Weaving An Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem Perspectives of Ecologically Sustainable Organizations

® Academy oi Management Review
1995, Vol. 20, No. 4, 908-935.
WEAVING AN INTEGRATED WEB: MULTILEVEL

AND MULTISYSTEM PERSPECTIVES OF
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE ORGANIZATIONS
MARK STARIK
George Washington University
GORDON P. RANDS
The Pennsylvania State University
This article explores the concept of ecological sustainability and ap-

plies it to organizations by utilizing a systems framework and multi-
ple levels of analysis. The implications for ecological sustainability of
dyadic relationships between the organization and entities at the in-
dividual, organizational, political-economic, social-cultural, and eco-
logical environment levels are examined. Critical factors that influ-
ence the degree to which an organization's behaviors are ecologically
sustainable are examined, and behavioral and structural elements
that are likely to be manifested by ecologically sustainable organi-
zations (ESOs) are suggested.
The concept of ecological sustainability has been applied to various

processes and sectors, including development, agriculture, communities,
economies, energy consumption, forestry, resources, societies, soils, tour-
ism, and urban environments (Mannion & Bowlby, 1992). The notion of an
"ecologically sustainable organization" (ESO), although not widely dis-
cussed, has received increased attention (Gladwin, 1993a; Starik, 1992).
In this article we assert that ecological sustainability is a critical
emerging management concept. We believe that this concept can and, in
fact, must be analyzed on multilevel and multisystemic bases. This arti-
cle incorporates these multiple levels and systems into a framework or
relationships web (Peters, 1992), upon which a theory of ecologically sus-
tainable organizations can eventually be woven.
DEFINITIONS AND DESIRABILITY OF ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
The Definition of Ecological Sustainability
No shortage of definitions of sustainability exist in the environmental

literature (Carpenter, 1993; El Serafy, 1992; Gladwin, 1993b; Pezzey, 1989).
The Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and De-
velopment, 1987) defined sustainable development as "development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs." This definition is problematic for
908
1995 Starik and Rands 909
several reasons. It can be perceived as (a) anthropocentric; (b) indefinite

on what "needs" are and whose "needs" have priority; (c) silent on
changes in technology, resource distribution, and quality; and (d) unclear
regarding the benefits, costs, and strategies of intergenerational sacrifice
and transfers. Given the numerous political interests that have used the
term sustainable development, the ability of a single definition of the
concept to satisfy everyone appears severely limited (El Serafy, 1992). The
lack of a precise definition may have been helpful in the past by facili-
tating development of a general consensus on the critical nature of the
basic concept (Daly, 1991).
Among the specific concepts that need to be included in a more com-
prehensive definition are ineplaceabihty, biodiveisity, and carrying ca-
pacity (Gladwin, 1993b; Goodin, 1992; Hawken, 1993; Meadows, Meadows,
& Randers, 1992; Nijkamp & Soeteman, 1988; Postel, 1994; Throop, Starik,
& Rands, 1993; Wilson, 1992); socioeconomic and ecoiogicaJ system resil-
ience (Corson, 1994; Costanza, Daly, & Bartholomew, 1992; Gladwin,
1993b; Milbrath, 1989; Sitarz, 1993); and futmity (Goodin, 1992; Kinlaw,
1993; Stead & Stead, 1992). Several authors have suggested (and we agree)
that sustainability and sustainable development have multilevel and
multisystem characteristics (Costanza et al., 1992; Kinlaw, 1993;
Yanarella & Levine, 1992) and that the achievement of sustainability re-
quires an effective integration of these multiple levels and systems. For
us, integration involves the assumptions that (a) an ecologically sustain-
able world requires ecologically sustainable societies, cultures, political
and economic systems, organizations, and individuals and that (b)
achievement of sustainability by an entity at any one of these levels
requires simultaneously recognizing and addressing the actions of and
interactions with entities at each of these levels.
We suggest the following definition: ecological sustainability is the
ability of one or more entities, eithei individually or coiJecfiveiy, to exist
and flourish (eithei unchanged or in evoived foims) /or lengthy time-
fiames, in such a manner that the existence and flouiishing of other col-
lectivities of entities is peimitted at related levels and in ielated systems.
The test of an organization's ecological sustainability is the degree to
which its activities can be continued indefinitely without negatively al-
tering the limiting factois that permit the existence and flourishing of
other groups of entities, including other organizations. Limiting factors
determine the carrying capacity of a given ecosystem for a type of entity
(and, thus, its population size), and these include food, water, shelter,
breeding and rearing sites, predators, competitors, disease organisms
and other toxins (Odum, 1989) for living species. Sustainable organiza-
tional activities would not alter physical, chemical, and biological factors
(or political, economic, social or cultural conditions) such that the carry-
ing capacity for otherwise sustainable entities would be dramatically
reduced or eliminated.
Although analyses of global carrying capacity are extremely complex
910 Academy of Management Review October
and their findings are tentative and open to criticism, many scientists
believe that we are closely approaching (or have even exceeded) the
thresholds at which natural systems are degraded, such that global car-
rying capacity actually declines (Brown & Kane, 1994; Meadows et al.,
1992). Human carrying capacity can be increased by diverting food, wa-
ter, and habitat to humans from other species, but at a cost to those
species. Scientists have estimated that humanity already appropriates
some 40% of all terrestrial net primary production (NPP)—biomass pro-
duced by green plants—and 25% of total NPP (Vitousek, Ehrlich, Ehrlich,
& Matson, 1986). The potential implications of this increased appropria-
tion are enormous.
It is apparent that two more doublings of the human scale will
give 100 percent [of NPP]. Since this would mean zero energy
left for all nonhuman and nondomesticated species, and since
humans cannot survive without the services of ecosystems,
which are made up of other species, it is clear that two more
doublings of the human scale is an ecological impossibil-
ity . . . . Total appropriation of the terrestrial NPP is only a bit
over one doubling in the future.
Assuming a constant level of per-capita resource con-
sumption, the doubling time of the human scale would be
equal to the doubling time of population, which is on the order
of forty years. Of course economic growth currently aims to
increase the average per-capita resource consumption and
consequently to reduce the doubling time. . . . Unless we
awaken to the existence and nearness of scale limits, then the
greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain will be
just a preview of disasters to come, not in the vague distant
future, but in the next generation. (Daly, 1991: 246)
As ecosystems provide the foundations of existence for both biologi-

cal entities and organizations, sustainability of ecosystems must have
higher priority than the economic sustainability of specific organizations.
We assume, however, that the sustainability of both is possible and de-
sirable.
The Desirability of Ecological Sustainability
Ecological sustainability is desirable for many reasons. Ecological
processes provide the biophysical context for human existence (Shrivas-
tava, 1995). Human economic pursuits such as agriculture, forestry, min-
ing, and manufacturing all depend on "resources" originating and con-
tinuing to exist in the natural environment (Brown, 1995; Starik, 1993).
Sustained ecosystem processes are necessary for humans to continue to
reap the aesthetic benefits of nature (Goodin, 1992), thereby contributing
to improvement of the human condition (Gore, 1992). Finally, many ob-
servers believe that ecosystem health has intrinsic value apart from its
human utilitarian benefits (Nash, 1989) and that ecosystems have a right
to exist with or without humans. Even the most challenging critiques of
ecological sustainability question whether sustainable limits have begun

to be approached, rather than whether sustainability itself is desirable
(Ray, 1993; Simon, 1990). We conclude that ecological sustainability is
desirable and necessary for other species and for humans and, thus, for
organizations. Nevertheless, we expect that the concept of ecological sus-
tainability and its advantages and disadvantages will continue to be
debated.
Several factors explain why so few organizations have begun to
achieve sustainability, despite its desirability. First, dramatic negative
impacts on natural systems are relatively recent, and our understanding
of the bases, severity, and scope of these impacts is still limited. Second,
appreciation of the benefits derived from healthy, diverse ecological sys-
tems is underdeveloped. Third, there is insufficient public understanding
of both ecological principles and the urgency of bringing humanity's col-
lective behavior info congruence with these principles. Fourth, reversing
these impacts and approaching sustainability requires substantial
change, much of it antithetical to short-term economic self-interest. Fi-
nally, a lack of understanding exists about what practices are required at
various levels to act in a sustainable manner. Progress in each area is
needed before we can expect to see widespread ecologically sustainable
behavior.
This article addresses the final factor regarding the organizational
level. Our goal is to describe some of the more salient characteristics of
an ESO. This description has two purposes: (a) to provide organizations
that intend to move toward ecological sustainability with a useful and
research-based diagnostic tool and (b) fo provide researchers with a
guide that can be used to assess the degree fo which an organization has
achieved or is approaching ESO status and to serve as a basis for hy-
pothesis deveiopmenf regarding organizational ecological sustainability.
MULTIPLE LEVELS, MULTIPLE SYSTEMS. AND SUSTAINABILITY

