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

net/publication/291775411

Sustainability Special Issue

Article · January 2001

CITATIONS READS
0 6,378

3 authors, including:

Adrian Wilkinson Paul J. Gollan

Griffith University University of Wollongong
384 PUBLICATIONS   13,421 CITATIONS    132 PUBLICATIONS   2,694 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Total Quality Management View project

Downsizing /failure/sustainability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrian Wilkinson on 14 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

IJOPM
21,12 The sustainability debate
Adrian Wilkinson and Malcolm Hill
Loughborough University Business School, Loughborough, UK, and
Paul Gollan
1492 London School of Economics, London, UK
Keywords Sustainable development, Human resource management, Operations management,
Legislation
Abstract This paper serves as an introduction to this special issue of the journal on the topic of
sustainability. It commences with definitions of sustainability, followed by a description of the
roles played by governments and corporations as developers of standards and legislation, and
investors in products and processes, respectively. The paper then goes on to discuss the company
capacities required to achieve sustainability, paying particular attention to operations
management capabilities and the management of human resources. The discussion of these
topics is related to the content of the other papers subsequently presented in this special issue, and
the paper concludes with suggestions for further research.

What is sustainability?
Sustainable development is defined by the World Commission on Environment
and Development (WCED) (1987, p. 8) as ``development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs''. For the concept of sustainability to be meaningful, therefore,
it must refer to maintaining, renewing or restoring something specific (Sutton,
1999), but also include the ethical dimension of fairness of trade-off between
current economic pressures and the future needs of the environment. The
papers in this current issue therefore refer to each of these dimensions,
reinforcing the view that ``. . . sustainability is becoming a key business
imperative, as the eternal search for domination over nature is replaced by the
challenge of achieving environmental balance'' (Clarke and Clegg, 2000, p. 46).

Governments, markets, corporations and sustainability

Governments clearly play a major role in environmental sustainability by the
provision of environmental standards and regulatory frameworks to conserve
productive inputs and the quality of life, in an economic environment where
such action may be regarded as cost enhancing and detrimental to industrial
competitiveness. Such additional costs can no doubt cause very real problems
to industry in the short term, particularly if adequate preparatory work has not
been completed, but in the longer term:
. . .properly designed environmental standards can trigger innovations that lower the total
cost of a product or improve its value. Such innovations allow companies to use a range of
inputs more productively ± from raw materials to energy to labour thus offsetting the costs of
International Journal of Operations & improving environmental impact and ending the stalemate. Ultimately this enhanced
Production Management,
Vol. 21 No. 12, 2001, pp. 1492-1502.
resource productivity makes companies more competitive, not less (Porter and Van der Linde,
# MCB University Press, 0144-3577 1995, p. 20).
Although there has been some harmonisation in environmental standards and The
their interpretation to remove barriers to international competition (Brack, sustainability
1998; Faucheux and Gheorge, 1998), different countries have travelled different debate
routes in the race for leadership in environmental technology as a consequence
of their governments' specific policies and linkages with industry. In Germany,
for example, very stringent regulations have led to private sector response in 1493
the form of innovation such as the search for new uses for waste materials once
headed for landfills; whilst in Japan the nature of collaboration between
industry and government has meant a more integrated process (Russo, 1995)
with subsidies to R&D efforts in this area. In contrast to these two countries,
there has been strong resistance in the USA to policy measures which interfere
with the activities of the energy industry (Moore and Miller, 1994), although
previous American government policies have led to significant reductions in
sulphur dioxide emissions from the electricity generation sector (Hill, 1999),
and American-owned power engineering companies produce a range of energy-
efficient and ``cleaner'' products for sale on the international market (Hill, 1997,
pp. 165, 171).
Governments cannot solve the world's natural environmental problems
alone, however, if the economic environment is unsupportive. The governments
of the former centrally planned economies were roundly criticised for
insufficient political will and lack of use economic incentives to reduce
industrial pollution (Peterson, 1993; Whitefield, 1993), but there is now a
growing perception that the increasingly dominant ``market model'' is also
failing from the environmental perspective, as the successful creation of ``short
term profit advantages for the organization. . . may contribute to longer term
problems in the wider system'' (Dunphy and Griffiths, 1998, pp. 174-81).
Although there is evidence of companies attempting to compete in
environmentally sensitive markets by the promotion of ``green products'',
Dunphy and Griffiths also point to several factors creating cumulative crises,
namely: population explosion, natural limits to non-renewable resources,
reduced species diversity, growing ecotoxins, over-exploitation of renewable
resources, incentive systems encouraging waste and destruction, and extreme
differences in income. Although all of these factors cannot be directly ascribed
to the market model, the latter four probably can. Dunphy and Griffiths (1998,
pp. 180-1) also argue, that these problems ``largely arise from our failure to see
our relationships with the environment as critical to our future survival and to
view that relationship in systemic terms. In taking the natural environment for
granted, we assume it has a resilience that will absorb or intensify impact
forever''. In other words, a practical model beyond that of the market is
required, so that ecosystems can support economics (Dailly and Cobb, 1994).
However, governments now have a diminishing control over private
corporations, especially large multi-national corporations whose power
stretches across the globe. Governance structures have not kept pace with the
global economy with consequential effects for humanity and the environment,
IJOPM and appropriate standards, harmonisation and regulatory structures therefore
21,12 need to be further developed and strengthened within the international context.
Although there is evidence of some multinational corporations introducing
processes which are better than the demands of some national standards, in
order to standardise corporate methods on an international scale (Garrod,
1998), there is clearly more scope for large corporations to face up to their
1494 responsibilities as creators of demand and consumers of resources, and to play
their part in collaboration with other stakeholders to initiate practices to
support sustainability.

