See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282184670

What Is Sustainability?

Article · November 2011

CITATIONS READS

4 19,896

5 authors, including:

Fadi Kotob
King's Own Institute
8 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Obstacles to fulfilling the care mission of a Lebanese not-for-profit organisation: A study using stickiness theory View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fadi Kotob on 26 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 What Is Sustainability?

Fadi Kotob
MPM, BComm/BIS, ADipIT, DipIT
University of Wollongong , Faculty of Business, Level 8, 1 Macquarie Place, Circular Quay
Sydney, NSW 2000
!
Phone: +614 16 778 872
fadik@uow.edu.au
!
ABSTRACT
!
Over the last 50 years, there has been considerable research associated with
sustainability related matters. Initial studies of the subject were typically directed towards
understanding environmental sustainability. However, research into the field has evolved
over time and is now incorporating various sustainability aspects away from simply
environmental issues.
!
The problem is that the research does not seem to be achieving the long-term
sustainability goals. Academics and practitioners have both been calling for more
sustainable practices which tends to go unnoticed. For instance, natural resources are still
being unsustainably exploited and businesses are still failing to sustain supplies. This
research aims at clarifying what the term “sustainability” means which can support
delivering measurements that can quantify how organisations are progressing in their
quest toward achieving their sustainability goals.
!
In order to understand what the term means, a journal articles review was conducted. The
research uncovered how the meaning of the term evolved over time and is no longer
environmentally bound. Furthermore, it is clear that the definitions of the term are high
level and typically not industry specific. This is clear from the most quoted sustainability
definition presented in the Brundtland World Commission report (1987). The term was
defined as “the development that meets the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
!
The generality of the term and the lack of measurements could explain why this
increasingly explored topic is still failing to deliver long-term sustainability in the
marketplace.
!
!
1.0 INTRODUCTION
!
Research into the field of sustainability has increased considerably in the last decade.
This could be attributed to the increasing awareness of global warming and the perceived
impacts of this phenomena. On another note, “there is an increase in education and
awareness relating to energy consumption and their prices, the knowledge of the science
behind climate change, and the business effect that environmental and social sustainability
could have on the business” (Carter & Easton, 2011). This research is important in order to
understand what the term means and deliver measurements that can quantify the progress
towards achieving sustainability goals.
!
This importance is evident from the increasing debate and actions taken by government to
support delivering a sustainable future. For instance, the Australian Government is
1
continuously implementing living green initiatives. They rolled out the green loans and
home insulation programs which proved to be highly demanded by consumers. Currently,
they are preparing to deliver the emission trading scheme due to become law in July 2012.
By understanding what sustainability means, valid measurements could be identified to
support achieving sustainability in the marketplace (Erol et al. 2009) .
!
This article is mainly based on a review of studies which previously attempted to study the
subject of sustainability. However, the term is still ill defined and somewhat debatable.
Same as any controversial issue, the extent of the problem tends to be debated for long
periods of time without resulting in taking urgent actions to deliver sustainability. Personal
Sustainability (2010) stated that making sustainability alive requires making the issue
deeply personal by having it as a way of life. The study stated that it is a lot more than
what gets quantified and rationalised as corporations, governments and institutions try to
benchmark, measure and monitor performance in order to look socially and
environmentally responsible and thus moving the issue aside. This approach of treating
sustainability as a mean to achieve personnel goals is inappropriate. Add to that, the
current silos approach is failing to deliver the needed outcomes. The Australian
Government could take extensive actions to support delivering the sustainability goals.
However, the large impacts needed could only be achieved by globally collaborating with
various parties worldwide. This action should incorporate global governments as
influencers with a leading goal of achieving sustainability.

The problem is that achieving sustainability is often looked at from an environmental

perspective which has a low priority comparing to other economical and social goals.
These goals include the need to deliver economical growth, fight famine and increase
organisational bottom lines.

