Apprehensive Sustainability ‘Housekeeping’

Managers did take ad-hoc strides within the firm to address social and environmental sustainability concern, however, these were apprehensive efforts that did not put the firms at risk. These efforts were framed by managers as ‘housekeeping’ or efficiency ‘best practice’ efforts to maintain a high standard of business operations (e.g. responsible disposal of waste) and to mitigate risks. Manager’s apprehensive sustainability ‘housekeeping’ sustainability reactions were not integrated strategies in the firm, but were rather add-ons or vices for managers to feel better about their business operations. Paramount in these apprehensive and safe efforts, were managers trying to make ‘things not as bad’ versus believing or attempting to add value to their business through environmental or social sustainability strategies.

The two responses (‘1st

Order’ concepts) that emerged through this process of asking managers what they did to respond to environmental and social sustainability needs in the firm are covered in the following section. These concepts will be reported in an integrated manner:

 “We have done our best with waste, etc.”: Managers making the effort to reduce waste and recycle when they had the capacity.

 Proper disposal: Managers ensuring that they made sure to dispose of their hazardous materials in the correct manner.

Managers’ responses to environmental and social sustainability dimensions within their firms, for the most part, consisted of risk reduction or ‘not making things as bad' through protectionist and control mechanistic strategies that did not add value to their business. Managers were already concerned with their firms already in a fragile state that they did not feel comfortable taking innovative – to them risky – sustainability investments just to “save the environment and put [the] firm at risk.” There was the exception of a few managers, usually of the bigger and more successful SMEs, that had taken value-added sustainability measures, such as installing rainwater harvesting tanks; however, the majority of the SMEs were either not in the position to do this or did not see the correlations between such efforts and business success.

Manager’s apprehensive reactions to sustainability needs almost always manifested through their waste reduction efforts or proper disposal of chemicals. When managers were asked if and how they considered environmental or social sustainability concerns they typically stated, “the environmental work we do at this stage is basically recycling” or “our way of getting rid of oil is us being sustainable. Not just throwing everything in the rubbish dump.” Both these quotes illustrate both managers apprehensive efforts, while also exemplifying managers equating proper waste disposal as being ‘sustainable’ – which is an expression of them making ‘things less bad’.

These efforts were echoed by another manager who said, “we have drums on-site and all the shavings get put into separate drums so they can be sent to recycling or the guys can come collect them here.” The latter example indicates the potential for job creation and a shared value proposition; however, the efforts are still externalised to another party in a non-integrative manner. Another manager told me about his sustainability efforts to get rid of his oils in a proper fashion: “we take our old oils and stuff to an engineering company because I know they have one of those oil bins so we get to dump it there for free.” Once again, the key here for the manager was he was able to dump the oil for free with no concern, investment or potential risk involved. The sentiment of one manager represented many of the others when he said, “I think we have done our best with recycling and everything … it doesn’t make me feel good but we have don’t what we can with utmost care.” This surfaces managers’ apprehensive efforts to make sure they have all their boxes ticked. However it also shows that managers are aware that their efforts are limited within their context. Similar so, another manager commented to me, that he found ways to justify his decision in the firm. While commenting on recent lay-offs he had to make to cut costs, he expressed, “you rationalise it and say it could be all of them if we don’t do it eventually.” As demonstrated, managers’ sustainability-related decisions revolved around doing things the ‘proper way’, which helped appease their personal values and other beliefs.

Managers, when asked about social sustainability within the firm, had difficulty answering this question as they saw themselves doing their part by just providing jobs. One manager expressed this when answering, “social sustainability is a difficult

one. I think the fact that we can even pay our guys a 13th check and a decent wage is us doing our part.”

Many managers not feeling they had a large impact or saw the correlation between their business operations at sustainability challenges. With this in mind, the same manager reported that his way of dealing with this harsh reality was to be selective in who he did business with:

We can’t use another stainless steel for our products, we can’t use other gases, so what we can do is limited. I do worry that some of our products are going into unethical industries so I try to make sure we do not supply them and if we do supply them I really make sure we crank up the price.

Managers felt they only had the control to maintain best practice in the context of the four walls of their firm. This acceptance was illustrated by a manager tell me, “all you have control over is what happens in your own micro-environment ... And that you can control … like let’s make sure we keep the place that we were in clean.” Another manager resonated this statement when he stated, “the only way you can contribute to the environment is the area around you – you can stretch it as far as you want but it starts here. My environment does not start in the North Pole.” This emphasised managers’ conceptualisation that the only effect they really could make was in their immediate environment and that their actions did not influence the wider system.

There were managers that resolved their dilemma of not being able to address social or environmental concerns within the firm by finding ways in their private lives. Some managers, usually of the bigger firms, did this in a conscious manner – fully accepting that they had to express there personal values outside of the firm – while other managers automatically resolved this by giving to charity for example, yet did not consciously make note that this was due to their inability to meet these personal needs in the firm. As was and will be discussed, this lack of acceptance may have been due to managers’ identity being intertwined with the firms’ identity so

acknowledging this would have been accepting that they were not honouring their own personal values and care for environmental and social concerns.