MANAGING INNOVATION & CHANGE; MANAGING

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ETHICALLY

PREPARED BY:
GROUP3
INTRODUCTION

 IN THIS CHAPTER IT ALL TACKLED ABOUT PARTS OF MANAGING

INNOVATION AND CHANGE. INNOVATION MANAGEMENT IS TIED TO
DETECTING AND DEVELOPING NEW AREAS AS ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
INTERMS OF STRATEGY AND VISION DEVELOPMENT, WHEREAS CHANGE
MANAGEMENT IS TIED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH A VISION.
CENTRAL APPROACH AND MAIN THEORIES
 IN 1983, THE MINNESOTA INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM STARTED A
LONGITUDUNAL STUDY OF SERVICE, PRODUCT, TECHNOLOGY AND PROGRAMME
INNOVATION. THE GOAL OF PROGRAMME, WHICH WAS CONDUCTED BY MORE
THAN 14 TEAMS TO ANALYZE THE PROCESS OF INNOVATOIN. THIS HUGE
RESEARCH EFFORT RESULTED IN THE BOOK “THE INNOVATION JOURNEY” BY
VAN DE VEN ET AL. (1999). THIS BOOK DESCRIBES THE JOURNEY FROM INITIAL
IDEA TO ITS DEVELOPMENT AND REALIZATION. AUTHORS FOUND THAT
INNOVATION IS A STAGE-WISE, LINEAR,CLEAR-CUT PROCESS AND STABLE
ENVIRONMENT. THE AUTHORS SEES THAT THE RAMDOM PROCESS WAS
ACCIDENTAL EVENT AND FUNDEMENTALLY UPLANNED, UNPREDICTABLE AND
UNMANAGEABLE. INNOVATION HAPPEN NOT BECAUSE, IN SPITE OF
MANAGEMENT. ALTHOUGH INNOVATION CHALLENGES MANAGEMENT URGE
FOR PLANNING AND CONTROLLING. VAN DE VEN ET AL. (1999) DELINEATED A
ROAD MAP TO INNOVATION THAT ENCOMPASSES MAJOR STEPS ON YOUR WAY
TOWARDS THE NEW. ACCORDING TO VAN DE VEN AT AL. THE INNOVATION
JOURNEY HAD THREE MAIN PERIODS; INITIATION AND IMPLEMENTATION.
THE INITIATION PERIOD
 IT IS USUALLY INVOLVE A GESTATION PERIOD OF SEVERAL YEARS. THIS
PERIOD LEADS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR INNOVATION TO EMERGE. PLANS ARE
DEVELOPMENT TO GAIN RESOURCES INTERNALLY TO CREATE LEGITIMACY
EXTERNALLY.
THE DEVELOPMENT PERIOD
 THE INITIAL IDEA SPLITS UP INTO MULTIPLE IDEAS THAT PROCEED IN
DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.GOLD AND GLAMOUR HAVE TO EXPLORE BECAUSE IT
IS UNCLEAR WHICH PATH WILL BE PAVED. PEOPLE WHO COMMITED TO THE
IDEA TEND TO SEE PROGRESS AND NEW OPPORTUNITY WHERE EXTERNAL
AGENTS SEES ONLY HESITATION AND DEAD ENDS MOREOVER, STAFF CHANGES
FREQUENTLY OCCUR IN THE DEVELOVEMENT PERIOD. MOTIVATION AND
EUPHORIA ARE OFTEN HIGH AT THE BEGINNING, MORE FRUSTRATION AND
CLOSURE TOWARDS THE END OF THE INNOVATION JOURNEY. DRIVERS OF THE
INNOVATION PROJECTS ARE OFTEN ENGAGED WITH EXTERNAL
STAKEHOLDERS( SUCH AS COMPETITORS, STATE AUTHORITIES AND SO ON) TO
GENERATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND CREATING THE PARADOXICAL DANGER OF
SIMUTANEOUS COOPERATION AND COMPETION. TO INNOVATE MEANS TO
BUILD MULTIFUNCTIONAL COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICES (WERGER, 2002).
PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY HAS TO MAINTAINED IN TERMS OF EMERGENT
CRITERIA THAT ALLOW FOR BOTH EXPLORATORY AND INTERRUPTION ARE
DEVICES THAT CAN BE USED TO RAISE LEVELS OF AROUSAL OR TENTION
(GERSICK, 1998, 1989,1994). A CONSCOUSLY GENERATED SENSE OF CRISIS CAN
INTERRUPT INERTIA (KIM, 1998).
THE IMPLEMANTTION PERIOD
THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADOPTION OF THE INNOVATION ARE ARCHIEVED
BY INTEGRATING THE NEW WITH THAT WHICH AD. PEOPLE HAVE
COMMITTEDT TIME AND EMOTIONS TO THE STATU QUE. EDUCATION AND
INTEGRATION, NOT REVOLUTION AND TRANSFORMATION, SEEMS TO BE THE
KEYS TO SUCCESS. FINALLY INNOVATION REACH THE END OF THEIR
ORGAZATIONAL CASESS-TOP MANAGEMENT AND INVESTORS ASSESS
WHETHER THE INNOVATION WAS A FAILURE OR A SUCCESS. IF IS IMPORTANT
TO FOCUS ONMONITORING AND EVALUATIONG THE INNOVATION PROCESS.
THIS PROCESS CHALLENGE USUAL MANAGEMENT EVALUATION. MANAGING
INNOVATION MEANS THAT ORGANIZATION MUST MANAGE THE TENTION
BETWEEN DETERMINATION AND EMERGENES. BEING INNOVATIVE OR
PRODUCING INNOVATIOS, IS NOT AUTHOMATICALLY USEFUL OR PROFITABLE.
DESTINATIONS SEEMS TO BE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REDEFINATION AND
REGENOTIATION AS THE JOURNEY UNFOLDS BECOUSE DURING THE CRITERIA
OF JUDGEMENT CHANGE.
TYPES OF CHANGES

