exam questions Flashcards
what is the definition of sustainability (development)?
Sustainability is hard to define, as there is no single definition. The most accepted definition is: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to their own needs” (The Brundtland Commission, 1987).
Does sustainability impact firms financial performance? How?
Sustainable can have a positive impact on a firm’s financial performance in such ways as:
- A strong sustainable reputation can lead to higher profit and increase shareholder interest in the firm and thereby increase funds and investments for the firm
- It can gives better cost advantages compared to less engaged firms - cost and tax reduction in terms of limiting waste and risks –
- Recycling of materials and resources leads to lesser cost as well
- Low staff turnover as employees are happy to work for a sustainable company that can offer them good working conditions
There are 4 approaches to account for these environmental, socially and economic changes (Gray and Bebbington, 2001).
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
CSR is “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (European community commission, 2001)
It is often confused with sustainability, but UN suggest that “the concept of CSR has evolved and today is often referred to as “corporate sustainability” “responsible business practices” to avoid confusion s has shown the narrow (and wrong) interpretation of traditional CSR as charity events (UN, 2013).
The pyramid of sustainability?
The pyramid of sustainability (Caroll, 1991): Relevant for companies that
- Must be profitable
- Must comply
- More than compliance
- Avoiding harm - being a good citizen
Core characteristics of sustainability
Core Characteristics of sustainability:
- Voluntary
- Internalizing or managing externalizing (Husted and Allen, 2006)
- Multiple stakeholder orientation
- Alignment of social and economic responsbilities
- Beyond philanthropy (grayson and hodges, 2006)
What is philanthropy
Synonymous with corporate giving or sponsorship. It can be viewed as one component of sustainability, but not a synonym.
Discussion: Philanthropy - an act as a measure of sustainability?
- More a marketing value (PR) than sustainable value
- VIGEO
- Costly to implement sustainable reporting, so this is a easier way to be sustainable
- Relevant when the value benefit the company at the end. E.g.. A furniture donating to tree planting, it could benefit their business long term.
- Not relevant as it does not concern the core business.
- Motivation could be related to tax reduction policies
- Positive impact on the environment, economics and society
- Some companies consider it as an image investment to maintain customer loyalty
- Considered to be medium to reach a goal.
Key concepts: The triple Bottom line (TBL)
The Triple Bottom line (1997): …->Environmental protection and ressource conservation -> Economic prosperity and continuity -> social well-being and equity… -> (full circle). Full cost accounting was created in the late 90s. Finding ways for company to externalize (air pollution etc.) their accounting.
The difference between TBL and full cost accounting is time. Does not focus on long term perspectives
Key concepts: People-Planet-Profit
Creating a
- sustainable business,
- ensuring a fair society,
- living within environmental limits (Fisk, 2010).
What is the difference between the TBL and 3P’s
The 2 concepts are not the same, the difference is that TBL is about the company’s relation (operations) to the society and the company’s impact on the society.
The 3P’s -From inside the company - to measure if company can profit by investing into sustainable business in environmental, economic and society.
The business case for sustainability
Elements supporting the business rational for sustainability. Prestion and O’Bannon (1997) divide the business case into three types of relationship:
- that within which sustainability relates to financial performance
- financial performance relates to sustainability
- which sustainability and financial performance are synergistic.
In all three types the relationship an be postive, neutral or negative, so that according to Friedman (1962), e.g., there is a negative relationship between sustainability and financial performance because the former misuses company assets.
According to Cornell and Shapir (1987) there is a positive relationship, because meeting the stakeholders other than shareholders enchances financial performance. Case studies and other types of analyses exist for each type of relationship.
A theoretical approach to sustainability
Legitimacy theory - Institutional theory, ressource dept theory and stakehodler theory
Operationalizing Sustainability - principle of sustainable development (Pearce, Daly Turner)
the “capital” available to humanity can be divided into 3 categories:
- Critical natural capital (elements of the biosphere that is essential for life and which cannot be renewed or remained inviolate e.g ozone layer or a critical mass of trees),
- Other natural capital (elements that are renewable or substitutable e.g energy from fossil fuel or from renewable sources), and
- Artificial capital (elements that are no longer part of the nature ecology e.g. machines, buildings, human know-now etc.
Critique: Increased artificial capital is at the expense that our natural capital decline. What we current measure as our “income” is wrong, and our level of consumption has been paid out by our capital. Sustainability requires we maintain our capital and only spend the income that allows us to do so. This can be measured through accounting and reporting for sustainability.
