lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

The creative imperative: The role of creativity, creative problemsolving and insight as key drivers for sustainability

Ingrid Kajzer Mitchell a, *, Jennifer Walinga b

a School of Business, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC, V9B 5Y2, Canadab School of Communication and Culture, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC, V9B 5Y2, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 7 August 2015Received in revised form11 August 2016Accepted 20 September 2016Available online 21 September 2016

Keywords:SustainabilityCreativityCreative problem solvingCreative insight

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: Ingrid.kajzermitchell@royalroads.c

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.1620959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Deterioration of natural ecosystems, scarcity of resources, and widening of social inequities call for moreradical sustainable practices within organizations. The challenge of sustainability is a complex andsystemic problem requiring openness to different ways of thinking, receptivity to new ideas, and theability to navigate ambiguity. In this paper we examine the potential for leveraging theories of creativityto achieve more sustainable organizational practices. By drawing on previous research on creativeoutcomes and processes, creative problem solving (CPS), and insight problem solving (IPS), we criticallydiscuss the contribution that creativity theories can make to the creation and enactment of more sus-tainable organizational practices. In doing so, we aim to advance our theorizing about the role ofcreativity in building sustainable futures. Due to its iterative and divergent nature, creative problemsolving is more appropriate than linear routine problem solving models in generating novel sustainablesolutions; however, the predominant focus of CPS research is on cognitive activities. Limiting creativeproblem solving to the cognitive domain can affect the quality of the problem statement, lead to anarrow definition of our problem, and result in incremental improvements. We propose that creativeproblem solving combined with the holistic problem framing and unlocking qualities of insight problemsolving opens a pathway for organizations seeking more radical and breakthrough solutions to sus-tainability problems. Creative insight focuses not merely on the “novel” sustainable idea but also on thecreator and the emotional, cognitive and psychological aspects of his/her thinking. Our discussionhighlights some of the unique characteristics of a more insightful problem solving process, including theintentional expansion of the problem frame to include perceived barriers and actively using barriers toreveal core values and goals, and to bring these back into the problem frame.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Sustainability, widely understood to embody “development thatmeets the needs of the present without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their own needs” (World Commissionon Environment and Development, 1987, p.43), is a many-pronged and multifaceted, complex challenge. It has been framedas a wicked (Rittel and Webber, 1973) and messy problem (Brownet al., 2010; Ehrenfeld, 2011), requiring managers to addressinterconnected and often diverging social, environmental, andfinancial concerns (Bansal, 2002; Elkington, 1997; Hahn et al.,2015), which cannot be resolved with traditional reductionist

a (I. Kajzer Mitchell).

modes of inquiry and decision-making. Sustainability has also beenframed as an oxymoron, or paradox, due to its ambiguous andcontradictory nature; for example, seeking to conserve naturewithout fully addressing consumption and economic expansion(O'Connor, 1998), or seeking radical solutions outside the conven-tional “loop” (e.g. alternative food networks) while still pursuingthe same social and cultural goals (Redclift, 2002, 2005).

A groundswell of academic research and business practice hasasserted that sustainability requires new business models and aquestioning of today's dominant business logic (cf. Gladwin et al.,1995; Kanter, 2011; Nidumolu et al., 2009). The deterioration ofnatural ecosystems and the continued growth of economic inequity(World Health Organization, 2012) call for ambitious sustainabledevelopment goals and targets (UN, 2015) and widespread sus-tainable innovation, and for organizational and market trans-formation (Alakeson and Sherwin, 2004; UN Global Compact-

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884 1873

Accenture., 2010; WBCSD, 2010). Transforming systems of pro-duction and consumption requires the creation of a differentinstitutional logic, one grounded in an organization's belief that it ismore than a moneymaking machine; it is a vehicle for advancingnot only economic but also societal goals (Kanter, 2011).

Radical changes in production and consumption systems mustbegin with significant changes in thinking. Sustainability requiresthat we move beyond incremental improvements of single prod-ucts or business practices (Carlsson et al., 2014; Seyfang and Smith,2007), often known as end-of-pipe technologies that are smallchanges made on a continuous basis (Carrilo-Hermosilla et al.,2010). Some have argued that, historically, “radical innovationshad great difficulties in becoming accepted” and therefore wereprone to fail (Baskaran, 2013, p.154). However, sustainability is asystemic challenge and we cannot ignore the context or socialsystem in which we are embedded and are trying to innovate(Gaziulusoy, 2015). Indeed, Ehrenfeld (2005, 2011) argues thatreducing sustainability through minimizing the negative impact ofproduction is not the same as creating sustainability. Makingproducts more recyclable or reducing the carbon footprint are so-lutions to tame problems. These kinds of solutions, he argues,address only a minute part of our sustainability challenge and donot address the complexity of the issue. Others, like McDonoughand Braungart (2001), wrote some time ago that current practicesbased on eco-efficiency work within the same system that causedthe problem in the first place, and that measures like these presentlittle more than an illusion of change.

The unprecedented need for sustainability present many chal-lenges and barriers to transitioning to sustainable practices. Forexample, entrenched organizational structures (e.g. institutionalsilos) and processes (e.g. lack of tools), organizational inertia, andlack of innovative organizational capabilities (Shrivastava, 1995)preclude new ways of thinking and acting in organizations.External barriers include lack of market demand and inconsistentgovernment support. Many of these barriers are similar to thoseidentified in the innovation literature. However, the increasedcomplexity and ambiguity related to sustainability (Sharma, 2000)and the sustainable innovation process (Kennedy et al., 2013), haveresulted in some unique challenges to sustainability, e.g. theperceived contradiction between sustainability and development,and scientific and public uncertainty about the real impacts ofunsustainability. Over time, such polarization engenders myopicbehaviour that inhibits learning and risk taking (cf. Sundaramurthyand Lewis, 2003). Currently, sustainable development discourse isvery much embedded in a risk management paradigm that valo-rizes a preventative approach; interventions tend to focus onappeasing the symptoms (Cucuzzela, 2015). Sustainability, to agreater degree, requires organizations to break through and movebeyond existing mindsets and models (Lozano, 2014; Gaziulusoy,2015).

While creativity and creative problem solving are prerequisite toinnovation (cf. Ford and Gioia, 1996; Runco, 2004; Sternberg andLubart, 1999), creative abilities, processes and perspectives havereceived little scholarly attention overall in the field of sustain-ability. Some notable exceptions include Carlsson et al. (2014),Cucuzzela (2015), Family (2003), Kajzer (2007), Kajzer-Mitchelland Saren (2008), Lozano (2014), and Shrivastava et al. (2012).For example, Lozano (2014) argues that creativity “can help chal-lenge the traditional Newtonian and Cartesian mental models andfoster more sustainable societies” (p. 205). Family (2003) proposesthat the sustainability problems of our time will require collectivecreativity. Kajzer-Mitchell and Saren (2008) use the generative andcreative power of metaphors to encourage learning to think in newways about our relationships to products and to nature. Thepremise of Shrivastava et al. in their (2012) article on sustainable

development and the arts is that arts are a testament to humancreativity, and therefore arts-based methods can help people todevelop passion for, and emotional connection to sustainableorganizing and living. Similarly, Stucker and Bozuwa (2012) arguethat creativity and the arts can help produce clarity of vision andfacilitate the kinds of breakthrough thinking necessary for inno-vating the relationships between people and the planet. Carlssonet al. (2014) introduce the idea of Sustainability Jam Sessions forvision creation and problem solving and, recently, Cucuzzela (2015)introduced the importance of a variety of temporal and spatialdesign approaches for achieving sustainable creativity.

Academics and practitioners are increasingly interested in howcreativity can be applied tomeeting the challenges of sustainability,as evident in this special issue. In 2010, Aalto University launchedan international Master's degree program entitled “Creative Sus-tainability”, and in 2015 the Global Cleaner Production and Sus-tainable Consumption Conference organized a workshop entitled“Accelerating Sustainable Transitions via Creative Approaches”,explicitly focusing on the role of creativity. Further, the UnitedNation's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, explicitly callsfor businesses to apply their creativity to solve our current sus-tainable development challenges (UN, 2015). Within the realm ofbusiness and management, sustainability literature has focusedprimarily on the role and composition of leadership in stimulatingemployee-led eco-innovation and environmental performance (cf.Post et al., 2015; Ramus, 2001), strategic collaboration (Kiron et al.,2015), corporate accountability and governance (Waddock, 2004;Woods and Urwin, 2010), corporate and organizational perfor-mance (Perrini and Tencati, 2006; Severo et al., 2015), greeningmarketing assets (Ottman, 2011), and supply chain practices(Paulraj et al., 2015), stakeholder theory and financial incentives,and other strategies for reconciling concern for the bottom linewith environmental and social concerns (Chabowski et al., 2011;Iacona, 2010; OECD, 2011). However, while these approachesadvance our understanding of sustainability, they are not sufficientto change deep-seated beliefs in the necessity for maintainingunsustainable production and patterns of consumption (Nidumoluet al., 2009).

The aim of this paper is to critically explore the potential andchallenges associated with leveraging theories of creativity in orderto meet the challenges of creating and enacting sustainable orga-nizational practices. In the quest to understand how to transitiontowards more sustainable practice, it is important to delve deeperinto the theories of creativity and to distinguish between creativity,creative problem solving (CPS) and insight problem solving (IPS).Due to its iterative and divergent nature, CPS (Mainemelis, 2010;Steiner, 2009) is argued to be more appropriate than more linearroutine problem solving models in addressing sustainabilityproblems that are currently without resolution. IPS is a uniqueapproach to problem solving that addresses the need for a para-digmatic shift as described in the early work on “double looplearning” of Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978). IPS requires a certainshift in our approach to unlocking creative solutions to complexproblems by focusing notmerely on the “novel idea” but also on thecreator, the changes in his/her thinking and the sudden clarity thatcharacterizes an “aha” moment. In this paper, we argue for theintegration of CPS and IPS; the principles of insight can enhance theintentionality and productivity of the problem-framing phase ofCPS.

The paper is organized as follows: First, we briefly discuss anddefine creativity and creative thinking. This is followed by anintroduction of the key elements, contributions and limitations ofthe creative problem solving process (CPS). Then, we introduceinsight problem solving (IPS): what does it mean and what rolemay it play in facilitating the overarching shift in an established

1 We acknowledge that the connection between knowledge and creativity is notstraightforward and we return to this later in this paper. While it is generallyassumed that an individual needs to have knowledge of a particular field if he orshe is to engage in creative acts and produce a creative outcome it is also recog-nized that too much experience and certain kind of knowledge ‘can leave one in ruts,so that one cannot go beyond stereotypes responding’ (Weisberg, 1999, p.226). For anin-depth discussion see Mumford et al., 2013.

