Table of Contents

Introduction 1
Underlying Process of Change for Sustainability - What makes it complex? 3
Unit of Change (Single or Multiple Entities) 3
Mode of Change (Constructive/Prescribed or Planned/Emergent) 3
Continuity of Change (Episodic or Continuous) 3
Suggested steps to Implement the Change – Beware of the context 4
Models of Change for sustainability 4
Role of Context 5
Managing the pace of Change – Finding the right rhythm 6
External Factors 6
Internal Factors 6
Hack into Knowledge & Emotional Alignment to move ahead in the game 7
Knowledge alignment7
Invest in Organizational Learning and Innovation 7
Embed Sustainability as part of Strategy, Structure and Systems 7
Integrating and engaging with external stakeholders 8
Develop a periodic reporting mechanism 8
Emotional alignment 8
Sensemaking and shared meaning a panacea to Resistance 8
Effective Communication is a tool for high engagement. 8
Strong Leadership ensures high employee engagement 9
Embed Sustainability as part of Organizational Values & Culture 9
Defining the role of Consultant 9
Present Role 9
Proposed Role 10
Conclusion and insights 10
References 11

1
Introduction

Organisations exist intending to survive forever. To sustain for an infinite period, they
embrace changes that allow them to move ahead or stay in the game. With ever-increasing
attention being given to Sustainability, a massive shift is happening worldwide at economic,
societal and regulatory levels. Organisations are realigning and redesigning their processes to
sync with this change and contribute towards achieving SDG Goals set out by the United
Nations (SDGs UNDP, 2019). Firms are shifting away from the traditional for-profit
approach to a triple-bottom-line approach based on the three pillars of sustainability,
including people, planet, and profit (Elkington, 1997).

Organisational change, by definition, refers to activities that firms undertake to change their
processes or systems to move away from the current state and achieve the desired state
(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). In the context of Organizational Changes for sustainability, it
refers to changes that the company undertakes to achieve sustainability in terms of social,
economic, and environmental aspects (White & Stirling, 2013).

Since sustainability-oriented changes are novel, radical and complex, not many best practices
have yet been established to implement these changes in organisations in an effective manner.
Firms are struggling and seeking ways to make sense of this complex puzzle. According to
the co-head of Bain’s Sustainability and Responsibility practice, the success rate of
sustainability initiatives undertaken by companies is substantially lower than the success rate
of overall corporate change efforts (Environmental Analyst, 2021).

Assuming that the goal of the organisations is to survive through this transformational shift,
with this study, I examine different pieces of sustainability-related changes and try to
understand how we place these pieces in a manner that makes it easier for organisations to
adopt changes for sustainability cohesively. This study is divided into the following sections -

 Dynamics of sustainability-driven changes that make them complex.

 Suggested steps that help navigate through the changes and role of context.
 Factors that help organisations determine the appropriate pace to bring change.
 Internal levers the company can use to move ahead in the game.
 Role consultants play in adopting change for sustainability effectively.

2
Underlying Process of Change for Sustainability - What makes it complex?

What are the dimensions of change that make sustainability-related changes complex? This
question could be addressed by analysing sustainability-related changes through the lens of
change dimensions as recommended by Van De Ven & Poole (1995) and (Van de Ven,
2021b).

Unit of Change (Single or Multiple Entities) - Sustainability-related changes usually involve

multiple internal and external stakeholders. As most of the sustainability changes are
strategic, they involve multiple internal stakeholders of the organisation, including senior
leadership, functional teams, and individuals. Externally these changes usually need
engagement with the suppliers, customers, government, and competitors for collaborative
learning. Due to the involvement of multiple entities, the process becomes complex.

Mode of Change (Constructive/Prescribed or Planned/Emergent) – Most sustainability-

oriented changes need a high level of creativity to design newer ways of working that are
more sustainable than before. These innovations can pertain to the product, process, policy,
or technology. The fact that these changes do not benefit or build on our past learning makes
them constructive and emergent. Because of their emergent nature, predicting associated
experiences and outcomes becomes difficult, further intensifying their complexity.

