
Example of unwanted group behaviours: GlaxoSmithKline
In 2013 GSK experienced a bribery scandal in China. For over 3 years CEO Andrew Witty had been driving
a culture change programme throughout GSK, including embedding responsible behaviour. Codes of
conduct and ‘zero tolerance policy’ of bad behaviour were developed and disseminated, the compliance
department was expanded, training was given, and Andrew Witty himself went on a road‐show and told
employees what was acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. And yet despite all this, in 2013 GSK
employees in China were accused of bribing doctors and government officials.
“When I came to this job five years ago, we were under a lot of scrutiny. I’ve tried to keep us focused on a
very clear strategy of modernizing ourselves, changing our culture to create a much more values‐based
decision‐making, and looking to try to make sure the company’s agenda is in line with society’s
expectations. We’ve gone through lots of challenges, but we sit here with a substantial degree of
optimism … but today I am deeply concerned and disappointed by these serious allegations.”lxxiv
“How much clearer to employees do I have to make it that bad behaviour is not acceptable or the way we
do business?”lxxv
21
Why did (and do) negative group behaviours occur? Every organisation has a broad collective ‘norm’ that
dominates even across the sub‐cultures; within that are a set of group behaviours that equate to ‘how we
do business around here’. These can vary between the different sub‐cultures especially when an
organisation is geographically and demographically diverse. But on the whole, sometimes the norm
works, sometimes serious ethical and sustainability lapses occur. Exactly who is responsible for how
employees behave? Who is responsible for the collective’s values and behaviours of work and interaction
within that norm? The short answer is everyone, from CEO through to the most junior employee. But how
do leaders of an organisation ensure that every employee behaves in a responsible and sustainable way,
whilst being fair to the individual’s personality, motivations, and rights? We also know that behaviour
change holds the key to success in creating sustainable organisations,lxxvi,lxxvii so what are the right group
values and behaviours for creating a ‘norm’ of sustainability?
When understanding how group behaviours emerge and become normal, it is important to understand
what creates and reinforces them. My research shows the following have influence:
The shared meaning of future vision and purpose of business
Collective identity, objectives and sub‐cultures (including from historical context)
Formal ideology (ethical underpinning, including values)
Dominant real group values
Habits and rituals
Psychological contract norms
Embedded assumptions, e.g. how people treat stakeholders, organisational priorities
Interpersonal communications and respect
Demographics
Historical context influence
Climate (symbols, artefacts etc)
Internal reputations as a driver for behaviour
External reputations as driver for behaviour
3.3.1 GROUP NORMS
It is rare to find one tight set of norms across all the sub‐cultures, and so it becomes important to
understand why they exist, their influence, and the commonalities (the group norm). At both group norm
level and sub‐culture level, leaders can reinforce a ‘normal’ common identity and purpose. A common
purpose, for example, helps to buffer the firm against uncertainty by providing a coherent identity. A
long‐term focus can help justify short‐term financial sacrifices (sometimes needed when implementing
new environmental saving systems or investing up front in more sustainable products) for the longer‐
term corporate purpose.lxxviii Honouring the strengths of your existing culture (whilst not being blind to
what needs to change or to diverse voices) can reinforce the norm that is desired.lxxix
One of the key responsibilities of a good HR department is (with line managers) to develop and cascade
the norms (including desired values and behaviours) into the social norm of the collective (called cultural
stewardship). Thus, HR can be considered a core partner in cascading environmental behaviours.lxxx
Having a clear set of norms helps to create a unique organisational framework that employees (and
future employees) are clear on and can choose to associate and operate with. At a minimum the HR team
should ensure that the employment practices across the organisation are in line with desired norms, such
as working conditions, wellbeing, diversity, and legal and moral requirement for organising people.
Leading companies go beyond this, whereby each employee is responsible for their behaviours – this can
be a unique asset not easily replicable by competitors. Companies such as Tata, for example, value their
workforce as an intangible asset on the balance sheet as they recognise that without the unique way their
employees behave, they would not succeed as an organisation. Leading organisations focus on
developing a ‘norm’ with:
22
1. a common identity
2. engagement with the business mission and purpose
3. connection with colleagues and employee groupings
4. motivating and incentivising to work effectively and ethically
5. reinforcing the right group values and desired behaviours, and
6. nurturing a culture where innovation, collaboration and learning is present.lxxxi
From an individual’s perspective, when they join an organisation they have existing values and behaviours
that may or may not fit with the organisation’s norm. As they integrate into the organisation many will
find their degree of congruence they are comfortable with. If they find that, a psychological contract with
the organisation is developed, which change (any sort of change) can threaten or reinforce. This needs to
be appreciated and managed.
Psychological contract
“An individual’s belief regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal
person and another party … the belief that a promise has been made and a consideration offered in exchange for
it, binding the parties…” Rousseau & Denise (1995).
3.3.2 GROUP/ORGANISATIONAL VALUES AND BEHAVIOURS
Social norms of a collective or sub‐culture include dominant values and behaviours. Values refer to the
ideals shared by the collective, based on ethical, religious, or spiritual foundations. Behaviours are the
actions guided by those values. Many culture change programmes focus on developing a set of values
that underpin the ethical beliefs of the collective, and then develop a set of expected behaviours that are
cascaded throughout recruitment, socialisation, and development (and ideally the other cultural
components described here).
‘Values’ and ‘behaviours’ have a symbiotic relationship with each other; group/organisational values
relate to the beliefs we hold about things and aspects of life. They tend to be more fixed and should be
the guiding principles for our behaviour in the workplace, i.e. the actions we take. To achieve a degree of
congruence between individual values and values espoused by the organisation, many organisations will
publish a set of values to guide the expected resulting group behaviours. This can help also to attract
stakeholders with a similar ethical stance.
Example: UPS values
UPS have a clear set of values that are in line with their mission, historical context, and the expected way
of doing business. They have built a reputation (and won awards) for operating in a manner consistent
with those values. They cascade the values into employee behaviours through appraisals on enacting the
values, training, integrating within recruitment, and interpreting the values into codes/standards (etc):
Values: Our Enduring Beliefs
Integrity ‐ It is the core of who we are and all we do
Teamwork ‐ Determined people working together can accomplish anything.
Service ‐ Serving the needs of our customers and communities is central to our success.
Quality and Efficiency‐We remain constructively dissatisfied in our pursuit of excellence.
Safety ‐ The well‐being of our people, business partners, and the public is of utmost importance.
Sustainability‐Long‐term prosperity requires our continued commitment to environmental
stewardship and social responsibility.
Innovation ‐ Creativity and change are essential to growth.
23
Specific for sustainability, research has shown that if a sustainability programme does not align with the
organisation’s true values then it can be perceived as inauthenticlxxxii. How the real organisational values
are chosen, articulate and supported – or conversely how sustainability is connected to the real
organisational values ‐ is therefore important for legitimising sustainability.
As far back as the 1930s academics were emphasising the importance of strong cultures within
organisations in order to develop a sense of belonging, common purpose, social integration and
reconciling of social and individualistic aspects – such as reconciling individual and group values and
behaviourslxxxiii. This is in part because (as discussed earlier) we all have individual values, and the
integration or alignment of individual values at work plays an important role in the decisions we make on
behalf of our organisationslxxxiv. Some individuals may be more alert to issues relating to their relationship
with the organisation, and so notice and react more to ethical behaviour that contrasts to their own or
expected norms. Having clarity of expected values at work – without threatening individual values or
reducing diversity – helps to strengthen the employee‐organisation relationship as well as establish the
boundaries of behaviourlxxxv.
Developing desired behaviours
Many companies will run employee engagement programmes to try and impart desired behaviours they
see compatible for corporate success. This can be for culture change/management or for specifically
embedding more sustainable and responsible behaviours. Critical is to agree what the real values of the
organisation are (and if they do not match existing espoused values then this needs to be explored and
reconciled) and how these values have been represented in past and present behaviours. Providing
theoretical examples of desired sustainable behaviours that are in line with the values (which in turn
support strategy achievement) – such as ‘to be second nature to recycle and not waste’ – is also
important.
A fine line needs to be walked, however, between establishing the boundaries of behaviours and good
examples vs. being to prescriptive and controlling. Whereas it can be more straight‐forward to establish,
celebrate, and reward examples of good behaviour – and establish the boundary of bad behaviour – it is
often more difficult to establish the landscape in‐between. As well as from clearly espoused values, day‐
to‐day group behaviours can form from a variety of sources such as historical context (behaviours set by
the founder), external influences, ownership (co‐operatives vs. for‐profit), size, goals and mission, and of
course the type of people it attracts.lxxxvi Therefore, the behaviours need to be real and genuine, and
embracing enough to manifest in ways that are relevant across the different parts of the organisation.
Giving examples, and establishing boundaries, rather than being very specific and prescriptive, can help
‘walk the line’.
Example: Managing employee behaviour at Barclays
Over the last few years Barclays has been (and continues to) undergoing a systemic culture change
programme. A key element of this has been clearly espousing what the corporate Values are, and the
related Behaviours linked to their new purpose (http://www.barclays.com/about‐barclays/barclays‐
values.html). They have identified example behaviours for each value to aid employees and give clarity.
All employees now have these in their yearly KPIs and the entire top tier of leaders has undergone
experiential learning. For example, behaviours that ensure they act with the value of 'Integrity' include:
‐ Show the courage to do and say the right thing
‐ Act in private as I do in public, and honour my commitments
‐ Challenge things I believe to be wrong and be open to challenge from others
‐ Be accountable for failure as well as success, and not allocate blame
They focus on 4 key levers for supporting the desired behaviours:
1. capacity building skills and knowledge of how to behave;
2. aligning systems and structures to be consistent with the new purpose and ensure that there are as
little as possible unintended consequences from such systems;
3. role modelling and leadership building, especially of standards of behaviour;
4. and building understanding and commitment of the business and its purpose.
Source: Based on one‐to‐one interviews with Head of Culture at Barclays, and publically available information.
24
When establishing the desired sustainable behaviours through avenues such as promotions, training and
rewards, one may consider various approaches to cascading these behaviours:
social learning theorylxxxvii (learning behaviour from the environment through observation – leading
by example, tone from the top);
social exchange theorylxxxviii (the organisation provides the support in exchange for enhanced work
behaviours – such as training, away days and social rewards);
self‐determination theorylxxxix (the more we can self‐determine our behaviour the more we are
motivated to engage in such behaviour – so setting the right conditions for sustainable behaviour
with opportunities, projects to master and experiment with is helpful); and
theory of planned behaviourxc (perceived social desirability to engage in the behaviour and the
individuals belief they are able to perform that behaviour ‐ integrating into social norms via
espoused values, rewards and performance management, and training or mentoring).
Whether enhancing existing behaviours that support a sustainable outcome or developing new
sustainable‐specific behaviours (such as ‘respecting our customers’) – or both ‐ it will help to follow an
engagement approach. Consideration of the motivations, sources, and influences on individual and group
behaviours will be important. The values need to be lifted from the pages of a document into the real
every‐day life and behaviours at work ‐ as experienced by employees.
Complexities of behaviours
Many organisations fail to either define their values or establish the related boundaries of behaviours.
