Developing collaborative and sustainable organisations

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 499e509www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Developing collaborative and sustainable organisations

Rodrigo Lozano*

B.R.A.S.S. Centre, Cardiff University, 55 Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT, United Kingdom

Received 8 November 2006; accepted 20 January 2007

Available online 13 March 2007

Abstract

One of the defining characteristics of humankind is that we are, by nature, a social species. This makes the individualistic behaviours thatincreasingly characterise our society and culture both ‘‘unnatural’’ and it tends to create imbalances and conflicts between individuals, groupsand organisations.

This paper presents two approaches to build stronger and more Sustainability oriented organisations through collaboration. The first one is theJapanese concept of Kyosei, or ‘‘spirit of cooperation’’, which invokes collaboration among labour, companies, customers, governments, andothers.

Kyosei is complemented with a Multi-dimensional Sustainability Influence Change (MuSIC) memework as a means of understanding andpromoting integrated progress towards Sustainability. The MuSIC memework explores the complexity and interconnectedness of the three typesof attitudes: (1) informational, (2) emotional, and (3) behavioural, within three organisational levels: (a) individuals, (b) groups, and (c) theorganisation.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Collaboration; Sustainability; Organisations; Kyosei; MuSIC memework; Attitudes; Change

1. Introduction

Individualistic and competitive behaviours have becomecharacteristic of modern societies. Such behaviours have cre-ated imbalances and conflicts among individuals, groups andorganisations, as well as among the Sustainability aspects,i.e. economic, environmental and social ones in the short-,long- and longer-term.

The author of this paper argues that collaborative approachescan help build stronger and more Sustainability oriented orga-nisations. The first section, Sustainability equilibrium in orga-nisations, offers the rationale why collaborative approachesare better than competitive ones in the path towards Sustainabil-ity. The second section, groups and organisations morphology,presents the morphology of groups and organisations. The third

* Tel.: þ44 (0) 29 20 876562; fax: þ44 (0) 29 20 876061.

E-mail address: [email protected]

URL: http://www.brass.cardiff.ac.uk

0959-6526/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.01.002

section, Kyosei and Sustainability, presents the Kyosei, i.e.spirit of collaboration, philosophy, which searches for collabo-ration (1) within the members and groups in an organisation, (2)with customers, suppliers and competitors, (3) with foreigncompanies, and (4) with government. The fourth section pres-ents the Multi-dimensional Sustainability Influence Change(MuSIC) memework.1 The MuSIC memework is built uponcollaboration and the groups and organisations morphologyfocusing and expanding upon the Kyosei collaboration withinthe members and groups of the organisation step. It exploresthe complexity and interconnectedness of the three types of at-titudes: (1) informational, (2) emotional, and (3) behavioural,

1 Memework is a new term coined by the author. It is a hybrid between

a model and a framework. It draws from the meme concept which Dawkings

[27] defines as ‘‘.a noun which conveys the idea of a unit of cultural trans-mission, or a unit of imitation.’’ [27] Memes are propagated by leaping from

brain to brain. A memework has the aim of helping transfer memes, i.e. help to

transfer ideas or units of imitation throughout a system, from an individual to

another, to and among groups and organisations.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.brass.cardiff.ac.uk

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

500 R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 499e509

within three organisational levels: (a) individuals, (b) groups,and (c) the organisation.

2. Sustainability equilibrium in organisations

One of the significant characteristics of humankind is thatwe are predisposed to associate with peers to create groups,i.e. we are a social species, from the Latin word socii meaningallies [2]. These alliances are formed from the need of a sociallife, every human ‘‘.needs others to satisfy his own needs.and he [sic] improves himself (becomes ‘‘more human’’, exer-cises and develops his capacities) in his relationships withothers.’’ [1].

In spite of the social predisposition, currently, in manyideologies of the world people have a strong tendency towardsindividualistic behaviours that seek to accumulate resourcesand power for personal gain. This has been especially evidentduring the last century, sometimes described as ‘The Centuryof Self’, where companies in particular, have emphasised theirmarketing to peoples as individuals and reinforced their indi-vidual worth, some illustrating taglines include: L’Oreal’s ‘Be-cause you’re worth it’ or Budweiser’s ‘This Bud’s for you’.Frequently, these modern individualistic behaviours that in-creasingly characterise our societies and cultures are ‘‘unnatu-ral’’, creating imbalances and conflicts with other individuals,groups and organisations, as well as with Sustainability’s as-pects: economic, environmental and social. Competing andselfish individualistic mental models2 reinforce a mutual pro-cess by which individuals shape the culture of the group towhich they belong. The group culture then shapes the individ-ual’s values and beliefs. Groups in turn, behave competitivelyand non-collaboratively towards other groups by trying to con-centrate all the available natural and human resources. Thisresults in selfish and individualistic organisations, which rein-force the process where the quest for profit maximization isreciprocally transferred from individuals to groups to organi-sations to societies, in complex simultaneous and sequentialcybernetic behavioural loops.

The flagship of competing activities has been the motto ‘‘sur-vival of the fittest’’, a term first used by Herbert Spencer in hisSocial Darwinian theory, a synthesis of Darwin’s theory of evo-lution with Adam Smith’s ‘‘invisible hand’’ [4,5]. Two othernames used for Social Darwinism are pseudo-Darwinism orLamarckism. Following this motto organisations enter intocompetitive warfare with other organisations, where the stron-gest and most efficient survive. Such assumptions are flawedsince there are no assurances that the ones that survive are notthe most ruthless, corrupt or unethical [4]. Friedman [6] remarksthat the political principle in which free markets should bebased is that no individual can coerce others, in the case of or-ganisations they cannot, or should not, use their power to forceothers to line up to their wills. Miesing [4] wisely states that: ‘‘If

2 ‘‘Mental models’’ are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or

even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and

how we take action. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mentalmodels or the effects they have on our behaviour’’[3].

all corporations operated in a perfectly efficient market (whichthey do not) and if the market took account of all of society’s in-terests (which it does not), then there would be no need to worryabout different business philosophies.’’ It should be noted thatcompetition can help improve efficiencies, but if it becomesextreme it can create monopolies, oligopolies, or cartels, whichby controlling prices and raising entry barriers to competitorsdamage society’s interests [7], and reduce efficiencies [8].