Company capacities for regeneration and renewal

This special issue therefore explores the importance of industrial and
commercial activity to sustainability. In particular it addresses two challenges
for business: first, the commercial pressures from increasing environmental
imperatives, namely further government regulation on environmental controls
and standards, growing customer pressure for action concerning renewable
forms of energy, and an awareness of the need to be a responsible industrial
citizen in society. Secondly, there are internal organizational pressures
associated with the sustainability of human resources in an environment of
increasing staff turnover, declining firm loyalty, increasing work hours and
stress levels, and declining satisfaction levels. Managers must consequently
confront the challenge of aligning the interests and needs of their business with
those of their most important resource, people, to achieve and maintain
productivity and competitive advantage.
It has been argued that these two challenges share important commonalities,
and addressing one can help to progress the other (Dunphy and Griffiths, 1998;
Dunphy et al., 2000). For example, both human and ecological sustainability
can shift the focus from short-term corporate survival to longer-term business
success and ecological survival, with both requiring a shift in criteria from
short-term financial profits to long-term returns. In addition, both involve
similar changes in structures, operations, priorities and values they promote,
and both require a clear focus in long-term direction (Dunphy et al., 2000). In a
wider context, improving the work and social environments could be a key
contributor to improved employee satisfaction, commitment and productivity.
As such, both can be used as key strategies in building capacities in
organisations for an integrated system for regeneration and renewal.
These capacities include design and development to deliver products to the
market which are less environmentally harmful than previously, marketing
management to raise consumer awareness of environmental factors and to
achieve business success through the provision of environmentally safe
products, human resource management which moves away from short-term
``slash and burn'' strategies to the development of skills for the long term, and
operations management which looks beyond the usual parameters of costs,
linking resource efficiency to environmentally sustainable processes and
procedures.
Operations management and sustainability The
In a previous special issue of this journal on environmental issues, Angell sustainability
(2000) noted that operations managers have traditionally tended to see debate
environmental pressures as external constraints imposed by regulation. She
went on to argue, however, that in recent years these external factors have also
begun to be reinforced by internal pressures from within the firm itself, and
explains these changes in the context of operations management as follows: 1495
. . . operations managers increasingly face direct pressure from external and internal sources
to reduce the environmental impact of their daily activities. External pressures stem from
legislation, accidents, local communities, competitors, ``green'' customer and investment
groups, media, activists, scarcity of raw materials, and the rising costs of waste disposal.
Internal pressures come from a heightened environmental awareness among employees, a
perceived opportunity for waste and cost reductions, and a broadening definition of quality
and service to include ``cradle-to-grave'' product and process responsibility. These internal
and external pressures force operations managers to intertwine environmental and operating
decisions, yet little is currently known about the way that environmental issues influence
operating decisions ± or vice versa (Angell, 2000, p. 124).

