Imagine being an executive in a business that is experiencing one of the limits described in Stead & Stead (1994). Write one short paragraph starting a memo or speech on how to make a strategic shift so that you will become more sustainable. Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? 15 Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? Paradigm Shifts Necessary for Ecologically Sustainable Business W. Edward Stead and Jean Garner Stead East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA Historians have not referred to the past 250 years as the “Industrial Revolution” for nothing. Joseph Campbell (1988) points out that myths reflect the underlying paradigms that guide the thoughts and actions of the people of a particular culture. Espousing society’s myths is a primary function of all of its institutions, be they political, religious, educational or economic. Campbell (1988) says that you can tell the dominant myth of a given society by examining the heights of its buildings. The multi-storey seats of economic activity that define the skylines of our cities today demonstrate that humankind’s most dominant current myth is economic wealth. However, the myth of economic wealth has now come face to face with ecological sustainability. Father Thomas Berry (1988) says, “The mythic drive (for economic wealth) continues to control our world, even though much is known about the earth, its limited resources, the interdependence of life systems, and the delicate balance of the ecosystems …” (p. 76) This is echoed by Smith and Hawken founder, Paul Hawken (1993), who says, “Corporations, because they are the dominant institution on the planet, must squarely face the social and environmental problems that afflict humankind” (p. 54). Modifying myths means making paradigm shifts, changing the fundamental assumptions and values from which the world is viewed (Kuhn, 1962). Lewis Mumford (1956) points out that such fundamental shifts are rare, occurring only a few times in all human history. Nevertheless, if the myth of economic wealth is to remain viable in the face of the ecological challenges it faces, business organizations will have to experience paradigm shifts which encourage them to view themselves as part of a larger, interconnected, social and ecological network governed by biological and physical processes. This means that business organizations in the twenty-first century will be faced with changing the fundamental assumptions and values which underlie their relationships with the larger ecosystem. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, 1994, pp. 15-31. © MCB University Press, 0953-4814 JOCM 7,4 16 The purposes of this article are: (1) to underscore the magnitude of the organizational change efforts necessary for achieving a truly sustainable relationship between business activity and the planet; and (2) to delve more deeply into some of the theoretical frameworks that support the ecologically-sensitive paradigms which need to underlie humankind’s economic myth in the future. In pursuing these purposes, we hope to demonstrate that managing in a sustainable way will eventually require that firms engage in fundamental change efforts which reach to the heart of defining “How much economic activity is enough?” Changing the Economic Myth Is No Easy Matter Changing the underlying assumptions which constitute paradigms that organizations use to view their world is anything but simple. According to Mumford (1956), such changes mean adopting new metaphysical and ideological foundations on which the assumptions are based. Kuhn (1962) points out that paradigm shifts must be pursued on faith in the face of convincing empirical evidence which supports the old paradigm; they must be communicated in ways which are typically incoherent to old paradigm thinkers; and they require that people be willing to look at what they do from the periphery where objective observation is possible. Research by Post and Altman (1992) supports the point that organizations wishing to adopt ecologically-sensitive management practices will require fundamental change processes. In their investigation of three firms, they found the organization with the highest level of environmental performance was the one that had successfully integrated ecological performance into its strategic planning, had instituted concern for the ecosystem at the operational level, regularly scanned the ecological expectations of its customers, used a team approach in managing ecological issues, and modified its performance measurement systems to account for nature. They point out that achieving this “innovative phase” of environmental management generally requires secondand third-order, double-loop change efforts which involve the adoption of new philosophies, new values, new structures, and new operating principles – in short, new ecologically-sensitive paradigms. They say “… internal paradigm shifts and transformational change are necessary as companies attempt to adjust to the rapidly changing world of green politics and markets” (Post and Altman, 1992, p. 13). Further, as humankind progresses through the twenty-first century, business organizations will probably have to pass through two progressively difficult stages of change in order to achieve true ecological sustainability. The first stage, which we call the “profit stage”, is based on the idea that ecological concern is good for business and, thus, fits somewhat comfortably into the Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? 