Proposal for a Thesis in the Field of

Environmental Management

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the

Master of Liberal Arts Degree

PART 2 - “BACKGROUND AND DEFINITION OF TERMS”

Harvard University

Extension School

Zeina Othman Eyceoz

 I.

TENTATIVE TITLE

The proposed title for my thesis is “ Achieving Business Excellence through Sustainable

Development”

III.

DEFINITION OF TERMS*

“Ecoefficiency”: efforts to optimize energy and raw material efficiency to produce an

economic and ecological benefit derived from a reduction of environmental impact.

“Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)”: was established in 1997 to develop globally

applicable guidelines for reporting on economic, environmental and social performance.

It is convened by the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) in

partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In 2002 the GRI

was established as a permanent, independent, international body with a multi-stakeholder

governance structure. The Sustainability Reporting Guidelines were released in

September 2002.

“ISO 14000”: An environmental management standard related to what organizations do

that affects their physical surroundings.

*
Source of Definitions: American Society For Quality Glossary, url: http://www.asq.org/glossary/ retrieved
on Oct 20th 2007.
“ISO 9000 Series of Standards”: A set of international standards on quality management

and quality assurance developed to help companies effectively document the quality

system elements to be implemented to maintain an efficient quality system. The

standards, initially published in 1987, are not specific to any particular industry,

product or service. The standards were developed by the International Organization

for Standardization. The standards underwent major revision in 2000 and now

include ISO 9000:2000 (definitions), ISO 9001:2000 (requirements) and ISO

9004:2000 (continuous improvement).

“Lean Manufacturing”: Initiative focused on eliminating all waste in manufacturing

processes. Its goal is to incorporate less human effort, less inventory, less time to develop

products, and less space to become highly responsive to customer demand while

producing top quality products in the most efficient and economical manner possible.

“Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA)”: An award established by the

U.S. Congress in 1987 to raise awareness of quality management and recognize U.S.

companies that have implemented successful quality management systems. Awards can

be given annually in six categories: manufacturing, service, small business, education,

healthcare and nonprofit. The award is named after the late Secretary of Commerce

Malcolm Baldrige, a proponent of quality management. The U.S. Commerce

Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology manages the award, and

American Society for Quality administers it.

“Six Sigma”: A method that provides organizations tools to improve the capability of

their business processes. This increase in performance and decrease in process variation

lead to defect reduction and improvement in profits, employee morale and quality of
products or services. Six Sigma quality is a term generally used to indicate a process is

well controlled (±6 s from the centerline in a control chart).

“Stakeholder”: Any individual, group or organization that will have a significant impact

on or will be significantly impacted by the quality of a specific product or service.

“Total Quality Management (TQM)”: A term coined by the Naval Air Systems

Command to describe its Japanese style management approach to quality improvement.

Since then, TQM has taken on many meanings. Simply put, it is a management approach

to longterm success through customer satisfaction. TQM is based on all members of an

organization participating in improving processes, products, services and the culture in

which they work. The methods for implementing this approach are found in the teachings

of such quality leaders as Philip B. Crosby, W. Edwards Deming, Armand V.

Feigenbaum, Kaoru Ishikawa and Joseph M. Juran.

 IV.

BACKGROUND

The Introduction of Sustainable Development

Sustainable development is not new as a concept. It was discussed as a term in the

forestry field back in 1713. Hans Carl von Carlowitz, a forestry worker in Germany,

introduced the term when he suggested that the number of trees that are cut should equal

that of the trees that are able to grow again (Zhao 2004). In 1972 the idea of limits to

global growth to achieve a social and economic balance was suggested (Meadows et al,

1972). The modern commonly accepted definition of sustainable development is also

fairly recent. It was defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development

as, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987).

As companies embark on their path towards sustainability they find that it is not a

simple task to manage for the social, environmental and economic bottom lines.

Implementation of any strategy involves organizational programs and employees. In most

cases the environmental and quality management programs within companies have been

responsible for the sustainability initiatives. These programs are managed separately and

are not involved in the overall business strategy or finances. This makes it difficult to

manage for a triple bottom line. Both the environmental and quality management

programs have contributed valuable lessons to the advancement of sustainable

development. To understand how sustainable development can provide an integrating

framework, it is worthwhile to look at the evolution of these programs. This will

highlight the need and opportunity of systems integration and the future of organizational

sustainability.