Not articulating the boundaries of employee behaviours that those values imply (even the extreme
boundaries of bad vs. pro‐social behaviours) means interpretation of those values can be unclear, or
worse treated with scepticism. This can result in different (sometimes unethical) behaviours being
substituted; because other cultural influences ‘take over’ and promote different behaviours (for example
reward systems that promote sales success over customer treatment). This is when you can get a
difference between espoused values and real employee behaviours. For example, some organisations ask
employees to treat customers with respect (in line with espoused values of ‘respect’) but find that in
reality the other behaviours they unconsciously encourage (through reward systems, leadership examples
etc) do not support those actions, and therefore the sustainable behaviours are not adoptedxci.
Behaviours also tend to be more situational, and therefore more flexible, than values and so many
employees will use behavioural ‘cues’ to assess the genuineness of a sustainability programme and react
accordingly. Cues includexcii:
resource commitments made
alignment with core business
emotional engagement
justice
embeddedness
Some employees will also find they apply different behaviours to different settings because of the social
norm of that setting – for example they may behave differently in a co‐worker’s team meeting to a
corporate meeting. However, as discussed above, it is still valuable for an organisation to establish the
extreme boundaries of behaviours that are or are not acceptable. Often, a test of the clarity of those
boundaries is asking extreme questions and analysing the responses. For example, hearing employees say
(rather shocked) “we just don’t do that here” when asked about how to do a facilitation payment – a
clear example of a boundary of behaviour that has been set in that organisation. This is when ethical
codes of conducts can be useful.
Influences on behaviours
Some influences on employee behaviours include how people feel looked after and cared for. A
commitment towards wellbeing in the workplace (emotional, physical, economic, and mental) can engage
25
employees as well as, in a practical sense, resulting in employees being healthy and well enough to be
productive. For example, a Marks & Spencer well‐being programme helped to reduce staff turnover rates
whilst also helping to change behaviour and improve the health of participating employees.xciii
Diversity of the employee group also has a significant impact on behaviours (and performance). Diversity
such as gender, age, religion, and politics shapes moral reasoning:
“The gradual drop in the ethic of obedience at work from the age of 26‐30 to those over 65 is about 27% …
the ethic of reason increases with age … for religious managers all ethics were rated as higher for work
(reason 4%, care 8% and obedience 12%)”xciv
In 2012 a Credit Suisse Research Institutexcv report showed that organisations with one woman or more
on the board outperformed those with none by 26% over a 6‐year period – an economic as well as ethical
reason for better diversity. Demographics does make a difference to the normal behaviours of a firm,
whether gender, race, colour, age, social, or economic class. Certain demographics – if too heavily
represented – tend to bring out the characteristic associated with that person type. Males for example
tend to focus on hierarchy and competition, females on networks and collaboration.xcvi
All these influences on behaviour need to be appreciated to understand how to establish the boundaries
and nuances of unsustainable behaviour and celebrate the sustainable behaviour. These may apply to
small actions (not throwing away paper) as well as large actions (assessing a capital expenditure spend on
principles of responsible investment). A change‐agent cannot (nor, I suggest should they) establish the
behaviour of every employee. Rather, they can work with HR and line managers to establish clear
boundaries of what is pro‐sustainability behaviour at each level/department that will be rewarded and
represents group values, vs. what is unsustainable behaviour that contrasts with desired social norms.
“There is the assumption to do the right thing. What is that right thing? To respect our
stakeholders and the environment. That permeates throughout all our behaviours.” Anonymous
quote from an employee of a large European supermarket, 2013.
3.3.3 THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY ON INDIVIDUAL NORMS
For climate change and environmental issues specifically, there are observed negative responses that
stop people from engaging with climate change and therefore changing their behaviourxcvii. These need to
be considered when shaping any behaviour or culture programme.
1. Denialism
• Literal denial: straight out denial of the facts because misinformed, don’t care, or negation. In
this instance, employees can be educated, but minds will probably be initially closed.
• Misinformation on purpose: whether for ideological, political/power or commercial reasons such
as impressions of sustainability having a negative cost burden. May spread denial to others,
prioritising their own self‐interest over group welfare. It may help to separate the issue from
politics/ideology etc and show how their ideology is not threatened by the issue, and look for
examples within their social network of good work being done that is not in conflict with
ideology or self‐interest. Failing that, be aware they may become saboteurs.
• Casual denial: ignoring the facts by finding a weakness in the argument and dismissing the whole
issue (‘environmentalists always exaggerate’’). A coping mechanism because the problem is too
big to think about. Educating employees can help, but more so, showing them how the issue is
manageable and solvable can make a difference.
• De‐problematize: to big a problem so decide that it is not really a threat and divert attention
from the problem by blame‐shifting ‐ ‘But China builds a new coal‐fired power plant each week’ ‐
a coping mechanism. To work past this barrier it helps to show employees how they can make a
difference – how they can have control and power on the issue at a personal level, and how it is
a socially desirable/imitation thing to do.
26
• Wishful thinking: ‘something/one will come along and sort it out, so I don’t have to worry about
it’. Also a coping mechanism. Giving employees opportunities and appropriate power to make a
difference and show them that difference.
2. Negation: saying something that is, is not, so as to stop feelings of anxiety and loss. This is likely part
of the ‘grief’ process that employees eventually need to get through to ‘acceptance’ and ‘action’. An
engagement plan can take them through from a bad state to one of positive action and outcomes.
3. Disavowal: significance is minimised so that you can cope with it. It is too big and scary a problem.
But then employees don’t feel the need to take action with it. It helps to make it manageable at a
personal level, and give more concrete, personal and immediate‐in‐time examples to inspire.
Additionally, from an evolutionary behaviour perspective, there is a known mismatch between the
evolutionary drive that prioritises immediate gratification (such as food) over the benefits we value in the
future (delayed rewards). The degree of this mismatch is influenced by culture, gender etc. But the result
is that the impacts of climate change, poverty or injustices do not immediately cause an instinctive
reaction in many of us to act, unless we show the local environment impacts and create visible links to
immediate consequences. This is in contrast to standard approaches to engaging employees in
sustainability, where much of the communications on climate change (for example) talks about impacts
on future generationsxcviii,xcix.
How group behaviours and norms are developed and managed throughout recruitment, retention,
training, and performance – and critically for engaging employees in sustainability ‐ is relevant for
organising the ‘people’ in an ethical way and for developing sustainable organisations. It is only when the
majority of employees wants and feels able (to different degrees) to behave responsibly can you truly say
sustainability is embedded into mindset and behaviours.
3.4 LEADERSHIP AND POWER
Leadership – and the power that leaders have – refers to the ability of a relatively small, selected group of
employees to get things approved, initiated and to influence the execution of the direction of the firm. A
high degree of trust is given to this group – typically leaders or senior managers ‐ to use power at their
discretion within the boundaries of a remit or objective. This cultural component refers specifically to:
1. formal power allocated across the ranks and used to control a group of people. However, there are
also other ways to have leadership and power which do not rely on being assigned it, and therefore
can exist throughout the ranks, such as:
2. leadership and power from earned authority (i.e. respect)
3. informal power which can be taken or borrowed
How these are used to embed sustainability is critical, in terms of leadership and power being exercised in
a responsible way and in terms of using it to create sustainable organisations. Creating sustainable
organisations is often about creating the right environment where employees are motivated, skilled, and
positioned correctly to self‐develop sustainable and responsible behaviours. Leaders initiate that change
through their every day actions (leading by example) and in how they manage the systems and processes
directly in their control. Academics Scott and Esteves highlight 4 actions for leaders: sense (identify your
purpose), scout (look around you), synthesise (find patterns and build commitment), steer (implement
and calibrate).c
Arguably, leaders at all levels have a collective responsibility to manage the sustainability of the firm, not
allowing such an essential task to be allocated to one department, group of people or level alone.
Leaders, and the use of leadership, can create an enabling working environment for that to occur. Finding
the right balance between leaders enabling vs. directing (especially when considering use of control
systems) is a choice that sustainability change‐makers need to make.
27
With leadership there are a few aspects to consider when choosing or working with leaders:
The leader(s) and top management’s character and values (such as honesty, moral compass, long‐
term thinking, inspiring, courageous, their competence, balance, fair‐minded and straight
forwardci)cii. This affects how employees see and whether they believe what their leaders say about
sustainability (their experience of that leader).ciii Choosing leaders to represent the organisation (and
culture and strategy) therefore becomes important. Diversity becomes important here as well, as
diverse leaders better represent stakeholder types and has a positive impact on employees.civ
The approach and role that a leader takes to creating a sustainable business (see Turnbull & James
research mentioned in Section 3.4.1);
The support put in place, such as governance and executive compensationcv and competencies &
skills developmentcvi to empower leaders on creating a sustainable business.
Example of leadership support for sustainability: Legal & General
Insurance company Legal & General Group PLC invest significantly in developing their leaders with the
right skills and competencies needed to run the organisation in line with their long‐term social purpose.
Their business has identified a number of long‐term market issues and opportunities that it needs to
develop a better understanding of amongst its leadership teams. It wants to increase access to housing,
help people cope better with ill health and increase income in later life. One such programme of
‘experiential learning’ is the SMART Programme sponsored by John Stewart, Legal & General Group’s
Chairman.
In a joint venture with www.careervolunteer.co.uk up to thirty key senior managers across the Group are
placed as trustees on boards of not for profit organisations who have insights into the areas of health,
housing, and later life. The receiving organisations get good governance skills; the senior managers get
market insights and serve on some of the most diverse boards that exist as part of their development.
Every quarter the SMART participants get together to have peer reviews on charity scenarios facing them
and are given presentations on the latest charity trends to help them be more effective on their charity
boards on emerging topics such as mergers, digital fundraising etc.
This programme is a very practical way of immersing sustainable leaders understanding an industry from
the ‘outside‐in’ perspective and also develops leaders with the right character and authenticity because
they have “…learnt a thing or two about the everyday matters that their customers face when trying to
access housing, cope with ill health and survive on lower incomes in later life.”cvii
From the leadership perspective, theycviii cited company culture, lack of clear commitment from the very
top, and compensation structures as their top ‘fears’ preventing them from ‘doing the right thing’.
3.4.1 FORMAL LEADERSHIP AND POWER
Formal leadership is when a member of an organization is given authority and power, by virtue of their
position, to influence other members of organization to achieve organizational goals. The power
essentially comes from their right to give or withhold cooperation. Leaders have power to hire and fire
(for example), executives have power to approve and spendcix, but equally in countries that allow
unionisation, groups of employees can rebel and withhold their cooperation, also a form of power.
Formal leadership and management styles utilised for managing employees has an impact on how
employees view the leadership of their organisation and their motivation to listen, follow, and change
behaviours towards sustainability. There is not necessarily a right or wrong style of leadership (e.g.
autocratic, democratic, laissez fairecx, transactionalcxi, transformationalcxii), but employees respond better
to leaders driving a sustainability programme who are fair, transparent, and genuinecxiii. For example,
leadership and behaviour perceived by followers as authentic and having integrity drives organisational
commitmentcxiv. Conversely, high concentrations/centrality of leadership, or people motivated to be a
leader so as to gain power, encourages irresponsible behaviourscxv. That leadership support and
appropriate tone from the top is essential for building sustainable organisations is widely recognised, but
28
the type of leadership needed for creating sustainable businesses is not yet widely recognised:
“Leadership for sustainability requires leaders of extraordinary abilities. These are leaders who can read
and predict through complexity, think through complex problems, engage groups in dynamic adaptive
organisational change and have the emotional intelligence to adaptively engage with their own emotions
associated with complex problem solving. Leaders and leadership is a key interpreter of how sustainability
of the organisation ‘links’ to the wider systems in which the organisation sits, and executing that link well
requires unusual leaders and leadership systems.”cxvi
There are alternative views to traditional leadership – which is on the whole about stabilising and
maintaining the status quo so that organisational objectives can be achieved. Academics Turnbull and
Jamescxvii suggest leadership can take a different role and be a process for helping organisations to adapt
to challenges and change, challenging the status quo, and acting as igniters for change (such as driving
innovation or creating sustainable organisations).
