1. No category

How to successfully implement
sustainability in an organization:
a Review of the literature
Arjan van Rheede, PhD *
Hotelschool The Hague
Rob J. Blomme, PhD
Hotelschool The Hague
Abstract
The hospitality industry is starting to take responsibility for environmental
sustainability, however does not imbed the concept of sustainable development
in their business strategy (Van Rheede and Blomme, 2012). This article reviews
how the hospitality industry can open the doors to sustainable development,
achieving better results with a greater impact.
Both the utilitarian theory (Secchi, 2007; Ismail, 2009, relational or
stakeholder theory (Secchi 2007, Crane and Matten 2010) do not provide an
answer. Earlier work by Van de Ven and Poole (1995) provides a theoretical
framework explaining innovation and change in organizations. They introduce
four motors of change: Life Cycle; Teleology, Dialectical, and Evolutionary.
Studying this topic from a change management viewpoint helps us to understand
why the implementation of sustainable development, although initiated with the
best of intentions, has only had limited success from a sustainability perspective.
The paper first reviews the literature on change management in general and
the implementation of sustainable practices in to the hospitality industry in
particular. We argue that hotels, unconsciously, only act on one of the four
drivers of change. The other, more emergent motors of change, are currently
outside the scope of hotels.
CRRC 2013
1
Keywords
Sustainable practices, Change process, Motors of Change.
1 Introduction
Continuing attention is being paid to green issues by the hospitality industry
(e.g., Sloan, Legrand and Chen 2012). In this paper we describe the current state
of affairs highlighting the scope of sustainability efforts in the industry, such as
the measures hotels are implementing and the challenges they face while
engaging in these activities (Myung, McClaren and Li 2012, Grosbois 2012).
Several studies show that the main motive for hotels to implement
sustainability measures is simple cost-saving. (Van Rheede and Blomme, 2012) .
This utilitarian principle (Secchi 2007, Ismail 2009) partly explains hotels’
behaviour, however it does not explain everything. The Relational or Stakeholder
Theory (Secchi 2007, Crane and Matten, 2010) also do not explain the authors’
empirical findings.
Arnolds (2010) states that the implementation of CSR and sustainability is
not only a technical innovation, but also a cultural change. We stress that the
implementation of CSR is only successful if organizational behaviour actually
changes. A better understanding of the underlying processes of how
organizational behaviour develops, can lead to an improved implementation of
CSR, using the right intervention tools. We will review the implementation of
sustainable practices from the perspective of organization studies; we argue that
this implementation can be best studied using a variance and process approach
(Van de Ven & Scott Poole, 1995 and 2005).
This leads to our research question: How can the hospitality industry, by
better applying the drivers of change, opening the doors to sustainable
development and achieving better results with a greater impact?
2 Sustainability
2.1 Definition
The concept of ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ emerged from an
environmental perspective (Hediger 2010), and offers a number of different
definitions. Today, the scope of the concept has broadened to include
environmental, social, and economic sustainability. The concept of sustainable
development adopted by the Brundtland committee (World Commission on
Environment and Development 1987) emphasizes the element of meeting ”... the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs."
We argue that the main difference between sustainability and CSR is that
the latter is referring to voluntary activities. The European Union defines this as a
concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in
their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a
voluntary basis (Commission of the European Communities 2006).
Environmental sustainability (Planet) refers back to themes such as pollution and
limited resources (for example, energy, waste and water). Social sustainability
(People) is “how individuals, communities and societies live with each other and
set out to achieve the objectives of development models, which they have chosen
for themselves taking also into account the physical boundaries of their places
and planet earth as a whole” (Colantonio 2009) and it is linked to themes such as
”….equity, poverty reduction and livelihood, are increasingly been complemented
or replaced by more intangible and less measurable concepts such as identity,
sense of place and the benefits of social networks…” (Colantonio 2009). Finally,
economic sustainability (Profit) refers to the way the companies combine the
effects on the environmental and social aspects in day-to-day business decisions.