!
2.0 Understanding and Achieving Sustainability
!
The following sections will present what the term sustainability means and how it can be
achieved:
!
· Sustainability Definition
· Sustainability History
· Sustainability Research
· How to Achieve Sustainability
!
!
2.1 Sustainability Definition
!
Many studies attempted to research and define sustainability. Some were limited in their
view of what the term means while others showed that the term can only be explained by
looking at many interconnected aspects which together, define the meaning of
sustainability. For instance, Operations Management literature tends to consider
sustainability from an ecological perspective without incorporation the social aspects of
sustainability (Sarkis, 2001; Hill, 2001; Daily and Huang, 2001). Other studies such as
Carter & Rogers (2008) looked at sustainability from the economical, social and
environmental aspects while incorporating the business aspects of risk management,
transparency, strategy and culture. The research found differing sustainability definitions
depending on the aspects that authors attempted to study.
2
!
For instance, Business and Sustainable Development: A Global Guide (1992) stated that
“sustainability for a business enterprise means adopting business strategies and activities
that meet the needs of the enterprise and stakeholders today, while protecting, sustaining
and enhancing the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future”.
!
Shrivastava (1995a, p. 955) on the other hand described sustainability as “offering the
potential for reducing the long-term risks associated with resource depletion, fluctuations in
energy costs, product liabilities, pollution and waste management”.
!
However, the most familiar sustainability definition was presented in the Brundtland World
Commission report (1987). The term was defined as “the development that meets the
needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs”.
!
The generality of these definitions presents the risk for the meaning to be mis-understood.
Understanding and achieving sustainability requires a shift to a meaning that is specific
and can be quantified, in order to monitor the progress towards achieving the sustainability
goals.
!
!
2.2 Sustainability History
!
Research aimed at defining and achieving sustainability have been around for centuries.
The term can be found in the 1650’s when presented in the german word of
Nachhaltigkeit. At that time, research looked at preserving soils which could support the
sustainability of wood supplies. Furthermore, the author stated the need to plant as many
trees as the ones extracted in order to protect future supplies (Carlowitz, 1713).
!
The research into the topic has increased in the 19th century fuelled by the negative
environmental impacts caused by people. In 1962, a marine biologist named Rachel
Carson published her book “Silent Spring” where she assessed how the use of chemicals
are harming wildlife and would ultimately poison humanity by causing illnesses such as
cancer. The work resulted in banning a number of chemicals a decade later after the public
anger which was typically the result of the fear that poisoning and pollution would soon
impact on the food supply chain (Carson, 1962). Social critiques that followed Carson
attributed the environmental degradation to systemic factors such as a profit driven
business cultures rather than a random neglect (Ricketts, 2010).
!
Paul Ehrlich continued on Carson’s work and presented a fearful view of mass starvation
in the future. This starvation was attributed to the environmental destruction and worldwide
overpopulation. The author stated that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the
1970s, the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve
to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date, nothing can
prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate... population control is the only
answer”. In the author’s opinion, sustainability starts by resolving the issue at the source
and controlling population (Ehrlich, 1968). This is an interesting view when thinking about
countries such as China implementing the one child policy in order to safeguard against
overpopulation.
!
The research continued with Barry Commoner’s who in 1971 published the book “The
Closing Circle”. Similar to Ehrlich, the author also believed there is a need for urgent
3
actions. Both Ehrlich and Commoner proposed comprehensive, even coercive policy
responses. For instance, Ehrlich promoted the need for taking actions at home to control
population growth which would result in worldwide awareness and action. This goal could
be achieved by providing incentives and issuing penalties depending on people’s
responses to the policy. Furthermore, nations must have the political power to push
countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control in
order to reverse environmental deterioration which could ruin the planet. The messages of
both Ehrlich and Commoner resulted in Hollywood incorporating these messages into
movies that reached millions of people worldwide.
!
Today, calls for sustainability actions are increasing. The needed actions could come from
various sources such as governments changing their policies and regulations,
organisations engaging in voluntary social responsibility programs built on conscious, and
educating people to change their consumption patterns. As Annie Leonard (2011) said,
“we buy things we don’t need with money we don’t have to impress neighbours we don’t