 Opinions about change very between researchers; some argue that change is the exception and
stability is the norm, where other support a process-based view according to which almost
everything is in flux and transformation. Four types of change that can be separated analytically
-("Van De Ven and Poole, 1995") Life cycle change- Can be thought of in terms of stages of
maturation and growth or aging. Dialectical change- according through the interplay tensions
and contradictions of social relations. Evolutionary change- such as developing sustainability
strategies to deal with environmental regulations are essentially adaptive. Teleological change- is
driving by strategic vision. UNFREEZING, MOVING, REFREEZING Kurt Lewin packaged
this philosophy of change theoretically. Great living was a German American psychologist,
known as one of the modern pioneers I'm social, organizational and applied psychology in the
United States. In this model of change ("Lewin, 1951") he identify three steps that are involved
in changing organization and people. You have to unfreeze the current state of affairs. Most
things to wear you want them to be. Refreeze again.
PLANNED CHANGE

 it is the process of repairing the entire organization or the significant part of it, for a
new goals or A new direction. A typical example of a rational approach to change is
business process re-engineering (BPR), Which was developed, disseminated, and
successfully marketed by Hammer and champy (1993). BPR encompasses a radical
rethinking and redesigning of core organizational activities to achieve higher
efficiency and performance. It based on two simple assumptions. First, BPR analyses
organizational activities step by step so it can develop suggestions for improvements
on a micro level and reassemble the whole process in the most efficient way. Second, it
really designed the entire organization in Accord dance with these findings without
paying attention to its past history or it's cultural and social context.
 THEORIES OF PROCESSUAL CHANGE
 Process theories of organizational change rejects leaving three step approach. The roost metaphor of unfreezing
or freezing is profoundly problematic because organizations are always emotion. ICI (Imperial chemical
industries) went through a creases in each traditional way of organizing. It made the decision to change its
organization structure and process. A large organization such as ICI often initiates major programmes of
change but there are also changes introduced by snipers and ambushes as well as those that are planned. Taking
pettigrew (1997) as our cue, what does the process perspective require for a theory of organizational change? At
the house a strong emphasis on process and temporality rather than seeing change as a sequence of linear event
s that offer and are then frozen. Money jerseys visually seeks to manage as if organizations were relational,
Even when reality is mere facade or veneer for mobilizing resources, highlights and opponent s in a political
struggles for change. Richard Badham's 5M framework Professor Badham husband studying organizational
change for over 30 years and has same sized He's approached into a useful into 5M model. He defines my
negene changed as the process of influencing others to accomplish and objectives. This process unfolds along
five steps. Mindfulness- change is difficult, Massey and likely to fail; hence, at the outset of any change process,
50s important to be mindful of its complexities and subt subtleties- including the chance of failure. Mobilizing- it
refers to achieving buy-in from important stakeholders and mobilizing their intelligence, emotions, and
networks in order to accomplish change. Mapping- these options referries to planning the journey ahead.
Masks- plants need to be performed in order to make a difference. Mirrors- this provide learning space in
which actors can reflect on what has happened.
MANAGING CHANGE AND INNOVATION