The triple P approach (Planet, People and Profit) advocates that
sustainability can be combined with the operation of a business (Elkington 1997)
and well-known examples show that sustainability can save business money.
The concept of sustainability is also adopted in the hospitality and tourism
industry (eg definition of World Tourism Organization, 2004).
CRRC 2013
3
2.2 Sustainable practices
In our pilot studies, (Rheede, Blomme, and Tromp 2010b, a) we found that chain
hotels in the higher star segments are much more active in their approach to
environmental sustainability issues than are privately owned hotels. Almost all of
the four and five star hotels interviewed pointed out that they were focusing on
energy-related measures, as these yielded the greatest cost-savings. However,
many also mentioned that saving energy helps the environment as much as it
helps reduce costs. Increasing numbers of chain hotels have developed systems
to benchmark their own properties and report the results of their sustainability
policy in a sustainability report. Some of the companies we investigated use the
Global Reporting Initiative standard (GRI). Overall, we agree with Grosbois (2011)
that sustainability reporting is starting to become a standard (Grosbois, 2011).
Grosbois (2011) has researched the CSR reporting activities of 150 top hotel
companies. She concluded that the reports mainly focused on commitment, and
much less on the initiatives taken to achieve these goals, and even less on the
achievement of the goals. Based on the research described in the paragraphs
above and the literature review by Myung, McClaren, and Li (2012) we can
conclude that the hospitality industry is engaged in many sustainable initiatives,
however the scope of these practices is limited and only considered when they
lead to direct economic advantage. This means that the majority of sustainability
initiatives are directly related to energy (CO2 emission), water and waste
reduction. This behavior fits the utilitarian principle described by Secchi (2007)
and Ismail 2009. The utilitarian principle places the firm in the spotlight, typically
with regards to maximizing profit. Secchi (2009) has identified two
subcategories: one focusing on social revenues and costs of the firm, and a
second for functionalists. Milton Friedman is an example of the functionalist;
with his much quoted statement that ‘it is all about shareholder value and social
responsibility does not add to shareholder value, so should not be considered’
(Friedman 1970).
Other findings are that the definition and understanding of the concept of
‘‘sustainability’’ by hotel managers and guests is limited mainly to the notion of
environmental sustainability (Rheede and Blomme 2012). This again leads to
sustainability practices in hotels focusing on energy, water, and waste. More
complex environmental issues are rarely dealt with and social and economical
issues on sustainability are generally neglected (Rheede, Blomme, and Tromp
2010b).
In earlier studies, we have also determined that more structural issues are
relevant (Rheede and Blomme 2012). Together with other authors (e.g.
Grosbois, 2012) we also see limitations in the business models of hotel
companies. These models prevent a more ambitious approach towards
environmental and social issues. The industry specific ownership issue is
especially important. Hotel chains (management companies) feel limited in their
policy because the hotel owner is not willing to invest in sustainability measures.
According to Dam and Scholtens (2012), different types of owners have different
motives for participating in CSR. Grosbois (2012) also refers to the difference
between brand owner, hotel owner and management company. This difference
results in different systems and ambition levels within a chain. The hotels owned
and managed by the chain have different practices in place than those hotels
owned / or managed by other parties.
To summarize, sustainability is present and many measures have been
implemented by the hospitality industry. However, currently it is unable to
achieve its full potential.
2.3 Sustainable development i
Looking at the current state of the environment several indicators are still
increasing. Without going into detail we can conclude that – especially the old
economies are used and continue to use the natural resources of planet Earth
faster than nature can regenerate them. The UNEP Yearbook 2012 indicated that
“... in 2011 the world population reached 7 billion. It is expected to grow to 9
billion by 2043, placing high demands on the Earth’s resources (UN DESA 2011) ...
Climate change exacerbates pressures to meet a growing and wealthier
population's need for food. Global agricultural production may have to increase
70 percent by 2050 to cope with this demand (FAO 2011a)...”(UNEP, 2011, pg 5).
