Definitions of the phases in the
development of corporate sustainability
|
|
Human
Sustainability |
Ecological
Sustainability |
|
Rejection |
· Employees
are regarded as a resource to be exploited; · health
and safety features are ignored or paid lip service to; · force,
threats of force and abuse are used to maintain compliance and workforce
subjection; · training
costs and expenditure on personal and professional development are kept to a
minimum; · community
concerns are rejected outright. |
·
the environment is regarded as a
'free good' to be exploited; ·
hostility towards environmental activists
and to pressures from govt and others aiming for
ecological sustainability; ·
pro-environmental action is seen as a threat
to the university; ·
no responsibility taken for the
environmental impact of its ongoing operations; ·
does
not modify operations to lessen future ecological degradation. |
|
Non-responsiveness |
· Financial
and technological factors dominate business strategies to the exclusion of
most aspects of HRM; · IR/ER
strategies dominate the human agenda, with 'labour' viewed as a cost to be
minimized; · HR strategies are directed at developing a
compliant workforce; · any training agenda centres on technical and
supervisory training; · broader HR
strategies and issues of wider social responsibility and community concern
are ignored. |
·
the ecological environment is not
considered to be a relevant factor in strategic or operational decisions,
financial and technological factors dominate business strategies to the
exclusion of environmental concerns; ·
environmental resources which are
free or subsidized (air, water, etc) are wasted and little regard is given to
environmental degradation resulting from activities; ·
environmental
risks, costs and imperatives are seen as irrelevant or are not perceived at
all. |
|
Compliance |
· Financial
and technological factors still dominate business strategies but senior mgt
view the university as a 'decent employer'; · emphasis
is on compliance with legal requirements in IR, safety, workplace standards,
etc; · HR
functions such as training, IR, organizational development, TQM are instituted
but there is little integration between them; · compliance is undertaken mainly as a
risk-reduction exercise; · a
policy of benevolent paternalism is pursued with an expectation of employee
loyalty; · community
concerns are addressed only in the face of risk of prosecution or negative
publicity. |
·
financial and technological factors
still dominate business strategies but senior mgt seek to comply with
environmental laws and to minimize the university’s potential liabilities
from actions that might have an adverse impact on the environment; ·
the most obvious environmental
abuses are eliminated; ·
other
environmental issues that are unlikely to attract litigation or strong
community action are ignored. |
|
Efficiency |
· There
is a systematic attempt to integrate HR functions into a coherent system to
reduce costs and increase efficiency; · people
are viewed as a significant source of expenditure to be used as productively
as possible; · technical and supervisory training is
augmented with interpersonal skills training; · there
is careful calculation of cost-benefit ratios for HR expenditure to ensure
efficiencies are achieved; · community
projects are undertaken where funds are available and where a cost benefit to
the university can be demonstrated. |
· poor
environmental practice is seen as an important source of avoidable cost; · ecological
issues that generate costs are systematically reviewed so as to reduce costs
and increase efficiencies; · there
may be some active involvement in a systematic approach (i.e. TQM ISO 14001);
· environmental
issues are ignored if they are not seen as generating avoidable costs or
increasing efficiencies. |
|
Strategic
Proactivity |
· the
workforce skills mix and diversity are integral aspects of corporate and
business strategies; · intellectual and social capital used to develop
strategic advantage through innovation; · recruiting
best talent and developing high levels of competence in individuals and
groups; · emphasis
is placed on product and service innovation and speed of response to emerging
market trends; · flexible
workplace practices are part of the workplace culture leading to more
balanced lives; · communities
are taken into consideration and initiatives to address adverse impacts on them
are integrated into corporate strategy; · the
university views itself as a member of the community and contributes to it by
offering resources for projects that promote community cohesion and
well-being. |
· proactive
environmental strategies supporting ecological sustainability are seen as a
means to produce competitive advantage; · product
redesign is used to reduce material throughput and to recycle; · the
university seeks competitive leadership through spearheading environmentally
friendly products and processes. |
|
Sustaining
and integrated |
· the
university accepts responsibility for contributing to the process of renewing
and upgrading human knowledge and skills formation in the community and
society generally and is a strong promoter of equal opportunity, workplace
diversity and work-life balance; · adopts
a clearly defined corporate ethical position based on multiple stakeholder perspectives
and seeks to exert influence on the key participants in the sector and
society in general to pursue human welfare, equitable just social practices; · people are seen
as valuable in their own right. |
·
the university becomes an active
promoter of ecological sustainability values and seeks to influence key
participants in the sector and society in general; ·
environmental best practice is
espoused and enacted; ·
the university assists society to be
ecologically sustainable and uses its entire range of products and services
to this end; ·
is prepared to promote positive
sustainability policies on the part of governments, ·
the restructuring of markets and the
development of community values to facilitate the emergence of a sustainable
society; ·
nature
is valued for its own sake. |
Excerpt from Dunphy, D. C., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. 2007.
Organizational change for corporate sustainability:
a guide for leaders and change agents of the future. (2nd ed. ed.) Milton
Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, Routledge,
pp. 24 - 29.