Continuity of Change (Episodic or Continuous) – With the rapidly changing external

environment around sustainability in terms of changing legislation, customer demands, and
competitors’ moves, sustainability-related changes are becoming increasingly continuous and
dynamic. With the increasing frequency of these changes, organisations would need high
levels of internal alignment and high congruence with external stakeholders. The rising
intensity (both in terms of frequency and scale) of changes for sustainability has made them
more complex over the period.

Summarising it, Sustainability-related changes involve multiple entities, are

constructive/emergent and are becoming increasingly continuous, pushing them on the
complex side of the spectrum. Given that these changes involve multiple entities and are
emergent, they broadly fit into the category of evolutionary change. This contradicts Van De
Ven & Poole (1995), as the article places evolutionary change in the prescribed mode

3
category; however, referring to Van de Ven’s (2021b) article, evolutionary changes were
placed under the unplanned/emerging view section.

Suggested steps to Implement the Change – Beware of the context

Since sustainability-related changes are emergent and complex, it becomes more challenging
to lay out prescribed steps to address them. Some authors have tried to lay out steps or
models to help organisations navigate change for sustainability.

Models of Change for Sustainability

Lozano (2007) established a planning process that assists organisations in making a constant
move from the status quo towards becoming a more sustainability-oriented organisation
iteratively. He identified a list of barriers that impede this shift at the individual, group, and
organisational levels. He further categorised these barriers in terms of the respective attitudes,
i.e. whether these barriers are related to information, emotional, behavioural, or systemic
aspects of the three entities.

This framework scores well on incorporating the dynamism of unplanned changes by

encompassing attitudes around information, emotions, and behaviour for the organisation's
micro, meso and macro levels (Stouten et al., 2018). However, since the framework
considers change as a continuous process, it does not set clear demarcations regarding the
beginning or ending steps for defined change projects. This might impact the prioritisation
and monitoring of these projects. Also, without a sense of completion, it might impact
people’s motivation and weaken the reinforcement of the change.

Exter et al. (2013) adopted the 5-Step Change Management process to embed sustainability in
an educational institution.

1. Agreement on the task ahead

2. Diagnosis of the organisation (“As is”) and identifying the “To be” state
3. Identifying and skilling the leaders of change and the enablers
4. Stakeholder engagement via change projects
5. Dealing with obstacles, complexities, and conflict to sustain the change

This model performs well in terms of providing structured steps to implement unplanned
changes by applying steps suggested by popular models for planned changes (Stouten et al.,

4
2018). However, it does not sufficiently address the dynamic aspect of emergent changes
such as on-the-go improvisation, in-process learning, tapping into social networks, and
flexibility around people’s roles/responsibilities, emotions, and decision-making.

A few more noteworthy frameworks have been proposed for sustainability-related changes,
including the models by Benn et al. (2006), the process of transformational change by Roome
and Louche (2016) and the framework introduced by Stone (2006a, 2006b).

Role of Context

While implementing these steps, several subtleties need to be factored in, e.g. the scale and
scope of the change, the industry in which the organisation operates, the approach (top-down
or bottom-up) the firm adopts to integrate the change and the size/competencies of the
organisation.

The scale and scope of these changes can vary from incremental to transformational (Palmer
et al., 2017). The incremental change builds on the existing structure or strategy and diverts
slightly from the previous way of working. Conversely, transformational changes are
strategic-level changes that commonly involve or impact most organisations. Stouten et al.
(2018) highlight the gap in the literature around the influence of change features such as
scale, scope or required time on the change process.

The source of the change and how much time organisations have to respond to the change
varies a lot depending on the industry and the region. Some industries are undergoing a
transformation driven by regulatory changes (Oil & Gas), while others feel pressure due to
rapidly changing customer demand (Consumer Goods). Further, these factors may vary by
region since regulations are stricter in developed countries compared to developing countries
(Azmat and Samaratunge (2009). Also, consumers in developing countries are more price-
conscious than sustainability-conscious (Green et al., 1998). These variations can allow
companies to follow different strategies and steps to change.