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e18841874

paradigm that is required to move from unsustainable to sustain-able action? Throughout the paper, we draw on the expansive bodyof literature on creativity and problem solving and we criticallyexamine its contribution to the sustainability debate. We concludewith directions for future research on how to leverage the contri-butions that creativity theories can make to the creation andenactment of more radical sustainable organizational theory andpractice.

2. Transitioning towards sustainability: creativity, creativeproblem solving and creative insight

Understanding of the contribution that theories of creativity canmake begins with explanations of some key creativity terms andconcepts. Below is a list of the key characteristics of creativity, asdefined by creativity scholars; an overview of creative problemsolving and insight problem solving; and a discussion about im-plications for sustainability.

2.1. Defining creativity: outcomes, traits, motivations, processes andenvironments

Creativity has been the subject of vast scholarly debate, whichhas resulted in significant advances in our understanding of thenature and implications of creativity but with no agreed-upondefinition (Basadur et al., 2014; Mumford, 2003). Over the years,various scholars have theorized and operationalized creativity verydifferently. Traditional conceptualizations of creativity weregrounded more in the Newtonian scientific paradigm, in which theanthropocentric, reductionist view of creativity, was characterizedas an individual phenomenon, leading to a romanticized image ofthe heroic, often struggling creative genius (Montuori and Purser,1995). Scholars such as Amabile (1983), Barron (1975), andWoodman et al. (1993) departed from this tradition by theorizingcreativity as an ongoing social phenomenon. In her earlier writing,Amabile (1983) argues that “creativity is best conceptualized not asa personality trait or general ability, but as a behaviour resultingfrom particular constellations of personal characteristics, cognitiveabilities, and social environments” (p. 358). In turn, Woodman et al.(1993) viewed creativity as an aggregation of creative output atindividual, group and organizational levels (Drazin et al., 1999) andother scholars have followed in this tradition (Montuori and Purser,1995, 1999; Perry-Smith, 2006). Many past definitions conceptu-alized creativity as an ‘outcome’ of creative thought, where theattributes of a creative product, service, idea, procedure, or processare subjectively judged (Amabile, 1982; Barron and Harrington,1981; Ford, 1996) by others to be novel and useful (Amabile,1983; Amabile and Tighe, 1993; Stein, 1974): “a product orresponse will be judged as creative to the extent that (a) it is both anovel and (b) an appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable responseto the task at hand …” (Amabile, 1983, p.360) and is creative to theextent that an appropriate audience agrees it is creative (Amabile,1982).

Early scholarly research focused predominantly on the in-dividuals who engage in creativity and the tools they use to achievecreative outcomes. These studies set out to better understandcreativity by identifying and examining personality traits of moreand less creative individuals (Amabile, 1988; Barron, 1969; Nichols,1972) and the apparent relationships of these traits to greatercreative output. Much of this early research implicitly assumed thatan individual's ability to generate novel and original ideas wasdirectly related to his or her personality and cognitive abilities,including such characteristics as aesthetic orientation, attraction tocomplexity, independency of judgment, persistence, curiosity, in-tellectual honesty and the abilities to apply divergent thinking and

to think fluently and flexibly (cf. Amabile, 1988; Barron andHarrington, 1981; Guilford, 1967). Since then, creativity re-searchers have slowly moved to expand the concepts of creativity,recognizing that creativity is not the achievement of a lone indi-vidual but based on “the interaction of three autonomous ele-ments” (Gardner, 2006, p. 80): the individual, the cultural domainand the social field. The shift away from the individual has resultedin an extensive body of literature on group-level creativity andorganizational-level creativity (cf. Kurtzberg and Amabile, 2001;Kurtzberg, 2005; Paulus et al., 2001; Paulus and Korde, 2013;Woodman et al., 1993).

Yet another way of theorizing about creativity is to adopt aprocess-oriented approach. This perspective refers to creativity as aprocess whereby two previously unrelated thoughts are connectedto generate a new idea or solution (Koestler,1964). For example, thework of Ford (1996) and Drazin et al. (1999) focuses on how in-dividuals make sense of, and take creative action in, situations orevents. Whilst Ford defines creativity as a “domain-specific, sub-jective judgment of the novelty and value of an outcome of aparticular action” (p. 1115), his theory of ‘individual creative action’includes factors that both facilitate and hinder individuals' abilitiesto engage in creative processes. Ford argues that creative actionresults from the joint influence of sense-making, motivation,knowledge, and ability. By drawing on Ford's (1996) conceptuali-zation of ‘creative acts’, Drazin et al. (1999) define creativity as “theprocess of engagement in creative acts, regardless of whether theresultant outcomes are novel, useful or creative” (p. 287). Whilstadopting a sense-making perspective (Weick, 1995), these scholarsfocus on the development of meanings and how these motivateengagement and action.

A further category of studies is more diverse and moves beyondthe individual to focus on a broader range of enabling conditionssuch as knowledge, motivation and environmental factors. Under-standing how these variables influence creative thought is partic-ularly important in our quest to discover ways in which individualsand groups can develop greater potential for problem solving(Mumford et al., 2013; Paulus and Korde, 2013). Amabile (1983),and Mumford and Gustafson (1988), have long argued that exten-sive domain-specific knowledge, an individual's knowledge of is-sues surrounding a particular problem or area, was a prerequisitefor creative performance. More recent research also supports thenotion that relevant knowledge and expertise is integral to creativethinking1 (Hass and Weisberg, 2009; Mumford et al., 2013; Scottet al., 2005). The potential of individual motivation has also beenrecognized as instrumental to creativity (Amabile, 1983). Creativitytheorists such as Eisenberg and Selbst (1994) and Collins andAmabile (1999) have found that in order to enhance motivationone needs an environment that supports and rewards the genera-tion of creative ideas. In the words of Sternberg and Lubart, ‘onecould have all the internal resources needed in order to thinkcreatively, but without some environmental support … the crea-tivity that one has might never be displayed’ (1999, p.11).Edmonson (1999) also highlighted some time ago the importanceof psychological safety, a shared belief held by individuals in agroup that the environment is safe for interpersonal risk taking. It iswell documented that supervisory support plays a critical role (cf.Oldham and Cummings, 1996; George and Zhou, 2007), as do the

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884 1875

competences of facilitators (McFadzean, 2002) in building a sup-portive environment that is conducive to creativity. The capacity forcreative-idea generation may also be inhibited by perceptions ofexternal demands, threats or uncertainties in, for example, anorganizational climate, and/or market environment (Hunter et al.,2007; West, 2002).

2.2. Creativity, creative thinking and sustainability

The creative outcomes needed to address the sustainabilityproblems of our time are too big for a single creative genius to solve(Family, 2003). Creative thinking traits, abilities and environmentsthat are conducive to creativity need to be nurtured across orga-nizations, individually and also collaboratively (cf. Paulus et al.,2011; Paulus and Korde, 2013). Transitioning towards sustainabil-ity demands a capacity to think more laterally (cf. De Bono, 1970,1994, 1999), and requires the creation of new actionable knowledge(Carlsson et al., 2014). Brazdauskas (2015) proposes that the morerelevant knowledge and expertise we have, the more likely we areto generate breakthrough sustainable solutions and ideas. It can beassumed that sustainable solutions are dependent on the in-dividual's or the group's practical knowledge and growing exper-tise of climate change, pollution, toxic emissions, and socialinequalities. Creative thinking, combined with prior relevantknowledge, seems to respond to a need for freshness and thereforeinvolves “shaking loose” from a familiar idea to generate newconceptualizations or approaches. In Table 1 we illustrate a widevariety of factors facilitating creativity and their application tosustainable practice (Table 1).

Creative thinking is only one of many contributions to solvingcomplex problems, such as defining and instilling sustainablebehaviour (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). Creative thinking on itsown does not necessarily address a wider problem such as thechallenge to behave sustainably. For instance, creative thinkingmay involve generating a new way to wash clothes, or a uniquemedium for alternative transportation that is anything but sus-tainable. Cucuzzela (2015) example of the redesign of the dispos-able paper cup illustrates that a designermay think creatively aboutusing alternative safer material with less plastic and yet end upcreating a new non-recyclable cup. While the creative process isuseful in generating ‘greener’ solutions, the actual problem ofunsustainability endures and cannot be solved with the acts ofcreative thinking and creating alone.

Barron (1969) proposed decades ago that the human act of

Table 1Examples of factors facilitating creativity for sustainability.

Factors facilitating creativity Applied to sustainability

Stimulating and rewarding curiosity andexploration

Creating a comfortable and non-th

Building internal motivation Designing an environment that supfocused ideas and solutions. Leaderby getting employees to identify w

Building confidence and willingness to take risks:eliminating defensiveness and self-doubt;building favourable self-perception

Fostering recognition and awarenebrainstorming techniques

Encouraging divergent thinking: fluency andflexibility in thinking

Utilizing thinking aids that facilitatthinking and elicitation of new ide

Encouraging acquisition of domain specificknowledge. Relevant knowledge is aprerequisite for creative functioning

Fostering more sustainability-specisustainability knowledge and expemore he/she is likely to generate s

Encouraging openness to ideas Challenging prejudgments and usinknowledge, analogies, metaphors, a

Encouraging building on, or combining ideas fromothers

Sharing sustainability ideas can stinetwork to think of other even mo

creating something new, always involves a reshaping of somethingold, e.g. using given materials, whether physical or mental. Sus-tainability thus requires a paradigmatic shift in how we solveproblems, demanding a more systemic approach to problem solv-ing and creative solution generation that involves challenging therules and assumptions of the current paradigm, thinking betweenthe “white spaces” (Cherry, 2005), asking difficult questions (Vareand Scott, 2007) and critically examining the meta-frameworksthat inform current practices (Fisher, 2006). A transition towardssustainability is impacted by one's frame of reference, which isindicative of a mechanistic, reductionist worldview (Gladwin et al.,1995; Shrivastava, 1995). The existing frame of reference is prob-lematic. Westenholz (1993) writes “as social beings, we are creatingthese pictures to defend our identity against a chaotic world’, andthese pictures in turn ‘become a prison into which we are locked, sothat we cannot view the world “afresh”’ (p.39). Individuals willoften relapse into old frames of reference before they have time toconstruct a new understanding of the situation. Building on thesentiment of Ehrenfeld (2005) and his question - can anything bedone to radically transform the way businesses work? - we arguethat there is a need to understand how humans think and problemsolve (Conklin et al., 2007), and how humans value thinkingdifferently in the first place.