 Peter Drucker defines innovation as the ‘specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by
which they exploit change as an opportunity for a different business or service. It is
capable of being presented, as a discipline, capable of being learned, capable of being
practiced (Drucker, quoted in Tidd et al., 2001: 38). Innovation is an entrepreneurial
tool; it should be exploited, and it is a discipline that can be learned and practised, in
other words. Although this is a nice definition we suggest adding some critical
thoughts on the likelihood of organizational politics shaping the unfolding innovation
process as much as any rational plan and the dilemmas of innovation management as
rational action.
MANAGING THE POLITICS OF CHANGE AND INNOVATION

 Innovation changes organizational power relations: Accomplishing innovation and change in

organizations requires more than the ability to solve technical or analytical problems. Innovation
almost invariably threatens the status quo, and consequently, innovation is an inherently
political activity (Pfeffer, 1992: 7). As Van de Ven and his colleagues (1999: 65) found, ‘managers
cannot control inno vation success, only its odds. This principle implies that a fundamental
change is needed in the control philosophy of conventional management practices. At its core,
innovation is a journey into the unknown and thus is inherently unpredictable and
uncontrollable. Most change initiatives fail (recall those BPR programmes with a failure rate of
more than two-thirds) not because the ideas or concepts. Were not refined or smart enough, but
because the actual implementation was not understood and executed perfectly – which it never
will be
 Hirschham (2001) discusses in the Harvard Business Review the idea that change can be
conceptualized as consisting of three different, though closely interlinked initiatives First, there
will be a political campaign, which should create strong and lasting support for the desired
change.
SOCIAL INNOVATION
 Innovation is not contained within the boundaries of the corporate world. The great challenges of our time –
such as climate change, radicalization of cultural identities, poverty, an aging population, and rapidly rising
health care costs-need innovative answers if we want to solve them, But who could work on holistic. Complex
solutions for large-scale challenges? Governments and the public sector in general seem to be too thinly
resourced and organized too much in silos to tackle these challenges
 The answer that is mentioned in the corridors of power and community movements alike is: social
innovation. Robin Murray, Julie Caulier-grice, and Geoff Mulgan (2010) define social innovation in The
Open Book of Social Innovation as ‘new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet
social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations. In other words, they are innovations that
are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act (Murray et al., 2010. 3). A good example of
social innovation is micro-finance: in poor regions development is often stifled through the lack of access to
finance. In these regions, a small amount of money could go a long way. For big banks it is not an attractive
business though: they prefer customers with big incomes who use their credit cards and pay back their
mortgage on time. The Grameen Bank Project founded by Muhammad Yunus, who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize in 2006, is a good example of micro-finance.
 Two emerging forces shape social innovation: first, technology as enabler of social networking where people
share ideas and solutions. Second, a growing concern with what Robin Murray et al. (2010) call the human
dimension, which becomes more important than systems and structures. How does social innovation work?
Murray and his colleagues have devised a six-step process:
1. Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses: Every new idea starts with the per ception of a problem or a crisis.
In the first stage of social innovation, the problem is experienced, framed, and turned into a question
that tackles the root of the problem,
2. Proposals and ideas generation: Initial ideas are developed and the proposal is discussed. Importantly a
wide range of ideas is taken into
3. Prototyping and pilots: Talk is cheap-so ideas need to be tested in practice. Trial and error, prototyping,
and testing are means of refining ideas that can not be substituted by armchair research. The motto is:
fail often, learn quickly!
4. Sustaining: This step includes the development of structures and sustain able income streams to ensure
that the best ideas have a useful vehicle to travel. Resources, networks, and practices need to be
organized so that Innovation can be carried forward.
5. Scaling and diffusion: Good ideas have to spread hence the scaling Up of solutions is key. This can
happen formally, through franchising or licensing, or more informally, through inspiration and .
6. Systemic change: The ultimate goal of social innovation. This involves change on a big scale driven by
social movements, fuelled by new business models, structured by new organizational forms, and
regulated by new public institutions and laws.
THE INNOVATOR’S DILEMMA