Steps might also modify depending on the organisation’s approach to adopting sustainability-
related changes, i.e. a top-down or bottom-up approach (Van de Ven, (2021b)). In the top-
down approach, change can be driven by external factors or aligned with the leader's values.
The change flows from the top, is carried to different teams at different levels, and is
gradually built into the organisation’s culture. The change can move upwards where it

5
initiates from the middle management driven by their values, and the vision eventually gains
acceptance amongst the senior management.

Though these models exist, how well they function when applied to businesses still needs to
be tried and tested. Also, whether they will hold well in the changing context is another
aspect that deserves consideration.

Managing the pace of Change – Finding the right rhythm

The pace the organisation can maintain for sustainability-related changes is another element
that needs to be considered while planning and strategising around these changes, especially
when they are becoming continuous. The rhythm of change that a firm can maintain depends
on multiple factors broadly categorised as external and internal factors.

External Factors exist in the organisation’s external environment, including government

regulations, customer demand patterns, competitive landscape, and external stakeholders
(Lozano, 2015; Siebenhüner & Arnold, 2007). The role of external factors can be seen in two
ways – Outside-in and Inside-out. In the case of Outside-in impact, a change in the external
environment affects the expected pace of change from the organisation to match up and
survive. An Inside-out impact is when the organisation implements a sustainability-related
change and needs support and alignment from the external environment to succeed. How
dynamically these factors change or can change is a crucial determinant of how much pace an
organisation experiences.

Internal Factors – These are the capabilities that exist inside the organisation and play a
crucial role in how well-paced the organisation is in implementing these changes. Some
internal drivers of sustainability-driven changes are Organisational learning mechanisms,
Strategy, Systems & Practices, Leadership Style, and Culture (Lozano, 2015; Siebenhüner &
Arnold, 2007). These are the levers organisations work with to manage the pace of change.
Organisations manage these capabilities by scanning, identifying and reconfiguring them
(Wu et al., 2012).

When the external environment evolves faster than what the organisation can absorb using its
Internal levers, the company is at risk of losing in the game. When an organisation can evolve
rapidly by aligning its internal levers well, although external factors cannot match up with its
pace of change, the company might waste lots of resources. However, when the firm can
sustain a steady change tempo by synchronising its internal and external factors, it can gain a

6
competitive advantage. Klarner & Raisch (2013) established that setting a regular rhythm of
change pays off better in the case of a highly dynamic environment than a less dynamic one.
Maintaining a constant momentum would allow an organisation to avoid situations where it
hastily reacts to pressure situations (with time constraints), leading to sub-optimal decisions.
The organisation must competently align its internal mechanism to set this regular rhythm.

Hack into Knowledge & Emotional Alignment to move ahead in the game

There are several internal levers that organisations can use to their advantage to build a robust
mechanism to integrate Sustainability related changes. The outcomes of these changes
depend on how well an organisation can synchronise with all its critical stakeholders
concerning the knowledge shared and the emotional gaps addressed. Hence, I categorise these
levers into Knowledge and Emotional alignment (broadly aligned with attitudes identified by
Lozano (2007)).

Knowledge alignment

This category consists of those internal levers the organisation needs to align around the
knowledge and information being shared amongst the key stakeholders.

Invest in Organisational Learning and Innovation for Sustainability

Sustainability-related problems usually seek unique new solutions, making creativity (the
ability to design new solutions) one of the most instrumental factors in the success of these
changes (Lozano (2011)). Once new solutions have been identified, people need new skills
and knowledge to work with them. Therefore, training and development have been identified
as critical components of these changes (Edwards, 2009; Davis and Boulet (2016)). Solinger
et al. (2021b) suggest capitalising on people-oriented changes such as training and
organisational learning to bring about a positive shift in employee job attitudes. Stouten et al.
(2018) establish promoting change-related knowledge and ability as one of the critical steps
recommended by prescribed change models.

