planning for a shared vision of a sustainable future

0-7-17-43 planning for a shared vision of a sustainable future A Systematic Review K e nbs.net Prepared by NBS South Africa planning for a shar...
Author: Eustace Merritt
1 downloads 0 Views 6MB Size
0-7-17-43

planning for a shared vision of a sustainable future A Systematic Review

K

e

nbs.net

Prepared by NBS South Africa

planning for a shared vision of a sustainable future A Systematic Review Prepared by Dr Martina Linnenluecke, UQ Business School, The University of Queensland; A/Prof Martie-Louise Verreynne, UQ Business School, The University of Queensland; Dr Retha de Villiers Scheepers, The University of the Sunshine Coast; Mr Sarel Grönum, UQ Business School, The University of Queensland; Ms Chanel Venter, The University of Stellenbosch.

With research assistance by Dr Nelida Gomez and Ms Laura Garrett and illustrations by Josh Hartmann, UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, University of the Sunshine Coast.

Additional resources are available at: nbs.net/knowledge

© 2014, Network for Business Sustainability South Africa This work is protected under international copyright law. It may not be reproduced or distributed for commercial purposes without the expressed, written consent of the Network for Business Sustainability. When using this work in any way, you must always recognise the Network for Business Sustainability using the following citation: Linnenluecke, M., Verreynne, M-A., de Villiers Scheepers, R., Grönum, S., Venter, C., 2014. Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future: A Systematic Review. Network for Business Sustainability South Africa. Retrieved from: nbs.net/knowledge

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



2

table of contents 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

9 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING AND EMERGING APPROACHES 11 2.1. Belief Systems Underlying Planning 11 2.2. Four Planning Patterns 20 2.3. Certainty and Unknowability of the Foresight Horizon 21 2.4. Chapter Summary 22 24 28 31

CHAPTER 3: CREATING SYNERGIES BETWEEN BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT 3.1. The Institutional Environment 3.2. Institutional Voids in Developing Countries 3.3. Chapter Summary

33 34 36 38 39 48

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING MECHANISMS 4.1. Forecasting 4.2. Adapting through Emergent Strategies 4.3. Shaping the Future 4.4. Creating a Shared Vision 4.4. Chapter Summary

49 CHAPTER 5: INFLUENCING THE FUTURE THROUGH INNOVATION 51 5.1. Drivers of Innovation – Innovation at the Systems Level 56 5.2. Towards a New Business Logic 59 5.3. Entrepreneurship – an Activity to Shape the Future 60 5.4. Sustainable Investments 61 5.5. How Policy Can Encourage Innovation 61 5.6. Chapter Summary 62

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

65 66 67 68 71 82

CHAPTER 7: METHODOLOGY 7.1. Academic Literature 7.2. Non-Academic Literature 7.3. Case Studies Bibliography Appendix 1: Additional Leximancer Analysis of Cited Articles

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



3

Executive Summary What does the future have in store for us? How do we respond in a strategic and pragmatic manner? How can we help shape this future? These are fundamental questions for business strategists that are particularly important and difficult in the current period of accelerating demographic, economic, environmental and social changes. This report seeks to answer these questions based on a systematic review of the best available evidence and research. It summarises planning patterns for a sustainable future by addressing the challenges of establishing synergies between an organisation’s strategic and public sector plans. Findings of the systematic review show that organisations can engage in different types of planning approaches. These range from ‘traditional’ planning approaches based on forecasting and projections to attempts to shape the future through visionary or transformational planning (collaborating with other stakeholders to bring new, robust solutions to sustainability challenges).

future. Among those are growing population levels and rapid industrial developments, which create an ever greater demand for finite resources, as well as social problems such as poverty. This review is a call for action. While businesses have contributed to the problem of unsustainable development in the past, they can also be part of the solution by supporting sustainable patterns of production and consumption by playing an important role in planning for a sustainable future. This approach can complement government planning and is especially relevant in an emerging economy context. The report highlights multiple case examples of companies such as SAB Miller, Santam, Woolworths and others, which have attempted to include novel approaches to planning into their business models, including ways to integrate nontraditional stakeholders. We hope this report provides an impetus for decisionmakers and encourages organisations to actively engage in future change.

The report also uncovers many of the great challenges organisations face when planning for a sustainable

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



4

chapter 1: introduction

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



5

Businesses, industries and societies worldwide are facing a high level of uncertainty as they attempt to make plans for the future. Those in developing and newly industrialised economies in particular are facing significant constraints in the form of real and absolute limits to further economic growth (Rockström et al., 2009, 2013). These limits or ‘planetary boundaries’ represent the point beyond which the Earth is no longer able to support further economic activity and human development.1 Three boundaries have already been exceeded (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), while other boundaries are in danger of being breached (Hart, 1997). The quest for a sustainable future has become an urgent priority for human development. From local communities to the national and international level we need to address the over-exploitation of ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity and the over-consumption of non-renewable resources. Ensuring a sustainable future – defined as ‘progress that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs’ (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2014) – depends on us staying within these boundaries as they provide a safe operating space for humanity (Rockström et al, 2009, 2013; Whiteman, et al., 2013). Related development goals, such as the eradication of poverty, are seen to be as essential as addressing environmental challenges (Raworth, 2012).

It is not only global developments that influence the future, but also the local and national planning context. The context for this review is South Africa, a country where many significant transformations have occurred over the past 20 years. While South Africa is industrialised, it is not to the extent that the economy is internationally competitive; this would require drastic additional restructuring and development. International exports are much lower than those from countries such as Brazil or Mexico and the focus has primarily been on exports of primary products. At the same time, many (and especially those in rural areas) remain poor (Marais, 2001) and the country struggles with underlying tensions resulting from South Africa’s past. As in other emerging economies, South Africa lacks institutions in some areas, pointing to a need for capacity development. South Africa is, in many ways, an unusual case. After its transition to democracy in 1994 many institutions were set up to help the country strive for success. South Africa has a sophisticated financial sector and welldeveloped infrastructure, although it is not distributed equally and is lacking in health and education (Coovadia et al., 2009; Hamann et al., 2014; Marais, 2001). The country is also rich in natural resources, though severe stresses are evident in the form of land use changes, biodiversity loss and declining resources (Hamann et al., 2014). While progressive legislation and policies including environmental laws have been introduced, the government’s capacity to implement these policies has been limited (Boerzel and Hamann, 2013; Hoenke et al, 2008).

Earth system processes with boundary levels include climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, changes to biogeochemical nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, changes to land systems, loss of biological diversity, chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loadings. 1

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



6

South Africa has recently put forward its National Development Plan (NDP), which provides a blueprint for economic and social development over the next 20 years. The NDP states: “South Africa has the potential and capacity to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality over the next two decades. This requires a new approach – one that moves from a passive citizenry receiving services from a state to one that systematically includes the socially and economically excluded, where people are active champions of their own development, and where government works effectively to develop people’s capabilities to allow them to lead the lives they desire. The success of this approach is premised on strengthening the links between economic and social strategies, and effective and capable government, collaboration between the private and public sectors, [and] leadership from all sectors in society (pg. 1-2).” The question is whether this plan can be integrated sufficiently into both South Africa’s economy and into the strategies of organisations ranging from the private sector businesses to public institutions. The NDP is not without its opponents. Several parties, including the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party, have reportedly voiced their disapproval of some aspects of the NDP. A task force was formed at the end of August 2013 to iron out some of these differences (Marrian, 2013). This report provides a timely response to these developments. It addresses the call for a systematic review to address the question of how businesses can engage in strategic planning that is linked to a shared vision for a sustainable future. Although South Africa provides the context for the report, the findings are relevant to a global audience.

The report considers four key questions: 1. How can business and government create effective synergies between the strategic plans of organisations and the public sector for a sustainable future (Chapter 3)? 2. What techniques, frameworks or mechanisms have proved effective in forecasting environmental and other changes, and in identifying strategic implications for organisations (Chapter 4)? 3. How can such techniques be applied to help organisations make strategic decisions in the face of increasing socio-economic, technological, environmental and other changes, as well as high levels of uncertainty (Chapter 4)? 4. How do organisations not only respond to different future scenarios, but engage in innovative and concerted efforts to influence the future (Chapter 5)? The report is based on a systematic review of the best available evidence and research. Figure 1 summarizes the findings. It depicts how underlying belief systems and the institutional context influence planning approaches, mechanisms and techniques. Chapter 2 explains the guiding principles of the document, summarising planning patterns to address a sustainable future. Chapter 3 addresses the challenges of establishing synergies between an organisation’s strategic and public sector plans. Chapter 4 discusses reliable techniques for decision-making amidst constant change and uncertainty, while chapter 5 looks at ways to influence the future through innovation. The report concludes with points worthy of consideration for both practitioners and policy-makers.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



7

We hope that the findings will stimulate discussions among decision-makers in the private and public sectors on how to plan for a sustainable future. Decision-makers can use the report to reflect on their current approaches and to consider alternatives. The tools detailed in the report can provide new ways of

planning for a sustainable future. Note that there is certainly not a ‘one-size-fits-all approach’; decisionmakers should consider how the techniques fit their own context. We trust that this report will provide insights to guide decision-makers in building a shared vision for a sustainable future.

Figure 1: PLANNING FOR A SHARED VISION OF A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE: APPROACHES, MECHANISMS AND TECHNIQUES

Rationalism

Engagement

Collaboration

Lobbying

on g as tin

al

Fo re c

E St me ra rg te en gi t es

l na

io

at ns t io en sit m an e Tr nag a M

Ad Em ap er tive ge & nt

s

orm

Pl Pr ann oj in ec g tio & n

Gl ob s(

CrossSectoral Social Partnerships CSSP’s

&N

Road Mapping

tio n

es

rm fo

ns

Back Casting

ula

re

lu Va

tu

Fu

tal

e

eg

th

cie

g ry

&R

in na

sio

Vi

Planning Approaches

a Tr

lici es

Community Involvement

So

ap

&N

ati

Scenario Planning

Sh

Participation

Po

Evolutionary Learning Communities

al)

Consultation

INNOVATION a

m nis

m Hu

Firm- and Group-Level Behaviours

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future

Na

tur

ali

sm



8

chapter 2: existing and emerging approaches “No political democracy can survive and flourish if the mass of our people remain in poverty, without land, without tangible prospects for a better life. Attacking poverty and deprivation must therefore be the first priority of a democratic government.” Source: The Reconstruction and Development Programme, 1994

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



9

Business contribute to the problem of unsustainable development by supporting unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. However by taking action on sustainability, business can also be part of the solution (Romar, 2009). The private sector can play an important role in planning for a sustainable future, particularly in complementing government planning (Buchholz, 2004), especially in emerging economies such as South Africa (Kuznetsov, Kuznetsova, and Warren, 2009; Mitra, 2012). Limitations to government planning include: geographic reach, a focus on shorttermism due to short election cycles, and difficulties in engaging stakeholders and citizens (Senge et al., 2007).

In South Africa, there are significant sustainability and development-related challenges that need to be addressed. According to official figures released in the 2012 Development Indicators report (The Presidency, 2013), these include:

To contribute to action on sustainability, the private sector needs to work with government and other bodies to develop new approaches and institutional mechanisms to reflect sustainability in market decisions (Buchholz, 2004). Private sector businesses ought to consider their part within the wider social and ecological systems in which they operate and their role in creating new opportunities to sustain the systems on which they depend (Valente, 2010; Whiteman et al., 2013).



• • • • •

• •

High levels of poverty and inequality; High levels of unemployment (over 25%); Only around 78% of households live in formal settlements (2011 figures); Only 95.5% of people have access to water infrastructure (2011/2012 figures); 17% of people do not have access to sanitation (2011/2012 figures); 23.5% of people do not have access to electricity (2008 figure); Upwards trends in maternal deaths (possibly a consequence of the prevalence of HIV-AIDS); Adult illiteracy of 19% (2011 figure).

While many of these indicators have significantly improved since 1994, the challenges of creating a sustainable society are evident. In addition to the social issues, there is a strong emphasis on increasing gross domestic product, which promotes unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. The country’s natural resource base is under severe pressure. For private sector organisations, the question is how to engage with these challenges, whether to partner with government and civil society and if so, how (The National Planning Commission, 2010).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



10

2.1. Belief Systems Underlying Planning Planning approaches are driven by the underlying belief systems of an organisation. Planning decisions involve making judgements with reference to the past about how to deal with an uncertain future. Underlying beliefs stem from one or more of the following perspectives (Senge and Carstedt, 2001): •



Rationalism has been the predominant paradigm in business. Rational planning is founded on systematic analysis, considering the options, evaluating information and integrating it into an organisation’s existing operations. Prediction is a hallmark of the rational school of thought and superior strategies are believed to be due to significant attention to detail, more frequent analysis, scanning for trends and evaluation of alternatives. Naturalism, by contrast, comes from an innate desire to be part of nature. It emphasises that organisations as living systems should approach planning as an organic system, which regenerates itself through natural processes, such as feedback loops, fast responses and adaptation to changing environments to co-exist in harmony with others. Some researchers have also suggested a ‘sustaincentric’ paradigm that focuses on natural AND human (social, economic) sustainability, and views them as integrated (Gladwin, Kennelly and Krause, 2009).



Humanism arises from an underlying belief that human action shapes the environment and that instead of attempting to predict an unknowable, uncertain future, organisations exert control through visionary and transformative approaches to influence the outcome. These philosophical approaches guide the four major planning patterns of organisations and the preference for prediction and control for future sustainability as illustrated in Figure 2.

2.2. Four Planning Patterns After reviewing the available evidence on planning for a sustainable future, different approaches emerge that can be grouped according to two different dimensions. Figure 2 illustrates that planning patterns are distinguishable by the relative emphasis on prediction and control through actions. Key features of the environment and the foresight horizon (Lane and Maxfield, 1996) determine how practical and useful these planning patterns are. Approaches range from the more ‘traditional’ planning approaches based on forecasting and projections to attempts to shape the future through either visionary planning (creating strategies based on the strengths of organisations) or transformational planning (collaborating with other stakeholders to bring a new, more robust solution).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



11

Figure 2 FOUR PLANNING APPROACHES High

TRANSFORMATION

LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT IN INFLUENCING THE FUTURE

SHAPING THE FUTURE E.g. Lobbying

E.g. Transformative scenarios planning, innovation, transitions management; collaborating and co-creating the future with multiple stakeholders

PROJECTION

ADAPTATION

E.g. Forecasting, scenario planning

E.g. Enhancing agility

Low HIgh predictability

Low predictability

ASSUMED ENVIRONMENTAL PREDICTABILITY Note: Increased levels of shading mean that increased stakeholder participating is needed to realise these planning approaches

The four dominant planning patterns as shown in Figure 2 are: 1. Planning and projections, based on the belief that the environment is predictable and that investing in predictive techniques allows favourable positioning in the future. Examples of such strategies are mechanisms used by insurance companies to understand long-term risks.2

2. Adaptive responses and emergent planning, based on the belief that the environment is unpredictable and that shortening planning horizons and investing in flexible strategies, which effectively respond to environmental changes, is less costly and decreases risk. Examples include organisations that have set up a process to develop a more comprehensive climate strategy as the policy environment evolves (Kolk and

It should be noted that traditional risk projection models in insurance have limitations for projecting long-term risks resulting from issues such as climate change. 2

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



12

Pinkse, 2005) The basic principle of adaptive approaches is incrementalism (Lindblom, 1959; Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010) and continuous improvement, where the organisation learns from environmental feedback and strategic patterns. Organisations operating in unstable environments characterised by frequent changes prefer planned emergence, which combines predictive planning with adaptive approaches (Phillips and Freeman, 2010). Organisations can reduce carbon emissions for example through process improvements or in collaboration with others, such as British Telecom’s decision to only purchase electricity that is generated by renewable sources and combined heat and power plants (Harvey, 2004). 3. Visionary planning or shaping strategies (Courtney, Kirkland and Viguerie, 1997), which assumes the environment is predictable but pliable and that it is possible to impose a vision for a sustainable future. One example is SAB Miller’s ‘Prosper approach’ (see case study), which includes five strategic imperatives to shape the organisation’s environment and achieve desired outcomes. Corporate imagination and the active involvement of stakeholders in imagining possible future scenarios is an important aspect of visionary planning (Hart and Sharma, 2004; Harvey, 2004; London and Hart, 2004; Seelos and Mair, 2005; Seelos and Mair, 2007).

4. Transformational planning, based on the belief that growing environmental challenges such as climate change and resource depletion, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the unmet needs of those at the bottom of the pyramid – the poorest of the poor – present opportunities for organisations to define a compelling shared vision (Hart and Milstein, 2003; Hart and Sharma, 2004; London and Hart, 2004). The basic strategic principle of adaptive approaches is transformational change, which often involves community-powered problem solving. One example for such community involvement is the Southern Africa Food Lab (see case study in Chapter 3), a collaboration by diverse stakeholders (Hart and Milstein, 2003). Approaches such as corporate imagination (Hart and Sharma, 2004) as well as transitions planning and management (Loorbach, 2010) are part of this approach. Different planning approaches are not mutually exclusive. Organisations may develop planning mechanisms that draw upon more than one approach or find that as the external environment changes that they need to change their approach. By using these different approaches, businesses can develop mediumand long-term strategies for a sustainable future. Let’s examine the four planning approaches in further detail, including the benefits and limitations of each.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



13

PLANNING AND PROJECTIONS

ADAPTIVE (OR EMERGENT) STRATEGIES

Private and public sector organisations can use planning and projections to evaluate risks and work out a probable future. In this way, the organisation can take account of environmental, social, economic, governance and other risks and opportunities to design its strategy accordingly. Options include relying on the ‘most probable’ future outcomes, provided a single best forecast can be made, and developing a strategy based on this option. The introduction of the feed-in tariff in Germany provided organisations with such a planning situation (Wand and Leuthold, 2011). Organisations can also attempt to take a viable, robust route that works regardless of external developments such as regulatory change. Other options are to delay actions until further clarity emerges or to commit to an action and have contingency plans in place. Alternatively, making a big investment can be hedged with contingency plans that protect the business should the investment fail, for example investing in a future project with milestone investments depending on performance (Marcus, Kurucz and Colbert, 2010). Rational planning has been shown to provide positive financial performance outcomes (Brews and Hunt, 1999) and has the added benefit of overcoming inconsistencies and gaps inherent in heuristic-based approaches (Ansoff, 1979). It provides a disciplined and systematic method (Szulanski and Amin, 2001) to address climate change and social challenges.