A Multilevel Approach
A multilevel perspective on ecological sustainability is necessary for

both theoretical and practical reasons. Organization theory literature has
addressed the issue of levels in organizational research and has identi-
fied several types of approaches in considering multiple levels in the
same study (Rousseau, 1985). Among the models of multilevel theory and
research that have received significant attention are cross-level, mixed
effects, mixed determinants, and multilevel models (Klein, Dansereau, &
Hall, 1994). The latter type, multilevel models, has been described as
"uniquely powerful and parsimonious" (Klein et al., 1994: 223), as inde-
pendent and dependent variable relationships in these models are gen-
eralizable across organizational levels.
Support for the necessity of addressing ecological sustainability at
multiple levels also can be found throughout the practitioner literature on

this topic. For example, one prominent executive asserted:
Sustainable development will obviously require more than

pollution prevention and tinkering with environmental regu-
lations. Given that ordinary people—consumers, business
people, farmers—are the real day-to-day environmental de-
cisionmakers, it requires political and economic systems
based on the effective participation of all members of society
in decision making. It requires that environmental consider-
ations become a part of the decision-making processes of all
government agencies, all business enterprises, and in fact all
people. (Schmidheiny, 1992: 7)
We have identified five levels of analysis that bear upon the presence or
absence of ecological sustainability: the individual, organizational, po-
litical-economic, social-cultural, and ecological levels. Small group, de-
partment, and strategic-unit levels are included within the organizational
level because of space constraints. A fine-grained analysis of the impli-
cations for ecological sustainabilify of interactions between multiple lev-
els within organizafions remains the subject of future research. A basic
depiction of our multilevel, multisystem framework is shown in Figure 1.
The Concept and Elements of Open Systems
As we utilize an open-system framework, we briefly review the cen-
tral elements of open systems below. Although numerous open-system
models exist (Scott, 1992), we primarily use the model developed by Katz
and Kahn (1978), which lists 10 characteristics of open systems. Four of
these characteristics describe conditions over which systems or entities
have little if any control: systems as cycles of events, negative entropy,
sfeady-stafe/dynamic homeostasis, and equifinality. Our application of
the system concept focuses on the elements over which social-system
entities can exercise a fair amount of control.
A system imports inputs from its external environments, uses
throughput piocesses to transform these inputs into outputs, and exports
these outputs fo its external environments. Natural, human, and financial
"resources" are the fundamental organizational inputs. Organizational
throughput processes include research and development, production, dis-
tribution, marketing and administration. Organizational outputs include
products, services, and by-products. These by-products include matter,
such as solid waste, liquid and gaseous pollutants, and energy emitted in
the form of heat and noise.
A system also receives feedback in the form of information. Organi-
zational feedback mechanisms can be either negative (self-limiting),
which suggests that a current action should be eliminated or decreased
in order to maintain or attain a certain steady-state condition, or posi-
tive (self-reinforcing), which suggests that a current action should be
FIGURE 1
The Multilevel/Multisystem Relationships Web
continued or increased. Feedback regarding ecological sustainability can

be either pro-sustainability in nature, which directs the system toward an
ecologically sustainable steady state, or anfi-susfainabilify, which di-
rects it away from such a condition. Combining these two dimensions
yields four types of feedback: negafive/pro-susfainability (decrease or re-

verse current unsustainable practice), positive/pro-sustainability (con-
tinue or increase current sustainabilify-oriented practice), negative/anti-
sustainability (decrease or reverse current sustainability-orienfed
practice), and positive/anti-sustainability (continue or increase current
unsustainable practice). Examples of the four respective types are boy-
cotts of environmentally harmful products, awards for environmental ex-
cellence, cost disadvantages incurred as a result of environmental im-
provements, and governmental failure fo enforce a regulation that a
company is disregarding.
Open systems are also differentiated, creating the need for the spe-
cialized components of the system fo function effectively together. This is
accomplished through integration mechanisms such as roles, norms, and
shared values, and through coordination devices such as strategies, ob-
jectives, plans, schedules, and rules and regulations (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
Integration and coordination are systemic elements that are fundamental
to understanding the ecological sustainability of organizations—they are
included in our framework and are referred fo as vaiues and strategies.
Walmsley's (1972) list of systemic elements also specifically includes
environments. Each of the various levels shown in Figure 1 serves as an
environment for entities at other levels. Thus, the environments of indi-
viduals include relevant organizations, their political-economic environ-
ment, their social-cultural environment, and their ecological or natural
environment.
Analytical Assumptions and Approach
A basic assumption for this analysis is found in the notion of fit.
Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) identified three approaches to fit in contin-
gency theory: selection, interaction, and systems. The selection and in-
teraction approaches "tend fo focus on how single contextual factors af-
fect single structural characteristics and how these pairs of context and
structure factors interact to explain performance" (Drazin & Van de Ven,
1985: 519).
The systems approach, however, fakes the perspective fhaf fif enfails
consistency between many contingencies and organizational character-
istics. The degree of such consisfency affects performance, with the high-
est performing organizafions predicted fo be fhose that most closely ap-
proach an ideai type having a high degree of fit on multiple dimensions.
This approach suggests fhaf "two basic choices confront fhe organizafion-
al designer: (1) fo select the organizational paffern of sfrucfure and pro-
cess thaf matches fhe set of contingencies facing fhe firm, and (2) fo
develop structures and processes fhaf are infernally consisfenf" (Drazin &
Van de Ven, 1985: 521).
The preceding discussions of carrying capacity and fhe desirability of
ecological susfainability explain why ecological susfainabilify generates
imporfanf confingencies for organizafions and why these may be seen as
increasingly critical in fhe fufure. Nof only do organizafions depend on

ecological resources directly, but they also depend on resources provided
by members, cusfomers, invesfors, suppliers, and governmenfs. Organi-
zational reputations among each of these stakeholders, and the conse-
quent flow of resources to organizations, are increasingly influenced by
the extent of organizational ecological susfainability (Gladwin, 1993b).
From a resource-dependence perspective (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), we
might therefore expecf organizations to manage these critical contingen-
cies by becoming more ecologically sustainable in their practices.
As Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) noted, however, organizafions will
experience mulfiple competing contingencies. Ecological contingencies
offen appear fo conflicf wifh economic ones. Given the crificalify of eco-
nomic contingencies, we would not be surprised if most organizations
gave insufficient affenfion fo ecological confingencies unfil they became
too dramatic fo ignore.
We regard a sfrict resource-dependence perspecfive as overly defer-
ministic and hold a strategic-choice perspecfive (Child, 1972), in which
managers are boundedly rational (March & Simon, 1958) and are influ-
enced by fheir values. Our view of organizafions as enfifies that are able
to foresee and adapf fo environmental conditions based on fhe sfrategic
decisions of organizational leaders is consistent with Andrews' (1980)
view of sfrafegy: Leaders develop sfrafegies based on considerafion of
exfernal fhreafs and opportunities, infernal strengths and weaknesses,
obligations to society, and their own values and preferences. Thus, we
expect some organizafions fo move toward ecologically susfainable per-
formance before fhe need fo do so is widely apparent. We expect fhe early
ESOs fo be led by individuals who (a) undersfand and are sensifive to
ecological realifies, (b) are effecfive analysfs of various exfernal environ-
ments, (c) are asfufe observers of their own organizations, and (d) are
effective managers of change, able to achieve fhe mulfiple internal con-
sisfencies befween sfrucfural and processual elements necessary fo bring
fheir organizafions info sufficienf fif wifh fheir exfernal contingencies on
a susfainabilify-orienfed basis. We also believe fhaf some of these lead-
ers will attempt fo address contextual factors fhaf make if difficulf for aii
organizations to achieve fhe sfafus of an ESO.
In fhis arficle we will idenfify conditions fhaf indicafe that an orga-
nizafion is ecologically susfainable, factois fhaf make if difficulf fo
achieve fhis status, and resulting chaiacteiistics thai an organization will
exhibit as it achieves this condition and works fo overcome fhese factors.
Organizations can achieve ecological susfainability by different
means and in differenf configurafions, consisfenf wifh fhe concept of
equifinalify. Accordingly, we neifher specify particular paths for an or-
ganization fo achieve ESO sfafus, nor do we argue fhat an organization
will exhibit all of fhe characteristics that we identify. Thus, our descrip-
tion of ESOs may be viewed as an "ideal type" (Doty & Glick, 1994; Drazin
& Van de Ven, 1985).
We identify fhese conditions, factors, and resulting characferisfics