Embed Sustainability as part of Strategy, Structure and Systems

Aligning strategic decisions, business processes, change management capabilities and

operations around sustainability reduce the cognitive gaps between managers and
stakeholders (Zollo et al. (2009), leading to improved performance on account of
sustainability. Building infrastructure, systems, or practices related to knowledge

7
management and HRM around sustainability can help firms institutionalise change for
sustainability (Thakhathi et al. (2019). Stouten et al. (2018) consider aligning structures and
systems critical to strengthening and institutionalising the change.

Integrating and engaging with external stakeholders

Sustainability-driven changes usually spread across the value chain of a specific industry
(Albino & Beradi, 2012); hence need high integration with the external stakeholders. External
stakeholders often become a source of innovation and help establish new business models
through knowledge sharing (Benn and Martin (2010)). Stouten et al. (2018) identified the
critical role of stakeholders throughout the change process, especially while assessing the
change opportunity, forming the coalition and formulating the vision in a manner that
multiple stakeholders are addressed.

Develop a periodic Sustainability reporting mechanism

Organisational Reporting can be seen as a learning, systemic, planning and monitoring tool
that embeds sustainability into the organisation’s culture, strategy, and communication with
the stakeholders. (Higgins & Coffey, 2016).

Emotional alignment

This category comprises internal levers that a firm needs to align by addressing the emotional
gaps experienced by the key stakeholders.

Sensemaking and shared meaning a panacea to Resistance

Resistance has been identified as one of the critical barriers in the context of sustainability-
driven changes (Lozano, 2013). In this case, groups and individuals not only play the role of
the ones implementing the change but also act as contributors towards creative ideas and
innovations.

Since sustainability-oriented changes are emergent, sensemaking and shared meaning become
critical to avoid gaps in the interpretations of change agents and recipients (Mitleton-Kelly,
2011). Ford, Ford, &. D'Amelio (2008) established that the ability of change agents to
diagnose their own sensemaking is likely to influence agent-recipient relationships and
consequently will impact the change outcomes.

Effective Communication is a tool for high engagement.

8
Communication of the organisation’s vision and priorities around sustainability needs to be
very clear and well-understood by the teams and individuals. Firms must adopt effective
Information management and HRM practices to ensure clear communication and consistent
sensemaking among people (Stoughton & Ludema, 2012). Stouten et al. (2018) identify
communication as central to the change process, especially when the firm is forming a
coalition, formulating and communicating the vision to the relevant stakeholders.

Also, firms must be open to two-way communication to generate a more comprehensive set
of suggestions and ideas and to make people feel more involved and engaged with the
process (Van de Ven, (2021b)).

Strong Leadership ensures high employee engagement.

Leadership can have a multitude of impacts on change for sustainability as it influences the
organisation's strategy, culture, mindsets, and practices (Lee & Schaltegger, 2014).
Leadership also determines how involved employees feel while undergoing organisational
change for sustainability (Metcalf and Benn (2013)). Stouten et al. (2018) highlight
leadership competency and trust in leaders as a critical macro organisational level feature that
influences the outcome of the change process.

Embed Sustainability as part of Organisational Values & Culture

Even when leadership values are well aligned with sustainability, a solid organisational
culture needs to be developed around changes for sustainability (Davies, 2012; Verhulst &
Lambrechts, 2015). The culture runs through middle managers who make it stronger by
introducing and implementing the tools and programs related to changes for sustainability
(Stoughton & Ludema, 2012). Stouten et al. (2018) discuss embedding change in the
organisational culture to institutionalise change.