2.3. Creative problem solving

In reviewing the literature on creative problem solving, werecognize an evolution in approaches from linear to holistic, fromsolution finding to problem finding. Creative problem solving (CPS)originated by Sidney Parnes (1967, 1977, 1992) and Alex Osborn(1953/1979) and researchers such as Treffinger et al. (2008),Isaksen and Treffinger (1985) and Guilford (1967) was firstdescribed as including three distinct components: 1) understand-ing the problem 2) generating ideas and 3) planning for action (p.60). Isaksen et al. (1994) evolved the CPS framework by expandingit into a six-stage model: mess finding, data finding, problemfinding, idea finding, solution finding, and finally acceptancefinding. Extensive research into the creative problem solving pro-cess over the years reveals that the effective execution of thesestages is strongly associated with the production of high-quality,more original, and elegant solutions (Mumford et al., 2013). Morerecently Basadur et al. (2014) depicted a four-stage creative prob-lem solving process: generating, conceptualizing, optimizing andimplementing (See Fig. 1). This is a more dynamic and continuous

Examples of related creativity research

reatening environment Axtell et al. (2000); Stein (1974)

ports and rewards sustainability-s may motivate creative thinkingith a vision

Amabile (1988); Amabile et al. (1996); Deci andRyan (1985); Zhou and Shalley (2003)

ss of self-doubt. Using Ford (1996); MacKinnon (1965); Nickerson(1999); Stein (1974); Williams (2004)

e the application of divergentas

Chrysikou 2006; De Bono (1970, 1994, 1999);Okuda et al. (1991); Phillips and Torrance, 1971;Runco (1991, 1992, 2004)

fic knowledge. The morertise an individual posses, theustainable solutions and ideas

Amabile (1983); Hass and Weisberg (2009);Mumford and Gustafson (1988); Mumford et al.(2013)

g different domains ofnd exercises in imaginative play

Amabile et al. (1996); MacKinnon (1965);Marone et al. (2016); Osborn (1953/1979)

mulate members of a group orre novel or radical ideas

Paulus and Yang (2000); Steiner (2009); Kohnet al. (2011)

Quadrant I GENERATING: Creating options in the form of new possibilities–new problems that might be solved and new opportunities that

might be capitalized upon.

Quadrant II CONCEPTUALIZING :

Creating options in the form of alternative ways to

understand and define a problem or opportunity and good ideas that help solve

it.

Quadrant III OPTIMIZING: Creating

options in the form of ways to get an idea to work in

practice and uncovering all the factors that go into a

successful plan for implementation.

Quadrant IV IMPLEMENTING: Creating

options in the form of actions that get results and

gaining acceptance for implementing a change or a

new idea

Fig. 1. The four stages of the creative problem-solving process (Basadur et al., 2014).

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e18841876

process model that begins with an everyday activity of deliberatelyseeking out new problems and opportunities, followed by formu-lating, defining and conceptualizing the newly generated problem.The third stage involves the emergence of a solution, and onceimplemented in the fourth stage, the implementable solution re-sults in the new opportunity to discover new problems, so that theprocess commences once again. Basadur et al. (2014) propose thatwe as individuals have different preferences for each stage,depending our occupation, and our role and level within an orga-nization. Consequently, we all have different creative problemsolving “styles”. Similar to previous conceptualizations, each ofthese stages primarily focuses on different cognitive activities.

Researchers, beginning with the father of brainstorming, AlexOsborn (1953/1979), first came to agree that training CPS involvedfacilitating a two-phase framework that included both divergentand convergent thinking skills. Subsequently, others added to theliterature on creative problem solving and suggested an additionaltwo phases: problem appraisal and problem framing (Basadur et al.,1982, 1992, 2000b). These additional phases unpack the “problemfinding” phase, and precede the solution finding or generatingprocess (Basadur et al., 1982, 1992, 2000a; Volkema, 1997). While acorrelation may exist between divergent thinking or remote asso-ciations and creativity in solving problems (Feldhusen andClinkenbeard, 1986; Harrington et al., 1983; Mednick, 1962), crea-tive problem solving does not appear to be a function of divergentthinking alone. The creative problem solving process also involvesmanaging contradiction, tolerating ambiguity, and navigatingcomplexity prior to specifying the problem, and well beforegenerating creative solutions (Stoycheva, 2011).

2.4. CPS and sustainability

Systemic problems like “solving unsustainability” cannot beresolved with traditional modes of mechanistic and reductionistinquiry, and decision-making (Lovelock, 2007; Steiner, 2009).Linear and rational problem solving (e.g. specify the problem,gather and analyze data, formulate a solution and then implementthe solution) will not suffice if the goal is to generate radical,

disruptive or breakthrough innovations with a higher degree ofnovelty (Steiner, 2009). Conklin et al. (2007) go so far as to arguethat “no level of linear thinking e no matter how much data wasconsidered or how brilliantly it was analyzed e would present aworkable solution” to some sustainability problems (p. 4). Giventhe “wickedness” of the problem, researchers also propose thatsolutions are secondary, and problem understanding is primary.What emerges is the need for a capacity to sense, define, frame andsolve problems that includes multiple interacting factors involvingcreative competencies based on thinking more imaginatively(Conklin et al., 2007), integratively (Walinga, 2010), holistically andsystemically (Lozano, 2014). Solving the sustainability challengealso requires a capacity for surfacing and questioning implicit anddeeply entrenched assumptions (Starkey and Crane, 2003), andthinking in paradoxes (Westenholz, 1993), in order to facilitate fullconsideration of opposing views in order to adopt different per-spectives (Ryan et al., 2012).

CPS is increasingly recognized as a promising and integral pro-cess of stimulating novel and innovative sustainable solutions (cf.Brazdauskas, 2015; Elzey and Steitz, 2013). Brazdauskas (2015) ar-gues for creative problem solving skills and capabilities in thecontext of sustainable development education (See Table 2). Seelyet al. (2003) identify creative problem solving as integral to biodi-versity conservation in developing countries. By engaging in CPSorganizational members may develop greater confidence in dealingwith the open-ended nature of sustainability challenges, and maydevelop more positive attitudes towards risk-taking (Elzey andSteitz, 2013) Finally, the third phase of CPS, problem finding, mayhold the key to the paradigmatic shift required to achieve sus-tainable practice in our organizations. According to the work ofFord (1996), a problem finding orientation would facilitate thekinds of creative action that we argue are required in order totransition towards sustainability.

Therefore, CPS initially appears to be a productive approach tofacilitating sustainable practice in organizations because it involvescreativity, creative processes and problem solving skills - all ofwhich seem necessary to solve wicked, messy and complex prob-lems like sustainability. However, for breakthrough sustainablesolutions it is essential to be sensitive to the potential limitations ofCPS, which are discussed in the next section.

2.5. CPS, the swampy lowland, and the need for creative insight

In elaborating further on some of the possible limitation of CPSwe will use the evocative image of the “swampy lowland” (Sch€on,1983/1985). The swampy lowland is a place “where situations areconfusing messes incapable of technical solutions and usuallyinvolve problems of greatest human concern” (Sch€on, 1983, p.42).In the “high, hard ground overlooking the swamp” (Sch€on, 1985,p.29), manageable problems lend themselves to rational problemsolving where one assumes that one knows what the problem is.Problems of unsustainability reside in the swampy lowlands wherethere is a dynamic interplay between unconscious assumptionsabout our reality, ourselves, and our reactions to change opportu-nities (Beech et al., 2011). In order to create breakthrough solutionsto the sustainability challenges of our time, we must descend intothe swamp. Organizations remaining on the high ground have atendency to generate problem statements or frames that are barrierfocused, limited or non-systemic and which result in less sustain-able and ‘satisfying’ solutions (Simon, 1947). The entrenchedcognitive, social, economic, institutional barriers “lock us into tra-jectories and lock out sustainable alternatives” resulting in incre-mental change (Seyfang and Smith, 2007, p.588). Sustainabilityrequires different ways of framing and reasoning through issuesand problems and cannot be addressed bymere technological fixes.

Table 2CPS and the Relevance to Sustainability (Based on: Brazdauskas, 2015).

CPS stage Applied to sustainability

Mess finding Many sustainability problems are highly complex, intertwined and messy; in order to solve a problem we must first frame it completely. Complexproblems require deconstruction and active discussion of all aspects of the problem including challenges, possibilities, concerns, and opportunities. Inthis respect, creative brainstorming on the formulation of a clear objective plays a key role.

Fact finding Fact finding is particularly important for sustainability as there are many interdisciplinary issues involved in decision-making.Gathering important information and facts may reveal different perspectives of the problem and provide implications for potential solutions.

Problem finding An accurately identified sustainability problem is dependent onmess finding and fact finding, results fromwhich a statement of the real problem is to bedefined. Defining and formulating problems in sustainability discourse can be challenging, since many related issues are interconnected. Creativebrainstorming and idea synthesis may result in some clearer problem definitions

Idea finding Following CPS, brainstorming should be incorporated in the idea finding stage, in order to generate as many ideas or potential solutions as possible.Different creativity-driven techniques can be adopted in order to support this divergent/convergent process

Solution finding Inmoving towards a defined solution, the main goals are to identify and evaluate and the potential andmost promising alternatives. Creative brainstormactivities may help creatives to focus on those criteria which are necessary for evaluation of the ideas

Acceptancefinding

In the final CPS phase, acceptance finding, the focus is on overcoming barriers to implementation

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884 1877

Weick (1995) claims that we make sense of things by seeing aworld on which we have already imposed what we believe. Forexample, most organizations look to cuts (e.g. budget, downsizing)or unlimited growth as the only solutions to a more competitivemarket. However, typically increased size adds both financial andecological costs and complexity while cuts result in costs toemployee morale, health and subsequently, productivity. Ward(2007) describes the importance of “accessing existing conceptualknowledge at various levels of abstraction, and combining previ-ously separate concepts” (p. 29) to effective creative problemsolving; however, both approaches have proven to be insufficient ingenerating truly systemic, sustainable solutions; prior knowledgehas been shown to constrain thinking by imposing assumptionsupon the problem frame or limiting capacity to see insightful so-lutions (Wiley, 1998). Research has also shown that relying onfamiliar interpretations based on pre-existing schemas and cogni-tive structures creates no real impetus for deep change (George andJones, 2001). Remote association (Mednick, 1962) or ‘conceptualcombination’ is an excellent tool for generating novel solutions butdoes not reliably result in sustainable solutions to problems in theswampy lowland. Herein lies the difference between creativity, CPSand IPS. Creativity results in novel products or ideas, creativeproblem solving likewise results in novel solutions, whereas insightproblem solving leads to an unlocking of intractable or wickedproblems generating more systematic and integrative solutions.Insight problem solving, often characterized by the “aha” moment(Knoblich and Oellinger, 2006), adds a further dimension to thecreative problem framing and solving processes and provides someinteresting ideas on how to unlock more sustainable, systemic orholistic solutions by descending from the high ground of the knownto the swampy lowlands of human concerns and unexploredpotential.