(see Table 1) by examining fhe relafionships between fhe organization
and entities at the various levels identified in Figure 1, using fhe open-
system components discussed previously to highlight the interactions.
We begin wifh fhe relafionships of an organizafion wifh enfifies in fhe
ecological level of our framework. The nature of fhese inferactions forms
the foundafion for organizational ecological susfainabilify and provides
the context within which all other organizational acfivifies and relafion-
ships musf be undersfood, assessed, and built. Then, as do fhe orb web-
building spiders (Preston-Mofham & Preston-Mofham, 1984), we move
from the outside foundafion of fhe framework fo fhe center and back ouf
TABLE 1
Multilevel-Relationship-Induced Characteristics ol Ecologically
Sustainable Organizations (ESOs)
Ecological Level
Utilization of natural resource inputs at sustainable rates
Processes designed for maximization of conservation and minimization of waste
Development of goods and services for sustainable use and disposal/recycling
Generation of only assimilable outputs, which are ecologically useful or neutral
Effective mechanisms for sensing, interpreting, and responding to natural feedback
Promotion of values of environmental protection, sensitivity, and performance
Development of principles, strategies, and practices for ecosystem viability
Individual Level
Inclusion of sustainability considerations in job design, selection, and training
Promotion of sustainability-oriented innovation by systems and structures
Reinforcement of a sustainability orientation by cultural artifacts
Organizational Level
Initiation of and involvement in environmental partnerships
Absence of targeted protests by environmental activists
Utilization of environmental conflict-resolution practices
Participation in industrial ecology and other waste-exchange arrangements
Allocation of extensive resources to interorganizational ecological cooperation
Political-Economic Level
Encouragement of pro-sustainability legislation
Promotion of market-based environmental policy approaches
Encouragement and development of full-environmental-cost accounting mechanisms
Promotion of peak organization support for sustainable public policy
Promotion of peak organization sustainability-oriented self-regulatory programs
Participation in peak organizations specializing in promoting sustainability
Opposition to anti-sustainability and/or promotion of pro-sustainability subsidies
Social-Cultural Level
Involvement with social-cultural elements to advance sustainability values
Involvement in educational institutions' environmental literacy efforts
Provision of environmental information to various media
Dissemination of sustainability information from culturally diverse stakeholders
Attention to environmental stewardship values of organizational members
again, weaving a web of an organization's susfainabilify relafionships

wifh individuals, ofher organizafions, polifical-economic enfifies, and so-
cial-cultural entities. Although we assume fhaf fhe abilify of organiza-
fions fo become ecologically sustainable also depends on the interactions
of enfities at ofher levels (such as individuals and social-culfural enti-
ties), space prevenfs us from considering mosf bi- and mulfilevel rela-
fionships.
AN ORGANIZATION-BASED MULTILEVEL WEB OF RELATIONSHIPS

Organizations' Ecological Relationships with Nature
Central fo the concepf of organizational ecological susfainabilify is
fhe organizafion-nafural environmenf dyad. Organizations receive a
number of inputs from various ecosysfems, including air, wafer, land,
minerals, energy, animals, planfs, and microbial life. Organizafional
ecological susfainability is shaped by fhe quantifies and fypes of nafural
resources, including energy, extracted and used. ESOs will use natuial
resources no faster than eithei (1) iates of ienewal, (2) iates of iecycling, or
(3) iates at which ecosystems' iegeneiative capacities will not have been
exceeded by the time technological change and conversion to sustainable
resources has occurred (Brown ef al., 1993).
Organizafions employ numerous natural processes in the creation,
manufacturing, and marketing of fheir products and services, including
phofosynfhesis, bioremediafion, evaporafion, and energy conversion.
Nafural processes ensure fhaf mafter and energy are conserved to fhe
maximum degree possible and that by-products and "wastes" become
usable inputs rather fhan simply unusable or harmful residuals (Odum,
1989). Ecological susfainabilify requires that fhe fofal "life cycle" (exfrac-
fion, production, disfribufion, use, disposal/recycling) of producfs and
services be similarly susfainable (Henn & Fava, 1994). Procurement, man-
ufacturing, and distribution processes in ESOs will be designed to maxi-
mize mateiial and energy conservation and to minimize the lelease of
by-product outputs that will have haimlul ecological impacts. Among fhe
specific manufacfuring fhroughpuf process approaches we would expecf
fo see ESOs apply are the redesign of material and energy flows into
essentially closed-loop systems that mimic natural ecosystems. Such ap-
proaches have been referred fo as examples of "industrial ecology"
(Tibbs, 1992). The ability of cusfomers fo susfainably use and dispose/
recycle producfs and services is limifed by fheir affribufes. Accordingly,
sustainabilify requires fhaf producers fake some responsibility for down-
sfream environmental impacts by exercising "product sfewardship"
(Henn & Fava, 1994). Reseaich and development and administiative pio-
cesses in ESOs will facilitate the development and/or redesign of goods
and services fhat wiii iiave sustainable use and disposal/iecycling chai-
acteiistics.
Organizafional producfs, by-producfs, and services embody material
and energy, and all return fo fhe ecological environmenf eventually.

Large amounts of wasfe can overwhelm fhe assimilafive capacify of fhe
environmenf, overloading biochemical cycles and causing localized or
widespread harm. ESOs will generate outputs in foims and amounts that
aie assimilable and eithei useful or ecologically neutial.
The disposifion of fhis matter and energy oufpuf determines feedback
emanating from fhe ecological environmenf. Alfhough fhis feedback is
somefimes difficulf fo inferpref, if inherenfly has pro-susfainability affrib-
utes. Positive ecological feedback, such as reappearance of species and
improvements in worker health and productivity because of the removal
of pollutants, generally should cause organizafions fo respond by con-
finuing perfinenf practices. Negative feedback, such as fhe declining
quality of process wafer, the disappearance of animal and planf species,
and fhe increases in workplace illnesses should act as signals for orga-
nizafions fo impose self-limifing confrols fo modify organizafional inpufs,
processes, and/or oufpufs. Too offen, however, feedback from nafure is
misinferprefed by organizations: Decline in fhe availabilify of large frees
can increase the pressure to use the remaining trees and result in non-
sustainable harvesting, rather than a decline in overall consumption lev-
els. ESOs will design and ufiiize meciianisms that sense, accuiately in-
terpret, and promote corrective action upon negative/pro-sustainabiiity
feedback from natuie.
Differentiation in organizafions via creation of specialized unifs and
roles can have conflicting susfainabilify results. Differentiafion can
prompf fhe creafion of environmental managemenf positions designed fo
focus on ecological relafionships and impacts. However, specialization
also can increase identification wifh fhe goals and approaches of the
specialized unif, decrease communicafion regarding organizational prac-
tices and fheir impacfs, and diminish acceptance of personal responsi-
bilify for correcfing organizational problems (Wafers, 1978). Each of fhese
resulfs of differenfiafion can decrease the likelihood of ecologically sus-
fainable fhroughpuf processes. Thus, a need exisfs for mechanisms fo
unify and orient organizational units toward sustainability.
Values and other integrafive mechanisms can link differenf individ-
ualized unifs fogether fo achieve common purposes (such as ecological
sustainabilify); fhey can also link fhem fo fhe ecological environmenf.
ESOs will promote tiie vaiue of environmentai protection and sustainable
oiganizational peiioimance, instill noims for enviionmental sensitivity in
all decisions, and develop roie-specific expectations for environmental
peifoimance.
Values can be promofed via a variety of methods, including wriffen
communicafions, environmenfal-improvement acfivifies, and educafion-
al activities. Norms can be instilled by organizafional leaders who incor-
porafe environmenfal considerations info decisions, consisfently ques-
tioning fhe environmental impact of proposed actions and refusing to
approve proposals that will have a significant negative impact on the

environment. Environmenfal expectations can be built info roles via for-
mal job descriptions and performance-appraisal systems.
Unificafion of unif acfion also depends on formal coordinafing mech-
anisms such as objecfives, plans, and sfrategies. ESOs will consider all of
theii piinciples, policies, and practices from tiie standpoint of iong-term
ecosystem viability and vitality and will develop and implement stiate-
gies so tiiat tiiey act in ecologically sustainable ways. This coordination
entails developing environmentally orienfed missions and objecfives,
ecologically sensitive strategies, and specific plans for implemenfing
pollution control and the prevention of the depletion of nafural resources
(Sfarik, Throop, & Joyce, 1995). ESOs can go beyond addressing fechno-
logically relafed impacfs and develop more complex organizafional ob-
jecfives and sfrategies for reducing populafion and consumption (Sitarz,
1993). Such efforfs, particularly the laffer, will require grappling with
significanf conflicfs befween economic and ecological confingencies. Ap-
parenfly, some organizafions, such as Espirif and Pafagonia, already
have begun to take steps in this direction.
The previous discussion has introduced fhe various system compo-
nents and suggested how they relate to the establishment of congruent
organizational relafionships with the ecological environmenf. In fhe sec-
tions fhaf follow, we consider some of fhe implications of fhese require-
menfs for organizations' relafionships wifh individuals, wifh other orga-
nizations, and wifh enfifies at polifical-economic and social-culfural
levels.
Organizations and Their Ecological Relationships with Individuals
Individuals can relafe fo organizafions as consumers, cifizens, or
some fype of member. We focus next on this third generic role and ad-
dress fhe cifizen and consumer roles somewhat in subsequent secfions.
Individuals affiliafed wifh organizations as owners, managers, employ-
ees, members, and volunteers bring critical ideas and energy to the
"greening" of fheir organizafions. A variefy of environmental features
have been incorporated into organizations' throughputs and outputs by
entrepreneurs. John Schaeffer's Real Goods Trading Company offers en-
ergy conservafion and alfernafive energy products fo an infernafional
mail-order market. Sally Fox's Natural Coffon Colors markets organically
grown, naturally brown and green cotton fo clothing manufacturers.
Managers often have faken fhe lead in infroducing susfainabilify
concepfs and pracfices info fheir organizafions. Bill Foley, research di-
recfor of Herman Miller, championed fhe furniture manufacfurer's re-
placement of rosewood and mahogany from fropical rainforesfs with far
more plenfiful cherry and walnut (Makower, 1993). Nonexecutive employ-
ees have been prolific in developing sustainabilify-related ideas for their
respective organizafions. Gail Mayville began Ben & Jerry's recycling
efforfs while an adminisfrafive assisfanf, and later she went on to direct
920 Academy of Management fleview October
the organization's entire environmental program. Heather Bell, an Amer-