17 current myth of economic wealth. Real change can occur, but within basically the same system of ideas. Firms can ask themselves, “How can we improve our wealth by being environmentally sensitive?” The profit stage defines the state of most of the ecological change efforts occurring in business organizations today. This stage has emerged as businesses have made efforts to respond to the increasingly loud cries that change is necessary from several corners of society. There are now vast numbers of green consumers jamming the marketplaces demanding products that are more environmentally friendly. There are also cries for ecological responsibility rising out of the investment markets, where investors are seeking quality investment opportunities in environmentally-friendly companies, technologies and industries. Add these voices for change to the chorus of regulatory requirements and legal actions in the name of clean air, clean water, the rights of other species, and the spiritual value of the land, and it becomes clear that a global social network has emerged which supports doing business with a serious environmental flair (Stead and Stead, 1992). There has been no shortage of organizations recognizing these social demands for environmentally-responsible business and responding to them in economically beneficial ways. Strategies designed to enhance revenues and/or reduce costs by improving environmental performance are pervasive among organizations in some of the world’s most polluting industries (Stead et al., forthcoming). Firms like 3M, Dow, Monsanto, and AT&T have instituted very successful environmental management systems within the framework of total quality environmental management (TQEM). The Body Shop, the Scott Bader Commonwealth, Ben & Jerry’s Ice-Cream, Tom’s of Maine, Patagonia, Smith and Hawken, Seventh Generation, and many others have proved that organizations can reap significant economic wealth by offering ecologically-sensitive products and services which spring from strong green corporate philosophies. However, it is important to stop here and question whether or not a worldwide sustainable economic system can be neatly achieved within the framework of increasing profits and economic growth. Many, including Paul Hawken, believe that the answer to this question is a resounding no. Hawken (1993) says: If every company on the planet were to adopt the environmental and social practices of the best companies – of, say, The Body Shop, Patagonia, and Ben & Jerry’s – the world would still be moving towards environmental degradation and collapse … Today there is a contradiction inherent in the premiss of the socially responsible corporation: to wit, that a company can make the world better, can grow, and can increase profits by meeting social and environmental needs. It is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it fantasy that cannot come true … (p. 55) Thus a second stage of societal and organizational change will probably be required for truly sustainable business: the “survival stage”. In this stage firms will have to be willing to ask themselves: “How much economic wealth can the earth afford us to earn?” It is in this stage that the paradigm shifts will become even more crucial and change efforts even more difficult. As Willis Harman (1988) says: JOCM 7,4 18 (There is a) growing suspicion that, without some sort of fundamental change, modern industrial society (will be) unable to resolve the socio-political and ecological dilemmas that beset us … The problems seem more and more intertwined, and the trade-offs progressively less and less favourable. The change required is not simply a shift from one form of industrial society to another, but rather a major change in the basic assumptions underlying … industrial society (p. 107). In short, long-term survival of the myth of economic wealth is tied to society finding answers to the question: “How much is enough?” Because business “is all pervasive in modern society (reflecting), any major change in any portion of it” (Harman, 1988, p. 130), organizations must take a central role in society’s search for reasonable answers to this question. Finding these answers will require that organizations adopt very different scientific, economic, and management paradigms within which to operate. Again quoting Hawken (1993): “There must be an integration of economic, biologic, and human systems in order to create a sustainable and interdependent method of commerce that supports and furthers our existence” (p. 55). What Paradigm Shifts Are Necessary for a New Economic Myth? The shifts necessary for an environmentally-sensitive economic myth involve three basic paradigms, one nested within the next. By nature, ecological issues are, first and foremost, scientific issues. Thus any myth which adequately informs business managers about the relationship between nature and economic activities must be encompassed within a scientific paradigm which adequately explains the biological and physical limits of the planet. Within such a scientific paradigm can fit a more realistic economics paradigm allowing for economic principles which more adequately weigh the ecological, as well as the monetary, costs and benefits of business activity. Finally, within a more ecologically-sensitive economics paradigm, a management paradigm can emerge which informs managers that the earth is the ultimate stakeholder, and, as such, must be accounted for in the organization’s values, visions, strategies, structures and processes. The Scientific Paradigm Since business activity is practised within the biological and physical confines of Mother Earth, it would seem reasonable to assume that a myth of economic wealth which will account for the natural environment should be founded on sound scientific frameworks which will help organizations define the carrying capacity of the planet. Unfortunately, such scientific frameworks cannot he found within the mechanical, Newtonian concepts that have dominated human thought processes for the past 250 years (Harman, 1988; Mumford, 1956). Business must turn to more holistic scientific models which can account for the interconnectedness between organizations and the natural environment Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? 