2.6. What is insight?

Insight is usually associated with intractable problems, whichrequire a paradigmatic reframing of the problem to be solved.Schooler et al. (1993) define insight as: (a) a high probability of animpasse, that is, a state inwhich the subject does not knowwhat todo next; and (b) an “Aha!” experience resulting from sustainedeffort in which the impasse is suddenly broken and insight into thesolution is rapidly attained. Insight problem solving (IPS) involves amore integrative thinking process, one that results in a sudden andmore systemic problem frame, and generates more systemic,elegant, and sustainable solutions (Chu and MacGregor, 2011;Walinga, 2010; Walinga et al., 2011). The premise of IPS is thatemotional, cognitive and psychological factors complicate the

development of a quality problem statement and thus must beunderstood in order to create and facilitate more breakthroughsustainable solutions. Building upon and expanding the CPSscholarly work, literature on insight problem solving also takes intoaccount the emotional (Suzuki and Hiraki, 2003), cognitive(Eysenck, 1997), physiological (Walinga, 2008), and psychological(Knoblich et al., 1999; Ohlsson, 1984) factors involved in problemfinding and problem framing (Basadur et al., 1982, 2000a;Chrysikou, 2006; Volkema, 1997). More recently, Walinga et al.(2011) expanded the understanding of IPS by highlighting theroles played by constraints and barriers in facilitating, rather thanimpeding, an effective insight problem solving process. In theirwork, Walinga and her colleagues found that insight problemsolving can be facilitated with an intentional descent into theswampy lowland, focusing on the impasse, constraints, and barriersthat make an insight problem intractable.

Insight problem solving offers additional strategies at theproblem identification or formulation stage of CPS (Walinga et al.,2011). Many insight scholars have suggested ways to achieve anew view of the problem (Clement, 1991; Newell and Simon, 1972;Schoenfeld, 1982; Schoenfeld and Hermann, 1982). While helpful,such practices as creative idea generation, divergence training, the“blind variation and selective retention” of Simonton's model(2011), or simply “shaking loose” from one's problem representa-tion, are not specific or intentional enough to lead to insightfulsolutions (Walinga et al., 2011, p. 144). Further, restructuring aproblem representation (Ansburg, 2000) alone will not ensure thata more sustainable solutionwill be found or even that a personwillnotice that an impasse has been broken (Ormerod et al., 2002).

In their 2011 study of the role of barriers in insight problemsolving, Walinga and her colleagues illustrate that the true chal-lenge in solving complex, wicked, or seemingly intractable prob-lemsmay lie in learning how to frame the problem itself insightfully.Experiments with laboratory and applied insight problems illus-trated that the perceived barriers, constraints or impasses must beboth included in the problem frame and utilized as clues to revealcritical aspects of the problem frame including underlying as-sumptions and values. For a problem of sustainability, the problemframe would thus include economic, social, and political barriers aswell as sustainability values, while addressing underlying culturalassumptions that may be influencing focus and cognitive processes.Consistent with Fleck and Weisberg's (2004) observation of top-down restructuring, insight problem solving can be driven byconscious efforts that have a focus and a direction. Framing theproblem integratively and intentionally leads not only to morecreative solutions, but also, potentially, tomore enduring, satisfyingand productive solutions.

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e18841878

As depicted in Fig. 2, IPS extends the CPS framework by addingan additional level of intentionality to the problem-framing stage,which impacts the ideation process and the emergence of a solu-tion. Wiley and Jarosz's (2012) research on insight suggests, “… itmay be necessary to take the approach of considering therestructuring process and the subjective component of creativeproblem-solving as two separate questions” (p. 1174). Weisberg(2015) supports this view saying “each [approach] has a positivecontribution to make to our understanding of insight” (p. 6).Walinga et al. (2011) suggests that indeed, truly effective creativeproblem solving is most productive after the insightful problem-framing process has been completed. In turn, an improved under-standing of the problem may affect the quality of any resultingcreative solution.

Like CPS, IPS is not without challenges. Wertheimer (1959) ar-ticulated well the challengewe face in attempting to train people topractice IPS. While insight results from the sudden realization of anew, more penetrating view of a problem situation, a new viewmay not necessarily be an insightful view that then unlocks theinsightful solution. Prior knowledge or the experiences, beliefs, and

Quadrant I GENERATING: Creating options in the form of new possibilities–new problems that might be solved and new opportunities that

might be capitalized upon.

Quadrant II CONCEPTUALIZING :

Creating options in the form of alternative ways to

understand and define a problem or opportunity and good ideas that help solve

it.

Quadrant III OPTIMIZING: Creating

options in the form of ways to get an idea to work in

practice and uncovering all the factors that go into a

successful plan for implementation.

Quadrant IV IMPLEMENTING: Creating

options in the form of actions that get results and

gaining acceptance for implementing a change or a

new idea

Identify barriers to goal

Identify values threatened by barriers

Frame problem to include bothbarriers and values under

threat

Fig. 2. Integrating principles of insight problem solving into the CPS framework (basedon: Basadur et al., 2014; Walinga, 2010).

assumptions that individuals bring to a task, can support orconstrain both creative insight and the problem-solving process.Familiarity with, or prior knowledge of, the problem componentsshould hypothetically enhance participants’ performance (e.g.knowledge of environmental science and life-cycle assessmentswould assist a person in designing more environmentally respon-sible products). Alternatively, it could be argued that familiaritymay breed stereotypical responses, “fixation” and a lack of crea-tivity (cf. Lehman and Norman, 2006; Weisberg, 1999; Wiley, 1998)where those involved see what they are expecting to see (e.g.assuming that consumers can meet their mobility needs only withthe ownership of a car). Early experiments by Duncker (1941) andLuchins (1942) and extended by Wiley (1998) demonstrated thathabitual use of familiar objects and problem-solving strategiesconstrains the range of possible outcomes. Investigating the rela-tionship between expertise and constrained thinking, Wiley foundthat “experts generally solve problems in their fields more effec-tively than novices because their well-structured, easily activatedknowledge allows for efficient search of a solution space” (p. 716).However, subjects with a large amount of domain knowledge mayactually be at a disadvantage when solving some problems thatrequire reframing and insight because their knowledge and expe-rience may confine them to an area of the search space inwhich thebest solution does not reside. Indeed, Hashem et al. (2003) foundthat physicians within a given specialty try to “pull” cases towardtheir specialty because of their cognitive bias (Eysenck, 1997). Inthis way, domain knowledge promotes fixation in creativeproblem-solving attempts.

In response to these constraints, insight researchers propose avariety of strategies. In a study of insight problem solving, Knoblichet al. (2001) found that gaze predicted problem solving ability.More specifically, based on experiments with puzzle-like insightproblems they concluded that a problem solver's focus was a crit-ical factor in the problem-solving process. Studies in performanceand problem solving have also demonstrated that focusing onperceived threats or barriers diverts attention from goal achieve-ment, thereby detracting from performance (Eysenck and Calvo,1992; Hayes et al., 2001; Wulf et al., 2001). Likewise, efforts tofocus solely on the goal when a perceived barrier exists have provenineffective because the act of replacing the negative with the pos-itive diverts energy and focus from the task at hand (Beilock et al.,2001). Walinga et al. (2011) proposed that integrating both barriersand goals (or values) into the problem frame leads to a morepenetrating view of the problem and unlocks sudden “aha”insightful solutions. Insightful solutions are found to be moreenduring and complete, possibly because they are addressing andsolving the whole problem.

Failure appears to play a role in the insight process. Ohlsson(1992) re-conceptualized insight as problems characterized byinitial failure followed by eventual and often sudden success.Ohlsson, later supported by Walinga (2010), pointed out thatsometimes solvers continue to struggle even after breaking theimpasse or cognitive constraint. In these cases, the impasse isbroken accidentally or without the awareness of the solver.Ormerod et al. (2002) echo that a certain level of preparedness isnecessary for full insight to occur: the solver must be ready to seethat an impasse has in fact been broken and that awhole new realmof solution possibilities is available, then be able to identify themost elegant and sustainable of those solutions. Navigating one'sway past imposed constraints and being ready to see solutions maydemand a certain letting go of assumptions about the problem.Moreover, they suggest that meeting with failure can inspire thesolver to relax constraints, let go of assumptions, and look foralternative solution paths. Walinga and her colleagues (2010) foundthat questioning the barriers served to reveal constraining

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884 1879

assumptions. Their research extended the problem-framing stageto include intentionality of focal path by leveraging constraints andbarriers to lead to a more complete focal frame that includes thebarriers as well as the goals that the barriers threaten. This inte-grative problem frame challenges the solver to engage divergentthinking in order to generate solutions to the whole problem.

There is some disagreement in the literature on certain aspectsof insight. For instance, laboratory insight problems of the sort mostoften used in empirical studies (Knoblich et al., 1999; Ormerodet al., 2002), which are generally assumed to have one correctanswer, are not considered good models for real-world challenges,which typically will not converge on a single solution. However,Walinga (2008, 2010) and others (Chrysikou, 2006) have steppedoutside of the laboratory to apply insight problem-solving princi-ples in applied settings. In doing so, they illustrate that insightproblem solving is not in fact a “baggage-laden” construct to whichCPS is beholden, nor does IPS necessarily involve “exotic” cognitiveprocesses. As Weisberg (2010) argues through his CHOICES model,“there are no differences in cognition or personality between cre-ative and ordinary individuals,” (p.235) and “the presence of anAha! is not prima facie evidence for the occurrence of some exoticprocess” (p.240). Rather, the principles of integrative thinking andproblem formulation central to IPS can be used by anyone toenhance the conceptualization/mess-finding or problem-findingphase of CPS in order to produce a more intentional and produc-tive problem formulation which in turn will point to more sus-tainable, systemic and insightful solutions.

2.7. Insight as applied to sustainable practice

Next, we elaborate further on the ways in which IPS can be usedin organizations to facilitate the creation of more sustainable fu-tures. IPS may help to stimulate better understanding of how tounlockmore sustainable, systemic or holistic solutions to the messysustainability problems that reside in the swampy lowlands. IPScomplements creative thinking and creative problem solving byfurther unpacking the “problem-framing” process. Other creativityresearchers emphasize that problem construction is a key stage,and is strongly associated with the production of original andelegant solutions (Mumford et al., 2013).

As discussed in the previous section, constraints, barriers, orfailures can in themselves actually offer the most productive ave-nues to letting go and reframing a problem in a more productivemanner (Stokes, 2006; Walinga, 2010). Rather than trying to relaxsustainability constraints, problem solvers are encouraged toembrace them. While a barrier often forces organizations to lookaway from the point of fixation, an intentional focus on a constraintor barrier also points the organizational problem solver toward amore productive solution path by revealing more specifically whatis at stake (Walinga et al., 2011). In her article on pollution reduc-tion measures in Vietnam, Mitchell (2006) illustrates the role thatfixation and constrained thinking can play in limiting one's capacityfor insight:

Direct regulation, combined with monitoring and enforcement,has been the traditional policy tool used for industrial wastemanagement in developing countries. However, as Vietnam hasexperienced, this type of control is difficult to balance with aneconomy focused on growth and lacking the regulatory andfinancial power to enforce legislation. As a result, governmentinstitutions and national and international research organiza-tions in Vietnam are seeking simpler (and hence more costeffective) environmental measures for the industrial sector e

one of the most popular being Cleaner Production (CP) (p. 1578).

And the barriers that remain:

However, the reality is that despite the promotion of CP bygovernment, academia and research institutions in the past fewyears, only a small number of companies have adopted it (p.1578).

This example of reliance on government regulation well illus-trates the need to first understand the true nature of the sustain-ability problem and then generate more integrative, systemic andsustainable solutions. In the example above, Mitchell cites theoverarching barriers to Cleaner Production (CP) in developingcountries as: economic, information and technology, attitudinal,and regulatory constraints. Likewise, Shia et al. (2008), in theirstudy of Chinese small and medium sized enterprises, cite the topthree barriers to CP adoption as (a) lack of economic incentivepolicies; (b) lax environmental enforcement, and (c) high initialcapital cost.

Rather than imposing assumptions or expectations over aunique problem scenario, resulting in typically controlling, legis-lative, and barrier-focused approaches, IPS expands the problemframe to include the barriers not as the issue but as part of and aclue to the core challenge. The insight problem becomes not justhow to justify and then enforce CP measures, but “how can weintroduce CP measures while taking into consideration economic,information and technology, attitudinal, and regulatory con-straints?” Perhaps a low-cost, low-tech, grass-roots effort of somekindwould emerge from a problem frame that considers barriers aswell as goals, a combined effort that represents a more appropriateand enduring course of action in a scenario such as those above.

3. Discussion

Scholars concerned with the negative impacts of current orga-nizational practices on the natural environment, as well as the stateof mankind, suggest that businesses need to reinvent themselves,develop new products and services, generate alternative concep-tual models and utilize applied tools that recognize both social andecological impacts (Ehrenfeld, 2005; Gladwin et al., 1995; Kanter,2011; Nidumolu et al., 2009). Creativity is at the heart of a collec-tive transformation to achieve these goals. In the following dis-cussion, which focuses particularly on problem framing, weelaborate further on the benefits and limitations of applying the-ories of creativity to meeting the challenges of creatingsustainability.

Creativity is often depicted as something for “creative people”.However, creative-problem-solving characteristics, such as diver-gence and convergence, are essential at all levels of an organizationas it strives to create sustainable futures. While an organizationengages in the various stages of the creative problem solving pro-cess, existing problems begin to be restructured and to provide newunderstandings that, in turn, begin to help participants to generatealternative sustainable solutions. Consequently, the variablesexamined in this paper as factors that affect creative thinking andcreative problem solving provide some noteworthy guidelines forhow to enhance creativity in real-world organizations. However,according to theories on creative and insight problem solvingprocesses, the intractability of complex problems like sustainabilitytends to stem from an incorrect and usually constrained or narrowdefinition of the problem. Our elaborations on creativity theorieshighlight that creative solutions or ideas are not always thehealthiest or most sustainable solutions. Often, the hindrance toprogress is that the original problem has been defined narrowlyrather than holistically, or systemically. For instance, while geneticfood manipulation may be argued to offer solutions to issues of

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e18841880

human, social and economic sustainability, it may also result in theemergence of new problems and negative impacts on ecologicalsustainability and may not solve the ‘whole’ or systemic problem ofsustainable agriculture or food security. A breakthrough idea canbegin with a careful problem definition followed by creative ideageneration. We propose that the cognitive shift that sparks atransition towards sustainability happens not at the solution end ofthe process, but at the problem end of the process. Insight, whichhas received little scholarly attention in the sustainability literature,helps expand an understanding of how organizations and in-dividuals can approach problem formulation differently as an in-tegral part of the creative problem solving process. It is believedthat insight results from a restructuring or redefinition of theproblem (Knoblich et al., 1999; Ohlsson, 1984; Volkema, 1997),which leads to the abrupt and unanticipated change in the solutionpath and can ultimately lead the solver to immediate success with aproblem (Weisberg, 1999). The representation and unlockingqualities of the insight process suggest a promising pathway forseekers of sustainable solutions.

In a typical insight problem or puzzle, solvers tend to reach animpasse, which is due to being “stuck” in established ways ofthinking or constrained by prior knowledge. Knoblich et al. (2001)prefer the hypothesis that “initial representations are inappropriateor misleading rather than incomplete, and thus have to be deacti-vated or inhibited rather than extended or elaborated” (p. 10);however, in experimental studies examining individual's creativeinsight process on insight problems, Walinga (2010) found that thecognitive shift associated with unlocking the insightful solutionderives from a values-oriented focus which reflects a sustainabilityorientation e by necessity a values-based pursuit. Walinga (2010)found that rather than turning one's gaze from the barrier anddeactivating or inhibiting the barrier representation, it is moreproductive to follow one's gaze through the barrier to reveal thecore values at stake. By inquiring more deeply into the initialbarrier-focused problem representation it is possible for leaders,managers, and facilitators to utilize the barrier as a pathway to theactual goal or value the barrier threatens: which in turn representsthe problem more specifically and productively (see Fig 2.). Abarrier-focused problem representation tends to focus only on thebarrier, obscuring the value or goal i.e. how do we implementsustainable practice without cost to the organization? The barrier is“cost” and the problem is then represented as achieving low-cost,sustainable practice e often an impossible if unlikely pursuit. Butif one inquires more deeply into the barrier of cost, cost threatensthe value at stake, which is actually the sustainability of the orga-nization. Insight is not only a root finding process but also a routefinding process (Walinga et al., 2011). The insight “route-finding”process brings into focus the values at stake and represents or“finds” the problem more specifically and productively to be actingfor the sustainability of the organization as well as the planet.

By defining the problem within a value as opposed to barrierorientation, the insight process can help decision-makers shift theproblem frame to include both the value and the barrier. Klein andWeitzenfeld (1978), in their work on ill-defined problem solving,proposed that it is important to identify the properties of the goal,and to simultaneously attempt to find procedures for accomplish-ing the goal. The process to generate truly insightful solutions to thesustainability challenge, must include expanding the problemframe and taking a broader perspective, which includes social andethical considerations as well as revised definitions of creativity. Itrequires leaders, mangers and facilitators to move from the com-mon assumption that creativity is the ability to produce anoutcome that is both novel and appropriate, to an understandingthat what is needed is an outcome that is “not only novel andappropriate, but wise as well” (Sternberg, 2003, p. 12). Wisdom can

be defined as “the value-laden application of tacit knowledge notonly for one's own benefit but also for the benefit of others, in orderto attain a common good” (Sternberg, 2003, p. 12). A problem framethat expands to include both values and barriers will provoke moresystemic and sustainable solutions. Rather than “how can weminimize the impact on the environment and build society in awaythat does not cost the organization?” the true challenge of corpo-rate responsibility and sustainable practice becomes ‘how can wepreserve and restore the environment, build society in a way thatmakes money for the organization, and creates equitable andprosperous local communities?’ With a more specific and values-based representation of the problem, followed by a more expan-sive problem frame that includes relevant values (financial, humanand environmental sustainability) and barriers (cost), it may bepossible to provokemore insightful, elegant and systemic solutions.

Beginning with a more holistic and integrated problem frame,makes it possible to apply creativity strategies such as brain-storming, divergent and blue-sky thinking to generate not onlycreative, but truly insightful solutions to the sustainability chal-lenge. IKEA provides one example of a company employing aninnovative approach to meeting its sustainability challenge withcreative solutions and inspiring business approaches. IKEA isaggressively committed to “future proofing” itself. (Kelly-Detwiler,2014). CEO Steve Howard emphasizes that sustainability mustinvolve “a rational business decisionwith a decent payback but thatvalues are critical to the entire endeavor” (para. 5). The company isisolating itself from the volatilities of electric power markets byfocusing on what delivers long-term energy security, a macrohedge on energy price rises that also addresses carbon. IKEA alsohas a long-term business plan that includes owning most of itsstores, factories, and land - essentially, building out a long-term“green” hedge, which will allow the company to much moreaccurately forecast future energy operating costs. As a conse-quence, IKEA owns as many renewable energy resources as someenergy companies, and is the second largest private commercialsolar-power energy plant owner. The company is currently workingon a geothermal system to heat and cool a soon-to-be-constructedstore near Kansas City. The IKEA example begin to illustrate howthe three phase approach of (1) a values-based focus, (2) an inte-grative, systemic problem frame, and (3) creative thinking strate-gies can lead to insightful and sustainable solutions that solve thewhole challenge of sustainability. As Howard articulates:

If you start with a values-driven point of view, you can make abusiness case. Climate change and energy security mean youhave to have a radical approach. We need a six, seven, or eight-fold decrease in carbon intensity. That's not business as usual.Energy efficiency only gets you so far. You have to decouple yourbusiness from carbon. Then you have to look at what'scommercially scalable (2014, para. 3).

It may be that creative thinking has not become prominent inmainstream efforts to confront the challenges of sustainabilitybecause, on its own, its processes have proved insufficient. Creativethinking is necessary but is not enough; perhaps the main reasonthat CPS has not been successful to date and, therefore, not fullyembraced, is that it is missing the systemic and intentional framingstep that is integral to IPS.

4. Conclusion

Our main objective in this paper was to explore the potential ofcreativity, creative thinking, creative problem solving and creativeinsight as drivers behind more sustainable organizational practice.The paper builds on the premise that a transformation of society

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884 1881

towards sustainability requires us to embrace processes and atti-tudes that facilitate creative action over habitual action. Variouscreativity theories offer us guidance in terms of the determinants,the facilitating factors, and the barriers of creative behaviour thatwould encourage individuals and groups to createmore sustainablefutures. Building on previous work (cf. Cucuzzela, 2015; Family,2003; Lozano, 2014), we advance theories about the role of crea-tivity in fostering sustainability. We posit that creative problemsolving lacks intentionality at the problem-finding/framing/formulation stages, resulting in novel but not necessarily systemicor enduring solutions. The insight problem-solving process offersstrategies that can be added to the creative problem-solving pro-cess to enhance the sustainable, systemic, and integrative nature ofsolutions - qualities that are relevant and necessary to solvingsustainability challenges. We highlight the practical steps involvedin facilitating insightful solutions: identifying barriers to realizationof a goal, identifying values threatened by barriers, and framing theproblem to include both barriers and values under threat. Theintroduction of the insight problem-solving process at the problemframing stage of CPS, results in the problem being framed moreholistically and integratively, thus leading to more systemic andsustainable solutions.

We conclude by drawing attention to the need to apply creativeinsight to the “challenge within the challenge” in a recursivemanner. The first problem organizations usually face is not how to“do” sustainable practice, but rather mustering the willingness toembrace, adopt and embark on a path of sustainability. Thatproblem requires, first, that organizations identify the barriers toboth sustainability and to creative thinking, factors such as time,funding, and certainty. Each of these, if ignored, can certainlythreaten the sustainability of an organization. The IPS process mustbe cost effective if it is to be willingly and effectively implemented.Utilizing and promoting creative insight involves open dialogueand discussion that identifies barriers to sustainability goals, drillsdown to core values that are at stake, and integratively generatescreative solutions that address both the barriers and the corevalues. Therefore, corporate sustainability leaders and practitionersshould present creative insight both in terms of its potential socio-environmental sustainability outcomes and its potential financialsustainability outcomes.

Creative insight can be facilitated in organizations throughguided problem solving processes at all levels of the organization:

� Leaders and leadership teams can undergo creative insightproblem-solving exercises to effectively, systemically and inte-gratively frame sustainability challenges for their organizationas a whole.

� Team leaders, directors and managers can be taught how to usethe integrative reframing approach for creative insight to thensupport their teams in tackling specific challenges at the divi-sion or unit level.

From there, typical organizational and operational mechanismscan be employed to collaboratively promote, implement, andoperationalize the sustainable solutions generated. The creativeand insight problem-solving processes can be applied at theimplementation end of the sustainability challenge and during thestages of tackling the barriers to implementation of sustainablesolutions. The same approach can be used to generate the solutionsthemselves.

We suggest that the contribution of creativity theories should beconsidered in light of some limitations. Creativity researchers havefound that “ideas are only the raw material for innovation andchange; they do not by themselves guarantee transformation” (cf.Andriopoulos and Dawson, 2009, p.8). Whilst creative traits,

creative processes, and creative insight can be necessary conditionsand processes for positive change to occur, they are likely to beinsufficient for effecting systematic change because they do notaddress the challenges associated with translating novel frame-works and models into actual innovations. While outside the scopeof our discussions in this paper, it is important to recognize thatcreativity needs to be completed with organizational learning(Lozano, 2014), i.e. “discerning and inquisitive learning, can help toinstitutionalize and consolidate new more sustainable mentalmodels” (p.214). Furthermore, if organizations are to generatesustainable solutions, they must also confront how they viewthemselves in relation to the larger societal and natural domains.Sustainability requires a frame of mind that grasps the interplaybetween humans and society, between self and the world (WrightMills, 2000), and it requires individuals to feel culturally alignedand morally connected with the meaning of nature (Dolan, 2002).

The role of creativity theories in building alternative sustainableorganizational forms and practices require further exploration andpoint to interesting areas for future research. In this paper, we buildon Ford's (1996) recommendations by calling for an additionalcapacity-building feature in organizations, that of creative insightproblem solving. The sudden shift in thinking that characterizes theinsightful solution seems to be an important link in unlockingcreative solutions to complex, systemic problems e qualitiesnotably characteristic of sustainability challenges. Future researchcould probe the human and organizational mechanisms that allowfor creative insight, and help to make decision making for sus-tainability a more tangible, intuitive, and teachable process. Wealso suggest that further research could involve applied actionresearch studies empirically investigating the creative problem-solving process and the insight problem solving process as toolsfor generating more radical sustainable practices in organizations,with the intent to both test and further develop the problem-solving process. Moreover, research directions could also includebetter understanding of the factors that constrain sustainable acts,and facilitate habitual conformity; in particular, how organizationaldecision-makers experience “stuckedness.” Research is requiredinto how individuals receive or achieve a state of readiness to bothseek and arrive at an understanding of the need for trans-formational learning, and to ”see” a problem in a more holistic,systemic manner, and to see sustainable solutions when theyemerge. Finally, there is a significant need for more empiricalresearch aimed at imagining and creating “radical or challengingpictures of future solutions” (Carlsson et al., 2014, p.29). It would beparticularly fruitful to explore the application of future studiesmethodologies, such as using research to generate alternativeworld views and to produce representations of new sustainableorganizational forms and outputs, in the forms of role-plays, sus-tainability scenarios, prototyping, stories, art and illustrative works.There is also an emerging body of creativity research that exploresprocesses involving extraordinary group creativity (Harvey, 2014).Future research examining creative process facilitators and barriersin these settings would also greatly contribute to our understand-ing of how we can address the sustainability problems of our timeand create solutions that depart significantly from what has beendone in the past.

References

Alakeson, V., Sherwin, C., 2004. Innovation for Sustainable Development. Forum forthe Future, London. Retrieved June 15, 2015 from:http://www.rrcap.ait.asia/uneptg05/outline/synthesis/innovate.pdf.

Amabile, T.M., 1982. The social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessmenttechnique. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 43, 573e578.

Amabile, T.M., 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a componential concep-tualization. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 45 (2), 357e377.

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e18841882

Amabile, T.M., 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In:Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour, vol. 10.JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 123e167.

Amabile, T.M., Tighe, E., 1993. Questions of creativity. In: Brockman, J. (Ed.), Crea-tivity. Simon & Schuster, New York, pp. 7e27.

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the workenvironment for creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 39 (5), 1154e1184.

Andriopoulos, C., Dawson, P., 2009. Managing Change, Creativity and Innovation.Sage Publications, London.

Ansburg, P.I., 2000. Individual differences in problem solving via insight. Curr.Psychol. 19 (2), 143e147.

Argyris, C., Sch€on, D.A., 1974. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effective-ness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Argyris, C., Sch€on, D.A., 1978. Organizational Learning: a Theory of ActionPerspective. Addisone-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E., Harrington, E.,2000. Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation ofideas. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 39 (3), 599e617.

Bansal, P., 2002. The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Acad. Manag.Exec. 16 (2), 122e131.

Barron, F., 1969. Creative Person and Creative Process. Holt, Rinehart & Winston,New York.

Barron, F., 1975. The solitariness of self and its mitigation through creative imagi-nation. In: Taylor, I., Getzels, J. (Eds.), Perspectives in Creativity, pp. 146e156.

Barron, F., Harrington, D.M., 1981. Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annu.Rev. Psychol. 32 (1), 439e476.

Basadur, M., Gelade, G., Basadur, T., 2014. Creative problem-solving process styles,cognitive work demands, and organizational adaptability. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 50(1), 80e115.

Basadur, M., Graen, G.B., Green, S.C., 1982. Training in creative problem solving:effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial researchorganization. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 30 (1), 41e70.

Basadur, M., Pringle, P., Speranzini, G., Bacot, M., 2000a. Collaborative problemsolving through creativity in problem definition: expanding the pie. Creat.Innov. Manag. 9 (1), 54e77.

Basadur, M., Runco, M.A., Vega, L.A., 2000b. Understanding how creative thinkingskills, attitudes and behaviours work together: a causal process model. J. Creat.Behav. 34 (2), 77e100.

Basadur, M., Wakabayashi, M., Takai, I., 1992. Training effects on the divergentthinking attitudes of Japanese managers. Int. Sch. Intercult. Relat. 16 (3),329e345.

Baskaran, A., 2013. Innovation for Sustainability: African and European Perspec-tives. Africa Institute of South Africa, Cape Town, ZAF. Retrieved from: http://www.ebrary.com.

Beech, N., Kajzer Mitchell, I., Saren, M., Oswick, C., 2011. Barriers to change andidentity work in the swampy lowland. J. Change Manag. 11 (3), 289e304.

Beilock, S.L., Carr, T.H., 2001. On the fragility of skilled performance: what governschoking under pressure? J. Exp.. Psychol. Gen. 130 (4), 701e725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701.

Brazdauskas, M., 2015. Promoting student innovation-driven thinking and creativeproblem solving for sustainability and corporate social responsibility. J. Creat.Bus. Innov. 1, 5e18. Retrieved April 10, 2016 from:http://www.journalcbi.com/uploads/3/1/8/7/31878681/promoting_student_innovation-driven_thinking_and_creative_problem_solving_for_sustainability_and_corporate_social_responsibility.pdf.

Brown, B., Harris, J.A., Russel, J.Y. (Eds.), 2010. Tackling Wicked Problems. Throughthe Transdisciplinary Imagination. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.

Carlsson, A., Hjelm, O., Baas, L., Eklund, M., Krook, J., Lindahl, M., Sakao, T., 2014.Sustainability Jam Sessions for vision creation and problem solving. J. Clean.Prod. 98, 29e35.

Carrilo-Hermosilla, J., del Rio, P., K€onn€ola, T., 2010. Diversity of eco-innovations:reflections from selected case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1073e1083.

Chabowski, B., Mena, J., Gonzalez-Padron, T., 2011. The structure of sustainabilityresearch in marketing, 1958-2008: a basis for future research opportunities.J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 (1), 55e70.

Cherry, N.L., 2005. Preparing for practice in the age of complexity. High. Educ. Res.Dev. 24 (4), 309e320.

Chu, Y., MacGregor, J.N., 2011. Human performance on insight problem solving: areview. J. Prob. Solving 3 (2), 119e150.

Chrysikou, E.G., 2006. When shoes become hammers: goal-derived categorizationtraining enhances problem-solving performance. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem.Cogn. 32 (4), 935e942.

Collins, M.-A., Amabile, T.M., 1999. Motivation and creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.),Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, pp. 297e312.

Clement, J., 1991. Non-formal reasoning in science: the use of analogies, extremecases, and physical intuition. In: Voss, J., Perkins, D., Segal, J. (Eds.), InformalReasoning and Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,pp. 345e362.

Conklin, J., Basadur, M., VanPatter, G., 2007. Rethinking Wicked Problems:Unpacking Paradigms, Bridging Universes. NextD, issue 10. NextDesign Lead-ership Institute. Retrieved April 10, 2016 from: http://humantific.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/07/NextD_10/NextD_10_1.pdf.

Cucuzzela, C., 2015. Creativity, sustainable design and risk management. J. Clean.Prod. 135, 1548e1558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.076.

De Bono, E., 1970. Lateral Thinking: a Textbook of Creativity. Penguin Books,

London.De Bono, E., 1994. Parallel thinking: from Socratic thinking to de Bono thinking.

Penguin, London, New York.De Bono, E., 1999. Six Thinking Hats. Penguin Books, London.Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human

Behavior. Plenum, New York, NY.Dolan, P., 2002. The sustainability of “sustainable consumption”. J. Macromark. 22

(2), 170e181.Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A., Kazanjian, R.K., 1999. Multilevel theorizing about creativity

in organizations: a sensemaking perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (2),286e307.

Duncker, K., 1941/42. On pleasure, emotion, and striving. Philos.PhilosophicalPhenomenol. Res. 1, 391e430. Retrieved on Aug 31, 2007 from:http://gestalttheory.net/archive/Dunemot.pdf.

Edmonson, A., 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.Adm. Sci. Q. 44 (2), 350e383.

Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2005. The roots of sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 46 (2),23e25.

Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2011. Back to Basics: Wicked Problems. Retrieved on October 2014from: http://www.johnehrenfeld.com/2011/05/back-to-basics-wicked-problems.html.

Eisenberg, R., Selbst, M., 1994. Does reward increase of decrease creativity?J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 66 (6), 1116e1127.

Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks e the Triple Bottom Line of 21st CenturyBusiness. Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford.

Elzey, D., Steitz, K., 2013. Cultivating the cross-cultural engineer: key insights. In:Achilles, M., Elzey, D. (Eds.), Environmental Sustainability in TransatlanticPerspective: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 185e200.

Eysenck, M.W., 1997. Anxiety and Cognition: a Unified Theory. Psychology Press,Hove, UK.

Eysenck, M.W., Calvo, M.G., 1992. Anxiety and performance: the processing effi-ciency theory. Cogn. Emot. 6 (6), 409e434.

Family, G., 2003. Collective creativity: a complex solution for the complex problemof the state of our planet. Creat. Res. J. 15 (1), 83e90.

Feldhusen, J.F., Clinkenbeard, P.R., 1986. Creativity instructional materials: a reviewof research. J. Creat. Behav. 20 (3), 153e182.

Fisher, F., 2006. Response Ability: Environment, Health and Everyday Transcen-dence. Vista, Elsterniwick.

Fleck, J.I., Weisberg, R.W., 2004. The use of verbal protocols as data: an analysis ofinsight in the candle problem. Mem. Cogn. 32 (6), 990e1006.

Ford, C., 1996. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains.Acad. Manag. Rev. 21 (4), 1112e1142.

Ford, C.M., Gioia, D.A., 1996. Creativity management. In: Warner, M. (Ed.), Inter-national Encyclopedia of Business Management, vol. 1. Routledge, London/NewYork, pp. 878e882.

Gardner, H., 2006. Five Minds for the Future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston,MA.

Gaziulusoy, A.I., 2015. A critical review of approaches available for design andinnovation teams through the perspective of sustainability science and systeminnovation theories. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 366e377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.012.

George, J.M., Jones, G.R., 2001. Towards a process model of individual change inorganizations. Hum. Relat. 54 (4), 419e444.

George, J.M., Zhou, J., 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive context: join contributionsof positive mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Acad.Manag. J. 50 (3), 605e622.

Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., Krause, T.S., 1995. Shifting paradigm for sustainabledevelopment: implications for management theory and research. Acad. Manag.Rev. 20 (4), 874e907.

Guilford, J.P., 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York.Harrington, D.M., Block, J., Block, J.H., 1983. Predicting creativity in preadolescence

form divergent thinking in early childhood. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 45 (3),609e623.

Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinske, J., Figge, F., 2015. Cognitive frames in corporate sus-tainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business caseframes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 4015 (1), 18e42.

Harvey, S., 2014. Creative synthesis: exploring the process of extraordinary groupcreativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 39 (3), 324e343.

Hashem, A., Chi, M.T., Friedman, C.P., 2003. Medical errors as a result of speciali-zation. J. Biomed. Inf. 36 (1e2), 61e69.

Hass, R.W., Weisberg, R.W., 2009. Career development in two seminal songwriters:a test of the equal odds rule. Creat. Res. J. 21 (2e3), 183e190.

Hayes, S.C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B. (Eds.), 2001. Relational Frame Theory: aPost-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Hunter, S.T., Bedell, K.E., Mumford, M.D., 2007. Climate for creativity: a quantitativereview. Creat. Res. J. 19 (1), 69e90.

Iacona, G., 2010. Going green to make green: necessary changes to promote andimplement corporate social responsibility while increasing the bottom line.J. Land Use Environ. Law 26 (1), 113e146.

Isaksen, S.G., Dorval, K.B., Treffinger, D.J., 1994. Creative Approaches to ProblemSolving. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IA.

Isaksen, S.G., Treffinger, D.J., 1985. Creative Problem Solving: the Basic Course.Bearly Limited, Buffalo, NY.

Kajzer, I., 2007. Operationalising sustainable marketing: a creative challenge. In:

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e1884 1883

Proceeding of the 20th European Academy of Marketing Conference (Dublin,Ireland).

Kajzer-Mitchell, I., Saren, M., 2008. The living product: using the creative nature ofmetaphors for sustainable marketing. Bus. Strategy Environ. 17 (6), 398e410.

Kanter, R.M., 2011. How great companies think differently. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89 (11),66e78.

Kelly-Detwiler, P., 2014. IKEA's Aggressive Approach to Sustainability CreatesEnormous Business Opportunities. Forbes. Retrieved June 2015 from:http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/02/07/ikeas-aggressive-approach-to-sustainability-creates-enormous-business-opportunities.

Kennedy, S., Whiteman, G., Van den Ende, J., 2013. Enhancing radical innovationusing sustainability as a strategic choice. In: Presented at the Sustainability andthe Corporation: Big Ideas Conference. November 15e16th. Harvard BusinessSchool. Retrieved July 30, 2015 from:http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/conferences/2013-sustainability-and-corporation/Documents/Enhancing_radical_innova-tion_using_sustainability_as_a_strategic_choice.pdf.

Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., et al., 2015. Joining forces:collaboration and leadership for sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag. Review TheBoston Consult. Group U. N. Glob. Compact 56 (3), 1e32.

Klein, G.A., Weitzenfeld, J., 1978. Improvement of skills for solving ill-definedproblems. Educ. Psychol. 13 (1), 31e41.

Knoblich, G., Oellinger, M., 2006. AHA! the eureka moment. Sci. Am. Mind 17 (5),38e43.

Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., Rhenius, D., 1999. Constraint relaxation andchunk decomposition in insight problem solving. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem.Cogn. 25 (6), 1534e1555.

Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Raney, G.E., 2001. An eye movement study of insightproblem solving. Mem. Cogn. 29 (7), 1000e1009.

Koestler, A., 1964. The Act of Creation. Hutchinson, London.Kohn, N., Paulus, P.B., Choi, Y., 2011. Building on the ideas of others: an examination

of the idea combination process. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47 (3), 554e561.Kurtzberg, T.R., Amabile, T.M., 2001. From Guilford to creative synergy: opening the

black box of team level creativity. Creat. Res. J. 13 (3e4), 285e294.Kurtzberg, T.R., 2005. Feeling creative, being creative: an empirical study of di-

versity and creativity in teams. Creat. Res. J. 17 (1), 51e65.Lehman, C.M., Norman, C.S., 2006. The effects of experience on complex problem

representation and judgment in auditing: an experimental investigation. Behav.Res. Account. 18 (1), 65e83.

Lovelock, J., 2007. The Revenge of Gaia. Penguin Group, London.Lozano, R., 2014. Creativity and organizational learning as means to foster sus-

tainability. Sustain. Dev. 22 (3), 205e216.Luchins, A.S., 1942. Mechanization in problem solving. Psychol. Monogr. 54 (6), i-95.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093502.MacKinnon, D.W., 1965. Personality and the realization of creative potential. Am.

Psychol. 20 (4), 273e281.Mainemelis, C., 2010. Steeling fire: creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas.

Acad. Manag. Rev. 35 (4), 558e578.Marone, V., Staples, C., Greenberg, K.H., 2016. Learning how to learn by solving

bizarre problems: a playful approach to developing creative and strategicthinking. Horizon 24 (1), 112e120.

McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2001. The next industrial revolution. In: Charter, M.,Tischner, U. (Eds.), Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services forthe Future. Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, Sheffield, pp. 139e150.

McFadzean, E., 2002. Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams:part 2efacilitator competencies. Manag. Decis. 40 (6), 537e551.

Mednick, S.A., 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychol. Rev. 69(3), 220e232.

Montuori, A., Purser, R., 1995. Deconstructing the lone genius myth. J. Humanist.Psychol. 35 (3), 69e112.

Montuori, A., Purser, R., 1999. Social Creativity, vol. 1. Hampton Press, Creskill, NJ.Mitchell, C.L., 2006. Beyond barriers: examining root causes behind commonly cited

cleaner production barriers in Vietnam. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (18), 1576e1585.Mumford, M.D., Gustafson, S., 1988. Creativity syndrome: integration, application,

and innovation. Psychol. Bull. 103 (1), 27e43.Mumford, M.D., 2003. Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in

creativity research. Creat. Res. J. 15 (2e3), 107e120.Mumford, M.D., Giorgini, V., Gibson, C., Mecca, J., 2013. Creative thinking: processes,

strategies and knowledge, 2013. In: Thomas, K., Chan, J. (Eds.), Handbook ofResearch on Creativity, pp. 249e264.

Newell, A., Simon, H.A., 1972. Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Nichols, J., 1972. Creativity in the person who will never produce anything originaland useful: the concept of creativity as a normal distribution trait. Am. Psychol.27 (8), 517e527.

Nickerson, R.S., 1999. Enhancing creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook ofCreativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 392e430.

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R., 2009. Why sustainability is now thekey driver of innovation. September Harv. Bus. Rev. 87 (9), 57e64.

O'Connor, J., 1998. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. Guilford Press,New York.

OECD, 2011. Towards Green Growth. Retrieved July 9, 2014 from:http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/towardsgreengrowth.htm.

Ohlsson, S., 1984. Restructuring revisited: an information processing theory ofrestructuring and insight. Scand. J. Psychol. 25 (1), 117e129.

Ohlsson, S., 1992. Information-processing explanations of insight and related

phenomena. In: Keane, M., Gilhooley, K. (Eds.), Advances in the Psychology ofThinking. Harvester-Wheatsheaf, London, pp. 1e44.

Okuda, S.M., Runco, M.A., Berger, D.E., 1991. Creativity and the finding and solving ofreal-world problems. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 9 (1), 45e53.

Oldham, G.R., Cummings, A., 1996. Employee creativity: personal and contextualfactors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 39 (3), 607e634.

Ormerod, T.C., MacGregor, J.N., Chronicle, E.P., 2002. Dynamics and constraints ininsight problem-solving. Journal of experimental psychology: learning. Mem.Cogn. 28 (4), 791e799.

Ottman, J.A., 2011. The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools, andInspiration for Sustainable Branding. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Osborn, A.F., 1953/1979. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of CreativeProblem-solving. Scribner’s, New York.

Parnes, S.J., 1967. Nurturing Creative Behavior. Scribner’s, New York.Parnes, S.J. (Ed.), 1992. A Source Book for Creative Problem-solving. Creative Edu-

cation Foundation Press, Buffalo, N.Y.Parnes, S.J., Noller, R.B., Biondi, A.M., 1977. Guide to Creative Action. Scribner’s, New

York.Paulraj, A., Chen, I.J., Blome, C., 2015. Motives and performance outcomes of sus-

tainable supply chain management practices: a multi-theoretical perspective.J. Bus. Ethics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2857-0.

Paulus, P.B., Yang, H.C., 2000. Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity inorganizations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82 (1), 76e87.

Paulus, P.B., Larey, T.S., Dzindolet, M.T., 2001. Creativity in groups and teams. In:Turner, M.E. (Ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research, pp. 319e338.

Paulus, P.B., Dzindolet, M., Kohn, N., 2011. Collaborative creativity e group creativityand team innovation, 2011. In: Mumford, M. (Ed.), Handbook of OrganizationalCreativity, pp. 325e354.

Paulus, P.B., Korde, R., 2013. How to get the most creativity and innovation out ofgroups and teams, 2013. In: Thomas, K., Chan, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Researchon Creativity, pp. 493e507.

Perrini, F., Tencati, A., 2006. Sustainability and stakeholder management: the needfor performance evaluation and reporting systems. Bus. Strategy Environ. 15 (5),296e308.

Perry-Smith, J.E., 2006. Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facil-itating individual creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 49 (1), 85e101.

Phillips, V.K., Torrance, E.P., 1971. Divergent thinking, remote associations, andconcept attainment strategies. J. Psychol. 77 (2), 223e228.

Post, C., Rahman, N., McQuillen, C., 2015. From board composition to corporateenvironmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. J. Bus.Ethics 130 (2), 423e435.

Ramus, C., 2001. Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideasfor environmental sustainability. Calif. Manag. Rev. 43 (3), 85e105.

Redclift, M., 2002. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. Rout-ledge, London.

Redclift, M., 2005. Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes ofage. Sustain. Dev. 13 (4), 212e227.

Rittel, H.W., Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. PolicySci. 4 (2), 155e169.

Runco, M.A., 1991. Divergent Thinking. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Runco, M.A., 1992. Children's divergent thinking and creative ideation. Dev. Rev. 12

(3), 233e264.Runco, M.A., 2004. Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55 (1), 657e687.Ryan, A.M., Kajzer Mitchell, I., Daskou, S., 2012. An interaction and network

approach to developing sustainable organizations. J. Organ. Change Manag. 25(4), 578e594.

Schoenfeld, A.H., 1982. Measures of problem-solving performance and of prob-lemesolving instruction. J. Res. Math. Educ. 13 (1), 31e49.

Schoenfeld, A.H., Hermann, D.J., 1982. Problem perception and knowledge structurein expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn.Mem. Cogn. 8 (5), 484e494.

Schooler, J.W., Ohlsson, S., Brooks, K., 1993. Thoughts beyond words: when languageovershadows insight. J. Exp. Psychol. General 122 (2), 166e183.

Sch€on, D.A., 1983/1985. The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York.Scott, G.M., Lonergan, D.C., Mumford, M.D., 2005. Contractual combination: alter-

native knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creat. Res. J. 17 (1), 21e36.Seely, M.K., Zeidler, J., Henschel, J.R., Barnard, P., 2003. Creative problem solving in

support of biodiversity conservation. J. Arid Environ. 54 (1), 155e164.Severo, E.A., de Guimaraes, J.C.F., Dorion, E.C.H., 2015. Cleaner production, envi-

ronmental sustainability and organizational performance: an empirical study inthe Brazilian metal-mechanic industry. J. Clean. Prod. 96 (1), 118e125.

Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development:towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ. Polit. 16 (4), 584e603.

Sharma, S., 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as pre-dictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Acad. Manag. J. 43 (4),681e697.

Shia, H., Pengb, S.Z., Liub, Y., Zhongc, P., 2008. Barriers to the implementation ofcleaner production in Chinese SMEs: government, industry and expert stake-holders' perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (7), 842e852.

Shrivastava, P., 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4), 936e960.

Shrivastava, P., Ivanaj, V., Ivanaj, S., 2012. Sustainable development and the arts. Int.J. Technol. Manag. 60 (1e2), 23e43.

Simon, H.A., 1947. In: Administrative Behavior: a Study of Decision-making Pro-cesses in Administrative Organization, first ed. Macmillan, New York.

I. Kajzer Mitchell, J. Walinga / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 1872e18841884

Simonton, D.K., 2011. Creativity and discovery as blind variation and selectiveretention: multiple-variant definition and blind-sighted integration. Psychol.Aesthet. Creat., Arts 5 (3), 222e228.

Starkey, K., Crane, A., 2003. Towards green narrative: management and the evolu-tionary epic. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 (2), 220e237.

Stein, M.I., 1974. Stimulating Creativity, vol. 1. Academic Press, New York.Steiner, G., 2009. The concept of open creativity: collaborative creative problem

solving for innovation generation e a systems approach. J. Bus. Manag. 15 (1),5e33.

Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), 2003. Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven (CT).

Sternberg, R.J., Lubart, T.I., 1999. The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms.In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press,New York, pp. 3e15.

Stokes, P.D., 2006. Creativity from Constraints the Psychology of Breakthrough.Springer, New York.

Stoycheva, K., 2011. Intolerance, uncertainty, and individual behaviour in ambig-uous situations. In: Stoycheva, K., Kostov, A. (Eds.), A Place, a Time and anOpportunity for Growth. Bulgarian Scholars at NIAS. FABER Publishing House,Veliko Tarnovo, pp. 63e73.

Stucker, D., Bozuwa, J., 2012. The art of sustainability: creative expression as a toolfor social change. Reflect. Soc. Organ. Learn. (SoL) 12 (2). Retrieved January 2015from:http://www.sustainabilityleadersnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Art-of-Sustainability-Stucker-and-Bozuwa-SoL-Reflections-Journal-v12-n2.pdf.

Sundaramurthy, C., Lewis, M., 2003. Control and collaboration: paradoxes ofgovernance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 (3), 397e415.

Suzuki, H., Hiraki, K., 2003. Constraint approach to insight problem-solving. Jpn.Psychol. Rev. 46 (2), 211e232.

Treffinger, D.J., Selby, E.C., Isaksen, S.G., 2008. Understanding individual problem-solving style: a key to learning and applying creative problem solving. Learn.Individ. Differ. 18 (4), 390e401.

UN Global Compact-Accenture, 2010. A New Era of Sustainability. Retrieved January2015 from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/UNGC_Accenture_CEOStudy_2010.pdf.

United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for SustainableDevelopment. Retrieved January 2016 from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.

Vare, P., Scott, W., 2007. Learning for a change: exploring the relationship betweeneducation and sustainable development. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 1 (2), 191e198.

Volkema, R.J., 1997. Managing the problem formulation process: guidelines for teamleaders and facilitators. Hum. Syst. Manag. 16 (1), 27e35.

Waddock, S., 2004. Creating corporate accountability: foundational principles tomake corporate citizenship real. J. Bus. Ethics 50 (4), 313e314.

Walinga, J., 2008. Change readiness: the roles of appraisal, focus, and perceivedcontrol. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 44 (3), 315e347.

Walinga, J., 2010. From walls to windows: using barriers as pathways to insightfulsolutions. J. Creat. Behav. 44 (3), 143e167.

Walinga, J., Cunningham, J.B., Macgregor, J.N., 2011. Training insight problem solvingthrough focus on barriers and assumptions. J. Creat. Behav. 45 (1), 47e58.

Ward, T.B., 2007. Neurocognitive mechanisms of creativity: a toolkit. Creat. cogn. asa window creat. 42 (1), 28e37.

WBCSD, 2010. Changing Pace: Public Policy Options to Scale and Accelerate Busi-ness Action Towards Vision 2050. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from:http://www.wbcsd.org/changingpace.aspx.

Weick, K., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Weisberg, R.W., 1999. Creativity and knowledge: a challenge to theories. In:

Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, NewYork, pp. 226e250.

Weisberg, R.W., 2015. Toward an integrated theory of insight in problem solving.Think. Reason. 21 (1), 5e39.

Weisberg, R.W., 2010. The study of creativity: from genius to cognitive science. Int. J.Cult. Policy 16 (3), 235e253.

Wertheimer, M., 1959. Productive Thinking. Harper & Row, New York.West, M.A., 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of

creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Appl. Psychol. Int.Rev. 51 (3), 355e424.

Westenholz, A., 1993. Paradoxical thinking and change in frame of reference. Organ.Stud. 14 (1), 37e58.

Wiley, J., 1998. Expertise as mental set: the effects of domain knowledge in creativeproblem solving. Mem. Cogn. 26 (4), 716e730.

Wiley, J., Jarosz, A.F., 2012. Working memory capacity, attentional focus, andproblem solving. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21 (4), 258e262.

Williams, S.D., 2004. Self-esteem and the self-censorship of creative ideas. Pers. Rev.31 (4), 495e503.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., Griffin, R.W., 1993. Towards a theory of organizationalcreativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 18 (2), 293e321.

Woods, C., Urwin, R., 2010. Putting sustainable investing into practice: a governanceframework for pension funds. J. Bus. Ethics 92 (1), 1e19.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.Retrieved May 5, 2014 from:http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf.

World Health Organization, 2012. Our Planet, Our Health, Our Future. DiscussionPaper. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from: http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/reports/health_rioconventions.pdf.

Wright Mills, C., 2000. Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press, New York.Wulf, G., McNevin, H., Shea, C.H., 2001. The automaticity of complex motor skill

learning as a function of attentional focus. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 54 (4), 1143e1154.Zhou, J., Shalley, C.E., 2003. Research on employee creativity: a critical review and

directions for future research. In: Martocchio, J.J., Ferris, G.R. (Eds.), Research inPersonnel and Human Resource Management. Elsevier, Oxford, England,pp. 165e217.