ican Airlines flighf attendant, began recycling soda cans on one route
and spread the effort throughout the rest of the company. Literally hun-
dreds of 3M employees have initiated and implemented several thousand
Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) projects.
Individuals clearly bring enormous innovative resources to organiza-
tions in terms of ideas fhaf can help increase ecological sustainabilify.
Creation of ESOs will require that fhis ecologically innovafive potential
be attracted to, fosfered and enhanced by, and unleashed wifhin organi-
zations. This innovative pofenfial will be applied not only to popular
areas (e.g., poUufion prevenfion and fofal qualify environmenfal man-
agemenf) (Milliman & Clair, 1994), buf also to all impacts of all the orga-
nizations' products and services. Doing so will likely require far-reaching
approaches such as life-cycle assessmenf, design for fhe environmenf,
producf sfewardship, and cradle-to-cradle management (Henn & Fava,
1994). How can organizations accomplish fhese fasks?
Firsf, organizafions will orient fheir human resources management
systems toward ecological sustainability in order to improve the quality
of individual inpufs. ESOs will include ecological sustainability consid-
erations and ciiteiia in ;ob design, recruitment and selection, and training
and development systems. Upgrading environmenfal knowledge among
organizational members through formal programs and by increasing in-
dividual members' exposure fo feedback from environmenfal stakehold-
ers will advance in-house environmental liferacy and promofe an atmo-
sphere of ecological sensifivify (Norfh, 1992).
Second, individuals fhroughouf fhe organization will be encouraged
and empowered to improve organizational throughputs and outputs by
being ecologically innovafive in finding new "green" alfernatives fo
wasteful producfs and processes. ESOs will design theii budgeting and
lewaid systems, communication systems, oiganizational stiuctuies, and
decision-making systems in order to empower individuais to engage in
sustainabiiity-oriented innovation. To fhis end, managers will need fo
better understand the factors involved in fhe translation of individual
knowledge about fhe environment into actual behavior (Rands, 1990).
Third, and perhaps mosf imporfanf, ESOs will develop a deep and
widespread commifmenf fo ecological susfainabilify among fheir mem-
bers, so fhaf members can infegrafe fheir acfivifies foward sustainable
pracfices. This capacity requires development of cultures based on
shared environmenfal values, in which strong norms for pro-
susfainabilify behavior exist and ecological expectafions are built info
roles fhroughouf fhe organization (Callenbach, Capra, Goldman, Lufz, &
Marburg, 1993; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Sfarik & Carroll, 1992). ESOs will be
chaiacteiized by numerous cuiturai aitifacts such as slogans, symbols,
lituals and stories wiiicii seive to aiticulate and reinforce for tiieir mem-
beis the impoitance of ecologically sustainable peifoimance. Such arfi-
facts might include Earfh Day celebrafions, environmenfal-service
projects, ecological "mascofs," catchy acronyms for environmenfal

programs, inclusion of environmenfal nonprofifs in employee-giving cam-
paigns, environmental-performance compefitions and awards, and cere-
monies honoring environmenfally innovafive members. These ifems will
be publicized in organizational communicafion media and through the
personal involvement of organizational leaders.
Organizations' Ecological Relationships With One Another
In this section, we discuss inferorganizational relationships that are
directly oriented toward improving a focal organizafion's ecological sus-
fainabilify. In the next two sections we address relationships that can
affect broader confexfs and, fhus, indirecfly affecf an organizafion's eco-
logical sustainability.
One interorganizafional source of susfainability inputs are consult-
ants who have provided advice, audits, and ofher services to help "green"
their client organizations. The availability of such services is mushroom-
ing, and a recent guide listed over 5000 companies providing environ-
menfal-performance services and products in fhe Unifed Sfafes (Environ-
menf Today, 1994).
Environmenfal parfnerships are a popular inferorganizafional device
which combine fhe environmenfal efforfs of businesses, governmenfs,
and/or nonprofit organizations (Schmidheiny, 1992). Some of the more
widely publicized examples of environmenfal parfnerships include fhe
efforf of fhe Environmenfal Defense Fund and McDonald's fo reduce fhe
laffer's wasfe by 80%; fhe debf-for-nafure swaps initiated by environmen-
tal groups, financiers, and Third World countries to trade outstanding
international financial obligafions for commitments fo profect ecologi-
cally sensitive areas; technical assistance provided by government agen-
cies fo small businesses that want fo improve their environmental per-
formance; and agreements between suppliers and their customers to
improve fhe environmenfal pracfices of one party in order fo improve the
upsfream or downsfream performance of fhe organization initiating the
partnership (Cramer & Schof, 1993; Dillon & Baram, 1993; Gladwin, 1993b).
ESOs will initiate and be involved in numeious enviionmental paitnei-
ships of different foims, which will involve diffeient issues and various
external stakeholdei organizations.
Nof all inferorganizafional environmenfal inferacfions are collabora-
tive. Numerous clashes have occurred involving internafional and local
environmenfal acfivisf organizafions, including many which espouse sus-
fainabilify values. Greenpeace, for one, has been involved in many pro-
tests againsf fhe anfi-susfainability practices of whalers, hazardous-
waste firms, energy generators, and ofher organizafions (Day, 1989).
Because fheir acfivifies will have few unsusfainable impacfs, ESOs will
be the taiget of few, if any, piotests by enviionmental activists.
Many approaches to resolving environmenfal conflicts do exist, in-
cluding conflicf anficipafion, mediafion, joinf problem solving, policy
dialogues, and binding arbitration (Westman, 1985). Such approaches

appear to increase the likelihood of win-win solutions for all parties,
including fhe ecological environmenf. Accordingly, ESOs will fiequently
utilize confiict-resoiution practices regaiding the natural enviionment.
The nofion of indusfrial ecology menfioned previously can involve a
nefwork of inferorganizafional arrangements, by which two or more pro-
ducfion sysfems atfempf to recycle material and energy by-products fo
one anofher as inpufs (Tibbs, 1992). This maximum-recycling and wasfe-
minimizafion approach can be accomplished at multiple levels, from in-
terplant fo infernafional. One well-known Danish indusfrial ecology sys-
tem is recycling nearly a dozen wasfe producfs among four major
manufacfurers and a hosf of smaller organizafions, apparently resulting
in substantial economic and environmental benefits (Cowan, 1993). ESOs
will paiticipate in industiial ecology and othei waste-exchange aiiange-
ments. Mosf organizafions fhaf adopf such efforts primarily focus on only
cosf reducfion and pollufion prevention, and they have not addressed
issues of resource depletion, overconsumpfion, or habifat desfrucfion,
enhancemenf, or restoration. Many ESOs may adapt fhe indusfrial ecol-
ogy approach to address fhese neglecfed issues and ensure a closer link
befween nature's processes and fhose of fheir respecfive organizafions.
Such efforfs will involve focusing on fhe "ecology" aspect of industrial
ecology and moving away from fhe "indusfrial" paradigm.
Coordinafion across unifs is even more complex on an inferorgani-
zafional basis, and this will require clear mechanisms devofed to such
accomplishments. Public-privafe strategies for susfainability (Throop ef
al., 1993) can be formulated, implemented, and encouraged by organiza-
tions involved in all industries or sectors. In addifion to establishing
these interorganizational environmenfal goals, public organizafions also
acf as conveners, arbiters, and nefwork builders fo enhance the informa-
tion transfer on environmenfal fechnologies between private organiza-
fions (Cramer & Schof, 1993). ESOs will devote extensive administiative
resources to deveioping and impiementing sustainability stiategies in-
voiving interorganizationai cooperation. In addition fo yielding formal
coordinafing mechanisms fhaf will facilifafe implemenfafion, involve-
menf in cooperafive networks is likely fo advance fhe adoption of shared
pro-susfainability values by fhe parficipafing organizafions.
Organizations' Ecological Relationships With the
Political-Economic Level
In fhe following fwo secfions, we address the implications for eco-
logical susfainabilify of relationships involving, respectively, fhe broader
polifical-economic and social-culfural levels (environments). The focus of
these relafionships is nof directly fhe susfainability of the acfivifies of one
or fwo organizafions. Rafher, fhe focus is on affecfing broader contexfs in
which a given organization operates. By providing critical confingencies,
fhese contexfs strongly affect fhe ability of both fhe focal organizafion and
1995 S(arit and Rands 923
of others in its industry or sector to perform in an ecologically sustainable