However, the fairness of formal leadership and power is very important. If seen as unfair, this can impact
on the credibility of sustainability effortscxviii. For example, consider the important relationship between
governance of sustainability – or indeed of an organisation generally – and personal accountability. Good
governance is not considered best practice without personal accountability (with related checks and
balances), yet often sustainability R&R are assigned to directors without any accountability for those roles
being deliveredcxix. A governance structure is often developed for ensuring codes of ethics, adherence to
strategy, spend, and target achievement is cascaded from the board down to individual managers. But if
leaders are not equally held accountable, such as sustainability integrated into their personal KPIs and
compensation of C‐suite and the executive team, or if they are not held to account for failure to achieve
any targets, then a governance structure may not be effective in actually driving change.cxx
Example of governance vs. personal accountability
A large UK based firm with a strong sustainability team had since 2010 worked to engage department
heads to embed sustainability into the processes, providing targets, specialist training, investment, and
objectives of their department ‐ with little success despite substantial programmes and external awards.
In 2012 a clear governance structure had been implemented from the CEO through to department heads,
with yearly reporting and reviews. However, personal accountability was low within the company – a
cultural norm – and when leaders and managers did not achieve personal targets (for anything) there was
no consequence of this. Therefore, KPIs were not taken seriously for sustainability either. The HR team
and sustainability team found it difficult to cascade any change, or motivate department heads to engage
with them. Finally, in 2013 the teams worked together to achieve intervention from a Board member,
who insisted that department heads were held accountable (within personal KPIs), with clear
consequences for failed target achievement. Only when this was in place did department heads really
start to engage with the sustainability team.
Academic Avery identified ‘Locust’ CEOs who are given preferential treatment when things are going well,
but also preferential treatment when things are going wrong (i.e. rarely held to account, not fired, and
still get their bonuses – this is where executive compensation can be an issue and even cause shareholder
revolts) vs. ‘Honeybees’ who are stakeholder‐oriented, take a team‐based approach and success or
failure is likewise sharedcxxi. The fairness and transparency of how formal leadership is treated and held to
account can hinder or harm your efforts to make responsible and ethical behaviour normal.
3.4.2 EARNED LEADERSHIP AND POWER
Leadership and power can be given because someone has earned it, which then can be either used by
that individual or further given/lent to another individual championing sustainability. Authority is the
ability to make decisions, such as giving approvals and authorising projects. Managers usually have a
degree of authority to make decisions, backed by the power of leaders. Authority can be earnedcxxii
through performance, credibility and also by having moral authority through character and actionscxxiii.
29
Earned authority can take time to receive, and relies on sustained performance, relationships, and a good
representation of the values and purpose of the organisation. Many sustainability champions (who may
or may not have seniority) have earned respect from loyalty, performance, and/or characteristics and so
become powerful allies for sustainability teamscxxiv. Critically, many of the best champions learn how to
“challenge senior executives in the right way” to get their engagement and supportcxxv.
Steve Evans, Director of Supply Chain Operations at Coca‐Cola Enterprises and a sustainability champion,
credits some of his earned authority that he lends to the sustainability agenda to his skills, desire to make
a difference and personal values, his past delivery, knowledge, and relationships. As a champion these are
critical for supporting an agenda that at first can be seen as a challenge or even irrelevant.cxxvi The power
of earned authority should not be underestimated.
3.4.3 INFORMAL LEADERSHIP AND POWER
There are examples of employees who have practiced bureaucratic insurgency (or unsanctioned
entrepreneurial leadership) and taken power in order to drive sustainabilitycxxvii, using informal leadership
and power because formal systems are too slow or ineffective. They may utilise networks to get things
approved, simply take action (‘act now and beg forgiveness later’), or find allies with power to help push
change through. Research at the Doughty Centre looks at its use by social Intrapreneurs:
“To make the transition from ideas generation to project leadership, social intrapreneurs have to be
trusted by peers and managers who control investment of corporate resources, time and energy in
projects … ‘paying your dues’ creates a license to operate – and break rules … change the rules…”cxxviii
Informal leaders may:
Borrow power: borrowing or being lent power inherent in the organisation’s system, such as rank, for
a period of time to achieve a task.cxxix ‘Godparents’ (an experienced employee usually with seniority
or positional power who acts as an advisor and guide to a more junior sustainability change‐maker)
can lend power by publically sponsoring them, introducing their charge to power‐brokers, and
facilitating projects through discretionary spend or trusting the change‐maker and giving them job
discretion to develop their plan.cxxx Sustainability change‐makers can identify godparents to support
them and other champions.
Or undertake bureaucratic insurgency (unsanctioned or sanctioned): when employees take power
not formally assigned to them in order to carry out their job, such as enlisting a powerful stakeholder
(internal or external) and promising action that then needs to be fulfilled by the organisation. This
relies on entrepreneurial discretion and belief in what they are doingcxxxi. Research shows this is
linked to disruptive innovation for sustainability, for example from social intrapreneurs, and can be
positive for the organisation in initiating change and introducing constructive innovation, or negative
if the organisation is not ‘ready’ for said changecxxxii.
3.5 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES
‘Organisational structures’ relates to the physical organisation of employees and assets, including:
1. how property and locations are designed and located
2. hierarchy utilised to cascade work and control
3. and the groupings of people (physically or via internal networks).
Structures influence the way we interact with each other and work toward a common goal, such as
disseminating a new sustainable way to do business. This is especially relevant when establishing values
and behaviours that reinforce sustainable business because how the organisation is physically structured
can affect how people interact and are able to communicate about sustainability or influence each other;
how roles and responsibilities are fairly planned, cascaded and delegated around sustainability efforts,
30
and how related work is effectively cascaded; and how employees group together affects how they
disseminate accepted (or new sustainable) norms. A theory of organisational behaviour called the
‘Symbolist’ approach to culture says that individuals experience culture differently (thus creating sub‐
cultures), depending on one’s experience, location and interaction, leading to the possibility of different
interpretations of the same entity with the implication that culture may never be totally understoodcxxxiii.
Sub‐cultures
A group of people within the organisation with different interpretations of expected norms. This may be an
intentional
distinction – for example for political reasons one division may distance themselves from another
failing division – or unintentional because of geographical influences and different operational specialities and
locations. Sub‐cultures are not necessarily bad; they help form local alliances and cohesion relevant to the context
of the employees and stakeholders of that area. This can however prove challenging for developing a common set
of baseline values, behaviours and identity of the organisation that enable achievement of a common goal, and
therefore for introducing systemic change so that a sustainable organisation can emerge. Deal & Kennedy (1982).
3.5.1 PHYSICAL STRUCTURES AND DESIGN
How do the physical structures such as locations reinforce vision, mission and behaviours, or make it
harder for employees to engage with expected behaviours and be enabled to enact them? For example,
departments are often physically separated from each other – making it harder to learn from each other,
form extra‐departmental working relationships and build trust, and the distance can reinforce sub‐
cultures that go against the desired corporate behaviours (despite connectivity via electronic means).
Multinationals especially need to consider see how physical structures become especially relevant for
cascading a common (but flexible) identity of a responsible, ethical organisation.
Example: an Italian multi‐national enterprise
A global multi‐national from Italy, in the luxury goods sector, grew rapidly over a 30 year period to have
over 70,000 employees but is struggling with a lack of common identity and common purpose. Employees
are situated across factories in remote areas staffed by generation of local families, in branding offices in
city centres attracting young fashion conscious graduates, and also in retail outlets in shopping centres
staffed by experienced retailers. In 2011 a ‘Zero Waste’ programme was initiated to initiate systemic
culture change and build a sustainable organisation with a common purpose. Initially communicating the
importance of sustainable efficiency wins via line management discussions and event days – important to
factory workers without access to computers and who were directly influenced by their line managers
and co‐workerscxxxiv – this did not resonate well with the young brand ambassadors working in fashion
capitals of the world either tied to computers or in front of clients. Emphasising the contribution of
sustainability performance to brand enhancement through product packaging conversely attracted the
interest of brand managers but not factory workers who never even saw the products on shelves.
Likewise, posters and videos about global warming did not interest US employees where ‘global warming’
is a highly politicised phrase, but did Europeans; and social media campaigns about philanthropy engaged
the Chinese employees where social value is routed in tradition, but not Europeans where government
has a more integrated role in social care.
In a company structurally divided by distance, and with different employee demographics and low cross‐
fertilisation across Factories, Branding, and Retail, organisational structures (regionally and operationally
divided, and with different access points) quickly became an issue when developing a common set of
values and behaviours that would enforce being a sustainable business and having a common goal. A
‘glocal’ approach was eventually adopted (glocal = global principles, local interpretationcxxxv).
Physical design and architecture also has an impact on embedding sustainability. For example, in
buildings that are not architecturally flexible (such as a rented accommodation where sensor lighting,
energy metering and insulation may not be optional) and so do not allow employees to find ways to be
environmentally sustainable. In facilities management, many sustainability champions will utilise ‘choice
editing’ when refurbishing or developing new builds, such as changing how the toilets flush (water
31
conservation), installing lights that turn themselves off, not making bins available; or to more overt social
influencing (such as developing a central area for employees to gather and socialise by making it the only
place they can eat and drink with other employees they may not directly work with).
“One day, with the support of Head of Facilities and the board, we turned down the heat by one degree …
many of the activities I can do because of where I work [Facilities] …” Wouter van der Bank, Champion at
Reed Elseviercxxxvi
Physical structures have had a significant effect in some industries on behaviours and outcomes, such as
the banking and investment sector. Post‐recession analysis (sector, independent and government sourced
analysis) of the UK and US sector concluded that the physical structures of some banks isolated
investment bankers into a ‘privileged’ position. This encouraged loss of governance and loss of sight of
actions and impacts, contributing to blind risk‐taking which spread across to and harmed the retail
banks.cxxxvii The implications both in the US and UK were recommendations to force structural changes
within the banks, splitting the retail and investment arms (ring‐fencing and isolating) and changing the
line of oversight and transparency upward and outwards (the Vickers Report recommendations in the UK,
in the US the Volkner rule).
Whether your premises are factories (which can restrict points of communication), offices (rented or
owned will apply restrictions on signage for example), or retail units, the impact of physical structures,
design, and layout needs to be understood for how it influences practical actions, connectivity, and
employee behaviour for sustainability.
3.5.2 LAYERS OF HIERARCHY
Hierarchy can also have a significant effect on how people behave and either enable or hinder employees
from getting involved in a sustainability programme. Linked to the cultural component ‘Power’, how the
cascade of levels of a firm are designed – bureaucratic, flat, matriarchic, hierarchical, monolithic etc –
influences culture, and specifically how employees behave ethically or not.
Whereas traditionally, structures limit manager power, ‘job design’ theories connect increased job
autonomy with employees feeling a greater responsibility for the outcomes of their workcxxxviii. This
removal or change of hierarchy can positively affect employee engagement and performance as
autonomy is more likely in a democratised or flat structure.cxxxix Many organisations have implemented
change programmes to try to decrease hierarchy. These programmes focus on removing several levels of
management or try to ‘democratise’ decision‐making and therefore increase employee responsiveness.