The last phrase in this statement also echoes some of the conclusions in a
earlier paper by Angell and Klassen (1999), in which they argue that ``. . . in the
field [i.e. environmental operations management] research remains largely
undeveloped, with many research gaps in and extensions possible from the
literature'' (Angell and Klassen, 1999, p. 585). In their paper they also refer to
plans for ``industrial ecology'' building on the theme of ``industrial
development'', but in which industrial processes are viewed across several
businesses as an ecosystem in which waste from one system could serve as the
raw materials for another. Examples are cited of some German companies
locating their facilities closer to recycling plants or raw materials suppliers to
reduce the need for packaging and transportation, following the introduction of
the Packaging Ordinance in 1991; and they also cite a recently-opened BMW
factory which disassembles automobiles for the reuse and recycling of parts,
thereby moving from the traditional approach of simply recovering automobile
scrap. These examples, however, would appear to be a small number of
individual islands within a vast ocean of unsustainable industrial activity, even
though more companies are now including clauses relating to environmental
management within their mission statement.
Additional papers in the previous special edition edited by Angell focused
on various aspects of environmental operations management, including the
relationships between investments in manufacturing technologies and
environmental technologies, and quality management and environmental
management systems, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between
proactive investment in pollution prevention and reactive investment in
pollution control (Klassen, 2000). The themes of Klassen's study echo those
from an earlier paper by Klassen and Whybark (1999), which also focused on
the importance of pollution prevention and control to environmental
performance. There was also some additional evidence in that earlier paper that
conceptual thinking has broadened beyond the narrow focus of pollution
IJOPM control to look at management decisions which incorporate environmental
21,12 factors into functional considerations. Manufacturing operations via process
and product technology are therefore key drivers of environmental
performance as ecological impacts vary with raw material specification,
production efficiency, energy consumption, pollutant emissions, product
delivery systems and opportunities for recycling (Sarkis, 1995), giving rise to a
1496 prioritisation of environmental technologies to limit negative environmental
impact (Klassen and Whybark, 1999). The complexity encountered in
attempting to develop environmental technologies within this framework and
the importance of planning, and product and process risk assessment, is
summarised by Gouldson (1999, pp. 12-13) as follows:
The environmental policies of government and the practices of industry have often been
driven more by short-term reaction than by longer-term strategic foresight. . . However,
environmental policies and practices within this reactive mode can often only play catch-up,
[as] scientific and technical systems are always one step away from the understanding which
would control their current impacts while simultaneously being on the way to creating new
and possibly more complex problems. No matter how much they try policies and practices
that only ever react to sound scientific evidence as it emerges may never actually catch-up
with all the risks that they seek to control.

The focus on sustainability has also developed from the elimination or

treatment of pollution, and the opportunity costs from wasted resources,
wasted effort, and diminished product value. At the level of resource
productivity, therefore, environmental improvement and competitiveness can
come together, as explained in the previously cited comment from Porter and
Van der Linde (1995, p. 120). Innovation is therefore the key to environmental
sustainability as surveyed by Sroufe et al. (2000), and also the key to
competitiveness as international environmental demands continue to increase
(Moore and Miller, 1994).
The changes taking place in environmental and operations management
referred to above, although significant in their own right, are not as widespread
as they might be and are often to be found in particular industrial sectors where
environmental impacts are clear for all to see, such as in the chemicals industry
and waste treatment. Indeed there is a clear case for agreeing with Angell and
Klassen (1999, p. 585) that ``. . . environmental management stands in stark
contrast to the field of quality management, which has undergone dramatic
development over the last three decades. . .'', and there is consequently scope
for extending research on the linkages between continuous improvement, total
quality management, and environmental management as reported in a
previous special issue of this journal by Hanna et al. (2000), Theyel (2000) and
Kitazawa and Sarkis (2000).
One of the papers in this current edition of IJOPM consequently develops the
linkages between ISO9000 systems, TQM and ISO14001 (Dailly and Huang,
2001) whilst the remaining papers expand on some of the other themes outlined
in the previous paragraphs. These include corporate architectures for
sustainability (Griffith and Petrick, 2001), product and process development
within a context of reduced fossil fuel combustion in automotive transport The
(Byrne and Polonsky, 2001), process innovation and facilities location for sustainability
energy-intensive industries (Hill, 2001), and the use of environmental issues as debate
another indicator of operations performance (de Burgos JimeÂnez and LeÂspades
Lorente, 2001).