 In his influential book, Clayton M. Christensen analyzed why successful organizations (such as Apple,
IBM, and Xerox) sometimes fail when they face change and innovation. Describing this failure as the
innocutors dilemma, his provocative. Thesis is that not poor but good management is the reason:
Precisely because these firms listened to their customers, invested aggressively In new technologies that
would provide their customers more and better prod . Acts of the sort they wanted, and because they
carefully studied market trends. And systematically allocated investment capital to innovations that
promised The best returns, they lost their position of leadership. (Christensen, 1997;Christensen
regards good management as the reason for failure, which he explains in the following way. Disruptive
technologies are the key to innovation. However, most technologies are sustaining technologies,
meaning that they improve the performance of existing products rather than replace them. Disruptive
technologies, on the other hand, result in worse product performance (at least in the short term) for
existing products.
 SEARCH, ORGANIZING DISSONANCE, AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
 When shipwrecked Robinson Crusoe walked on the beach he knew what was
valuable and what not- and he knew instantly that We organize search?
Search becomes a major challenge to navigate the world. A new economy has
emerged around the central concept of the search engine, replacing the steam
engine, the dynamo of the Industrial Revolution. In an information society,
the capacity to produce is eclipsed by the ability to find, edit, and connect
information and new ideas. The world of business often struggles with search.
Typically, search is outsourced to the entrepreneur. In a Darwinian struggle,
so the story goes, thousands of entrepreneurs worldwide explore niches and
new ideas. Most fail. But some make it. Once they have made it, their search
has come to an end. They stop exploring and switch to exploiting their ideas-
until younger entrepreneurs make them obsolete and the process starts all
over. Schumpeter (2006 [1942)) has termed this transformation creative
destruction. IBM gave way to Microsoft, and Microsoft to Google, and Google
to Facebook, and Facebook to
HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY
 IT IS HARD TO TELL HOW ONE ACTUALLY NURTURE CREATIVITY, BUT IT IS QUIT CLEAR HOW ONE CAN KILL IT QUICKLY.
WE HAVE COMPILED WITH THE HELP OF OTHER’S RESEARCH A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR MANAGERS WHO WANT TO AVOID
INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY (AMABILE 1998; KANTER, 1984: 204; MORGAN; 1989: 54; ORDIORNE,1981: 79). THINK OF IT AS
TEN EASY STEP FOR SUSTAINING ROUTINES TO THE POINT THAT THEY WILL EVENTUALLY DESTROY YOUR
ORGANOZATION:

1. ALWAYS PRETWND TO KNOW MORE THAN ANYBODY AROUND YOU, ESPECIALLY EB SUSPICIOUS WHEN PEOPLE FROM
BELOW COME UP WITH IDEAS, YOU KNOW BETTER!

2. POLICE YOUR EMPLOYEES BY EVERY PROCEDURAL MEANS THAT YOU CAN DEVISE. INSIST THAT THEY STICK TO THE
RULES OF GOOD OLD BUREAUCRACY AND FILL IN MANY FORMS THAT NEED TO BE SIGNED BY ALMOST EVERY SENIORS
MANAGER IN THE ORGANIZATION.

3. RUN DAILY CHECKS ON THE PROGRESS OF EVERYONE’S WORK, BE CRITICAL (THEY LOVE IT), AND WITH HOLD POSITIVE
FEEDBACK, WHICH WOULD ONLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO THINGS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.

4. MAKE SURE THAT CREATIVE PEOPLE DO A LOT OF TECHNICAL AND DETAILED WORK. MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO THEIR
OWN BOOKKEEPING, AND COUNT EVERYTHING YOU CAN COUNT AS OFTEN AS POSIBLE.

5. CREATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN DECISION-MAKERS, TECHNICAL STAFF, AND CREATIVE, MINDS. MAKE SURE THAT THEY
SPEAK DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.

6. NEVER TALK TO EMPLOYEES ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, EXCEPT FOR ANNUAL MEETINGS AT WHICH YOU PRAISE YOUR
SOCIAL AND COMMUNICATIVE LEADERSHIP SKILLS.

7. BE THE EXLUSIVE SPOKESPERSON FOR EVERY NEW IDEA, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS YOUR OWN OR NOT.