This is often middle management and to good or bad effect – the National Health Service in the UK being
a typical example of thiscxl. We know that a degree of autonomy is an enabler for sustainability change‐
makers specifically, especially Social Intrapreneurs and Champions who enjoy the degree of autonomy
they get and need when operating for sustainability purposescxli. Research also shows that sustainability‐
related behaviour amongst employees’ en mass has been negatively affected if transparency is lost and
hierarchy is seen as unfaircxlii. An appreciation is needed of how the hierarchy of an organisation affects
employees’ ability to feel responsible for their decisions, be part of a change process, and also be allowed
to take part in sustainability programmes.
3.5.3 PHYSICAL GROUPINGS
How people are grouped together also has an impact for socialisation and work effectiveness, especially
when change occurs. HR teams, for instance, have often been moved from a strong central department to
become decentralised HR team members embedded in each business unit. The product evolution
structure (account management or brand team approach) or matrix structure vs. a functional structure
(Marketing, Production and R&D as separate departments) has been found to have an effect on how
employees interact with each other, generate innovation, and how work subsequently occurscxliii. (This is
even more complicated for international/MNEs who also have to consider Divisional and Market
structures).
32
Cascading a sustainable mindset can be made harder by silos and division (although there are ways
around that) because cross‐functional socialisation is difficult when silos exist. The use of Champions, for
example, can still help to cascade sustainability into the workforcecxliv. This is especially true in legitimising
sustainability and finding change agents who are relevant in their circle of influence. Engineering and
manufacturing firm Alcoa found that team building was greatly helped by providing support for
employees to cross‐fertilise in opportunities that make a difference (volunteering): “Helped our people to
find ways to work more effectively together…”cxlv
Where the sustainability team sits, who has ownership, and what relationship it has with the organisation
and its leaders can also have a powerful influence. Sustainability consultants ERM find that the structure,
composition and competence of the senior leadership team and the Environmental Health and Safety
function is one of the biggest determinants of success in implementing A) consistent and high level
sustainable decision making; and B) in capturing business value from sustainabilitycxlvi.
3.6 SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES
Developing the skills and competencies of your employees is essential not just for day‐to‐day operational
effectiveness, but also for ensuring the ability to manage complex sustainability challenges and
opportunities that businesses face. I suggest the following at least need to be developed so as to enable a
culture where sustainability flourishes:
New skills (such as identifying social, economic and environmental impacts, using an integrated
balanced scorecard, measuring and reporting on social and environmental impacts, managing a
closed loop production system);
New competencies (such as transparency, competition/industry collaboration, stakeholder
engagement, embracing social media or digital technology) are needed. Competencies are “A
combination of practical and theoretical knowledge, cognitive skills, behaviour and values used to
improve performance; or having the ability to perform a specific role. Competencies provide
organizations with a way to define in behavioural terms what it is that people need to do to produce
the results that the organization desires, in a way that is in keep with its culture.”cxlvii;
Knowledge needs to be shared, not protected, in order to allow for better decision‐making and
shared learning;
An outside‐in perspective to create a learning organisation is critical (not just stakeholder
engagement but viewing the firm and its impact from outside its walls), as this can introduce the
right skills and mindset needed for sustainability.
For example, for middle management and employees who have external contact, stakeholder
engagement and partnering is a way that successful companies think and act differently to others.
However, employees requires the right skill set to do this – as well as the perspective of outside‐in.
Understanding where agendas align, cultivating relationships, maintaining transparency and bravery, and
patience are needed. Likewise, teaching employees flexibility – or self‐organisation – so that employees
can adapt to change and innovate is an important skill.cxlviii
“We found that high‐sustainability companies paid particular attention to their relationships with
stakeholders – such as employees, customers and NGOs representing civil society – through active
processes of engagement. This begins with reaching agreement with stakeholders on how the process
should be conducted, continues through the management of the process itself and ends with providing
feedback to the board obtained from stakeholders, and reporting the results of the process to
stakeholders and the public in general.”cxlix
For embedding ability to manage sustainability into the day‐to‐day life of an employee, research shows
that learning organisations adapt better – because they appreciate the role of culture, and because they
specifically focus on developing perpetual learning as part of its culture. A learning organisation is one
that understands that “new ideas and experiences are essential for learning to take place”, specifically
33
encouraging information sharing, resources, and organisational learning.cl Therefore if changing or
aligning a culture to enable sustainable business, an emphasis should be placed on learning, and
improving that learning through use of new skills.
For recruiting and developing leaders that know how to run sustainable organisations, it is important to
consider the skills, knowledge, and competencies they have to offer. 22% of respondents to the 2013
UN/Accenture CEO survey considered lack of knowledge a barrier to implementing an integrated
strategy.cli The business network Business for Social Responsibility identified 6 key competencies
neededclii:
External awareness and appreciation of trends
Visioning and strategy formulation
Risk awareness, assessment, and management
Stakeholder engagement
Flexibility and adaptability to change
Ethics and integrity
“In our experience all corporate sustainability leaders need to enable their organisations to capture value
from sustainability. Whether it is through improving risk management (e.g. because of reputation and
regulations), understanding better return on capital (e.g. operational footprint and supply chains),
capitalising on additional growth (e.g. new portfolios and products) or helping sustainability leaders
financially quantify the costs and benefits – having the right skills and competencies is important if they
want executives be able to pay attention to what is at stake. Sustainability leaders should be equipped to
be as comfortable in the corporate finance, HR, strategy and engineering functions as they are with site
managers.” Tom Woollard, Principle Partner, ERM Consulting.
3.6.1 SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY CHANGE‐MAKERS
Research shows a unique set of personal competencies is needed for those specifically leading
sustainability within organisations (in addition to technical or scientific skills):
Table 1: Competencies and skills for sustainability change‐makers
Desired competencies
Understanding your Working with the organisation, not Investing wisely, especially seeding
organisation’s culture, and using against it long‐term projects
levers to make things better
Networking and connecting
34
Desired skills
Specialist skills
35
Recruitment
Skills and competencies identification begins even before an employee has entered the organisation –
when the vacancy is identified. At this point conversations will likely revolve around the specialist skills
and experience needed, but a good HR team will also look for ‘fit’ of the person to both organisational
culture and ethical underpinning. Many companies may use psychological profiling (such as moralDNA or
Myers Briggs Type Indicator), psychometric testing, or run ‘testing’ days where a candidate can be
screened for personality and values fit. HR professionals might also consider the sustainability‐related
talent needs of the organisation and the competencies of new recruits to support organisational
sustainability efforts.cliii
Careful wording of job descriptions can alert potential candidates to the desired competencies and
behaviours that ‘fit’ with the culture. It can be useful to send a message from the start of the employee‐
employer relationship that being a responsible and sustainable organisation – and therefore employee –
is on the corporate agenda. Some companies talk about the “XXX way of doing things”. For example,
Unilever state on their Careers website, prior to seeking vacancies:
“A job at Unilever is a career made by you, with development opportunities, benefits and a working
culture that embraces diversity … at Unilever you can shape your own path as you work with the brands
and people that drive our sustainable business growth.”cliv
This sends a clear message, for example, that the competency to work in diverse collectives and be
somewhat self‐determining is needed from applicants.
Conversely, more and more recruits are looking for employers who have a degree of social purpose or
sustainability proof‐points. Millennial surveys of graduates have over the last few years highlighted a
clear growing interest from graduates ‐ and attraction towards ‐ sustainable organisations.clv
From advertising to short‐listing, interviews, testing, and selection there are many opportunities to
explore the competencies desired from new recruits so that they are in line with being a responsible
employee. This is not to develop a collective of like‐minded individuals; rather to find people who have
the competency to be responsible, in their unique way.
Socialisation (formal and informal learning)
Socialisation is the process by which a new employee learns and adopts behaviours and mindset
prevalent to the collective they are integrating in. We may not accept all of the collective behaviours, but
generally do seek a degree of congruence between the collective and ourselvesclvi. The adoption of
commonly expected or accepted skills and competencies is a way for humans to integrate into their new
collective. Often this takes place by watching others in how they achieve certain tasks and copying them.
Therefore, it will be very useful to proactively assess what skills already exist that support sustainability
objectives (I suggest via a consultation between the HR and sustainability teams) and how these can be
supported and cascaded further.
Formal learning can also provide skills. This can be via formal training programmes and experiential
learning such as community volunteering programmes. For sustainable organisations, this could include
known skills and competencies that support efforts to be sustainable such as stakeholder engagement,
data collection, integrated risk and opportunity identification, and management competencies of
listening and mentoring. For example, learning at the skin care company Burt’s Bees focused on related
technical expertise, change management skills, social outreach skills, and leadership.clvii
Socialisation occurs as employees rise through the ranks as well, and join different collectives and need
different skills and competencies for sustainability, such as leadership skills of authentic leadership and
36
horizon scanningclviii. In socialisation, habits and rituals for task achievement – that are often observed in
established members and copied as ‘the way we do things’ – can be established and become fixed, for
good or bad. Therefore it is important to understand these fixed assumptions in how tasks are achieved,
how this is taught to others, and how they impede or help sustainable behaviour. This may be easier to
do at line management level, with the HR and sustainability teams helping to develop a set of personal
development criteria that line management level work within for their team development.
Development
Development refers to formal skills and competencies development, such as company training
programmes, executive education, masters’ courses, and new process learning (such as integrated
management systems, reporting, or scorecards). These can be difficult to adapt because of the habits and
rituals learned in socialisation – many sustainability teams have found it difficult to integrate new
sustainability mindset and behaviours because of habits and rituals making existing skills seem part of the
social norm. However, embedding certain skills achievement as a condition of promotion is a powerful
way of changing habits and introducing more sustainable behaviours. Leadership modelling can help
develop the desired skills in employees by sending a message that this is now ‘how we do things’, such as
engaging with stakeholders and practicing transparency. Likewise, participation events can help, where
employees have the opportunity to test and develop their decision‐making skillsclix.
Formal programmes that develop employees’ abilities to work with a diverse group of stakeholders
(managing multi‐stakeholder relationsclx), diversity and multiculturalism, and ethics and governance are
key skills to be developed for sustainability.clxi The social enterprise LeadersQuest is an example of this
sort of skills development. This type of development refers not just to gender or race diversity but
specifically to ‘ideas diversity’ (which requires demographic diversity). Connecting different ideas and
people not only represents the true nature of our world, but is also a driver for innovation – both critical
for sustainabilityclxii. Exploratory creativity is unconventional thinking that modifies or rejects previous
ideas, by for example bringing together two different people and challenging their embedded viewsclxiii.
Social and environmental innovations help us address new and complex issues. Therefore, helping
stakeholders to embrace new groups of partners or people could help initiate innovations relevant for
sustainability issues. Complexity of ideas means allowing creativity and exposing employees to different
ways of thinking.
3.7 EXTERNAL INFLUENCES
It is important to recognise that employees and an organisation and its culture do not operate in isolation
from the rest of the world; it will exist within an ecosystem that it both is affected by and affects. These
external forces can be described as:
1. Strategic: market forces, political, legal/regulatory, socio‐economic, environmental, technical, and
industry specific. These forces impact on the strategy of the firm, for example regulation, technical
innovation, recession/boom periods, and the political structures of the region.
2. Cultural: geographical cultures, religion, socio‐economic, social norms. These forces influence the
motivation and behaviour of employees and set expectations for how organisations and people act.