manner.
Organizafions receive numerous imporfanf inpufs from fhe political-
economic environmenf, including financial capifal, acfual or pofenfial
demand for goods or services, and laws and regulations fhaf bofh con-
sfrain fhe organizafion and provide if wifh some degree of guidance and
sf abilify by consf raining fhe acf ions of of hers. Alfhough fhese facfors are
commonly viewed in ferms of their economic impacfs upon organizafions,
they have a significant impact on individual organizafions' abilities fo
achieve ESO sfatus. One of the most insidious negative effects of eco-
nomic markets occurs when organizational members decide fhey cannot
risk taking actions that, although leading them toward ecological sus-
tainability, might place fhem af a compefifive disadvanfage because
competing organizations might not follow their lead (Buchholz, Marcus, &
Post, 1992). This positive/anfi-susfainabilify feedback is perhaps fhe mosf
crifical element of market relafionships fhaf musf be addressed if global
sociefy is to progress toward ecological sustainability. Six major ap-
proaches exist fo address fhis problem, and fhe firsf fhree require polifi-
cal acfion by governments.
First, regulations can be adopted and supported by environmentally
oriented organizations requiring all competing organizations to under-
take pro-sustainability actions. An example of corporate promotion of
environmenfal regulafions was Cummins Engine's proposed extension of
clean air legislation fo diesel fruck engines in the 1970s. ESOs will take
political action to piomote the adoption of laws and legulations that
"raise the flooi" of enviionmental peifoimance.
Traditionally, government has relied upon "command-and-control"
regulations fhaf specify control technologies or levels of pollufion reduc-
fion. Such regulafions can be economically inefficienf and ecologically
suboptimal, because fhey retard flexibilify and impose penalfies only for
violafions of sfandards. An alternative is the use of markef-based regu-
latory approaches, such as emissions taxes and tradeable permits, which
instill economic cosfs upon firms in proporfion fo the amount of environ-
mentally harmful outputs they generate (Anderson & Leal, 1991). Such
approaches provide incentives for reducing every unif of pollufion possi-
ble, thus encouraging continuous technological innovation (Breheny,
1992; Schmidheiny, 1992). ESOs will piomote maiket-based goveinmental
enviionmental-policy appioaches over traditionai command-and-controi
approaciies.
A related market-oriented policy approach is the development and
utilization of national income accounts that include the environmental
cosfs associafed wifh economic acfivify (Daly & Cobb, 1992; Gore, 1992).
The inclusion of pollufion and depletion as economic cosfs, for example,
would significanfly alter GNP figures, would likely change public and
private organizations' polifical and economic decisions based on fhis in-
formation, and would encourage similar modificafion of organizational
accounting procedures. ESOs will encourage national and international

governmental bodies to adopt national income accounts that incorporate
environmentai impacts; also, they will develop and institute fuii-
environmentai-cost accounting procedures.
The actions described previously may be taken by either single or-
ganizations or "peak organizations" (Maifland, 1985), such as frade asso-
ciafions, councils, and ofher umbrella organizations. Tradifional busi-
ness peak organizafions, such as fhe U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Keidenren, fhe Confederation of Brifish Industries, and the U.S. National
Association of Manufacfurers offen have been involved in issues relafed
fo clean air and wafer (Callenbach ef al., 1993), alfhough offen in ways
fhaf fail fo foster susfainability. ESOs will woik to move peaJc organiza-
tions to support pio-sustainability governmental policies.
Such peak organizations also may adopt, as a fourth approach, direct
collective responses fo fhis problem of anfi-susfainability feedback flow-
ing from markefs. For example, in many nations, frade associations in the
chemical industry have adopted versions of fhe Responsible Care Pro-
gram. Program requiremenfs of member companies include adhering to a
set of exfensive sfandards of pracfice, involving local citizens in commu-
nity advisory panels, and issuing periodic progress reports (Mullins,
1994). Failure to meet fhese requirements is grounds for expulsion from
the respective association. The aim of these programs is to "promote a
self-regulatory compliance consciousness . . . [and encourage] a culture
that is responsive to public concerns about environment, safety, and
health risks and motivates continuous improvement" (Simmons & Wynne,
1993: 211). Similar programs are being instituted by peak organizations in
ofher industries, including petroleum and forest products. ESOs will at-
tempt to cieate sustainability-oiiented self-iegulatoiy piogiams within
theii lespective peak organizations.
A fiffh approach fo reducing the disincenfives fo susfainabilify-
orienfed behavior has been undertaken by new peak organizations, such
as fhe Social Venfures Nefwork and Businesses for Social Responsibility.
These peak organizafions were esfablished fo provide encouragemenf
and advice for organizafions fhaf aftempfed fo exercise proactive social
and environmental leadership. Members are typically small organiza-
tions that have been willing fo proceed wifh such acfion, despife fhe risks
of compefifive disadvantage that were previously discussed. These peak
organizations bring together leaders for mufual instruction, encourage-
ment, and improvement regarding their social and economic activities, in
order to expand the successful practice of such activities. ESOs will pai-
ticipate in peak organizations designed to encourage and assist othei
organizations to simuitaneousiy adopt sustainability-oiiented actions and
achieve economic success.
New peak organizations such as the Business Council for Sustainable
Development (BCSD) have been formed specifically fo help and fo encour-
age companies from many indusfries fo adopf sustainability-orienfed
behaviors a n d fo bring abouf supportive c h a n g e in t h e polifical-economic

environment (Schmidheiny, 1992).
A final a p p r o a c h fo c h a n g i n g fhe disincenfives nofed previously in-
volves fhe creafion of n e w d e m a n d for more susfainable producfs. O n e
m e a n s of doing so involves c h a n g i n g customers' expectations a n d pref-
e r e n c e s r e g a r d i n g products. "Green marketing," fhe offering of producfs
or services wifh o n e or more osfensibly environmenfally beneficial char-
acferisfics (Henion, 1972), is a growing fopic in t h e marketing field, ex-
emplified by an increasing number of conferences, publications, and
companies involved wifh fhis issue. Organizafions such as the Body
Shop, Ben & Jerry's, Wal-Marf, Church & Dwight, Dow, and PG & E have
aggressively culfivafed "fhe green consumer," beffing fhaf some consum-
ers will pay a premium for products and services perceived as environ-
mentally benign (Gladwin, 1993b).
A second means involves creating stable markets for such producfs.
Large organizafions wifh concerfed purchasing power such as govern-
menfs, as well as buying cooperafives of small organizations, have be-
gun to insfifufe purchasing programs sfipulafing producf criteria such as
recycled confent and energy efficiency. Although this action clearly im-
proves the purchasing organizations' own sustainability, an important
rationale for many of fhese efforts is fo provide stable and profitable
markets for such products and, thus, reward organizafions fhaf are en-
gaging in sustainability-oriented practices. ESOs will adopt maiketing
and piocuiement policies emphasizing sustainable pioducts, in part to
cieate and enlaige maikets for sucii pioducts.
A second major sustainabilify disincenfive in fhe political-economic
environmenf is fhe exisfence of direcf and indirecf governmenf subsidies
for nonsustainable producfs and services. Examples of such subsidies
include deficif sales of government-owned fimber, below-market-rafe
grazing fees, limifafions placed on liabilify in case of a nuclear power
planf accidenf, and fax-deducfibilify of organization-paid employee park-
ing (Donahue, 1994; Kosmo, 1987). Such subsidies lower fhe price of non-
susfainable producfs and services and encourage fheir consumpfion; they
also discourage provision and consumpfion of more sustainable alterna-
tives and substitutes. These subsidies, therefore, provide negative/anti-
sustainability feedback for producers and consumers of subsidized prod-
ucts and services. Providing pro-sustainability feedback requires that
these subsidies be removed or that counfervailing subsidies, which pro-
vide pro-susfainabilify feedback, be insfifufed. Such subsidies could en-
courage use of lumber made from recycled plasfics, reclamafion of de-
graded lands, insfallafion of alternafive energy sysfems, and use of mass
transit. ESOs will woik to remove anti-sustainability subsidies, andloi to
institute pio-sustainability subsidies.
We have ouflined a variefy of approaches fo changing fhe nafure of
polifical-economic condifions thaf currenfly provide anfi-susfainabilify
feedback fo organizations. We believe fhat in order to overcome these
political-economic disincentives, widespread support by organizations