Adaptive patterns focus on learning through experimenting and moving quickly to capture opportunities and adapt to rapidly changing economic, social, technological, competitive and climatic conditions (Mosakowski, 1997). Adaptation through emergent strategies typically requires agility, responsiveness and operational flexibility to react to threats and opportunities as they arise, rather than focusing on predictive rationality and forecasting (Busch, 2011). Being flexible and adaptive can help organisations out-manoeuvre their competitors by learning and recognising where the environment is, (rather than where it will be) and then acting accordingly. In dynamic and uncertain situations planning may be too slow and can blind organisations to important changes in the environment (Mintzberg, 1990). Predictions may also lead to commitments that can lock organisations into planned strategies, making it difficult to change or adapt if the environment changes (Christensen and Bower, 1996). Following an adaptive approach can reduce costs, risks and avoid prediction errors. While adaptation strategies can be planned using forecasting mechanisms, adaptation through emergent strategies occurs in response to changes as they become evident, rather than in response to planning efforts (Quinn, 1978). Empirical research provides support for the success of adaptive approaches in uncertain situations (Fredrickson and Iaquinto, 1989).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



14

VISIONARY PLANNING OR SHAPING THE FUTURE

TRANSFORMATIONAL PLANNING

Visionary planning and shaping the future focuses on actively influencing the environment by imagining sustainable future scenarios and proactively bringing them to fruition. The essence is to set ambitious goals and create a unique space suited to an organisation’s strengths (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989). The visionary approach emphasises high prediction and high control, since the future comes to exist because visionary leaders choose to create it (Wiltbank et al., 2006). The organisation needs to be able to draw on readily available resources – whether financial or social resources such as corporate connections – to increase the odds of achieving the desired outcome (Courtney et al., 1997; Courtnery, 2003).

Transformational planning typically involves collaboration with stakeholders who were not previously included in strategies (Hart and Milstein, 2003; Hart and Sharma, 2004; Kirchgeorg and Winn, 2006; London and Hart, 2004). This approach has the potential to develop more inclusive, robust solutions to sustainability challenges. It begins by focusing on the experience of stakeholders who will be affected. To improve the chance of success, stakeholder groups need to be involved and follow meta-systemic principles of selforganisation and distributed network management to design a system that operates on the basis of selfcontrolled individuals and communities (Knowles and Espinosa, 2009).

Organisations need to have an unwavering commitment to their vision. They then need to assess the different paths to achieve that vision and marshal the resources to make it happen. Market leaders and entrepreneurs who create eco-innovations in markets where there were none before embody this pattern. While the visionary pattern may be perceived by some as risky, for first-movers, market leaders and entrepreneurs, this proactive approach offers the opportunity to create future markets (Rindova and Fombrun, 1999).

Traditional management hierarchies prevent informal (social) networking, a powerful form of selforganisation. Efficient communication channels foster self-organisation and self-regulation as a method for productive change processes (Knowles and Espinosa, 2009). Small organisations can also follow transformational patterns, drawing on their readily available human and social capital, for example through business associations (Marcus et al., 2010) provided this is supported by a compelling business model. Blue ocean strategy (Kim and Mauborgne, 2004) and transitions management (Loorbach, 2010) all draw on the idea of creating a sustainable future by collaborative human actions.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



15

“Climate change, resource depletion, water scarcity, alcohol related harm, income inequality and poverty… the challenges we face as a society and as a business are getting bigger. At SABMiller, we believe business can play a leading role in tackling society’s future challenges. And our business will play a leading role. Society has high expectations, but so do we. Sustainable development sits at the heart of our strategy as a business. We need reliable access to quality raw materials. We need water to brew our beers. We need a license to exist, to market and sell our products responsibly. We need thriving communities of consumers who want to enjoy quality products. Sustainable developments will enable our growth and inspire our people.” SABMiller’s CEO, Alan Clark

Case Study: Visionary Planning at SABMiller SABMiller’s Prosper approach to sustainable development integrates environmental, social and governance issues into the multinational brewing and beverage group’s core business practices. The company’s approach to sustainability is proactive (beyond compliance or community social investment). Prosper sets ambitious sustainability targets. In 2014 these included commitments to support 500 000 small businesses globally, deliver world-class water efficiency and cut the group’s total carbon footprint. Prosper sets out to address five ‘shared imperatives’. They are imperatives since they are critical to future success and shared because they can only be achieved through innovative collaborations with suppliers, customers, consumers, communities, governments, NGOs and other stakeholders (Chonco, 2014). SABMiller’s five planning imperatives are to (SABMiller, 2014): • Accelerate growth and social development throughout the organisational value chain with a focus on promoting entrepreneurship, particularly among women and disadvantaged groups. • Make beer a natural choice for moderate and responsible drinkers by promoting robust standards and guidelines, launching new communications campaigns and supporting programmes to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. • Secure shared water resources for SABMiller’s business and local communities by building a detailed understanding of water risks and creating community partnerships to manage them. • Create value by reducing waste and the carbon footprint throughout the value chain, driving down emissions from brewing, promoting sustainable packaging and prioritising low energy fridges. • Support the responsible, sustainable use of land by creating secure, sustainable supply chains and by helping farmers to increase profitability, productivity and social development. Each of the strategic imperatives is underpinned by specific projects, programmes, partnerships and performance targets, which are publicly monitored across their global business in numerous countries. In the past, the group has shown a steady performance track record across their previous 10 sustainable development priorities as evidenced in its 2014 Sustainable Development Report. SABMiller monitors and assesses performance using its customised management system, the Sustainability Assessment Matrix (SAM). Each country in which the group operates is assessed against the sustainable development priorities on a five-point scale, where one represents the minimum level and five represents superior performance. SABMiller’s ambition to integrate its sustainability goals with corporate strategy sets a benchmark for other organisations. Despite the size and complexity of its business, SABMiller leverages its scale and stakeholder relationships to achieve greater impact. In addition, the public announcement of shared imperatives ensures accountability for managing shared risks and creating shared value. The leadership skills and technical expertise of SABMiller’s managers, employees and partners will determine whether the organisation’s achievements can match its ambition (Nelson, 2014). Specific examples of current initiatives include growth and development through value chains, water partnerships and reducing waste and carbon emissions (SABMiller, 2014).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



16

Figure 3 SABMILLER’S SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES

Source: SABMiller PLC Sustainable Development Summary Report 2014

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



17

Growth and Social Development through Value Chains: Building a Thriving World Where Incomes and Quality of Life are Growing Brewing, as a community activity, has the potential to reduce poverty within a local community by creating growth, jobs and improved livelihoods. SABMiller works with thousands of micro, small and medium enterprises in their value chains to provide support and capacity development. The group’s experience in numerous countries enables it to compile best practices and experiences to support these enterprises, from crop growers to beer retailers. In Romania, the Evolution programme, launched in 2011, organised skills development workshops for sole traders or staff working for small organisations within the Ursus Breweries’ distribution network. Skills development focused on five areas commercial skills, account prospecting, general management, financial planning and change management. Knowledge and learning from this project inspired the development of a best practice guide to create tools and training materials to increase the scale and impact of this initiative. SABMiller also invests beyond value chain activity to promote social innovations. In South Africa, 40 innovators received seed capital of ZAR10.3 million (US$1 million) for social innovations, through the SAB Foundation Social Innovation Awards. These innovations address the daily challenges of poverty stricken groups such as women, young people and people with disabilities, many of whom live in rural areas. The ZAR1 million winner was the Vula Eye Health Mobile Phone App, which focuses on improving eye care in low-income communities by educating people about different eye conditions and provides access to sight tests which connects them to eye care professionals. SAB Kickstart, started in 1995, continues to develop and support sustainable youth-owned and high-impact entrepreneurs in South Africa through seed funding and mentorship. Water Partnerships SABMiller recognises that water is a shared resource and is of vital importance not only to the group’s value chain, but also to the community. The groups is a lead contributor to the Strategic Water Partners Network and the Water Resource group. The company has partnered with the WWF and the German development agency to address the risk of a shortfall in fresh water supplies to both their breweries and the communities in which they operate. This partnership now has active projects in 12 countries. SABMiller pioneered a ‘water footprints’ report in 2009 to understand water use throughout their chain, and has since carried out detailed water footprint analyses in three countries. These risks are analysed on an annual basis and inform the development and implementation of mitigation plans and also guide interactions with stakeholders. The data collected is shared with local authorities and partners to assist with resource planning. Goals have been set to reduce the water usage in SABMiller’s breweries by 25% by 2015, which also depend on water-efficient agriculture. “We must address water risks proactively, because waiting for crises to occur is simply not an option,” said Ari Mervis, Managing Director for SABMiller Asia Pacific. In Columbia, SABMiller partnered with The Nature Conservancy and the Botoga Water Company to support local farmers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices. This included jointly underwriting the cost of introducing more appropriate cattle breeds. This investment reduced water treatment costs for the area by US$4 million per year.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



18

Reducing Waste and Carbon Emissions Reduction of waste and carbon emissions depends on reusing, recycling and eliminating waste. SABMiller is committed to reducing its carbon imprint and eliminating waste in the brewing process. Now, 95.6% of general waste is reused or recycled, which creates value and reduces landfill. Returnable bottles are produced as an effective way to reduce the environmental impact of packaging. In Bavaria and Columbia the bottles are refilled an average of 44 times and improvements are being made in Europe, with a goal to learn from markets, trends and customer demand. The company has shared data on CO2 emissions - including targets for reduction, progress on meeting targets and any projects contributing to reducing CO2 - with 50 key suppliers. One hundred key packaging suppliers have been invited to join the mission. All new supplier contracts now require a disclosure on scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions through either CDP or an internal score card. The CO2 emissions are set to be halved by 2020, with the savings primarily due to the use of energy from renewable sources. “We are proud that six of our eight major breweries are now landfill-free, and we won’t ever stop our commitment to sustainability,” said Tom Log, CEO of MillerCoors, its joint venture company in the USA. In 2008 Trenton brewery was the first of the company’s breweries to become landfill free while Golden brewery has eliminated more than 135 tons of waste each month by making modest investments in infrastructure and equipment and small changes to everyday activities. This has led MillerCoors to cut landfill waste by 80%, across eight major breweries.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



19

2.3. Certainty and Unknowability of the Foresight Horizon Having examined the different approaches to planning, the question is: What dictates when a particular approach should be used? When the future looks relatively certain, prediction and internal control appear to be a good option. As the outlook becomes more uncertain, the relationship between them changes. For example, in the period preceding the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, predictive planning approaches worked well in many industries. However, the GFC compelled the private and public sector to review, revise or accelerate their plans to achieve economic sustainability, generate cost efficiencies and remain competitive while responding to societal and environmental sustainability challenges. In such highly uncertain and complex environments, it is more difficult to predict the future precisely and control outcomes through internal measures. Efforts to control, create and shape the evolution of market elements may be more appropriate.

A seminal work on the relationship between unpredictability and risk, illustrates the different types of uncertainty and how they relate to planning (Knight, 1921): the first type consists of known distributions and unknown draws (risk), the second type consists of unknown distribution and unknown draws (uncertainty), and the third type consists of non-existent distributions, therefore an unknowable future. In the first situation, prediction as a means to control outcomes is a logical and prudent strategy to address risk. In unknowable environments, purposeful human creative action (Lewontin, 1993) offers a non-predictive approach to address environmental problems. In industries with a long-term focus (such as life insurance), stable environments prediction would be logical. In other fast moving industries (such as the information technology industry) with greater uncertainty, more rapid and flexible responses are required (see also Figure 2). Towers Watson, a global professional services organisation specialising in risk management, points out that risk can be captured in probability distributions and while it can be modelled, modelling is a simplification of the truth (Watson, 2012).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



20

Uncertainty is a natural consequence of dealing with the future. Shifts in the actions of private and public sector organisations compound the unpredictability. Predictive planning patterns are designed to address lower risk, where future modelling might work well. On the other hand, non-predictive strategies are better suited to an unknowable future where prediction shows high error rates. Adaptive patterns emphasise learning incrementally and responding rapidly, while transformative patterns aim to control the future through stakeholder co-creation. Questions that planning and strategy teams can ask when considering appropriate planning patterns are: • • •



Which planning pattern fits with our underlying philosophy and belief system? Which pattern is most likely to aid us in achieving sustainability objectives? Should different planning patterns be used for different sustainability initiatives or objectives? If so, which approach fits which initiative or objective best? Can methodologies be effectively combined?

2.4. Chapter Summary This chapter explored planning approaches to create a sustainable future. The most suitable approach will depend on the stability or uncertainty of the environment and organisations’ fundamental belief systems. Given the situation in South Africa, the greatest challenge to planning for a sustainable future will be to integrate non-traditional stakeholders – those living in poverty, the unemployed, those in informal settlements and those with no access to drinking water, sanitation or electricity. To do so, researchers propose nontraditional approaches that include planning for societal transitions as well as Radical Transactiveness, which systematically identifies, explores and integrates the views of stakeholders on the ‘fringe’ (Hart and Sharma, 2004). We discuss these approaches further in chapters 3 and 4.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



21

chapter 3: creating synergies between business and government “South Africa aspires to be a sustainable, economically prosperous and self-reliant nation that safeguards its democracy by meeting the fundamental human needs of its people, by managing its limited ecological resources responsibly for current and future generations, and by advancing efficient and effective integrated planning and governance through national, regional and global collaboration.” Source: National Framework on Sustainable Development, 2008

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



22

While the previous chapter provided a broad overview of different planning approaches, this chapter looks at how to create effective synergies between organisations’ strategic plans and public sector plans for a sustainable future. Planning takes place at multiple levels, involves multiple stakeholders and requires dealing with change and uncertainty. It is about making decisions and taking action to reach future goals, analysing risk, incorporating innovation and looking at ways to adapt to ongoing change. The process involves people from different backgrounds and with different degrees of tolerance for change. Planning for a shared vision of a sustainable future is challenging. It requires: 1. The involvement of different parties – from citizens and communities to businesses, industry and state bodies – and across different spheres, such as organisational, political, economic and socio-cultural (Shiroyama et al., 2012; Starik and Rands, 1995; Wittneben et al., 2012) 2. The recognition that a sustainable future has many dimensions including environmental, social and economic, which are often valued differently by the different parties involved (Shiroyama et al., 2012) 3. Overcoming ‘institutional voids’ – the absence of a clearly defined institutional and/or regulatory framework (Khanna and Palepu, 2013) – through bridging mechanisms that help the different parties to collaborate and develop a shared vision of

wellness, progress and prosperity (Brown, 1991; Ettlie and Rothenberg, 2011). Goals for a sustainable future may include the development of food security, species and ecosystems protection, adapting to climate change, improvements in renewable energy, and/or building human resources. Therefore governance mechanisms and institutions are important to co-ordinate views and interests among a variety of parties (Jørgensen, 2005; Kerkhof and Wieczorek, 2005; Shiroyama et al., 2012). The South African NDP sets the goals for a sustainable future as: the eradication of poverty and exclusion, nurturing economic growth, building capabilities, involving communities in their own development and raising living standards (page 2) At the same time, planning also means assessing risks and constraints to future development as well as learning from past failures to improve future resilience. In addition, different levels of stakeholder participation are required to realise different planning approaches (see Figure 2). In an ideal situation, planning for a sustainable future would involve interaction between various parties (government, organisations, citizens), a free dialogue and an atmosphere of mutual trust (Chapuy and Gros, 2010) to create a ‘socially instituted process of change in which innovation is a necessary element’ (Kemp, Parto and Gibson, 2005). It would also require working within existing systems and structures, norms and policies, societies and governments to anticipate and influence how these will develop and change in the future.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



23

However, there are often challenges in creating synergies between the different parties due to their divergent interests, and there are likely to be trade-offs between them (Shiroyama et al., 2012). For instance, transformational change is difficult to achieve without embracing stakeholders’ views. The difficulties in coordinating the different bodies are particularly apparent when we look at governing ‘the Commons’ (Ostrom, 1990) – common resources such as air, water or land that are not under private ownership. Here, governance issues are evident as overuse by different organisations results in problems such as tropical deforestation and, at a wider level, climate change (Ostrom, 1990; Dietz, Ostrom and Stern, 2003). Consequently, this chapter focuses on the importance of the institutional environment and how it helps or hinders planning by businesses and other organisations.

Figure 4

3.1. The Institutional Environment Institutional theory holds that private and public institutions as well as surrounding organisations shape social and organisational behaviour through both formal and informal structures (Hoskisson et al., 2000) Formal structures include regulatory and administrative mechanisms, including policies, regulations, laws and professional codes of conduct (Marcus and Aragon-Correa, 2011). Informal structures include societal and cultural mechanisms such as norms, values or established ways of doing things that organisations and individuals adhere to (Bruton, Ahlstrom and Li, 2010; Scott, 1987). The institutional environment can either encourage or hinder effective public planning, public-private partnerships or private sector planning. Figure 4 portrays a brief summary of the multiple levels of the institutional environment, including policies and regulations on global and national levels, dominant cultural values and norms and different organisational behaviours.

