{"id":132,"date":"2016-06-01T00:06:53","date_gmt":"2016-06-01T05:06:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.unalionsden.com\/jnlsustainability\/?p=132"},"modified":"2016-06-02T22:01:34","modified_gmt":"2016-06-03T03:01:34","slug":"sroufe-operationalizing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.unalionsden.com\/jnlsustainability\/2016\/06\/sroufe-operationalizing\/","title":{"rendered":"Operationalizing Sustainability"},"content":{"rendered":"

Robert Sroufe, Ph. D.
\nDuquesne University<\/em><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/h4>\n

Within this \u201chow to\u201d practices-based study is a generalizable framework of engagement and collaborative learning to operationalize sustainability for any organization. Purposefully cultivating the application of cross-disciplinary engagement, a phased approach is proposed to understanding complex, real-world sustainability challenges while making them material to an organization. Practical value for managers and future change agents includes a systematic approach, creative solutions, and feasible recommendations for new value propositions. Contributions of operationalizing sustainability include, but are not limited to: a structured approach to building a shared understanding of the sustainability paradigm; benchmarking; brainstorming; and prioritizing best-practice options. Pedagogical value for business students (and faculty) includes improved skills for framing complex problems, first-hand insight, research to emerging business challenges, and increased cross-discipline integration. Based on several years of applied insight with practitioners and graduate business students, operationalizing sustainability provides new integration opportunities for strategic planning and day-to-day activities. Information within this study will help readers understand the why, what, and how of operationalizing organizational practices aligned with strategy and a shared vision of a sustainable future.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h4>\n

Too often, management researchers and practitioners claim that recycling, waste reduction, green purchasing, and energy conservation programs are \u201csustainable,\u201d yet in reality they may only address environmental or efficiency practices. These claims, and multiple definitions of sustainability (see for example the UN\u2019s Brundtland Report,1<\/sup><\/a> or Erhenfeld\u2019s abandonment of the word to instead use \u201cflourishing,\u201d2<\/sup><\/a> or search using Google and you will get over 114 million results), create confusion across disciplines and inaction for many. Unfortunately, none of the definitions provide sufficient direction to translate sustainability into practical action. Due to confusion surrounding a single definition of \u201csustainability,\u201d the information presented in this study puts forth the idea that sustainability, as a paradigm for business management, is a shared vision aligned with strategy that provides an integration opportunity within and across firms. To this end, it is important to note that decision makers for any organization, whether for-profit or nonprofit, should develop their own individual approach to operationalizing this dynamic paradigm.<\/p>\n

What stakeholders really want to know when they ask how you define sustainability is, \u201cIs your company working towards sustainable development or against it?\u201d3<\/sup><\/a> Despite prior efforts to bring about an understanding of sustainability, there has been continued confusion regarding how it should be defined.4<\/sup><\/a> There has been a large amount of work done in consolidating research in the management literature5<\/sup><\/a>reviews involving supply chains6<\/sup><\/a> and manufacturing;7<\/sup><\/a> yet confusion remains regarding why and how successful corporations engage in and signal important operations.<\/p>\n

Prior research has also shown that the existing definitions of corporate social responsibility, a predecessor to more current research involving sustainability, are to a large degree congruent.8<\/sup><\/a> Others suggest that the confusion is not so much about how sustainability is defined, as much as it is about how sustainability is operationalized in a specific context.9<\/sup><\/a> This confusion presents an opportunity for clarity in providing a customized approach to operationalizing sustainability.<\/p>\n

Despite the thousands of pages and papers written by academic scholars, defining the sustainability paradigm in one sentence is not meaningful for practitioners. For over four decades, the messages from environmentalists have been basically the same: human activities impact the earth in negative ways and we have to make tradeoffs. These tradeoffs influence conventional approaches to efficiency and waste reduction. They are a good starting point, yet a \u201cconservation and tradeoff\u201d mentality can discourage practitioners and students from developing more innovative approaches to solving complex problems. To this end, and for the focus of this study, we need to build a better shared understanding and vision of our common future that is accessible to practitioners and academics. To start, we can properly position sustainability while operationalizing activities to support it.<\/p>\n

Sustainability should be the end goal and a broad term that, when understood as an integration opportunity for organizations, reveals interrelated value-creating activities. This value creation involves how resources are managed and the actual processes of acquiring, measuring, and reporting those resources. Individuals, businesses, and government entities are all involved in these integration practices to some extent. This evolving field of inquiry and practice is often separated into 3 interrelated categories of resources\u2014financial, social, and environmental\u2014while providing new opportunities to operationalize activities and measure performance.<\/p>\n

A primary assumption within this study is that sustainability provides a new integration opportunity to organizations, and an integrated approach to thinking and decision analysis will lead to better understanding of the value creation process. It is easy to say that value creation is important, yet not so easy to make it influence strategy and the decisions that are made every day, e.g. where to spend time and resources, how best to get things done, and, ultimately, how to win in the marketplace. Thus, the information within this study is designed to accelerate the integration between management actions, value creation, and the goal of a sustainable future.<\/p>\n

The drivers of innovation and the connections between sustainability and organizations have become focal points for research and for the development of management practices and performance measurement. Sustainable development, \u201cthe transition from the current, unsustainable society to a sustainable society[,]\u2026can also refer to society\u2019s further development once it has become sustainable.\u201d10<\/sup><\/a> This understanding of sustainable development helps draw attention to the idea that sustainability is the overarching goal. This also places practical importance on what organizations do to move toward the sustainability goal.<\/p>\n

This study aims to enable integration efforts in the context of a systematic approach to operationalizing a vision, shared understanding, baseline assessment, and an action-oriented approach to prioritizing next steps. When operationalizing sustainability in this way, managers within organizations can better enable short-term and long-term activities to integrate sustainability into value-creating processes and management planning. In doing so, the outcomes of this applied, problem-based learning approach facilitate a shared understanding of what sustainability means to an organization and how to work collaboratively across disciplines to prioritize what needs to be done. Thus, the primary questions addressed by this study are 1) \u201cHow do we translate sustainability into practical action?\u201d and 2) \u201cWhat aspects of operationalizing this paradigm will be material to stakeholders?\u201d<\/p>\n

In what follows, there is a review of problem-based and action-learning focused approaches for operationalizing sustainability. A primer on facilitation sets the stage for the ABCD planning approach as part of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development.11<\/sup><\/a> Then, example outcomes are provided for context before discussing conclusions.<\/p>\n

A Problem-Based Action Learning Approach<\/h4>\n

For the purpose of this planning process, \u201cmaterial\u201d topics for an organization should include those \u201ctopics that have a direct or indirect impact on an organization\u2019s ability to create, preserve, or erode economic, environmental and social value for itself, its stakeholders and society at large.\u201d12<\/sup><\/a> Materiality is an important context for engaging people across disciplines and functions. It provides a virtual place and space in which everyone can contribute their abilities and expertise to solve a common problem while understanding what is material to the organization. In this case, the problem is how to get to a shared understanding of what a sustainable future will look like, and what actions will take us from our current \u201cas is\u201d reality to that sustainable \u201cto be\u201d future.<\/p>\n

Here problem-based action learning provides a foundation to collaboration and complex problem-solving. Torp and Sage13<\/sup><\/a> described a problem-based approach as focused, action learning organized around the investigation and resolution of messy, real-world problems. When operationalizing sustainability, participants are engaged problem-solvers who seek to identify root problems and the conditions needed for solutions; in the process, they become self-directed learners. Further, Hmelo-Silver14<\/sup><\/a> described the problem-solving approach to collaborative inquiry where participants learn through facilitated problem-solving that centers on a complex problem that does not have a single correct answer. The author goes on to suggest that participants work in collaborative groups to identify what they need to learn (i.e., what a vision of sustainability will look like) to be able to solve a problem (identify and prioritize what actions to take). To this end, participants engage in self-directed learning, apply their new knowledge to the problem, and reflect on what they learned and the effectiveness of the strategies employed. The characteristics of a problem-based approach, as summarized by Savery in a review of prior works including Barrow and Tamblyn\u2019s essential characteristics, include but are not limited to:15<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n