19 (Harman, 1988). Three interrelated scientific theories useful in this regard are systems theory, Gaia theory and thermodynamics. Systems Theory Systems theory is one of the most powerful and integrative theories for explaining the relationship between humankind and nature. Having emerged during the 1920s and 1930s, it has served to provide a strong framework for transcending the boundaries that have historically separated various scientific and social fields (Boulding, 1956; Sheldrake, 1991). Essentially, living systems exhibit characteristics of life: they exchange information, matter and energy with their environments in order to maintain a dynamic equilibrium and counteract uncertainty, destruction, etc. They are morphogenetic in nature, meaning that they can renew, reproduce, and/or regenerate themselves. Living systems are complex, composed of interdependent subsystems which themselves process information, matter and energy. They are also irreducible, meaning their survival is threatened if any of the subsystems break down, grow out of control, etc. Living systems are synergistic, displaying properties which cannot be anticipated by summing the effects of the component subsystems. They develop control mechanisms which must become more complex as environmental forces became more complex. Finally, living systems are purposive, serving some larger role, and sometimes purposeful, defining that larger role for themselves (Lovelock, 1979, 1988; Sheldrake, 1991; Van Gigch, 1978). The component subsystems of living systems exist in nested hierarchies, each subsystem contained within a larger system (Boulding, 1956; Schumacher, 1977; Sheldrake, 1991; Van Gigch, 1978). Kenneth Boulding (1956) says that the existence of nested living-systems hierarchies means that there are “systems of systems” (p. 202). From this perspective, we can see that there is a hierarchy of nested living systems associated with economic activity. Individuals form work groups, work groups form the foundations of business organizations, and business organizations together with their consumers represent the economic system. The economic, political, religious, educational and social systems together constitute societies, and these societies exist within the confines of the supranational system called earth. Because of this supranational position, the earth cannot be defined simply as the sum of the individuals, organizations, economies and societies that comprise it. Rather, it is a qualitatively distinct entity which supersedes and transcends any of its economic subsystems, thus constituting the “system of systems” (Boulding, 1956, p. 202) in which economic activity takes place. Therefore the economic system must function within the biological and physical limits of the planet. These limits are largely defined by the planet’s morphogenetic processes, which operate on an evolutionary time-scale. The earth can and will renew itself, as it has been doing for some 4.5 billion years. It simply cannot accomplish this feat in human time-frames. For example, the planet will renew the topsoil and the petroleum that humankind is so rapidly JOCM 7,4 20 depleting in its economic activities; unfortunately, it will take hundreds of thousands of years to accomplish this regeneration, regardless of the economic consequences. Gaia Theory The basic contention of Gaia theory is that the earth is a living superorganism which can be accurately understood only from an interdisciplinary geologicalphysiological perspective ( Lovelock, 1979, 1988, 1991). Although livingsystems processes such as self-regulation, homeostasis, and morphogenesis form many of the foundations of Gaia theory, Gaia theory goes beyond systems theory in hypothesizing that the earth is a living organism which has evolved from purposive (and possibly purposeful) interactions between the planet’s biological and physical processes. With roots in the ideas of nineteenth-century scientists such as James Hutton and H.T. Huxley (Kirchner, 1991; Lovelock, 1988, 1991), the development of modern Gaia theory is generally attributed to two scientists – James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis. Lovelock explores Gaia theory from a macro perspective, studying how chemical, atmospheric and climatic processes vary as the diversity of planetary life varies. His research shows that species diversity holds the key to the ecological balance necessary to support life. His computer models of “Daisyworld” demonstrate that fluctuations in the weather become more severe as diversity declines (Lovelock, 1988). He says, “Sparse life on a planet would be as unstable as half an animal” (Lovelock, 1991, p. 10). Margulis examines Gaia theory from a micro perspective. Referring to herself as the “unofficial spokesperson for the silent majority of life on earth, the microbes” (Margulis and Hinkle, 1991, p. 11), Margulis points out that, through symbiotic processes, the planet has become a single living organism composed of coevolving biological and physical processes which cannot be separated in any meaningful sense (Joseph, 1990; Margulis and Hinkle, 1991). Although Gaia theory is often referred to by its original designation, the Gaia hypothesis, Lovelock (1988) makes it clear that research support for the idea has moved it well beyond the hypothetical stage. Kirchner (1991) identifies five Gaia hypotheses, ranging from the least extreme to the most extreme: (1) biological forces have a substantial influence over the physical world; (2) the relationship between the earth’s biological and physical forces is one of mutual influence; (3) long-term stability of the earth’s physical processes is dependent on biological processes; (4) biological processes are teleologic, controlling the physical environment for a purpose; and (5) maintaining a biologically-optimal physical environment is Gaia’s purpose. Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? 