THE PLANNING CONTEXT

Policies and regulations (global and national) • •

Regulatory and institutional pressures Example: NDP in SA

Values and norms • •

Societal norms Values held within embedded, interconnected systems and by various actors

Firm- and group-level behaviours • • •

Management and planning practices Stakeholder engagement Perceived responsibilities

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



24

NATIONAL REGULATORY CONTEXT National institutions and standards exist in many countries in relation to social and environmental issues – such as environmental protection agencies or bodies that deal with waste, sustainable development and biodiversity. The regulatory policies and pressures exerted by these institutions encourage organisations to have environmental strategies in place to conform to their demands (Berrone et al., 2013). In South Africa, significant changes took place after the introduction of democracy in 1994. The 1996 South African Constitution introduced an inextricable link between human and environmental rights, giving people “the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development” (Republic of South Africa, 1996). The first national environmental policy process, the Consultative National Environmental Policy Process (CONNEPP), commenced in 1995 and resulted in the 1998 National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), a new legal framework for environmental management that largely replaced the earlier 1989 Environment Conservation Act. NEMA provided for the establishment of a National Environmental Advisory Forum and a Committee for Environmental Coordination. However, the process was criticised for failing to consult local

government, councils and civil society, and to follow up key commitments. In addition, some organisations such as the Department of Minerals and Energy sought protection from environmental management policies. As a result, mining was exempt from the levels of environmental impact assessments to which other sectors were subjected to (Rossouw and Wiseman, 2004). Reviews on the performance of the South African government, which were carried out at intervals of 10, 15 and 20 years after 1994 (The Presidency, 2003), point to significant progress in many areas. However, other reviews (O’Riordan, 1998; O’Riordan et al., 2000) have highlighted the challenges for South African society to embrace the new democratic relationship between policy, government institutions and civil society, and to embark on sustainable pathways. In particular, these challenges were associated with limited capacity for legislation, and to be fully inclusive of marginalised groups, alongside insufficient funds for coordinated civic action (O’Riordan et al., 2000). Other challenges include developing laws and policies at a local or sectoral level that interpret the constitution in a coherent manner, and focusing on environmental and social outcomes alongside economic efficiencies (Hauck, 2008). In particular, the lack of a coherent national strategic framework for sustainable development has been found to confuse the responsibilities of national, provincial and local government (Rossouw and Wiseman, 2004). Many of these issues are symptomatic of a society in transition. Though people may have good intentions, sustainability is still a foreign word for many (O’Riordan et al., 2000).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



25

More recently, government plans on sustainability were shaped by the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) developed at the Summit asked states to take immediate steps to formulate National Strategies for Sustainable Development (NSSDs) to achieve internationally agreed development objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The JPOI thus reaffirmed the earlier call for NSSDs at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, 2011). Following the 2002 World Summit, South Africa launched initiatives such as the Comprehensive Plan for Sustainable Human Settlements, or Breaking New Ground (BNG), and its Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative (ASGISA) in 2006, which aimed to halve unemployment and poverty by 2014 (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, 2011). Cabinet also mandated the then Departments of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Foreign Affairs to draft a NSSD plan, which became the National Framework on Sustainable Development (NFSD), which was adopted in 2008. This subsequently led to the National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Action Plan that was approved by Cabinet in 2011 and intended to serve as a high-level strategic roadmap for sustainable development. The vision for the NSSD1 is that “South Africa aspires to be a sustainable, economically prosperous and self-reliant nation state that safeguards its democracy by meeting the fundamental human needs of its people, by managing its limited ecological resources responsibly for current

and future generations, and by advancing efficient and effective integrated planning and governance through national, regional and global collaboration”. The NSSD1 defined five objectives: 1. Enhancing systems for integrated planning and implementation 2. Sustaining ecosystems and using natural resources efficiently 3. Moving towards a green economy 4. Building sustainable communities 5. Responding effectively to climate change While the goals are ambitious, progress on implementation remains unclear, mostly due to a lack of data on key indicators (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2014). The latest framework for sustainable development is the National Development Plan (NDP), which aims to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2030. The plan seeks to create regulatory pressure for organisations to build an inclusive economy, build capabilities and collaborate to solve complex problems. The NDP sets ambitious objectives such as reducing the number of households earning below R419 from 39% to zero and reducing inequality, measured by the Gini Coefficient, from 0.69 to 0.6. These changes will require investment to increase employment; strategies that address poverty, public service improvements, private sector investments, improved education accountability, national health insurance, infrastructure investments, interventions to ensure environmental sustainability, new standards for land use and the reduction of crime.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



26

As we have outlined in the introduction, the question is how this plan can be integrated into the South African economy. Although a task force was formed at the end of August 2013 to resolve differences from opposition, moving forward will be challenging (Marrian, 2013). SUPRANATIONAL REGULATORY CONTEXT In addition to national developments, South Africa has increasingly become involved in the supernational context. Many supranational bodies, such as the United Nations, the G-7 and the European Economic Union, have endorsed sustainability to some degree (Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995) and have produced collective agreements. They include the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), ratified by the South African government in 1997, and the Kyoto Protocol, although this imposes no binding emissions targets on South Africa due to its status as an emerging economy (Ansari, Wijen and Gray, 2013). South Africa has also ratified international agreements such as the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Protection; the Convention On Biological Diversity; the Convention On International Trade In Endangered Species; the Basel Convention On Control Of Hazardous Waste; the Convention To Combat Desertification; and the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, to name a few commonly cited treaties (Mitchell, 2014). South Africa’s role within the UNFCCC and during the negotiations to produce a successor for Kyoto attracted international scepticism. In December 2009, during the Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP-15), South Africa drafted the so-called ‘Copenhagen Accord’ together with other leaders of the BASIC bloc (Brazil,

India and China) and the United States. It resulted in a non-binding agreement and not the stringent Kyoto successor many had hoped for. Policies and regulations originating from the Kyoto Protocol have driven the international agenda, resulting in international and national regulations that call for organisations to reduce emissions and integrate future policy developments into their planning (Kolk and Pinkse, 2005). While Kyoto focused on reducing emissions in industrialised countries, the intention is to find a global solution that integrates both developed and developing countries (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2014). SOCIETAL NORMS AND VALUES In addition to the formal context, informal factors shape attitudes to sustainability planning and the extent to which sustainability becomes embedded in a society’s norms and values. These norms and values serve as guidelines that organisations and individuals adhere to, shaping their behaviour in three ways – through culture (a dynamic web of shared meanings which is continuously constructed, reified, and challenged through communication in local contexts), agency (the ability of individuals and organisations to make sense of their environment and adopt a course of action meaningful to their particular context) and structure (how different parties are organised within a society through relationships and networks) (Mitra, 2012). While values and norms typically develop over time, they can be influenced by factors such as social activism (Reid and Toffel, 2009) and social entrepreneurs – people who are creating new norms and values within a system (Déjean, Gond and Leca, 2004).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



27

INDIVIDUAL ORGANISATIONS WITHIN THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT At the individual organisational level, each organisation’s own strategic orientation shapes their attitudes towards planning, a point discussed further in chapters 2 and 4. Organisations are embedded within their social and ecological environments to different extents and thus have different levels of ‘connectedness’ when it comes to integrating local ecological considerations and stakeholders into planning decisions (Whiteman and Cooper, 2000). Looking at the institutional context is useful to understand how consensus is built about the meaning of sustainability and how this idea spreads between organisations (Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995). The institutional context can, therefore, influence to what extent individual organisations actively engage in concerted planning efforts and help shape the future, as illustrated by the Dinokeng Scenario case study (see Chapter 4).

3.2. Institutional Voids in Developing Countries The institutional approach explains how and why organisations engage in sustainability strategies encompassing economic, social and ecological domains. Successful planning for a sustainable future assumes that there is a strong state capable of providing an enabling environment for organisations to collaborate and enter partnerships (Newell and Frynas, 2007). In the highly regulated context of a developed country, organisations’ behaviour is often driven by the need to

comply with regulatory demands, but also by attempts to gain legitimacy – the process of seeking social acceptance and support for their activities (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Sharma, 2000). While the institutional environment may be well established in developed countries, in emerging economies it may be lacking (Bitzer and Glasbergen, 2010), resulting in so-called ‘institutional voids’ (Seelos and Mair, 2005; Van Tulder and Fortanier, 2009). This means that the state has often a limited capacity to identify, evaluate and address socio- and ecological risks (Hamann et al., 2014). In addition to institutional and legal mechanisms, sustainable economic development in emerging economies is also dependent on contextual factors such as the availability and use of natural resources [for similar findings in a developed country context see Russo (2003)], the size of land, population, population growth trends, population composition, patterns of urbanisation, economic and industrial structures, as well as technological diffusion (Jung et al., 2000). The question for the private sector is how to enter governmental debates about these factors and possibly fill institutional voids. When regulation is lacking and enforcement is lax, organisations can take advantage of ‘loopholes’ to reduce costs. Emerging economies tend not to punish such behaviour to avoid threatening future investments. The resulting process has been described as a ‘race to the bottom’ (Chan, 2003), an ongoing degradation of natural resources and social standards for the sake of potential economic growth (Hoenke, 2008).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



28

While some organisations take advantage of this situation with devastating effects, international voluntary programmes and standards have emerged to promote responsible business practice. Many global organisations have adopted internationally-recognised measurement tools, standards or indicators to assess corporate performance and progress, thereby also providing structured information to stakeholders. In addition, transnational private regulation – in which private sector coalitions monitor and in some cases certify organisations’ compliance with labour, environmental, human rights, or other standards (Bartley, 2007) – is gaining ground. In many cases, the private sector has also been seen to positively contribute to economic development (Pearce, 2009) and invest in socially responsible initiatives. In this way, organisations also influence the legitimacy of an industry as well as the systemic power within it (Chan, 2005; Déjean et al., 2004) There are a number of ways in which the private sector can fill institutional voids and positively support sustainability planning. ‘ENTRY POINTS’ FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR Options for organisations seeking to actively shape the future or engage in transformation planning (see upper quadrants in Figure 2), range from legitimation to consultation, building institutions for participation and encouraging community input. Legitimation (or lobbying) involves establishing a goal or outcome and using the selective involvement of interested parties to achieve it. These parties are often fed selective information, for example environmental assessments that are only prepared when the initial decision to proceed is taken.

This process is often characterised by power broking. Consultation, on the other hand, can take place when an agency is required to do so by law but can also be initiated based on pragmatic needs to obtain consent. It involves engaging with shareholders or interested parties. Facilitators may be used to smooth the process. Participation involves a pro-active engagement of stakeholders, often through mediation techniques or an active search for the disempowered (O’Riordan et al., 2000). Such searches can be conducted through Radical Transactiveness, an approach that systematically identifies, explores and integrates the views of stakeholders on the ‘fringe’ – the poor, weak, isolated, non-legitimate stakeholders of an organisation (Hart and Sharma, 2004). These processes can certainly lead to manipulation and coercion if only self-interests are pursued, but can also be used to pro-actively engage with stakeholders and provide policy inputs (O’Riordan et al., 2000). Participatory Sustainability Impact Assessment (pSIA) is a way to create meaningful exchanges and social learning between policymakers and scientists. In 2006 pSIA was used to facilitate debate between German policymakers, experts and corporate stakeholders to deal with Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). It has also been used successfully to broker EPAs between the European Union and the eastern and southern African regions. This four-step process fosters social learning by 1) structuring complex problem situations; 2) clarifying interests and basic assumptions; 3) interpreting scientific studies to develop impact assessments; and 4) exploring the sensitivity of uncertainty or lack of information. pSIA workshops draw on modelling methods such as System Modelling and Value Chain Analysis (Gottschick, 2008).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



29

Table 1 ENTRY POINTS FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO SHAPE THE FUTURE OR ENGAGE IN TRANSFORMATIONAL PLANNING

CONTEXT

REGULATED

CO-REGULATED (PUBLIC-PRIVATE)

SELF-REGULATED (PRIVATE)

Examples

Public Regulation

Bi- or tri-partite arrangements (Public-private partnerships)

Multi-stakeholder arrangements composed of public, industry and not-for Profits (NGOs) and/or trade unions

Self-regulation setting own standards

Horizontal or vertical self-regulation (through business associations or along the supply chain)

Involvement of nonstate stakeholders, Cross Sectoral Private Partnerships

Possible Entry Points

Ligitimation/ Lobbying, Consultation

Legitimation/ Lobbying, Consultation

Legitimation/ Lobbying, Consultation, Participation

Private-sector leadership

See Woolworths case below

Participation

Several cases show the success of adopting voluntary measures, both in developed and emerging economies. Woolworths, the South African retail chain, evaluates its sustainable business planning using aggregate indicators based on economic, governance, social, transformational and ecological dimensions. These indicators help track business practices aimed at sustainability over time. Woolworths has comprehensive corporate governance systems in place to ensure the implementation of sustainable business practices targets. Woolworths thereby regards itself as part of a ‘business ecosystem’ and seeks to operate within its supply chain as a change agent (Dos Santos, Svensson and Padin, 2013). BRIDGING INSTITUTIONAL VOIDS ‘Linking organisations’ – such as associations, networks, cross-sectoral partnerships, political coalitions and social movements – can play a key role in bridging institutional voids. By creating links between the different organisations, they can help to increase grassroots influence on policy and to disseminate new visions and organisational innovations for sustainable development (Brown, 1991). Such linking organisations allow the

different parties to collectively engage in influencing the future and to extend their strategic planning beyond the organisational-level. For instance, community involvement is aimed at education or capacity building, supporting self-help organisations to generate local economic self-reliance and empowerment. Examples include, enterprise cooperatives and health schemes. Evolutionary learning communities (Espinosa and Harnden, 2007) consist of organisations actively striving for sustainable pathways for evolutionary development in synergy with their environment through individual and collective learning. These new structural arrangements can be used to reinvent a system, giving individuals and organisations more local autonomy, control and tools to become involved in decision-making (see Southern Africa Food Lab case study). Cross-sectoral social partnerships (CSSPs) can help organisations to address complex social problems (Vurro, Dacin and Perrini, 2010; Wilburn, 2009). They function effectively in agricultural supply chains, for instance to promote sustainable cotton production. These partnerships are often initiated by NGOs or aid

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



30

agencies, in collaboration with producers or cotton companies, and take different forms depending on their strategies. These include cooperative farming (producer organisation) or contract farming (cotton companies). To promote sustainability, such partnerships provide technical assistance to small-scale producers, introduce new cultivation techniques and establish stable links to global buyers, mostly Northern-based branded retailers (Bitzer and Glasbergen, 2010). However, such partnerships can bring their own challenges. Previous studies have found that partnerships between businesses and NGOs in particular are not always the drivers of future sustainability – some lack depth and breadth and may qualify more as symbolic relationships rather than collaborative ventures aimed at planning for a sustainable future (Jamali and Keshishian, 2009). CSSPs can be instrumental, providing a vehicle for organisations to access new markets by enlisting the help of governments, not-for-profits or international organisations (King, 1995). One example is PUR® by Procter & Gamble (P&G), a water treatment system for households without a safe drinking water supply. P&G uses franchise agreements with local NGOs and sales through international relief agencies as distribution channels (Vurro et al., 2010). Partnerships can also be transactional, focusing on transactions between organisations and the traditional not-for-

profit sector, thus allowing these organisations to enter unusual market sectors and provide services to them; or participatory, where an organisation engages in a CSSP for social legitimacy or to create a ‘social licence to operate’ (Vurro et al., 2010). Finally, partnership approaches can include transformation attempts, aimed at positioning the organisation as a catalyst to bring about social change. Such attempts are often carried out by corporate foundations or not-for-profit branches to avoid the risk of discredit in case projects fail. Examples include projects aimed at improving community health or development outcomes (Vurro et al., 2010).

3.3. Chapter Summary This chapter has looked at the role of planning in a multi-level context that involves a multitude of different players and requires dealing with change and uncertainty. It has provided a brief overview of the South African regulatory context, with a particular focus on institutional voids and opportunities for the private sector to bridge these voids and engage in sustainable planning efforts. Having outlined the context in which planning takes place, we will focus on particular planning techniques in greater detail in Chapter 4.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



31

Case Study: The Southern African Food Lab The Southern African Food Lab (SAFL) aims to develop innovations throughout the value chain of food production, manufacturing and retailing to achieve long-term, sustainable change. The SAFL, facilitated by Reos Partners, is a multistakeholder change lab bringing together diverse players from the regional food system. Its aim is to generate a shared vision and spawn actions to address the widespread threat to food security within southern Africa (Southern Africa Food Lab, 2014). The problem: There are multiple factors that affect food security within southern Africa. Over 50% of households are at risk of hunger, while almost 16% consume less than they need. By contrast, more than 50% of young women and 30% of young men are obese. While several agencies have tried to alleviate the situation by addressing key areas that affect the food chain, progress is elusive (Reos Partners, 2009). Significant issues include support programmes for farmers, food fortification, health education, food distribution and efforts to introduce environmentally sustainable practices in food processing, logistics and waste management. Interaction and collaboration between different stakeholders is also problematic, due to the different perspectives, sectors and disciplines within the system. Response to the problem: SAFL was modelled on the Sustainable Food Lab - the first large-scale, multi-stakeholder global change lab, developed to meet the needs of future generations while safeguarding social and natural resources. The SAFL assembled stakeholders within the value chain to engage in a series of learning experiences and develop solutions. These included learning journeys providing first-hand experience and an understanding of particular issues; problem framing; and identifying and implementing collaborative food system innovations and visions for the future. The change lab took place over a two-year period, from 2009 to 2011. Results achieved: After the first year of operation, participants strongly supported the continuation of the project and worked together to implement innovative solutions. Teams addressed several challenges - small producers and alternative supply chains, developing a national conversation about the food system, integrating food security into urban planning, and meeting the needs of the poorest people. In 2011, the Food Security Initiative at Stellenbosch University - which is also a convenor of SAFL - received funding to support further research in this field. The SAFL joined forces with the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies at the University of the Western Cape to create an action research and social dialogue project to support smallholder farming in South Africa. The ‘National Conversation on Food’ has been progressed in association with the South African Rights Commission, and initiatives regarding sustainability in urban agriculture have been developed (McLachlan, Hamman, Sayers, Kelly, Drimie and Reos Partners, 2011). The SAFL continues to host forums, learning journeys and workshops for the teams that collaborated during the change lab. Annual meetings are held to discuss progress and further refine and develop solutions. These labs are not yet systemic, but they have allowed influential organisations to work together to achieve long-term, sustainable change.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



32

chapter 4: planning mechanisms “People function within organisations, which operate within alliances, which compete within industries that must integrate with societies, governments and cultures. In such an environment, characterised by rapid, roiling structural change, organisations are required to become highly adaptive by exploring options, not adopting a wait-and-see attitude” Source: Davis and Meyer, 2000

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



33

Public, private and non-profit organisations (NPOs) all rely on planning mechanisms to create sound strategies for sustainability and to cope with uncertainty, risks and threats (Marcus and Aragon-Correa, 2011). At the minimum, planning is crucial to ensure efficiency and survival and at a higher level, for sustainability and growth (Ayres and Axtell, 1996). However, planning for a sustainable future requires more than just planning for monetary profitability; it requires consideration of environmental and social developments and an understanding of economic parameters. This chapter outlines the mechanisms that decision-makers at different levels can use to accomplish planning goals in the short, medium or long-term. While organisations can strengthen their strategic planning processes by using different techniques to understand the future, these may not always be sufficient to allow them to plan ahead. To overcome possible limitations, we have suggested techniques to improve accuracy and engage stakeholders by sharing a common vision. These include forecasting, scenario planning, roadmapping and backcasting. However, it is important to bear in mind that all techniques are limited in the extent to which they can produce an accurate representation of the future. Therefore, they should be used as guidance only and in conjunction with other types of analysis. It should also be noted that these techniques have not yet been linked to the concept of planetary boundaries (see Introduction), thus leaving it up to individual organisations to define their own boundaries for planning.