The Evolution of Environmental and Quality Management

The Expanding Scope of Quality Management

The Environmental Management field stands to gain much from the evolution and

implementation of Quality Management. Many researchers are now drawing comparisons

to these related and synergetic areas.

As Table 1 outlines, in the early 1920s quality inspection of outgoing products was the

focus of quality management. In the 1940s, as a result of the work of Walter Shewhart

and others, Statistical Process Control techniques were introduced as a quantifying

measure to control product quality (ASQ). The Japanese were the first to extend the scope

of quality management to the process and parts of the organization in the Total Quality

control movement. Total Quality was a shift in the quality movement since it became

more of a philosophy (Broekhuis, Vos 2003). The Japanese became fierce competitors to

Western industry and in response many US companies implemented Total Quality

Management programs in the 1980s. The implementation of these programs came with

mixed results and some business executives assumed it was a passing fad (Broekhuis, Vos

2003). Managing quality was met with skepticism and the economic benefit had to be

proven to executives (Waddock, Bodwell 2004).

Throughout these developments the scope of quality management was shifting from the

product towards the customer and then the organization as a whole. Initiatives like Lean

Manufacturing and Just-in-Time inventory control were used to achieve resource

efficiency. These principals now extended the concept of quality beyond the organization
to the supply chain. International Standards such as the ISO 9000 series were developed

and adopted globally to establish auditing principles of quality practices in organizations

and provide a public display of adherence to quality practices (Affisco, Nasri 1996).

Business excellence frameworks were introduced in 1987 to help companies succeed in

an increasingly competitive environment (Pojasek 2007). Frameworks like the Malcolm

Baldrige Award in the US, the European Foundation for Quality Management Award

(EFQM), and the Australian Quality Award further extend the scope to include the

organization as a whole and its stakeholders. “ More than 75 business frameworks have

established themselves around the globe” (Pojasek 2008). Many researchers now see a

paradigm shift of the quality movement towards sustainable development and total

responsibility management. This extends the scope of the Quality Management System

(QMS) to environmental and social/ ethical responsibilities (Broekhuis, Vos 2003,

McAdam, Leonard 2003; Vanagas, Zirgutiene 2005; Waddock, Bodwell 2004).

Table 1
Timeline of the evolution of Environmental Management and Quality Management
Environmental Management Decade Quality Management
Stage or Strategy Stage or Strategy
Pollution accepted as a by product 1920 Quality Inspection
Safety Measures taken 1940-50 Statistical Process Control
End of Pipe Pollution Control 1960 Total Quality Movement in Japan
Compliance to Regulation 1970 Total Quality Management in West

Image Management 1980 ISO Standards and Business

Pollution Prevention and Excellence
Ecoefficiency
1987 Sustainable Development Defined
Stakeholder management and 1990- Extending Business Excellence to
integration of environmental issues 2000 include more stakeholders and
into operations a move towards move towards sustainable
sustainable development development
Future: Movement towards a fully integrated Sustainable Management System under a
Business Excellence Framework?
 The History of Environmental Management

In the early twentieth century pollution was considered an inevitable by product of

development and industry. During the l950s safety measures were introduced to protect

the workers. The 1960s brought a public interest in the environment and Rachel Carson’s

Silent Spring resulted in an increasing interest in the environmental practices of industry

(Karan, Maclean 2003). Pollution was still to a large extent an engineering problem dealt

with as an end-of-pipe solution. This had to change once environmental regulations were

introduced in the 1970s and compliance was the new goal for organizations.

The Bhopal, India incident, the Exxon Valdez, Love Canal and other highly visible

environmental incidents proved that environmental issues present a major risk to

organizations and a public image management concern (Karan, Maclean 2003). In

anticipation of regulations and with the advent of the Superfund some organizations

raised the motto “Beyond Compliance” and moved towards pollution prevention.

In 1990s the discover of the ozone hole, the Montreal Protocol and the Rio Summit

encouraged a new generation of organizations to take progressive environmental action

and seek ecoefficiency, resource reduction and sustainability (Zhao 2004). The Financial

benefit of environmental management still faces skepticism from management. Haveman

and Dorfman state “on the business side, bearing in mind the environmental effects of

performance measures like flexibility, throughput, and speed does not come easily to

most managers. The effect of waste reduction on costs provides the most direct evidence

of the value that environmental improvement can bring to a business, and pollution

prevention is one strategy essential to making this link. But cost savings are just one
indication of manufacturing excellence” (1995). There is a need to integrate

environmental costs in financial reporting and accounting (Garvare, Isaksson 2001).

