1. Environmental Responsibility: Challenge to Organizations
The lack of realism of economic models has led to an increasing
conflict between economy and ecology. While a few years ago, a
broadly shared view considered ecological concern something personal
and private, the environment has become a public issue of high
priority. Recently, the postulate of the "green company"
has emerged, however on pragmatic grounds. For organizations,
environmental responsibility continues to be a controversial subject,
because few theoretical efforts have been dedicated to merging
the corporate and the public-ecological perspectives.
On one hand, the last decade has bred significant
efforts of industrial firms to become more environment-friendly,
on the other: The world today [still] faces many environmental
problems that originate from corporate industrial activities.
Toxic wastes and acid precipitation created by industry are causing
crisis for thousands of communities around the world. ... [etc.]
..." (Shrivastava/Hart, 1995).
Given this situation, managers and organizations
should no longer refrain from dealing with ecological issues seriously.
They must take an active stance; a mere publicity or public relations
approach is insufficient (Espejo/Schuhmann/Schwaninger/Bilello,
Organizations need to develop a sustainable
ecological balance with their milieu.
2. A Conceptual Model for Ecologically Responsible Management
There is still a large gap in organizations,
concerning the knowledge and awareness about ecological matters
and interrelationships. One of the deficits which have curbed
ecological progress in the past has been the lack of an appropriate
language for dealing with the environment. (Schwaninger, forthcoming).
Of course, managers have started to change
their minds; they have become ecologically more sensitive. But
they still need better theories and better instruments to deal
with the environmental issues effectively. In terms of semantics,
a new language" is needed, because we read unconsciously
into the world the structure of the language" (Korzybski,
1958), and the meaning of the constructs we use. The power of
orientation furnished by established theories of management is
only strong with respect to the short term horizon;until recently
they had little solid to say concerning the long run.
Systems thinking offers new possibilities to solve the conflict
between the two domains of interest. A management-cybernetic theory
of pre-control in corporate management has been developed, which
shows the path leading beyond intuitive claims for an "ecologically
Due to the theoretical progress made, an ecological
approach to management need no longer be doomed as 'irrational'
or 'romantic'. On the contrary, what becomes evident, is the inherent
rationality of an ecologically oriented thinking, which transcends
the boundaries of the traditional 'business way of looking at
things'. I shall outline this briefly along the following model
for a comprehensive organizational fitness (figure 1).
Figure 1: Reference Variables at the Three
Logical Levels of Management
This is a product of extensive research. It
has not only been implemented in real business, but also empirical
studies have shown, that it is highly effective as a tool to support
conversations a) among managers, and b) between managers and other
stakeholders, namely in strategy-making (Schwaninger, 1988, 1989,
This scheme represents a framework with three
different logical levels of management (operative, strategic,
normative) with the respective goals and control variables relevant
at each one of them. Beyond the traditional orientators 'profit'
and 'solvency', insights into categories which operate in larger
horizons of time and complexity have been gained: Value potentials
(or earnings potentials), viability and development.
These are more than just new words, but they
represent categories which we have the means to calculate, to
foresee their patterns of behaviour and to influence ('control')
them. On the one hand, the three logical levels shown in the diagram
represent different perspectives, none of which can be set aside
for a company to prosper. The subject 'ecological management'
has different meanings on each one of these levels; all of which
must be taken into consideration, simultaneously.
- On the operational level the criterion of
organizational fitness is efficiency, namely productivity and
profitability. There are many ecologically oriented measures that
directly impinge on profit. Many of them are gains on both sides:
Energy savings, for example, relieve the environment and reduce
costs at the same time. As the costs of insurance, waste disposal
etc. rise dramatically, it is prudent to avoid them from the beginning.
In these cases it is simply rational in a financial and economic
sense, to manage ecologically.
- On the strategic level, the criterion is
effectiveness, which includes competitive and cooperative effectiveness
(competition can spur cooperation, and vice versa). A strong market
position in an ecologically sensitive market constitutes an excellent
prerequisite for good earnings in the future. But sacrifices in
the present such as investment in core competencies, for example
via R & D and human resources development, which reduce profits
(-) in the short term, are usually necessary to build up such
value potentials (+). Beyond that, an ecological orientation is
also apt to improve the competitive position in human resources
- Again, another logic applies at the normative
level, where the ultimate criterion of organizational fitness
is legitimacy, i.e. the ability of a company to match the demands
of all key stakeholders. Stakeholders include such groups as customers,
staff, shareholders, allies, the State, the public and even future
generations (represented by those who speak up for them). It would
be shortsighted to curtail the ecological aspects to the financial
and the market rationality only.