4.1. Forecasting Suitable For:

Planning and projections

Activity:

Extrapolation of past trends (time-series or longitudinal data)

Sample application:

Financial planning, insurance claims

Limitations:

Weaknesses when dealing with complexity, future uncertainty and trends deviating from historic observations

Forecasting involves understanding current trends, the variables underlying them and how they may evolve to create a future situation to which the organisation must respond. Organisations can use forecasting to work out a probable future, or several probable futures, and position and adapt themselves and their strategy accordingly. One of the options in this quadrant is simply to rely on the ‘most probable’ future outcome, provided a single best forecast can be made, and to develop a strategy based on this option. The introduction of the feed-in tariff in Germany is one example (Wand and Leuthold, 2011). Organisations can also attempt to take a viable, robust route that works regardless of external developments such as regulatory change. Other options are to delay any action until there is greater clarity or to commit to an action, but have a fall-back option in place. Alternatively, making a big investment can be hedged with contingent options that protect the business should the investment fail, for example investing in a future project, with milestone investments, depending on performance (Marcus et al., 2010).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



34

Figure 5 FORECASTING Parameters within which possible alternative future pathways may occur

CURRENT SITUATION (STATUS QUO)

Assumed likely pathway with important milestones

Forecasting can be combined with tools such as choice analysis to predict sustainable trends such as electrical vehicle uptake (Eggers and Eggers, 2011). Choice analysis involves estimating probabilities of individual decisions, such as the uptake of a particular green technology, and factoring these into forecasting. Such analyses can be used to increase an organisations’ competitiveness in the green technology market based on the assumption that consumers choose product offerings that match their preferences and maximise their utility (Jun and Park, 1999). Similarly, forecasting can be used to estimate consumption and waste disposal habits (Linton and Yeomans, 2003). Forecasting therefore enables organisations to engage in better and more sustainable planning and management practices. This facilitates sound business decisions based on enhanced knowledge of the resources and the facilities needed to deal with and manage flows of goods in ways that allow waste to be recycled.

POSSIBLE FUTURE SITUATION

Forecasting can, therefore, also be applied in balancing supply and demand toward sustainability within ‘industrial ecosystems’ (Graedel and Allenby, 1995). It can thus increase an organisation’s ability to predict future changes and develop appropriate management strategies to tackle them (Eggers and Eggers, 2011; Koivisto, 2009). Forecasting can also be combined with game theory, for instance to forecast what would happen if different players chose their preferred future strategy, especially when dealing with disputes among stakeholders over which characteristics should be used to predict possible outcomes (Goodwin, 2002). Game-theory forecasting is more likely to be accurate when favourable conditions exist among the parties involved, leading to low uncertainty and complexity, and high learning and professionalism. The different stakeholders should have a good knowledge of payoffs, option sets and the rules of the game, and be honest and open in negotiations as well as willing to use decision aids, engage in repetitive negotiations and use experienced negotiators.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



35

Game-theory forecasting becomes inaccurate when unfavourable conditions exist, such as having more than two stakeholders, stakeholders with disparate knowledge of the game, and the influence of emotions. In spite of potential conflicts, game theory offers the potential to obtain probabilistic predictions. Role-playing can be used as an alternative to traditional game theory, which includes behaviour and judgment analysis (Shefrin, 2002). Forecasting has been used in many different settings. However, forecasting techniques have weaknesses when dealing with complexity, future uncertainty and trends deviating from historic observations (Dong, Schoups and van de Giesen, 2013; Kwakkel and Pruyt, 2013; Orrell and McSharry, 2009, 2009; Robinson et al., 2011). To overcome possible pitfalls, planners can draw upon complex systems models that have their origins in biology and economics and provide a mathematical technique and analytical tool to analyse different planning contexts (Orrell and McSharry, 2009, 2009). This does not imply that such models have improved accuracy over other techniques. Using faulty models to predict can be very risky. Nonetheless, forecasting has many useful applications, in particular in contexts where it is necessary to determine what the future will look like.

4.2. Adapting through Emergent Strategies Suitable For:

Adaptive management

Technique:

Responding to emergent trends and risks

Sample application:

Responding to emergent climate or environmental regulation, dealing with environmental change or risks

Limitations:

Lack of planning, not recognising emergent trends and failure to respond to ongoing change

While adaptation strategies can be planned using adaptation and forecasting mechanisms, adaptation through emergent strategies occurs in response to changes as they become evident rather than in response to planning efforts (Quinn, 1978). The idea of emergent strategies was introduced by Mintzberg (1973, 1978) and Mintzberg and Waters (1985), who suggested a strategy formation model with intended, realised and unrealised strategies, as well as deliberate and emergent strategies. Since then others have followed, often using other terms such as incrementalism (Quinn, 1978) or learning during the course of action (Halme, 2002). Emergent strategies imply that top management provides the broad direction that the organisation will follow, but that the detail of that strategy emerges over time through actions, for example on behalf of employees or through interactions with the community. The broad direction is called the ‘vision’ or ‘umbrella strategy’ (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). Deliberate strategies are strategies that are purposeful or dictated from the top, while emergent strategies are patterns that are realised as strategies.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



36

Table 2

Case Study: AngloGold Ashanti’s Obuasi Malaria Control Program

OBUASI MALARIA CONTROL PROGRAM OUTCOMES MALARIA: NUMBER OF REPORTED CASES AND INCIDENCE RATE PER 1,000 EMPLOYEES, 2005-2007

Year

2005

2006

2007

Cases of malaria reported at the Edwin Cade Hospital

79,237

53,070

20,976

Malaria incidence rate

238

164

69

Source: AngloGold Ashanti (2007). Report to Society 2007. http://www.anglogoldashanti. com/en/Media/Reports/Sustainability%20 Reports/AGA-sustainable-gold-2007.pdf.

AngloGold Ashanti identified malaria as one of the most significant health threats to its operations and to social sustainability in the West and East African regions. Consequently, the company implemented an integrated malaria control program in Obuasi, Ghana in January 2006. Their aim was to halve the incidence of malaria in outlying areas within the Obuasi Municipal Assembly area within two years. In 2005, the Obuasi municipal area had an estimated average of 11,000 malaria cases per month according to the local health authority, with 6,800 of these cases receiving treatment at Obuasi Mine’s Edwin Cade Memorial Hospital. Of the cases reported at Edwin Cade, 2,400 were AngloGold Ashanti employees or contractors and the remaining 4,400 were dependants of the gold mine. The cost to the company of malaria included treatment costs, absenteeism and loss of productivity. Malaria also presents a significant burden to the community, both socially and economically. The integrated malaria control program for Obuasi was based on four key elements (AngloGold Ashanti, 2006): • Surveillance, monitoring and research - scientists in communicable diseases and entomologists were involved in the program which was carried out according to World Health Organisation (WHO) standards. • Community interaction, information, education and communication - a crucial determinant of the success of the program was involving the community and building a trusting relationship. Volunteer community advocates were trained to share and distribute health information on malaria symptoms, prevention and treatment. • Prevention - indoor residual spraying is a key component of any malaria control program and has the greatest effect on malaria vector populations and incidence reduction. Spray operators were trained and communities informed of the process. Nets, screening, repellents and other prevention measures were used, along with measures to control mosquito breeding such as larvicide and environmental management. • Treatment - early, effective diagnosis and treatment using anti-malarial drugs. A spin-off of the program was the creation of 127 permanent jobs, in the form of spray operators, who received intensive training on the techniques of indoor residual spraying. In addition, a malaria control centre was opened in April 2006 by the President of Ghana, John Kufuor, and AngloGold Ashanti’s Chief Executive Officer, Bobby Godsell, in the Sansu area at Obuasi. This centre was used as the headquarters for the Obuasi program, as well as a training centre and a research facility. The program was very successful. From January 2005 to September 2007, reported malaria cases had declined by 73 per cent, with an average reduction of 4,550 cases per month. Project costs were $1.7 million for the first year, with an annual budget of $1.3m thereafter. The model has now been extended beyond Ghana’s borders. In March 2008 a program based on the Obuasi model was developed at Geita Mine in Tanzania, and an extension to Siguiri Mine in Guinea was also planned. The program has received international recognition, including a commendation from the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria as an example of global excellence. In conjunction with AngloGold Ashanti’s work on HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, it also won three awards at the ABSA Healthcare Initiative Awards in association with the Pan African Healthcare Congress (Rockström, J., et al., 2009).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



37

Simply put, deliberate strategies form part of the formal processes of the organisation and although they do not have to be carried out by top management, they are more likely to be dictated by them. Deliberateness refers to the extent of analysis and formality in the process, while the top-down aspect refers to autocratic behaviour. In contrast, emergent strategies may be guided by a vision from the top, but are usually formed through bottom-up behaviour, including entrepreneurial processes. This particular approach to ‘planning’ is thus more focused on responding to change than on actual planning and on working to strategically position the organisation in anticipation of future change. See the example of Anglo Gold Ashanti. The organisation responded to the ecological, social and economic challenge of malaria in West and East Africa by drawing on sound science to make a significant local, regional and global impact which was built on community involvement rather than a top-down strategic response.

4.3. Shaping the Future Suitable For:

Achieving a desired outcome or goal, becoming a leader

Technique:

Actively seeking to bring about developments that lead to desired outcomes

Sample application:

Entrepreneurial behaviour, pro-active decisions

Limitations:

Negative stakeholder views in response to lobbying efforts

Organisations can also decide to actively shape the future. An organisation may use its resources to increase the odds that the outcomes it wants will prevail (Courtney, 2003; Courtney et al., 1997). Emergent strategies can be viewed as reactive, since the organisation reacts by changing its strategy in line with environmental needs (Mintzberg, 1973). Evidence suggests this may be due to a lack of time, resources or confidence during planning (Mintzberg, 1973). By contrast, pro-active decisions aim to shape the future through a compelling vision of what the future will look like. Organisations may identify innovative ideas to implement their vision. Pro-active behaviour suggests that the organisation acts in anticipation of changes in the environment (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996), a dimension often related to entrepreneurial behaviour (see Chapter 5).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



38

4.4. Creating a Shared Vision ACHIEVING A SHARED FUTURE VISION THROUGH SCENARIO PLANNING Suitable for:

Creating a shared vision of possible future scenarios, but can also be used for purposes of forecasting or deciding on emergent strategies

Activity:

Scenario development through stakeholder engagement

Sample application:

Shell’s Future Scenarios

Limitations:

The scenario is based on stakeholder views on a particular subject matter, biases, oversights or omissions are possible

Scenario planning is a way of learning about the future. It is a stakeholder-driven process that seeks to uncover the nature and impact of uncertain and important driving forces affecting a particular planning situation. It is, therefore, a group process that encourages participants to exchange knowledge and develop a deeper mutual understanding of issues central to the future of a particular organisation or region. The goal is to craft a number of diverging stories on how the future unfolds by identifying uncertain and important driving forces. The main goal is to widen the knowledge of the organisational environment and perceptions of how the future might unfold (Börjesson, 2007).

Scenario planning is, therefore, a way to encourage heterogeneous stakeholder engagement. To support such engagement, it can incorporate a collaboration space in which multiple agencies can come together to develop a shared strategic vision for the future by analysing the impact of the broad range of driving forces on the focal issue and all likely outcomes, thus deepening their understanding and engagement (Cairns et al., 2013). Our review has uncovered an extensive collection of future scenario resources and, while reviewing all these would be well beyond the scope of this study, we provide some examples below and suggestions for further reading. One company that has extensively worked with scenario planning is Shell. Other innovative scenario planning techniques come from nanotechnology research and governance, whereby co-evolutionary scenarios are created by interconnecting complex multi-level, multi-context parameters along the value and supply chains covering multiple variables from R&D, enterprises, policy, civil society, trade unions, ethics and consumers (Robinson, 2009). From this multi-holder interactive approach called ’constructive technology assessment‘, the visions of possible futures are created through analysis rather than brainstorming. However, this technique depends on the tradeoff between the need to reduce and manage the complexity, while taking account of all different factors. There is a risk of bias from the stakeholders involved due to their power, interest or own agenda.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



39

Scenario Examples (Selected): Shell Scenarios: http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/scenarios.html Siemens Scenarios: http://www.siemens.com/innovation/apps/pof_microsite/_ pof-spring-2011/_html_en/scenario-2030-the-cityspeaks.html WBCSD Water Scenarios: http://www.wbcsd.org/publications-and-tools.aspx WBCSD Global Scenarios: http://www.wbcsd.org/publications-and-tools.aspx European Commission Scenarios for future scientific and technological developments in developing countries ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/foresight/docs/ntw_ scenarios2_report_en.pdf

Case Study: Biodiesel Technology Sustainability Assessment (BIOTSA) Biodiesel production is part of the proposed agrarian transformation plan for the Cape Province and among the priority projects under South Africa’s Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative (ASGISA). There are plans to build a biodiesel plant that runs off canola and has a production capacity of about 400 million metric tons (see http://www.phytoenergy.org/). To evaluate the sustainability implications, researchers developed a bioenergy technology sustainability assessment (BIOTSA) model using sustainability indicators covering economic, social and environmental dimensions. The BIOTSA model makes use of a system dynamics approach and different future scenarios. It uses different assumptions regarding the operational costs of biodiesel production such as water and energy, and different levels of community participation and government subsidies, to assess project outcomes, with a focus on policy interventions for renewable energy in South Africa. The strength of this approach is its ability to model dynamic consequences that may result from a proposed development (Musango et al., 2012).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



40

Case Study: Dinokeng Scenarios The Dinokeng Scenarios created a strategic conversation among a broad community of South Africans about the country’s future. The project outlined three scenarios: Walking Apart, Walking Behind and Walking Together. These scenarios appear to have been instrumental in shaping the strategies of a range of organisations. The Dinokeng Scenarios, facilitated by Reos Partners, were the result of strategic conversations by the Dinokeng Scenario Team, which consisted of 35 South Africans representing heterogeneous sectors of society. Purpose: In response to the critical challenges faced by South Africa, after 15 years of democracy, the team set out to consider possible futures for the country, and the opportunities, challenges and choices these futures offered. The purpose was to enact the future by engaging civic leaders to discuss their future. The team met in 2008 for the first time in Dinokeng, the ‘place where rivers flow together’. Challenging Context: By 2008, the vision of a united South Africa and improved living standards for those disenfranchised under apartheid proved to be a complicated endeavour. As a starting point, the Dinokeng Scenarios Team recognised the legacy of institutionalised inequality, racism, sexism and oppression as well as the significant achievements since 1994. They conceded that South Africa’s social fabric and cohesion remained fragile, thwarted by poverty and racial inequality, declining educational and health conditions and widespread endemic crime. The inability to address crime and create a stable and safe living environment rendered South Africa an unfavourable destination for investment and tourism. The year 2008 was also marked with uncertainty. Despite South Africa’s democratic Constitution, advanced regulatory framework and independent formal public institutions such as the Human Rights Commission, the Constitutional Court and the Judiciary, institutional voids were becoming more evident throughout the political system. Significant political changes in the form of a new President, senior cabinet leadership, allegations of corruption and fraud, together with the Global Financial Crisis, posed a major threat to the country’s stability. Two other factors compounded the uncertainty. Firstly, the instability in neighbouring Zimbabwe led to a large-scale cross-border migration, amplifying unrest among the most vulnerable in the society. Secondly, pressure on food security increased in a polarised agricultural sector, along with pressures on rural sustainability, and climate change challenges. The Dinokeng Scenarios team acknowledged the urgency to take action before the social and economic challenges became ‘time bombs’. The result of an extensive engagement and work process, the Dinokeng Scenarios reflect three possible futures for South Africa. Each scenario implies different degrees of synergy at the multi-level context of planning for a sustainable future. Their names evoke the probable collective future based on current actions: Walk Apart, Walk Behind, and Walk Together.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



41

The Dinokeng Scenarios Walk Apart This scenario assumes South Africa continues on the same course that it is on today. This is a scenario of ‘musical chairs’ and is triggered by the failure of the leaders across all sectors to deal with South Africa’s critical challenges. The state is increasingly bypassed by citizens, resulting in unaccountable groupings assuming power over parts of society. A disengaged citizenry loses patience and erupts into protest and unrest. The government, driven by its inability to meet citizens’ demands and expectations, responds brutally and unleashes a spiral of resistance and repression. Decay and disintegration set in. Walk Behind This is a scenario where the state assumes the role of leader and manager. State planning and co-ordination are seen as central mechanisms for accelerating development and delivery to citizens, especially the poor, unemployed and vulnerable. The ruling party argues that strong state intervention in the economy is in accordance with global trends, and the electorate, concerned about the impacts of the global economic crisis, gives the ruling party a powerful mandate. Strong state intervention crowds out private initiatives by business and civil society. The risks of this scenario are twofold: one is that the country accumulates unsustainable debt; the other is that the state becomes increasingly authoritarian. Walk Together This is a scenario of active citizen engagement with a government that is effective and that listens. It requires the engagement of citizens who demand better service delivery and government accountability. It is dependent on the will and ability of citizens to organise themselves and to engage the authorities, and on the quality of political leadership and its willingness to engage citizens. It entails a common national vision that cuts across economic self-interest in the short term. This is not an easy scenario. Its path is uneven – many issues are robustly contested and it requires strong leadership from all sectors, especially from citizens. Process: The Dinokeng Scenarios team followed a three step process: (1) It used workshops to explore current realities in the social, economic and political realms (2008-2009), (2) developed scenarios on the possible futures for South Africa and shared these with various stakeholders, and (3) launched a media and engagement campaign to reach out to organisations and communities across the country (Reos Institute, 2013). From the Dinokeng Scenarios process, the shared future for a sustainable South Africa is founded upon three principles. Firstly, the societal norms and values of all South Africans are responsible for contributing to a sustainable future - this presents a navigation path towards a future that lives up to the promise of 1994. Secondly, individual leaders with clarity of purpose and who engage their constituencies can lead change. Finally, co-created solutions can address the key challenges of education, crime, economic development and healthcare provision. Citizens and leaders from all sectors must assume responsibility for co-creating solutions to address challenges (Dinokeng Scenario Team, 2009).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



42

ROADMAPPING TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Suitable For:

Creating a ‘road map’ of how to achieve a sustainable future, can be used in conjunctions with attempts at shaping the future or visionary planning

Technique:

Typically development through stakeholder engagement

Sample Application:

Technology or sustainability roadmaps

Limitations:

Roadmaps are based on stakeholder views on a particular subject matter; biases, oversights or omissions are possible

As an alternative to scenario planning, roadmapping can be used to focus on shared values and long-term relationships among stakeholders (Panapanaan et al., 2003). Unlike other planning tools, roadmapping was not developed on the basis of scientific theory, but resulted from organisational planning exercises carried out in the late 60s. One example is provided in Figure 6. It shows how garment companies can integrate sustainability considerations into their supply chains. The term ‘roadmap’ is thereby an analogy for an actual road map, and refers to an arrangement of routes or connections that show different developments over time into the future. Roadmapping can be used to map technologies or products, and to visualise complex operational strategies in a standardised framework. It is suitable for mapping out technology development, systems applications such as sustainable transportation systems, or an organisation’s business activities (Living Rail, 2014).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



43

Figure 6 ROADMAP EXAMPLE

01

Sustainability Considerations: Sustainability Considerations: • Land degradation • Labour rights issues • Pesticides • Child labour • Fair trade/organic certification • Water use

• Energy use • Solid waste generation • Dust and noise • Labour conditions • Hazardous effluents

Incorporating sustainable business practices at the design and production management stages significantly improves the economic, environmental and social impact of clothes.