for approaches such as those described previously are needed. Thus,
leaders will adopt effecfive sfrafegies fhat produce sustainabilify im-
pacts. These strategies will likely include maintaining or acquiring the
credibility to influence peak organizations; using traditional and nontra-
ditional lobbying and legal arena approaches to convince legislators,
regulators, and courts to move toward ecological sustainability; identify-
ing firsf for their own companies and then for their respecfive indusfries
and economies, "how much [consumpfion] is enough" (Durning, 1992), and
acting on fhis information; and interacting wifh global enfifies in an af-
fempf fo shape polifical-economic condifions fostering sustainability.
Organizations' Ecological Relationships with the Social-Cultural Level
The social-culfural environmenf also provides a contexf fhaf further
constrains and influences fhe abilify of organizafions fo engage in sus-
fainable pracfices. Social-cultural condifions and institutions serve as
key deferminanfs of the values that mofivafe individuals' acfions as or-
ganizational members, consumers, and cifizens. Individuals' fundamen-
fal values and assumptions about the nafural environmenf—fheir envi-
ronmental worldviews (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978)—play a fundamental
role in influencing environmental attitudes and, subsequently, behaviors
(Rands, 1990; Samdahl & Robertson, 1989). Environmenfal worldviews dif-
fer widely, bofh across and wifhin nations (Milbrafh, 1985). A worldview
that highly values environmental protection and believes ecological lim-
ifs are being approached or exceeded (the "new environmenfal para-
digm," or NEP) appears fo increasingly be expressed in the United States
and ofher Western nations. This worldview quesfions elements of fhe
traditional Wesfern worldview (fhe "dominanf social paradigm" [DSP])
fhaf value maferial abundance, economic growth, and fechnological ad-
vance (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978).
Some observers believe fhese fwo viewpoinfs are antifhefical: NEP
adherents will choose nonmaferialisfic, low-consumption, cooperatively
based lifestyles (Planf & Plant, 1991), and DSP adherents give liffle or no
thought foward fhe environmenfal impact of fheir behavior. In facf, how-
ever, a majority of fhe U.S. populafion appears fo espouse elemenfs of
bofh worldviews (Milbrath, 1985). Widespread interest in "green products"
is a manifesfafion of a desire for bofh economic abundance and high
environmental qualify, and it provides fhe impetus for organizafions to
attempt to develop environmenfally susfainable processes and outpufs. If
such success is to be achieved, pro-susfainabilify feedback from polifical-
economic sysfems is needed. If is likely that such feedback will require
direcf appeals fo individuals fo express fheir environmenfal values in
fheir polifical and economic choices, as well as more firmly and widely
establish such values through their inculcation and promofion by social-
culfural sysfems. ESOs will attempt to affect social-cultuial elements in
order to increase tiie stiength of pio-sustainability values.
Educafional sysfems, news and enferfainment media, fhe arts and

humanifies, religions, efhnic fradifions and hisfories, and ofher social-
culfural elemenfs bofh influence and are influenced by organizafions,
and fhese have enormous ecological implications (Simmons, 1989). The
relationship among cultural factors, organizafional technologies, popu-
lation growth, and environmenfal degradafion is increasingly recognized
by policy makers (Gladwin, 1993b).
A key elemenf in changing individual values, affifudes, and behav-
iors abouf fhe nafural environmenf is the provision of information about
ecology and about environmenfal problems. A major source of such in-
formafion has been educational systems. Schools in many countries have
upgraded fheir environmenfal curricula during fhe pasf 25 years, in parf
due to fhe curriculum materials fhaf have been developed by businesses,
governments, and nonprofit organizafions. CoUegiafe business schools
are among fhose dramafically increasing ecological informafion in fheir
course offerings. ESOs will become involved with educational institutions
in activities designed to increase "enviionmental liteiacy." Guest speak-
ers, sife visifs, infernships, scholarships, and career days are ofher com-
mon mechanisms for fhis involvemenf (Starik, 1993).
Ecological information is also provided by the media. Many newslet-
ters, magazines, radio and television programs, movies, electronic bul-
letin boards, and ofher media channels are used fo address diverse en-
vironmenfal issues. Most large environmenfal groups publish magazines
or newsleffers, a rapidly growing number of businesses develop and dis-
tribute environmental reports (Delloife, Touche, & Tomatsu, 1993), and
many government agencies offer significant public education and public
informafion programs. Individuals from these organizafions have been
sought ouf by fhe public media as opinion leaders on environmenfal is-
sues. As a shaper and fransmiffer of culfural values, fhe media play a
cenfral role regarding environmenfal values. ESOs will provide informa-
tion to vaiious media about theii own enviionmental peifoimance and
othei enviionmental issues in order to encourage peopie to adopt pio-
enviionmental values. As media fechnologies have advanced, fhe provi-
sion of informafion about foreign issues and cultures has mushroomed.
Cifizens of many nations commonly provide informafion fo and receive
information from environmentally oriented computer networks. Along
with more information about environmental problems, attention to differ-
ent cultures' perspectives on human and nature relationships has in-
creased and is frequenfly incorporafed in environmenfal educafion efforfs
(Bredf & Running-Grass, 1991; Rafner, 1991; Russell, 1991). Inpuf from var-
ious efhnic and culfural perspectives will increasingly occur and be
soughf. For example, indigenous Amazonian fribal represenfatives were
included in many of fhe proceedings of fhe 1992 Unifed Nafions "Earth
Summit" in Brazil. ESOs will seek out and disseminate information from
stakeholdeis with diverse cuiturai ijacigrounds.
A final relevanf culfural element involves the religious or spiritual
dimension. Calls for organizations to show respect for and nurture fhe
spiritual attributes of their members' lives has resulted in an increase in
attention to the role of spirifualify in organizafions (Berry, 1988; Vaill,
1991). The spirituality of members, in furn, can have an impact that ex-
tends far beyond fhe organizafion's physical premises. Organizafional
encouragemenf of spiritually based values such as stewardship and re-
spect for nature may have far-reaching environmenfal impacfs (Peeren-
boom, 1991), and may likewise serve fo reinforce member commifmenf fo
fheir employing ESOs. ESOs will inciease attention to the oveiall "spiri-
tual well-being" of theii membeis and will include attention to enviion-
mental stewardship as part of tiiis eiioit.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Implications for Practice
As we have affempfed fo demonsfrafe, organizafions have environ-
menfally orienfed inferacfions wifh ofher levels and sysfems, and fhese
are integrated in what we call a web of relafionships. These multilevel
inferactions exist, whether planned and/or recognized. Managers who
wish fo create ESOs can use fhe ideas we have presenfed as a guide fo
fheir efforts to understand what conditions they must meet to be ecolog-
ically sustainable, what factois they may need to overcome to do so, and
what chaiacteiistics fhey mighf exhibif as an ESO.
A fundamental step in achieving and maintaining ESO status will be
the adoption of susfainable sfrategies (Starik, Throop, & Joyce, 1995). De-
veloping and implementing such sfrafegies af enferprise, corporafe, busi-
ness, and funcfional levels (Carroll, 1993) are critical fasks for managerial
practice.
Af fhe enferprise level of strafegy (Freeman, 1984), managers need fo
ask "whaf does our organizafion sfand for?" and "what is our role in
society?"; fhen fhey need fo affempf to acf on fhe resulfs. Enferprise sfraf-
egies fhus direct affenfion foward fhe polifical-economic, social-culfural,
and ecological environmenfs. Managers mighf answer fhe societal role
question with "we stand for ecological susfainability and cooperation"
and, fhus, set fhe fone for organizafional fulfillmenf of fhis role. For ex-
ample, enterprise-level sfrafegies might address whether an organization
adopts more institutional and collaborative problem-solving approaches
or individualistic and adversarial postures (Miles, 1987) in relation to the
natural environment and other emerging ESOs.
Corporate-level strategies determine major lines of business wifh
which the organizafion is involved, and fhey link fhe organizafion wifh its
peers, investors, and suppliers. Managers will need to adopt sustainable
corporate-level sfrafegies that develop lines of business fhat have low
depletion and pollufion impacts, and divest lines of business fhaf have
fhe opposite effects. Business-level sfrategies address which customer or
market values will be maximized (cost leadership or differentiafion) and
whether product lines or target markets will be broad or narrow (Hofer &
Schendel, 1978). Managers' business-level sfrafegic decisions would ad-
dress whether fo offer customers low-environmenfal-cosf producfs or ser-
vices or fhose with high environmenfal benefifs and whefher fo offer fhese
environmenfal values on a few or many producfs (or services) or fo a few
or many cusfomers (Sfarik & Carroll, 1992).
Funcfional-level sfrafegies fie fhe skills of various funcfions, deparf-
menfs, feams, and individuals info fhe ofher levels of sfrafegy. Managers'
funcfional sfrafegic choices could include or promofe fhe use of closed-
system and "appropriafe" fechnologies, renewable energy systems, and
material and energy conservafion features. They would also address the
host of issues regarding management of individual organizational mem-
bers for ecological susfainabilify. These fhroughpuf-orienfed sfrafegies
would be complemented by functional strategies used to focus on specific
modificafions in inpufs and oufpufs fo enhance organizational sustain-
ability.
Implications for Management Research
The concepf of environmenfally susfainable organizations is ex-
tremely rich in potential management research topics. First, although this
article has affempfed fo outline a number of characferisfics fhaf ESOs will
likely exhibit, mosf of fhese suggesfions could be both broadened and
deepened. For example, our supposition that ESOs, at the ecological level
of interaction, will use natural resources at sustainable rates prompts
many potential research questions. What are sustainable organizational
rates of utilization of different natural resources? How do or can managers
make these determinations? How do these rafes, and fheir calculation,
change as either fechnology or behavior changes? To what exfenf are
natural resources subsfifufable among one anofher and with other fypes
of resources? What short-term variations in natural resource use rafes are
possible wifhin long-ferm sustainable ranges? What feedback mecha-
nisms can guide managers who will make fhese decisions?
Second, we hope our ideas will provoke a subsfanfial development of
proposifions and hypofheses derived from various fheories. For insfance,
our assertion that ESOs will include susfainabilify considerations in fheir
respective human-resource-sysfem componenfs should be further ex-
plored from fhe perspecfives of different schools of HRM thought. What
particular mix of financial and nonfinancial incentives should be offered
to influence employees' susfainabilify-orienfed behavior? In whaf
amounfs, af what time intervals, and for what parficular behaviors
should these incentives be offered? To what extent should organizational
environmental policies reward compliance versus innovation? Compet-
ing propositions and hypotheses regarding such questions can serve as
the basis for bofh descripfive as well as prescripfive research.
Third, it is likely that differenf confexfual and organizational factors
will cause ESOs fo exhibit differences regarding core characteristics. Re-
930 Academy of Management fleview October
searchers need to investigate the impacts of these factors. In what ways,