Especially this growing middle class in emerging economies are countries in
transition, will soon leads to an even greater urgency. At the same time an
increasing amount of hotel real estate is being developed mainly in the same
emerging economies. This will put an even higher responsibility on western
companies that are involved in those projects: both from a environmental and
social perspective on sustainability.
Next to this development also the market-demand is increasing. “..Over the
past decade China has been, and still is, by far the fastest-growing tourism
CRRC 2013
5
source market in the world. Thanks to rapid urbanization, rising disposable
incomes and relaxation of restrictions on foreign travel, the volume of
international trips by Chinese travellers has grown from 10 million in 2000 to 83
million in 2012. Expenditure by Chinese tourists abroad has also increased
almost eightfold since 2000. Boosted by an appreciating Chinese currency,
Chinese travellers spent a record US$ 102 billion in international tourism in 2012,
a 40% jump from 2011 when it amounted to US$ 73 billion..” (UNWTO, 2013
p.1).
3 A change perspective on sustainability
3.1 Variance versus process approach
In order to answer the research question, we will view this phenomenon from an
Organization Studies perspective: we will use a perspective of variance an
process approach on change (Van de Ven and Poole 1995, 2005). Mohr (1982)
distinguished between variance and process theories. These two epistemologies
approach organization change rather differently. The variance approach is
thought to be the most common approach to studying change. Change is defined
as an observed difference over time in an organization, and this difference can
be explained by several independent variables (Van de Ven and Poole (2005).
Tsoukas and Chia (2002) describe the process approach as: ‘..... change
programs, ... need to be made to work on any given occasion, they do not work themselves out
(Barley 1990, Boden 1994, Orlikowski 1996). Change programs "work" insofar as they are finetuned and adjusted by actors in particular contexts-that is, insofar as they are further changed on
an ongoing basis (Orlikowski 1996). Unless we have an image of change as an ongoing process, a
stream of interactions, and a flow of situated initiatives, as opposed to a set of episodic events, it
will be difficult to overcome the implementation problems of change programs reported in the
literature’.( p. 568-569)
These two approaches will help to find an explanations of what hotels are
currently doing with regards to sustainability and what is needed to come to a
more complete (holistic) view on sustainability.
3.2 Emergent change
Before discuss the practice it is important to elaborate on the perspective of
emergent change. We feel that this emergent perspective is not recognize or
acted upon by practitioners in the hospitality industry. In analyzing the
sustainability practices in the hospitality industry, and its hotels, we are missing
the perspective of emergent change as the lens to describe and explain what is
going on. We will first explain the concept of emergent change and next apply it
on the case at hand.
Emergent change refers to the vision that change is not a ones in a lifetime
activity, but that organizations are changing constantly. It is seen as constant
evolving and changing without a clear plan in advance (Weick and Quinn 1999).
The central idea of emergence is that the order of behavior is emergent and that
is interaction of participants within a system create a structure or order.
According to Berger and Luckman (1996) that social structure is a mental
construct. The process of emergence can also be explained as the process of
structuration (Giddens, 1979). Structuration is an ongoing process that requires
continuous adaptation and adjustment. Hence, change can be defined as the
breakdown of an old logic and structure and the establishment of a new logic
and related structure (e.g., Mezias & Glynn, 1993). This sort of change is starting
from the notion that change is very present and moves slowly.
The concept of emergent change is co-existing with continuous change. It is
very much the opposite of planned change. Calori, Baden-Fuller, and Hunt (2000)
have applied this perspective in the hospitality industry in their analyze of
Novotel from a dialectical perspective.
Emergent change can be characterized as incremental, unplanned, and
remedial (Blomme 2012).
4 Four motors of change
Van de Ven and Poole (1995) give a theoretical framework to explain innovation
and change in organizations, and they discuss the mechanism bring change
around. They argue that four motors of change can be distinguished, giving four
ideal typical processes: Life Cycle; Teleology Dialectical and evolutionary
theories. These four motors can be organized in a quadrant, along two
dimensions: mode of change (prescribed versus constructive change) and unit of
change (single versus Multiple entities) (Van de Ven and Poole 1995, 2005).