8. EMBRACE NEW IDEAS WHEN YOU TALK, BUT DO NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.

9. WHEN THE PROPOSED IDEA IS TOO RADICAL, YOU CAN ALWAYS ARGUE THAT NO ONE HAS DONE IT BEFORE AND THAT
THERE MIGHT BE RREASONS FOR THIS.

10. WHEN THE PROPOSED IDEA IS NOT RADICAL ENOUGH, JUST SAY THAT THE IDEA IS NOT REALLY NEW AND THAT SOMEONE
ELSE ALREADY DID IT.
BEING MONSTOUS

 INNOVATION IS MEANT TO BE SOMETHING GOOD AND USEFUL PER SE.

HOWEVER, WHAT IS USEFUL AND WHAT IS NOT IS SEEN AT THE END OF
THE INNOVATION JOURNEY: IT CANNOT BE ASSESSED AT THE
BEGGINNING. AS VAN ET AL. SUGGEST.
 THE USEFULNESS OF AN IDEA CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED AFTER THE
INNOVATION PROCESS IS COMPLETED AND IMPLEMENTED. IN THIS
SENSE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORK ON NEW
IDEAS WILL TURN OUT TO BE ‘INNOVATIONS’ OR ‘MISTAKE’ UNTIL
SUMMARY EVUALITION OCCURS AFTER THE INNOVATION JOURNEY IS
COMPLETED. (1999: 11)
CREATIVE STRUCTURE

 THE CREATIVE PROCESS CAN BE ILLUSTRATED BY USING THE EXAMPLE OF

FRANK HEART, ONE OF THE TEAM MEMBERS OF THE GROUP THAT
DEVELOPED EARLY HARD-AND SOFWARE FOR THE INTERNET. HE REMEMBERS
HOW THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WORKED TOGETHER.
 EVERYONE KNEW EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON, AND THERE WAS EVERY
LITTLE STRUCTURED… THERE WERE PEOPLE, WHO SPECIFICALLY SAW THEIR
ROLE AS SOFWARE, AND THEY KNEW A LOT ABOUT HARDWARE ANYWAY; AND
THE HARDWARE PEOPLE ALL COULD PROGRAM. (QUOTED IN BROWN AND
DUGUID, 2001: 93)
 THESE HIGHLY CREATIVE PEOPLE WERE WORKING IN A RELATIVELY SMALL
TEAM, DRIVEN BY HIGHLY MOTIVATED PEOPLE, BUILT AROUND SELF-
ORGANIZING AND FLEXIBLE PRINCIPLES. CREATIVITY, DEFINED AS THE
ABILITY TO COMBINED PREVIOUSLY UNRELATED DIMENSIONS OF
EXPERIENCE, FLOURISH IN SUCH AN ENVIRONMENT.
MANAGEMENT FASION
 CERTAIN ORGANIZATIO INNOVATION MIGHT BE TRENDY, BUT WHAT IF
WERE A MERE FASHION? MANAGEMENT SCHOLARS HAVE PUT EMPHASIS
ON THE ROLE OF FASHION IN THE DISSEMINATION AND APPLICATION OF
NEW IDEAS AND PRACTICES. AS ABRAHAMSON (1996) ARGUES, FASHION
ARE SET BY GURUS AND ADOPTED QUIKLY BY CONSULTANTS AND THE
MEDIA. THEY ARE NICELY PACKAGE COLLECTIVE BELIEFS SOLD AND
COMMUNICATED THROUGH HIGHLY SYMBOLIC LABELS SUCH AS BPR
OR LEARN MANAGEMENT. USING A HIGHLY SEDUCTIVE RHETORIC,
THESE FASHIONS PROMISE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX
PROBLEMS. THE POWER OF FASHION DIRIVES LESS FROM THE ACTUAL
MESSENGE (AFTER ALL, BPR WAS IN MANY WAYS MERELY A
RESTATEMENT OF TAYLOR’S (1967[1911]) SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT )
THAN FROM THE SYMBOLIC POWER IT CONVEYS. MANAGERS AND
COMPANIES WHO DO NOT ADOPT THE LASTEST TRENDS ARE SEEN TO BE
INERT, REACTIVE, AND PAST-ORIENTED INSTEAD OF DYNAMIC,
PROACTIVE, AND FUTERE-ORIENTED. THUS FASHION CREATE
CONSIDERABLE PRESSURE ON ORGANIZATIONS. THE PROBLEM,
HOWEVER, IS THAT FASHION OFFERS LOTS OF RHETORIC BUT LITTLE
SUBSTANCE. ALTHOUGH IT CLAIMS TO OFFER INNOVATION SOLUTIONS,
THEY ARE OFTEN NO MORE THAN SUPERFICIALONE-BEST-WAY RECIPES
MANAGING SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
ETHICALLY
INTRODUCTION