02

Wool and cotton are renewable resources, however both have significant environmental impacts including high water, pesticide and chemical use when conventional farming methods are poorly managed.

03

Processes for cleaning fibres use considerable levels of energy. Wool scouring is water and chemical intensive and results in water degradation if effluent is untreated.

04

Spinning is the process by which natural fibres or synthetic cellulose materials are turned into yarn. It is highly automated and labour intensive, Lubricants and conditioning agents applied to the fibres result in hazardous air pollutants and effluent containing toxic substances.

05

Knitting and weaving are predominantly mechanical processes. Key sustainability issues relate to energy use, solid waste generation and dust and noise,

06

Fabric processing is the final stage of textile production, and includes the printing and dyeing of textiles and the application of finishes. Processing is a major cause of environmental impacts in this phase – using significant quantities of water, energy and chemicals, and produces substantial amounts of effluent.

07

The cut make and trim stage of production turns textiles into finished garments, and is a highly labour- intensive process. Key sustainability issues relate to labour rights and working conditions.

08

Selling garments has an impact on the environment. Transporting stock, customer travel, store fitouts, packaging, lighting and heating, use resources and energy, pollute, and produce waste. Sustainability Considerations:

Sustainability Considerations:

• Water use • Energy use • Chemicals • Effluents • Pollution & Fumes

• Transportation • Social / Environmental impact of design • Chosen textiles & trims

Sustainability Considerations:

Sustainability Considerations:

• • • • • •

• By-product waste • Landfill • Energy benefits in recycling clothing

Energy use Water use Effluents Dust & Noise Rollers Poor working conditions

09

Washing, drying and ironing can account for the greatest energy and water use in the lifecycle of a garment.

Sustainability Considerations: • Energy use • Effluents with toxic substances • Noise and dust

10 Sustainability Considerations: • Labour rights • Working conditions • Worker exploitation • Worker injuries and illnesses • On-site dormitories • Solid waste recycling

Sustainability Considerations: • Energy saving techniques • Recycling • Ethical practices • Ecofriendy retailing

Sustainability Considerations: • Energy use • Phosphate-free washing detergents

Garment production waste can be categorized as pre-and postconsumer. Pre-consumer waste includes by-products from fibre, yarn, fabric and garment production. Post-consumer textile waste includes clothing and household textile waste.



Source: http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/raps/learnsub/pdf/GarmentRoadmap.pdf Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future

44

ACHIEVING A SHARED FUTURE VISION THROUGH BACKCASTING Suitable For:

Working out pathways from a desirable future back to the present, can be used in conjunctions with attempts at shaping the future or visionary

Activity:

Typically development through stakeholder engagement

Sample Application:

Backcasting experiments

Limitations:

Backcasting approaches are based on stakeholder views on a particular subject matter; biases, oversights or omissions are possible.

Backcasting provides effective pathways to foresight by starting with a shared vision of a sustainable future and then working out strategic milestones back to the present. Like other foresight methodologies, backcasting has its challenges (Vergragt and Quist, 2011). These include how the exercise is meant to take place and how to define concepts as there is no commonly accepted methodology. Other challenges are how to disengage from the present when creating future visions and when stakeholders are bound to the present; how to create a balance between stakeholder input and expert opinions; and how learning and change occur in developing strategies. Although participation in scenarios gives stakeholders a better understanding about the trade-offs involved in planning a sustainable future, it may overwhelm them due to the complexity of choices they have to make (Robinson et al., 2011). At the same time backcasting is regarded as a social learning process that allows for stakeholder input.

Examples of participatory backcasting experiments can be found in the Netherlands, where they were carried out to address complex sustainability problems. Examples include exercises addressing sustainable land use in rural areas, sustainable household nutrition and meat alternatives (Quist, Thissen and Vergragt, 2011). Studies conducted in the Netherlands to assess the overall success of backcasting found that not all experiments had the same level of impact. The presence of ‘champions’ among stakeholders as well as a strong focus on follow-up and spin-off activities seem to enable success. The evidence from the Netherlands also suggests that it is crucial to have future visions shared and endorsed by stakeholders, since they provide guidance and orientation throughout the experiment and beyond. These stable future visions also provide the basis for networks and co-evolution of networks along time and encourage other stakeholders to embrace these visions. As in transition management approaches (below), participatory backcasting uses the ‘niche’ concept [see also Kemp, Schot and Hoogma (1998); Raven (2006)] to refer to the space where follow-up and spin-off activities take place, and it describes its growth ‘from vision to niche’. Although participatory backcasting provides a strong basis to craft shared visions, research suggests that further work is needed to understand the processes through which backcasting translates into successful action. Other attempts at participatory backcasting have therefore used Delphi methods (expert involvement) and semi-structured interviews to increase the level of trustworthiness among the multiple stakeholders and to soften their interaction with experts (Zimmermann, Darkow and von der Gracht, 2012). The Delphi method

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



45

as a foresight method has been shown to generate more accurate forecasts from structured groups of individuals than from unstructured groups (Schuckmann et al., 2012). MOVING TOWARDS A SHARED VISION THROUGH PLANNING FOR TRANSITIONS Suitable For:

Transformational planning

Activity:

Typically development through stakeholder engagement

Sample Application:

The Eden Project, initiated by Santam Insurance

Limitations:

Challenging process, can be difficult to manage and implement

Planning for transitions – also referred to as ‘transitions management’ – introduces an innovative planning approach towards sustainable development. It identifies four types of activities relevant to societal transitions: strategic, tactical, operational, and reflexive (Loorbach, 2010). Strategic activities include developing visions, typically over a time frame of 30 years or more, strategic discussions and formulating long-term goals. Tactical activities include steering activities such as evaluating rules, regulations and infrastructure. Operational activities include projects and innovation. The aim is to introduce concrete projects to reach short-term goals within five years. Lastly, reflexive activities include monitoring and evaluation of the ongoing policies and societal change (Loorbach, 2010).

Stakeholder participation is used in transitions management. However, instead of trying to achieve a scenario or vision of the future, the aim is to create shared understandings, contingency plans and to actually enact the environment. This can happen within different spheres (O´Brien and Sygna, 2013): the practical sphere (for example, introducing technical solutions). It can happen within the local community sphere where social and ecological systems create conditions for change; it can also happen in the organisational sphere comprising different organisations and industries that are linked to the community and practical spheres. These connections are illustrated in the Eden Project case study where insurance company, Santam partnered with the WWF, the University of Cape Town, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the United Nations Environment Programme, as well as local government (see case on page 46). Other cases that have received much interest include energy transitions in European countries, including Germany and the Netherlands (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2006; Raven, 2006).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



46

“The insurance industry has immense power to address the significant shared risks associated with climate change and ecosystem degradation, and through this be a catalyst for creating shared value.” United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, 2014

Case Study: The Eden Project The Eden Project was initiated as a study to investigate innovative ways to respond to climate, economic and social risks in the Eden District, Southern Cape, South Africa. The project - led by Santam, South Africa’s largest short-term insurer - brought together a multidisciplinary team of climate, ecological and social scientists. The results of the study led to innovative multiple stakeholder responses involving academia, local government, NGOs and the private sector. The research team focused on risk reduction and improved resilience to the changing landscape. The aims of the project were to understand how the landscape was affecting current and future risk; and to recognise how the insurance industry could effectively ensure its own viability, while building the resilience of the socioecological system. Incentives for collaboration: Traditionally, risk management in the short-term insurance industry is seen as a modelling process carried out at individual organisational level and which involves identifying and predicting risk and following risk reduction strategies. Globally the insurance industry is particularly sensitive to climate change and the losses from natural disasters have been linked to globalisation, climate change and ecological degradation. These factors pose a shared risk for governments, societies and insurance companies alike, creating a mutually dependent relationship between them. The absence of a viable insurance industry will expose governments and societies to greater risk, and vice-versa, creating strong incentive for collaboration. In other words, the shared risk between multiple stakeholders consequently became the catalyst for creating shared value. Eden Project processes and activities: Eden was chosen as a study area based on the diversity of social conditions and the significant increase of environmental risk including floods, wild fires and sea storms. Damage in this area led to drastic losses and accounted for almost 80% of Santam’s ‘special perils’ losses between 2003 and 2008. High-resolution climate simulation models were used to predict significant changes to future climatic conditions until 2050. In order to deal more explicitly with multiple risk drivers, a systems model was used to explain how systems behave under various plausible scenarios. This model allowed the industry to focus on an array of ‘real drivers of risk’, as opposed to conventional risk assessment models which commonly use prediction to evaluate risk, providing a single, ‘neat risk’ probability. This model worked to complement risk assessment and target effective risk management. Three key findings: Climatic changes were expected to rise significantly, with high-risk fire periods, intense rainfall and winter and spring temperatures predicted to noticeably increase between 2020 and 2050, with damaging financial implications for Santam and the entire region. Drivers of change within the local landscape, such as human-induced changes to land cover, were identified as having similar or, in some cases, a greater effect on the environmental risks than the climatic drivers. Finally, the different drivers were found to be systemically interconnected. These findings identify risk drivers more clearly and suggest proactive management can offset most future risk increases. The insurance industry shared this value by providing its clients and local municipal government information on the systemic drivers of risk, therefore allowing them to take on a focused and cohesive approach to finding targeted solutions (United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, 2014). Innovative outcomes: Santam is collaborating with the South African Local Government Association to realise the ‘Business-AdoptA-Municipality’ scheme (Cooperative Governance Traditional Affairs, S.A., 2014). This programme facilitates collaboration between businesses and local municipalities to boost logistical management capabilities and allow risk drivers to be managed more efficiently. There is an opportunity to create shared values on a larger scale by combining the knowledge and resources of the global insurance industry with those of stakeholders, to improve the resilience of communities to climate change on an international level.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



47

The use of roadmapping and scenario planning techniques (see above) has also been explored in technology transitions, such as the transition from fossil fuel to hydrogen, regardless of the maturity of current technology (Eames and McDowall, 2010). The process can include phases from scoping and shared vision development to sustainability appraisal and plausible transition pathways. Throughout the phases participatory approaches are encouraged as a route to ‘social learning’ as well as open and transparent scenario planning. Roadmapping techniques are most useful when they are embedded within the organisational structures that empower learning and re-evaluation (McDowall, 2012). However, within the context of sustainable development transitions, most transition roadmaps are still oneoff exercises because they have not been effectively adopted by institutions.

4.4. Chapter Summary The planning mechanisms described in this chapter are often used in practice as hybrid techniques. More proactive strategies are typically associated with deeper and broader inclusion of stakeholders (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003). The trends in the literature suggest the increasing importance of private-sector engagement in societal transitions, in particular to address the broad range of challenges ahead. This type of approach and planning may not be suitable for every company and every situation. Nonetheless, the planning mechanisms presented here can help to identify strategies and practices to address sustainability challenges and achieve a more sustainable world. At the same time they can help to open up new business opportunities and contribute to the creation of sustainable value (Hart and Milstein, 2003). The next chapter looks in greater detail at processes of value creation, in particular the role of innovation in creating future sustainability.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



48

chapter 5: influencing the future through innovation

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



49

While organisations may choose to react to emerging trends, others will want to play a pro-active role in shaping the future (see Figure 2). However, to successfully influence events, research suggests they need to be truly innovative and engage in ‘competitive imagination’ (Hart and Sharma, 2004). Innovation can play a crucial role in sustainability. Innovation allows organisations to develop new, more sustainable products or services (Hart and Sharma, 2004) that can open up new markets. The corporate vision of a sustainable future will guide innovation that emerges from within an organisation. Its perspective – rationalism, naturalism or humanism (see chapter 2) – will guide its approach to innovation planning – for example in deciding the amount of resources it invests. During the last decade, there has been a gradual shift in innovation planning. Linear technocratic approaches, where decisions are made on a technical and scientific basis, are being replaced by new participatory and systemic approaches, which take in a wider range of factors including stakeholder views (Smits, 2002). Similarly, R&D portfolios are shifting from the usual technology push innovations to ones that are based on market needs (Koivisto et al., 2009). This shift reflects the emerging need to develop innovations that take

account of environmental and social considerations alongside economic profitability (Smits, 2002). In this chapter, we discuss how organisations can use innovation to influence the future. The question is connected to the upper two quadrants in Figure 2 on shaping the future and transformational planning. The structure of this chapter is captured in Figure 6. In Chapter 3, we looked at the different levels at which planning occurs and planning in the context of developing economies. In this chapter, we return to these ideas and explain their relevance to innovation and change. The impetus for innovation is often created outside of the business. Increased competition, new regulations or other changes prompt organisations to improve their product or service or introduce new management or operational processes (Weerawardena and Mavondo, 2011). Entrepreneurial opportunities are most prevalent when uncertainty and intractability of the problem are high (York and Venkataraman, 2013). Collectively, innovations are important for economic growth and prosperity. However, it is becoming increasingly evident that innovations need to address fundamental societal problems, especially in emerging economies, while remaining within ‘planetary boundaries’ (see introduction) (Rockström et al., 2009, 2009, 2013).

Figure 6 CHAPTER STRUCTURE

Drivers of innovation

Processes

Outcomes of innovation

• Models of sustainable innovation

• Sustainable firm transitions

• Meso economical level • Innovation at the systems level

• Tools for sustainable technological transitions

• Sustainable investments

• Macro economical level

• Entrepreneurial actions • Corporate citizenship • Corporate social responsibility

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



50

5.1. Drivers of Innovation – Innovation at the Systems Level Growing environmental and social challenges have led to calls for radical innovations in technology and an economic reality that connects industry, society and the environment (Senge and Carstedt, 2001). However, the adoption of new technologies and innovations can be slow in developing countries, in part due to economic factors such as a lack of seed funding, but also because of a wide range of other development-related factors. Changes in norms, values and wider social systems are required to support sustainable development (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005; Geels, 2005; Vaz and Nijkamp, 2009). System innovations require changes at multiple levels – the so-called multiple level perspective or MLP (Geels, 2005; Vaz and Nijkamp, 2009). Technology changes at a macro-level (e.g., country-wide) often only occur incrementally Novel innovations occur, however, at the micro-level, the level of individual organisations. The meso-level consists of social groups, public authorities, rules, finance, capital, supply chains, research, production, users and so on. Each level provides different kinds of coordination and structure as well as its own dynamics (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005). The transition towards sustainable energy generation in Denmark is an example of successful system innovation. In this case, policy and governance structures fostered interactive learning among a network of organisations as opposed to the classic ‘top-down’ approach. One of the challenges on a systems level is how to balance the most effective elements of change, whether public or private (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005).

Transitions such as those towards sustainable energy generation are the consequence of different macroand meso-economic drivers (Smits, 2000). A model to understand these drivers is depicted in Figure 7 (Vaz and Nijkamp, 2009). It shows the complexity behind transitions. The external circuit or the macro-level represents macro-economic conditions. These include regulations, national innovation systems, financial support and path dependencies. The intermediate circuit or the meso-economic level is where the technological learning and the institutional relationships take place. The next circuit is where knowledge application occurs, resulting in new needs, developments, processes and products. The inner circuit or the micro-economic level is where decisions on how innovations should be used take place. At the micro-economic level, two interactions take place: the strategic choice embodied in entrepreneurship, creativity, networking and clustering, and the political choice shaped by regional policy, governance, local incentives and environmental awareness. The complex relationships between population growth, economic growth, urbanisation or technological change over time can either slow down or accelerate sustainable technological transitions. For instance, structural overcapacity may lead to stagnation of innovation. On the other hand, these dynamic external forces also bring about the need for continual and rapid technological change as a means of survival (Kozulj, 2003).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



51

Figure 7 KNOWLEDGE CIRCUIT MODEL

Micro-level processes Meso-level processes

pendencies Path de

Macro-level influences

nological learning Tech

l an

ti o

na

l in

no

va

tio

it y

ut

t io

ns

N ew need s

ns

y st

ems

s

ti t

di

on

Na

lc

io n

ca

al p

d lo

rox im

New markets

Re gion a

Regional policy The political choice Governance, local incentives and environmental awareness

New products

Financial

Entrepreneurship The strategic choice Creativity, clustering, networking

e advantages etitiv mp Co

sup por ts

New process

In

Re g

ti u la

on

s

Source: Vaz, T.d.N. and P. Nijkamp (2009). Knowledge and innovation: The strings between global and local dimensions of sustainable growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(4): 441-455.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



52

The following sections outline tools to support the transition process. TOOL 1: FORMATION OF INNOVATION SYSTEMS Complex socio-economical transitions, such as those needed to address the challenges associated with climate change, require radically new technologies, including carbon neutral technologies (Bergek, Jacobsson and Sandén, 2008). The development of renewable electricity technologies and transportation fuels in Denmark and Germany and the Swedish solar cell provide insights into the structural elements and dynamic processes behind their success (Figure

8). These functions include the development of formal knowledge, entrepreneurial experimentation, materialisation (the development of production facilities and infrastructure), influence on the direction of search (directing suppliers towards the new technologies), market formation, resource mobilisation, legitimation (social acceptance and trust) and the development of positive externalities. These ensure that collaboration – not just competition – prevails. While these structures and processes are difficult to replicate in an emerging economy such as South Africa, they provide important insights into successful ‘bottom-up’ processes and strategies of system building.