Defining the role of Consultants

Present Role - Consulting, a knowledge-driven industry (Von Nordenflycht, 2010), is

expected to play a significant role in the knowledge alignment aspect of change for
sustainability. From the point where consulting for sustainability used to be a niche, the
demand for these services is rising. Spending by companies on sustainability consulting is
expected to double over the next five years (Consultancy. uk, 2022). Two main reasons
primarily drive this demand: firstly, the nature of sustainability-driven changes is such that it
needs creative problem-solving, and secondly, the external environments of the organisations

9
in the context of sustainability are evolving rapidly. Consultants are already helping
organisations steer through knowledge alignment aspects, including integration of
sustainability in strategy & systems, setting up frameworks around organisational learning &
innovation for sustainability, setting up mechanisms for sustainability reporting and
formulating processes around stakeholder management.

Proposed Role - Considering that the challenges posed by sustainability-driven changes are
unique and need a new perspective, it is difficult to establish ‘best practices’ in this context.
So beyond a point, solutions provided by the consultants might also hit a glass ceiling
(Barthélemy, 2016). This calls for consulting industry to play a tangential role of knowledge
co-creators and a common platform for collaborative learning that can bring significant
industry players to the same stage where they brainstorm problems and their risks, share
knowledge, possible solutions and effective ways of implementing these solutions. When we
talk about Sustainability, we refer to a change unlike any other in terms of scale, complexity,
desired novelty and impact. To solve this puzzle, organisations need to join hands to establish
‘best practices’ that can be implemented at an industry-wide level, even across industries.

Conclusion and insights

With this paper, I aimed to apply elements of organisational change to sustainability-driven

changes to examine these changes from multiple facets and identify factors we can leverage
to adopt these changes effectively. Through this paper, I could achieve the following new
insights around sustainability-oriented changes:

 Diagnose the underlying levers that make these changes complex

 Examine the role of context while implementing the change steps towards achieving
sustainability.
 Streamline a mechanism based on internal and external factors that can determine the
rhythm of change for such changes.
 Classify the internal drivers of the organisations in the category of knowledge or
emotional alignment.
 Propose vital role consultants can play as knowledge co-creators or platform for
collaborative learning.

10
References

Albino, V., & Berardi, U. (2012). Green buildings and organizational changes in Italian case

studies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(6), 387-400.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and

research in the 1990s. Journal of management, 25(3), 293-315.

Azmat, F., & Samaratunge, R. (2009). Responsible entrepreneurship in developing countries:

Understanding the realities and complexities. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 437-

452.

Barthélemy, J. (2016). The impact of technical consultants on the quality of their clients’

products: Evidence from the Bordeaux wine industry. Strategic Management Journal,

38(5), 1174–1190.

Benn, S., Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (2006). Enabling Change for Corporate Sustainability:

An Integrated Perspective. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management,

13(3), 156–165.

Benn, S., & Martin, A. (2010). Learning and change for sustainability reconsidered: A role

for boundary objects. Academy of management learning & education, 9(3), 397-412.

Consultancy.uk. (2022, December 30). Sustainability consulting market worth $16 billion by

2027.

Davies, A. (2012). Achieving sustainability in manufacturing via organisational and

operational learning. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 5(2), 135-144.

Davis, K., & Boulet, M. (2016). Transformations? Skilled change agents influencing

organisational sustainability culture. Australian Journal of Environmental Education,

32(1), 109-123.

11
Edwards, M. G. (2009). An integrative metatheory for organisational learning and

sustainability in turbulent times. The learning organization.

Elkington, J. (1997). The triple bottom line. Environmental management: Readings and cases,

2, 49-66.

Environmental Analyst (2021, March 17). How Bainies are helping clients navigate the

sustainability revolution

Exter, N., Grayson, D., & Maher, R. (2013). Facilitating organizational change for

embedding sustainability into academia: a case study. Journal of Management

Development, 32(3), 319–332.

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story.

Academy of management Review, 33(2), 362-377.

Green, K., Morton, B., & New, S. (1998). Green purchasing and supply policies: do they

improve companies’ environmental performance?. Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal.