even like”. With over population and the limited availability of resources, sustainability is
becoming more important. This importance showed in the Brundtland World Commission
Report (1987) which looked at the environmental and non environmental aspects of
sustainability. The report looked at many issues. For instance, they looked at the
environmental impact of the economical activity in both developing and industrialised
economies (Erlich & Erlich, 1991). Another issue they looked at is how to ensure that that
basic human needs are met (Savitz & Weber, 2006). Furthermore, they looked at the need
to assure the conservation of non-renewable resources(Whiteman & Cooper, 2000). The
report’s definition of sustainability has been endlessly quoted and paraphrased by today’s
sustainability practitioners.
!
Recently, the term is being used to discuss the integration between the social,
environmental and economical aspects of sustainability. This is evident by the 68% of
global 250 firms generating sustainability reports who covered these aspects. This was
not the case in the 1999 where the primary emphasis was on environmental
reporting(Carter & Rogers, 2008).
!
!
2.3 Sustainability Research
!
The research into sustainability has been wide and diverse. This section is aimed at
presenting that diversity by showing some of the recent researches relating to the topic.
!
Starting with the study from Erol et al. (2009) which looked at grocery retailers in Turkey.
The author identified the drivers of sustainability by evaluating the social and economical
aspects of sustainability. This research resulted in developing a tool for measuring
sustainability performance. In order to have correct measurements, the study concentrated
on finding indicators that are suitable for the purpose which were then used when
surveying people in the business world. Achieving the sustainable development goals
requires that organisations be able to measure the sustainability of their current behaviour
as well as the direction in which they are moving, before identifying the size of changes
required to meet the sustainability goals (Gray and Wiedeman, 1999).
!
Another research from White (2009) looked at the environmental, social and economical
aspects of sustainability. The author stated that depending on the situation, an
organisation might focus on the social or environmental aspects of sustainability.
However, organisations must always look at the economical aspect in order to exist in the
4
future and deliver the other two. Furthermore, organisations must have a strategy in place
to support acting responsibly. The strategy will need to cover the ethicals aspects of
sustainability. This includes many aspects such as ensuring that an ethical business
conduct is followed and a responsible and sustainable method of sourcing is used.
Furthermore, the strategy should also look into all supply chain operational aspects and
ensuring that the business is acting in a socially and environmentally responsible manner.
!
Paulraj (2011) on the other hand stated that achieving sustainability requires organisations
keeping a close eye on the supply side practices. This study similar to the previous ones
explored the need to look at the environmental and social aspects of sustainability while
providing economical growth.
!
The study of Porter and Kramer (2006) showed that organisational sustainability lies at the
intersection of the economical, environmental and social aspects of sustainability which
can ultimately lead to a long lasting competitive advantage. The study identified some
components of supply management such as supplier selection, environmental
collaboration and supplier evaluation which helps in improving the synergy between supply
partners. In summary, the study had many similarities with the sustainability aspects
researched by previous authors, but differed in its concentration on the supplier side of the
chain.
!
The other study of Shukla, Deshmukh & Kanda (2010) also looked at the environmental
and social aspects but not the economical one. However, the study also explored the
importance of incorporating flexibility into the operation in order to improve service levels,
the speed of delivery and the ability to customise products and services. The importance
of incorporating flexibility is crucial in order to increase delivering the needed customised
products and services to consumers.
!
Sarkis, Helms & Hervani (2010) looked at the social and ethical aspects of sustainability.
The study concentrated on reverse logistics and the environmental implication of recycling
and reuse. The author believes that while environmental sustainability was a well explored
subject, the social aspects were rarely considered.
!
Closs, Speier & Meacham (2011) also looked at the ethical aspect of sustainability
specifically relating to education. The author believes that employing effective global
sustainable strategies helps in increasing profitability through operational efficiencies,
enhancements in people and community commitments while minimising the need to rely
on scarce natural resources. The author stated that a sustainable supply chain reflects the
firm’s ability to plan for, mitigate, detect, respond to, and recover from potential global
risks.
!
The study of Carter & Rogers (2008) suggested looking at organisational sustainability
from the three components of the natural environment, society, and economic
performance. The authors did not encourage undertaking social and environmental goals
relating to the supply chain as this would be socially irresponsible from a sustainable
