Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

The creative imperative: The role of creativity, creative problem

solving and insight as key drivers for sustainability
Ingrid Kajzer Mitchell a, *, Jennifer Walinga b
a
School of Business, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC, V9B 5Y2, Canada
b
School of Communication and Culture, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC, V9B 5Y2, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Deterioration of natural ecosystems, scarcity of resources, and widening of social inequities call for more
Received 7 August 2015 radical sustainable practices within organizations. The challenge of sustainability is a complex and
Received in revised form systemic problem requiring openness to different ways of thinking, receptivity to new ideas, and the
11 August 2016
ability to navigate ambiguity. In this paper we examine the potential for leveraging theories of creativity
Accepted 20 September 2016
Available online 21 September 2016
to achieve more sustainable organizational practices. By drawing on previous research on creative
outcomes and processes, creative problem solving (CPS), and insight problem solving (IPS), we critically
discuss the contribution that creativity theories can make to the creation and enactment of more sus-
Keywords:
Sustainability
tainable organizational practices. In doing so, we aim to advance our theorizing about the role of
Creativity creativity in building sustainable futures. Due to its iterative and divergent nature, creative problem
Creative problem solving solving is more appropriate than linear routine problem solving models in generating novel sustainable
Creative insight solutions; however, the predominant focus of CPS research is on cognitive activities. Limiting creative
problem solving to the cognitive domain can affect the quality of the problem statement, lead to a
narrow definition of our problem, and result in incremental improvements. We propose that creative
problem solving combined with the holistic problem framing and unlocking qualities of insight problem
solving opens a pathway for organizations seeking more radical and breakthrough solutions to sus-
tainability problems. Creative insight focuses not merely on the “novel” sustainable idea but also on the
creator and the emotional, cognitive and psychological aspects of his/her thinking. Our discussion
highlights some of the unique characteristics of a more insightful problem solving process, including the
intentional expansion of the problem frame to include perceived barriers and actively using barriers to
reveal core values and goals, and to bring these back into the problem frame.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction modes of inquiry and decision-making. Sustainability has also been

Sustainability, widely understood to embody “development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission
on Environment and Development, 1987, p.43), is a many-
pronged and multifaceted, complex challenge. It has been framed
as a wicked (Rittel and Webber, 1973) and messy problem (Brown
et al., 2010; Ehrenfeld, 2011), requiring managers to address
interconnected and often diverging social, environmental, and
financial concerns (Bansal, 2002; Elkington, 1997; Hahn et al.,
2015), which cannot be resolved with traditional reductionist
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Ingrid.kajzermitchell@royalroads.ca (I. Kajzer Mitchell).
framed as an oxymoron, or paradox, due to its ambiguous and
contradictory nature; for example, seeking to conserve nature
without fully addressing consumption and economic expansion
(O'Connor, 1998), or seeking radical solutions outside the conven-
tional “loop” (e.g. alternative food networks) while still pursuing
the same social and cultural goals (Redclift, 2002, 2005).
A groundswell of academic research and business practice has
asserted that sustainability requires new business models and a
questioning of today's dominant business logic (cf. Gladwin et al.,
1995; Kanter, 2011; Nidumolu et al., 2009). The deterioration of
natural ecosystems and the continued growth of economic inequity
(World Health Organization, 2012) call for ambitious sustainable
development goals and targets (UN, 2015) and widespread sus-
tainable innovation, and for organizational and market trans-
formation (Alakeson and Sherwin, 2004; UN Global Compact-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.162
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884
Accenture., 2010; WBCSD, 2010). Transforming systems of pro-
duction and consumption requires the creation of a different
institutional logic, one grounded in an organization's belief that it is
more than a moneymaking machine; it is a vehicle for advancing
not only economic but also societal goals (Kanter, 2011).
Radical changes in production and consumption systems must
begin with significant changes in thinking. Sustainability requires
that we move beyond incremental improvements of single prod-
ucts or business practices (Carlsson et al., 2014; Seyfang and Smith,
2007), often known as end-of-pipe technologies that are small
changes made on a continuous basis (Carrilo-Hermosilla et al.,
2010). Some have argued that, historically, “radical innovations
had great difficulties in becoming accepted” and therefore were
prone to fail (Baskaran, 2013, p.154). However, sustainability is a
systemic challenge and we cannot ignore the context or social
system in which we are embedded and are trying to innovate
(Gaziulusoy, 2015). Indeed, Ehrenfeld (2005, 2011) argues that
reducing sustainability through minimizing the negative impact of
production is not the same as creating sustainability. Making
products more recyclable or reducing the carbon footprint are so-
lutions to tame problems. These kinds of solutions, he argues,
address only a minute part of our sustainability challenge and do
not address the complexity of the issue. Others, like McDonough
and Braungart (2001), wrote some time ago that current practices
based on eco-efficiency work within the same system that caused
the problem in the first place, and that measures like these present
little more than an illusion of change.
The unprecedented need for sustainability present many chal-
lenges and barriers to transitioning to sustainable practices. For
example, entrenched organizational structures (e.g. institutional
silos) and processes (e.g. lack of tools), organizational inertia, and
lack of innovative organizational capabilities (Shrivastava, 1995)
preclude new ways of thinking and acting in organizations.
External barriers include lack of market demand and inconsistent
government support. Many of these barriers are similar to those
identified in the innovation literature. However, the increased
complexity and ambiguity related to sustainability (Sharma, 2000)
and the sustainable innovation process (Kennedy et al., 2013), have
resulted in some unique challenges to sustainability, e.g. the
perceived contradiction between sustainability and development,
and scientific and public uncertainty about the real impacts of
unsustainability. Over time, such polarization engenders myopic
behaviour that inhibits learning and risk taking (cf. Sundaramurthy
and Lewis, 2003). Currently, sustainable development discourse is
very much embedded in a risk management paradigm that valo-
rizes a preventative approach; interventions tend to focus on
appeasing the symptoms (Cucuzzela, 2015). Sustainability, to a
greater degree, requires organizations to break through and move
beyond existing mindsets and models (Lozano, 2014; Gaziulusoy,
2015).
While creativity and creative problem solving are prerequisite to
innovation (cf. Ford and Gioia, 1996; Runco, 2004; Sternberg and
Lubart, 1999), creative abilities, processes and perspectives have
received little scholarly attention overall in the field of sustain-
ability. Some notable exceptions include Carlsson et al. (2014),
Cucuzzela (2015), Family (2003), Kajzer (2007), Kajzer-Mitchell
and Saren (2008), Lozano (2014), and Shrivastava et al. (2012).
For example, Lozano (2014) argues that creativity “can help chal-
lenge the traditional Newtonian and Cartesian mental models and
foster more sustainable societies” (p. 205). Family (2003) proposes
that the sustainability problems of our time will require collective
creativity. Kajzer-Mitchell and Saren (2008) use the generative and
creative power of metaphors to encourage learning to think in new
ways about our relationships to products and to nature. The
premise of Shrivastava et al. in their (2012) article on sustainable
1873
development and the arts is that arts are a testament to human
creativity, and therefore arts-based methods can help people to
develop passion for, and emotional connection to sustainable
organizing and living. Similarly, Stucker and Bozuwa (2012) argue
that creativity and the arts can help produce clarity of vision and
facilitate the kinds of breakthrough thinking necessary for inno-
vating the relationships between people and the planet. Carlsson
et al. (2014) introduce the idea of Sustainability Jam Sessions for
vision creation and problem solving and, recently, Cucuzzela (2015)
introduced the importance of a variety of temporal and spatial
design approaches for achieving sustainable creativity.
Academics and practitioners are increasingly interested in how
creativity can be applied to meeting the challenges of sustainability,
as evident in this special issue. In 2010, Aalto University launched
an international Master's degree program entitled “Creative Sus-
tainability”, and in 2015 the Global Cleaner Production and Sus-
tainable Consumption Conference organized a workshop entitled
“Accelerating Sustainable Transitions via Creative Approaches”,
explicitly focusing on the role of creativity. Further, the United
Nation's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, explicitly calls
for businesses to apply their creativity to solve our current sus-
tainable development challenges (UN, 2015). Within the realm of
business and management, sustainability literature has focused
primarily on the role and composition of leadership in stimulating
employee-led eco-innovation and environmental performance (cf.
Post et al., 2015; Ramus, 2001), strategic collaboration (Kiron et al.,
2015), corporate accountability and governance (Waddock, 2004;
Woods and Urwin, 2010), corporate and organizational perfor-
mance (Perrini and Tencati, 2006; Severo et al., 2015), greening
marketing assets (Ottman, 2011), and supply chain practices
(Paulraj et al., 2015), stakeholder theory and financial incentives,
and other strategies for reconciling concern for the bottom line
with environmental and social concerns (Chabowski et al., 2011;
Iacona, 2010; OECD, 2011). However, while these approaches
advance our understanding of sustainability, they are not sufficient
to change deep-seated beliefs in the necessity for maintaining
unsustainable production and patterns of consumption (Nidumolu
et al., 2009).
The aim of this paper is to critically explore the potential and
challenges associated with leveraging theories of creativity in order
to meet the challenges of creating and enacting sustainable orga-
nizational practices. In the quest to understand how to transition
towards more sustainable practice, it is important to delve deeper
into the theories of creativity and to distinguish between creativity,
creative problem solving (CPS) and insight problem solving (IPS).
Due to its iterative and divergent nature, CPS (Mainemelis, 2010;
Steiner, 2009) is argued to be more appropriate than more linear
routine problem solving models in addressing sustainability
problems that are currently without resolution. IPS is a unique
approach to problem solving that addresses the need for a para-
digmatic shift as described in the early work on “double loop
learning” of Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978). IPS requires a certain
shift in our approach to unlocking creative solutions to complex
problems by focusing not merely on the “novel idea” but also on the
creator, the changes in his/her thinking and the sudden clarity that
characterizes an “aha” moment. In this paper, we argue for the
integration of CPS and IPS; the principles of insight can enhance the
intentionality and productivity of the problem-framing phase of
CPS.
The paper is organized as follows: First, we briefly discuss and
define creativity and creative thinking. This is followed by an
introduction of the key elements, contributions and limitations of
the creative problem solving process (CPS). Then, we introduce
insight problem solving (IPS): what does it mean and what role
may it play in facilitating the overarching shift in an established
1874 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884
paradigm that is required to move from unsustainable to sustain-
able action? Throughout the paper, we draw on the expansive body
of literature on creativity and problem solving and we critically
examine its contribution to the sustainability debate. We conclude
with directions for future research on how to leverage the contri-
butions that creativity theories can make to the creation and
enactment of more radical sustainable organizational theory and
practice.
2. Transitioning towards sustainability: creativity, creative
problem solving and creative insight
Understanding of the contribution that theories of creativity can
make begins with explanations of some key creativity terms and
concepts. Below is a list of the key characteristics of creativity, as
defined by creativity scholars; an overview of creative problem
solving and insight problem solving; and a discussion about im-
plications for sustainability.
2.1. Defining creativity: outcomes, traits, motivations, processes and
environments
Creativity has been the subject of vast scholarly debate, which
has resulted in significant advances in our understanding of the
nature and implications of creativity but with no agreed-upon
definition (Basadur et al., 2014; Mumford, 2003). Over the years,
various scholars have theorized and operationalized creativity very
differently. Traditional conceptualizations of creativity were
grounded more in the Newtonian scientific paradigm, in which the
anthropocentric, reductionist view of creativity, was characterized
as an individual phenomenon, leading to a romanticized image of
the heroic, often struggling creative genius (Montuori and Purser,
1995). Scholars such as Amabile (1983), Barron (1975), and
Woodman et al. (1993) departed from this tradition by theorizing
creativity as an ongoing social phenomenon. In her earlier writing,
Amabile (1983) argues that “creativity is best conceptualized not as
a personality trait or general ability, but as a behaviour resulting
from particular constellations of personal characteristics, cognitive
abilities, and social environments” (p. 358). In turn, Woodman et al.
(1993) viewed creativity as an aggregation of creative output at
individual, group and organizational levels (Drazin et al., 1999) and
other scholars have followed in this tradition (Montuori and Purser,
1995, 1999; Perry-Smith, 2006). Many past definitions conceptu-
alized creativity as an ‘outcome’ of creative thought, where the
attributes of a creative product, service, idea, procedure, or process
are subjectively judged (Amabile, 1982; Barron and Harrington,
1981; Ford, 1996) by others to be novel and useful (Amabile,
1983; Amabile and Tighe, 1993; Stein, 1974): “a product or
response will be judged as creative to the extent that (a) it is both a
novel and (b) an appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response
to the task at hand …” (Amabile, 1983, p.360) and is creative to the
extent that an appropriate audience agrees it is creative (Amabile,
1982).
Early scholarly research focused predominantly on the in-
dividuals who engage in creativity and the tools they use to achieve
creative outcomes. These studies set out to better understand
creativity by identifying and examining personality traits of more
and less creative individuals (Amabile, 1988; Barron, 1969; Nichols,
1972) and the apparent relationships of these traits to greater
creative output. Much of this early research implicitly assumed that
an individual's ability to generate novel and original ideas was
directly related to his or her personality and cognitive abilities,
including such characteristics as aesthetic orientation, attraction to
complexity, independency of judgment, persistence, curiosity, in-
tellectual honesty and the abilities to apply divergent thinking and
to think fluently and flexibly (cf. Amabile, 1988; Barron and
Harrington, 1981; Guilford, 1967). Since then, creativity re-
searchers have slowly moved to expand the concepts of creativity,
recognizing that creativity is not the achievement of a lone indi-
vidual but based on “the interaction of three autonomous ele-
ments” (Gardner, 2006, p. 80): the individual, the cultural domain
and the social field. The shift away from the individual has resulted
in an extensive body of literature on group-level creativity and
organizational-level creativity (cf. Kurtzberg and Amabile, 2001;
Kurtzberg, 2005; Paulus et al., 2001; Paulus and Korde, 2013;
Woodman et al., 1993).
Yet another way of theorizing about creativity is to adopt a
process-oriented approach. This perspective refers to creativity as a
process whereby two previously unrelated thoughts are connected
to generate a new idea or solution (Koestler, 1964). For example, the
work of Ford (1996) and Drazin et al. (1999) focuses on how in-
dividuals make sense of, and take creative action in, situations or
events. Whilst Ford defines creativity as a “domain-specific, sub-
jective judgment of the novelty and value of an outcome of a
particular action” (p. 1115), his theory of ‘individual creative action’
includes factors that both facilitate and hinder individuals' abilities
to engage in creative processes. Ford argues that creative action
results from the joint influence of sense-making, motivation,
knowledge, and ability. By drawing on Ford's (1996) conceptuali-
zation of ‘creative acts’, Drazin et al. (1999) define creativity as “the
process of engagement in creative acts, regardless of whether the
resultant outcomes are novel, useful or creative” (p. 287). Whilst
adopting a sense-making perspective (Weick, 1995), these scholars
focus on the development of meanings and how these motivate
engagement and action.
A further category of studies is more diverse and moves beyond
the individual to focus on a broader range of enabling conditions
such as knowledge, motivation and environmental factors. Under-
standing how these variables influence creative thought is partic-
ularly important in our quest to discover ways in which individuals
and groups can develop greater potential for problem solving
(Mumford et al., 2013; Paulus and Korde, 2013). Amabile (1983),
and Mumford and Gustafson (1988), have long argued that exten-
sive domain-specific knowledge, an individual's knowledge of is-
sues surrounding a particular problem or area, was a prerequisite
for creative performance. More recent research also supports the
notion that relevant knowledge and expertise is integral to creative
thinking1 (Hass and Weisberg, 2009; Mumford et al., 2013; Scott
et al., 2005). The potential of individual motivation has also been
recognized as instrumental to creativity (Amabile, 1983). Creativity
theorists such as Eisenberg and Selbst (1994) and Collins and
Amabile (1999) have found that in order to enhance motivation
one needs an environment that supports and rewards the genera-
tion of creative ideas. In the words of Sternberg and Lubart, ‘one
could have all the internal resources needed in order to think
creatively, but without some environmental support … the crea-
tivity that one has might never be displayed’ (1999, p.11).
Edmonson (1999) also highlighted some time ago the importance
of psychological safety, a shared belief held by individuals in a
group that the environment is safe for interpersonal risk taking. It is
well documented that supervisory support plays a critical role (cf.
Oldham and Cummings, 1996; George and Zhou, 2007), as do the
1
We acknowledge that the connection between knowledge and creativity is not
straightforward and we return to this later in this paper. While it is generally
assumed that an individual needs to have knowledge of a particular field if he or
she is to engage in creative acts and produce a creative outcome it is also recog-
nized that too much experience and certain kind of knowledge ‘can leave one in ruts,
so that one cannot go beyond stereotypes responding’ (Weisberg, 1999, p.226). For an
in-depth discussion see Mumford et al., 2013.
 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884 1875

competences of facilitators (McFadzean, 2002) in building a sup-
portive environment that is conducive to creativity. The capacity for
creative-idea generation may also be inhibited by perceptions of
external demands, threats or uncertainties in, for example, an
organizational climate, and/or market environment (Hunter et al.,
2007; West, 2002).
2.2. Creativity, creative thinking and sustainability
The creative outcomes needed to address the sustainability
problems of our time are too big for a single creative genius to solve
(Family, 2003). Creative thinking traits, abilities and environments
that are conducive to creativity need to be nurtured across orga-
nizations, individually and also collaboratively (cf. Paulus et al.,
2011; Paulus and Korde, 2013). Transitioning towards sustainabil-
ity demands a capacity to think more laterally (cf. De Bono, 1970,
1994, 1999), and requires the creation of new actionable knowledge
(Carlsson et al., 2014). Brazdauskas (2015) proposes that the more
relevant knowledge and expertise we have, the more likely we are
to generate breakthrough sustainable solutions and ideas. It can be
assumed that sustainable solutions are dependent on the in-
dividual's or the group's practical knowledge and growing exper-
tise of climate change, pollution, toxic emissions, and social
inequalities. Creative thinking, combined with prior relevant
knowledge, seems to respond to a need for freshness and therefore
involves “shaking loose” from a familiar idea to generate new
conceptualizations or approaches. In Table 1 we illustrate a wide
variety of factors facilitating creativity and their application to
sustainable practice (Table 1).
Creative thinking is only one of many contributions to solving
complex problems, such as defining and instilling sustainable
behaviour (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). Creative thinking on its
own does not necessarily address a wider problem such as the
challenge to behave sustainably. For instance, creative thinking
may involve generating a new way to wash clothes, or a unique
medium for alternative transportation that is anything but sus-
tainable. Cucuzzela (2015) example of the redesign of the dispos-
able paper cup illustrates that a designer may think creatively about
using alternative safer material with less plastic and yet end up
creating a new non-recyclable cup. While the creative process is
useful in generating ‘greener’ solutions, the actual problem of
unsustainability endures and cannot be solved with the acts of
creative thinking and creating alone.
Barron (1969) proposed decades ago that the human act of
creating something new, always involves a reshaping of something
old, e.g. using given materials, whether physical or mental. Sus-
tainability thus requires a paradigmatic shift in how we solve
problems, demanding a more systemic approach to problem solv-
ing and creative solution generation that involves challenging the
rules and assumptions of the current paradigm, thinking between
the “white spaces” (Cherry, 2005), asking difficult questions (Vare
and Scott, 2007) and critically examining the meta-frameworks
that inform current practices (Fisher, 2006). A transition towards
sustainability is impacted by one's frame of reference, which is
indicative of a mechanistic, reductionist worldview (Gladwin et al.,
1995; Shrivastava, 1995). The existing frame of reference is prob-
lematic. Westenholz (1993) writes “as social beings, we are creating
these pictures to defend our identity against a chaotic world’, and
these pictures in turn ‘become a prison into which we are locked, so
that we cannot view the world “afresh”’ (p.39). Individuals will
often relapse into old frames of reference before they have time to
construct a new understanding of the situation. Building on the
sentiment of Ehrenfeld (2005) and his question - can anything be
done to radically transform the way businesses work? - we argue
that there is a need to understand how humans think and problem
solve (Conklin et al., 2007), and how humans value thinking
differently in the first place.
2.3. Creative problem solving
In reviewing the literature on creative problem solving, we
recognize an evolution in approaches from linear to holistic, from
solution finding to problem finding. Creative problem solving (CPS)
originated by Sidney Parnes (1967, 1977, 1992) and Alex Osborn
(1953/1979) and researchers such as Treffinger et al. (2008),
Isaksen and Treffinger (1985) and Guilford (1967) was first
described as including three distinct components: 1) understand-
ing the problem 2) generating ideas and 3) planning for action (p.
60). Isaksen et al. (1994) evolved the CPS framework by expanding
it into a six-stage model: mess finding, data finding, problem
finding, idea finding, solution finding, and finally acceptance
finding. Extensive research into the creative problem solving pro-
cess over the years reveals that the effective execution of these
stages is strongly associated with the production of high-quality,
more original, and elegant solutions (Mumford et al., 2013). More
recently Basadur et al. (2014) depicted a four-stage creative prob-
lem solving process: generating, conceptualizing, optimizing and
implementing (See Fig. 1). This is a more dynamic and continuous

Table 1
Examples of factors facilitating creativity for sustainability.

Factors facilitating creativity Applied to sustainability Examples of related creativity research

Stimulating and rewarding curiosity and Creating a comfortable and non-threatening environment Axtell et al. (2000); Stein (1974)
exploration
Building internal motivation Designing an environment that supports and rewards sustainability- Amabile (1988); Amabile et al. (1996); Deci and
focused ideas and solutions. Leaders may motivate creative thinking Ryan (1985); Zhou and Shalley (2003)
by getting employees to identify with a vision
Building confidence and willingness to take risks: Fostering recognition and awareness of self-doubt. Using Ford (1996); MacKinnon (1965); Nickerson
eliminating defensiveness and self-doubt; brainstorming techniques (1999); Stein (1974); Williams (2004)
building favourable self-perception
Encouraging divergent thinking: fluency and Utilizing thinking aids that facilitate the application of divergent
Chrysikou 2006; De Bono (1970, 1994, 1999);
flexibility in thinking thinking and elicitation of new ideas Okuda et al. (1991); Phillips and Torrance, 1971;
Runco (1991, 1992, 2004)
Encouraging acquisition of domain specific Fostering more sustainability-specific knowledge. The more Amabile (1983); Hass and Weisberg (2009);
knowledge. Relevant knowledge is a sustainability knowledge and expertise an individual posses, the Mumford and Gustafson (1988); Mumford et al.
prerequisite for creative functioning more he/she is likely to generate sustainable solutions and ideas (2013)
Encouraging openness to ideas Challenging prejudgments and using different domains of Amabile et al. (1996); MacKinnon (1965);
knowledge, analogies, metaphors, and exercises in imaginative play Marone et al. (2016); Osborn (1953/1979)
Encouraging building on, or combining ideas from Sharing sustainability ideas can stimulate members of a group or Paulus and Yang (2000); Steiner (2009); Kohn
others network to think of other even more novel or radical ideas et al. (2011)
1876 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884
Quadrant IV Quadrant I
IMPLEMENTING: Creating GENERATING: Creating
options in the form of options in the form of new
actions that get results and possibilities–new problems
gaining acceptance for that might be solved and
implementing a change or a new opportunities that
new idea might be capitalized upon.
Quadrant III Quadrant II
OPTIMIZING: Creating CONCEPTUALIZING :
options in the form of ways Creating options in the form
to get an idea to work in of alternative ways to
practice and uncovering all understand and define a
the factors that go into a problem or opportunity and
good ideas that help solve
successful plan for
implementation. it.
Fig. 1. The four stages of the creative problem-solving process (Basadur et al., 2014).
process model that begins with an everyday activity of deliberately
seeking out new problems and opportunities, followed by formu-
lating, defining and conceptualizing the newly generated problem.
The third stage involves the emergence of a solution, and once
implemented in the fourth stage, the implementable solution re-
sults in the new opportunity to discover new problems, so that the
process commences once again. Basadur et al. (2014) propose that
we as individuals have different preferences for each stage,
depending our occupation, and our role and level within an orga-
nization. Consequently, we all have different creative problem
solving “styles”. Similar to previous conceptualizations, each of
these stages primarily focuses on different cognitive activities.
Researchers, beginning with the father of brainstorming, Alex
Osborn (1953/1979), first came to agree that training CPS involved
facilitating a two-phase framework that included both divergent
and convergent thinking skills. Subsequently, others added to the
literature on creative problem solving and suggested an additional
two phases: problem appraisal and problem framing (Basadur et al.,
1982, 1992, 2000b). These additional phases unpack the “problem
finding” phase, and precede the solution finding or generating
process (Basadur et al., 1982, 1992, 2000a; Volkema, 1997). While a
correlation may exist between divergent thinking or remote asso-
ciations and creativity in solving problems (Feldhusen and
Clinkenbeard, 1986; Harrington et al., 1983; Mednick, 1962), crea-
tive problem solving does not appear to be a function of divergent
thinking alone. The creative problem solving process also involves
managing contradiction, tolerating ambiguity, and navigating
complexity prior to specifying the problem, and well before
generating creative solutions (Stoycheva, 2011).
2.4. CPS and sustainability
Systemic problems like “solving unsustainability” cannot be
resolved with traditional modes of mechanistic and reductionist
inquiry, and decision-making (Lovelock, 2007; Steiner, 2009).
Linear and rational problem solving (e.g. specify the problem,
gather and analyze data, formulate a solution and then implement
the solution) will not suffice if the goal is to generate radical,
disruptive or breakthrough innovations with a higher degree of
novelty (Steiner, 2009). Conklin et al. (2007) go so far as to argue
that “no level of linear thinking e no matter how much data was
considered or how brilliantly it was analyzed e would present a
workable solution” to some sustainability problems (p. 4). Given
the “wickedness” of the problem, researchers also propose that
solutions are secondary, and problem understanding is primary.
What emerges is the need for a capacity to sense, define, frame and
solve problems that includes multiple interacting factors involving
creative competencies based on thinking more imaginatively
(Conklin et al., 2007), integratively (Walinga, 2010), holistically and
systemically (Lozano, 2014). Solving the sustainability challenge
also requires a capacity for surfacing and questioning implicit and
deeply entrenched assumptions (Starkey and Crane, 2003), and
thinking in paradoxes (Westenholz, 1993), in order to facilitate full
consideration of opposing views in order to adopt different per-
spectives (Ryan et al., 2012).
CPS is increasingly recognized as a promising and integral pro-
cess of stimulating novel and innovative sustainable solutions (cf.
Brazdauskas, 2015; Elzey and Steitz, 2013). Brazdauskas (2015) ar-
gues for creative problem solving skills and capabilities in the
context of sustainable development education (See Table 2). Seely
et al. (2003) identify creative problem solving as integral to biodi-
versity conservation in developing countries. By engaging in CPS
organizational members may develop greater confidence in dealing
with the open-ended nature of sustainability challenges, and may
develop more positive attitudes towards risk-taking (Elzey and
Steitz, 2013) Finally, the third phase of CPS, problem finding, may
hold the key to the paradigmatic shift required to achieve sus-
tainable practice in our organizations. According to the work of
Ford (1996), a problem finding orientation would facilitate the
kinds of creative action that we argue are required in order to
transition towards sustainability.
Therefore, CPS initially appears to be a productive approach to
facilitating sustainable practice in organizations because it involves
creativity, creative processes and problem solving skills - all of
which seem necessary to solve wicked, messy and complex prob-
lems like sustainability. However, for breakthrough sustainable
solutions it is essential to be sensitive to the potential limitations of
CPS, which are discussed in the next section.
2.5. CPS, the swampy lowland, and the need for creative insight
In elaborating further on some of the possible limitation of CPS
we will use the evocative image of the “swampy lowland” (Scho € n,
1983/1985). The swampy lowland is a place “where situations are
confusing messes incapable of technical solutions and usually
involve problems of greatest human concern” (Scho € n, 1983, p.42).
In the “high, hard ground overlooking the swamp” (Scho €n, 1985,
p.29), manageable problems lend themselves to rational problem
solving where one assumes that one knows what the problem is.
Problems of unsustainability reside in the swampy lowlands where
there is a dynamic interplay between unconscious assumptions
about our reality, ourselves, and our reactions to change opportu-
nities (Beech et al., 2011). In order to create breakthrough solutions
to the sustainability challenges of our time, we must descend into
the swamp. Organizations remaining on the high ground have a
tendency to generate problem statements or frames that are barrier
focused, limited or non-systemic and which result in less sustain-
able and ‘satisfying’ solutions (Simon, 1947). The entrenched
cognitive, social, economic, institutional barriers “lock us into tra-
jectories and lock out sustainable alternatives” resulting in incre-
mental change (Seyfang and Smith, 2007, p.588). Sustainability
requires different ways of framing and reasoning through issues
and problems and cannot be addressed by mere technological fixes.
 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884 1877

Table 2
CPS and the Relevance to Sustainability (Based on: Brazdauskas, 2015).

CPS stage Applied to sustainability

Mess finding Many sustainability problems are highly complex, intertwined and messy; in order to solve a problem we must first frame it completely. Complex
problems require deconstruction and active discussion of all aspects of the problem including challenges, possibilities, concerns, and opportunities. In
this respect, creative brainstorming on the formulation of a clear objective plays a key role.
Fact finding Fact finding is particularly important for sustainability as there are many interdisciplinary issues involved in decision-making.
Gathering important information and facts may reveal different perspectives of the problem and provide implications for potential solutions.
Problem finding An accurately identified sustainability problem is dependent on mess finding and fact finding, results from which a statement of the real problem is to be
defined. Defining and formulating problems in sustainability discourse can be challenging, since many related issues are interconnected. Creative
brainstorming and idea synthesis may result in some clearer problem definitions
Idea finding Following CPS, brainstorming should be incorporated in the idea finding stage, in order to generate as many ideas or potential solutions as possible.
Different creativity-driven techniques can be adopted in order to support this divergent/convergent process
Solution finding In moving towards a defined solution, the main goals are to identify and evaluate and the potential and most promising alternatives. Creative brainstorm
activities may help creatives to focus on those criteria which are necessary for evaluation of the ideas
Acceptance In the final CPS phase, acceptance finding, the focus is on overcoming barriers to implementation
finding

Weick (1995) claims that we make sense of things by seeing a
world on which we have already imposed what we believe. For
example, most organizations look to cuts (e.g. budget, downsizing)
or unlimited growth as the only solutions to a more competitive
market. However, typically increased size adds both financial and
ecological costs and complexity while cuts result in costs to
employee morale, health and subsequently, productivity. Ward
(2007) describes the importance of “accessing existing conceptual
knowledge at various levels of abstraction, and combining previ-
ously separate concepts” (p. 29) to effective creative problem
solving; however, both approaches have proven to be insufficient in
generating truly systemic, sustainable solutions; prior knowledge
has been shown to constrain thinking by imposing assumptions
upon the problem frame or limiting capacity to see insightful so-
lutions (Wiley, 1998). Research has also shown that relying on
familiar interpretations based on pre-existing schemas and cogni-
tive structures creates no real impetus for deep change (George and
Jones, 2001). Remote association (Mednick, 1962) or ‘conceptual
combination’ is an excellent tool for generating novel solutions but
does not reliably result in sustainable solutions to problems in the
swampy lowland. Herein lies the difference between creativity, CPS
and IPS. Creativity results in novel products or ideas, creative
problem solving likewise results in novel solutions, whereas insight
problem solving leads to an unlocking of intractable or wicked
problems generating more systematic and integrative solutions.
Insight problem solving, often characterized by the “aha” moment
(Knoblich and Oellinger, 2006), adds a further dimension to the
creative problem framing and solving processes and provides some
interesting ideas on how to unlock more sustainable, systemic or
holistic solutions by descending from the high ground of the known
to the swampy lowlands of human concerns and unexplored
potential.
2.6. What is insight?
Insight is usually associated with intractable problems, which
require a paradigmatic reframing of the problem to be solved.
Schooler et al. (1993) define insight as: (a) a high probability of an
impasse, that is, a state in which the subject does not know what to
do next; and (b) an “Aha!” experience resulting from sustained
effort in which the impasse is suddenly broken and insight into the
solution is rapidly attained. Insight problem solving (IPS) involves a
more integrative thinking process, one that results in a sudden and
more systemic problem frame, and generates more systemic,
elegant, and sustainable solutions (Chu and MacGregor, 2011;
Walinga, 2010; Walinga et al., 2011). The premise of IPS is that
emotional, cognitive and psychological factors complicate the
development of a quality problem statement and thus must be
understood in order to create and facilitate more breakthrough
sustainable solutions. Building upon and expanding the CPS
scholarly work, literature on insight problem solving also takes into
account the emotional (Suzuki and Hiraki, 2003), cognitive
(Eysenck, 1997), physiological (Walinga, 2008), and psychological
(Knoblich et al., 1999; Ohlsson, 1984) factors involved in problem
finding and problem framing (Basadur et al., 1982, 2000a;
Chrysikou, 2006; Volkema, 1997). More recently, Walinga et al.
(2011) expanded the understanding of IPS by highlighting the
roles played by constraints and barriers in facilitating, rather than
impeding, an effective insight problem solving process. In their
work, Walinga and her colleagues found that insight problem
solving can be facilitated with an intentional descent into the
swampy lowland, focusing on the impasse, constraints, and barriers
that make an insight problem intractable.
Insight problem solving offers additional strategies at the
problem identification or formulation stage of CPS (Walinga et al.,
2011). Many insight scholars have suggested ways to achieve a
new view of the problem (Clement, 1991; Newell and Simon, 1972;
Schoenfeld, 1982; Schoenfeld and Hermann, 1982). While helpful,
such practices as creative idea generation, divergence training, the
“blind variation and selective retention” of Simonton's model
(2011), or simply “shaking loose” from one's problem representa-
tion, are not specific or intentional enough to lead to insightful
solutions (Walinga et al., 2011, p. 144). Further, restructuring a
problem representation (Ansburg, 2000) alone will not ensure that
a more sustainable solution will be found or even that a person will
notice that an impasse has been broken (Ormerod et al., 2002).
In their 2011 study of the role of barriers in insight problem
solving, Walinga and her colleagues illustrate that the true chal-
lenge in solving complex, wicked, or seemingly intractable prob-
lems may lie in learning how to frame the problem itself insightfully.
Experiments with laboratory and applied insight problems illus-
trated that the perceived barriers, constraints or impasses must be
both included in the problem frame and utilized as clues to reveal
critical aspects of the problem frame including underlying as-
sumptions and values. For a problem of sustainability, the problem
frame would thus include economic, social, and political barriers as
well as sustainability values, while addressing underlying cultural
assumptions that may be influencing focus and cognitive processes.
Consistent with Fleck and Weisberg's (2004) observation of top-
down restructuring, insight problem solving can be driven by
conscious efforts that have a focus and a direction. Framing the
problem integratively and intentionally leads not only to more
creative solutions, but also, potentially, to more enduring, satisfying
and productive solutions.
1878 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884

As depicted in Fig. 2, IPS extends the CPS framework by adding assumptions that individuals bring to a task, can support or
an additional level of intentionality to the problem-framing stage, constrain both creative insight and the problem-solving process.
which impacts the ideation process and the emergence of a solu- Familiarity with, or prior knowledge of, the problem components
tion. Wiley and Jarosz's (2012) research on insight suggests, “… it should hypothetically enhance participants’ performance (e.g.
may be necessary to take the approach of considering the knowledge of environmental science and life-cycle assessments
restructuring process and the subjective component of creative would assist a person in designing more environmentally respon-
problem-solving as two separate questions” (p. 1174). Weisberg sible products). Alternatively, it could be argued that familiarity
(2015) supports this view saying “each [approach] has a positive may breed stereotypical responses, “fixation” and a lack of crea-
contribution to make to our understanding of insight” (p. 6). tivity (cf. Lehman and Norman, 2006; Weisberg, 1999; Wiley, 1998)
Walinga et al. (2011) suggests that indeed, truly effective creative where those involved see what they are expecting to see (e.g.
problem solving is most productive after the insightful problem- assuming that consumers can meet their mobility needs only with
framing process has been completed. In turn, an improved under- the ownership of a car). Early experiments by Duncker (1941) and
standing of the problem may affect the quality of any resulting Luchins (1942) and extended by Wiley (1998) demonstrated that
creative solution. habitual use of familiar objects and problem-solving strategies
Like CPS, IPS is not without challenges. Wertheimer (1959) ar- constrains the range of possible outcomes. Investigating the rela-
ticulated well the challenge we face in attempting to train people to tionship between expertise and constrained thinking, Wiley found
practice IPS. While insight results from the sudden realization of a that “experts generally solve problems in their fields more effec-
new, more penetrating view of a problem situation, a new view tively than novices because their well-structured, easily activated
may not necessarily be an insightful view that then unlocks the knowledge allows for efficient search of a solution space” (p. 716).
insightful solution. Prior knowledge or the experiences, beliefs, and However, subjects with a large amount of domain knowledge may
actually be at a disadvantage when solving some problems that
require reframing and insight because their knowledge and expe-
rience may confine them to an area of the search space in which the
best solution does not reside. Indeed, Hashem et al. (2003) found
that physicians within a given specialty try to “pull” cases toward
their specialty because of their cognitive bias (Eysenck, 1997). In
this way, domain knowledge promotes fixation in creative
problem-solving attempts.
Quadrant IV Quadrant I In response to these constraints, insight researchers propose a
IMPLEMENTING: Creating GENERATING: Creating variety of strategies. In a study of insight problem solving, Knoblich
options in the form of options in the form of new
actions that get results and possibilities–new problems et al. (2001) found that gaze predicted problem solving ability.
gaining acceptance for that might be solved and More specifically, based on experiments with puzzle-like insight
implementing a change or a new opportunities that
new idea might be capitalized upon. problems they concluded that a problem solver's focus was a crit-
ical factor in the problem-solving process. Studies in performance
and problem solving have also demonstrated that focusing on
Quadrant III Quadrant II perceived threats or barriers diverts attention from goal achieve-
OPTIMIZING: Creating CONCEPTUALIZING :
options in the form of ways Creating options in the form ment, thereby detracting from performance (Eysenck and Calvo,
to get an idea to work in of alternative ways to 1992; Hayes et al., 2001; Wulf et al., 2001). Likewise, efforts to
practice and uncovering all understand and define a
the factors that go into a problem or opportunity and focus solely on the goal when a perceived barrier exists have proven
successful plan for good ideas that help solve
implementation. it. ineffective because the act of replacing the negative with the pos-
itive diverts energy and focus from the task at hand (Beilock et al.,
2001). Walinga et al. (2011) proposed that integrating both barriers
and goals (or values) into the problem frame leads to a more
penetrating view of the problem and unlocks sudden “aha”
insightful solutions. Insightful solutions are found to be more
enduring and complete, possibly because they are addressing and
solving the whole problem.
Failure appears to play a role in the insight process. Ohlsson
(1992) re-conceptualized insight as problems characterized by
initial failure followed by eventual and often sudden success.
Ohlsson, later supported by Walinga (2010), pointed out that
Frame problem to sometimes solvers continue to struggle even after breaking the
include both impasse or cognitive constraint. In these cases, the impasse is
Identify barriers to
barriers and
goal broken accidentally or without the awareness of the solver.
values under
threat
Ormerod et al. (2002) echo that a certain level of preparedness is
necessary for full insight to occur: the solver must be ready to see
that an impasse has in fact been broken and that a whole new realm
of solution possibilities is available, then be able to identify the
Identify values threatened
most elegant and sustainable of those solutions. Navigating one's
by barriers way past imposed constraints and being ready to see solutions may
demand a certain letting go of assumptions about the problem.
Moreover, they suggest that meeting with failure can inspire the
solver to relax constraints, let go of assumptions, and look for
Fig. 2. Integrating principles of insight problem solving into the CPS framework (based alternative solution paths. Walinga and her colleagues (2010) found
on: Basadur et al., 2014; Walinga, 2010). that questioning the barriers served to reveal constraining
 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884
assumptions. Their research extended the problem-framing stage
to include intentionality of focal path by leveraging constraints and
barriers to lead to a more complete focal frame that includes the
barriers as well as the goals that the barriers threaten. This inte-
grative problem frame challenges the solver to engage divergent
thinking in order to generate solutions to the whole problem.
There is some disagreement in the literature on certain aspects
of insight. For instance, laboratory insight problems of the sort most
often used in empirical studies (Knoblich et al., 1999; Ormerod
et al., 2002), which are generally assumed to have one correct
answer, are not considered good models for real-world challenges,
which typically will not converge on a single solution. However,
Walinga (2008, 2010) and others (Chrysikou, 2006) have stepped
outside of the laboratory to apply insight problem-solving princi-
ples in applied settings. In doing so, they illustrate that insight
problem solving is not in fact a “baggage-laden” construct to which
CPS is beholden, nor does IPS necessarily involve “exotic” cognitive
processes. As Weisberg (2010) argues through his CHOICES model,
“there are no differences in cognition or personality between cre-
ative and ordinary individuals,” (p.235) and “the presence of an
Aha! is not prima facie evidence for the occurrence of some exotic
process” (p.240). Rather, the principles of integrative thinking and
problem formulation central to IPS can be used by anyone to
enhance the conceptualization/mess-finding or problem-finding
phase of CPS in order to produce a more intentional and produc-
tive problem formulation which in turn will point to more sus-
tainable, systemic and insightful solutions.
2.7. Insight as applied to sustainable practice
Next, we elaborate further on the ways in which IPS can be used
in organizations to facilitate the creation of more sustainable fu-
tures. IPS may help to stimulate better understanding of how to
unlock more sustainable, systemic or holistic solutions to the messy
sustainability problems that reside in the swampy lowlands. IPS
complements creative thinking and creative problem solving by
further unpacking the “problem-framing” process. Other creativity
researchers emphasize that problem construction is a key stage,
and is strongly associated with the production of original and
elegant solutions (Mumford et al., 2013).
As discussed in the previous section, constraints, barriers, or
failures can in themselves actually offer the most productive ave-
nues to letting go and reframing a problem in a more productive
manner (Stokes, 2006; Walinga, 2010). Rather than trying to relax
sustainability constraints, problem solvers are encouraged to
embrace them. While a barrier often forces organizations to look
away from the point of fixation, an intentional focus on a constraint
or barrier also points the organizational problem solver toward a
more productive solution path by revealing more specifically what
is at stake (Walinga et al., 2011). In her article on pollution reduc-
tion measures in Vietnam, Mitchell (2006) illustrates the role that
fixation and constrained thinking can play in limiting one's capacity
for insight:
Direct regulation, combined with monitoring and enforcement,
has been the traditional policy tool used for industrial waste
management in developing countries. However, as Vietnam has
experienced, this type of control is difficult to balance with an
economy focused on growth and lacking the regulatory and
financial power to enforce legislation. As a result, government
institutions and national and international research organiza-
tions in Vietnam are seeking simpler (and hence more cost
effective) environmental measures for the industrial sector e
one of the most popular being Cleaner Production (CP) (p. 1578).
1879
And the barriers that remain:
However, the reality is that despite the promotion of CP by
government, academia and research institutions in the past few
years, only a small number of companies have adopted it (p.
1578).
This example of reliance on government regulation well illus-
trates the need to first understand the true nature of the sustain-
ability problem and then generate more integrative, systemic and
sustainable solutions. In the example above, Mitchell cites the
overarching barriers to Cleaner Production (CP) in developing
countries as: economic, information and technology, attitudinal,
and regulatory constraints. Likewise, Shia et al. (2008), in their
study of Chinese small and medium sized enterprises, cite the top
three barriers to CP adoption as (a) lack of economic incentive
policies; (b) lax environmental enforcement, and (c) high initial
capital cost.
Rather than imposing assumptions or expectations over a
unique problem scenario, resulting in typically controlling, legis-
lative, and barrier-focused approaches, IPS expands the problem
frame to include the barriers not as the issue but as part of and a
clue to the core challenge. The insight problem becomes not just
how to justify and then enforce CP measures, but “how can we
introduce CP measures while taking into consideration economic,
information and technology, attitudinal, and regulatory con-
straints?” Perhaps a low-cost, low-tech, grass-roots effort of some
kind would emerge from a problem frame that considers barriers as
well as goals, a combined effort that represents a more appropriate
and enduring course of action in a scenario such as those above.
3. Discussion
Scholars concerned with the negative impacts of current orga-
nizational practices on the natural environment, as well as the state
of mankind, suggest that businesses need to reinvent themselves,
develop new products and services, generate alternative concep-
tual models and utilize applied tools that recognize both social and
ecological impacts (Ehrenfeld, 2005; Gladwin et al., 1995; Kanter,
2011; Nidumolu et al., 2009). Creativity is at the heart of a collec-
tive transformation to achieve these goals. In the following dis-
cussion, which focuses particularly on problem framing, we
elaborate further on the benefits and limitations of applying the-
ories of creativity to meeting the challenges of creating
sustainability.
Creativity is often depicted as something for “creative people”.
However, creative-problem-solving characteristics, such as diver-
gence and convergence, are essential at all levels of an organization
as it strives to create sustainable futures. While an organization
engages in the various stages of the creative problem solving pro-
cess, existing problems begin to be restructured and to provide new
understandings that, in turn, begin to help participants to generate
alternative sustainable solutions. Consequently, the variables
examined in this paper as factors that affect creative thinking and
creative problem solving provide some noteworthy guidelines for
how to enhance creativity in real-world organizations. However,
according to theories on creative and insight problem solving
processes, the intractability of complex problems like sustainability
tends to stem from an incorrect and usually constrained or narrow
definition of the problem. Our elaborations on creativity theories
highlight that creative solutions or ideas are not always the
healthiest or most sustainable solutions. Often, the hindrance to
progress is that the original problem has been defined narrowly
rather than holistically, or systemically. For instance, while genetic
food manipulation may be argued to offer solutions to issues of
1880 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884
human, social and economic sustainability, it may also result in the
emergence of new problems and negative impacts on ecological
sustainability and may not solve the ‘whole’ or systemic problem of
sustainable agriculture or food security. A breakthrough idea can
begin with a careful problem definition followed by creative idea
generation. We propose that the cognitive shift that sparks a
transition towards sustainability happens not at the solution end of
the process, but at the problem end of the process. Insight, which
has received little scholarly attention in the sustainability literature,
helps expand an understanding of how organizations and in-
dividuals can approach problem formulation differently as an in-
tegral part of the creative problem solving process. It is believed
that insight results from a restructuring or redefinition of the
problem (Knoblich et al., 1999; Ohlsson, 1984; Volkema, 1997),
which leads to the abrupt and unanticipated change in the solution
path and can ultimately lead the solver to immediate success with a
problem (Weisberg, 1999). The representation and unlocking
qualities of the insight process suggest a promising pathway for
seekers of sustainable solutions.
In a typical insight problem or puzzle, solvers tend to reach an
impasse, which is due to being “stuck” in established ways of
thinking or constrained by prior knowledge. Knoblich et al. (2001)
prefer the hypothesis that “initial representations are inappropriate
or misleading rather than incomplete, and thus have to be deacti-
vated or inhibited rather than extended or elaborated” (p. 10);
however, in experimental studies examining individual's creative
insight process on insight problems, Walinga (2010) found that the
cognitive shift associated with unlocking the insightful solution
derives from a values-oriented focus which reflects a sustainability
orientation e by necessity a values-based pursuit. Walinga (2010)
found that rather than turning one's gaze from the barrier and
deactivating or inhibiting the barrier representation, it is more
productive to follow one's gaze through the barrier to reveal the
core values at stake. By inquiring more deeply into the initial
barrier-focused problem representation it is possible for leaders,
managers, and facilitators to utilize the barrier as a pathway to the
actual goal or value the barrier threatens: which in turn represents
the problem more specifically and productively (see Fig 2.). A
barrier-focused problem representation tends to focus only on the
barrier, obscuring the value or goal i.e. how do we implement
sustainable practice without cost to the organization? The barrier is
“cost” and the problem is then represented as achieving low-cost,
sustainable practice e often an impossible if unlikely pursuit. But
if one inquires more deeply into the barrier of cost, cost threatens
the value at stake, which is actually the sustainability of the orga-
nization. Insight is not only a root finding process but also a route
finding process (Walinga et al., 2011). The insight “route-finding”
process brings into focus the values at stake and represents or
“finds” the problem more specifically and productively to be acting
for the sustainability of the organization as well as the planet.
By defining the problem within a value as opposed to barrier
orientation, the insight process can help decision-makers shift the
problem frame to include both the value and the barrier. Klein and
Weitzenfeld (1978), in their work on ill-defined problem solving,
proposed that it is important to identify the properties of the goal,
and to simultaneously attempt to find procedures for accomplish-
ing the goal. The process to generate truly insightful solutions to the
sustainability challenge, must include expanding the problem
frame and taking a broader perspective, which includes social and
ethical considerations as well as revised definitions of creativity. It
requires leaders, mangers and facilitators to move from the com-
mon assumption that creativity is the ability to produce an
outcome that is both novel and appropriate, to an understanding
that what is needed is an outcome that is “not only novel and
appropriate, but wise as well” (Sternberg, 2003, p. 12). Wisdom can
be defined as “the value-laden application of tacit knowledge not
only for one's own benefit but also for the benefit of others, in order
to attain a common good” (Sternberg, 2003, p. 12). A problem frame
that expands to include both values and barriers will provoke more
systemic and sustainable solutions. Rather than “how can we
minimize the impact on the environment and build society in a way
that does not cost the organization?” the true challenge of corpo-
rate responsibility and sustainable practice becomes ‘how can we
preserve and restore the environment, build society in a way that
makes money for the organization, and creates equitable and
prosperous local communities?’ With a more specific and values-
based representation of the problem, followed by a more expan-
sive problem frame that includes relevant values (financial, human
and environmental sustainability) and barriers (cost), it may be
possible to provoke more insightful, elegant and systemic solutions.
Beginning with a more holistic and integrated problem frame,
makes it possible to apply creativity strategies such as brain-
storming, divergent and blue-sky thinking to generate not only
creative, but truly insightful solutions to the sustainability chal-
lenge. IKEA provides one example of a company employing an
innovative approach to meeting its sustainability challenge with
creative solutions and inspiring business approaches. IKEA is
aggressively committed to “future proofing” itself. (Kelly-Detwiler,
2014). CEO Steve Howard emphasizes that sustainability must
involve “a rational business decision with a decent payback but that
values are critical to the entire endeavor” (para. 5). The company is
isolating itself from the volatilities of electric power markets by
focusing on what delivers long-term energy security, a macro
hedge on energy price rises that also addresses carbon. IKEA also
has a long-term business plan that includes owning most of its
stores, factories, and land - essentially, building out a long-term
“green” hedge, which will allow the company to much more
accurately forecast future energy operating costs. As a conse-
quence, IKEA owns as many renewable energy resources as some
energy companies, and is the second largest private commercial
solar-power energy plant owner. The company is currently working
on a geothermal system to heat and cool a soon-to-be-constructed
store near Kansas City. The IKEA example begin to illustrate how
the three phase approach of (1) a values-based focus, (2) an inte-
grative, systemic problem frame, and (3) creative thinking strate-
gies can lead to insightful and sustainable solutions that solve the
whole challenge of sustainability. As Howard articulates:
If you start with a values-driven point of view, you can make a
business case. Climate change and energy security mean you
have to have a radical approach. We need a six, seven, or eight-
fold decrease in carbon intensity. That's not business as usual.
Energy efficiency only gets you so far. You have to decouple your
business from carbon. Then you have to look at what's
commercially scalable (2014, para. 3).
It may be that creative thinking has not become prominent in
mainstream efforts to confront the challenges of sustainability
because, on its own, its processes have proved insufficient. Creative
thinking is necessary but is not enough; perhaps the main reason
that CPS has not been successful to date and, therefore, not fully
embraced, is that it is missing the systemic and intentional framing
step that is integral to IPS.
4. Conclusion
Our main objective in this paper was to explore the potential of
creativity, creative thinking, creative problem solving and creative
insight as drivers behind more sustainable organizational practice.
The paper builds on the premise that a transformation of society
 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884
towards sustainability requires us to embrace processes and atti-
tudes that facilitate creative action over habitual action. Various
creativity theories offer us guidance in terms of the determinants,
the facilitating factors, and the barriers of creative behaviour that
would encourage individuals and groups to create more sustainable
futures. Building on previous work (cf. Cucuzzela, 2015; Family,
2003; Lozano, 2014), we advance theories about the role of crea-
tivity in fostering sustainability. We posit that creative problem
solving lacks intentionality at the problem-finding/framing/
formulation stages, resulting in novel but not necessarily systemic
or enduring solutions. The insight problem-solving process offers
strategies that can be added to the creative problem-solving pro-
cess to enhance the sustainable, systemic, and integrative nature of
solutions - qualities that are relevant and necessary to solving
sustainability challenges. We highlight the practical steps involved
in facilitating insightful solutions: identifying barriers to realization
of a goal, identifying values threatened by barriers, and framing the
problem to include both barriers and values under threat. The
introduction of the insight problem-solving process at the problem
framing stage of CPS, results in the problem being framed more
holistically and integratively, thus leading to more systemic and
sustainable solutions.
We conclude by drawing attention to the need to apply creative
insight to the “challenge within the challenge” in a recursive
manner. The first problem organizations usually face is not how to
“do” sustainable practice, but rather mustering the willingness to
embrace, adopt and embark on a path of sustainability. That
problem requires, first, that organizations identify the barriers to
both sustainability and to creative thinking, factors such as time,
funding, and certainty. Each of these, if ignored, can certainly
threaten the sustainability of an organization. The IPS process must
be cost effective if it is to be willingly and effectively implemented.
Utilizing and promoting creative insight involves open dialogue
and discussion that identifies barriers to sustainability goals, drills
down to core values that are at stake, and integratively generates
creative solutions that address both the barriers and the core
values. Therefore, corporate sustainability leaders and practitioners
should present creative insight both in terms of its potential socio-
environmental sustainability outcomes and its potential financial
sustainability outcomes.
Creative insight can be facilitated in organizations through
guided problem solving processes at all levels of the organization:
 Leaders and leadership teams can undergo creative insight
problem-solving exercises to effectively, systemically and inte-
gratively frame sustainability challenges for their organization
as a whole.
 Team leaders, directors and managers can be taught how to use
the integrative reframing approach for creative insight to then
support their teams in tackling specific challenges at the divi-
sion or unit level.
From there, typical organizational and operational mechanisms
can be employed to collaboratively promote, implement, and
operationalize the sustainable solutions generated. The creative
and insight problem-solving processes can be applied at the
implementation end of the sustainability challenge and during the
stages of tackling the barriers to implementation of sustainable
solutions. The same approach can be used to generate the solutions
themselves.
We suggest that the contribution of creativity theories should be
considered in light of some limitations. Creativity researchers have
found that “ideas are only the raw material for innovation and
change; they do not by themselves guarantee transformation” (cf.
Andriopoulos and Dawson, 2009, p.8). Whilst creative traits,
1881
creative processes, and creative insight can be necessary conditions
and processes for positive change to occur, they are likely to be
insufficient for effecting systematic change because they do not
address the challenges associated with translating novel frame-
works and models into actual innovations. While outside the scope
of our discussions in this paper, it is important to recognize that
creativity needs to be completed with organizational learning
(Lozano, 2014), i.e. “discerning and inquisitive learning, can help to
institutionalize and consolidate new more sustainable mental
models” (p.214). Furthermore, if organizations are to generate
sustainable solutions, they must also confront how they view
themselves in relation to the larger societal and natural domains.
Sustainability requires a frame of mind that grasps the interplay
between humans and society, between self and the world (Wright
Mills, 2000), and it requires individuals to feel culturally aligned
and morally connected with the meaning of nature (Dolan, 2002).
The role of creativity theories in building alternative sustainable
organizational forms and practices require further exploration and
point to interesting areas for future research. In this paper, we build
on Ford's (1996) recommendations by calling for an additional
capacity-building feature in organizations, that of creative insight
problem solving. The sudden shift in thinking that characterizes the
insightful solution seems to be an important link in unlocking
creative solutions to complex, systemic problems e qualities
notably characteristic of sustainability challenges. Future research
could probe the human and organizational mechanisms that allow
for creative insight, and help to make decision making for sus-
tainability a more tangible, intuitive, and teachable process. We
also suggest that further research could involve applied action
research studies empirically investigating the creative problem-
solving process and the insight problem solving process as tools
for generating more radical sustainable practices in organizations,
with the intent to both test and further develop the problem-
solving process. Moreover, research directions could also include
better understanding of the factors that constrain sustainable acts,
and facilitate habitual conformity; in particular, how organizational
decision-makers experience “stuckedness.” Research is required
into how individuals receive or achieve a state of readiness to both
seek and arrive at an understanding of the need for trans-
formational learning, and to ”see” a problem in a more holistic,
systemic manner, and to see sustainable solutions when they
emerge. Finally, there is a significant need for more empirical
research aimed at imagining and creating “radical or challenging
pictures of future solutions” (Carlsson et al., 2014, p.29). It would be
particularly fruitful to explore the application of future studies
methodologies, such as using research to generate alternative
world views and to produce representations of new sustainable
organizational forms and outputs, in the forms of role-plays, sus-
tainability scenarios, prototyping, stories, art and illustrative works.
There is also an emerging body of creativity research that explores
processes involving extraordinary group creativity (Harvey, 2014).
Future research examining creative process facilitators and barriers
in these settings would also greatly contribute to our understand-
ing of how we can address the sustainability problems of our time
and create solutions that depart significantly from what has been
done in the past.
References
Alakeson, V., Sherwin, C., 2004. Innovation for Sustainable Development. Forum for
the Future, London. Retrieved June 15, 2015 from:http://www.rrcap.ait.asia/
uneptg05/outline/synthesis/innovate.pdf.
Amabile, T.M., 1982. The social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment
technique. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 43, 573e578.
Amabile, T.M., 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a componential concep-
tualization. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 45 (2), 357e377.
1882 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884
Amabile, T.M., 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In:
Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour, vol. 10.
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 123e167.
Amabile, T.M., Tighe, E., 1993. Questions of creativity. In: Brockman, J. (Ed.), Crea-
tivity. Simon & Schuster, New York, pp. 7e27.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 39 (5), 1154e1184.
Andriopoulos, C., Dawson, P., 2009. Managing Change, Creativity and Innovation.
Sage Publications, London.
Ansburg, P.I., 2000. Individual differences in problem solving via insight. Curr.
Psychol. 19 (2), 143e147.
Argyris, C., Scho €n, D.A., 1974. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effective-
ness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Argyris, C., Scho €n, D.A., 1978. Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action
Perspective. Addisone-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E., Harrington, E.,
2000. Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of
ideas. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 39 (3), 599e617.
Bansal, P., 2002. The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Acad. Manag.
Exec. 16 (2), 122e131.
Barron, F., 1969. Creative Person and Creative Process. Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
New York.
Barron, F., 1975. The solitariness of self and its mitigation through creative imagi-
nation. In: Taylor, I., Getzels, J. (Eds.), Perspectives in Creativity, pp. 146e156.
Barron, F., Harrington, D.M., 1981. Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annu.
Rev. Psychol. 32 (1), 439e476.
Basadur, M., Gelade, G., Basadur, T., 2014. Creative problem-solving process styles,
cognitive work demands, and organizational adaptability. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 50
(1), 80e115.
Basadur, M., Graen, G.B., Green, S.C., 1982. Training in creative problem solving:
effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research
organization. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 30 (1), 41e70.
Basadur, M., Pringle, P., Speranzini, G., Bacot, M., 2000a. Collaborative problem
solving through creativity in problem definition: expanding the pie. Creat.
Innov. Manag. 9 (1), 54e77.
Basadur, M., Runco, M.A., Vega, L.A., 2000b. Understanding how creative thinking
skills, attitudes and behaviours work together: a causal process model. J. Creat.
Behav. 34 (2), 77e100.
Basadur, M., Wakabayashi, M., Takai, I., 1992. Training effects on the divergent
thinking attitudes of Japanese managers. Int. Sch. Intercult. Relat. 16 (3),
329e345.
Baskaran, A., 2013. Innovation for Sustainability: African and European Perspec-
tives. Africa Institute of South Africa, Cape Town, ZAF. Retrieved from: http://
www.ebrary.com.
Beech, N., Kajzer Mitchell, I., Saren, M., Oswick, C., 2011. Barriers to change and
identity work in the swampy lowland. J. Change Manag. 11 (3), 289e304.
Beilock, S.L., Carr, T.H., 2001. On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs
choking under pressure? J. Exp.. Psychol. Gen. 130 (4), 701e725. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701.
Brazdauskas, M., 2015. Promoting student innovation-driven thinking and creative
problem solving for sustainability and corporate social responsibility. J. Creat.
Bus. Innov. 1, 5e18. Retrieved April 10, 2016 from:http://www.journalcbi.com/
uploads/3/1/8/7/31878681/promoting_student_innovation-driven_thinking_
and_creative_problem_solving_for_sustainability_and_corporate_social_
responsibility.pdf.
Brown, B., Harris, J.A., Russel, J.Y. (Eds.), 2010. Tackling Wicked Problems. Through
the Transdisciplinary Imagination. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.
Carlsson, A., Hjelm, O., Baas, L., Eklund, M., Krook, J., Lindahl, M., Sakao, T., 2014.
Sustainability Jam Sessions for vision creation and problem solving. J. Clean.
Prod. 98, 29e35.
Carrilo-Hermosilla, J., del Rio, P., Ko € nno
€ la, T., 2010. Diversity of eco-innovations:
reflections from selected case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1073e1083.
Chabowski, B., Mena, J., Gonzalez-Padron, T., 2011. The structure of sustainability
research in marketing, 1958-2008: a basis for future research opportunities.
J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 (1), 55e70.
Cherry, N.L., 2005. Preparing for practice in the age of complexity. High. Educ. Res.
Dev. 24 (4), 309e320.
Chu, Y., MacGregor, J.N., 2011. Human performance on insight problem solving: a
review. J. Prob. Solving 3 (2), 119e150.
Chrysikou, E.G., 2006. When shoes become hammers: goal-derived categorization
training enhances problem-solving performance. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem.
Cogn. 32 (4), 935e942.
Collins, M.-A., Amabile, T.M., 1999. Motivation and creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.),
Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, pp. 297e312.
Clement, J., 1991. Non-formal reasoning in science: the use of analogies, extreme
cases, and physical intuition. In: Voss, J., Perkins, D., Segal, J. (Eds.), Informal
Reasoning and Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 345e362.
Conklin, J., Basadur, M., VanPatter, G., 2007. Rethinking Wicked Problems:
Unpacking Paradigms, Bridging Universes. NextD, issue 10. NextDesign Lead-
ership Institute. Retrieved April 10, 2016 from: http://humantific.com/
wpcontent/uploads/2009/07/NextD_10/NextD_10_1.pdf.
Cucuzzela, C., 2015. Creativity, sustainable design and risk management. J. Clean.
Prod. 135, 1548e1558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.076.
De Bono, E., 1970. Lateral Thinking: a Textbook of Creativity. Penguin Books,
London.
De Bono, E., 1994. Parallel thinking: from Socratic thinking to de Bono thinking.
Penguin, London, New York.
De Bono, E., 1999. Six Thinking Hats. Penguin Books, London.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human
Behavior. Plenum, New York, NY.
Dolan, P., 2002. The sustainability of “sustainable consumption”. J. Macromark. 22
(2), 170e181.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A., Kazanjian, R.K., 1999. Multilevel theorizing about creativity
in organizations: a sensemaking perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (2),
286e307.
Duncker, K., 1941/42. On pleasure, emotion, and striving. Philos.Philosophical
Phenomenol. Res. 1, 391e430. Retrieved on Aug 31, 2007 from:http://
gestalttheory.net/archive/Dunemot.pdf.
Edmonson, A., 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Adm. Sci. Q. 44 (2), 350e383.
Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2005. The roots of sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 46 (2),
23e25.
Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2011. Back to Basics: Wicked Problems. Retrieved on October 2014
from: http://www.johnehrenfeld.com/2011/05/back-to-basics-wicked-
problems.html.
Eisenberg, R., Selbst, M., 1994. Does reward increase of decrease creativity?
J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 66 (6), 1116e1127.
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks e the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Elzey, D., Steitz, K., 2013. Cultivating the cross-cultural engineer: key insights. In:
Achilles, M., Elzey, D. (Eds.), Environmental Sustainability in Transatlantic
Perspective: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 185e200.
Eysenck, M.W., 1997. Anxiety and Cognition: a Unified Theory. Psychology Press,
Hove, UK.
Eysenck, M.W., Calvo, M.G., 1992. Anxiety and performance: the processing effi-
ciency theory. Cogn. Emot. 6 (6), 409e434.
Family, G., 2003. Collective creativity: a complex solution for the complex problem
of the state of our planet. Creat. Res. J. 15 (1), 83e90.
Feldhusen, J.F., Clinkenbeard, P.R., 1986. Creativity instructional materials: a review
of research. J. Creat. Behav. 20 (3), 153e182.
Fisher, F., 2006. Response Ability: Environment, Health and Everyday Transcen-
dence. Vista, Elsterniwick.
Fleck, J.I., Weisberg, R.W., 2004. The use of verbal protocols as data: an analysis of
insight in the candle problem. Mem. Cogn. 32 (6), 990e1006.
Ford, C., 1996. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 21 (4), 1112e1142.
Ford, C.M., Gioia, D.A., 1996. Creativity management. In: Warner, M. (Ed.), Inter-
national Encyclopedia of Business Management, vol. 1. Routledge, London/New
York, pp. 878e882.
Gardner, H., 2006. Five Minds for the Future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Gaziulusoy, A.I., 2015. A critical review of approaches available for design and
innovation teams through the perspective of sustainability science and system
innovation theories. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 366e377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.01.012.
George, J.M., Jones, G.R., 2001. Towards a process model of individual change in
organizations. Hum. Relat. 54 (4), 419e444.
George, J.M., Zhou, J., 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive context: join contributions
of positive mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Acad.
Manag. J. 50 (3), 605e622.
Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., Krause, T.S., 1995. Shifting paradigm for sustainable
development: implications for management theory and research. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 20 (4), 874e907.
Guilford, J.P., 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Harrington, D.M., Block, J., Block, J.H., 1983. Predicting creativity in preadolescence
form divergent thinking in early childhood. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 45 (3),
609e623.
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinske, J., Figge, F., 2015. Cognitive frames in corporate sus-
tainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case
frames. Acad. Manag. Rev. 4015 (1), 18e42.
Harvey, S., 2014. Creative synthesis: exploring the process of extraordinary group
creativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 39 (3), 324e343.
Hashem, A., Chi, M.T., Friedman, C.P., 2003. Medical errors as a result of speciali-
zation. J. Biomed. Inf. 36 (1e2), 61e69.
Hass, R.W., Weisberg, R.W., 2009. Career development in two seminal songwriters:
a test of the equal odds rule. Creat. Res. J. 21 (2e3), 183e190.
Hayes, S.C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B. (Eds.), 2001. Relational Frame Theory: a
Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers, New York.
Hunter, S.T., Bedell, K.E., Mumford, M.D., 2007. Climate for creativity: a quantitative
review. Creat. Res. J. 19 (1), 69e90.
Iacona, G., 2010. Going green to make green: necessary changes to promote and
implement corporate social responsibility while increasing the bottom line.
J. Land Use Environ. Law 26 (1), 113e146.
Isaksen, S.G., Dorval, K.B., Treffinger, D.J., 1994. Creative Approaches to Problem
Solving. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
Isaksen, S.G., Treffinger, D.J., 1985. Creative Problem Solving: the Basic Course.
Bearly Limited, Buffalo, NY.
Kajzer, I., 2007. Operationalising sustainable marketing: a creative challenge. In:
 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884
Proceeding of the 20th European Academy of Marketing Conference (Dublin,
Ireland).
Kajzer-Mitchell, I., Saren, M., 2008. The living product: using the creative nature of
metaphors for sustainable marketing. Bus. Strategy Environ. 17 (6), 398e410.
Kanter, R.M., 2011. How great companies think differently. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89 (11),
66e78.
Kelly-Detwiler, P., 2014. IKEA's Aggressive Approach to Sustainability Creates
Enormous Business Opportunities. Forbes. Retrieved June 2015 from:http://
www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/02/07/ikeas-aggressive-approach-
to-sustainability-creates-enormous-business-opportunities.
Kennedy, S., Whiteman, G., Van den Ende, J., 2013. Enhancing radical innovation
using sustainability as a strategic choice. In: Presented at the Sustainability and
the Corporation: Big Ideas Conference. November 15e16th. Harvard Business
School. Retrieved July 30, 2015 from:http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/conferences/
2013-sustainability-and-corporation/Documents/Enhancing_radical_innova-
tion_using_sustainability_as_a_strategic_choice.pdf.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., et al., 2015. Joining forces:
collaboration and leadership for sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag. Review The
Boston Consult. Group U. N. Glob. Compact 56 (3), 1e32.
Klein, G.A., Weitzenfeld, J., 1978. Improvement of skills for solving ill-defined
problems. Educ. Psychol. 13 (1), 31e41.
Knoblich, G., Oellinger, M., 2006. AHA! the eureka moment. Sci. Am. Mind 17 (5),
38e43.
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., Rhenius, D., 1999. Constraint relaxation and
chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem.
Cogn. 25 (6), 1534e1555.
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Raney, G.E., 2001. An eye movement study of insight
problem solving. Mem. Cogn. 29 (7), 1000e1009.
Koestler, A., 1964. The Act of Creation. Hutchinson, London.
Kohn, N., Paulus, P.B., Choi, Y., 2011. Building on the ideas of others: an examination
of the idea combination process. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47 (3), 554e561.
Kurtzberg, T.R., Amabile, T.M., 2001. From Guilford to creative synergy: opening the
black box of team level creativity. Creat. Res. J. 13 (3e4), 285e294.
Kurtzberg, T.R., 2005. Feeling creative, being creative: an empirical study of di-
versity and creativity in teams. Creat. Res. J. 17 (1), 51e65.
Lehman, C.M., Norman, C.S., 2006. The effects of experience on complex problem
representation and judgment in auditing: an experimental investigation. Behav.
Res. Account. 18 (1), 65e83.
Lovelock, J., 2007. The Revenge of Gaia. Penguin Group, London.
Lozano, R., 2014. Creativity and organizational learning as means to foster sus-
tainability. Sustain. Dev. 22 (3), 205e216.
Luchins, A.S., 1942. Mechanization in problem solving. Psychol. Monogr. 54 (6), i-95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093502.
MacKinnon, D.W., 1965. Personality and the realization of creative potential. Am.
Psychol. 20 (4), 273e281.
Mainemelis, C., 2010. Steeling fire: creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 35 (4), 558e578.
Marone, V., Staples, C., Greenberg, K.H., 2016. Learning how to learn by solving
bizarre problems: a playful approach to developing creative and strategic
thinking. Horizon 24 (1), 112e120.
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2001. The next industrial revolution. In: Charter, M.,
Tischner, U. (Eds.), Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for
the Future. Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, Sheffield, pp. 139e150.
McFadzean, E., 2002. Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams:
part 2efacilitator competencies. Manag. Decis. 40 (6), 537e551.
Mednick, S.A., 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychol. Rev. 69
(3), 220e232.
Montuori, A., Purser, R., 1995. Deconstructing the lone genius myth. J. Humanist.
Psychol. 35 (3), 69e112.
Montuori, A., Purser, R., 1999. Social Creativity, vol. 1. Hampton Press, Creskill, NJ.
Mitchell, C.L., 2006. Beyond barriers: examining root causes behind commonly cited
cleaner production barriers in Vietnam. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (18), 1576e1585.
Mumford, M.D., Gustafson, S., 1988. Creativity syndrome: integration, application,
and innovation. Psychol. Bull. 103 (1), 27e43.
Mumford, M.D., 2003. Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in
creativity research. Creat. Res. J. 15 (2e3), 107e120.
Mumford, M.D., Giorgini, V., Gibson, C., Mecca, J., 2013. Creative thinking: processes,
strategies and knowledge, 2013. In: Thomas, K., Chan, J. (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Creativity, pp. 249e264.
Newell, A., Simon, H.A., 1972. Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Nichols, J., 1972. Creativity in the person who will never produce anything original
and useful: the concept of creativity as a normal distribution trait. Am. Psychol.
27 (8), 517e527.
Nickerson, R.S., 1999. Enhancing creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of
Creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 392e430.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R., 2009. Why sustainability is now the
key driver of innovation. September Harv. Bus. Rev. 87 (9), 57e64.
O'Connor, J., 1998. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. Guilford Press,
New York.
OECD, 2011. Towards Green Growth. Retrieved July 9, 2014 from:http://www.oecd.
org/greengrowth/towardsgreengrowth.htm.
Ohlsson, S., 1984. Restructuring revisited: an information processing theory of
restructuring and insight. Scand. J. Psychol. 25 (1), 117e129.
Ohlsson, S., 1992. Information-processing explanations of insight and related
1883
phenomena. In: Keane, M., Gilhooley, K. (Eds.), Advances in the Psychology of
Thinking. Harvester-Wheatsheaf, London, pp. 1e44.
Okuda, S.M., Runco, M.A., Berger, D.E., 1991. Creativity and the finding and solving of
real-world problems. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 9 (1), 45e53.
Oldham, G.R., Cummings, A., 1996. Employee creativity: personal and contextual
factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 39 (3), 607e634.
Ormerod, T.C., MacGregor, J.N., Chronicle, E.P., 2002. Dynamics and constraints in
insight problem-solving. Journal of experimental psychology: learning. Mem.
Cogn. 28 (4), 791e799.
Ottman, J.A., 2011. The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools, and
Inspiration for Sustainable Branding. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Osborn, A.F., 1953/1979. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative
Problem-solving. Scribner’s, New York.
Parnes, S.J., 1967. Nurturing Creative Behavior. Scribner’s, New York.
Parnes, S.J. (Ed.), 1992. A Source Book for Creative Problem-solving. Creative Edu-
cation Foundation Press, Buffalo, N.Y.
Parnes, S.J., Noller, R.B., Biondi, A.M., 1977. Guide to Creative Action. Scribner’s, New
York.
Paulraj, A., Chen, I.J., Blome, C., 2015. Motives and performance outcomes of sus-
tainable supply chain management practices: a multi-theoretical perspective.
J. Bus. Ethics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2857-0.
Paulus, P.B., Yang, H.C., 2000. Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity in
organizations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82 (1), 76e87.
Paulus, P.B., Larey, T.S., Dzindolet, M.T., 2001. Creativity in groups and teams. In:
Turner, M.E. (Ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research, pp. 319e338.
Paulus, P.B., Dzindolet, M., Kohn, N., 2011. Collaborative creativity e group creativity
and team innovation, 2011. In: Mumford, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational
Creativity, pp. 325e354.
Paulus, P.B., Korde, R., 2013. How to get the most creativity and innovation out of
groups and teams, 2013. In: Thomas, K., Chan, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Research
on Creativity, pp. 493e507.
Perrini, F., Tencati, A., 2006. Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need
for performance evaluation and reporting systems. Bus. Strategy Environ. 15 (5),
296e308.
Perry-Smith, J.E., 2006. Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facil-
itating individual creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 49 (1), 85e101.
Phillips, V.K., Torrance, E.P., 1971. Divergent thinking, remote associations, and
concept attainment strategies. J. Psychol. 77 (2), 223e228.
Post, C., Rahman, N., McQuillen, C., 2015. From board composition to corporate
environmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. J. Bus.
Ethics 130 (2), 423e435.
Ramus, C., 2001. Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideas
for environmental sustainability. Calif. Manag. Rev. 43 (3), 85e105.
Redclift, M., 2002. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. Rout-
ledge, London.
Redclift, M., 2005. Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of
age. Sustain. Dev. 13 (4), 212e227.
Rittel, H.W., Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sci. 4 (2), 155e169.
Runco, M.A., 1991. Divergent Thinking. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Runco, M.A., 1992. Children's divergent thinking and creative ideation. Dev. Rev. 12
(3), 233e264.
Runco, M.A., 2004. Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55 (1), 657e687.
Ryan, A.M., Kajzer Mitchell, I., Daskou, S., 2012. An interaction and network
approach to developing sustainable organizations. J. Organ. Change Manag. 25
(4), 578e594.
Schoenfeld, A.H., 1982. Measures of problem-solving performance and of prob-
lemesolving instruction. J. Res. Math. Educ. 13 (1), 31e49.
Schoenfeld, A.H., Hermann, D.J., 1982. Problem perception and knowledge structure
in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn.
Mem. Cogn. 8 (5), 484e494.
Schooler, J.W., Ohlsson, S., Brooks, K., 1993. Thoughts beyond words: when language
overshadows insight. J. Exp. Psychol. General 122 (2), 166e183.
Scho€n, D.A., 1983/1985. The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York.
Scott, G.M., Lonergan, D.C., Mumford, M.D., 2005. Contractual combination: alter-
native knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creat. Res. J. 17 (1), 21e36.
Seely, M.K., Zeidler, J., Henschel, J.R., Barnard, P., 2003. Creative problem solving in
support of biodiversity conservation. J. Arid Environ. 54 (1), 155e164.
Severo, E.A., de Guimaraes, J.C.F., Dorion, E.C.H., 2015. Cleaner production, envi-
ronmental sustainability and organizational performance: an empirical study in
the Brazilian metal-mechanic industry. J. Clean. Prod. 96 (1), 118e125.
Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development:
towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ. Polit. 16 (4), 584e603.
Sharma, S., 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as pre-
dictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Acad. Manag. J. 43 (4),
681e697.
Shia, H., Pengb, S.Z., Liub, Y., Zhongc, P., 2008. Barriers to the implementation of
cleaner production in Chinese SMEs: government, industry and expert stake-
holders' perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (7), 842e852.
Shrivastava, P., 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4), 936e960.
Shrivastava, P., Ivanaj, V., Ivanaj, S., 2012. Sustainable development and the arts. Int.
J. Technol. Manag. 60 (1e2), 23e43.
Simon, H.A., 1947. In: Administrative Behavior: a Study of Decision-making Pro-
cesses in Administrative Organization, first ed. Macmillan, New York.
1884 I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884
Simonton, D.K., 2011. Creativity and discovery as blind variation and selective
retention: multiple-variant definition and blind-sighted integration. Psychol.
Aesthet. Creat., Arts 5 (3), 222e228.
Starkey, K., Crane, A., 2003. Towards green narrative: management and the evolu-
tionary epic. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 (2), 220e237.
Stein, M.I., 1974. Stimulating Creativity, vol. 1. Academic Press, New York.
Steiner, G., 2009. The concept of open creativity: collaborative creative problem
solving for innovation generation e a systems approach. J. Bus. Manag. 15 (1),
5e33.
Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), 2003. Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid. Yale University
Press, New Haven (CT).
Sternberg, R.J., Lubart, T.I., 1999. The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms.
In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press,
New York, pp. 3e15.
Stokes, P.D., 2006. Creativity from Constraints the Psychology of Breakthrough.
Springer, New York.
Stoycheva, K., 2011. Intolerance, uncertainty, and individual behaviour in ambig-
uous situations. In: Stoycheva, K., Kostov, A. (Eds.), A Place, a Time and an
Opportunity for Growth. Bulgarian Scholars at NIAS. FABER Publishing House,
Veliko Tarnovo, pp. 63e73.
Stucker, D., Bozuwa, J., 2012. The art of sustainability: creative expression as a tool
for social change. Reflect. Soc. Organ. Learn. (SoL) 12 (2). Retrieved January 2015
from:http://www.sustainabilityleadersnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/
08/Art-of-Sustainability-Stucker-and-Bozuwa-SoL-Reflections-Journal-v12-n2.
pdf.
Sundaramurthy, C., Lewis, M., 2003. Control and collaboration: paradoxes of
governance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 (3), 397e415.
Suzuki, H., Hiraki, K., 2003. Constraint approach to insight problem-solving. Jpn.
Psychol. Rev. 46 (2), 211e232.
Treffinger, D.J., Selby, E.C., Isaksen, S.G., 2008. Understanding individual problem-
solving style: a key to learning and applying creative problem solving. Learn.
Individ. Differ. 18 (4), 390e401.
UN Global Compact-Accenture, 2010. A New Era of Sustainability. Retrieved January
2015 from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/UNGC_
Accenture_CEOStudy_2010.pdf.
United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Retrieved January 2016 from: https://sustainabledevelopment.
un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%
20Development%20web.pdf.
Vare, P., Scott, W., 2007. Learning for a change: exploring the relationship between
education and sustainable development. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 1 (2), 191e198.
Volkema, R.J., 1997. Managing the problem formulation process: guidelines for team
leaders and facilitators. Hum. Syst. Manag. 16 (1), 27e35.
Waddock, S., 2004. Creating corporate accountability: foundational principles to
make corporate citizenship real. J. Bus. Ethics 50 (4), 313e314.
Walinga, J., 2008. Change readiness: the roles of appraisal, focus, and perceived
control. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 44 (3), 315e347.
Walinga, J., 2010. From walls to windows: using barriers as pathways to insightful
solutions. J. Creat. Behav. 44 (3), 143e167.
Walinga, J., Cunningham, J.B., Macgregor, J.N., 2011. Training insight problem solving
through focus on barriers and assumptions. J. Creat. Behav. 45 (1), 47e58.
Ward, T.B., 2007. Neurocognitive mechanisms of creativity: a toolkit. Creat. cogn. as
a window creat. 42 (1), 28e37.
WBCSD, 2010. Changing Pace: Public Policy Options to Scale and Accelerate Busi-
ness Action Towards Vision 2050. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from:http://www.
wbcsd.org/changingpace.aspx.
Weick, K., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weisberg, R.W., 1999. Creativity and knowledge: a challenge to theories. In:
Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, New
York, pp. 226e250.
Weisberg, R.W., 2015. Toward an integrated theory of insight in problem solving.
Think. Reason. 21 (1), 5e39.
Weisberg, R.W., 2010. The study of creativity: from genius to cognitive science. Int. J.
Cult. Policy 16 (3), 235e253.
Wertheimer, M., 1959. Productive Thinking. Harper & Row, New York.
West, M.A., 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of
creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Appl. Psychol. Int.
Rev. 51 (3), 355e424.
Westenholz, A., 1993. Paradoxical thinking and change in frame of reference. Organ.
Stud. 14 (1), 37e58.
Wiley, J., 1998. Expertise as mental set: the effects of domain knowledge in creative
problem solving. Mem. Cogn. 26 (4), 716e730.
Wiley, J., Jarosz, A.F., 2012. Working memory capacity, attentional focus, and
problem solving. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21 (4), 258e262.
Williams, S.D., 2004. Self-esteem and the self-censorship of creative ideas. Pers. Rev.
31 (4), 495e503.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., Griffin, R.W., 1993. Towards a theory of organizational
creativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 18 (2), 293e321.
Woods, C., Urwin, R., 2010. Putting sustainable investing into practice: a governance
framework for pension funds. J. Bus. Ethics 92 (1), 1e19.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.
Retrieved May 5, 2014 from:http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-
future.pdf.
World Health Organization, 2012. Our Planet, Our Health, Our Future. Discussion
Paper. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from: http://www.who.int/globalchange/
publications/reports/health_rioconventions.pdf.
Wright Mills, C., 2000. Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press, New York.
Wulf, G., McNevin, H., Shea, C.H., 2001. The automaticity of complex motor skill
learning as a function of attentional focus. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 54 (4), 1143e1154.
Zhou, J., Shalley, C.E., 2003. Research on employee creativity: a critical review and
directions for future research. In: Martocchio, J.J., Ferris, G.R. (Eds.), Research in
Personnel and Human Resource Management. Elsevier, Oxford, England,
pp. 165e217.