Higgins, C., & Coffey, B. (2016). Improving how sustainability reports drive change: a

critical discourse analysis. Journal of cleaner production, 136, 18-29.

Klarner, P., & Raisch, S. (2013). Move to the beat—Rhythms of change and firm

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 160-184.

Lee, K. H., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Organizational transformation and higher sustainability

management education: The case of the MBA sustainability management.

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.

Lozano, R. (2007). Orchestrating organisational changes for corporate sustainability:

overcoming barriers to change. Greener Management International, (57), 43-64.

Lozano, R. (2013). Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate

sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their

12
 strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 20(5), 275-295.

Lozano, R. (2014). Creativity and organizational learning as means to foster sustainability.

Sustainable development, 22(3), 205-216.

Lozano, R. (2015). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate social

responsibility and environmental management, 22(1), 32-44.

Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2013). Leadership for sustainability: An evolution of leadership

ability. Journal of business ethics, 112(3), 369-384.

Mitleton‐Kelly, E. (2011). A complexity theory approach to sustainability: A longitudinal

study in two London NHS hospitals. The Learning Organization.

Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Buchanan, D. (2016). EBOOK: Managing Organizational Change:

A Multiple Perspectives Approach (ISE). McGraw Hill.

Roome, N., & Louche, C. (2016). Journeying toward business models for sustainability: A

conceptual model found inside the black box of organisational transformation.

Organization & Environment, 29(1), 11-35.

Siebenhüner, B., & Arnold, M. (2007). Organizational learning to manage sustainable

development. Business strategy and the environment, 16(5), 339-353.

Solinger, O. N., Joireman, J., Vantilborgh, T., & Balliet, D. P. (2021). Change in unit‐level

job attitudes following strategic interventions: A meta‐analysis of longitudinal studies.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(7), 964-986.

Stone, L. J. (2006). Limitations of cleaner production programmes as organisational change

agents I. Achieving commitment and on-going improvement. Journal of cleaner

production, 14(1), 1-14.

13
Stone, L. J. (2006). Limitations of cleaner production programmes as organisational change

agents. II. Leadership, support, communication, involvement and programme design.

Journal of cleaner production, 14(1), 15-30.

Stoughton, A. M., & Ludema, J. (2012). The driving forces of sustainability. Journal of

Organizational Change Management.

Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change:

Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of

Management Annals, 12(2), 752-788.

Thakhathi, A., le Roux, C., & Davis, A. (2019). Sustainability leaders’ influencing strategies

for institutionalising organisational change towards corporate sustainability: A

strategy-as-practice perspective. Journal of Change Management, 19(4), 246-265.

Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational

performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes.

Academy of Management journal, 36(2), 239-270.

United Nations. (2022, October 24). Proposed global roadmap shows how universal access to

sustainable energy can be achieved by 2030.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2019 Sustainable Development Goals.

UNDP, New York

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in

organizations. Academy of management review, 20(3), 510-540.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2021). Projecting Backward and Forward on Processes of Organizational

Change and Innovation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(4), 436-446.

Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and

taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Review, 35(1),

155–174.

14
Verhulst, E., & Lambrechts, W. (2015). Fostering the incorporation of sustainable

development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management

perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 189–204.

White, R., & Stirling, A. (2013). Sustaining trajectories towards Sustainability: Dynamics

and diversity in UK communal growing activities. Global environmental change,

23(5), 838-846.

Wu, Q., He, Q., Duan, Y., & O'Regan, N. (2012). Implementing dynamic capabilities for

corporate strategic change toward sustainability. Strategic Change, 21(5), 231.

Zollo, M., Minoja, M., Casanova, L., Hockerts, K., Neergaard, P., Schneider, S., & Tencati,

A. (2009). Towards an internal change management perspective of CSR: evidence

from project RESPONSE on the sources of cognitive alignment between managers

and their stakeholders, and their implications for social performance. Corporate

Governance: The international journal of business in society.

15