supply chain management perspective. This view was shared by Porter and Kramer
(2002) who stated that sustainability must be looked at from a broad context of a firm’s
overall strategic and financial objectives. In the study, the authors discussed how supply
chain professionals are in an outstanding position to impact on sustainability practices by
implementing activities such as reducing packaging, improving working conditions, using
more fuel efficient transportation, and obliging suppliers to undertake environmental and
social programs (Carter & Rogers, 2008). These actions can deliver the social and
5
environmental sustainability goals, but are also reducing costs, improving corporate
reputation and delivering economical sustainability. Achieving cost savings is the result of
reducing packaging waste (Mollenkopf et al., 2005; Rosenau et al., 1996), reducing health
and safety costs, lowering recruitment and labor turnover costs resulting from having
better and safer working conditions (Brown, 1996; Carter et al., 2007), lowering labor costs
through better working conditions, increasing motivation and productivity, and reducing
absenteeism (Holmes et al., 1996; McElroy et al., 1993). These actions could improve the
organisational reputation which will make it more attractive to suppliers and customers
(Ellen et al., 2006), prospective employees (Capaldi, 2005), and shareholders (Klassen &
McLaughlin, 1996). This in turn will deliver the long-term goal of organisational
sustainability.
!
Another view of sustainability discussed by Nasr (2010) presented the need for
organisations to address the challenge of sustaining materials availability which is
becoming scarce especially for rare earth elements. While an increasing demand would
usually be met by an increase in supply, this is not the case where china, the producer of
97% of these elements decided to cut the exporting of these resources by 72%.
!
Finally, Norton (2010) looked at sustainability in terms of the five categories of products,
operations, social responsibility programs, employee engagement and stakeholders. The
categories of products and operations looked at the impact of these activities on the
environment which resulted in setting up goals for minimising those effects in the future.
Social responsibility looked at the need to create programs which will help in reaching and
assisting 300 million children over a period of 5 years. Employee engagement looked at
the need to ensure that employees are engaged in the workforce and contributing towards
supporting the sustainability initiatives while working in collaboration with stakeholders to
innovate and improve the business.
!
Overall, the term sustainability was interchangeably being used to talk about
environmental sustainability. The meaning of the term has evolved over time to incorporate
the economical, social and ethical aspects of sustainability with extensive research
currently existing in the field.
!
!
2.4 How To Achieve Sustainability
!
Achieving sustainability is highly dependent on the environment in which it is being
implemented. The process starts by first understanding what the term means for that
environment.
!
For example, Nasr (2010) by looking at how to make rare earth elements sustainable
recommended adopting sustainable production practices. The article showed an
increasing demand for these resources and a limited supply availability. However,
implementing things such as product recovery, remanufacturing and closed-loop material
recycling will result in looking outside the box for available and reusable resources which
would drive the long-term availability of these resources.
!
Another implementation of sustainability presented in Norton’s (2010) interview with Peter
White showed how Procter & Gamble incorporated the sustainability goals in the DNA of
the business by updating their purpose, values and sustainability principles. However,
engaging the workforce was necessary for achieving these sustainability goals. One way
to achieve this engagement is through supporting employees and their passion towards
6
the community by encouraging activities such as volunteering and charity. If these
employees are not engaged, it would be difficult for the organisation to achieve the
sustainability goals.
!
The above sustainability implementation examples shows the diversity and differences in
the methods used to achieve the sustainability objectives. They also show the openness
of misinterpretation especially where real measurements are not existent. This could
typically explain why sustainability in todays global world is not existent.
!
!
3.0 Sustainability Models
!
Many sustainability models have been presented through time by sustainability
researchers. The section below will present a few of these models.
!
!
3.1 Carter & Rodgers Sustainability Model
!
The model of Carter & Rodgers (2008) was derived from the need to move away from a
standalone thrive to achieve sustainability to a more collaborative approach. Within a
business environment, this meant that managers were often working in a standalone
fashion when initiating and managing projects. This ineffective approach needed to be
replaced by a collaborative approach that is supported by having an understanding of the
strategic goals that support an organisations overall sustainability position. From the
literature review, they suggested that organisational sustainability consists of three
components of natural environment, society, and economic performance. This analysis
resulted in the triple bottom line sustainability model presented in figure 1 below:

Figure 1 - Carter & Rodgers Triple Bottom Line Sustainability Model

!
7
The model was amended following additional research to incorporate risk management,
transparency, strategy and culture. This analysis resulted in the sustainable supply chain
management model presented in figure 2 below:
!

!
!
Figure 2 - Carter & Rodgers Sustainable Supply Chain Management Model
!
!
The model shows that managers are invited to identify activities that can deliver the
economical sustainability goals while at the same time, avoid causing negative social and
environmental impacts. When intersections between the different circles each presenting
one aspect of sustainability occurs, the authors marked these intersections as being good,
better or best, depending on the level of support these intersections are having for
supporting achieving the sustainability goals. The good intersection is achieved when both
the environmental and social aspects of sustainability are achieved, but not the
economical one. Achieving the sustainability goals starts increasing when the intersection
includes the economical circle of sustainability. This model included risk management due
to the recurrence of the term in the studies conducted for achieving sustainability. These
studies found that achieving sustainability requires managing not only short-term financial
results, but also risk factors such as the harm resulting from delivering products and the
negative environmental waste that this delivery is causing (Shrivastava,1995b). The model
also incorporated strategy where actions should only be taken to support the strategic
business goals. Furthermore, the model also incorporated the need for transparency which
can only be achieved by engaging with stakeholders and integrating with suppliers.
Finally, the model included the organisational culture which needs to be supportive for

8
change and the thrive towards achieving sustainability in order for these efforts to be
successful.
!
!
3.2 Closs, Speier & Meacham’s Sustainability Model
!
The model of Closs, Speier & Meacham (2011) was developed through data collection and
analysis. The data was collected from a number of global organisations before being
analysed and presented in the model. The study resulted in looking at the environmental,
ethical, educational and economical aspects of sustainability. These dimensions are
presented in figure 3 below:
!

!
!
Figure 3 - Closs, Speier & Meacham’s Sustainability Model
!
!
The environmental aspect looked at environmental sustainability which was impacted by
the external regulations often imposing the responses needed for dealing with
environmental issues. These regulations were incorporated in the organisational
responses who tried to reduce usage, conserve resources and implement effective
business practices. The educational aspect of sustainability concentrated on ensuring the
continuous development of talent through training in order to replace current employees in
the future. Furthermore, it included using sustainable business practices where suppliers
are trained and the business is sustainable. Finally, it included managing the relationships
with employees by educating them on how to be safe and enjoy a sustainable living
through an appropriate life and work balance. The ethical aspect looked at issues relating
9
to corporate social responsibility which included the dimensions of employee relations,
community involvement and business management practices. Managing relations with
employees was supported by implementing a code of conduct which was important
especially for firms with global supply chains where child labor, fair wages, and working
conditions are of particular importance. These code of conducts helps in setting the
foundations about the acceptable norms in the organisation. Another aspect is community
connection where employees are encouraged to increase their links with the community
through volunteering and charity. Finally, business management practices aimed at
promoting the need for ethical behaviour which can be embedded in the business by
different means such as using safe material acquisition and the production of safe
products to consumers. Finally, the economic aspect shows the need for organisations to
enhance the value they offer while reducing their supply chain costs. The model proposed
looking at the internal and external aspects of sustainability. Internally, the practices needs
to be sustainable. However, internal sustainability without a good management of
suppliers for instance, will not deliver the needed sustainability objectives of the
organisation. Hence, sustainability can only be achieved by managing both of these
aspects. The sustainability categories presented in the study are available in figure 4
below.