for example, will initiation and involvemenf in environmental partner-
ships be affecfed by differences in an organizafion's history, scale, sector,
location, environmenfal munificence, and core competencies? How will
differences in organizafional and national culture, functional back-
grounds, and reward systems influence the design and effectiveness of
systems designed fo sense and inferpref negafive/pro-susfainabilify feed-
back?
Finally, even though we explored a number of ESO-related dyads, fhe
sustainability implications of linkages between and among all of the
levels needs fo be further explored. Such linkages need fo be examined
using various organizafion fheories. As can be seen from our examination
using open-systems and strafegic-choice perspecfives, fhe concepf of an
ESO can produce a cornucopia of infriguing relafionships and pofential
research fopics. We hope fhaf by idenfifying condifions, facfors, and char-
acferisfics related fo ESOs, we have provided a basis for subsequenf
researchers fo apply fheir own perspecfives and, in essence, spin and
discover new webs of organizafional relafionships wifh the nafural envi-
ronment.
Conclusion
This arficle has described some of fhe connecfions ESOs mighf forge
wifh individuals, other organizations, and political-economic, social-
cultural and ecological environments. In doing so, we examined a num-
ber of sysfems and system components to help envision these linkages.
We have identified a number of encouraging frends in bofh fhe deveiop-
menf of ESOs and their interactions with these multiple levels and sys-
fems. We conclude fhaf ESOs are beginning fo emerge and fhat fhis frend
eventually may lead to overall systemic sustainabilify. Our caveaf, how-
ever, is fhat alfhough organizafions may make dramatic advances in
reducing fechnological burdens—environmenfal impacf per unif of con-
sumpfion—fhey may nof make fhese advances quickly and substantively
enough in sustainable directions, given fhe ofher fwo core deferminanfs
of environmenfal impact: overconsumpfion and overpopulation. Most or-
ganizations have yet to begin addressing fhese roof dilemmas, and unfil
fhey do so in significanf and effective ways, sustainabilify will be a dis-
tant, perhaps unattainable dream (Starik & Gribbon, 1993). ESOs must be
developed quickly and establish the relafionships sef forfh in fhis arficle
wifh fhe multiple levels and systems fhaf may fhemselves be moving
foward sustainabilify. Essenfially, ESOs need fo play fransformafional
roles in developing Homo sapiens info an ESS—an ecologically sustain-
able species (Devall, 1993).
REFERENCES
Anderson, T. L., & Leal, D. R. (Eds.) 1991. Free market environmentalism. San Francisco:
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
Andrews, K, R, 1980, The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin,