Sustainability and management of human resources 1497

The achievement of changes in operations and environmental management
referred to above is impossible without appropriate human resource policies to
develop the necessary technical and managerial skills within the organisation.
The sustainability debate also raises a number of additional issues, however,
for organisations to consider when pursuing sustainable human resource
outcomes to reinforce corporate profitability and corporate survival, and also to
satisfy employee aspirations and needs in the workplace. Human resource
sustainability requires the organisation to recognise and place value on human
capabilities which take a more holistic and integrated approach to people
management. Developments in HRM in recent years have shifted the emphasis
away from human management to a new focus on resource management. It
argues that the needs, potential and aspirations of individuals must take centre
stage in the workplace. If employers do not bridge the current gap between
their rhetoric and workplace reality, then the likely outcome will be an exodus
of bright and enthusiastic people to organisations that do. For true corporate
sustainability, an organisation must recognise, value and promote the
capability of its people. For human resource sustainability to be achieved,
therefore, the HR policies and practices need to be integrated for sustained
business performance and positive employee outcomes of equity, development
and well-being (Gollan, 2000)
However, with a growing emphasis on customised-quality consciousness in
world business and increased use of new technologies, a new form of worker
has emerged from the cost-cutting and down-sizing regime of the 1980s and
1990s. These new workers are often labelled as ``knowledge workers'' and they
possess certain key characteristics: they are highly skilled, qualified, trained
and experienced in new and growing areas of business. In essence, they can be
defined as workers who deal with a high degree of complexity and uncertainty
which requires a high degree of judgement (De Lacy, 1999). In the new
knowledge-based society of the 1990s the notion of commitment has also been
redefined: the maintenance of intellectual capital or the ``corporate memory'' is
now seen as dependent on employee commitment and satisfaction. The
intellectual capital of organisations is the knowledge, experience and ideas of
employees which management attempts to codify and formalise to produce
greater organisational value.
The cost-cutting regime associated with many organisational change
strategies of the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in the breakdown of the old
employment relationships (Redman and Wilkinson, 2001). In a world where
loyalty and commitment are no longer seen to be rewarded, those individuals
IJOPM who have increased their marketability and employability, are taking control of
21,12 their own future. As a result many managers have had to come to terms with a
new employment relationship based on a contingent or temporary contractual
culture which they helped to create by advocating short-term financial
objectives. This has reinforced the importance and value of building corporate
human capability and ensuring long-term sustainability in the new
1498 employment relationship.
The HR sustainability debate therefore raises a number of key questions.
How do organisations currently utilise and apply human resources? How do
organisations deteriorate or renew these resources and what are the
implications of such approaches for employers and their employees? How can
we redefine the ways organisations use their human resources in order to
ensure human sustainability? To what extent do corporations need to exercise
social responsibility as well as economic responsibility? How can employers
balance the interests of different stakeholders in organisations while
maintaining a sustainable work environment for employees?
The debate on human resource sustainability has been advocated by a
number of commentators (Dunphy and Griffiths, 1998; Pears, 1998; Sennett,
1998). They argue that there is a crisis facing the management of human
resources with staff turnover increasing, loyalty declining, stress levels rising
and productivity growth diminishing. As Pears (1998, p. 1) states:
Managers confront the challenge of aligning the interests and needs of their business with
those of their most valuable resource, their staff, so that business success can be achieved and
maintained.

They see this challenge as human sustainability.