Some external influences have been mentioned in the previous sections.
“Some 63% of CEOs expect sustainability to transform their industry within five years—and 76% believe
that embedding sustainability into core business will drive revenue growth and new opportunities. But …
In many cases, business leaders feel that given the structures, incentives and demands of the market, they
have taken their companies as far as they can.”clxiv
We face very clear external challenges from environmental pressures and constraints as well as societal
and economic constraints such as income disparity, extreme poverty, intergenerational injustices and
discrimination. Despite pan‐world alliances and commitments (such as the UNGC and Millennium
37
Development Goals) countries and regions can be at very different stages of maturity in identifying and
managing and integrating issues into societal norms (for example via education or regulation) of the
country. Political influences such as carbon tax in some countries vs. lax pollution laws in others will
motivate what employees in Europe vs. Asia deem important. Technical development and economic
strength will influence what platforms exist for employee engagement, and the available platforms for
programmes of change from one country to the next. Market structure influences such as how capitalism
is being manifested (such as control of monopolies, reporting of externalities, incentives etc) will also
challenge or help to embed sustainability – as the UNGC/Accenture 2013 CEO survey foundclxv.
All these external influences create a ‘social norm’ of understanding, ability, priorities, and motivation for
being part of developing a sustainable organisation and need to be considered. As these external
influences peak and wane they can also become triggers/reasons for an organisation to change or better
address sustainability. A few influences are discussed below as examples.
3.7.1 TECHNOLOGICAL INFLUENCES
Management philosopher Handyclxvi mentions technology as a ‘factor that influences culture’. The state of
technology available – or disruptive innovation occurring – can influence business ability for efficiency,
communication, accessing new customers, and connecting employees effectively. Management guru
Scheinclxvii also highlights technology as an external factor influencing organisational culture (or the
desired sustainable organisational culture), especially as such external forces can reinforce culture on a
daily basis via employees communicating with each other and sharing information. Consider how social
media is now commonly used as a platform for employees to share and reinforce embedded cultural
values vs. a decade ago being reliant on formal communications such as an internal newsletter. This has
had a great effect on how groups communicate and interact with each other.
3.7.2 SUSTAINABILITY MACRO TRENDS
Research from various institutions have identified ‘macro trends’ occurring at a societal and wider system
level that affect how sustainable business is viewed and are levers for introducing and embedding
sustainability. The Edelman Trust Barometer identified declining trust in governments but an increase in
expectation of business to pursue self‐interest whilst doing good work for society.clxviii How are these
trends affecting the culture of your organisation, as your employees and stakeholders expectations of you
will likewise change? The Towers Watson Global Workforce 2012 study identified changing motivations
for jobs, including an increasing desire for higher quality of work experience overall.clxix What does this
mean for framing how sustainable business can provide purpose and motivate employees?
Over the longer term there are some significant macro trends that affect the very role of business and
many of the environmental and social pressures mean we have to change how we do business. How
capitalism works for example affects how open an organisation is to long‐term thinking (a cultural
characteristic we know enables sustainability), and affects processes and systems such as pricing or risk
assessment, which can be levers or barriers for embedding sustainability:
“Sustainable capitalism seeks to maximise long‐term economic value creation. It explicitly integrates
environmental, social, and governance factors into strategy, the measurement of outputs and the
assessment of both risks and opportunities. Sustainable capitalism encourages us to generate financial
returns in a long‐term and responsible manner, and calls for internalising negative externalities through
appropriate pricing.”clxx
The pursuit of green growth and its tension with protecting invested interests affects signals to market.
This in turn affects the degree to which leadership will support investments in greener energy and R&D
vs. investing in existing high impact energy sources:
38
“Addressing the market and governance failures that plague our economic systems will create plenty of
scope for growing cleaner without necessarily growing slower. The best example is the US$ 1 trillion to
US$ 1.2 trillion currently being spent on environmentally harmful subsidies for fossil fuel, agriculture,
water, and fisheries. Green growth is affordable because many green policies pay for themselves directly,
and the others make economic sense once externalities are priced and ecosystem services are valued.
Greening growth is constrained by social and political inertia and by a lack of financing instruments—not
affordability.”clxxi
Global macro trends also affect how we view our role (purpose), how we physically organise our assets,
suppliers, and our people, and consequently how we manage organisational culture so that sustainability
is enabled. For example:
changing land use from food growth to urbanisation, migratory effects from flooding and rising seas
shifting balance of power between West and East
scientific advancements for example in e‐health, computing micro processors, and 3‐D printing
reductions in equitable societies including intergenerational inequalities
demographic shifts such as increasing rich‐poor divide, ageing population, and gender shifts
already changing crisis incidents due to climate change such as wildfires and drought (and the
resulting effect on food supply, biodiversity, and security)
increases in pollution and resulting effects from health, migration, and legislation etc.
All these can be either barriers for embedding sustainability – if they are not recognised – or enablers,
such as helping to identify opportunities for a new purpose and long‐term way to operate.clxxii
How an organisation recognises, addresses and survives global trends will affect how employees view the
purpose of the business, the skills they need, the criteria and processes and standards they need to work
to, how socialisation needs to occur, and how sustainability is legitimate and a driver for better business.
3.7.3 SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
Social movement theory explains the new social movements that have occurred throughout history,
which have changed or replaced a normalised behaviour or state from the ‘bottom up’. For example,
slavery abolition, female equality, gay rights, and the antiapartheid movement. These movements are
initially led by individuals (usually not purpose or planned) which cascades across our societies (and
eventually into business and then finally governments) and focus on achieving social goals and improving
the lives of a group or changing the way we treat (for example) the environment. Sustainability is
considered a new social movement, with origins in the human rights, labour rights and environmental
movements. The Occupy movement is a recent example of such a social movement. Corporate
sustainability can be seen in this light, and has cascaded enough to be a legitimate and powerful
movement in its own right:
“A key shift … is the change in the way many business people relate to the social and environmental
performance of their companies.”clxxiii
This movement is growing and as such many employees are engaging with the agenda, even if initially in
their personal lives. This provides a great enabler for sustainability change‐makers, as their work becomes
a platform for engaging the hearts and minds of employees, as well as being seen as part of a wider
movement to improve how we workclxxiv. Some organisational cultures have already been affected by
social movements – for example because of the general age or location of the workforce – and are more
‘open’ to sustainability being embedded into organisational characteristicsclxxv. However, the message
needs to be carefully thought through as those industries and individuals not part of the social movement
or lacking from an increasing awareness of the issues may not yet recognise the changing norms.
39
3.7.4 CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON BEHAVIOURS AND NORMS
There are significant external human influences on an organisation, from culture and social norms of the
society that employees are members of outside the firm (for example how slavery was once accepted and
now is abhorrent), to location of sub‐divisions from headquarters and therefore how remote they are
from the centre and distanced from top‐down efforts to embed sustainability. Academic Geert Hofstede
is considered the expert on this, highlighting the effects of a society's culture on the values of
organisation’s members, and how these values relate to behaviour. Relevant for developing sustainable
organisations, these dimensions orientate the collective goals for sustainability, so if choosing the wrong
goals for the type of society, change will likely not resonate with employees. Hofstede identified national
and cultural differences withclxxvi:
Individualism vs. collectivism: what focus is put on individual rights vs. for the good of the
group/family. This is especially relevant for sustainability as we need to take actions now that benefit
others, and future generations, more than they will benefit us. How far will we go to emphasise the
good of the group over our individual comfort and rights? This is also relevant for motivating
employees in what will drive them more – individual rewards or the betterment of the organisation.
Uncertainty avoidance: the risk adverseness of a society, how important it is to minimise uncertainty.
Societies with high uncertainty avoidance is linked with higher emotional expression and more prone
to step‐change rather than radical change, whereas low uncertainty avoidance societies are
comfortable with unstructured situations, the unknown, and change. Sustainability is often
introduced to an organisation through the risk mitigation route, but conversely because the
quantifiable risk our unsustainable lifestyles creates has for a long time been vague, it has been hard
to develop a case for change because risk to us, in the here and now, has been largely hidden.
Long‐term vs. short‐term orientation: societies with longer term horizons attach more importance to
future successes and rewards, whereas short‐term orientation tend to focus on past and present,
with respect for tradition, preservation of ‘one’s face’, and fulfilling social obligations. ‘Discounting
the futureclxxvii is seen as a natural human tendency, and long‐term vs. short‐term orientation
encourages or discourages this tendency. The importance we place on future success of our actions
today affects our motivation and drivers of behaviour.
40
4. OUTCOMES: MOVING FROM ‘AS IS’ TO ‘TO BE’ STATE
Conversations about any change – especially systemic change – can discourage organisation leaders
and employees to engage with a topic. We like stability, or the illusion of stability, and it takes a strong
leader to recognise that change is needed and then to find the right catalyst to initiate that change.
Sustaining the change offers even more barriers – especially relevant for sustainability which is a long‐
term mindset and where outcomes and benefits are often not seen in the short‐term. Sustaining
transformational change for sustainability requires internal culture alignment, an external enabling
context (some of which can also be used as a trigger for change, such as legislation), and some basic
management tools (that may not yet be readily available or well enough developed). In the 2013
UNGC/Accenture CEO survey, many of the respondents:
“…see a plateau effect in sustainability—and are struggling to make the business case for action.”clxxviii
However, the same survey identified a set of ‘transformational leaders’ who are finding and benefiting
from solutions:
“Transformational Leaders are approaching sustainability differently, providing a model for greater
impact and value creation.”
Often, an ethical, legislative, or environmental crisis (as that seen in the banking sector, or the GSK
example used in Section 3.3); an external trigger such as a competitor taking leadership position on
sustainability, legislation on ESG reporting, change in societal expectation of ethical behaviour; or
internal change such as a change of leadership with a new demand for ethical behaviour, thus
establishing the reason for change which is more legitimately accepted by employees – because they
can visually see the reason for change and because that change will reinforce (a perhaps damaged)
identity and values congruence they have with the organisation. This is a critical ingredient for both
initiating and sustaining change for sustainability – a clearly articulated and remembered reason for
change and the benefits it will bring at both personal level and organisational level (imprinted onto
organisational memory, which is why timing is important). Barclays identified their crisis moment as an
opportunity:
“Summer 2012 was crisis point for us. It resonated throughout the entire organisation, unfroze our
culture. We wanted change at all levels, and it was an opportunity for renewal, a new mission.”clxxix
‘Change Readiness’ means organisational readiness for change is high and organizational members are
more likely to initiate change, exert greater effort, exhibit greater persistence, and display more
cooperative behaviour. The result is more effective implementationclxxx. This involves:
selling the change
having change agents
opinion leaders championing the change
developing credibility (specifically with honesty, competence, inspiration and vision)
using influencing strategies (discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principle support, valence)
developing persuasive communications
active participation opportunities for employees
developing vicarious learning
active mastery for employees to practice and become masters at their craft
participative problem solving and decision‐making for employees (leading to ownership).clxxxi
41
Example of change readiness: Vehicle manufacturer
In 2008 a leading luxury vehicle manufacturer hired a change management consultancy to educate
them about sustainability; in a resulting workshop the powerful Head of R&D declared that
sustainability was not relevant for them and the matter was put to bed. For cultural reasons, the
organisation was not ready for change. Fast‐forward 6 years and all other competitors have an
established eco‐product and sustainability is benefiting their R&D programme – except this
manufacturer. They have lost out in the China market, and so in 2014 were again exploring
sustainability, this time not as an ‘embracer’ but from a compliance and ‘market loss’ position.