!
!

!
!
Figure 4 - Closs, Speier & Meacham’s Sustainability Categories
!
!
10
4.0 CONCLUSION
!
This article attempted to provide an understanding of what the term sustainability means.
In an environment where sustainability is typically lacking, it is important to understand
why this is currently the case. If there is a current understanding of what sustainability
means, why is it that organisations are always experience a break in their ability to deliver
supplies to their clients? Why is the impact of global warming becoming more visible
through time? Why are more people suffering famine in Africa? Why natural resources are
being depleted without a thinking about the way to preserve these resources in the future?
All of these are questions that we do not seem to have the answers for in todays business
world.
!
This brings me to a conclusion that sustainability the way it should be is typically lacking.
This might be because achieving sustainability is not a free exercise and is often assumed
to be uneconomical. This might be seen as true especially when sustainability is
interchangeably being used to discuss environmental or green issues. Why would an
organisation decide to become environmentally sustainable? At the end, they are in the
business to make money and not protect the environment.
!
Hoffman and Bazerman (2005, p. 16) answered this question by simply saying that “the
key to resolving this debate is recognising that social and environmental behaviours are
sometimes profit-compatible and sometimes not. When parties acknowledge this simple
fact, it becomes easier to persuade corporations to adopt (environmental and social
initiatives) that are mutually beneficial. This thinking moves us beyond the simple question,
“Does it pay to be green?””.
!
Sustainability must be looked at from a broad aspect away from simple environmental
issues. Actions could be implemented to achieve sustainability. However, the only true
road to sustainability is using a long-term thinking approach away from short term bottom
line measures.
!
!
4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK
!
It is recommended to study and understand the reasons why the assumably known
meaning of sustainability is failing to deliver real sustainability within the global
marketplace in general and specifically within a business environment. This research must
start from the current general understanding of what sustainability means before
researching the reasons why sustainability is typically lacking.
!
While sustainability is typically lacking, this could be the result of using inappropriate
measurements which are not supportive of monitoring progress towards achieving
measured sustainability goals. As a result, the recommended research will seek to identify
bilateral measures of corporate social responsibility within supply networks. This is
important because the lack of measures is meaning a lack of compulsion in the
marketplace. When these measures are available, monitoring and compulsion starts
becoming more important in supply networks. The overall goal of the research is ensuring
that organisations become socially responsible not only to protect the bottom line because
this approach means doing the minimum to abide by the regulations, but rather, feeling the
morale obligation to thrive for becoming socially responsible in order to protect the long-
term bottom line supply. It is recommended to conduct interviews with professionals within
the Australian market in order to collect appropriate sustainability measures. These
11
measures will help set a benchmark for comparing the sustainability performance across
organisations.
!
!
References List
!
•Brown, K 1996, ‘Workplace safety: A call for research’, Journal of Operations
Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 157-161.
•Brundtland World Commission Report, 1987, Our common future,Oxford University Press,
New York.
•Business and Sustainable Development: A Global Guide1992, accessed on accessed
25/8/2011, <http://www.bsdglobal.com/pdf/business_strategy.pdf<
•Capaldi, N 2005, ‘Corporate social responsibility and the bottom line’, International
Journal of Social Economics, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 408-423.
•Carlowitz, H 1713, ‘Sylvicultura oeconimica’, Nachhaltigkeit auf Zeit, p. 78.
•Carson, R 1962, Silent spring, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
•Carter, C & Jennings, M 2002, ‘Logistics social responsibility: An integrative framework’,
Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 145-180.
•Carter, C & Rogers, D 2008, ‘A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving toward new theory’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 360-387.
•Closs, D, Speier, C & Meacham, N 2011, 'Sustainability to support end-to-end value
chains: The role of supply chain management', Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 101-116.
•Commoner, B 1971, The closing circle: Nature, man, and technology, Alfred A. Knopf,
New York.
•Daily, B & Huang, S 2001, ‘Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource
factors in environmental management’, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1539-1552.
•Ehrlich, P 1968, The population bomb, Ballantine Books, New York.
•Erlich, P & Erlich, A 1991, The population explosion, Touchstone, New York.
•Ellen, P, Webb, D & Mohr, L 2006, ‘Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions
for corporate social responsibility programs’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 147-157.
•Erol, I, Cakar, N, Erel, D & Sari, R 2009, 'Sustainability in the Turkish retailing industry',
Sustainable Development, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 49-67.