In particular, they see human sustainability as a shift in focus from short-
term corporate survival to long-term business success. This requires a shift in
criteria from short-term financial profit to more broadly defined long-term
returns. This involves changes in structures, operations, priorities and values
which firms promote with a clear focus on the context within which a business
operates, recognising a fundamental requirement for long-term business
success (Pears, 1998). This special issue will consequently outline a number of
issues for organisations to consider when pursuing sustainable human
resource outcomes in the workplace (see Daily and Huang, 2001; Griffith and
Petrick, 2001).
Figure 1 represents the major factors, influences and outcomes of human
resource sustainability in organisations. While not intending to be exhaustive,
it identifies five major factors in the debate about human resource
sustainability. Essentially, the model defines human resources sustainability in
terms of the capacity of organisations to create value in their organisations
thereby having the ability and capacity to regenerate value and renew wealth
through the application of human resource policies and practices. This will
entail investment in human knowledge through continuous learning, and the
application and development of such knowledge through employee
 The
sustainability
debate

1499

Figure 1.
Factors and influences
in human resource
sustainability ± an
integrated approach

participation and involvement. In addition, the model identifies four main

drivers for organisations trying to achieve corporate human resource
sustainability and examines their impact on employee satisfaction and
commitment, and on the traditional organisational objectives of increased
productivity and profits. Importantly, the model suggests that for human
resource sustainability to be achieved, the HR policies and practices need to be
integrated for sustained business performance and positive employee outcomes
of equity, development and well-being.
Dunphy and Griffiths have developed this thesis further by suggesting that
this involves continuous ongoing investment in acquiring knowledge and
skills. This, they say, requires a fundamentally different approach in leading
and managing firms. In particular, organisational competencies are needed for
sustained corporate success that can be systematically developed. These
include: strategically building a corporate knowledge and skills base; fostering
productive diversity and building human potential; and creating communities'
knowledge in organisations and developing competencies for continuous
corporate renewal. They argue that this focus on investing in people rather
IJOPM than divesting them and actively promoting strategies of knowledge creation is
21,12 the most viable path to sustaining societies' corporate and economic life
(Dunphy and Griffiths, 1998, pp. 168-70).

Future research
The achievement of sustainable operations management in today's world is
1500 difficult, if not impossible, to achieve at present levels of population and GNP,
particularly if industrialisation continues apace at recent levels of combustion
of fossil fuels and consumption of other natural resources. Indeed the data from
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) continues to
demonstrate the continued relationships between fossil fuel combustion,
carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Although some scientists,
industrialists and policy makers still question these data, it appears to us to be
pragmatic to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels on the assumption that
the IPCC predictions are correct: if they prove to be pessimistic, efficiencies in
use will still have occurred for increasingly scarce resources. Clearly there is
some corporate and governmental concern, chiefly in the United States, that the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through reduced fossil fuel consumption
may act as a brake to economic growth, but the long-term consequences of not
addressing existing and future environmental problems are likely to outweigh
any potential economic downturns through reduced energy consumption.
Product and process innovations to achieve sustainable production will
therefore continue to be needed, and further research will also be required on
the economic and environmental impacts of these innovations.
Sustainability will also require organisations to take a more holistic and
integrated approach to people management and environmental concerns. In
particular managers will need to reassess their role, specifically their
responsibility in persuading organisations to adopt practices that support a
sustainable approach. This will require devolved decision-making emphasising
medium to long-term sustainability rather than the short-term horizons
characteristic of more traditional, centralised management structures. The
advocates of corporate level sustainability issues and practices need to be
political movers and leaders putting forward an agenda to support
sustainability. At lower levels advocates need to be co-ordinators, mentors and
integrators, linking capabilities into organisational structures, technologies
and practices of organisations (Hunt, 1999).