Will they be successful this time? Are they now change ready? Competitive imperative may not be
enough, especially as in 2007 the Head of Sales wanted to progress sustainability. Culturally, the audit
revealed, not much has changed in the intervening 6 years.
Embedding sustainability ‐ whatever stage of the journey you are at – requires, to some degree,
change. Therefore, conditions for change need to exist or be developed. Becoming ‘change ready’ for
sustainability (whether for a small, focused change or wide‐scale systemic change) requires a
fundamental question answered, which any culture audit should help you to do:
Does your organisation need to fundamentally change (a transformational sustainability change
programme) and therefore need to be made ‘change ready’, or are there enough ingredients present so
that what is actually needed is better culture management or alignment so that sustainable mindset
and behaviours can emerge and be better directed?
4.1 CHANGE READINESS: TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE OR BETTER CULTURE MANAGEMENT?
This cultural characteristic is about identifying what sort of change your organisation needs for
embedding sustainability. Some organisations don’t actually need to change. Very few organisations
have no sustainable aspects about them, even if deeply embedded or present in a small department
isolated from the core of the business. Often it is the case of finding these aspects, connecting and
cascading them to create new norms, rather than creating something new from the ashes of
destruction. But this only works if the prevailing culture already supports both strategy and
sustainability mindset and behaviours!
However, if some fundamental cultural barriers and enablers have been identified from a culture audit,
such as the automobile firm example given earlier where power from R&D was used to block the
debate on sustainability, these need to be identified and appreciated. A simple SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, threats) will help articulate these. Does any single, or group of, barrier(s)
fundamentally stop sustainability being addressed? Can any of the enablers override those barriers? Or
is transformational change needed? There are some components that are considered a critical success
factor for sustainability, such as having leadership support and a robust outside‐in perspective, but I
suggest even these can be dealt with if ‘bottom up support’ and ‘owner support’ exists. It is useful for
change‐leaders to identify those aspects that work (the ‘As is’ state) – such as understanding if
sustainability is already embedded in organisational strategy or cultural norms ‐ and to find examples of
people doing the right thing and then cascade these as examples throughout the organisation.
However, if no examples exist, it may be that transformational change is needed.
The alternative is that organisational culture may simply need to be better managed. Research has
identified ‘symptoms’ of an effective culture – one that is being managed wellclxxxii. Do these exist in
your organisation? If so, it may be that transformational change is not needed; it may be that
sustainability is best embedded by aligning sustainability with the existing culture:
Your culture taps into the waiting reserves of energy within lots of people – employees reinforce
one another informally, which results in greater emotional commitment.
Your culture guides down‐the‐line decision making. Prescribed policies are not needed for every
possible situation, cultural influences help determine what they should do.
42
Your culture builds enduring execution capability. Critical behaviours are repeated and become
habits, and so people become better and faster at execution.
Behaviours in normal times emulate positive behaviours during crisis – these forces are activated
all the time and so get that ‘special’ level of performance all the time.
However, even if transformational change is not needed, if culture is not proactively managed despite
many pockets where it may work, it could be that a gentle culture management programme is needed.
Ideally led by a cross‐functional team, the commitment to sustainability can ‘piggyback’ on a culture
management programme, be enabled by it, and also help the programme by providing tangible
examples of what is good. An unmanaged culture will become apparent through a culture diagnosis.
Examples of behaviours and mindset of an unmanaged culture includeclxxxiii:
Self‐aggrandizement
Employees going through the motions
Reduced critical thinking
Talk and planning is short‐term
Deadlines are disregarded
Increased emphasis on positional power
Work does not get done, or only done at a low level, tasks overdone at expense of time
Helpful feedback not elicited
Employees mind their own business – ‘heads down’
Creativity suffers
Team working not very good, information not shared
Conversely, working to improve culture can result in:
A can‐do mindset
More hopeful, more expectation of doing well
Curiosity increases
Higher expectations becomes the norm
People more readily recognise others
People talk about what they can do differently to improve things
Response rates improve
I propose these behaviours of a well‐managed culture will also enable sustainability to be embedded.
Research has highlighted some specific behaviours that are present in sustainable organisations:
Managers are able to live to their personal values.clxxxiv
Employees and systems encourage reward and recognition.clxxxv
The organisation – and employees ‐ have the ability to learn, for example through knowledge
sharing, partnering, stakeholder engagement, by employees being involved in the business and
being able to ask questions and encouraged to identify and solve problems, and an outside‐in view
of the firm.clxxxvi
Values are clear for employees and embedded into company practices such as formalised
processes and reporting on sustainability performance, symbolsclxxxvii, common
language/terminology used, in identity of the organisation, and in stories that are told.clxxxviii
43
I personally believe that – outside of a few incidences where transformational change is needed – a
well managed culture is what is needed to embed sustainability rather than dramatic change, as long as
the culture (as it is) works in the long‐term for the organisation. I suspect this is also true at an
individual, evolutionary behaviour level as well as in relation to pro‐sustainability behaviours. Research
shows that to show long‐term consequences of certain individual evolutionary triggered behaviours
(such as eating fatty foods, not recycling) does not drive behaviour change. Instead using evolutionary
behaviour triggers such as social imitation or local immediate consequences may be a more beneficial
approach. (See Section 3.3 for more detail on this.)
The role of the sustainability change‐makers is to identify if transformational change or if better culture
management is needed. In both cases aligning sustainability with existing culture should help to embed
sustainability. The positional power, permission, and resource a change‐maker may have will determine
what degree of culture change or alignment for sustainability is possible. If deeper culture change is
needed than you have authority for, cultural levers can still be used to progress through some of the
stages of CR maturity (although I hypothesise not through stages 4 and 5clxxxix), with a better
appreciation of tactics that will and won’t work because of your organisation’s cultural characteristics.
Timing may help with presenting opportunities for influencing or finding allies for wider culture change,
at which point you can help your organisation move forward quickly because of the audit already done
to identify enablers and barriers to strategy achievement. At that time, I personally advocate for a
culture change programme to always work with other influential departments, such as the HR team,
Finance, Operations and CEO office, where pooling resources, insight and power will be a benefit.
4.2 INITIATING AND SUSTAINING CULTURE CHANGE FOR SUSTAINABILITY
I cannot conclude this paper without some advice. Therefore, I suggest a culture diagnosis can help
identify if and what sort of change is needed to embed sustainability and create your desired ‘To be’
state. The choice of diagnostic tool will vary depending on if you want to focus on values & behaviours
and/or how employees experience life in the organisation. Once the diagnosis is done and agreed
upon, a good starting point is to consider how all of the cultural components discussed in Section 3
indicate what existing mindset there is for sustainable business. Does the organisation already think of
their environmental impacts in some way, or of their economic responsibilities over and above those to
shareholders, such as to local communities? Specifically, are customer complaints, supplier impact and
fall‐out, monitored? Is direct adherence to standards and codes already well managed, and are
employee satisfaction scores considered important? How are government/legislative relationships
guided, especially when it comes to lobbying contributions, subsidies, facilitation payments, and
sponsorship? All these questions (and more!) are some of the indicators of existing mindset for
sustainably (whether intended or not), and are mechanisms that can be enhanced, tracked, and used
for initiating sustainability embedding and/or change. Taking an ‘appreciative enquiry’ approach can
help identify these examples: this requires a collaborative enquiry of the organisation during the
culture diagnosis at both personal and organisational level by focusing on the organisation’s strengths.
Clarifying the desired ‘To be’ state can help set the ambition and give a tangible goal to achieve. This
helps change‐makers to identify what to keep, change, and adapt. For any ‘culture‐for‐sustainability’
programme it is critical to understand this desired state you are working towards – what will it look like
when employees and the organisation are more successfully sustainable? Management guru Moss
Kanter identifies great companies that think differently and are by nature therefore sustainable. She
identifies 6 characteristics one may consider developing as part of a desired sustainable ‘To be’ state:cxc
Having a common purpose, with a different operating logic that business is an intrinsic part of
society, a social institution. They work to make money but in their choices of how to do so they are
building enduring institutions.
Having a long‐term focus, generating a long‐term perspective that can justify any short‐term
financial sacrifices in order to achieve corporate purpose and to endure over time.
Emotional engagement via transmission of institutional values evoking positive emotions,
stimulating motivation and propelling self regulation or peer regulation.
44
Partnering with the public, crossing borders and sector and whilst tapping into opportunities also
being concerned for public issues beyond the boundaries of the firm, requiring public‐private
partnerships where social and business interests are considered.
Innovation through the articulation of a broader purpose which guides strategy and action and
opens resources to innovation and expressing values in everyday work.
Self‐organisation because the company assumes it can trust people and can rely on relationships,
not just rules and structures. Employees are self‐determining professionals.
If change is needed, it is important to remember the role of clear organisational values. Academics
Cameron and Quinn suggest that successful implementation of culture change may be largely
dependent on the values and ideological underpinning of the organisation’s culture.cxci
A gap analysis between the ‘As is’ state and the desired ‘To be’ state and will help identify a starting
point and priorities. A 2013 Harvard Business Review paper suggested that for any culture change
programme it is best to start with what already works, with 5 key stepscxcii:
1. Match strategy and culture
2. Focus on a few critical shifts in behaviour
3. Honour the strengths of your existing culture
4. Integrate formal and informal interventions
5. Measure and monitor cultural evolution
45
5. IN CONCLUSION
2
From innovating new sustainable packaging, writing responsible advertising copy, monitoring costs and numbers to triple
bottom line, or project managing with the right stage‐gates in place etc.
46
REFERENCES
In boxes:
Buchanan & Huczynski (1997). Organisational behaviour: an introductory text. Prentice Hall: UK.
Frankl (1964). Mans search for meaning: an introduction to logotherapy. Hodder and Stoughton: London.
Jones & Gerrard (1967). Foundations of social psychology. John Wiley: US.
Linnenluecke & Griffiths (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. J of World Business 45:
357–366.
Payne (2012). Inspiring sustainable behaviour: 19 ways to ask for change. Routledge Earthscan: UK.
Ravasi & Schulz (2006). Responding to organisational identity threats: exploring the role of organisational
culture. Academy of Management Journal 49 (3): 433‐458.
Reker, Peakock & Wong (1987). Meaning and purpose of life and wellbeing: a life span perspective. J of
Gerontology 42: 44‐49.
Rousseau & Denise (1995). Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten
Agreements. Sage: CA, US.
Shore, Coyle‐Shapiro & Tetrick (2012). The employee‐organisation relationship. Routledge: UK.
Endnotes
i
Winston Churchill said of Russia on 01 October 1939 in a BBC interview.
ii
Internal rate of return
iii
This approach espouses the view that we are more complex than mathematical risk models allow and ‘heuristics (the
learned rules of a situation) or gut instinct’ is more relevant.
iv
We already know badly managed cultures contribute significantly to M&A failure, and change programme failure – not
appreciating or managing organisational culture is often the primary reason for change programme failure (Linnenluecke &
Griffiths, 2010).
v
Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim (2011). The impact of a corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behaviour and
performance. Harvard Business School Working Paper 12‐035.
vi
Coffman & Sorensen (2013). Culture eats strategy for lunch. Liang Anderson Press.
vii
Ainsbury & Grayson (2014). Understanding a company’s current and desired stages of corporate responsibility maturity.
The Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility, Cranfield University, UK.
viii
See consultancy McKinsey model on Capturing Value from Sustainability:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/the_business_of_sustainability_mckinsey_global_survey_
results Accessed July 2014.
ix
Deal & Kennedy (1982). Corporate Cultures – The rites and rituals of corporate life (1st ed). Penguin Books: UK.
x
Steare et al (2014). Managers and their moralDNA. Chartered Management Institute report.
http://www.managers.org.uk/2014ethicsreport Accessed June 2014.
xi
Deal & Kennedy (1982).
xii
The Theory of Meaning of Life (Reker, Peakock & Wong, 1987) relates to an individuals’ search for meaning and purpose
of existence, with four key influences that can help explore or reinforce meaning (and therefore behaviour): our spiritual
aspirations, our experience of our values, through our deeds, and through our attitudes. The workplace is a significant
source of influence especially for deeds and experience of values (Frankl, 1964).
xiii
Buchanan & Huczynski (1997).
xiv
Senge (1990). The Fifth Discipline. Century Business: London, UK.
xv
Kotter & Heskett (2011 reprint). Corporate culture and performance. Free Press: US.
xvi
Ravasi & Schulz (2006).
xvii
Deal & Kennedy (2000). Corporate Cultures. Perseus: US.
xviii
Handy (1976). Understanding Organizations. Oxford University Press: UK.
xix
Denison (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Wiley: UK.
xx
Hofstede (1984). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work‐Related Values (2nd ed.). Sage Publications:
CA, US.
xxi
Cameron & Quinn (2006). Diagnosing and changing organisational culture. John Wiley & Sons; New York, US.
xxii
Scholes & Johnson (1997). Exploring corporate strategy. Prentice Hall: UK
xxiii
Schein (2010). Organisational culture and leadership. Jossey & Bass: UK.
xxiv
Cooke & Lafferty (1987). Organizational Culture Inventory. Human Synergistics: MI, US.
xxv
Shashkin (1991). Organizational beliefs questionnaire (OBQ). Organization Design and Development.
47
xxvi
Including O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell’s Organisational Culture Profile (O'Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991). People and
organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to person‐organization fit. Academy of Management Journal 34: 487‐
516) AND Wallach’s Organisational Culture Index
(www.humansynergistics.com/Products/OrganizationDevelopment/OrganizationalCultureInventory)
xxvii
Linnenluecke & Griffiths (2010).
xxviii
Wirtenberg (2014). Building a culture for sustainability. Praeger: USA.
xxix
Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim (2011).
xxx
Griskevicius et al (2012). The evolutionary basis for sustainable behaviour: implications for marketing, policy, and social
entrepreneurship. J of Public Policy & Marketing 31 (1): 115‐128.
xxxi
See Steare et al (2014).
xxxii
Please see my 2013 book: Exter (2013).Engaging Employees in Sustainable Business. Routledge: UK.
xxxiii
Wilson (2000). Inclusion, exclusion and ambiguity: The role of organisational culture. Personnel Review 29 (3): p274.
xxxiv
We further are developing with Methodos a change dashboard that uses the particular culture diagnosis for each
organisation, such as what needs to change and/or can be a mechanism for change, to create a bespoke change
management programme. This is still in development.
xxxv
Watson (2012). Sociology, work and organisation. Routledge; London and New York.
xxxvi
Steare et al (2014).
xxxvii
For more on this see Frankl (1964).
xxxviii
Exter (2013).
xxxix
BITC & The Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility (2011). The business case for being a responsible business.
xl
Duarte (2011). What does culture of corporate social responsibility look like? A glimpse into a Brazilian mining company.
International J of Business Anthropology 2 (1): 106‐122. AND Lyon (2004). How can you help organisations change to meet
the corporate responsibility agenda. CSR and Environmental Management 11 (3): 133‐139.
xli
Duarte (2011).
xlii
See research by Dan Pink (2010). Drive: the surprising truth about what motivates us. Canongate Books: USA; AND Kim
et al (2010). CSR and employee‐company identification. J of Business Ethics 95: 557‐569.
xliii
Evans & Davis (2001). An examination of the perceived corporate citizenship, job applicant attraction, and CSR work role
definition. Business and Society 50: 465.
xliv
Amos & Weathington (2008). An analysis of the relationship between employee‐organisation value congruence and
employee attitudes. J of Psychology 142 (6): 615‐631.
xlv
Exter (2013).
xlvi
Collins & Porras (2002). Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies. Harper Business Essentials: New York.
xlvii
For more on Purpose, please read Coca‐Cola Enterprises & The Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility (2014).
Combining profit and purpose: a new dialogue on the role of business in society. October 2014 CCE/FT Annual Summit.
xlviii
Especially when considering the human tendency to discount the future: gains or loss from action or inaction in the
present (vs. in the long‐term) can seem more valuable than they actually are. What we see happening in the future is
mainly at top‐level only, so not as personal or real. In other words, the consequences of actions today motivate us more
than future consequences. So if needing pro‐social behaviour now, such as for sustainability, with the real returns occurring
in the long‐term, then short‐term gains or losses need to be developed as incentives: Payne (2012).
xlix
Saltz & Collins (2013). The Salz Review, An independent review of Barclay’s Business Practices. UK.
l
Jon Harding, Head of Culture and Values interview August 2013, personal correspondence.
li
RSA (2011). Transforming behaviour change: beyond nudge and neuromania.
lii
Linnenluecke & Griffiths (2010).
liii
Choice‐editing is when businesses actively limit the choices available to their customers on certain products so as to drive
to a sustainable (or more sustainable) result.
liv
Payne (2012).
lv
Exter (2013).
lvi
See also Gigerenzer’s Risk Savy for more on this: Gigerenzer (2014). Risk Savy. Allen Lane: USA.
lvii
Stevens & Buechler (2013). An analysis of the Lehman Brothers code of ethics and the role it played in the firm. J of
Leadership, Accountability and Ethics 10 (1): 43‐57.
lviii
http://www.ibe.org.uk/nine‐steps‐for‐preparing‐a‐new‐code/103/52 Accessed June 2014
lix
Lyon (2004).
lx
Duarte (2011).
lxi
Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim (2011).
lxii
Epstein & Wisner (2001). Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental Quality Management
Winter: 11 (2).
lxiii
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc Daniel Pink. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.
lxiv
Gill, Prowse & Vlassopoulus (2012). Cheating in the workplace: an experimental study of impact of bonuses and
productivity. IZA Discussion Paper Series No. 6725, Germany.
lxv
Lampert (May 2014). Banking standards review: a report for the new Banking Standards Review Council: UK.
lxvi
Called Skinnerian conditioning, whereby you associate a response or behaviour with its consequence – the more
desirable the consequence, the frequency of the behaviour is likely to increase. But you have to understand what is
‘desirable’.
lxvii
Buchanan & Huczynski (1997).
48
lxviii
Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, Sowa (1986). Perceived organisational support. J of Applied Psychology 71 (3):
500‐507.
lxix
Deci & Ryan (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self‐determination in human behaviour. Plenum: US.
lxx
2014 Responsible Business Conference presentation by Sainsbury CEO Justin King, London UK.
lxxi
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/06/us‐stock‐exchanges‐face‐lawsuit‐over‐high‐frequency‐trading.
Accessed August 2014.
lxxii
Jin, Drozdenko & DeLoughy (2013). The role of corporate value clusters in ethics, social responsibility, and performance:
a study of financial professionals and implications for financial meltdown. J of Business Ethics 112: 15‐24.
lxxiii
Such as Zsoka A (2007). The role of organisational culture in the environmental awareness of companies. J for East
European Management Studies 2; AND Duarte (2011).
lxxiv
www.businessweek.com/articles/2013‐07‐17/glaxosmithklines‐andrew‐witty‐on‐fixing‐big‐pharmas‐bad‐boy. Accessed
July 2014.
lxxv
Personal correspondence with Andrew Witty, CEO GSK 2012.
lxxvi
Dunphy, Griffin, Benn (2003). Organisational change for corporate sustainability. Routledge: US.
lxxvii
Labour Government Report (2010). Behaviour change and social responsibility. UK.
lxxviii
Kanter (2011). How great companies think differently. Harvard Business Review: November 2011.
lxxix
Katzenbach, Steffen & Kronley (2012). Culture change that sticks. Harvard Business Review July‐August 2012.
lxxx
Dubois & Dubois (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for environmental sustainability in organization. Human
Resource Management 51 (6):799‐826.
lxxxi
WBCSD & CPI (2005). Driving Success: Human resources and sustainable development, World Businesses Council for
Sustainable Development & University of Cambridge Programme for Industry.
http://www.cpsl.cam.ac.uk/Resources/Publications‐and‐Downloads.aspx ]
And: WBCSD (2011). People Matter Lead: Enabling leadership for sustainability.
lxxxii
McShane & Cunningham (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees judgements of the authenticity of their
organisation’s CSR programme. J Business Ethics 108: 81‐100.
lxxxiii
Barnard C (1938). Functions of the executive. Cambridge USA. Harvard University Press.
lxxxiv
Duarte (2011).
lxxxv
Shore, Coyle‐Shapiro & Tetrick (2012).
lxxxvi
Handy C (1976).
lxxxvii
Bandura A (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall: US.
lxxxviii
Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, Sowa (1986). Perceived organisational support. J of Applied Psychology 71 (3):
500‐507.
lxxxix
Deci & Ryan (1985).
xc
Ajzen & Icek (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179–
211.
xci
Duarte (2011).
xcii
McShane & Cunningham (2012).
xciii
http://www.bitc.org.uk/our‐resources/case‐studies/marks‐and‐spencer‐wellbeing‐programme‐and‐
wwwplanahealthcom. Accessed January 2014.
xciv
Steare (2014).
xcv
Credit Suisse Research Institute (2012). Gender diversity and corporate performance. https://www.credit‐
suisse.com/newsletter/doc/gender_diversity.pdf
xcvi
Turner, C (2012). Difference works: improving retention, productivity and profitability through inclusion. Live Oak Book
Company: US.
xcvii
Weintrobe S (2013). Engaging with climate change. Routledge: Abingdon.
xcviii
Griskevicius et al (2012).
xcix
Freud & Bonepart (2009) The origins of psychoanalysis. Letters to Wilheim Fleiss; Drafts and Notes 1887‐1902. Kessinger:
Whitefish, MT; AND Griskevicius et al (2012).
c
Scott & Esteves (2013). Leadership for sustainability and change. Do Sustainability.
ci
Business in the Community (2014). BITC Leadership Taskforce: Interim report on responsible business leadership.
February 2014.
cii
Finkelstein & Hambrick (1996). Strategic leadership: top executives and their effects on organisations. Minneapolis: West
Publishing Company.
ciii
Leroy, Palanski, Simons (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioural integrity as drivers of follower commitment and
performance. J of Business Ethics 107 (3): 255‐264.
civ
Steare (2014).
cv
Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim (2011).
cvi
Business for Social Responsibility (2012). Sustainability and leadership: competencies for business leaders.
cvii
www.legalandgeneralgroupcsr.com/doing‐business‐better/improving‐our‐workplace/talent‐learning‐and‐
development.html Accessed June 2014 AND 2014 conversation with Graham Precey, Head of Corporate Responsibility and
Ethics at Legal & General, London, UK.
cviii
Business in the Community (2014).
cix
Quinn & Cameron, Eds. (1988). Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organizations and
Management. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
49
cx
Lewin, Lippit. & White (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social
Psychology 10: 271‐301
cxi
Bass & Bernard (2008). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial Applications (4th ed.).
The Free Press: US: 50, 623.
cxii
Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. pp. 201–202.
cxiii
McShane & Cunningham (2012).
cxiv
Leroy, Palanski, Simons T (2012).
cxv
Pearce, Manz (2011). Leadership centrality and CSR. The Potential Ameliorating Effects of Self and Shared Leadership on
CSR. Journal of Business Ethics 102: 563‐579.
cxvi
Metcalf & Benn (2013). Leadership for sustainability: an evolution of leadership ability. J of Business Ethics 112: 369‐384.
cxvii
Turnball & James (2008). Leadership perspectives: knowledge into action. Palgrave Macmillan: UK.
cxviii
Leroy, Palanski, Simons (2012).
cxix
Experience of Oonagh Harpur, experienced governance consultant; AND Doughty Centre & BITC (2013). Towards a
sustainability mindset: how boards organise oversight and governance of corporate responsibility.
http://www.bitc.org.uk/our‐resources/report/towards‐sustainability‐mindset‐how‐boards‐organise‐oversight‐and‐
governance Accessed July 2014.
cxx
WBCSD (2010). People Matter Reward: Linking sustainability to pay. World Business Council for Sustainable
Development.
cxxi
Avery (2011). Sustainable leadership. Routledge, UK.
cxxii
Lawrence et al (2006). The underlying structure of continuous change. MITSloan Management Review 47 (4): 59‐66.
cxxiii
Zald (2005). The strange career of an idea and its resurrection: social movements in organisations. J of Management
Inquiry 14 (2): 157‐166.
cxxiv
Exter (2013).
cxxv
Quote from Tom Woollard, consultancy ERM. August 2014.
cxxvi
Exter (2013).
cxxvii
Exter (2013).
cxxviii
Grayson, McLaren, Spitzeck (2014). Social intrapreneurism and all that jazz. Greenleaf Publishing: UK.
cxxix
Balogun, Wilmott, Gleadle, Hope‐Hailey (2005). Managing change across boundaries; boundary shaking practices.
British J of Management 16: 261‐278.
cxxx
Exter (2013).
cxxxi
Zald M (2005). The strange career of an idea and its resurrection: social movements in organisations. J of Management
Inquiry 14 (2): 157‐166.
cxxxii
Exter (2013).
cxxxiii
Wilson, E. (2000). Inclusion, exclusion and ambiguity: The role of organisational culture. Personnel Review 29 (3): p274.
cxxxiv
Top managers, supervisors and co‐workers exert important influences on employee ethics: Shore, Coyle‐Shapiro &
Tetrick (2012).
cxxxv
Chaudhri (2006). Organising global CSR. J of Corporate Citizenship 23: 39‐51.
cxxxvi
Please see Champions chapter 4 in Exter (2013).
cxxxvii
The Salz review, and The Independent Commission on Banking, The Vickers Report 30 Dec 2013.
cxxxviii
E.g. adhocracy advocates a flexible, adaptive and informal form of structure. See Job design theory for more writings
on this. For example: Gallagher & Einhorn (1976). Motivational theory and job design. J of Business 49 (3): 358‐373.
cxxxix
Truss et al. (2013). Job design and employee engagement: An engage for success white paper. University of Kent White
Paper.
cxl
Burgess & Currie (2013). The Knowledge Brokering Role of the Hybrid Middle Level Manager: the Case of Healthcare.
British J of Management 24: Aug 2013.
cxli
Exter (2013).
cxlii
McShane & Cunningham (2012).
cxliii
See management theory of Job design.
cxliv
Exter (2013).
cxlv
Wirtenberg (2014).
cxlvi
Conversations with Tom Woollard, consultancy ERM, 2014.
cxlvii
Collin & Audrey (1989). Managers’ Competence: Rhetoric, Reality and Research. Personnel Review 18 (6): 20‐25.
cxlviii
Kanter. (2011).
cxlix
Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim (2011).
cl
Conceicao & Altman (2011). Training and development process and organisational culture change. Organisational
Development J 29 (1).
cli
UN & Accenture (2013). The UN Global Compact‐Accenture CEO study on sustainability: architects of a better world.
clii
Business for Social Responsibility (2012). Sustainability and leadership competencies for business leaders. USA.
cliii
Boudreau & Ramstad (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for
a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management 44: 129–136
cliv
http://www.unilever.com/careers‐jobs/
clv
Such as Net Impact (2012). What Workers want; Sky Future Leaders series (2012). The sustainable generation.
clvi
Amos & Weathington (2008).
50
clvii
Beavis (2011, May 26). Burt’s Bees: Changing behaviour beyond work.” Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable‐business/burts‐bees‐changing‐behaviour‐work
clviii
Metcalf & Benn (2013).
clix
Willcoxson & Millet (2000). The management of organisational culture. Australian J of Management and Organisational
Behaviour 32 (2): 91‐99.
clx
IISD (2008). Supporting the next generation of sustainability leadership. www.iisd.org
clxi
Wirtenberg et al (2007). HR’s role in building a sustainable enterprise. Insights from some of the world’s best companies.
Human Resource Planning 30 (1): 10‐20.
clxii
Dopplet (2012). From me to we: the five transformational commitments required to rescue the planet, your organisation
and your life. Greenleaf: UK.
clxiii
Goffin & Mitchell (2005). Innovation management. Palgrave Macmillan: UK.
clxiv
UN & Accenture (2013).
clxv
UN & Accenture (2013).
clxvi
Handy (1976).
clxvii
Schein (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed). John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
clxviii
Edelman (2014). Trust Barometer. http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual‐property/2014‐edelman‐trust‐
barometer/. Accessed June 2014.
clxix
Towers Watson (2012). Global workforce study: Engagement at risk.
clxx
Generation Investment Management LLP (2012). Sustainable Capitalism. [Online]. Available:
http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf‐generation‐sustainable‐capitalism‐v1.pdf.
clxxi
The World Bank (2012). Inclusive green growth. The pathway to sustainable development. Available:
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6058/9780821395516.pdf?sequence=1
clxxii
See as examples: UK MOD (2010). Global strategic trends out to 2040. Strategic Trends Programme; Volans (2013).
Breakthrough. Business leaders, market revolutions; US NIC (2012). Global trends 2030: Alternative worlds; KPMG (2013).
Global mega trends. Future state 2030.
clxxiii
Bendell (2009). The corporate responsibility movement: five years of global corporate responsibility analysis from
Lifeworth. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
clxxiv
Bendell (2009).
clxxv
Exter (2013): see Marks & Spencer chapter as example.
clxxvi
Hofstede (1984). Cultural consequences: International differences in work‐related values. Sage: CA, USA.
clxxvii
Taking an evolutionary perspective, where gains or loss from action or inaction in the present (vs. in the long‐term) can
seem more valuable than they actually are: Griskevicius et al (2012).
clxxviii
UN & Accenture (2013).
clxxix
Interview with Jon Harding, Head of Culture, Barclays, 2013
clxxx
Weiner (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement Science 4: 67.
clxxxi
Armenakis & Harris (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational change readiness. J of Organisational
Change Management 15 (2): 168‐183.
clxxxii
Katzenbach, von Post, Thomas (2014). The critical few: components of a truly effective culture. Strategy and Business:
Spring 2014: US.
clxxxiii
Pater (2013). Keen‐Sighted Leadership for Cultural Change. Developing Vertical & Horizontal Vision. Professional Safety
Jan 2013. USA.
clxxxiv
Duarte (2011).
clxxxv
Lyon (2004).
clxxxvi
Lyon (2004).
clxxxvii
Symbols refers to the visual representations an organization used to represent themselves. Such as logos, colours,
office layout, dress codes, badges, reporting and web designs etc.
clxxxviii
Duarte (2011).
clxxxix
Ainsbury & Grayson (2014).
cxc
Kanter (2011).
cxci
Cameron & Quinn (2006).
cxcii
Katzenbach et al (2012).
51
CENTRE PUBLICATIONS
OCCASIONAL PAPERS: stimulate debate on topical issues of Responsible Business and Sustainability:
Small is sustainable (and Beautiful!). David Grayson and Tom Dodd (2008)
The Business of Business is..,.? Unpicking the corporate responsibility debate. Chris Marsden and David Grayson (2008)
Embedding Corporate Responsibility in the MBA Curriculum. Chris Marsden (2008)
Who should head up your sustainability function? David Grayson and Stuart Morton Odgers Berndtson (2009)
CR and the media. David Grayson (2009)
CR and the recession: learning from responsible business. Abiola Barnor and Nadine Exter (ed.) (2009)
Mind the Gap: Making Sense of Sustainability from a Business Manager’s Perspective. Sharon Jackson (2010)
Stakeholder governance: An analysis of BITC CR Index data . Erik Hansen & Heiko Spitzeck (2010).
Social Intrapreneurs: An Extra Force for Sustainability. David Grayson, Melody McLaren, Heiko Spitzeck (2011)
Creating sustainable business through social intrapreneurism. David Grayson, Melody McLaren, Heiko Spitzeck (2013).
Business critical: understanding a company’s stages of CR maturity. Ron Ainsbury & David Grayson (2014).
HOW-TO GUIDES: provide busy managers with up-to-date and relevant advice to embed CR, based on the latest
academic research and practitioner insights.
How to: CR Champions Networks. Nadine Exter (2009)
Stakeholder engagement: A road map towards meaningful engagement. Neil Jeffery (2009)
Guide to how-to guides. Nadine Exter (2009)
Governance of corporate responsibility. Heiko Spitzeck (2010)
Supporting corporate responsibility performance through effective knowledge management. Melody McLaren (2011)
Engaging employees in corporate responsibility. Nadine Exter (2011).
How to identify a company’s major impacts—and manage them. Mandy Cormack (2012).
HOT TOPICS: Short article series highlighting topical issues and designed to generate debate
The financial crisis—an opportunity to good to miss. Chris Marsden OBE (2010)
Enough responsibility to go around: Lessons in Corporate Responsibilities from Corporate Crises. David Grayson &
Abiola Barnor (2010)
WORKING PAPERS: provide a contemporary review of academic research and to identify opportunities for further
research, informed by practitioner experience and needs.
"Non-Financial Performance Metrics for Corporate Responsibility Reporting Revisited." Malcolm Arnold (2008)
“Measuring Business Value and Sustainability Performance.” David Ferguson. A joint research project with EABIS (2009)
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Sense and Sensibility – Professor David Grayson’s Inaugural lecture (2007)
The Doughty Centre Reports to Stakeholders (2008/9/10/11/12/13)
Business-Led Corporate Responsibility Coalitions: Learning from the example of Business in the Community - David
Grayson – jointly with CSR Initiative, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard (2008)
“Engaging Business in the Community - not a quick fix” by Geoffrey Bush, David Grayson and Amanda Jordan with Jane
Nelson. With the Smith Institute (2008)
“A new mindset for Corporate Sustainability” - a white paper on sustainability as a driver of commercial innovation,
produced in partnership with academics from MIT, Beijing, Singapore and IESE in association with BT and CISCO (2008)
Communicating CR. A joint publication with Ogilvy Worldwide (2010)
www.doughtycentre.info
© 2014 The Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility, Cranfield School of Management
THE DOUGHTY CENTRE FOR CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
VISION
Sustainability and Responsibility at the heart of successful management.
MISSION
To inspire future and current managers with the passion for, and to equip them with the skills and outlook
to, put sustainability and responsibility at the heart of successful organisations.