Figure 8 FORMATION OF INNOVATION SYSTEMS

TIS Structure

Functions

Technology

F1: Formal knowledge development

Actors

F2: Entrepreneurial experimentation

Networks

F3: Materialisation

Institutions

F4: Influence on the direction of search F5: Market formation F6: Resource mobilisation F7: Legitimation F8: Development of positive externalities

External factors Source: Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson, and B. Sandén (2008). “Legitimation” and “development” of positive externalities: Two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5): p. 575-592. Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



53

TOOL 2: STRATEGIC NICHE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Another tool to manage sustainable technological transitions is the strategic niche management (SNM) framework (Schot and Geels, 2008). Several examples are provided on the website (http://www. transitionsnetwork.org/links). Niches – small networks of organisations that support innovation within an industry – provide opportunities for learning, networking and creating shared visions. They can therefore act as building blocks for broader changes in society. However, while technological niches are ‘safe spaces’ for experimentation, organisations within them still need to pay attention to the meso-level, including market and user preferences, developments in science, culture, policy and technology.

To analyse sustainable transitions, it is useful to view strategic niche management through a multi-level perspective (Schot and Geels, 2008). The framework proposes that aligned elements emerging from the niche at a micro-level can get inserted into windows opened at the meso-level, thus creating a new regime that influences the landscape (Geels, 2005; Schot and Geels, 2008). Niches need the help of broader forces if they are to bring about transformations. Organisations must diversify their network connections to include many other stakeholders (see Figure 9). Many examples in our report suggest that niche initiatives can provide a worthwhile approach towards experimentation.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



54

Figure 9 NICHE INNOVATIONS Increasing structuration of activities in local practices

Social-technical’ landscape (exogenous context)

g. b.

Window of opportunity Social-technical regime

a.

f.

e. c.

Niche-innovations d.

Time Legend a. Socio-technical regime is ‘dynamically stable’. On different dimensions there are ongoing processes. b. Landscape developments put pressure on existing regime, which opens up, creating windows of opportunity for novelties. c. External influences on niches (via expectations and networks) d. Small networks of actors support novelties on the basis of expectations and visions. Learning processes take place on multiple dimensions (co-construction). Efforts to link different elements in a seamless web. e. Elements become aligned, and stabilise in a dominant design. Internal momentum increases. f. New configuration breaks through, taking advantage of ‘window of opportunity’. Adjustments occur in socio-technical regime. g. New regime influences landscape

Source: Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson and B. Sandén (2008). “Legitimation” and “development” of positive externalities: Two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5): 575-592. Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



55

5.2. Towards a New Business Logic

do so, a number of conditions are required (Hart and Milstein, 2003; Hart and Sharma, 2004; Senge and Carstedt, 2001; Senge et al., 2007). We need to:

At the organisational level, achieving long-term sustainability may require the introduction of a new business logic – one that would transform our thinking and allow us to view things according to the value they provide. Producers and consumers would be seen as co-creators of value. Compliant employees would become committed members of social networks. We would start to think in terms of ecological communities rather than separate businesses. The business environment would move from a ‘closed doors’ situation to one of greater transparency (Senge and Carstedt, 2001). Organisations may have to replace old business models with radically new approaches through the process of ‘creative destruction’. This could include engaging stakeholders at the bottom of the pyramid who were previously ignored (Hart and Milstein, 2003; Hart and Sharma, 2004; Senge and Carstedt, 2001; Senge et al., 2007). To increase their shareholder value, they may have to reassess their whole operation, from their resources and capabilities to their customers and supply chain.

• • • • •

All the models presented in this section view the organisation as part of a much larger ecosystem. The organisation sits at the micro-level. It is influenced by occurrences at the meso- and macro-economic levels which cause it to spur into action and innovate to adapt to change. This is important from a sustainability perspective because when organisations innovate and create more efficient products and processes, it makes the prospect of a sustainable future more likely. To

Review our existing attitudes Bring about a shift to ‘systems thinking’ Visualise the different future scenarios Reshape the status quo Engage in strategic conversations with stakeholders at different levels of society.

Proactive organisations actively encourage their employees to participate in activities that will improve their sustainability performance (Ramus, 2002). However, to be able to focus their creative energy on problem-solving, employees need to be sure of the company’s support. Organisations can support sustainability initiatives by encouraging innovation and experimentation, competence building, disseminating information, providing rewards and recognition and managing goals and responsibilities (Ramus, 2002). However, research suggests that for some organisations, making the transition from ‘business as usual’ to committing to systematic sustainable investments may not be easy (Hamann, 2006; Ramus, 2002). Since each business follows its own path to sustainability, it may be necessary to analyse the specific barriers to change, explore opportunities to maximise innovation, conduct a systematic assessment of stakeholders (Dijkema et al., 2006; Hall and Vredenburg, 2003) and understand how it can contribute to sustainable development (Hamann, 2006).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



56

Systematisation of processes to achieve sustainability is an emerging theme in the research literature (Hamann, 2006). Systematic learning processes within organisations can enable sustainable transitions. Learning processes can be sped up to include sustainability practices (Schein, 1993). Organisations need to consider different types of learning and anxieties that arise throughout the change process. They can rely on a number of internal strategies, such as the use of committees, to bring about learning, engage employees and ensure a smooth transition (Schein, 1993). The path that an organisation follows depends to some extent on the degree to which sustainability is incorporated in overall strategy (Dijkema et al., 2006) (see Figure 10). Organisations in phase I of development may adopt sustainable product innovation to keep their licence to operate. Those in phase II include sustainability in their agenda. Organisations in phase III see sustainability as a crucial element of their strategies. They introduce new processes and products as a

long-term activity. Organisations in phase IV include external stakeholders in the process, therefore pushing innovation beyond the organisational boundaries and extending their networks. This enables them to extend their reach from local and regional to global, and to balance their actions accordingly. Within the framework of a learning society where economic and social values play a role, innovation for sustainability should go beyond technology. It should be tied to behaviours focused on the benefits of change. Analysis of data from two German panels, one from the Institute for Employment Research and another from the Centre for European Economic Research (Horbach, 2008), show that environmental innovations are triggered when R&D improves an organisation’s technological capabilities or ‘knowledge capital’. Organisations’ capabilities to provide a learning platform for their employees are crucial here. So are factors such as environmental regulations, management tools and general organisational changes.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



57

Figure 10 SUSTAINABILITY DEVELOPMENT PATHS

I

II

III

IV

Environmental management

Sustainability – seed

Sustainability – strategic

Sustainability – a process

Time

Company A

Company B

Sustainability = slogan

How to deal with it?

How to:

Institutionalise

- aspects are addressed separately: environment: ISO 1400x quality: ISO 900x safety: ISO, NEN etc - innovation: No incentive; ad-hoc relabeling - reactive attitude prevails

- what commonalities? - what innovation potential - which stakeholders internally / externally - cash upon / reframe existing activities - which dilemmas?

- institutionalise - define - operationalise - effectuate - organise - invention - innovation pilots / prototypes - diffusion marketing

- concrete activities - clear definitions & concepts - accept ‘fuzziness’ of goals - continuous process internalised certified (ISO-integrated)

Source: Dijkema, G.P.J., et al. (2006). Trends and opportunities framing innovation for sustainability in the learning society. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(3): p. 215-227.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



58

5.3. Entrepreneurship – an Activity to Shape the Future Sustainability is not only a challenge – it also holds opportunities for entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship can be a potent force in bringing new environmentally sustainable products and services to market (York and Venkataraman, 2013). Reconciling economic growth with the use of natural resources is challenging. Research shows that the traditional management approach offers limited scope to achieve ecological sustainability (Kearins, Collins and Tregidga, 2010). It views nature as a convenient, unlimited resource and, because it does not prioritise nature, it limits the scope of business responsibility. Therefore, visionary enterprises need to have a different concept of nature and sustainability. Three small enterprises in New Zealand have been able to achieve such an approach by making a connection between

their business and nature (Kearins et al., 2010). ‘Ecoentrepreneurism’ has its challenges, such as threats to profitability and growth. Critics would argue that a business is not sustainable if it is not financially secure. However, these visionary small enterprises may be creating a new ecological paradigm where the human-business-nature connections and priorities are re-established. The cases in Figure 11 below provide examples of how this can be achieved. Entrepreneurship also depends on market incentives, which may reward environmentally-damaging behaviour (Pacheco and Dean, 2010). However, entrepreneurs can find alternative ways to change the rules of the game – for example, collective action through partnerships with industry and civil organisations. By establishing such relationships, the sustainable entrepreneur can influence legislation and the rules of conduct to improve the competitiveness of sustainable initiatives.

Figure 11 CASES OF SUSTAINABLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP WaterHealth International, a fast-growing private sector business, uses innovative water purification techniques to distribute clean water at minimal cost to more than one million people in rural India, Ghana, and the Philippines. Its investors include not only the socially focused Acumen Fund and the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank, but also Dow Chemical’s venture fund. Revolution Foods, a four-year-old venture-capital-backed US start-up, provides 60 000 fresh and healthy meals to students daily—and does so at a higher gross margin than traditional competitors. Waste Concern, a hybrid profit/non-profit enterprise started in Bangladesh 15 years ago, has the capacity to convert 700 tons of trash, collected daily from neighbourhood slums, into organic fertilizer, thereby increasing crop yields and reducing CO2 emissions. Seeded with capital from the Lions Club and the United Nations Development Programme, the firm improves health conditions while earning a substantial gross margin through fertilizer sales and carbon credits. http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



59

Current eco-entrepreneurship initiatives can also be placed on the emergent-transformative continuum described earlier (Hart and Milstein, 1999). Organisations can use eco-enterprise strategies to decide how to engage key stakeholders (Stead and Stead, 2000), though a deeper analysis of stakeholders is needed to include the moral dimension. An ecostrategy thereby has a sustainability-centred values network. It rests on ethical foundations that include quality, community, spiritual fulfilment, dialogue, posterity, wholeness, diversity and smallness. For the eco-strategy, ecology is key, and technology is measured by its ecological impact. In this approach, the earth becomes the ultimate organisational stakeholder, alongside others such as consumers, investors, NGOs and employees. ‘Green’ innovations can also be a source of change for sustainability (Azzone and Noci, 1998). However, organisations are required to commit significant resources. They must be capable of managing innovations jointly with other processes, integrating actions across different departments, developing new relationships with other organisations and co-operating with public institutions. This model suggests a strong involvement by stakeholders to maintain a common vision about greening priorities. It also suggests that the organisation is required to significantly reduce its impact on the environment. The transition requires major changes in the activities of the value chain, in management processes and the organisation’s relationships with stakeholders.

5.4. Sustainable Investments Aligning corporate and societal values allows organisations to improve their reputation. This holds clear business benefits. In a Finnish study of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Panapanaan, 2003), evidence is provided that CSR is more than a mechanism to comply with the law, it is integral to how organisations view strategy. Viewing CSR as a mechanism for sustainable business transitions can be facilitated through the use of roadmapping to focus on shared value and long-term relationships among stakeholders. This can improve the degree of audit transparency, incentives and create more equitable outcomes for small players (Panapanaan, 2003). Figure 12 presents one such case. A ‘single technological future’ can also be developed as a management tool to guide decisionmaking in R&D to plan and foster breakthroughs in clean production and environmental sustainability. Eco-friendly technologies and planning undertaken by organisations could be enhanced through environmental incentives within the regulatory framework where the organisation operates. The emerging economy context offers opportunities to broaden CSR to include sustainable investments. Sustainable investment (SI) goes further than CSR. It refers to investments by institutional investors that take account of long-term environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) considerations to achieve financial and social returns (Juravle and Lewis, 2009). The champions use four tactics. They make a business case for SI, form coalitions with mainstream investment professionals, network within relevant industries and gain credible expertise. However, the evidence suggests

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



60

Figure 12 CASE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Husk Power Systems (India) provides end-to-end renewable energy solutions by installing 25kW to 100kW ‘mini power plants’ and then wiring them to villages and hamlets of up to 4000 inhabitants to deliver electricity on a pay-for-use basis. This technology cost-effectively converts agricultural residue (e.g. rice husk, mustard stems, corn cobs, certain grasses) into electricity. A typical plant can serve two to four villages within a radius of 1.5km, depending on size and population. The plant employs local villagers who are then trained by HPS to conduct plant operations. http://www.huskpowersystems. com/innerPage. php?pageT=Community%20 Impact&page_id=81

that further research is required to investigate the impact of SI on organisations. In a learning economy, competence – skills, expertise and capabilities around how to engage in sustainable development – becomes the foundation for innovation (Dijkema et al., 2006). This also requires organisations to manage the barriers to innovation, such as fear and lack of skills, as part of their strategy.

5.5. How Policy Can Encourage Innovation Regulations and policies are important factors that can affect a transition to a sustainable future (Rothwell, 1992). Public policies are crucial to providing the right context for sustainability and innovation (Dijkema et al., 2006; Robinson, 2009; Saritas and Aylen, 2010). Policy should encourage environmentally proactive organisations – for instance through economic incentives and disincentives, which are more successful than direct regulations and lead to the most efficient allocation of resources (Rothwell, 1992; Saritas and Aylen, 2010). Some research has shown that the less restrictive regulation is on new solutions, the more likely it is that innovations addressing environmental problems will emerge through entrepreneurial action (York and Venkataraman, 2013). However, a lack of regulation can also lead to ‘institutional voids’ – the absence of a clearly defined institutional and/or regulatory framework, which leaves organisations with a lack of clearly defined social and environmental standards, thus creating a need for self-regulation (see Chapter 3).

Policy can also be designed to encourage innovation through the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Here, the cost is borne by polluters. It may influence technological change and the use of performance standards rather than specification standards; the former allows for greater latitude in determining how a goal will be reached. The regulatory process also needs to foster the relationship between regulatory bodies and industry. It is important to build the competence of regulatory bodies and eliminate unclear and unrealistic standards. Another crucial point is that the timescale in formulating regulations cannot be too long, thus hindering innovation. Aiming for international harmonisation and cooperation usually gives positive results (Leung, 2010).

5.6. Chapter Summary This chapter showed how organisations respond to the challenges of a sustainable future by using innovation. Events in the wider world – at the macro- and mesolevels – help to trigger innovative responses, but organisations also need to adopt new business logics for creating innovative change. Learning is an important component, since it allows knowledge accumulation and therefore, continuous generation of skills and ideas. This ultimately drives long-term economic growth. Innovative approaches can be relevant to any type of organisation, but they are particularly important for those seeking to actively influence their future (the upper quadrants in Figure 2).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



61

chapter 6: conclusion

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



62

Planning for a sustainable future has become a priority for human development and the private sector has a major role to play. This report reviewed the evidence on how organisations can approach sustainable development and link their strategic plans with public sector plans to develop a shared vision. The introduction discussed South Africa’s NDP and questioned whether this plan can be integrated sufficiently into the economy and the strategies of organisations. While the NDP may not be an uncontested roadmap to achieve sustainable development, the report has looked at ways to create synergies in the real-life planning environment with multiple players and levels. It can also help organisations choose reliable techniques for decision-making in a world of change and uncertainty. There are no straightforward approaches when it comes to planning for a sustainable future. There is not a single, ‘best practice’ approach (whether in terms of planning techniques and frameworks or in their application) since different organisations face different situations. An organisations’ approach to planning will depend on their belief systems as well as developments in the environment in which they operate. Innovation can play an important role in driving sustainability, by allowing organisations to develop new, more environmentallyfriendly products and processes. It can also create new ways to adapt to change and open up new markets for sustainable products and services.

A number of new trends and opportunities are emerging that rely on innovation to drive sustainability. They include: eco-entrepreneurship, an emerging business model (Kearnis et al., 2010; Pachecho et al., 2010; Stead and Stead, 2000); technological innovation as a manageable transition complemented by established approaches such as strategic niche management (SNM) and emerging integrated management approaches such as multilevel perspective (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005; Geels, 2005; Hofman and Elzen, 2010; Vaz and Nijkamp, 2009), learning organisations and corporate citizenship (Hamann, 2006; Hull and Rothenberg, 2008; Juravle and Lewis, 2009; Panapanaan, 2003); and management of anxiety and fear before change (Schein, 1993). Greater connectivity is opening up opportunities to engage in more complex collaborations including multiple organisations and locations. However, there must be clear accountability and transparency of the engagement process to avoid confusion (Leung, 2010). One example of such collaboration is the South AfricanGerman Dialogue on Science for Sustainability, a series of dialogues initiated in 2007 (Mennicken et al., 2013). Both countries recognise the importance of linking sustainable development and innovation policy and the need for a deeper understanding of the complex human and social dynamics.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



63

A promising solution can be found in stakeholder engagement and public-private partnerships (PPPs). Well-managed PPPs have proven successful (Leung, 2010). Partnerships are especially important when attempting to solve complex problems such as creating a sustainable future. In addition to providing a bridge between stakeholders, they act as coordinating agent which is a key factor in their success. An example is FP Innovations, a private sector, not-for-profit forestry research institute formed through the merger of private and public research organisations (Leung, 2010). PPPs offer major potential for countries such as South Africa, where there are gaps in public sector capacity and a lack of skills, funding and mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation. In emerging countries like this, such partnerships could help to overcome institutional voids and bring together public and private sectors to pursue a shared vision for a sustainable future.

There is an urgent need for the private sector to address pressing issues like the over-exploitation of ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity and the over-consumption of non-renewable resources. Ensuring a sustainable future depends on staying within these boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009, 2009, 2013; Whiteman et al., 2013). We urge organisations to engage with the underlying science and design their planning for a sustainable future accordingly – with the view towards exploring new business opportunities based on new planning approaches.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



64

chapter 7: methodology

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



65

7.1. Academic Literature We extracted studies from the social sciences citation index that match a broad range of sustainability keywords (see Figure 13). The wildcard symbol (*) is included to search for variations in terminology (e.g., organis [z]ation* finds organis [z]ation and organis [z]ations). Figure 13 CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY – SEARCH TERMS Sustainability Sustainable corporation* Sustainable organis [z]ation* Sustainable firm* Sustainable enterprise* Sustainable business* Sustainable compan* Sustainability report* Environmental* sustainab* Ecological* sustainab* Social* sustainab* Sustainability-oriented

Environmental* responsib* Ecological* responsib* Social* responsib* Responsible development Environmental* responsive* Social* responsive* Ecological* responsive* Green Greening CSR

FILTERING THE STUDIES The initial search resulted in 7815 records on the general topic of sustainability, which we filtered further in a next step. We focused on studies that are closely related to the topic under investigation and are situated at the interface of corporate sustainability and strategic planning or corporate sustainability and public sector planning on sustainability (see Figure 14).