Environmental Quality Standards such as ISO14000 have helped to set specifications to

organizational environmental management (Affisco, Nasri 1997). The importance of

business integration to environmental progress is implicit in the ISO14000 standards

(Dorfman, Haveman 1999).

The Practical Application of Sustainable Development

In an attempt to apply that broad definition to an organization, several authors

introduced the idea of the triple bottom line, the economic, social and environmental

(Topfer, 2000). For organizations the practical definition of sustainable development is

usually derived through alignment with strategy and stakeholder consultation (Goldsmith,

Samson 2005). Pojasek asserts “the organization implementing business sustainability is

always responsible for determining what is appropriate for its operational context”

(2008).

Many organizations are lacking the clarity on what sustainable development entails and

are instituted initiatives, some costly, that do not relate to the organizations mission and

strategy or provide the desired outcome (Goldsmith & Samson 2005). The Global

Reporting Initiative GRI provides a framework for organizations to report on their

sustainability activities. It is a standard form for organizations that wish to disclose their

sustainable performance publicly.

A Converging Trajectory towards Integrated Systems

Quality management tools enhance environmental performance, and the counter has also

been shown to be true (Pil 2003). The disciplines are inter-related and synergetic. It is
only natural in an effort for continuous improvement that researchers start calling for the

integration of these management systems (Klassen 1993, Waddock 2004, Chinader 2000).

With the emergence of several quality and environmental management standards and

various other reporting measures, organizations can use resources more efficiently and

reduce redundancy by designing a fully integrated system. “The focal point of quality

managers’ attention and responsibility will broaden from the quality of the product and

services toward environmental management, workplace health and safety, and production

and operations management” (Karapetrovic, Wilburn 1998).

Sustainable development provides a framework for a “system of systems”

(Karapetrovic, Wilburn 1998). Most organizations already have several quality

management systems in place and some implement a business excellence framework, it is

therefore more productive to alter the existing management systems into sustainable

excellence systems.

As shown in Figure 1, “business sustainability extends the use of business excellence

framework to a much broader stakeholder context” (Pojasek 2008). The principles of

business excellence are: Leadership and constancy of purpose, customer focus, results

orientation, management by processes and facts, people development and involvement,

continuous learning innovation and improvement, partnership development and public

responsibility. Garvare and Isaksson (2001) suggest that the customer focus concept has

been extended to meet the needs of various stakeholders. Goldsmith and Samson find a

strong link between organizational sustainable development and business success (2005).
 Figure 1. The focus on Business Sustainability (Source Pojasek 2008)

Modeling for a Path Forward

Efforts have been made by researchers to provide a model for a sustainability

framework based on the business excellence principles (Zhao 2004). Edgeman suggested

a BEST business excellence framework (BBE).

B- sustainability for bio/physical

E- sustainability for economic

S- sustainability for social; and

T- sustainability for technological

The business excellence construct to which BBE is most closely identified is the EFQM

(Edgeman 2002). Edgeman maintains that sustainable development and business

excellence share the same goal of optimization of resource use.

Garvare and Isaksson (2003) suggested that based upon the process view, “technology

could be seen more as an enabler more than an output”. Thus they introduced a 3E model

that is based on the triple bottom line approach, Economic, Environmental, Ethical and

proposed measurement standards for each dimension based on quality, environmental,

and sustainability reporting standards.

Pojasek (2000, 2007) proposed a business sustainability framework based on the

business excellence frameworks and using a business sustainability assessment matrix to

allow for independent scoring across the dimensions of the framework. The framework

would then incorporate the individual management systems within it. This model

emphasizes an employee and process focus (Pojasek 2007).

Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice

While the research has provided organizations with broad guidelines and suggestions,

deployment and integration into business process remains a complex task. Managers

seeking to integrate their systems and environmental concerns within their operations are

faced with many dilemmas. Many tools have been developed to help guide the

implementation of a sustainable development framework including process guides and

maps (Handfield et al 2001).

Researchers have found that certain conditions must be present in order for a sustainable

development framework to succeed. These conditions include but are not limited to

(Dorfman, Haveman 1999); Cultivating awareness and accountability by asserting senior

management commitment, goal setting and employee involvement and responsibility.

And integrating environmental issues within core business processes.

