Forget Moral Imperatives

When talking about sustainability numerous people associate it with just protecting the environment. Sustainability is far more than going green, but it is a principle that many companies have adopted and have worked persistently to improve over the last several years. Sustainability is defined as the ability to continue a behavior indeterminately, but it also includes improving human life overall. Sustainable development is broken down into three pillars: economic, social, and environmental (Harich & Bangerter, 2014). Economics is the study of how people use resources, which correlates to the goal of sustainable development by using resources to their full potential (Laszlo, C., & Zhexembayeva, N., 2011, p. 60). Economic sustainable development allows companies to give their customers what they want without overusing mutual resources. Social development combines the social world with the physical realm to provide a good quality of life (Benoit, 2010, p. 7). Social sustainability focuses on the well-being of people and their communities. Environmental development, the most recognizable, includes protecting the environment by reducing pollution, recycling, switching of electronic devices when not in use, etc. All three of these pillars make up what is known as sustainable development. In this paper, I researched a company and their involvement in sustainability and how it applies to the

Many firms are learning that being environmentally friendly and sustainable has numerous benefits. (O.C Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2015). This could enable them to increase goodwill from various stakeholders and also save money in the long term. This will mean that they are being more efficient and less wasteful of resources, which will enable them to be more competitive by satisfying stakeholders. The CEO of

Because corporations are established to profit and shareholders invest money with expectations of a greater return, managers cannot be given a directive to be “socially responsible” without providing specific criteria of checks and balances to which needs to adhere. Therefore, it is imperative to the success of a corporation for managers to not act solely but rather to act within the policies of the shareholders.

The expectation that businesses behave responsibly and positively contribute to society all while pursuing their economic goals is one that holds firm through all generations. Stakeholders, both market and nonmarket, expect businesses to be socially responsible. Many companies have responded to this by including this growing expectation as part of their overall business operations. There are companies in existence today whose sole purpose is to socially benefit society alongside businesses who simply combine social benefits with their economic goals as their company mission. These changes in societal expectations and thus company purpose we’ve seen in the business community over time often blurs the line of what it means to be socially

Although not all companies are successful at truly embodying what it means to be green, even companies that have been synonymous for contributing pollutants and greenhouse gasses spend millions trying to convince stakeholders that they do. It’s often these last two dimensions of CSR—social and environmental, that either embroil a corporation in controversy or allow it to serve as an exemplar in good ethical business practices.

As we have seen an increase in awareness around sustainability and climate change, with the help of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth documentary in 2006, we see organizations moving towards mitigating the effects of climate change in various ways (Al Gore, n.d). As this corporate social responsibility has become more prevalent, organizations are now pushing their green agenda by publishing sustainability reports, doing mass marketing and implementing sustainable business practices to portray the image that they too are working towards protecting the earth’s natural environment all the while focusing on their underlying goal of selling their products and

In this paper by Schaltegger and Burritt (2015) explored links between different ethical motivations and kinds of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities to distinguish between different types of business cases about sustainability. Their qualitative study found evidence that some firms, despite energy cost as an insignificant part of their business costs as a driving factor to meet employees’ values. Schaltegger and Buritt (2015) analyzed the relationship between moral motivations, underlying ethical positions, and related sustainability management activities to distinguish four kinds of business cases: (a) reactionary, (b) reputational, (c) responsible, and (d) collaborative. After reviewing

The post-bureaucratic era has seen the augmentation of leadership practices cultivating business sustainability from a pecuniary model to an ecological modernised ideology. Although, such dynamic contribution to business dogma has transformed neo-classical principles. Thus, exemplifying it as a “hybrid” form of economic “bureaucratic” growth and “Weberian” social and environmental rational (Clegg and Courpasson 2004: pg; 527). In this essay, I argue that post-bureaucratic leadership practices contribute to managing sustainability to an extent, as prior bureaucratic methods remain interpolated. Firstly, in section one I evaluate the limitations of groupthink cultivating a “fear of separation” within in post-bureaucratic era by calling on the views of Dimtroff, Schmidt and Bond (2005) however, I compare its effectiveness through the Columbian and the Challenger accident incurred by NASA, suggesting “post-heroic” forms of “group think” encumber judgement of management limiting ethicality. Following this, I will contrast the argument by drawing upon Clegg, Teo and Josserand (2006), implying that changes in practices within the post-bureaucratic era have “branched” and remain interpolated with bureaucratic leadership styles. In doing so, I will examine the writings of Stubbs and Coklin (2008), exploring the effects of the sustainable business model through Bendigo Bank and Interface, advocating that leadership practice contributes to the purpose of an organisation, through an