4 approaches to report sustainability
- Inventory approach
- environmental sustainable cost approach
- the ressource flow/input-outout approach
- triple bottom line approach
Inventory approach
Reporting about sustainability: concerned with identifying, recording, monitoring and then reporting, probably in non-financial quatities, the different categories of natural capital and their depletion and/or enhancement. The different elements of critical, non-renewable/non-substitutable and renewable natural capital which could be thought of as being under the control of the organization would first be identified by the corporation. These would then be reported with changes therein.
Environmental sustainable cost approach
Reporting about sustainability: This is easier to explain, but prove to be exceptionally difficult in practice. Its attractions, though, are that it can fit within current reporting practice., it is a simple concept and the accuracy of the actual sustainable cost is probably not important. In theory, the approach is about calculating the amount of money an organization would have to spend at the end of an accounting period to place the biosphere in the position it was in at the start. Thus, we are dealing with a notional amount but one that is based on costs not values. It is either a very large reduction of profit or to operating expenditure, wiping out the profit. However this is the correct way. This is due to the cost of our natural capital is considered an infinite cost or a cost that is hard to estimate.
the ressource flow/input-output approach
Reporting about and for sustainability: It is based upon a systems conception of the organization and attemping to report its ressource flows. It does not directly report sustainability but provides a transparency to the organization which focuses upon ressource use - and ultimately, therefore the sustainability of the organization’s actvities. The approach is a catalogue of the resources flowing into an organization, those flowing out of it and the losses or leakages (wastes and emissions) from the process. Such an “account” would again be quantified -both financial and non-financial numbers (summary). However this approach may be cumbersome and a break of confidentiality for the organization, though it could fulfill the requirements of transparency and allow society to make choices about resource use. It was later redefined into New Consumer approach, where the flow was further separated into the source of origin, their function and ultimate decision. This was to create data sheets to customer who wish to acccess these kind of info (transparency). A move towards reporting for sustainability.
triple bottom line approach (John Elkington)
Reporting for sustainability: John Elkington argues that a sustainable organization will perform in 3 dimensions, economic, social and environmental, and, consequently, must account for all 3. Thus, alongside the financial statements we need to see environmental and social accounts. Current thinking suggests that the environmental and social accounts would comprise a mass-balance-based environmental account and a stakeholder-based, compliance and performance social report. OBS! Dangers with this approach - it does not question the central tenet of the organization or demonstrate the unsustainability of financially driven economic actitivites. However such reporting for sustainability would certainly be a major and productive advance over current practice and is to be applauded for that. E.g. Novo Nordisk.
how has sustainability moved from the organization fringes to core business?
SAR = Sustainable accounting research. Relevant authors : Lee (2011).
1960-70: The focus was on social accounting (Human resources/work welfare)
1980s: in 1987 Brundtland made the first definition of sustainability and the most accepted one.
The authors: Gray and Owen are re-current on sustainability
1990s: The focus was on Environmental accounting and assurance (balance scorecard (BSC) was invented in 1992) - First time creating a performance measurement . It made it easier to measure environmental returns than the social return.
Key author: Porter and Vanderlinde, 1995 - Harvard business review - main article to prove that investing in sustainability could create profit for the company.
Other authors: Matthews (AAAAJ), Elkington (1997 - cannibals with forks : Triple bottom line (TBL))
2000s: Social studies - ISO26000 (certification) and CAP&Trade (2005-2020) - revolution on the social side
History: business relationship with the rest of the society (Laszlo and Zhexembayeva, 2011)
- Marriage: Before the year 1800. Dominance of town marketplace of family business, clusters, concentrated manufacturing and factories with machinery. Business was interconnected and embedded in society. The value created, therefore, was first and formeost understood in terms of the real and concrete end benefits and outcomes created for customers, while the other two dimensions were derived from and built on this primary purpose. The generation was dominated by poor labor conditions, tranparency were rudimentary and largely limited environmental damage (local not global).
- A tale of divorce: 19th and 20th centuries, when the coporation slowly acquired a distinct stature, separate from the rest of society and increasing focuses in on itself. Its single-minded purpose is to create wealth for its shareholder, a strict measure of coprporate performance. End benefits and outcomes to consumers was almost a secondary consideration. Value took on an entirely new shape, divorcing business from the rest of the society.1960-1970 Greenpeace and Friends of the earth were founded and putting pressure on corporations. 1980s the definition of sustainability was stated at UN commission. However no practial guideline for business to reconcile it responsibility. In 1990s, the triple bottom line became popular, however the mentallity was that value created for society was firmly held in opposition to the value created for business. The two were battling eachother.