21 Kirchner (1991) points out that testing the less extreme hypotheses has been and will continue to be fruitful, but that testing the more extreme hypotheses will be quite difficult, if not impossible. Others point out that the scope of Gaia theory is so vast that, like Newtonian physics and Darwinian evolution, it will take centuries of research to explore (Kirchner, 1991). However, Lovelock (1991) counters that evolutionary science leaves room for only one reasonable conclusion concerning the purposive/purposeful dimensions of Gaia: “Living organisms must regulate their planet; otherwise the ineluctable forces of physical and chemical evolution would render it uninhabitable” (p. 10). Rooting a scientific paradigm about the relationship between business activity and the natural environment in Gaia theory provides a holistic planetary perspective. Further, it makes it clear that humans’ environmental sensitivity need not be altruistic. Although environmental debates are often couched in terms of “business needs to clean up its act in order to help save the planet”, Gaia theory helps us to understand that the planet can take care of itself; it is humankind’s way of life that is threatened. Lovelock (1979) says, “It may be that the white-hot rash of our technology will, in the end, prove destructive for our own species, but the evidence for accepting that industrial activities … may endanger the life of Gaia as a whole is very weak indeed” (pp. 107-08). Thermodynamics Living systems survive by exchanging energy, wastes and information with their environment. This process is subject to the laws of thermodynamics – the conservation law and the entropy law. These laws explain the dynamics of energy transformation and waste generation in the universe (Ehrlich et al., 1977). The conservation law says that there is a constant amount of energy in the universe. Thus energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one state to another. The entropy law says that, every time energy is transformed, it will lose some of its order and usefulness. As this occurs, the degraded energy becomes waste. Basically, an economy functions by using knowledge and energy to convert materials from their natural states into usable products or services for consumption by human beings. Because of the role of energy in the economy, the interactions among these variables are governed by thermodynamic laws. Problems arise because energy transformation in the economy occurs at highentropy rates as energy is used to power production, distribution, and consumption cycles. These high-entropy rates are not in balance with the lowentropy energy transformation rates found in nature. The predictable results of this imbalance include the rapid resource depletion and waste generation currently occurring on the planet (Boulding, 1966; Capra, 1983; Daly, 1991; Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). Several scholars have focused their attentions on the relationship between economic activity and thermodynamics. In his classic work, The Entropy Law JOCM 7,4 22 and the Economic Process, economist/physicist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1971) eloquently demonstrates that: “The entropy law emerges as the most economic in nature of all natural laws” (p. 3). Economist Herman Daly (1991) says: “To deny the relevance of the entropy law to economics is to deny the relevance of the difference between a lump of coal and a pile of ashes” (p. 199). Physicist Fritjof Capra (1983) points out that the dismissal of the natural environment in classical economic models means that the thermodynamic characteristics of the planet are unaccounted for in economic activity. He says: “Unlimited expansion in a finite environment can lead only to disaster” (p. 213). Theologian Thomas Berry (1988) says: “In the natural world there exists an amazing richness … There is a minimum of entropy … The difficulty comes when the industrial mode of our economy disrupts the natural processes … In such a situation the productivity of the natural world and its life systems is diminished” (p. 71). However, the news does not have to be so bleak. Although, eventually, life on the planet will succumb to entropy as the sun cools and dies, the timing of the process is by no means a certainty (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). It does not have to happen in the next century, as many predict, if humankind will focus its efforts on the one variable in the formula of economic activity which defies the entropic processes of the universe – human knowledge. Systems which stress the need for relevant education and encourage the continuous, free expansion of knowledge and information can literally create order out of chaos, beauty out of degradation (Boulding, 1966; Ornstein and Ehrlich, 1990; Wheatley, 1992). Thus thermodynamics teaches that energy transformation is a linear process which produces disorder and wastes, but it also teaches that humankind can use its ever-expanding knowledge to intervene effectively in this process, either speeding it up or slowing it down. Together, systems theory, Gaia theory and thermodynamics present a framework for viewing the earth as a living, holistic entity with a myriad interconnected subsystems that must function within the evolutionary time scales of the ecosystem. These theories make it clear that humans must find ways to balance the economic subsystem with the earth’s evolutionary entropic and morphogenetic processes, or the planet will use its own mechanisms to restore that balance. Therefore these three theories represent an overarching scientific paradigm for defining and operating within the carrying capacity of the planet, providing a solid theoretical base for such concepts as industrial ecosystem, industrial ecology, total environmental quality, and industrial metabolism (Ayres, 1989; Frosch, 1992; Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989; Sharfman and Ellington, 1993). In other words, they help to define “what is enough”. The Economics Paradigm Like all disciplines, traditional economics operates on simplifying assumptions. Three of these assumptions are: Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? 23 (1) the economy can grow forever; (2) the natural resources and energy necessary for economic activity will always be there; and (3) individual self-interest provides the best mechanism for the fair allocation of resources (Stead and Stead, 1992). These three assumptions are possible in current economic thought because traditional economic theory considers the economic system to be a closed circular-flow of goods and services between business organizations and households which is virtually independent of the planet where these activities take place. Yet the previously described scientific theories demonstrate that the economic subsystem can survive only so long as it operates within the entropic and morphogenetic limits of the earth. Factors considered external to the closed circular-flow economic system, such as the value of resources in nature, the aesthetic value of the earth, and the values of the greater communities and societies where economic activities take place, will have to emerge as legitimate economic variables (Daly, 1977, 1991; Daly and Cobb, 1989; Etzioni, 1988, 1993; Henderson, 1991; Schumacher, 1973). Otherwise, humankind faces reduced natural resources and beauty, the potential for violence born of greed and envy, and meaningless work for many citizens (Schumacher, 1973). Two related theories which open the economic system to the greater social and ecological systems are steady-state economics and communitarianism. Steady-State Economics Herman Daly argues in Steady-State Economics (1977, 1991) that the economy is a subsystem of the larger social system and ecosystem powered and maintained by throughputs of energy and materials from the environment. He says: Studying economics in terms of the circular flow without considering the throughput of energy and resources is like studying physiology in terms of the circulatory system without ever mentioning the digestive tract (Daly, 1991, p. 196). As mentioned above, both Daly (1977, 1991) and Georgescu-Roegen (1971) implore that, if economic theory were rooted in the entropy law, then businesses would recognize that unlimited economic growth on a finite planet is physically impossible. Since the throughput of matter and energy is ignored in current economic theory, the issue of the optimum scale of economic activity as it relates to the earth’s carrying capacity is never considered (Daly, 1991; Daly and Cobb, 1989). Thus economics must be opened to entropic throughput; this means the unlimited growth assumption must be replaced by the assumption of “enoughness” (Daly, 1977, 1991; Schumacher, 1973). Based on this assumption, Daly (1977, 1991) proposes a sustainable, steady-state economy which exists as JOCM 7,4 24 a subsystem of the larger ecosystem. He defines a steady-state economy as one that is “maintained at some desired, sufficient levels … by the lowest feasible flows of matter and energy from the first stages of production … to the last stage of consumption …” (Daly, 1991, p. 17). He notes that a steady-state economy develops but does not grow. In a steady-state economy, “land” (the economics term for natural resources) would no longer be considered a perfect substitute for man-made capital; it would be renamed “nature” in order to account for the long-term consequences related to natural resource depletion and pollution (Daly 1977, 1991; Daly and Cobb, 1989). Communitarianism Communities are “complex cognitive structures which form around the values and expectations of the individuals and organizations that comprise (them)” (Stead and Stead, 1992, p. 140). They are not so much identified by the fact that people are living in some defined physical space as they are defined by groups of people who share a “sense of we-ness” (Etzioni, 1991, p. 5). In this regard, communities exist in a variety of forms, and cannot be differentiated in any meaningful way from societies. Etzioni (1991) explains: “Communities exist like Chinese nesting boxes, in that smaller ones – families – are embedded in more encompassing ones – say, villages – and these still in more encompassing ones – say national societies” (p. 5). Campbell (1988) speaks of the need for the emergence of a “society of the planet”, an all-inclusive, worldwide community based on values of planetary responsibility rooted in peace, justice and deep ecological awareness. Communitarianism forms an excellent framework for bringing economic activity into concordance with the larger society in which it exists. Pioneered and vigorously promoted by sociologist and management scholar, Amitai Etzioni, communitarianism has emerged recently as a field of study and a political force committed to accomplishing the economic and social changes necessary to achieve a society like the one envisaged by Campbell. Etzioni (1988, 1993) explains that communitarianism is based on the idea that individual economic satisfaction must exist only within the moral dimensions of a meaningful community structure. He (1988) discusses what he calls the “I/we paradigm”, which assumes that: individuals are complex beings with spiritual, moral and social needs as well as economic needs; emotions and values are as important in human decision making as logic; and people exist in collectives called communities which exert moral standards on their members. Daly (1991) asserts, “The attainment of an optimal scale (of economic activity) will require collective action by the community” (p. 242). He and John Cobb (1989) present what they call the “person-in-community paradigm” which establishes the self-sufficient, sustainable community as the basic economic unit rather than the selfish individual. Other business scholars and practitioners are now recognizing that community must be a foundation of the new economics paradigm. Michael Ray Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? 25 (1991) of the Stanford Business School says that business organizations must “relate to the surrounding community in an integrated instead of an us-versusthem contentious way” (p. 44). Strategic management consultant and World Business Academy fellow, Juanita Brown (1991), points out that community has its roots in the word, unity. Thus adopting community as an economic framework means developing unity with the larger society and ecosystem. A myriad changes in the economic system will probably have to occur as the economics paradigm shifts, such as: redefining the Gross Domestic Product, developing technologies which are environmentally friendly and in keeping with the human spirit, restructuring the entire tax system, re-engineering the theories of international trade, establishing depletion quotas to replace depletion allowances, and reintroducing the spiritual value of work back into business organizations (Daly, 1977, 1991; Daly and Cobb, 1989; Etzioni, 1988; Hawken, 1993; Henderson, 1991; Schumacher, 1973; Stead and Stead, 1992). Hawken says: “We need to imagine – and then design – a system of commerce … where the natural, everyday act of work and life accumulate into a better world as a matter of course, not a matter of altruism” (p. 55). The Management Paradigm So, framing the economic system within the concepts of systems theory, Gaia theory and the laws of thermodynamics allows humankind to devise an economy that can serve the greater society while operating within the biophysical limits of the planet. However, one key ingredient remains. Organizations must recognize that they are the central actors in this new economic system and, thus, achieving such a system rests on their willingness to adopt management paradigms which support it. In short, the organizations in the business world must go through what Shrivastava (1992) calls “corporate self-greenewal … a transformation (which involves) recognizing and making adjustments to new market forces, and realigning organizational products, systems, and resources” (p. 18). We propose that these fundamental transformations in corporate behaviour can occur within a management paradigm that includes: (1) a cognitive framework that can help to explain why and how the value systems which underlie strategic decision-making processes must be modified to include nature; (2) a strategic framework which provides a means by which organizations can analyse their underlying value systems in light of their roles in serving the needs of the ultimate organizational stakeholder – planet earth; and (3) a structural framework which supports the fundamental change efforts necessary for organizations to effectively institutionalize the planet into their strategic management processes. JOCM 7,4 26 Three existing concepts which provide such frameworks include organizational cognition, enterprise strategy and learning organizations. Organizational Cognition Given that paradigm shifts require significant examination and modification of value systems, we turn our attention to the burgeoning field of organizational cognition which offers some important lessons about the role that values play in developing environmentally-sensitive strategic decision-making processes. Human cognitive systems are interconnected mental networks of sensations, memories, assumptions, values, information, knowledge, aspirations, opinions, etc., which interact in order to allow people to form perceptions and make decisions. Building on this, organizations can be seen as interconnected cognitive networks of human perceptions which emanate from the collective assumptions, values, goals, memories, information, and knowledge of the organizational membership. Values are cognitive, emotionally-charged abstractions which arise from people’s perceptions of what is important for their survival. Organizational cognition researchers have found that strategic decisions made in organizations are both framed and limited by the value systems that pervade strategic decision-making processes (Schwenk, 1988). Further, successful implementation of strategic decisions requires that the key values that guide these strategic decision-making processes become a part of organizations’ common cognitive frameworks (Finney and Mitroff, 1986; Weick and Bougon, 1986). Thus, if organizations are going to be able to integrate values for sustainable business into their strategic processes, they will have to develop shared organizational perceptions which reflect that their long-term survival depends on their relationship with the natural environment. They will have to perceive the earth’s physical limits; they will have to perceive the interconnectedness between themselves and the ecosystem; and they will have to perceive the true, long-term ecological implications of their strategic choices (Stead and Stead, 1993). Ornstein and Ehrlich (1990) point out that this means developing new ways of thinking, and new ecological minds. Humankind has evolved in a world historically characterized by abrupt changes and immediate dangers. Humans have responded by developing perceptual processes designed to deal with such situations. Unfortunately, the nature of the current ecological problems cannot be easily perceived through such short-term, crisis-oriented cognitive processes. Humans are now capable of creating long-term global changes which are not perceivable via the same cognitive processes used to deal with immediate danger. The result, according to Ornstein and Ehrlich, is that the human mind is now out of sync with its environment. They believe that humans can change these out-of-date perceptual processes, “replacing (their) old minds with new ones” (Ornstein and Ehrlich, 1990, p. 12), by educating themselves about how their short-term thinking exacerbates the ecological problems they face. Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? 27 Enterprise Strategy The earth is a significant player in the economic system. It is the ultimate source of the economic capital that fuels and supplies the system, and it is the recipient of the waste products of the system. In short, the earth is a significant organizational stakeholder (Post, 1991; Stead and Stead, 1992). Indeed, its supranational position in the hierarchy of planetary living systems means that the earth “should be considered the ultimate stakeholder in business organizations” (Stead and Stead, 1992, p. 14). Further, as discussed earlier, the earth is directly represented in the marketplace by other significant organizational stakeholders – green consumers and investors, legal and regulatory interests, etc. Thus a management paradigm that effectively incorporates the earth into the decisions of strategic managers must provide a framework which includes the earth and its green representatives. Enterprise strategy has emerged as an important concept for understanding how organizations relate to their larger environments (Ansoff, 1979; Freeman, 1984). Enterprise strategy focuses on basing organizational strategic decisions on an analysis of organizational value systems in the light of critical issues and the needs and expectations of key stakeholders (Freeman, 1984). It provides a means for organizations to answer the question, “What do we stand for?” (Freeman and Gilbert, 1988, p. 70) Answering this question provides a clear understanding of the ethical foundations which should underlie organizational strategic choices, and it gives important insights into the values which comprise these ethical foundations (Freeman and Gilbert, 1988). Thus enterprise strategy provides organizations with a framework for purposefully integrating the earth into their strategic processes. By assuming that the earth is an organizational stakeholder of significant import, enterprise strategy allows organizations to develop purposefully a value system which encourages them to continuously examine and modify their relationships with the planet and the stakeholders that represent it. Values such as wholeness, posterity, smallness, community and quality, which allow organizations to account effectively for the natural environment, can become a part of the strategic decisions in business organizations. With such values defining the basis of what organizations stand for, they can proceed to take actions which support a synergistic relationship between themselves and their ultimate stakeholder (Stead and Stead, 1992). Learning Organizations Learning organizations are holistic, interconnected structures that can successfully define their own futures by questioning and changing the foundation visions, values and assumptions that underlie the way people in organizations think. In the words of Beckhard and Pritchard (1992), learning organizations are structured to reach to “the very essence of organizations – their basic purposes. their identities, and their relationships …” (p. 1) Learning organizations require vision-driven leadership which focuses on designing, teaching, and stewarding the organizational vision. Teams are the basic JOCM 7,4 28 learning unit in learning organizations; they employ double-loop learning processes which allow them to engage in continuous, honest dialogue which questions basic organizational values and assumptions. All of this is done within a framework of systems thinking which focuses on identifying points of leverage within circular, archetypical models representing the interrelationships among key variables (Beckhard and Pritchard, 1992; Senge, 1990). Learning organizations provide a framework for a more intrinsic, spiritual view of the purpose of organizational life (Harman, 1988, 1991; Ray, 1991; Senge, 1990). Ray (1991) explains this by saying: The new paradigm is more than just a move to the powers of technology or the individual mind. It is a move to the spirit; to inner qualities such as intuition, will, joy, strength and compassion … (It refers) to the power of inner wisdom and authority and the connection and wholeness in humanity (p. 37). Since learning structures are designed to focus continuously the attention of organizations on the underlying values and assumptions that guide them, bringing a holistic, spiritual dimension into the psyche of organizations, they provide ideal structures for integrating ecological awareness and sensitivity into the organizational cultures. Post and Altman (1992) support this point in their recent research. They found that successfully institutionalizing ecological responsibility into corporate strategic processes means implementing learning structures which create the interconnected networks of policies, programmes, team structures, and reward systems which support new, ecologically-sensitive strategic processes. Thus there seems little doubt that the paradigm shifts necessary for a new economic myth will require long-term organizational and societal change efforts. Virtually all of the organizations which comprise the underlying economic forces of our culture will have consciously to adopt shared organizational value systems which support ecological sustainability, they will have to examine and modify what they stand for in the context of serving the needs of their ultimate stakeholder, and they will have to develop learning structures which emphasize and perpetuate ecologically-sensitive values and assumptions, supporting a nurturing, synergistic relationship with the small planet, earth. Summary and Conclusions Myths reflect the paradigms that form the frameworks for the way human beings think. Currently, the paradigms which underlie the economic myth do not adequately guide business organizations in their relationships with Mother Earth. Organizations need a new scientific paradigm which allows them to understand that they are integral parts of interconnected, holistic, entropic planetary processes which function at evolutionary morphogenetic rates. Organizations also need a new, community-based economics paradigm which allows them to recognize that there is such a thing as enough. Finally, Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? 29 organizations need a new management paradigm that allows them to explore the deepest levels of what they stand for in order to redefine their core values, strategies and structures to include the carrying capacity of the planet. Whether or not such paradigm shifts can occur within the organizations that form the economic subsystem of the planet is far from certain. The change efforts necessary to accomplish pervasively an ecologically sustainable economic myth are nothing short of monumental – requiring system-wide, fundamental changes in the way organizations perceive their relationships to the natural environment. Thus we end where we began: by asking the question, “Can humankind change the economic myth?” References Ansoff, H.I. (1979), “The Changing Shape of the Strategic Problem”, in Schendel, D. and Hofer, C. (Eds), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning, Little Brown, Boston, pp. 30-44. Ayres, R.U. (1989), “Industrial Metabolism”, in Ausubel, J. H. and Sladovich, H. E. (Eds), Technology and Environment, National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp. 23-49. Beckhard, R. and Pritchard, W. (1992), Changing the Essence, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Berry, T. (1988), The Dream of the Earth, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA. Brown, J. (1991), “Corporations as Community: A New Image for a New Era”, in Renesch, J. (Ed.), New Traditions in Business, Sterling and Stone