In the specific case of organisations, individuals pursue per-sonal gain at the expense of others, whether through directcompetition (i.e. power seeking), indirect competition (i.e. re-source accumulation), or a mixture of both. Senge [3] remarksthat when individuals are motivated only by self-interest, orga-nisations enter a positive feedback loop, commonly referred toas a vicious circle, becoming highly political and forcing theindividuals to rely upon self-interest to survive. The result ofsuch loops is that human greed and thirst for money and powermay yield a perceived maximum gain for the individual, atleast in the short-term, but it results in sub-optimal gains3 inthe short- and long-term for the group.

Porter [11] also emphasises the potential benefits of non-competitive approaches by remarking that companies couldchoose strategies that avoid warfare and make the industry bet-ter off, even though the firm might give up potential profits andmarket share in the short-term. Taking such an approach, in-dustries could experience sustainable growth with betterprofits for each of the companies in the long-term. It is implicitthat such strategies must follow Sustainability principles andnot only focus on the economic bottom line, as is commonlydone. Ironically, competition needs collaboration and viceversa, there needs to be competition for industries to growmore efficient but also there needs to be collaboration, espe-cially in current global times, to make initiatives and changesthat would create new models and ways of thinking to improvetheir sector, and their internal and external environments, bothnatural and social. Kanter [12] remarks that ‘‘While peers inthe same work unit may be direct competitors for better jobs,they are also collaborators in the larger struggle to improvethe entire unit’s bargaining position in the organization.’’ An-carani and Shankar [13] offer the example of Symbian, a jointventure between Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, Siemens,and Psion, usually competitors in the mobile phones market.Collaboration through Symbian allowed them to take advan-tage of their experiences and helped them to create an operat-ing system for third generation mobile phones that couldcompete against Microsoft’s operating system.

Sub-optimal gains go beyond mere economic aspects. Sincethe publication of the Brundtland Report [9] in 1987, theconcepts and principles of Sustainable Development and Sus-tainability have helped to bring to light the complex inter-relatedness of economic, environmental and social aspects inthe short- and long-term. Whereas, optimal organisationalsolutions are sustainable solutions, sub-optimal solutions are

3 Sub-optimal gains refer to when the sum of the gains of all the players in

the system is lower that the total possible gains.

501R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 499e509

inherently unsustainable. A note of caution is provided byDoppelt [10] who remarks that long engrained mental modelshave made people believe that better controls, incrementalimprovements and efficiency increases will lead them to Sus-tainability, however the road towards Sustainability requiresnew mental and business models.

Change in the pursuit of Sustainability can be achievedthrough learning, rationality, alignment, motivation and em-powerment. An important point in this process is the need toachieve short-term gains by establishing milestones andobjectives, to avoid discontent, low moral and the eventual re-turn to individualistic mental models.

3. Groups and organisations morphology

The smallest element in societies is the individual, who by‘allying’ and interacting with other individuals creates or be-comes part of groups, which in turn are part of or create orga-nisations. Friedman [6] states that society is a collection ofindividuals and the groups they form. There is a mutualexchange of values, beliefs and cultures between individuals,groups, organisations and societies.

Two types of ‘‘alliances’’ of individuals can be character-ised: (1) the ones that happen naturally through homophily,i.e. the degree that interacting individuals share certain attri-butes [14], and propinquity, i.e. spatial proximity [15], and(2) the ones that are artificially created, usually by an individ-ual with power who chooses the members. The former is mostcommon in informal groups, while the latter in formal. Inmany cases groups are lead by a common ideology or purpose,whether it is to improve productivity, fight injustices or in-crease salaries, amongst many others.

There are different classifications of groups, for exampleLuthans [15] remarks that there are primary groups, e.g.family and friends, coalitions, membership groups, referencegroups; in-groups, i.e. those who share the dominant values;and out-groups, i.e. those on the outside looking in. Anotherway of classifying groups is by their maturity: (1) alreadyestablished ones, or old groups, and (2) groups that willbe created, or new groups. Organisations can also be cate-gorised in such manner. Such classification is importantsince old groups have, to a large degree, established theirinteractions, routines and behaviours, while new groups inmany cases are in a transition state where the interactions,routines and behaviour are being established. Whereas inan old group the members know each others’ fashion ofworking and personal differences, in a new group the mem-bers need to spend time adjusting to the others. In manycases manageable conflicts appear from personal differences,once these have been resolved and each of the membersknows how to deal with the others the group is in its roadto becoming an old group.

In organisational alliances it is possible to find the follow-ing types of interactions:

� Inter-personal interactions: this is the simplest one. Ittakes place between individuals, whether from the same

group, different groups, the same organisation, or evenfrom different organisations.� Inter-group interactions: it can be found from groups

within a particular organisation or from different ones. Itshould be noted that even if the agent of these interactionsis an individual, there is a difference between inter-personal and inter-group interactions. In the former the re-lation is on a personal level, while in the latter the relationdeals with topics belonging to both groups with the agentsacting on behalf of their group. It is also possible to findinteractions between a particular individual and a group.� Inter-organisational interactions: as the name indicates,

these refer to interactions amongst different organisationsin society.