We will explain this framework by summarizing the basic idea of each motor
of change while applying it to the hospitality industry.
CRRC 2013
7
4.1 Motor 1: Life cycle
Van de Ven and Poole’s quadrant of drivers refers to one organizational entity
that undergoes change. The process of change is programmed and follows a
predetermined order or sequence of prescribed stages (Van de Ven and Poole
1995). If we project this to the hospitality industry, this type of change can be
seen with regard to issues related to environmental legislation or programs that
have certain integrated steps. Blomme (2012) states that change initiatives are
often not very successful (Boonstra, 2000). In this quadrant organizational
change is seen as planned change. This change is needed in order for the
organization to respond to the opportunities and threats needed for its survival
(e.g., Dunphy, Griffiths, & Benn, 2003; Mezias & Glynn, 1993).
4.2 Motor 2: Teleology
The teleological process view on change – development- refers to individual
organizations where the final goal is the guiding motive for changing a specific
entity. This approach also recognizes the limitations of actions (Van de Ven and
Poole 1995). The availability of resources and environmental circumstances
influence the result. Another important feature of this motor as a process of
change is the emergent character of the change process through learning and
the social construction of individuals in the organizational entity. As described in
the part on Sustainable practices, the understanding of the sustainability concept
is often limited to environmental sustainability, and even within this domain it is
limited to visible and economic -relevant issues. This suggests that hoteliers have
a limited view on the complete supply chain and life cycle of products used in the
industry.
Teleological change is different from the life cycle drivers because the
process for achieving this goal is not by not following a prescribed set of steps.
To see how this driver works in practice, we reviewed best practice
examples from chain and individual hotels which consciously are working on
developing sustainable practices. Rezidor and Scandic are examples of chains
with clearly formulated CSR / sustainability strategies.
4.3 Motor 3: Dialectics
This approach looks at several organizational entities acting as opposing forces:
thesis and antithesis, which can either be found inside one organization or
between organizations (Van de Ven and Poole 1995, Calori, Baden-Fuller, and
Hunt 2000). Change and stability are explained by looking at the result of
opposing forces challenging the status quo, resulting in a synthesis. The following
process can be seen as an example of such a dialectic process related to the
ownership issue in the hospitality. Because of the different roles and
perspectives of the hotel owner versus the management company makes a
sustainable policy more complicated. This difference results in different systems
and ambition levels in place within a chain when . This can be seen as one
dialectic process where the syntheses will often not be the best sustainable
solution from an environmental or social perspective.
4.4 Motor 4: Evolution
This process of change can be applied at an industry level. The evolution theory
explains the process of change in terms comparable to the biological evolution
theory: as a constantly repeating change process of variation, selection and
retention. In the following example, we apply this to the hospitality industry. In
the sustainable practices we already gave the example of the growing
importance of eco-labels.
The steps of variation, selection and retention should been seen as follows.
New market demands force organizations to comply to this new demand: no
compliance with these criteria will result in no business. Some conference hotels
have dealt with sustainability issues, others have not: i.e. there is variance. Both
governmental agencies and large corporations with a strong CSR policy have
special sustainability requirements for the procurement of goods and services:
including conference organizations and hotel accommodation. This results in a
process in which those organizations which first obtained an eco-label are
favored in this specific market. This selection process means that sustainable
hotels survive, and that ‘un-sustainable hotels’ fail. Retention is the process by
which a new balance between the necessary variation is established.
CRRC 2013
9
5 Discussion and Conclusion
In our investigation of our research proposition: How insights on existing theory
on Change Management can achieve a more sustainable hospitality industry
results with a greater impact, we argue that the drivers of change help us to both
understand this and move the industry forward. The current dominant view of
how to achieve a more sustainable industry is that of setting goals and
implementing the change in a programmed way: planned change. As shown in
our findings, this has not led to a high level of sustainable development in the
hospitality industry. Moreover, the failure rate of planned change is often high,
as described above. The emergent change perspective might help organizations
to better prepare themselves for the unexpected chain of events that occur once
a new direction has been chosen.
To keep the debate at an organizational level (both property and chain level)
it is important to look at both dimensions of Van de Ven and Poole’s framework
(1995): mode of change and unit of change.
With regards to mode of change, we feel that organizations neglect the
emergent change perspective. The notion that change does not comes overnight
in a linear process will lead to a more realistic picture of what can be
accomplished. Accepting the presence of both types of change -and the different
drivers of the change process, require adjusting the view on how to intervene.
Weick and Quinn (1999) describe this difference as follows: planned change
unfolds via the steps of unfreeze, transition and refreeze, while emergent change
starts with freeze, rebalance and unfreeze. This different views do also result in
different types of interventions.
Looking at the unit of change will also help to create more realistic
sustainability goals in an organization. This will help an organization to
understand that managing change also includes discussions (Dialectics) and
exchange of ideas and concept between sub- groups in the organization. This
results in an increase in the scope of sustainable practices, going beyond the
primary sustainability goal of achieving a high ‘economic’ return on investment.
How can we help the hospitality industry reach more sustainable operations,
and to actually move forward beyond sustainability being simply viewed as a
good initiative? Firstly the organization has to understand how sustainable its
operation is. Once this has been achieved and new goals are set, the best
strategy to achieve these goals has to be formulated. This changes process needs
to be managed, with the understanding that the four drivers of change influence
this process. Leaders of the change project must be aware of the different
drivers of change.. The second step is to create a shared meaning between
different individuals or groups, as change must not only be planned top-down, it
has to emerge from the work floor.
It is important to realize that a combination of issues is involved .
Sustainability is often discussed from the hotel’s perspective, or from a
marketing perspective (Myung, McClaren, and Li 2012). The approach described
in this article forces an organization to analyze the situation from different
perspectives as a result of the differences in unit of change (single entity or
multiple entities) and the differences in mode of change (prescribed or
constructive). It also helps ‘change agents’ to understand that the topic is
complex, thereby opening a debate to formulate more ambitious goals as well as
more realistic goals!
CRRC 2013
11
Literature
Arnold, Marlen. 2010. "Stakeholder Dialogues for Sustaining Cultural Change."
International Studies of Management and Organization no. 40 (3):61-77.
Berger, P., and T. Luckman. 1966. The social construction of reality. NewYork:
Anchor Press.
Boonstra, J. 2000. "Lopen over water: Over dynamiek van organiseren,
vernieuwen en leren. ." In. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University of
Amsterdam.
Blomme, Robert J. 2012. "Leadership, Complex Adaptive Systems, and
Equivocality: The Role of Managers in Emergent Change." Organization
Management Journal no. 9 (1):4-19.
Bowen, H. R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Burnes, B. 2004. Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: Back to the future?
Calori, Roland, Charles Baden-Fuller, and Brian Hunt. 2000. "Managing Change at
Novotel: Back to the Future." Long Range Planning no. 33 (6):779-804.
Colantonio, A. 2009. Social sustainability: Linking research to policy and practice.
Paper read at conference sustainable development: A challenge for
European research, at brussels.
Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Implementing the partnership
for growth and jobs: Making Europe a pole of excellence on corporate
social responsibility. edited by the council and Communication from the
commission to the European parliament and the European economic and
social committee. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Crane, A., and D. Matten. 2010. Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship
and sustainability in the age of globalization 3ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dam, Lammertjan, and Bert Scholtens. 2012. "Does Ownership Type Matter for
Corporate Social Responsibility?" Corporate Governance: An International
Review no. 20 (3):233-252.
DiMaggio, P. J., and W. W. Powell. 1983. "The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields." American
Sociological Review no. 48 (2):147-160.
Doornekamp, E., W. Hagedoorn, C. Van Hest, and J. Krijt. 2010. Chagall hotels
and restaurants. The Hague: Hotelschool The Hague.
Dunphy, D., A. Griffiths, and S. Benn. 2003. Organizational change for corporate
sustainability. . London, UK: Routledge.
Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century
business. London: Capstone.
Friedman, Miltion. 1970. "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its
Profits." The New York Times Magazine, September 13.
Grosbois, Danuta de. 2012. "Corporate social responsibility reporting by the
global hotel industry: Commitment, initiatives and performance."
International Journal of Hospitality Management no. 31 (3):896-905. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.008.
Higgs, M. J., and D. Rowland. 2001. "Building change leadership capability: The
quest for change competence " Journal of Change Management no. 1
(2):116-131.
Hediger, Werner. 2010. "Welfare and capital-theoretic foundations of corporate
social responsibility and corporate sustainability." The Journal of SocioEconomics
no.
39
(4):518-526.
doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.02.001.
Holcomb, J. L., R. S. Upchurch, and F. Okumus. 2007. "Corporate social
responsibility: What are top hotel companies reporting?" International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management no. 19 (6):461-475.
Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory: Action structure, and
contradiction in social analysis:. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Ismail, M. 2009. " Corporate social responsibility and its role in community
development: An international perspective." The Journal of International
Social Research no. 2 (9):199-209.
Mezias, S. V., and M. A. Glynn. 1993. "The three faces of corporate renewal:
Institution, revolution, and evolution." Strategic Management Journal no.
14:77-101.
Mohr, L. B. 1982. Explaining organizational behavior, Jossey-Bass social and
behavioral science series. San Francisco [etc.]: Jossey-Bass.
Myung, Eunha, Amy McClaren, and Lan Li. 2012. "Environmentally related
research in scholarly hospitality journals: Current status and future
opportunities." International Journal of Hospitality Management no. 31
(4):1264-1275.
CRRC 2013
13
Rheede, A. van, R. J. Blomme, and D. M. Tromp. 2010a. Exploring the adoption of
eco-labels in the Dutch hospitality industry: The impact of government
actions and guests expectations. Paper read at EuroChrie, at Amsterdam.
Rheede, A. van, R. J. Blomme, and D. M. Tromp. 2010b. Sustainability in the
Dutch hospitality industry: Review of the current practice in a theoretical
framework. Paper read at Conference proceedings of the CRRC conference,
at Marseille.
Rheede, A. van, and Robert J. Blomme. 2012. "Sustainable Practices in
Hospitality: A Research Framework." Advances in Hospitality and Leisure
no. 8:257-271.
Secchi, D. 2007. "Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate
social responsibility." International Journal of Management Reviews no. 9
(4):347-373.
Sloan, P., W. Legrand, and J. S. Chen. 2012. Sustainability in the hospitality
industry: Principles of sustainable operations. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Tsoukas, Haridimos, and Robert Chia. 2002. "On Organizational Becoming:
Rethinking Organizational Change." Organization Science no. 13 (5):567582.
Van de Ven, Andrew H., and Marshall Scott Poole. 1995. "Explaining
Development and Change in Organizations." The Academy of Management
Review no. Vol. 20, (3):pp. 510-540.
Van de Ven, Andrew H., and Marshall Scott Poole. 2005. "Alternative Approaches
for Studying Organizational Change." Organization Studies no. 26 (9):13771404.
Weick, K. E., and R. E. Quinn. 1999. Organizational change and development.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common
future. Oxford: World Commission on Environment and Development.
World Tourism Organization. 2012. Conceptual definition. World Tourism
Organization 2004 [cited January 16 2012]. Available from
http://www.unwto.org/sdt/mission/en/.
World Tourism Organization. 2013. China - the new number one tourism source
market in the world. Press Release PR13020, 4 april 2013 [cited Juni 14
2013]. Available from http://s.shr.lc/16AA3tv