References
Angell, L.C. (2000), ``Editorial'', International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 124-6.
Angell, L.C. and Klassen, R.D. (1999), ``Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream: an
agenda for research in operations management'', Journal of Operations Management,
No. 17, pp. 575-98.
Brack, D. (Ed.) (1998), Trade and Environment: Conflict or Compatibility, The Royal Institute of
International Affairs, London.
Byrne, M. and Polonsky, M. (2001), ``Impediments to consumer adoption of sustainable The
transportation: alternative fuel vehicles'', International Journal of Production & Operations
Management, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1521-38. sustainability
Clarke, T. and Clegg, S. (2000), Changing Paradigms, Longman, Sydney. debate
Dailly, H. and Cobb, J.B. (1994), For the Common Good, 2nd ed., Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Daily, B. and Huang, S. (2001), ``Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource
factors in environmental management'', International Journal of Production & Operations 1501
Management, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1539-52.
de Burgos Jimenez, J. and Cespedes Lorente, J. (2001), ``Environmental performance as an
operations objective'', International Journal of Production & Operations Management,
Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1553-72.
De Lacy (1999), ``Understanding the knowledge worker'', HRMonthly, February.
Dunphy, D. and Griffiths, A. (1998), The Sustainable Corporation, Allen Unwin, Sydney.
Dunphy, D., Beneveniste, J., Griffiths, A. and Sutton, P. (2000) (Eds), Sustainability: The
Corporate Challenge of the 21st Century, Allen Unwin, Sydney.
Faucheux, S. and Gheorge, A. (1998), ``Foreword'', International Journal of Sustainable
Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Garrod, B. (1998), ``Are economic globalization and sustainable development compatible?
Business strategy and the role of the multinational enterprise'', International Journal of
Sustainable Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 43-62.
Gollan, P. (2000), ``Human resources, capabilities and sustainability'' in Dunphy, D., Beneveniste,
J., Griffiths, A. and Sutton, P. (Eds), Sustainability: The Corporate Challenge of the 21st
Century, Allen Unwin, Sydney, pp. 55-77.
Gouldson, A. (1999), ``From reaction to precaution: facing the issues of environmental risk'', Risk
and Regulation, London School of Economics.
Griffith, A. and Petrick, J. (2001), ``Corporate architectures for sustainability'', International
Journal of Production and Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1573-85.
Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R. and Johnson, P. (2000), ``Linking operational and environmental
improvement through employee involvement'', International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 148-65.
Hill, M.R. (1997), Environment and Technology in the Former USSR, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Hill, M.R. (1999), ``Carbon dioxide emissions from the Russian federation ± problems and
choices'', Energy and Environment, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 51-78.
Hill, M.R. (2001), ``Sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions, and international operations
management'', International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21
No. 12, pp. 1503-20.
Hunt, J.W. (1999), ``Working in a rich human vein'', Financial Times, February 10, p. 21.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001), in Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J.,
Noguer, M., Van der Linden, P.J. and Xiaosu, D. (Eds), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kitazawa, S. and Sarkis, J. (2000), ``The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source
reduction programs'', International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 225-48.
Klassen, R.D. (2000), ``Exploring the linkage between investment in manufacturing and
environmental technologies'', International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 127-47.
Klassen, R.D. and Whybark, D.C. (1999), ``The impact of environmental technology on
manufacturing performance'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 599-615.
IJOPM Moore, C. and Miller, A. (1994), Green Gold: Japan, Germany, the United States and the Race for
Environmental Technology, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
21,12 Pears (1998), ``Towards sustainability: a corporate focus'', preamble, unpublished, Centre for
Corporate Change, Australian Graduate School of Management, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney.
Peterson, D.J. (1993), Troubled Lands: The Legacy of Soviet Environmental Destruction,
Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
1502 Porter, M. and Van der Linde (1995), ``Green and competitive ± ending the stalemate'', Harvard
Business Review, September-October, pp. 120-34.
Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (2001), ``Downsizing: the dark side of HRM'', in Redman, T. and
Wilkinson, A. (Eds), Contemporary Human Resource Management, FT/Pitman, London.
Russo, M. (1995), ``Review of Moore, C. and Miller, A.'', Green Gold: Japan, Germany, the United
States and the Race for Environmental Technology, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20 No. 4.
Sarkis, J. (1995), ``Manufacturing strategy and environmental consciousness'', Technovation,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 79-97.
Sennett (1998), The Corrosion of Character: the Personal Consequences of Work in the New
Capitalism, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, NY and London.
Sroufe, R., Curkovic, S., Montabon, F. and Melnyk, S.A. (2000), ``The new product design process
and design for environment: crossing the chasm'', International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 267-91.
Sutton, P. (1999), ``Sustainability'', Greener Management International Journal, Vol. 23.
Theyel, G. (2000), ``Management practices for environmental innovation and performance'',
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 249-66.
Whitefield, S. (1993), Industrial Power and the Soviet State, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

View publication stats