Stewardship Triple bottom line Corporate citizenship Eco-efficien* Environmental performance Social performance Environmental management Environmental protection Environmental report* Social report* Natural environment Global warming Climate change

and governments create effective synergies between organisations’ strategic plans and public sector plans for a sustainable future? ”). Studies at the intersection of corporate sustainability and strategic planning were of particular interest for answering the second subquestion (“What techniques, frameworks or mechanisms have shown themselves to be effective in forecasting environmental and other changes, and in identifying strategic implications for organisations?”).

Studies at the intersection of corporate sustainability and institutional planning were of particular interest to answer the first sub-question (“How can organisations

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



66

Figure 14 FIELDS OF STUDY

Corporate Sustainability

Insititutional Planning

Strategic Planning

In order to extract studies at the intersection of topic areas, we focused on studies that did not just match the keywords on sustainability (above) but did match keywords on institutional planning, policy-making, stakeholder engagement and multi-sector dialogue. We therefore filtered the 7815 studies using the following additional keywords •





Institution*, Policy, Policy-making; Public planning; Sustainable development, Long-range (long range) planning, Institutional void*; and Strategic plan*, Strateg*, Strategy-making (strategy making), Strategic Management, Decision-making (decision-making), Plan*, Long-range (long range) planning; Corporate plan*, Organisation* plan*, Sustainable plan*, Firm plan*, Enterprise plan*, Business plan*, Compan* plan*; Forecast*, Scenario*.

After applying these restrictions on our dataset, we were left with 216 records for further analysis. We reviewed these records manually and decided to not include a study if it: 1. Matched the keywords search, but does not fit the topic area after closer examination by all investigators; 2. Addressed sustainability issues but in a way not relevant to relevant to the topic; 3. All investigators agreed that the particular record under consideration is not suitable.

INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES To ensure we did not miss any important studies through a keyword search, we conducted a cited reference search, which is possible through programs such as HistCite. Through this search, all references cited by publications within the collection can be identified. This allowed us to identify publications that are highly cited by publications in the collection, but are not included in the collection themselves. The omissions of a record can occur if the record does not match the search criteria (ie, if the record does not contain at least one of the keywords used to conduct the reference search in the title; abstract or keywords); or when the record is related to a publication source not indexed in the Web of Science (such as a book or book chapter; newspaper article; non-academic article; non-indexed journal article or a report). In these cases, we undertook manual additions. FINAL LIST OF STUDIES The final list of studies we cited can be found in the Bibliography.

7.2. Non-Academic Literature Supplementary sources including sources not (yet) represented in the literature, such as: • Government documents • Practitioner or consultancy reports • Unpublished material (eg, conference papers) • Other sources which focus on relevant approaches (eg books) or examples (eg case studies).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



67

7.3. Case Studies To support our systematic literature review and to illustrate the emerging themes, we also conducted a number of case studies and interviews with executives from eight organisations, resulting in the case examples presented in-text. All interviewees are in positions to influence the future trajectory of their organisation’s approach to strategic sustainability. They were asked to share their thoughts on how business can engage in medium- and long-term strategic planning that is linked to a shared vision for a sustainable future. These key informants were from the financial and professional services, fast moving consumer goods, mining and public sector organisations. The results from these interviews were used to complement secondary data collected via sustainability projects and other representative organisational documentation. Data from the interviews and articles were subjected to text analytical analysis conducted with Leximancer. Leximancer is ideally suited as a repeatable, automated method for analysing this type of text data and assists in identifying first-order concepts, secondorder themes and relationships without introducing researcher bias (Cummings and Daellenbach, 2009; Verreynne, Parker and Wilson, 2013). It uses two stages of extraction, classified by Smith and Humphreys as ‘semantic extraction’ and ‘relational extraction’ (Smith and Humphreys, 2006). Semantic extraction involves the automatic discovery and extraction of thesaurusbased words or ‘concept seeds’ that occur most frequently in a ‘sliding text coding block’ within the text data. Relational extraction determines the lexical co-

occurrence of the specified concepts to demonstrate semantic and grammatical clustering around dominant themes. Leximancer generates a visually interpretive, two dimensional concept map of the semantic structure of the data set. Interpretation of the concept map is derived from analysing the frequency, centrality and co-occurrence of concept nodes as well as emerging themes. The concepts provide a useful index with which to query the data to find points of interest, difference and consensus. The map can be interpreted as follows: •







Thesaurus concepts are plotted as dots on the concept map representing key issues according to the data. Frequencies indicate concept occurrence within the full sample text and are visually reflected in the relative size of the concept nodes on the map. The concepts settle near each other on the map if they are prevalent in the same text blocks and therefore related somehow. Themes are visually represented as coloured circles spanning the thematic regions around closely connected clusters of concepts. Each theme is identified by the most dominant or interconnected concept within that thematic cluster. Theme circle colours are displayed in varying degrees of brightness or ‘heat’ (hottest being red and so on, according to the colour wheel) reflecting the relative degrees of theme importance.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



68

Figure 15 LEXIMANCER ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEW DATA

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



69

From the Leximancer analysis, four central themes emerged: risk, people, government and process. These themes are also evident in the case studies included in the main report, and are explained in more detail below. Risk was a major theme related to sustainability (“do the kinds of risk management activities needed”). This indicates that strategic responses for future sustainability are often viewed from a risk lens by organisations (“starting to … risk, you’re putting your skin in the game”; “systematically start addressing or managing … exposures in a smart way”). Ecological, social and economic sustainability sets new challenges for organisations and societies (“looking at the world through sustainability lens helps you get deeper insight into risk and opportunity” and “understand the scale of risk that you hold inside of your current asset mix”). Managing risk from negative externalities (spill-over effects of production or consumption) involves environmental costs incurred by businesses due to climate change and resource depletion. This was mentioned in the interviews (“have better data so we can risk manage our book better,” “we talk about water for the community, because it’s really a terrible reputation risk”). Interviewees also spoke about future sustainability in terms of the social risks associated with working in communities (“… massive pressure being put onto social safety nets”). ‘Prudent’ management was seen as crucial to create value amongst the economic, environmental and social challenges. The second key theme that emerged was people’s role in the process of engaging in strategic planning to create a shared vision (“get people to share in the vision“) for a sustainable future. People were mentioned as significant in shaping the future as employees (“the people who help us do business are our employees”) and as

customers (“people buy from our company because they are interested in the African growth story”). It also emerged from the interview data that the move towards strategic sustainability is a journey (“…things evolve … new things come up, and there are people behind that”). This journey seems to be favourably embarked upon in collaboration with stakeholders (“communication and engagement, for us is … continuous, look-out for new stakeholders”). Scenario planning did not feature as a key focus in conversations, as can be seen in Figure 15. The third theme centred on the role, focus and energy of government. The role of government was seen as a leadership role (“government needs to take lead and use the various policy levers”) with the power to influence other societal organisations through policy measures. The private sector should aim to influence this policy (“influence government policy at the strategic level”). The role of government was seen as critical in nurturing common resources, such as water and energy, and stimulating (de-risking) the market (“renewable energy program … classic case of the government… having a requirement to fulfil a need around low carbon electricity”). Finally, ‘process’ was a less prominent theme, with specific sustainability targets and strategic choices being mentioned. For some interviewees, targets were a very important feature to monitor sustainable development (“we know … what we will have achieved”). Strategic processes were mentioned (“strategic choice ….. it was a good process”), but conversations on this topic were subtle. We used the findings of the Leximancer analysis to enhance our case studies and to reflect these themes throughout the document.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



70

Bibliography AngloGold Ashanti (2006). Report to Society 2006. Available at: http://www.anglogoldashanti.com/en/Media/Reports/ Sustainability%20Reports/AGA-sustainable-gold-2006.pdf. AngloGold Ashanti (2007). Report to Society 2007. Availalbe at: http://www.anglogoldashanti.com/en/Media/Reports/ Sustainability%20Reports/AGA-sustainable-gold-2007.pdf. Ansari, S., F. Wijen and B. Gray (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the “Tragedy of the commons”. Organization Science, 24(4): 1014-1040. Ansoff, H.I. (1979). Strategic Management. New York, NY: Wiley. Ayres, R.U. and R. Axtell (1996). Foresight as a survival characteristic: When (if ever) does the long view pay? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 51(3): 209-235. Azzone, G. and G. Noci (1998). Seeing ecology and “green” innovations as a source of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(2): 94-111. Bansal, P. and K. Roth (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 717-736. Bartley, T. (2007). Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: The rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions. American Journal of Sociology, 113(2): 297-351. Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson and B. Sandén (2008). “Legitimation” and “development of positive externalities”: Two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5): 575-592. Berrone, P. et al. (2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green’inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8): 891-909. Bitzer, V. and P. Glasbergen (2010). Partnerships for sustainable change in cotton: An institutional analysis of African cases. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2): 223-240. Boerzel, T. and R. Hamann, eds. (2013). Business contributions to climate change governance: South Africa in comparative perspective. Palgrave Macmillan: Houndsmill. Börjesson, M. (2007). What is senario planning? Available at: http://www.well.com/~mb/scenario_planning/#What_is_Scenario_ Planning. Brews, P.J. and M.R. Hunt (1999). Learning to plan and planning to learn: Resolving the planning school/learning school debate. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10): 889-913. Brown, L.D. (1991). Bridging organizations and sustainable development. Human Relations, 44(8): 807-831. Bruton, G.D., D. Ahlstrom and H.L. Li (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3): 421-440. Buchholz, R.A. (2004). The natural environment: Does it count? The Academy of Management Executive, 18(2): 130-133. Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



71

Busch, T. (2011). Organizational adaptation to disruptions in the natural environment: The case of climate change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(4): 389-404. Buysse, K. and A. Verbeke (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5): 453-470. Cairns, G. et al. (2013). Scenario method and stakeholder engagement: Critical reflections on a climate change scenarios case study. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80(1): 1-10. Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders: 39-48. Greenwich, U.K: Elsevier Inc. Chan, A. (2003). Racing to the bottom: International trade without a social clause. Third World Quarterly, 24(6): 1011-1028. Chan, R.Y.K. (2005). Does the natural-resource-based view of the firm apply in an emerging economy? A survey of foreign invested enterprises in china. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3): 625-672. Chapuy, P. and V. Gros (2010). Collectively foreseeing future issues: Prospective strategy contributes to the Agriculture and Food Systems’‘Futures Studies’ Club. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(9): 1540-1545. Chonco, M. Telephone interview. 23 June 2014. Christensen, C.M. and J.L. Bower, (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 197-218. Cohen, B. and M.I. Winn (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1): 29-49. Cooperative Governance Traditional Affairs, S.A. (2014). Flagship projects. Available at: http://www.cogta.gov.za/index.php/ news/%20latest/194-flagship-projects-2014. Coovadia, H. et al. (2009). The health and health system of South Africa: Historical roots of current public health challenges. The Lancet, 374(9692): 817-834. Costa, R. and T. Menichini (2013). A multidimensional approach for CSR assessment: The importance of the stakeholder perception. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(1): 150-161. Courtney, H. (2003). Decision-driven scenarios for assessing four levels of uncertainty. Strategy & Leadership, 31(1): 14-22. Courtney, H., J. Kirkland and P. Viguerie (1997). Strategy under uncertainty. Harvard Business Review 75(6): 66-79. Cummings, S. and U. Daellenbach (2009). A guide to the future of strategy?: The history of long range planning. Long Range Planning, 42(2): 234-263. Davis, S.M. and C. Meyer (2000). Future wealth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Dean, T.J. and J.S. McMullen (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1): 50-76. Déjean, F., J.-P. Gond and B. Leca (2004). Measuring the unmeasured: An institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emerging industry. Human Relations, 57(6): 741-764. Department of Environmental Affairs (2014). National strategy for sustainable development 1: Monitoring and evaluation 2nd draft report. Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



72

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom and P.C. Stern (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652): 1907-1912. Dijkema, G.P.J. et al. (2006). Trends and opportunities framing innovation for sustainability in the learning society. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(3): 215-227. Dinokeng Scenario Team (2009). Dinokeng scenarios. Available at: http://www.dinokengscenarios.co.za/materials.php. Dong, C., G. Schoups and N. van de Giesen (2013). Scenario development for water resource planning and management: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(4): 749-761. Dos Santos, M., A. O. , G. Svensson and C. Padin (2013). Indicators of sustainable business practices: Woolworths in South Africa. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(1): 104-108. Eames, M. and W. McDowall (2010). Sustainability, foresight and contested futures: Exploring visions and pathways in the transition to a hydrogen economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(6): 671-692. Economic Commission for Africa (2011). National strategies for sustainable development in Africa: A sixteen-country assessment. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Eggers, F. and F. Eggers (2011). Where have all the flowers gone? Forecasting green trends in the automobile industry with a choice-based conjoint adoption model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(1): 51-62. Elzen, B. and A. Wieczorek (2005). Transitions towards sustainability through system innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6): 651-661. Espinosa, A. and R. Harnden (2007). Complexity management, democracy and social consciousness: Challenges for an evolutionary learning society. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 20(5): 401-412. Ettlie, J.E. and S. Rothenberg (2011). Strategies to cope with regulatory uncertainty in the auto industry. California Management Review, 54(1): 126-144. Fredrickson, J.W. and A.L. Iaquinto (1989). Inertia and creeping rationality in strategic decision processes. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 516-542. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html. Geels, F.W. (2005). Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6): 681-696. Gladwin, T.N., J.J. Kennelly and T.-S. Krause (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review 20(4): 874-907. Goodwin, P. (2002). Forecasting games: Can game theory win? International Journal of Forecasting, 18(3): 369-374. Gottschick, M. (2008). Participatory sustainability impact assessment: Scientific policy advice as a social learning process. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21(6): 479-495. Graedel, T.E. and B.R. Allenby (1995). Industrial ecology. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. Hall, J. and H. Vredenburg (2003). The challenges of innovating for sustainable development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1): 61-68.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



73

Hall, J.K. and G.A. Daneke (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5): 439-448. Halme, M. (2002). Corporate environmental paradigms in shift: Learning during the course of action at UPM–Kymmene. Journal of Management Studies, 39(8): 1087-1109. Hamann, R. (2006). Can business make decisive contributions to development? Towards a research agenda on corporate citizenship and beyond. Development Southern Africa, 23(2): 175-195. Hamann, R. et al. (2014). Systemic engagement: Companies as agents of positive change for socio-ecological resilience. In the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Managemenet. Philadelphia, PA, USA. Hamel, G. and C.K. Prahalad (1989). Strategic Intent. Harvard Business Review (May-June 1989). Hart, S.L. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review (January-February 1997). Hart, S.L. and M.B. Milstein (1999). Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries. Sloan Management Review, 41(1): 23-23. Hart, S.L. and M.B. Milstein (2003). Creating sustainable value. The Academy of Management Executive,17(2): 56-67. Hart, S.L. and S. Sharma (2004) Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 7-18. Harvey, F. (2004). BT makes renewable energy pledge. The Financial Times Limited: 2. Hauck, M. (2008). Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Marine Policy, 32(4): 635-642. Hockerts, K. and R. Wüstenhagen (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids — Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5): 481-492. Hoenke, J. et al. (2008). Fostering environmental regulation? Corporate social responsibility in countries with weak regulatory capacities: The case of South Africa. Available at: http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2008/434/pdf/SFB_700_ Working_Paper_Nr_9.pdf. Hofman, P.S. and B. Elzen (2010). Exploring system innovation in the electricity system through sociotechnical scenarios. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(6): 653-670. Horbach, J. (2008). Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence from German panel data sources. Research Policy, 37(1): 163-173. Hoskisson, R.E. et al. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249-267. Hull, C.E. and S. Rothenberg (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(7): 781-789. Jacobsson, S. and V. Lauber (2006). The politics and policy of energy system transformation - Explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy, 34(3): 256-276. Jamali, D. and T. Keshishian (2009). Uneasy alliances: Lessons learned from partnerships between businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of business Ethics, 84(2): 277-295. Jennings, P.D. and P.A. Zandbergen (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 1015-1052. Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



74

Jørgensen, U. (2005). Energy sector in transition—technologies and regulatory policies in flux. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 72(6): 719-731. Jun, D.B. and Y.S. Park (1999). A choice-based diffusion model for multiple generations of products. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 61(1): 45-58. Jung, T.Y. et al. (2000). Structural changes in developing countries and their Implication for energy-related CO2 emissions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 63(2): 111-136. Juravle, C. and A. Lewis (2009). The role of championship in the mainstreaming of sustainable investment (SI): What can we learn from SI pioneers in the United Kingdom? Organization & Environment, 22(1): 75-98. Kearins, K., E. Collins and H. Tregidga (2010). Beyond corporate environmental management to a consideration of nature in visionary small enterprise. Business & Society, 49(3): 512-547. Kemp, R., J. Schot and R. Hoogma (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2): 175-198. Kemp, R., S. Parto and R.B. Gibson (2005). Governance for sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1-2): 12-30. Kerkhof, M. and A. Wieczorek (2005). Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations. Technological Rorecasting & Social Change, 72(6): 733-747. Khanna, T. and K. Palepu (2013). Winning in emerging markets: A road map for strategy and execution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Kim, W.C. and R. Mauborgne (2004). Value innovation: The strategic logic of high growth. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2004/07/value-innovation-the-strategic-logic-of-high-growth. King, A. (1995). Avoiding ecological surprise: Lessons from long-standing communities. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 961-985. Kirchgeorg, M. and M.I. Winn (2006). Sustainability marketing for the poorest of the poor. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3): 171-184. Knight, F.H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mufflin. Knowles, K. and A. Espinosa (2009). Towards an holistic framework for environmental change: The role of normative behaviour and informal networking to enhance sustainable business practices. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22(4): 275-291. Koivisto, R. et al. (2009). Integrating future-oriented technology analysis and risk assessment methodologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9): 1163-1176. Kolk, A. and J. Pinkse (2005). Business responses to climate change: Identifying emergent strategies. California Management Review, 47(3): 6-20. Kozulj, R. (2003). People, cities, growth and technological change: From the golden age to globalization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(3): 199-230. Kuznetsov, A., O. Kuznetsova and R. Warren (2009). CSR and the legitimacy of business in transition economies: The case of Russia. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(1): 37-45. Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