 IN THIS CHAPTER WE WERE GOING TO FOCUS ON MANAGING SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICALLY. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILTY IS AN
ETHICAL THEORIES IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR
FULFILLING THEIR CIVIC DUTY, AND ACTIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL MUST
BENEFITS THE WHOLE OF SOCIETY.
STAKEHOLDERS MANAGEMENT
 IT IS GENERALLY HELD THAT CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR)
COULD INCREASED COMPANY PROFITS AND THUS MOST LARGE COMPANIES
ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGE IN IT. IN 2013 HARISH MANWANI MAKES AN
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS VIEW IN A TED TALK TITLED ‘PROFIT’S NOT
ALWAYS THE POINT’, HIS VIEW IS THAT THERE ARE OTHERS STAKEHOLDERS
APARTS FROM SHAREHOLDERS WITH INTERESTS IN A FIRM. THE
STAKEHOLDERS MODEL OF THE FIRM WOULD INSIST THAT SHAREHOLDERS
ARE BUT ONE SET OF STAKEHOLDERS; THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER
SIGNIFICANT STAKEHOLDERS, RANGING FROM CUSTOMERS, NGOs,
COMMUNITIES, AND CIVIL SOCIETY MORE GENERALLY, TO ACTIVIST GROUPS
CLAIMING TO ARTICULATE THE INETERESTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT,
ANIMALS, DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE’S, OR OTHER ‘MUTE’ OR MUTED
STAKEHOLDERS. IN 2014 AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE ACADEMY OF
MANAGEMENT REVIEW BY HAHN ET AL.(2014) EXPLORES HOW MANAGERS
INTERPRET SOCIAL ISSUES SUCH AS CSR. TO APPROACH PRAGMATIC, BASED
ON EXISTING BUSINESS ROUTINES.IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, SUCH AS
AUTRIA AND GERMANY, THE NOTION THAT THERE IS A SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF BUSINESS IS WELL ESTABLISHED. IN 2010 HOLLERER HAS
THOROUGHLY EXAMINED CSR DISCOURS IN AUTRIAN COPPORATE ANNUAL
REPORTS SINCE THE EALY 1990s. THE FIRST FOCUS OF CSR IS ON THE
COOPERATE GREENING

 There are a number of ways that concerned people are seeking to limit the risks of ecological
disaster and create more sustainable modes of business, giving rise to what Jermier et al
(2006: 618) term the 'new corporate environmentalism'. At the center of this movement is the
attempt by business and business leaders to paly a leadership role in reforming the way
business does bussiness, by making it more sustainable, and to use the tools and approaches
of rational management to improve ecological behavior.
 Jermier and his colleagues (2006) suggest that several factors characterized a successful
green learing organization that has become more socially responsible:
 • Lifelong learning: Ensuring that the organization really is a learing organization,
constantly trying to find out only new ways of doing the same thing better (single-loop
learning) but also nee things to do in innovative ways (double-loop learning.
 • Developing critical thinking skills: Helping organization members gain confidence in
critical reflection on existing ways of doing things and encouraging them to voice their
opinion as to how things might be done better, developing future-oriented scenarios that are
more sustainable.
 Developing critical thinking skills: Helping organization members gain
confidence in critical reflection on existing ways of doing things and encouraging
them to voice their opinion as to how things might be done better, developing
future-oriented scenarios that are more sustainable.
 Building citizenship capabilities: encouraging employees to think not just as
employees — in terms of the firm benefit – but as concerned citizen decerious of
reducing the overall ecological footprint of not only the organizations they work
for and with, but also the impact that they make in their daily life.
 Fostering environmental letiracy: encouraging people to learn about specific
enviromental problems and solutions, their causes, consequences, and
connectedness.
 Nurturing ecological wisdom: Sharing an eco-centred understanding of the web
of life and the centrality of responsible, ethical, and sustainable behaviour to a
good life.
THANK YOU!
Members: