SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

Sustainable Development & Environmental Change

Sustainable Development & Environmental Change

Introduction

Business organizations, large and small, are wrestling with the pressures of environmental performance (Kolluru, 1993). Changes in business operations have been occurring throughout the modern environmental era, but incremental adjustments are no longer sufficient; whole new ways of manufacturing and managing natural resources are emerging to accommodate environmental requirements. Conceptualizing organizational purpose in terms of sustainable economic and environmental performance signals a major shift in thinking about the impact and significance of ecological factors. What were once viewed as by-products of industrial progress are now seen as societal problems (and global problems at that) so profound as to warrant industrial restructuring if that is required to solve the environmental problem.

In the face of such trends, companies, their employees, and especially their managers, are faced with the enormous practical and conceptual challenge of transforming today's organizations into economically and environmentally sustainable enterprises. This article addresses that challenge and discusses the various barriers to change that have been identified in the companies we have studied. These barriers are analysed with a view to defining more precisely and categorizing the nature of the challenges involved, and discussing the practical actions necessary to overcome those barriers.

Study 1

The importance of environmental matters is reinforced by the multitude of signals that send the message to business. Three distinct forms of environmentalism appeared between the 1970s and the 1990s, each emphasizing a different mixture of legal, market, and value-based or ethical considerations.

Compliance-based environmentalism. Marketing experts discovered that consumers were willing to act on their environmental values and vote with their dollars. Sales of environmentally-friendly goods rose sharply, and such “green” vendors as Seventh Generation, Patagonia, and Smith and Hawkins prospered. Politicians also discovered the ability of environmental issues to stimulate voter support or hostility. Media attention grew as city newspapers named environmental reporters and editors; some carried regular environmental features. The electronic media's interest also responded to, and highlighted, environmental concerns and fears. Pollution could be visually interesting; environmental protests and innovative programmes to protect wildlife or natural resources also made interesting television stories. The perceived risks of industrial activities grew as accidents, explosions, oil spills and fish kills were widely reported. Plant siting became more difficult to achieve, operating permits more difficult to acquire or renew, and communities more vigorous in their opposition to environmental risks. The “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) syndrome became part of the public vocabulary.

The promise of jobs could not overcome community concerns that future generations would bear the price of health consequences too terrible to justify the risk. A new social principle was directly affecting the ability of electric utilities and the chemical, petroleum, steel, pulp and paper industries to operate: communities would no longer accept major environmental damage as the price for economic opportunity. Jobs and a safe environment would have to be achieved at the same time. Unable to relocate to new communities, these industries have been forced into the role of path-breakers in finding ways to ...