An example of the different interactions can be illustratedby a marketing manager attending an industry function whocould, within a matter of minutes, go from an inter-personalinteraction whilst making small-talk, to an inter-group discus-sion with someone from her/his firm’s research division, torepresenting his/her company in an inter-organisational inter-action with another firm.

Interactions in organisations are rarely balanced. Usually anindividual, group or organisation holds more influence thanothers. Influence can be used for leverage, which Senge [3] de-fines as small actions that produce significant and enduringimprovements, to help the transition towards more sustainableorganisations. Convincing an influential individual, group ororganisation that a change, in this case towards Sustainability,is required eases the transformation of the group, organisationand/or society to which they belong [16].

An example of inter-personal relations with an influentialindividual is presented in Fig. 1, where the individual 2 (I2)has strong links with the others, making him an influential per-son in the group. It can be observed that the individual 5 (I5)has weak links to the other individuals, thus his influence inthe system is low.

An example of interactions amongst groups in an organisa-tion is presented in Fig. 2. This figure presents an ideal case

Fig. 1. Individuals’ interactions within a group.


where the relations, influence, and communication within thegroups are balanced and all can work collaboratively toachieve the optimum. Group interactions are similar to indi-vidual interactions. It should be noted that in many cases, rivalgroups struggle to keep the majority of, or all of the resources,or a dominant position in the organisation, which leads to in-ternal conflicts in the organisation.

Individualistic mental models affect alliances negatively.Individual attempts, through individualistic behaviours, toaccumulate resources and obtain a maximum gain, createcompetitive environments where conflicts appear and efficien-cies are reduced, sub-optimality, in the group. In the same wayif a group takes individualistic attitudes it might be able tohave large, perceived, short-term gains, but the organisationwould be subject to internal conflicts, and power and resourcestruggles which could lead it to unsustainable paths. Livy [17]remarked that life two millennia ago, but still valid today, wascharacterised by: ‘‘.factional strife, which has been and willbe for most peoples more destructive than wars with foreignenemies, more destructive than famine, pestilence, or other na-tional disasters that men attribute to the wrath of the gods.’’

Kanter [12] offers two examples of collaborative organisa-tions: Chipco, a pseudonym, and GE Medical Systems, bothrelying on a matrix organisational structure; and an un-collab-orative one, Petrocorp’s Marketing Service Department(MSD). In the case of Chipco the organisational matrix wasdesigned so that almost every employee would have twobosses in order to avoid pursuing sub-unit goals at the expenseof the overall company goals. GE Medical Systems owes itssuccess to collaboration among innovative technologies, mar-keting, production efficiency, and good management systems.On the other hand Petrocorp’s MSD could not plough thebenefits of its Project Opportunity, a project designed toincrease motivation, efficiency and productivity through em-ployee motivation and empowerment. Because Petrocorp’stop-levels saw Project Opportunity as a competition and threatto the status quo, the way things had been done in the companyfor years. The project was killed by separating the changechampions, shifting employees to other departments, and

Fig. 2. Groups’ interactions within an organisation.

forcing early retirement of employees. Competition againstthe project took the explicit form of lack of support, whilethe hidden agenda was protection of the status quo.

Organisational systems, especially in corporations, andtheir sub-systems, i.e. groups and individuals, have to workcollaboratively if they wish to survive in the long term. Thispaper’s author has underscored the key differences amongcoordination, co-operation and collaboration in a previouspublication [18]. The main points are as follows:

� coordination refers to activities performed by differentindividuals in order to make them compatible with a com-mon purpose or result [19,20];� cooperation refers to engaging in work on monitoring and

evaluation, learning from each other and sharing experi-ences [21];� collaboration refers to using information to create some-

thing new, seeking divergent insights and spontaneity,jointly developing proposals, sharing information, plan-ning joint workshop, and raising funds together amongother activities. Collaboration thrives on differences anddissent [20,21].

It should be noted that taking individualistic approaches,the survival of the strongest and fittest, raises competitionand hinders collaboration. Rosner [22] remarks that ‘‘. un-controlled competition punishes cooperation in a protectedmarket, although in an open market a cooperating clustercould gain advantage against non-cooperating actors.’’ [22]Competitive approaches in a free-market [6,23,24] have beenpraised for improving competitiveness and productivity, butrecent developments, especially in Sustainability, have proventhat without collaboration, with customers, suppliers, compet-itors, communities, and other stakeholders, there is no real ad-vancement, and in certain cases companies can even lose whathas come to be known as their ‘‘license to operate’’, i.e. theallowance that civil society and governments give to the com-pany through legal status and purchases of the company’sproducts. Similarly, civil society and governmental organisa-tions can lose their license to operate, e.g. a government thatoppresses its citizens can lose international recognition andbe sanctioned by trade embargoes, electoral defeat or militaryintervention.

Although the highest priority of any organisation is eco-nomic survival, whether through profit generation, donationsor membership inscriptions, the organisation’s leaders mustcommence and continue to engage with the different playersthrough collaborative measures. This is a concept that perme-ates throughout Agenda 21 [25], to help integrate Sustainabil-ity into their organisation’s activities, strategies and culturethrough collaborative measures. As Clarke and Roome [26] re-mark: ‘‘Environmental management and sustainable develop-ment require companies to participate in collaborative actionthat links traditional business issues to a set of environmentaland social concerns.’’

In summary, individuals, groups and organisations mustunderstand that by collaborating with each other is the fastest


way to the overall optimum. A question, already posed in theBrundtland Report [9], arises:

� How can we make every individual and every group in theorganisation understand that the best approach is to worktogether for the common good?