Sustainability is defined as the ability to endure.(1) Though the idea of sustainability can be applied to most anything from a sustainable ecosystem that has survived thousands of years to a sustainable workplace that uses green technologies. Paul Hawken captured today’s connotation of sustainability in saying “Sustainability is about stabilizing the currently disruptive relationship between earth’s two most complex systems—human culture and the living world.” (2) There are countless ways to live, work, and produce sustainably. Sustainability not only needs to be practiced by citizens, but businesses need to join the green movement as well. Without creating, following, and enforcing green policies, negative effects will be evident and innumerable

Nowadays, organizations have a corporate social responsibility to fulfill in the business industry. There is a variety of definitions for corporate social responsibility however; a common definition is a business integrates social and environmental concerns in their everyday business operations on a voluntary basis (Murphy, 2010). It is important that managers behave ethically and morally so other individuals will follow their guidance. A manager is responsible for fair treatment of employees, customers, and suppliers, building trustworthy relationships, and being transparent (Murphy, 2010). As a result, managers that are in executive level positions are oftentimes, most responsible for any unethical or

For example, Interface’s model emphasised a more ecological and environmental drive, while accompanying the social aspects of maximising stakeholder satisfaction. However, Bendigo Bank solely emphasised on the social aspects, in accordance to the enhancement of customer and community welfare. Overall, the contribution to sustainability elucidated a post-bureaucratic view, however, Clegg and Courpasson (2004) suggest, post-bureaucracy forms are an original amalgamation of older principles in a perception designated as a new. Therefore, the degree of bureaucratic essence was evidential as both cases acknowledge profit as a significant outcome in the social and the environmental aspect of an organisation. Therefore, Stubbs and Cockling (2008) highlight the role of leadership in contributing to sustainable values, by aligning organisational ideal's with the “community values”. Hence, focused leaders are then contributing to “cultural sustainability” in the minds of the “stakeholder” (Bansal, 2002 cited in Stubbs and Cocklin 2008 pg. 116). However, Cockling and Stubbs advocate, once the culture attains sustainability there is little reliance on hierarchical leadership. Thus, modern-bureaucratic leadership has indefinitely interpolated with this collective style of post-heroic stakeholder sustainability, shaping and driving the purpose and mission of the business, through the sustainable business

In today’s business world, sustainability can make all the difference in the world. According to Tomson (2015), “sustainability has become an economic and strategic imperative with the potential to create opportunities and risks for businesses by creating new customer relationships, and inspiring new products and business models that drive growth. Consequently, companies that are, or aspire to be, leaders in sustainability are often challenged by rising public expectations, increasing technological innovation, continuous quality improvement, effective governance measures, high standards of ethics and integrity, and heightened social and environmental challenges” (p.1).

The conduct or the operation of any business anywhere in the world brings with it a number of environmental concerns. These range from the emission of harmful gases, such as carbon (VI) oxide, into the environment and contributions to the depletion of the ozone layer, thus furthering global warming. It is however impossible to exist in this modern world without industries and business, as many would be unemployed and further lack various necessities due to a lack of industries and businesses (Forbes, 2011). Therefore, sustainability should be considered with regard for the environment in that actions should not adversely affect the environment to the extent that future generations will find it unlivable . Many of the leading organizations

The Australian government is active in its move to promote and push for sustainable business practices, one of their more recent resolutions is the Clean Energy Legislation, which is made of individual bills covering levys on green house gases and fuel tax, this enforces corporations to oblige and making a move towards being green (Griffiths, 2012). However this means that certain organisations will do the bare minimum of what is required of them by law and nothing more. There are other initiatives in place to encourage sustainable business practices which are not legally binding, such as Sustainable Business Australia, who provide policy recommendations and resources for sustainability challenges (SBA, n.d). Companies who become members with SBA are held in high regards by their stakeholders as they abide by the recommendations regarding carbon action and resource solutions. There is also an emphasis on the people, and their crucial role in creating business value. Previously people were satisfied with just their basic needs being fulfilled, but no longer, we now see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs triangle unravelling as people require more to feel satisfied with themselves and what they do in their work space (Kiel, 1999). With encouragement from government and local communities, Australia is making an effort with great determination towards having the best sustainable business

Corporate social responsibility has been one the key business buzz words of the 21st century. Consumers' discontent with the corporation has forced it to try and rectify its negative image by associating its name with good deeds. Social responsibility has become one of the corporation's most pressing issues, each company striving to outdo the next with its philanthropic image. People feel that the corporation has done great harm to both the environment and to society and that with all of its wealth and power, it should be leading the fight to save the Earth, to combat poverty and illness and etc. "Corporations are now expected to deliver the good, not just the goods; to pursue