12
•Gray, P & Wiedeman, P 1999, ‘Risk management and sustainable development: Mutual
lessons from approaches to the use of indicators, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 2, no. 3,
pp. 201–218.
•Hill, M 2001, ‘Sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions, and international operations
management’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 21, no.
12, pp. 1503-1520.
•Hoffman, A & Bazerman, M 2005, ‘Changing environmental practice: Understanding and
overcoming the organizational and psychological barriers’, Harvard Business School, no.
05, pp.43.
•Holmes, S, Power, M & Walter, C 1996, ‘A motor carrier wellness program: Development
and testing’, Transportation Journal, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 33-48.
•Klassen, R & McLaughlin, C 1996, ‘The impact of environmental management on firm
performance’, Management Science, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1199-1214.
•Leonard, A 2011, The story of staff, presentation, escaping SILOS SSEE 2011
International Conference, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, delivered 24
October.
•McElroy, J, Rodriguez, J, Griffin, G, Morrow, P & Wilson, M 1993, ‘Career stage, time
spent on the road, and truckload driver attitudes’, Transportation Journal, vol. 33, no. 1, pp.
5-14
•Mollenkopf, D, Closs, D, Twede, D, Lee, S & Burgess, G. 2005, ‘Assessing the viability of
reusable packaging: A relative cost approach’, Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 26, no. 1,
pp. 169-197.
•Nasr, N 2010, ‘Sustainability’s next frontier’, Industrial Engineer, vol. 42, issue, 12, pp.
24-25.
•Norton, J 2010, 'Interview with Peter White', Strategic Direction, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 33-36.
•Paulraj, A 2011, 'Understanding the relationships between internal resources and
capabilities, sustainable supply management and organizational sustainability', Journal of
Supply Chain Management, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 19-37.
•Personal Sustainability 2010, accessed on accessed 25/8/2011, <http://
www.business21c.com.au/2010/09/personal-sustainability>
•Porter, M & Kramer, M 2002, ‘The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy’,
Harvard Business Review, vol. 80, no. 12, pp. 56-68.
•Porter, M & Kramer, M 2006, ‘Strategy and society: The link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, issue.
12, pp. 78-92.
13
 •Ricketts, G 2010, The roots of sustainability, Princeton, New Jersey.
•Rosenau, W, Twede, D, Mazzeo, M & Singh, S 1996, ‘Returnable/reusable logistical
packaging: A capital budgeting investment decision framework’, Journal of Business
Logistics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 139-165.
•Sarkis, J 2001, ‘Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental sustainability’,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 21, no. 5/6, pp.
666-686.
•Sarkis, J, Helms, M & Hervani, A 2010, 'Reverse logistics and social sustainability',
Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 337-354.
•Savitz, A & Weber, K 2006, The triple bottom line, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
•Shukla, AC, Deshmukh, SG & Kanda, A 2010, 'Flexibility and sustainability of supply
chains: Are they together?', Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 11, no.
1/2, pp. 25-37.
•Shrivastava, P 1995a, ‘The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability’,
Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 936-960.
•Shrivastava, P 1995b, ‘Ecocentric management for a risk society’, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 118-137.
•White, P 2009, ‘Building a sustainability strategy into business’, Corporate Governance,
vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 386-94.
•Whiteman, G & Cooper, W 2000, ‘Ecological embeddedness’, Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1265-82.

14

View publication stats