Berry, W, 1988, The dream of the earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books,
Bredt. S,. & Running-grass, 1991. Strategies for saving a multi-ethnic planet. Paper pre-
sented to the annual meeting of the North American Association for Environmental
Education. St, Paul. MN,
Breheny. M, J. 1992, Towards sustainable urban development. In A, M, Mannion & S, R,
Bowlby. Environmenta] issues in the 1990s: 277-290, New York: Wiley,
Brown, L, R,, et al, 1993, State of the world, 1993. New York: Norton,
Brown. L, R, 1995, Nature's limits. In L, R, Brown et al, (Eds,). State of the world, 199S. New
York: Norton
Brown. L, R,. & Kane. H, 1994, Full house: Reassessing the earth's population carrying ca-
pacity. New York: Norton,
Buchholz, R, A,. Marcus, A, A,, & Post. I, E, 1992, Managing environmental issues: A case-
book. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall,
Callenbach. E,, Capra. F,. Goldman. L,. Lutz. R.. & Marburg. S, 1993, Ecomanagement. San
Francisco: Berrett Koehler,
Carpenter. S, R, 1993, When are technologies sustainable? In L, A, Hickman & C, F, Porter
(Eds,). Technology and ecoJogy: 202-214. Carbondale. IL: Society for Philosophy and
Technology,
Carroll. A, B, 1993, Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati.
OH: South-Western,
Child. J, 1972, Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic
choice. Sociology, 6: 2-22,
Corson. W, 1994, Global environmental issues and sustainable resource management. In
R, V, Kolluru (Ed,). Environmental strategies handbook: 923-970, New York: McGraw-
Hill,
Costanza. R,, Daly, H, E,. & Bartholomew. J, A, 1992, Goals, agenda, and policy recommen-
dations for ecological economics. In R, Costanza (Ed,). Ecological economics; The sci-
ence and management of sustainability: 7-20, New York: Columbia University Press,
Cowan. S, 1993, Green business. The Urban Ecologist, Spring: 7, 9,
Cramer. J,. & Schot. J, 1993, Environmental comakership among firms as a cornerstone in the
striving for sustainable development. In K, Fisher & J, Schot (Eds,). Environmentai strat-
egies for industry: 311-328. Washington. DC: Island Press,
Daly. H, E, 1991, Steady-state economics (2nd ed,), Washington. DC: Island Press,
Daly. H,. & Cobb. J, B,. Jr, 1994, For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward
community, the environment, and a sustainabie future (2nd ed,), Boston: Beacon Press,
Day. D, 1989, The environmental wars. New York: Ballantine Books,
Deal. T, E,. & Kennedy. A, A, 1982, Corporate cultures. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley,
Delloite, Touche, & Tomatsu, 1993, Coming ciean: Corporate environmental reporting. At-
lanta: Author,
Devall. B, 1993, Living richly in an age of limits. Salt Lake City. UT: Gibbs Smith,
Dillon. P, S,. & Baram. M, S, 1993, Forces shaping the development and use of product
stewardship in the private sector. In K, Fischer & J, Schot (Eds,). Environmental strate-
gies for industry: 329-342, Washington. DC: Island Press,
Donahue. J, P, 1994, The fat cat freeloaders: When American big business bellys up to the
public trough, Washington Post, March 6: C1-C3,
Doty. D, H,. & Glick. W, H, 1994, Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward
improved understanding and modeling. Academy o/Management Review, 19: 230-251,
Drazin. R,. & Van de Ven. A, H, 1985, Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 30: 514-539,
Dunlap. R, E,. & Van Liere. K, D, 1978, The "new environmental paradigm," /ournal of En-
vironmental Education, 9(4): 10-19,
Durning. A, 1992, How much is enough? New York: Norton,
El Serafy. S, 1992, Sustainability. income measurement, and growth. In R, Goodland. H, E.
Daly. & S, El Serafy (Eds,). Population, technology, and lifestyle: The transition to sus-
tainability; 63-79, Washington. DC: Island Press,
Environment Today, 1994, Environmental management sourcebook, 1994-199S. Atlanta: Au-
thor,
Freeman. R, E, 1984, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pittman,
Gladwin. T, N, 1993a, From greening to sustainability. Presentation at the Greening of
Industry Network's Second International Research Conference. Boston,
Gladwin. T, N, 1993b, The meaning of greening: A plea for organizational theory. In K,
Fisher & J, Schot (Eds,). Environmental strategies for industry: 37-Bl, Washington. DC:
Island Press,
Goodin. R, 1992, A green theory of value. Cambridge. England: Basil Blackwell,
Gore. A, 1992, Earth in the balance: Ecology and the human spirit. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin,
Hawken. P, 1993, The ecology of commerce. New York: Harper Business,
Henion. K, E, 1972, Ecological marketing. Columbus. OH: Grid,
Henn, C, L,. & Fava. I, F, 1994, Life-cycle analysis and resource management. In R, V,
Kolluru (Ed,). Environmental strategies handbook: 923-970, New York: McGraw-Hill,
Hofer. C, W,, & Schendel, D, C, 1978, Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St, Paul.
MN: West,
Katz, D,, & Kahn. R, L, 1978, The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed,). New York:
Wiley,
Kinlaw. D, C, 1993, Competitive and green: Sustainable performance in the environmental
age. Amsterdam: Pfieffer,
Klein. K, J,. Dansereau. F,. & Hall. R, J, 1994, Levels issues in theory development, data
collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19: 195-229,
Kosmo. M, N, 1987, Money to burn? The high costs of energy subsidies. Washington. DC:
World Resources Institute,
Maitland. 1, 1985, The limits of business self-regulation, California Management fleview,
27(3): 132-147,
Makower. J, 1993, The E-factor. Washington. DC: Tilden Press,
Mannion. A, M,. & Bowlby. S, R, 1992, Introduction, In A, M, Mannion & S, R, Bowlby (Eds,).
Environmental issues in the 1990s: 1-20, New York: Wiley,
March. J, G,. & Simon. H, A, 1958, Organizations. New York: Wiley,
Meadows. D, H,. Meadows. D, L,. & Randers, I, 1992, Beyond the limits. Post Mills. VT:
Chelsea Green,
Milbrath. L, W, 1985, Culture and the environment in the United States, Environmental
Management, 9(2): 161-172,
Milbrath. L, W, 1989, Envisioning a sustainable society. Albany: State University of New
York Press,
Miles. R, H, 1987, Managing the corporate social environment: A grounded theory. Engle-
wood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall,
Milliman. J,. & Clair. I, 1994, Organization development and total quality environmental
management (TQEM): Implications for research and practice. International Association
for Business and Society, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference: 442-447.
Mullins. M, L, 1994, Industry perspective: Environmental health and safety challenges and
social responsibilities. In R, V, Kolluru (Ed,). Environmental strategies handbook: 201-
238, New York: McGraw-Hill,
Nash. R, 1989, The rights of nature. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
Nijkamp. P.. & Soeteman, F. 1988, Ecologically sustainable economic development: Key
issues for strategic environmental management. International Journal of Socioeconom-
ics-15(3-4): 88-102,
North, K, 1992, Environmental business management. Geneva: International Labor Office,
Odum. E, 1989, Ecology and our endangered life-support systems. Sunderland. MA: Sinauer
Associates,
Peerenboom. R, P, 1991, Beyond naturalism: A reconstruction of Daoist environmental eth-
ics. Environmental Ethics. 13: 3-22,
Peters. T, 1992, Liberation management. New York: Knopf,
Pezzey. I, 1989, Economics analysis of sustainable growth and sustainable development.
Working paper. Environment Department. World Bank. Washington. DC,
Pfeffer. J,. & Salancik. G, R, 1978, The external control of organizations: A resource depen-
dence perspective. New York: Harper & Row,
Plant. L,. & Plant. I, (Eds,), 1991, Green business: Hope or hoax? Philadelphia: New Society
Publishers,
Preston-Mofham, R,, & Preston-Mofham, K, 1984, Spiders of the world. New York: Facts on
File Publications,
Postel. S, 1994, Carrying capacity: Earth's bottom line. In L, R, Brown et al, (Eds,), State of the
world, 1994: 3-21, New York: Norton,
Rands. G, P, 1990, Environmental attitudes, behaviors, and decision making: Implications
for management education and development. In W, M, Hoffman, R, Frederick. & E, S,
Petry. Jr, (Eds,). The corporation, ethics, and the environment: 269-286, New York: Quo-
rum Books,
Ratner. N, 1991, One biosphere—many world views. Paper presented to the annual meeting
of the North American Association for Environmental Education. St, Paul. MN,
Ray. D, L, 1993, Environmental overiilJ. New York: Harper Collins,
Rousseau. D, 1985, Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level
perspectives. In L, L, Cumings & B, M, Staw (Eds,), flesearch in organizational behavior,
vol, 7: 1-37, Greenwich. CT: JAI Press,
Russell. C, 1991, American Indian spirituality: Discovering a people's relationship with the
land. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the North American Association for
Environmental Education. St, Paul. MN,
Samdahl. D, M,, & Robertson. R, 1989, Social determinants of environmental concern. En-
vironmental Behavior, 21(1): 57-81,
Schmidheiny. S, 1992, Changing course: A global business perspective on development and
the environment. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press,
Scott. W, R, 1992, Organizations: flational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed,), Englewood
Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall,
Shrivastava. P, 1995, Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management
Review, 20: 118-137,
Simmons. I, G. 1989, Changing the face of the earth, culture, environment, history. New
York: Basil Blackwell,
Simmons. P,. & Wynne. B, 1993, Responsible care: Trust, credibility, and environmental
management. In K, Fischer & J, Schot (Eds,). Environmentai strategies for industry:
201-118, Washington. DC: Island Press,
Simon. J, L, 1990, Population growth is not bad for humanity. Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Winter:
12-16,
Sitarz. D, (Ed,), 1993, Agenda 21: The earth summit strategy to save our planet. Boulder. CO:
Earthpress,
Starik. M, 1992, Ecologically sustainable business organizations: Promise or pipe dream?
Presentation at the Eighth Annual Research Forum of the Washington Consortium of
Schools of Business. Mount Vernon College. Washington. DC,
Starik. M, 1993, Six not-so-simple things international business academics can do to save
the earth. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 5: 47-61,
Starik. M, 1995, Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for
nonhuman nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14: 207-218,
Starik. M,. & Carroll. A, B, 1992, Strategic environmental management: Business as if the
earth really mattered. In D, Ludwig. & K, Paul (Eds,). Contemporary issues in the busi-
ness environment: 143-169, Lewiston. PA: Edwin Mellen Press,
Starik. M,. & Gribbon. C, 1993, European strategic environmental management: Toward a
global model of business environmentalism. In J, Post (Ed,), flesearch in corporate social
performance and policy, vol, 14: 167-197, Greenwich. CT: JAI Press,
Starik. M,. Throop. G, M,. & Joyce. M, E, 1995, Growing an environmental strategy. Unpub-
lished manuscript. George Washington University. Washington. DC,
Stead. W, E,. & Stead. J, G, 1992, Management for a small planet: Strategic decision maJring
and the environment. Newbury Park. CA: Sage,
Throop. G, M,. Starik. M,. & Rands. G, P, 1993, Sustainable strategy in a greening world:
Integrating the natural environment into strategic management. In P, Shrivastava. J,
Dutton. & A, Huff (Eds,). Advances in strategic management, vol, 9: 63-92, Greenwich.
CT: JAI Press,
Tibbs. H, B, C, 1992, Industrial ecology: An environmental agenda for industry. Whole Earth
Review, Winter: 4-19,
Vaill. P, 1991, The inherent spirituality of organizations. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management. Miami Beach. FL,
Vitousek. P, M,. Ehrlich. P, R,. Ehrlich. A, H,. & Matson. P, A, 1988, Human appropriation of
the products of photosynthesis, BioScience, 34: 368-373,
Walmsley. D, J, 1972, Systems theory: A framework for human geographical inquiry. Can-
berra: Australian National University,
Waters. J, A, 1978, Catch 20,5: Corporate morality as an organizational phenomenon. Orga-
nizational Dynamics, 6(4): 2-19,
Westman. W, E, 1985, Ecology, impact assessment, and environmental planning. New York:
Wiley,
Wilson. E, O, 1992, The diversity of life. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press,
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, Our common future. New York:
Oxford University Press,
Yanarella. E, J,. & Levine. R, S, 1992, Does sustainable development lead to sustainability?
Futures, October: 759-774,
Mark Starik received his Ph,D, from the University of Georgia, He is an assistant
professor of strategic management and public policy at George Washington Uni-
versity, His current research interests include international environmental policy,
strategic environmental management, environmental entrepreneurship. and stake-
holder management,
Gordon P. Rands received his Ph,D, from the University of Minnesota, He is an
assistant professor of business administration at The Pennsylvania State University,
His current research interests include environmental management, social issues
interpretation, corporate social performance, and environmental attitudes.

Weaving An Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem Perspectives of Ecologically Sustainable Organizations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weaving An Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem Perspectives of Ecologically Sustainable Organizations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weaving An Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem Perspectives of Ecologically Sustainable Organizations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

® Academy oi Management Review

1995, Vol. 20, No. 4, 908-935.

WEAVING AN INTEGRATED WEB: MULTILEVEL

This article explores the concept of ecological sustainability and ap-

The concept of ecological sustainability has been applied to various

DEFINITIONS AND DESIRABILITY OF ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY

The Definition of Ecological Sustainability

No shortage of definitions of sustainability exist in the environmental

several reasons. It can be perceived as (a) anthropocentric; (b) indefinite

As ecosystems provide the foundations of existence for both biologi-

ecological sustainability question whether sustainable limits have begun

MULTIPLE LEVELS, MULTIPLE SYSTEMS. AND SUSTAINABILITY

A multilevel perspective on ecological sustainability is necessary for

multiple levels also can be found throughout the practitioner literature on

Sustainable development will obviously require more than

continued or increased. Feedback regarding ecological sustainability can

yields four types of feedback: negafive/pro-susfainability (decrease or re-

increasingly critical in fhe fufure. Nof only do organizafions depend on

We identify fhese conditions, factors, and resulting characferisfics

again, weaving a web of an organization's susfainabilify relafionships

AN ORGANIZATION-BASED MULTILEVEL WEB OF RELATIONSHIPS

and energy, and all return fo fhe ecological environmenf eventually.

approve proposals that will have a significant negative impact on the

the organization's entire environmental program. Heather Bell, an Amer-

projects, ecological "mascofs," catchy acronyms for environmenfal

dialogues, and binding arbitration (Westman, 1985). Such approaches

of others in its industry or sector to perform in an ecologically sustainable

accounting procedures. ESOs will encourage national and international

behaviors a n d fo bring abouf supportive c h a n g e in t h e polifical-economic

political-economic disincentives, widespread support by organizations

Educafional sysfems, news and enferfainment media, fhe arts and

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

searchers need to investigate the impacts of these factors. In what ways,

Andrews, K, R, 1980, The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin,

You might also like