- Today: reconciliation: Business for social responsibility emerged in 1992, UN Global impact in 1999. Business and society works together. Through the 2000s, the rapid and universal decline of resources became increasingly visible and tangible throughout the world. New expectations and demanding new outcomes from business. Radical transparency (technology) fueled the pressure with customers leading the way. The three dimensions of value were re-envisioned once again: to satisfy both it had to be done through sustainable value. Economc crisis further urged the pursuit of sustainability.
What are the 3 big trends that have reshaped the end benefits expected from your business? (Laszlo and Zhexembayeva, 2011)
- declining resources
- radical transparency (e.g technology - internet)
- increasing expectation will continue to reinvent the rules of business.
what is sustainable value and how do you (manager) and businesses create it?
A dynamic state that occurs when a company createe ongoing value for its shareholders and stakeholders - is a natural outcome of the new external environment. This also includes other who have “a stake” in the destiny of the company.
More importantly for managers, it is fast becoming indispensable to acheiving and maintaining competitive advantage. Managing in two - rather than one - dimensions represents a fundamental shift in how managers think about value.
Satisfying demands fo both stake and shareholders is driven by innovation, which in turn leads to reducing costs, differentiating products, growing intangible assets, shaping advantageous “rules of the game” and much more. Yet the coveted prize of sustainable value comes with its own set of unsual rules and dynamics. Value migration is the first on the list.
Sustainable value framework/value migration
It consists of four squares and can be used to easily locate any product or company and to visualize its trajectory (path) over time.
- Plus shareholder, minus stakeholder value (upper left corner): Value transfer relied on stakeholders - heavy metal or toxic additives in consumer products e.g toys or bad labor conditons for workers
- minus shareholder, plus stakeholder value (lower right corner): value transfer from shareholder to stakeholder - E.g environmentalists or unfocused philanthropy of transferring financial value to one or more stakeholders
- plus shareholder and stakeholder value (upper right corner): sustainable value - package waste and right sizing the product can benefit both shareholder (cost) and stakeholder (less pollution, meeting customer needs). Doing good for the society and the environment, the company does even better for its customers and shareholder than it otherwise would.
- minus shareholder and stakeholder value (lower left corner).
what is and is not sustainability strategies?
It is not operational effectiveness, which is performing similar activities better than rivals perform them such reducing risks and costs within the firm. It is definitely a strategic importance for the firm - and the reason why all firms should do it. Managing costs and risks will become just a license to operate. In contrast strategic positioning means performing different activities from rival’s or performing activities in different ways. Fundamentally, strategy entails choice, and choice involves trade-offs. Companies must offer uniqueness to its consumers and thus companies need to choose between clear trade-offs. They will need to eliminate, reduce and raise “the factors the industry competes on in products, services and delivery, and what customers receive from competitive offerings on the market”. Strategy is “doing better by being different”.
what are the five sustainability strategies?
- Eco-efficency
- Environmental cost leadership,
- Beyond compliance leadership and eco-branding.
- The fifth is sustainable value innovation (blue ocean strategy).
Strategy 1: Eco-effiency
Eco-effiency (within the company - business scale) - Easy and clear case for sustainability. Mostly B2B companies: Lean thinking, eliminate waste, reuse of waste and buying products that can be recycled in a profitable way (Industrial symbiosis). E.g Kalundborg at Danish Best Practice of Industrial Symbiosis - a close loop economy. Other examples are beverage industries. EU: “Cap and Trade”. Competitive advantage: Lower costs - Competitive focus: organizational processes.
Strategy 2: Beyond compliance leadership
Beyond compliance leadership (the market comes into place - B2B) - Consumer has an emotional connection to the product and service - will pay more. Company reputation, a primary intangible asset: to be sustainability leader of the industry. A reputation issue: Greem Clubs (certification) are adopted by companies to be legitimized as an sustainable company in the eyes of stakeholders (consumer). Examples are ISO4001 (Global Level, ISO26000, EMAS (Europe).
- Competitive advantage: Differentiation
- Competitive focus: organizational processes
Strategy 3:Eco-branding
Eco-branding (B2C): Consumer are willing to pay for benefits they can see in the product. This is niche market segment is growing for example LOHAS = life of health and sustainability. Eco-branding is not legitimized, it is self-declared.