At the normative level, the logic of culture
and of social, ethical and aesthetical values applies. Here managers
have the widest field to creatively shape the destiny of their
company (and of its environment). One option often insufficiently
considered is to refrain from detrimental programmes (by the way,
more companies went broke from not refraining than from
If legitimacy is to be attained, normative
management has to reconcile internal and external demands as well
as the economical and ecological imperatives.
An essential insight - which I owe very much
to Aloys Gälweiler - expressed in the framework presented
is about the pre-control-nature of the control variables of the
logically higher levels with respect to those of the lower ones:
Value potentials pre-control values delivered to stakeholders
(e.g. profits delivered to shareholders); viability pre-controls
value potentials, etc. A process controlled for profits (with
revenues and costs) cannot be pre-controlled with these same levers.
As outlined in the framework, other variables have to be used
for that purpose. In sum, an integral model of management which
transcends the dominant logic of financial/economic steering,
can be conceived rationally and accurately, not only in an intuitive,
So much on the new perspective proposed and needed. In practice,
the attainment of a comprehensive organizational fitness requires
managing the control variables on all three logical levels - operative,
strategic and normative management - simultaneously. Balance must
be maintained, even if contradictions between the imperatives
of the three levels occur.
Simulation, eventually combined with optimization methods, is
a viable approach not only for operationalizing the theory outlined
here briefly, but also for helping managers to hone their skills
of balancing complex decisions. For this purpose, a system dynamics
model has been designed which embodies the core of a microworld"
for managerial training.
This conceptual system of multilevel control variables gives substance
to the vague concept of "environmentally responsible management".
It has been operationalized in a system dynamics model with approximately
3. Outline of a System Dynamics Model
The model was implemented, with the help of Stephan Büttner,
my research assistant, on the basis of the Stella software. It
comprehends five modules (figure 2): Marketing, Production &
Technology, Human Resources, Ecological Management, Finance.
Figure 2: Layout of the System Dynamics Model
Due to the clear conceptual basis, it was possible to build a
fairly comprehensive model, yet from a relatively small number
of variables, altogether about 60. We designed a case study around
the model, which relates to a producer of chemical products and
allows players to take decisions affecting anyone of the modules
over a number of rounds (representing quarters of business years).
The set of variables includes:
1. Marketing Module: Market Volume, Market Share, Total Output, Quantity of Sales Volume, Stock of Finished Products, Quality, Price, Ecological Image, Competitiveness, Level of Marketing;
2. Production & Technology Module: Output per Employee, Cost of Labour, Process Maturity, Level of Quality Management, Product Quality, R&D (Research & Development) Intensity;
3. Human Resources Module: Intensity of Training, Qualification Level, Attractiveness as Employer, Quality of Working Place, Level of Compensation, Level of Motivation, Level of Performance, Cost of Defects;
4. Ecological Management Module: Investment in Ecological Consciousness, Level of Ecological Consciousness, Ecological Image, Expenses for Environmental Protection, Level of Environmental Protection, Level of Ecology-Related Public Relations
5. Finance Module: Value of Sales Volume, Value of Debtors, Value
of Stocks, Liquid Assets, Fixed Assets, Equity, Foreign Capital,
Foreign Capital Ratio, Cost of Production, Marketing Cost, Cost
of R & D, Administrative Cost, Cost of Training, Cost of Working
Place Quality, Cost of Product Quality, Cost of Environmental
Protection, Cost of Capital, Interest Earnings, Profit before
Taxes, Taxes, Net Profit, Return on Equity, Return on Sales.
Besides the usual cockpit" with 5 decision levers for
production and marketing, 3 for human resources and 3 for ecology,
as well as key financial indicators (capitalization and profitability
indices), profit and loss statement and balance sheet, the layout
for the simulation game provides warning functions (e.g. whenever
a decision leads to an equity/capital ratio lower than a defined
treshold, the player is alerted). Furthermore, graphs on the evolution
of stock variables, e.g. equity, over time are parts of the standard
layout. These devices allowed to increase the scope and number
of potential decision levers, in order to help players enhancing
their skills for coping with complexity.
The model was submitted to a validation procedure involving structural
and behavioral tests, realized in collaboration with a group of
doctoral students, specialized in simulation and management cybernetics.
These validation procedures uncovered some patterns and issues
of concern, e.g.:
1. The output of base runs of an earlier model of the market,
society and environment system showed that the variables 'Strain
on the environment', 'Social pressure' and 'Environmental protection'
follow a pattern of intertwined harmonic oscillators, if there
is too little managerial attention to these variables.
2. Sensitivity analysis showed, among other things, that the four
modules of production, marketing, human resources abd ecology,
all are accurately interrelated and show adequate sensitivities.