75

Kwakkel, J.H. and E. Pruyt (2013). Exploratory Modeling and Analysis, an approach for model-based foresight under deep uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3): 419-431. Lane, D. and R. Maxfield (1996). Strategy under complexity: Fostering generative relationships. Long Range Planning, 29(2): 215-231. Leung, F. (2010). New paradigms for the future: Keynote perspectives from the R&D Management Conference 2008. R & D Management, 40(1): 4-9. Lewontin, R.C. (1993). Biology as ideology: The doctrine of DNA. New York, NY: HarperPerennial. Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2): 79-88. Linnenluecke, M. and A. Griffiths (2010). Beyond adaptation: Resilience for business in light of climate change and weather extremes. Business & Society, 49: 477-511. Linton, J.D. and J.S. Yeomans (2003). The role of forecasting in sustainability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(1): 21-38. Living Rail (2014). Vision 2050: How rail can contribute to a Europe worth living in. Available at: http://www.livingrail.eu/%20 railmap/40-what-is-roadmapping. London, T. and S.L. Hart (2004). Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: Beyond the transnational model. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 350-370. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 23(1): 161-183. Lumpkin, G.T. and G.G. Dess (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 135-172. Marais, H. (2001). South Africa: Limits to change: The political economy of transition. London, UK; New York, NY; Cape Town, South Africa: Zed Books. Marcus, A. and J.A. Aragon-Correa (2011). Firms, regulatory uncertainty, and the natural environment. California Management Review, 54(1): 5-16. Marcus, J., E.C. Kurucz and B.A. Colbert (2010). Conceptions of the business–society–nature interface: Implications for management scholarship. Business & Society, 49(3): 402-438. Marrian, N. (2013). Appeal for NDP supporters to stand up and be counted. Available at: http://www.bdlive.co.za/ economy/2013/11/21/appeal-for-ndp-supporters-to-stand-up-and-be-counted. McDowall, W. (2012). Technology roadmaps for transition management: The case of hydrogen energy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3): 530-542. McLachlan, M., Hamman, R. Sayers, V., Kelly, C., Drimie, S. and Reos Partners (2011). Fostering innovation for sustainable food security: The Southern Africa FoodLab. Available at: http://gsbblogs.uct.ac.za/gsbconference/files/2011/09/Fostering- innovation.pdf. Mennicken, L. et al. (2013). Innovation for sustainability in a changing world: The South African-German dialogue on science for sustainability. In M. Muchie and A. Baskaran, (Eds.), Innovation for sustainability: African and European perspectives, Project MUSE. Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



76

Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy-making in three modes. California Management Review, 6(2): 44-53. Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in Strategy Formation. Management Science, 24(9): 934-948. Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3): 171-195. Mintzberg, H. and J.A. Waters (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3): 257-272. Mitchell, R.B. (2014). International environmental agreements database project (Version 2013.2). Available at: http://iea.uoregon. edu/page.php?file=home.htm&query=static. Mitra, R. (2012). “My country’s future”: A culture-centered interrogation of corporate social responsibility in India. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2): 131-147. Mosakowski, E. (1997). Strategy making under causal ambiguity: Conceptual issues and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 8(4): 414-442. Musango, J.K. et al. (2012). A system dynamics approach to technology sustainability assessment: The case of biodiesel developments in South Africa. Technovation, 32(9/11): 639-651. National Planning Commission (2010). National strategy and action plan for sustainable development. Available at: https:// nationalplanningcommission.wordpress.com/. Nelson, J. (2014). The next stage of SAB Miller’s sustainable development journey. Available at: http://www.sabmiller.com/beer- blog/article/the-next-stage-of-sabmiller%27s-sustainable-development-journey. Newell, P. and J.G. Frynas (2007). Beyond CSR? Business, poverty and social justice: An introduction. Third World Quarterly, 28(4): 669-681. O´Brien, K. and L. Sygna. (2013). Responding to climate change: The three spheres of transformation. In the proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate: 16-23. June 2013, Oslo, Norway. University of Oslo. O’Riordan, T. (1998). Sustainability for survival in South Africa. Global Environmental Change, 8(2): 99-108. O’Riordan, T. et al. (2000). The transition to sustainability: a South African perspective. South African Geographical Journal, 82(2): 1-10. Orrell, D. and P. McSharry (2009). A systems approach to forecasting. Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, 14: 25-30. Orrell, D. and P. McSharry (2009). System economics: Overcoming the pitfalls of forecasting models via a multidisciplinary approach. International Journal of Forecasting, 25(4): 734-743. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Pacheco, D.F. and T.J. Dean (2010). Escaping the green prison: Entrepreneurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5): 464-480. Panapanaan, V.M. et al. (2003). Roadmapping corporate social responsibility in Finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2-3): 133-148.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



77

Pearce, R. (2009). Multinationals’ strategies and the economic development of small economies: A tale of two transitions. Management International Review, 49(1): 81-94. Phillips, R. and R.E. Freeman (2010). Stakeholders. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar. Post, J.E., L.E. Preston and S. Sauter-Sachs (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Quinn, J.B. (1978). Strategic change: “Logical incrementalism”. Sloan Management Review, 20(1): 7-19. Quist, J., W. Thissen and P.J. Vergragt (2011). The impact and spin-off of participatory backcasting: From vision to niche. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5): 883-897. Ramus, C.A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2): 151-164. Raven, R.P. (2006). Towards alternative trajectories? Reconfigurations in the Dutch electricity regime. Research Policy, 35(4): 581-595. Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Available at: https://www.oxfam.org/ sites/www.oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf. Reid, E.M. and M.W. Toffel (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11): 1157-1178. Reos Institute (2013). Scenarios case study series: Dinokeng scenarios: Collectively constructing a sustainable future for South Africa. Available at: http://reospartners.com/sites/default/files/131022%20Scenarios%20Case%20Study%20-%20 Dinokeng.pdf. Reos Partners (2009). Exploring what it will take to ensure sustainable food security in South Africa. Available at: http:// reospartners.com/project-view/348. Republic of South Africa (1996). The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996. Cape Town: Government Gazette. Rindova, V.P. and C.J. Fombrun (1999). Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8): 691-710. Robinson, D.K.R. (2009). Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9): 1222-1239. Robinson, J., et al. (2011). Envisioning sustainability: Recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5): 756-768. Rockström, J. et al. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263): 472-475. Rockström, J. et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2). Rockström, J. et al. (2013). Sustainable Development and Planetary Boundaries. Available at: http://www.indusvalley.edu.pk/ library/Arch/SACHS%20COURSE/Sustainable%20Development%20and%20Planetory%20Bounderies%206.pdf. Romar, E.J. (2009). Snapshots of the future: Darfur, Katrina, and maple sugar (Climate change, the less well-off and business ethics). Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1):121-132. Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



78

Rossouw, N. and K. Wiseman (2004). Learning from the implementation of environmental public policy instruments after the first ten years of democracy in South Africa. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(2): 131-140. Rothwell, R. (1992). Industrial innovation and government environmental regulation: Some lessons from the past. Technovation, 12(7): 447-458. Russo, M.V. (2003). The emergence of sustainable industries: Building on natural capital. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4): 317-331. SABMiller (2014). A prosperous future. Available at: http://www.sabmiller.com/home/stories/a-prosperous-future. SABMiller plc (2014). Sustainable development summary report 2014. Available at: http://www.sabmiller.com/docs/default-source/ investor-documents/reports/2014/sustainability-reports/sustainable-development-report-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=14. Saritas, O. and J. Aylen (2010). Using scenarios for roadmapping: the case of clean production. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(7): 1061-1075. Schein, E.H. (1993) How can organizations learn faster - The Challenge of entering the green room. MIT Sloan Management Review, 34(2): 85-92. Schilizzi, S. (2002). Triple bottom line accounting: How serious is it? Connections, Winter: 24-26. Available at: http://www. agrifood.info/connections/winter_2002/Schilizzi.html. Schot, J.W. and F.W. Geels (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 20(5): 537-554. Schuckmann, S.W. et al. (2012). Analysis of factors influencing the development of transport infrastructure until the year 2030—A Delphi based scenario study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8): 1373-1387. Schumpeter, J.A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York, NY: Harper. Scott, W.R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly: 493-511. Seelos, C. and J. Mair (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48(3): 241-246. Seelos, C. and J. Mair (2007). Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: A strategic view. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4): 49-63. Senge, P.M. and G. Carstedt. (2001). Innovating our way to the next industrial revolution. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(2): 24-24. Senge, P.M. et al. (2007). Collaborating for systemic change. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(2): 44-53. Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 681-697. Shefrin, H. (2002). Behavioral decision making, forecasting, game theory, and role-play. International Journal of Forecasting, 18(3): 375-382. Shiroyama, H. et al. (2012). Governance for sustainability: Knowledge integration and multi-actor dimensions in risk management. Sustainability Science, 7(1): p. 45-55.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



79

Smith, A.E. and M.S. Humphreys (2006). Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2): 262-279. Smits, R. (2002). Innovation studies in the 21st century: Questions from a user’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(9): 861-883. Southern Africa Food Lab (2014). The Southern Africa Food Lab (SAFL). Available at: http://www.southernafricafoodlab.org/. Starik, M. and G.P. Rands (1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 908-935. Stead, J.G. and E. Stead (2000). Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(4): 313-329. Szulanski, G. and K. Amin (2001). Learning to make strategy: Balancing discipline and imagination. Long Range Planning, 34(5): 537-556. The Presidency (2003). Towards a ten year review: Synthesis report on implementation of government programmes. Government Communication and Information Service, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa. The Presidency (2013). Development Indicators 2012. Available at: http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/MediaLib/Downloads/Home/ Publications/DPMEIndicators2013/DPME%20Indicators%202013.pdf. United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (2014). Insurance in a changing risk landscape: Local lessons from the Southern Cape of South Africa. A report by the research partnership between the Santam Group, the WWF, the University of Cape Town and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Available at: http://www.unepfi.org/ fileadmin/documents/insurance_changing_risk_landscape.pdf United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2014). Warsaw outcomes. Available at: http://unfccc.int/key_steps/ warsaw_outcomes/items/8006.php. Valente, M. (2010). Demystifying the struggles of private sector paradigmatic change: Business as an agent in a complex adaptive system. Business & Society, 49(3): 439-476. Van Tulder, R. and F. Fortanier (2009). Business and sustainable development: From passive involvement to active partnerships. In M. Kremer, P. Van Lieshout and R. Went, (Eds.), Doing good or doing better: Development policies in a globalizing world: 211. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. Vaz, T.d.N. and P. Nijkamp (2009). Knowledge and innovation: The strings between global and local dimensions of sustainable growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(4): 441-455. Vergragt, P.J. and J. Quist (2011). Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5): 747-755. Verreynne, M.L., P. Parker and M. Wilson (2013). Employment systems in small firms: A multilevel analysis. International Small Business Journal, 31(3): 405-431. Vurro, C., M.T. Dacin and F. Perrini (2010). Institutional antecedents of partnering for social change: How institutional logics shape cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1): 39-53. Wand, R. and F. Leuthold (2011). Feed-in tariffs for photovoltaics: Learning by doing in Germany? Applied Energy, 88(12): 4387-4399.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



80

Watson, T. (2012). We need a bigger boat: Sustainability in investing. Available at: http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/IC- Types/Survey-Research-Results/2012/09/Sustainable-investing-we-need-a-bigger-boat. Weerawardena, J. and F.T. Mavondo (2011). Capabilities, innovation and competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8): 1220-1223. Whiteman, G. and W.H. Cooper (2000). Ecological embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1265-1282. Whiteman, G. et al. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 307-336. Wilburn, K. (2009). A model for partnering with not-for-profits to develop socially responsible businesses in a global environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1): 111-120. Wiltbank, R., et al. (2006). What to do next? The case for non-predictive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(10): 981-998. Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 93-114. Wittneben, B.B. et al. (2012). Climate change and the emergence of new organizational landscapes. Organization Studies, 33(11): 1431-1450. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2014). http://www.wbcsd.org/home.aspx. York, J.G. and S. Venkataraman (2013). The entrepreneur-environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation and allocation. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 41(2). Zimmermann, M., I.-L. Darkow and H.A. von der Gracht (2012). Integrating Delphi and participatory backcasting in pursuit of trustworthiness—the case of electric mobility in Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(9): 1605-1621.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



81

Appendix 1: Additional Leximancer Analysis of Cited Articles In addition to our systematic literature review and inductive coding to identify emerging themes, we also analysed the literature using Leximancer. As discussed

in Section 7.3, Leximancer is text analysis software, which identifies first- and second-order themes and relationships through semantic and relational extraction, determining the lexical co-occurrence of concepts to demonstrate the lexical co-occurrence of the specified concepts to demonstrate semantic and grammatical clustering around dominant themes. It provides additional insight into the reviewed literature.

Figure 16 ADDITIONAL LEXIMANCER ANALYSIS OF CITED ARTICLES

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



82

The dominant themes identified in Figure 16 were in decreasing order of connectivity; (sustainable) development, market, change, countries (government), people and uncertainty. Except for the market theme a number of similarities in the concepts were observed between the literature and the interview data. Both recognise the roles of business (and the market within the literature) as well as government in sustainable development. Within the academic literature a number of theoretical paradigms inform business practices including strategy in ensuring economic sustainability at the organisational level within the limits imposed by social and environmental sustainability. These frameworks are sometimes viewed as conflicting. On the one end of the spectrum ethical and corporate social responsibility theories highlight altruism, corporate self-restraint and expansive government regulation. On the other extreme some classic economic theories espouse efficiency in maximising utility, fiduciary responsibilities, property rights and minimalistic regulatory intervention (Windsor, 2006). Economic theory in general therefore argues for market superiority reflected in Adam Smith’s invisible hand, seen to act in the public interest. In a similar vein, Friedman (1970) sees discretionary corporate social responsibility as dangerous in that it violates fiduciary responsibility, except as a long-term strategy for maintaining corporate reputation, for developing market opportunities or to avoid government regulations as a consequence of stakeholder reactions.

Providing clarity to the debate, Carroll differentiated corporate social responsibility into a hierarchy of responsibilities comprising: economic and legal (socially required or mandatory), as well as ethical (socially expected) and discretionary (philanthropy that is socially desired) responsibilities (Carroll, 1991). Corporate social responsibility is seen as the vehicle for creating and maintaining customer loyalty and company reputation by influencing stakeholders’ perceptions of a company’s social behaviour (Costa, 2013). Although empiric clarity in terms of causality is elusive, there is some evidence suggesting that good reputation in terms of environmental and social management pays when it comes to shareholders’ investment choices (Schilizzi, 2002). Both ethical and economic views therefore regard, to varying degrees, the importance of environmental and social impacts to the sustainability of the organisation and economic growth. This is in line with the stakeholder theory which posits that organisations operate within a network of interrelated stakeholders that create, sustain and enhance value creating capacity (Post, Preston and Sauter-Sachs, 2002). Negative social and environmental impacts are therefore likely to lead, sooner or later, to higher costs or liabilities. Disgruntled stakeholders, for example, represent a contingent liability, as it eventuates only if government or civil society takes action, hence requiring a proactive strategic posture (Schilizzi, 2002). As is visible in Figure 16 (right hand top side), the ‘strategic planning’ and ‘strategies’ concepts lies at the

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



83

intercept of the ‘change’ and ‘uncertainty’ themes. In adhering to their fiduciary responsibilities, management therefore engage in predictive processes that model the complex relationships between the regulatory (existing and potential), market, natural and social environments. Innovation, business operations and consumption have potential direct negative consequences to be accounted for, but may also have negative externalities. Externalities are spill-over effects of production or consumption that produce unpriced costs or benefits to other unrelated parties, which could be other companies or society more generally. Negative externalities include environmental costs incurred by businesses due to climate change, resource depletion and pollution. One of the challenges facing management is to anticipate not only the direct negative effects but also these externalities and to adapt their long-term behaviour and strategies in dealing with greater systemic risks. Environmental costs, for example, are unavoidable as they are ultimately reflected in insurance premiums, taxes, inflated input prices, and the physical cost associated with disasters.

Although business practices and innovation are seen to be culprits in negatively impacting sustainability, they could also be seen as the potential solution to environmental and social sustainability. In this vein, a sustainable entrepreneurial renaissance coupled with innovation are increasingly seen as having the potential to simultaneously create economic growth, while advancing environmental objectives and improving social conditions (Hall and Daneke, 2010). Market failures caused by environmental and societal pressures open up new opportunities for Schumpeterian (1950) creative destruction (Dean and McMullen, 2007). The market imperfections associated with sustainability opportunities include inefficient organisations, externalities, flawed pricing mechanisms and information asymmetries (Cohen and Winn, 2007). Although the sustainable entrepreneurship literature place emphasise of the role of for-profit new ventures as a supplement to regulation, corporate social responsibility, and activism in resolving environmental problems, there is no impediment on corporate entrepreneurs positioning themselves to take similar opportunities. Existing organisations do indeed strategically reposition themselves by responding to new entrants in adopting sustainability practices (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010).

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



84

About NBS South Africa NBS-SA is an affiliate of the Network for Business Sustainability, a non-profit based at Western University and UQAM in Canada. The Network for Business Sustainability produces authoritative resources on important sustainability issues with the goal of changing management practice globally. We unite thousands of researchers and business leaders worldwide who believe passionately in research-based practice and practice-based research. NBS-SA is hosted by the Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) at the University of Pretoria in partnership with the Graduate School of Business (GSB) at the University of Cape Town. NBS South Africa is funded by the Leadership Council members with additional support from the GIBS Transnet Programme in Sustainable Development. NBS-SA acknowledges the generous support and funding of the Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) at the University of Pretoria, the Graduate School of Business (GSB) at the University of Cape Town, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and EY.

NBS South Africa Leadership Council NBS-SA’s Leadership Council is a group of South African sustainability leaders from diverse sectors. At an annual meeting, these leaders identify their business sustainability challenges — the issues on which their organisations need authoritative answers and reliable insights. Their sustainability challenges prompt each of the NBS-SA’s research projects.

Planning for a Shared Vision of a Sustainable Future



85

CMYK 0-7-17-43

100% K

Reverse

50% K

Gordon Institute of Business Science 26 Melville Road, Illovo Johannesburg, South Africa +27 11 685 8500

Network for Business Sustainability c/o Ivey Business School Western University 1255 Western Road London, Ontario, Canada N6G 0N1 519-661-2111, x88980

nbs.net