Inc., San Francisco, CA, pp. 131-47. Boulding, K.E. (1956), “General Systems Theory: The Skeleton of Science”, Management Science, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 197-208. Boulding, K.E. (1966), “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth”, Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, Johns-Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD. Campbell, J. with Moyers, B. (1988), The Power of Myth, Doubleday, New York, NY. Capra, F. (1983), The Turning Point, Bantam Books, New York, NY. Daly, H.E. (1977), Steady-state Economics,W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. Daly, H.E. (1991), Steady-state Economics, 2nd ed., Island Press, Washington DC. Daly, H.E. and Cobb, J.B. Jr (1989), For the Common Good, Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. and Holdren, J.P. (1977), Ecoscience,W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. Etzioni, A. (1988), The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics, The Free Press, New York, NY. Etzioni, A. (1991), “What Community, What Responsiveness?”, The Responsive Community, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-8. Etzioni, A. (1993), The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda, Crown Publishers, New York, NY. Finney, M. and Mitroff, I. (1986), “Strategic Plan Failures: The Organization as Its Own Worst Enemy”, in Sims. H. and Gioia, D. (Eds), The Thinking Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 317-35. Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA. Freeman, R.E. and Gilbert, D. R. Jr (1988), Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. JOCM 7,4 30 Frosch, R.A. (1992), “Industrial Ecology: A Philosophical Introduction”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Vol. 89, pp. 800-03. Frosch, R.A. and Gallopoulos, N.E. (1989), “Strategies for Manufacturing”, Scientific American, September, pp. 144-52. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971), The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Harman, W. (1988), Global Mind Change: The Promises of the Last Years of the Twentieth Century, Knowledge Systems Inc., Indianapolis, IN. Harman, W. (1991), “21st Century Business: A Background for Dialogue”, in Renesch, J. (Ed.), New Traditions in Business, Sterling and Stone Inc., San Francisco, CA, pp. 19-30. Hawken, P. (1993), “A Declaration of Sustainability”, Utne Reader, September/October, pp. 54-61. Henderson, H. (1991), Paradigms in Progress: Life beyond Economics, Knowledge Systems Inc., Indianapolis, IN. Joseph, L.E. (1990), Gaia: The Growth of an Idea, St Martin’s Press, New York, NY. Kirchner, J.W. (1991), “The Gaia Hypotheses: Are They Testable? Are They Useful?” in Schneider, S. H. and Boston, P. J. (Eds), Scientists on Gaia, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 38-46. Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Lovelock, J. (1979), Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press, London. Lovelock, J. (1988), The Ages of Gaia, Bantam Books, New York, NY. Lovelock, J. (1991), “Geophysiology – The Science of Gaia”, in Schneider, S.H. and Boston, P.J. (Eds), Scientists on Gaia, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3-10. Margulis, L. and Hinkle, G. (1991), “The Biota and Gaia: 150 Years of Support for Environmental Sciences”, in Schneider, S.H. and Boston, P.J. (Eds), Scientists on Gaia, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 11-18. Mumford, L. (1956), The Transformation of Man, Harper Brothers, New York, NY. Ornstein R. and Ehrlich, P. (1990), New World, New Mind, Touchstone, New York. Post, J.E. (1991), “Managing as if the Earth Mattered”, Business Horizons, July/August, pp. 32-8. Post, J.E. and Altman, B.W. (1992), “Models for Corporate Greening: How Corporate Social Policy and Organizational Learning Inform Leading-edge Environmental Management”, in Post, J. (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Policy and Performance, Vol. 13, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3-29. Ray, M.L. (1991), “The Emerging New Paradigm in Business”, in Renesch, J. (Ed.), New Traditions in Business, Sterling and Stone Inc., San Francisco, CA, pp. 33-45. Schumacher, E.F. (1973), Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Schumacher, E.F. (1977), A Guide for the Perplexed, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Schwenk, C.R. (1988), The Essence of Strategic Decision Making, Lexington Books, Lexington MA. Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY. Sharfman, M. and Ellington, R.T. (1993), “Managing for Total Environmental Quality: Antecedents and Organizational Implications”, paper presented at the meeting of the National Academy of Management, 4 August, Atlanta, GA. Sheldrake, R. (1991), The Greening of Science and God, Bantam Books, New York, NY. Shrivastava, P. (1992), “Corporate Self-greenewal: Strategic Responses to Environmentalism”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 9-21. Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? 31 Stead, J.G. and Stead, W.E. (1993), “Implementing Sustainability Strategies: A Matter of Values”, paper presented to the meeting of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics, 28 March, New York, NY. Stead, W.E. and Stead, J.G. (1992), Management for a Small Planet: Strategic Decision Making and the Environment, Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, CA. Stead, W.E., Stead, J.G. and Zimmerer, T.W. (forthcoming), “An Empirical Investigation of Sustainability Strategy Implementation in Industrial Organizations”, in Collins, D. and Starik, M. (Eds), Sustaining the Natural Environment: Empirical Studies on the Interface between Nature and Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Van Gigch, J.P. (1978), Applied General System Theory, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Weick, K. and Bougon, M. (1986), “Organizations as Cognitive Maps”, in Sims, H. and Gioia, D. (Eds), The Thinking Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 102-33. Wheatley, M.J. (1992), Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organization from an Orderly Universe, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
