مدیریت پایداری: بینش هایی از مدل سیستم مانا Sustainability management: insights from the Viable System Model

۱٫ Introduction In recent years, the emphasis on sustainable development has increasingly been placed on the individual organisation or company. Corporations are indeed capable of significant impacts on environmental, social and financial systems, often at a global scale. Following the Rio Conference (United Nations, 1997) and even before that (Asif et al., 2013) several efforts were made to help organisations be more sustainable, both at a theoretical and practical level. Concepts such as Corporate Sustainability (CS) or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), have been adopted by businesses worldwide (Montiel, 2008), and practices, such as Environmental Management (EM) and CS or CSR reporting, are widely implemented. The relevant literature however, suggests that a significant gap exists between the adoption of a standard or tool and the implementation of sustainability practices into every level of the organisation, so as to become part of its daily operations and management (Asif et al., 2013). What is more, a multitude of approaches, theories, definitions, concepts and tools (Waage et al., 2005) has been developed, creating a confusing landscape for organisations wishing to implement more sustainable practices. Organisations are therefore facing a double challenge 1) integrating sustainability in their management and operations, 2) taking advantage of and effectively implementing available sustainability tools, such as life-cycle analysis. This paper argues that in order to deal effectively with these challenges, they need to be considered in the context of an appropriate model of an organisation, capable of representing the key issues implicit in sustainability standards and related management functions. The authors have suggested elsewhere an interpretation of Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM), as a comprehensive way of modelling organisations to deal effectively with the complexity involved with sustainability issues (Espinosa and Walker, 2011, 2013). This interpretation is also proposed here, as a framework to respond to the aforementioned challenges. For this purpose, the prominent sustainability standard ISO 26000 is interpreted using the authors’ VSM Framework. The arguments are developed in the context of the hypothetical Widget Manufacturing Company, mapped using the VSM, which helps to clarify the whole argument. In the final sections a discussion is given on the implications, advantages and limitations of using this approach to integrate sustainability standards and the way this research contributes to recent developments in sustainability research. ۲٫ Integrating sustainability In terms of the first integration challenge presented above, Ranangen and Zobel (2014) € provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the efforts to integrate CSR in the everyday management of an organisation. A common root for this integration is the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, which is the base of most Management Systems (MSs). There are various MSs, which focus on specific aspects of sustainability, such as ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004) for environmental management and OHSAS 18001 (OHSAS, 2007) for Health & Safety among others. Therefore, a number of integration frameworks expand the scope of one of these MSs to cover more sustainability aspects, while others attempt to integrate multiple MSs into one Integrated Management System (IMS) or Sustainability Management System (SMS) (Maas and Reniers, 2014; Ranangen and Zobel, 2014 € ). In terms of the second integration challenge, Finnveden and Moberg (2005) use three classification attributes for environmental assessment tools: a) the types of impacts considered (resources, wider environmental or economic), b) the object of study (e.g. policies, nations, organisations, products etc.), and c) whether the tools are analytical (technical) or procedural (focussing on connections and context). Hacking and Guthrie (2008) attempt to provide a basis for comparing the different sustainability assessment techniques found in the literature, by identifying the main features underlying them d rather than their often misleading labels. They employ three main properties for characterizing the assessment features: a) Comprehensiveness, b) Integratedness, and c) Strategicness. The frameworks of Finnvenden and Moberg, and Hacking and Guthrie provide good understanding on how the various methods are differentiated; however, they do not provide an operational model that could help in their synergetic application. Towards this direction, Robert (2000) and Robert et al. (2002) introduced the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD), that attempts to operationally integrate the various sustainable development models and tools. The authors identify the principles of planning within any system, and then apply them in the context of sustainable development. Waage et al. (2005) and Waage (2007) further elaborated on the FSSD by incorporating more tools, criteria and actions on the models framework, and by focussing on their impact on the product design process. More recently Hallstedt et al. (2010) use the FSSD to assess the capability of decision making systems of an organisation in relation to sustainability. Closer to the logic of this paper is the analysis of sustainability tools or initiatives by Lozano (2012), which is based on how they relate: a) to the company system, and b) to sustainability dimensions. The former is analysed in primary (core competencies) and secondary (support) activities, which is similar to the VSM distinction of operational and meta-systemic components presented next. Lozano’s analysis concludes that most initiatives focus on the Operations & Processes, as well as the Management & Strategy elements of the organisation, while addressing the environment dimension of sustainability.