Research Goals

Building on the existing research this thesis will prove that sustainable development

requirements create an imperative for a comprehensive framework that businesses use to

move beyond the integration of the management systems to achieve business

sustainability. Researchers from many fields have contributed to this multidisciplinary

topic. Sustainable development is not merely an integration of quality and environmental

management systems or an integration of the corporate social responsibility agenda into

the total quality management program. This research will help show that in order for an

organization to successfully move towards sustainability it will need to implement a

holistic and overarching framework that aligns to its mission and strategy and integrates

the sustainability goals within its business processes and worker tasks. The thesis will

show that this approach will result in organizational business excellence. The research

methods used to prove this thesis will be discussed in the following section.
 VIII.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Society For Quality, History of Quality page, URL:

http://www.asq.org/history-of-quality/ retrieved on Oct 20th 2007.

Broekhuis, Manda, & Vos, Janita F.J. (2003). Improving organizational sustainability
using a quality perspective. University of Groningen. Research Institute SOM.

Chinader, Karan R. (2001). Aligning accountability and awareness for environmental

performance in operations. Production and Operations Management, 10,3,276-291.

Edgeman, R.L. & Hensler, D. A. (2002). Modeling BEST business excellence.

Measuring Business Excellence. 6,2,49-54.

Garvare, Richard, & Isaksson, Raine (2001). Sustainable Development: Extending the
scope of business excellence models. Measuring Business Excellence . 5,3,11-15.

Garvare, Richard, & Isaksson, Raine (2003). Measuring sustainable development using
process models. Managerial Auditing Journal. 18,8,649-656.

Goldsmith, Suzy, & Samson, Danny. (2007) The role and contribution of sustainable
development in organizational excellence. SAI Global Publishing Limited: Sydney,
Australia.

Haveman, Mark; Dorfman, Mark. (1999) Breaking down the green wall: Early efforts at
integrating business and environment at SC Johnson, Part 1, Corporate Environmental
Strategy, 6, 1

Haveman, Mark, & Dorfman, Mark (1998) Joining forces: Case studies in business and
environmental integration, A report by Inform Inc., ISBN# 0-918780-70-5
Jabbour, Charbel & Santos, Fernando (2006) Evolution of environmental management
within organizations: Towards a common taxonomy. Environmental Quality
Management. 10,1,43-59.

Karan, Elizabeth, & Maclean, Richard (2003) Corporate environmental organizations:

Evolving business management strategies. Corporate Environmental Strategy:
International Journal of Corporate Sustainability, 10, 8.

Karapetrovic, Stanislav, & Wilborn, Walter (1998). Integration of quality and

environmental management systems. The Quality Management Magazine,10, 3, 204-213

Klassen, Robert D, (1993). The integration of environmental issues into manufacturing.

Production and Inventory Management Journal, First Quarter, 34, 1,82.

McAdam, Rodney, & Leonard, Denis (2003). Corporate social responsibility in a total
quality management context: Opporunities for sustainable growth. Corporate
Governance. 3,4,36.

Meadows, D.H., & Meadows, D.L., & Randers, J., & Behrens, III, W.W. (1972). The
Limit to Growth- A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of
Mankind, Potomac Associates Book, Earth Island Ltd, London.

Pojasek, Robert B., (2000). Striving for environmental excellence with the Baldrige
model. Environmental Quality Management. Quality Toolbox. 9,3,91-98.

Pojasek, Robert B., (2000). Lessons learned and the Baldrige model for environmental
excellence. Environmental Quality Management. Quality Toolbox. 9,4,87.

Pojasek, Robert B., (2007). A framework for business sustainability. Environmental

Quality Management. Preprint (Obtained directly through Author)
Topfer, K. (2000). The Triple Bottom Line Economic, Social Natural Capital, UN
Chronicle, 36, 2, 39-41

Vanagas Povilas, & Zirgutiene, Sandra (2005). TQM paradigm shift in the context of
change management. Engineering Economics. 3,43,42-48.

Waddock, Sandra, & Bodwell, Charles (2004). Managing Responsibility: What can be
learned from the quality movement. California Management Review. 47,1,25-37.

Wlodarczyk, J., & Pojasek, R.B., & Moore, D., & Waldrip, G. (2000). Using a systems
approach to improve process and environmental performance. Environmental Quality
Management. 9,4,53.

World Commission on Environment and Development & Brundtland, G. H. (1987) Our

common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yin, Robert K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. 5th Edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.