Measured on a 5 interval scale, the sensitivities ascertained
were: 'high' for production, 'very high' for marketing, 'high'
for 'human resources' and 'medium' for ecological management.
3. At first, it was too hard to win in the game, for players,
- harder than in real life! Therefore, in the correction phase,
we relaxed the price elasticity of demand to a small extent. On
one hand, this enabled players who combined minimal price increases
combined with high quality (in the sense of environment-friendliness
of products) to increase their sales volume, while competing only
on price led to inferior increases of market share than before.
4. Lessons from Building and Using the Model
Except the authors, also a relatively small number of persons
have used the model - most of them involved in the validation
procedure. From this limited experience certain conclusions about
the model and its practical application can be drawn:
1. Building and using this model has been helpful in eliciting
insights, how managerial activity can influence the system-in-focus
towards organizational prosperity and positive environmental effects
of organizational activity, at the same time. Therefore it promises
to be effective as a simulation game in managerial training. Running
the model has also led to a corroboration of the conceptual model
outlined in figure 1, which has been used for several years to
give recommendations for the practice of management: Apparently,
this general framework is also useful to guide management in the
direction of more environment-friendly decisions. However, the
pre-control nature of parameters such as environmental consciousness
can only be made tangible" if formally represented
in a model like the one discussed here.
2. In a next round, an application with graduate students or majors
interested in the issues of environmentally responsible and responsive
management should be realized. It would be indicated to realize
this as a systematic experiment: One group would use the model
over a number of rounds, following an ecological orientation,
while a control group would pursue a conventional"
strategy. A comparison of the results obtained by the two groups
would give further evidence if the model is in line with the empirical
results of the Meffert/Kirchgeorg studies (see footonote 6). Eventually,
this could lead to further improvements of the model.
3. Another valuable experiment would be trying to identify the
pedagogical effectiveness of the model. Sophomores who have not
had any exposure to lectures about environment-friendly management
could use the model. At the end, a survey of their knowledge about
this issue could be compared systematically to the knowledge of
a control group which has not used the model. Finally, a collection
of suggestions from the users could lead to further improvements
of the model.
4. In the following step, the application in a seminar for managers
could be undertaken. In a survey, users should be inquired about
the usefulness of the model, and asked to give suggestions for
necessary and possible improvements of the same.
5. In all applications, a thorough debriefing for the users will
be paramount, to anchor the lessons gathered by the users. This
debriefing should, in principle, precede the surveys.
Barlas, Yaman. 1996. Formal Aspects of Model Validity, System
Dynamics Review, 12 (2): 183-210.
Dyllick-Brenzinger, Thomas. 1990. Ökologisch bewusstes Management.
Bern: Die Orientierung, Schweizerische Volksbank.
Espejo, Raúl; Schuhmann, Werner; Schwaninger, Markus; Bilello,
Ubaldo. 1996. Organizational Transformation and Learning. A Cybernetic
Approach to Management. Chichester etc.: Wiley.
Gälweiler, Aloys. 1990. Strategische Unternehmensführung,
ed. Markus Schwaninger. 2. Auflage, Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
Korzybski, Alfred. 1958. Science and Sanity,
4th ed. Clinton, Mass.: Colonial Press.
Meffert, Heribert & Kirchgeorg, Manfred.
1992. Marktorientiertes Umweltmanagement. Stuttgart: Poeschel.
Schwaninger, Markus. 1984 Zur Architektur integraler
Planungssysteme, Harvard Manager (I. Quarter) 102-110.
Schwaninger, Markus. 1988. Anwendung der integralen
Unternehmungsentwicklung. Bern und Stuttgart: Haupt.
Schwaninger, Markus. 1989. Integrale Unternehmungsplanung.
Frankfurt und New York: Campus.
Schwaninger, Markus. 1990. Umweltverantwortung:
Manager sind herausgefordert, Management Zeitschrift IO,
59 (1) 8994.
Schwaninger, Markus. 1993. A Concept of Organisational
Fitness, in: Espejo, Raúl & Schwaninger, Markus, eds.:
Organizational Fitness Corporate Effectiveness through
Management Cybernetics, Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
Schwaninger, Markus. forthcoming.
Organizational Intelligence: Managing for Environmental Responsibility,
in: Espejo, Raúl/
Schwaninger, Markus/Achterbergh, Jan, eds.:
Collected working papers, Lincoln University/University of St.
Gallen/Nijmegen Business School.
Shrivastava, Paul & Hart, Stuart. 1995.
Creating Sustainable Corporations, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 4, 154-165.
Steger, Ulrich. 1992. Future Management. Europäische
Unternehmen im globalen Wettbewerb. Köln, Fischer Taschenbuch.
ISDC '97 CD Sponsor