In the following sections this author seeks to answer thesequestions with the help of both the Kyosei philosophy and theMulti-dimensional Sustainability Influence Change (MuSIC)memework.

4. Kyosei and sustainability

Kyosei is the Japanese philosophy that means ‘‘spirit of co-operation’’. According to Kaku [28] Kyosei is a process that‘‘.is analogous to building a pyramid in that the strengthof each layer depends on the strength of the layers precedingit’’. The Kyosei process has five stages, or layers:

Stage 1. Economic survival: ‘‘Companies . work to securea predictable stream of profits and to establish strong mar-ket positions in their industries’’Stage 2. Co-operating with labour: ‘‘. when managers andworkers begin to co-operate with each other. Each em-ployee makes cooperation a part of his or her own codeof ethics.’’Stage 3. Co-operating outside the company: ‘‘Customersare treated respectfully and reciprocate by being loyal. Sup-pliers are provided with technical support and, in turn, de-liver high-quality materials on time. Competitors are invitedinto partnership agreements and joint ventures. Commu-nity groups become partners in solving local problems.’’Stage 4. Global activism: ‘‘By cooperating with foreigncompanies, large corporations not only can increase theirbase of business but also can address global imbalances.’’Stage 5. The government as a Kyosei partner: ‘‘Fifth stagecompanies are very rare. Using their power and wealth,fifth-stage companies urge national governments to worktoward rectifying global imbalances.’’ [28].

It should be noted that even though Kyosei is translated as‘‘spirit of co-operation’’ it should be understood henceforth asthe ‘‘spirit of collaboration’’, focusing on working collabora-tively first amongst peers, then with other groups, with othergroups in other organisations of the same activity, and finallyin organisations of different activities.

It is clear that Kaku’s [28] approach focuses on the use ofKyosei for companies but it is easily applicable to other typesof organisations. For example, a non-governmental organisa-tion (NGO) must also search for economic survival, stage 1,in many occasions from donations; then it must make surethat its working members collaborate with each other. As theNGO grows, it is important that it creates a network with otherNGOs and other organisations that are in the same conceptualarea or geographic region. As its size and influence increase, itshould search for sponsors and partners outside its region. In

the last stage the NGO may have enough lobbying power asto catalyse the government to create or modify laws.

Thus, the first stage for any organisation is to become eco-nomically self-sufficient, whether through profits, donations ormemberships. Some authors have called this process becomingsustainable. This author disagrees with this use of the termsince mere economic growth and self-sufficiency do notencompass all the different aspects and principles of Sustain-ability. It is more appropriate to describe an organisation as be-coming ‘economically viable’, i.e. capable of self-sustainingeconomically, but not be necessarily sustainable in environ-mental and social aspects.

Once an organisation is economically viable, its labourforce should work collaboratively to learn and to changefeelings and behaviours, stage 2. A lack of collaboration canresult in sabotage, low productivity and even violent strikes,as in the case of the Eskom Corporation in South Africa duringApartheid [29].

When the internal stakeholders have been thoroughly en-gaged in the transition towards a more sustainable organisa-tion, then the focus should be broadened to include externalstakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, sub-contractors,and competitors, amongst others, stage 3. Kaku [28] doesnot explicitly address the case of outsourcing, which wouldbe included in between this and the next stage. Outsourcing,a common phenomenon in recent years, is the action of trans-ferring non-core competencies and operations, such as infor-mation technology and resources management, to specialisedexternal organisations. Hill and Jones [23] offer illustrative ex-amples of Xerox which outsourced its computer and telecom-munication networks, and Nike which outsourced many of itsmanufacturing operations to Asia. According to Hill and Jones[23] outsourcing has two disadvantages: (1) the ability to learnfrom the outsourced competency or operation and create it asa core competence, and (2) integration and long-term relation-ships. An example of the latter is GM which lacks a long-termcommitment to its suppliers and changes them from year toyear, always looking for the cheaper deal.

This problem has been addressed and solved by the Japa-nese keiretsu system, where companies get into long-term co-operative systems with their suppliers [23]. Collaboration withoutsourced companies can bring long-term benefits throughbetter standardisation, quality improvements, and productsand services that are more in accordance with the needs ofthe outsourcing organisation. Non-collaboration can decreaseperformance [30], disrupt the flow of information resultingin frustration in one or the other company, problems in productor service design [31], and result in short-term contracts.

Kyosei’s stage 4 demands that the organisation collaborateswith organisations that are located in different regions or coun-tries. People in different parts of the World approach and solveproblems in different ways; this can offer the organisation per-spectives for problem solving that had not been thought ordeveloped in-house, which in turn could help increase theorganisational knowledge. For this the organisation and its in-dividuals need to be open-minded to innovations and be ableto adapt them to the local culture.


The last stage encompasses all of the different macro-Sus-tainability players, by linking organisations and governments,and helping in the transition towards sustainable societies.For this Behrman [32] remarks that global problems such asraw material and energy scarcities, agricultural productdistribution, and the meeting of basic human needs, such asshelter, clothing, education and employment, can be solvedby collaborative approaches between corporations and govern-ments, reinforcing Kyosei’s last stage and Agenda 21s efforts.Other points in this stage include lowering risks from naturaldisasters, such as hurricanes, fires, and tsunamis, amongstothers. A most important topic to be included in this stageis peace, amongst individuals, groups, organisations andsocieties.

It should be noted that in Kaku’s [28] approach, Kyosei isbiased towards social aspects while environmental ones arenot explicitly addressed. As presented in previous paragraphs,the environmental aspects are one of the three key elements ofSustainability and the long-term survival of any organisation,and to a greater extent the Planet.

The Kyosei approach should therefore be expanded to ac-commodate these environmental aspects to help reach a situa-tion of worldwide stability in which the majority of theworld’s population is no longer living at a level of basic sur-vival, and which incorporates the environment, and societies,including their three pillars (i.e. civil society, governments,and corporations).

For example, in stage 1, the organisation should establishitself securely in the market but also take into considerationsocial and environmental aspects. In stage 2 the organisationcan integrate the knowledge of an expert who could help theemployees learn about Sustainability concepts and principles.In stage 3 the organisation can team with environmental/Sustainability organisations that can help it improve its envi-ronmental strategies. The same approach can be taken withstages 4 and 5; the only difference is that the focus is broaderand should involve international organisations and experts ongovernmental negotiation. In order to be able to pass to thenext stage the organisation needs to first find stability inthe current stage, for example if a company attempts tojump to stage 2 without first assuring economic viability,i.e. survival, the labour will not be able to exist since thecompany could face severe financial problems, and evenbankruptcy. Kanter [12] remarks that people need to findstability and security in the organisation, specifically in theculture and orientation, to be able to manage change as a nor-mal way of life. There also needs to be external stability, i.e.stage 5, as companies that have done business in troubledcountries, socially, economically, politically or environ-mentally, or with hostile governments can testify. There areabundant examples of such instabilities, such as Rwanda,Ethiopia, South Africa during Apartheid, and Cuba beforeCastro took over, and after 50 years of being in power,amongst many others.

When companies manage to work with governments andcivil societies they can usually, improve the economic, envi-ronmental and social well being in ways that the government

or the society would not have been able to do without thecompany. An example of collaboration among management,labour, unions, and government is Eskom Corporation, whichafter Apartheid managed to practically eliminate racial ten-sions, increase motivation, and reduce accidents [29].

A company that claims to have successfully linked theKyosei concepts and the principles of Sustainability withinits business strategy is Canon. By doing this Canon has beenable to improve its competitiveness while at the same time set-ting and achieving environmental and social targets, as statedin its Environmental Report. Canon’s corporate philosophy isbased in Kyosei. Part of this is the Environmental AssurancePhilosophy, which states: ‘‘We aim to help achieve sustainableeconomic development and harmony between the environmentand corporate activities to contribute to worldwide prosperityand happiness.’’ [33].

By following the Kyosei concept Canon reports that it hasbeen able to reduce its emissions and use of resources (Table 1),while at the same time it has increased its income and reducedwaste within its domestic operations (43 business sites). Table1 shows significant reductions of CO2, chemical substancesuse and final waste, while Table 2 shows cost reductions of1370 million yens though energy conservation and improvedlogistics.

Canon reports that it has achieved cost reductions for itscostumers by improving heat-transfer efficiency and loweringheat capacity requirements in laser printers, resulting in energyconsumption that is 75% below that of its competitors [33].

The path of Kyosei demands a paradigm change, from theindividualistic focus to a more collaborative one; this is a keyelement of Sustainability. Collaboration then becomes a meansto help achieve a dynamic equilibrium among the economic,environmental and social aspects, so that the needs of the pres-ent generation are met without compromising the needs offuture generations, as the authors of the Brundtland Report[9] so wisely stated.

Kaku [28] emphasised that this paradigm change ‘‘.muststart by creating a cooperative spirit amongst its employees.’’,followed by the group level, then by the organisation itself,and continuing with stages 3e5 of the Kyosei approach.This point is arguable on the grounds that Sustainability col-laboration must take place simultaneously in the differentlevels of an organisation, from the individuals, groups andthe organisation itself. The following section presents theMulti-dimensional Sustainability Influence Change (MuSIC)memework, focusing mainly on Kyosei’s second stage, discus-sing in detail the holistic need for collaboration.

5. Multi-dimensional Sustainability Influence Change(MuSIC) memework

The MuSIC memework pulls together the argumentstouched upon the previous sections offering a way of helpingorganisations transform their journey towards Sustainability. Itis based on the learning organisations concept of Senge [3],Luthans’ [15] explanation of attitudes, and the Dobes [34]model (Fig. 3). It focuses and expands upon Kyosei’s second


Table 1

Canon’s resource and emissions in 1999 compared to 1998 [33]

Detail Environmental conservation effect Comparison index to

1998 rate of changeEnvironmental load index

Environmental load item 1999 Emission

Effect in operational sites CO2a 151,892 (tC)c 27% reduced

Chemical substanceb 1037 (tons) 29% reduced

Final waste 2295 (tons) 25% reduced

Usage of water 5,900,000 m3 5% reduced

a Energy and non-energy CO2.b 1968 kinds of substance that Canon controls.c Tons of carbon (carbon dioxide basis).

step, collaboration within the members and groups of theorganisation.

Models and figures, and in this case the memework, can im-prove learning and understanding of complex or new concepts,especially when properly constructed, and used to complementand not substitute the written text [35e39]. They can helpmake the text more compact, concise, concrete, coherent,comprehensible, correspondent and codable [35]. They arealso easier to remember than non-image data [35e38].

Dobes [34] proposed a model of organisational transforma-tion, facilitated through the inter-relations between individualskill improvement and changes in their insights, i.e. mentalmodels. Increases in individual skills helps transform the skillsof the organisation, and the change in individual insights mod-ifies the organisational insights.

Dobes’ [34] model falls short in four respects. The first oneis that he considers the change in the organisation as stemmingdirectly from the individuals. As presented, individuals formgroups which in turn form the organisation. In small organisa-tions Dobes’ [34] hypothesis might be accurate, but in largeorganisations, it proves to be flawed. Formal and informalgroups are present and created in large organisations theseplay the role of serving as connectors between the individualsand the organisation. Dobes’ [34] model does not consider this.

The second point is related to the difference between skillsand insight, which should be addressed using Luthans’ [15]explanation of attitudes, divided into three types: informa-tional, i.e. the beliefs and information that the individual hasabout the object; emotional, i.e. the feelings or affects, posi-tive, neutral, or negative, about the object; and behavioural,i.e. the tendencies to behave in a particular way toward an ob-ject, the actions that are taken upon the object [15].

The third point where Dobes’ [34] model needs revision is re-lated to skills, which need to go beyond training, and instead toconsider theoretical and empirical learning. A distinction ismade between training, i.e. inculcation of rote habit and acqui-sitions of skills, and learning, i.e. the increase in intelligencethroughout life experiences, involving cognitive, emotionaland physical dimensions, for those who are willing to risk it[10,40]. Learning refers specifically to informational attitudes.

The fourth point is that Dobes [34] considers that individ-uals’ skills and insights are transferred to the organisationbut does not consider that there is also a strong influencefrom the organisation’s attitudes, in its three types, to

individuals through values, beliefs, processes, codes, cultureand institutional frameworks, among others. For example,learning in organisations takes place mutually among individ-uals and the groups to which they belong, i.e. as individualsstart to learn, the group they belong to starts to learn, likewiselearning occurs among the groups and the organisation.

The learning process in organisations is, therefore, mutualand inter-related among individuals, groups and the organisa-tion, i.e. there is a flow from individuals to groups to the orga-nisation, but also in the other sense, from the organisation togroups to individuals, in some cases even directly from theorganisation to individuals and vice versa.

It is important to note that ‘‘Organizations learn onlythrough individuals who learn. Individual learning does notguarantee organizational learning. But without it no organiza-tional learning occurs.’’ [3]. Organisational learning, throughinter-personal and inter-group interactions, can facilitate grouplearning, and group learning in turn can facilitate individuallearning, which facilitates group learning, which facilitates or-ganisational learning. It is important to note that learningshould take place on each level, i.e. individuals should learnas individuals, but also in an inter-level manner, learn as andthrough groups and the organisation. If this is not done insuch way the problem of individualism could appear. Organi-sational learning needs to be consistent within and throughoutthe different levels, otherwise misunderstandings and evenconflicts could arise; this is known as alignment. The impor-tance of alignment amongst the individuals and the teamshould be highlighted. Without alignment the efforts may be-come disoriented, and as with rowing a boat, however, manyand strong the oarsmen are, little progress toward their desti-nation can be made unless they all row in the same direction

Table 2

Canon’s economic effects related to environmental measures [33]

Economic effect related to environmental

conservation measures

(100 million of yen)

Detail of Effect Amount

Income earned by recycling waste 1.6

Cost reduction by energy conservation 6.5

Processing cost reduction by recycling waste 3.3

Cost reduction by logistics efficiency 7.2

Total 18.6


and with the same rhythm. The organisational learning processis presented in Fig. 4.

Organisations in the process of learning of and for Sustain-ability should incorporate integral thinking of economic, en-vironmental and social aspects, holistic and collaborativethinking, and short- and long-term equilibria into their pro-cesses. Sustainability learning, as with learning anything else,needs to be a continuous process. Doppelt [10] stated that‘‘Constant learning is a building block for long-term successon the path toward sustainability. Increased knowledge and un-derstanding lead to changes in behaviour and actions.’’ [10].Some tools for Sustainability learning include Chronos� [41]and Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future (TLSF)[42]. Learning is, to a great extent, the easiest step in the Sus-tainability organisational transformation.

Senge [3] stated that individual learning can be irrelevantfor organisational learning, but that if teams, his terminologyfor groups, learn, they become organisational microcosms

Fig. 3. Mental models structures flow, from the individual to the organisation

(source: Dobes [34]).

Fig. 4. Organisational alignment of informational attitudes.

throughout and within the organisation. Team learning is a col-lective discipline that has three critical dimensions: ‘‘First,there is the need to think insightfully about complex issues.Second, there is the need for innovative, coordinated action.[and] Third, there is the role of team members on otherteams.’’ [3]. The members of the team, as a group, need tobe able to learn as individuals and as a group.

At the individual level, the internalisation of Sustainabilitypasses from a change in informational attitudes, mainlythrough learning, to emotional attitudes to behavioural atti-tudes, i.e. to know what sustainable refers to, to think insustainable ways, to act in sustainable ways. These individualinternalisation steps, as in the organisational learning process,are mutually dependent. Informational attitudes are interlinkedwith emotional, and emotional attitudes are interlinked withbehavioural ones. An important point to note is that therehas to be congruence amongst the three, without which therewill be no transformation. Congruence refers to consistencybetween informational (what is learnt), emotional (what isthought), and behavioural attitudes (what is done). In manycases lack of congruence among the three attitude types resultsin frustration, dissatisfaction, loss of control, and even to sab-otage of Sustainability initiatives.

The individual internalisation process is presented in Fig. 5.The following is an illustrative example. An individual learnsthat the light should be turned off when leaving a room (infor-mational attitudes), she/he knows that doing so saves energyand reduces costs (emotional attitudes), but still she/he leavesthe room without turning the lights off (behavioural attitudes).In this case there is congruence between informational andemotional attitudes, but no congruence between emotionaland behavioural. For Sustainability changes to take effectthere needs to be congruence amongst the three attitude types.

At the group level there are two processes: (1) internalisa-tion, and (2) inter-relatedness amongst the group and its indi-vidual members. The former refers to congruent changes in thegroup’s informational, emotional, and behavioural attitudes.The latter connects, with the help of alignment, individuals’internalisation with the group’s internalisation. Fig. 6 presentsthese processes. Collaboration within the individual membersof the team can help consolidate this change and make thegroup a better and stronger champion to help multiply the Sus-tainability efforts within the organisation.

The organisational level integrates individuals and groups’internalisations and inter-relatedness to those of the organisa-tion, i.e. the interdependencies of learning, and the change in

Fig. 5. Individual internalisation of Sustainability.


emotional and behavioural attitudes between individuals,groups and the organisation. The interactions of the threelevels and three attitudes give the MuSIC memework itsmulti-dimensionality. The MuSIC memework is presented inFig. 7. Note that groups emotional attitudes influence andare influenced the most by the other quadrants. This is a phe-nomenon common in many organisations, where a group’semotional attitudes influence and are influenced by its individ-ual members and by the organisation, while at the same timeinfluence and are influenced by the learning and actions.

Please observe that the squares in the MuSIC memeworkare used to present a particular dimension, e.g. groups’ emo-tional attitudes or individuals’ informational attitudes. Theydo not depict equal size or power in the organisation. Thearrows in the memework represent the different dimensions’relative influences and relations to the others. These need tobe balanced and calibrated through congruence and alignment.Certain individuals or groups have more leverage than othersin the organisation; such characteristics can, for that particularindividual or group, show bigger arrows towards other individ-uals, groups and the organisation, the alignment axis. Lessinfluential individuals or groups would have smaller arrows.In a similar way, certain attitudes could have more leveragethan others, the congruence axis. For example, actions thatshow positive results may induce more learning and changesin mental models. The MuSIC memework is not designed toaddress each of the elements, individuals, groups, the organi-sation, or any of the attitudes, as separated from the group. It isdesigned to address the entire system, thus the depiction of in-dividuals and groups instead of individual and group.

In large organisations the effect that organisation’s behav-iours have on individuals is usually filtered through the groups.Even though, organisations’ underlying structures, i.e. the op-erating policies of systems [3], corporate values [43e44], andemployee beliefs about the corporation and its management[44e45] influence, determine and help change individual be-haviours. Senge [3] stated that ‘‘When placed in the same sys-tem, people, however different, tend to produce similarresults.’’ reinforcing mutuality and interdependence of theMuSIC memework’s multi-dimensionality. Ergo, the systemand its structures need to be transformed as a whole, where

Fig. 6. Individuals and groups internalisation and inter-relatedness processes.

not only the individuals must learn, but also the groups andthe organisation. Additionally, there must not only be learningbut also congruent change in attitudes and behaviours.

It should be noted in the MuSIC memework (Fig. 7) that forthe paradigm change process towards Sustainability to becomemost effective, it must happen at the same time in the differentdimensions, from individuals, groups and the organisationthrough alignment and support by leadership and institutionalframeworks, to the congruent change in attitudes, i.e. informa-tional, emotional, and behavioural.

Andersson et al. [44] stated that written communication andenvironmental-improvement activities are amongst the methodsused by organisations to show their commitment to Sustainabil-ity. These methods are intrinsic in the MuSIC memework. Itshould be emphasised that learning is a slow process [3], anda full change in mental models towards Sustainability within or-ganisations takes considerable time. Doppelt [10] stated thatSustainability change initiatives that fail to change mentalmodels and cultural traits will have little long-term success. In-stead they will produce frustration and make the organisationworse than before the attempts to make the change.

In their journey towards Sustainability, leaders of organisa-tions should understand that the transformation needs to takeplace through and within the different organisational levels,while at the same time it should be internalised throughchanges in attitudes, i.e. learning, thinking, and acting moresustainably.

The purposes of the MuSIC memework are as follows: (1)to help show the organisation’s multi-dimensional inter-relat-edness and the implications that decisions and actions takenat any level can positively or negatively affect individuals atthe same or at other levels, and (2) to promote collaborativeapproaches among individuals, groups, and the organisationin their journey towards Sustainability. The MuSIC meme-work and Kyosei complement each other. They can be usedjointly to help organisational leaders to understand that in or-der to survive, in the long-term, they need to collaborate with

Fig. 7. Multi-dimensional Sustainability Influence Change (MuSIC) memework.


their internal and external stakeholders, be they individuals,groups, organisations, governments, societies, or nature.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

This author underscores that collaboration is a key elementto help individuals understand that they belong to larger systemscalled groups, organisations, nations and to the larger system,the planet. However, the deeply engrained and often uncon-scious individualistic approaches to all aspects of our livescreate imbalances between these systems and sub-systems.

To become more sustainable organisations can use theKyosei philosophy with its five stages. In so doing theymust, in the first place to become economically self-suffi-cient, then they should engage in collaborative actions withtheir members, with stakeholders outside the company, withglobal organisations, and with governments. Organisationsthat do not have the capacity to survive economically willsooner or later disappear and their contribution to long-termSustainability will be minimal. Collaboration with its mem-bers can reduce internal conflicts and can help to createand share the organisation’s Sustainability vision and values.Collaboration with external stakeholders can help the organi-sation focus its efforts on improving productivity, profits andreducing environmental and social impacts. Collaborationwith global organisations can help them reduce global prob-lems. Collaboration with governments can help them createand implement new, more sustainable, economic, environ-mental and social policies.

Organisations are complex systems, composed of individ-uals and groups with interactions and mutual interdependencesamongst the individuals, groups, and the organisation. Such in-teractions affect the learnings, feelings and behaviours, relatingto the three types of attitudes. On their road towards Sustainabil-ity, organisations will go through a process where aligned indi-viduals, groups and the organisation congruently learn andmodify their mental models and actions. In this process eachof the previously stated factors is affected and affects the othersin a never-ending cycle. The MuSIC memework providesa guide to understanding these diverse interactions and helpsundergird the organisation’s Sustainability transformation.

Acknowledgements

I would like to dedicate this article to the memory of mygrandfather J.G. Lozano-Ponce.

I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Ken Peattie,Prof. Francisco Lozano, and Prof. Don Huisingh for their fruit-ful critiques and comments, and endless drafts revisions.

References

[1] Argado~na A. The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of

Business Ethics 1998;17:1093e102.

[2] Warry J. Warfare in the classical world. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.;

2000.

[3] Senge PM. The fifth discipline. In: The art & practice of the learning

organization. London: Random House Business Books; 1999.

[4] Miesing P. A comparison of five business philosophies. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics 1985;4(6):465e76.

[5] Baskerville RF, O’Grady W. Does Darwin belong in business? The danger

and comfort of the evolutionary metaphor. In.: Third Asian Pacific Inter-

disciplinaty Research in Accounting. Adelaide: Australia; 2001.

[6] Friedman M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its

profits, in The New York Times Magazine; 1970.

[7] Arora A, Landau R, Rosenberg N, editors. Chemicals and long-term

economic growth: insights from the chemical industry. New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1998.

[8] Parente SL, Prescott EC. Monopoly rights: a barrier to riches. The Amer-

ican Economic Review 1999;89(5):1216e33.

[9] WCED. Our common future. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.

[10] Doppelt B. Leading change toward sustainability, A change-management

guide for business, government and civil society. Sheffield: Greenleaf

Publishing; 2003.

[11] Porter ME. Competitive strategy. In: Techniques for analyzing industry

and competitors. New York: The Free Press; 1998.

[12] Kanter RM. The change masters. London: International Thomson Busi-

ness Press; 1999.

[13] Ancarani F, Shankar V. Symbian: customer interactions through collabo-

ration and competition in a convergent industry. Milan/Maryland: Uni-

versita Commeciale Luigi Bocconi/University of Maryland; 2002.

[14] Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glen-

coe; 1962.

[15] Luthans F. Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.

[16] Maurer R. Beyond the wall of resistance. In: Unconventional strategies

that build support for change. Austin, Texas: Bard Books, Inc.; 1996.

[17] Livy T. The rise of Rome. In: Books one to five. Oxford University Press; 1998.

[18] Lozano R. Collaboration as pathway for sustainability. In: Environmental

Management for Sustainable Universities 2006. Stevens Point, Wiscon-

sin; 2006.

[19] Chilosi A. Coordination, cooperation, and the extended Coasean

approach to economic policy. Pisa: Facolta di Scienze Politiche; 2003.

[20] Denise L. Collaboration vs. C-Three (Cooperation, Coordination, and

Communication). Innovation 1999;7(3).

[21] Tunstall D. Re: About the communication pyramid. R. Lozano-Ros,

Editor. 2005.

[22] Rosner WJ. Mental models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Produc-

tion 1995;3(1e2):107e21.

[23] Hill CW, Jones GR. Strategic management: an integrated approach. 5th

ed. U.S.A: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2001.

[24] Tost M. Personal communication. Rio Tinto. London; 2006.

[25] UN. Agenda 21. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations; 1992.

[26] Clarke S, Roome N. Sustainable business: learning e action networks as orga-

nizational assets. Business Strategy and the Environment 1999;8:296e310.

[27] Dawkings R. The selfish gene. London: Oxford University Press; 1978.

[28] Kaku R. The path of Kyosei, in Harvard Business Review on Corporate

Responsibility. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2003.

[29] Matya EN. As one of the first black engineers in South Africa. In:

Senge P, et al., editors. The dance of change. London: Nicholas Brealey

Publishing; 2005.

[30] Jennings D. Strategic sourcing: benefits, problems and a contextual

model. Management Decision 2002;40(1):26e34.

[31] Novak S, Eppinger SD. Sourcing by design: product complexity and the

supply chain. Management Science 2001;47(1):189e204.

[32] Behrman JN. Transnational corporations in the new international economic

order. Journal of International Business Studies 1981;12(1):29e42.

[33] Canon. Environmental report 2000. Towards Kyosei between people and

nature. Canon; 2000.

[34] Dobes V. Why is slow spread of CP natural and possibilities of EMS in

speeding up this process limited and which new approaches can be uti-

lised for higher uptake and effectiveness of CP and EMS? IIIEE.

Lund: Lund University; 2003.

[35] Carney RN, Levin JR. Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learn-

ing from text. educational Psychology Review 2002;14(1):5e26.

[36] Hilligoss S, Howard T. Visual communication a writer’s guide. 2nd ed.

New York: Longman; 2002.


[37] Sankey M. Visual and multiple representations in learning materials. an

issue of literacy: University of Southern Queensland; 2003.

[38] Schnotz W. Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual

displays. Educational Psychology Review 2002;14(1):101e20.

[39] Stokes S. Visual literacy in teaching and learning: a literature review.

Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education

2001;1(1).

[40] Orr DW. Ecological literacy. New York: State University of New York;

1992.

[41] WBCSD, University of Cambridge. Chronos�. From personal values

to corporate action. Cambridge: World Business Council for

Sustainable Development University of Cambridge Programme for In-

dustry; 2004.

[42] UNESCO. Teaching and learning for a sustainable future. [Webpage]

2002 [cited 28th January 2006].

[43] Turnbull S. Corporate ideology e meanings and contradictions for

middle managers. British Journal of Management 2001;21(3):231e42.

[44] Andersson L, Shivarajan S, Blau G. Enacting ecological sustainability in

the MNC: a test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of

Business Ethics 2005;59:259e305.

[45] Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.

Documents

Developing collaborative and sustainable organisations