- Competitive advantage: Differentiation
- Competitive focus: products and services
Strategy 4: Environmental cost leadership
Adopting this strategy will give companies the main competitive advantage of cost and price leadership. Strategy 4 is the most difficult to implement as it requires companies to operate at a low cost while still reducing it environmental impact. Best practices have been investing in eco-design such as the packaging. This solution eventually contribute to a lower production costs and a reduced environmental impact.
- Competitive advantage: lower costs
- Competitive focus: products and services
Strategy 5: Sustainable Value Innovation
This is a non-competitive strategy. SVI looks beyond competition e.g product stewardship or downstream practices. An example is instead of looking at the cars, we address the service of mobility. By redefining the value proposition for customers, firms can eventually create value innovation - differentiated products and service at low prices. In other words, BOS eliminates the trade-off between cost and differentiation. Value innovation is created by satisfying untapped customer demands with new value propositions.
What is the difference between the CES strategies Eco-efficiency and E-cost leadership strategies?
They are only similar if eco-efficiencies in processes were enough to make a product e-cost leader. This is rarely the case. E-cost leadership requires a firm to acheive both the lowest cost and the lowest environmental impact of the products in its category wile eco-effiency. This requires reduction of both the final cost of the product and its environmental impact is a result of product redesign and substituion of raw materials, rahter than eco-effiency of processes.in other words, competitiveness can be obtained by focusing on the nature of the product, rather than on the process. While eco-effiency can be done in production and eventually cut the final cost of its products, it may still, however, present high levels of environmental impacts and may therefore not be able to become e-cost leadership.
What is the difference between the Beyond leader compliance vs. Eco-branding CES strategies?
Beyond leader compliance vs. Eco-branding: Undeniably, a selected number of companies have been able to link the environmental qualities of their products with organization proccesses, resulting in corporate-wide eco-differentiation. E.g a close link between ecological responsibility of organisational processes and the portfolio of products sold by them. thus the distinction is blurred between strategy 2 and 3. However, such strategic scope is restricted to a small number of firms born with eco-oriented values and commitments.Whether a company is followed by strategy 2 and 3 depends on the competitive focus and what the consumer are basing their purchase on - product or process?. A product or process might confound with the overall company identity such as Toyota’s production process or GE hybrid car.
What is the difference between the Eco-effiency vs. Beyond leader compliance CES strategies?
Eco-effiency vs. Beyond leader compliance: managers and academics may argue that the work toward eco-efficiency can facilitate the development and reduce implementation costs of an Environmental Management System (EMS) such as the ISO14001 certification. However the process of implementing a EMS might lead to potential areas in which an increase in resource productivity can be obtained. If strategy choices reinforce eachother, there is no need to distinct the two, if opportunities for double dividends or win-win scenarios were always prevalent. But the reality is that EMS certification is often costly and opportunities for cost savings are exceptions rather than the norms. Managers must choose betwem the two. If process-oriented differentiation are not available to the firm, the choice will naturally emerge to Eco-efficiency.
What considerations must a manager/organization consider when implementing sustainability strategies
Even if we accept that opportunities to profit from eco-investments are available to any business at different degrees, internal and external circumstances will facilitate or hinder firms to explore them. In other words, particular conditions favor firms to transform eco-investments into profitable business opportunities and, eventually, into sources of competitive advantage. The structure of the industry in which a firm operates, its position within that industry, the types of markets the company serves and its capabilities to acquire resource or to deploy radically innovative strategies will suggest the appropriate competitive focus (organizational processes or prod- ucts/services) and the potential source of competitive advantage (cost or differentiation) for a firm.
What are the struggles the manager/organization is facing when it comes to eco-investments?
A great number of managers are wondering what they should do first and why. Many do a bit of everything and spend precious resources without sound rationales. Managers need a basis from which they can prioritize eco-investments. More broadly, they need to align these investments with the generic strategy of the company.
Competitive environmental strategies (CES) framework
Particular conditions favor firms to transform eco-investments into profitable business opportunities, and, eventually, into soures of competitive advantages. CES framework helps to decouple the elements involved in corporate environmentalism that have not been treated as independent areas of strategic action. The matrix combines these elements with the basic type of competitive advantage with which a firm seeks to acheive and generates four possible strategies that corporations may adopt. The industry, your position within the industry, the types of markets the company serves and its capabilities to acquire resources or to deploy radically innovative strategies will suggest the appropiate competitive focus (org. processes or product/service) and the potential source of competitive advantage (cost or differentiation for a firm. The four strategies can work independently.