Data Display/Interpretation (2) Looking for an Ism
7.3 Discussion and Reflection
One clear implication from this analysis is that there are business organisations which are sustaincentric in their views and thus the primary research question of this exploratory study is, to an extent, answered positively. However, in adding a layer of complexity what is also apparent is that interviewees hold views which inform all three of the paradigms and in particular the interviewees hold a relatively even mix of technocentric and sustaincentric ‘economic & psychological’ assumptions. This balance arises from the organisations assumptions regarding their growth, needing to succeed in commercial terms and their conventional hierarchal organisational structures.155 It is perhaps not surprising that there is crossover between the technocentrism and sustaincentrism in this set of assumptions as the organisations operate in an economy as is rather than how they may want it to be. Further
Gladwin, et al., (1995) argue that technocentrism is the current paradigm and Kuhn (1996) highlights that assumptions will continue to be subscribed to for as long as they have some validity. Self evidently technocentric assumptions still have validity. A view expressed clearly by the Ecover interviewee who highlights that “if something absolutely fantastic, fantastically ecological or sustainable cannot be done in a
rentable way well then (laughs) you can do what you want but you will never be able to realise it” (Ecover, Peter Malaise, Concept Manager).
Another implication that arises is that relative to the ‘economic & psychological’ assumptions the ‘ontological & ethical’ assumptions are more compartmentalised in that the coding for this set of assumptions is more clearly focused upon
sustaincentrism with less crossover to technocentrism as is the case for the ‘economic & psychological’ assumptions. The coding process aside, this result
155According to many commentators these are assumptions indicative of existing economic operating
principles. For example see: Colby, 1991; Devereaux Jennings & Zandbergen, 1995; Egri & Pinfield, 1999; Gladwin, et al., 1995; Gopalkrishnan, 1999; Hanna 1995; Halme, 1996; Kilbourne, et al., 2002; Pauchant, 1996; Purser, et al., 1995; Purser & Montuori, 1996; Starik & Rands, 1995; Shrivastava, 1995a.
perhaps indicates a slight disconnect or compromise as one moves between the views one can hold as an individual relative to the views one can hold regarding how an organisation can operate and survive in the wider economy. This compromise in ‘economic & psychological’ assumptions could make for pessimistic reading should one desire a change towards a sustaincentric or ecocentric paradigm. As from a pessimistic view point it would indicate that even those organisations that espouse environmentally orientated missions are only ever likely to be limited in realising more sustainable outcomes and that nothing can be done without wider systemic changes.
However, from an optimistic perspective that the sample has sustaincentric and technocentric ‘economic & psychological’ assumptions and sustaincentric ‘ontological & ethical’ assumptions perhaps offers some hope, particularly in light of an
argument put forward by Devereaux Jennings and Zandbergen (1995). Devereaux Jennings and Zandbergen (1995) discuss how organisations both help construct and destroy paradigms, citing the Bhopal and Three Mile Island disasters as examples of how organisations help change assumptions and in the process destroy paradigms. In this regard Deveraux Jennings and Zandbergen (1995) are making it clear that organisations are key actors in the development of paradigms and from this they offer a hypothesis that “the more enclaves of organisations devoted to sustainable values and practices, the more likely a society will be able to shift to a new paradigm for sustainability” (ibid: 1039). If this hypothesis is accepted, then it would indicate that the research sample for this study are likely to help enable society to “shift to a new paradigm for sustainability” (ibid:1039) and furthering their success will help this move, albeit ultimately wider macro-economic changes also need to occur.
In reviewing the results of this analysis against the previous narratives that the organisations are pursuing mission and money and are altruistically selfish and selfishly altruistic (Maturana & Varela, 1998), it would appear that the coding is consistent with the previous narratives. An alternative and slightly more nebulous viewpoint is that the relatively compartmentalised ‘ontological & ethical’ assumptions of the sample represent the ideal of the mission and or altruism. Whereas the
‘economic & psychological’ assumptions represent the tension between the mission and money, or altruism and selfishness and thus there is less compartmentalisation in this set of assumptions. Outside of this more nebulous viewpoint the relative
compartmentalisation of ‘ontological & ethical’ assumptions to ‘economic & psychological’ assumptions perhaps indicates the never reached ideal inherent in organisational missions relative to the essential functioning of organisations not being so ideal (Katz & Kahn, 1966).
When considering the findings from this analysis against the results of other studies, that the research sample is predominantly sustaincentric supports, to a degree, the findings of Brych, et al., (2007) that promoters of sustainable business are
sustaincentric in their views.156 As well as Shrivastava’s (1995a) claim that “ecocentric companies have their commitments to nature clearly articulated in mission statements” (ibid:131). Similarly the results of this analysis also support Dunlap and Van Liere’s (2008) finding that environmental organisations operate to an environmental paradigm. As well as Egri and Herman’s (2000) finding that for profit environmental leaders operate to an environmental paradigm.157
Outside of the results of the analysis, what is also apparent is that the coding of transcripts to the paradigm scheme offered by Gladwin, et al., (1995) is limited because of the ambiguity of the scheme. Although, Gladwin, et al., (1995) do not make claims to specificity for their paradigm scheme via their use of terms such “heuristically useful” (ibid: 881) and “coherent persuasiveness” (ibid: 882). The ambiguity of the scheme raises concerns on the part of the researcher that many individuals if asked the same questions, no matter what the orientation of their organisation, would have a similar pattern of coding to that realised from this analysis and thus there is nothing specific about the coding for this study. Concerns regarding ambiguity were also brought forward in chapter two where it was
highlighted that the paradigms of ecocentrism and technocentrism, in particular, are likely to be straw men because they are either abstract or utopian respectively (Egri & Pinfield, 1999). Furthermore the straw men discussion also highlighted how, although, sustaincentrism can be seen as an optimistic and pragmatic outcome, it can also be criticised for being ambiguous, incoherent and too incremental (Colby, 1991; Egri & Pinfield, 1999; Purser & Montuouri, 1996). In the researcher’s opinion these criticisms have not been countered by this analysis and if anything they have
156However, Brych, et al., (2007) did not interview any leaders of trading organisations as opposed to
promoters of sustainable business within public sector departments.
157Egri and Herman (2000) specifically found that for profit environmental leaders operate to an
been supported. Consequently although this study was exploratory if the study was repeated it would perhaps be appropriate to match each interview with an
environmentally orientated organisation with an interview with a non-
environmentally orientated organisation operating in a similar market. As if a difference in paradigm coding then arises the conclusions regarding paradigm
adherence could be accepted with a greater degree of confidence.158 Notwithstanding this, as stated in previous chapters, if the study were to be repeated it would be beneficial to also utilise a paradigm questionnaire with, for example, a Likert type scale regarding adherence to each paradigm assumption. This would enable a more complete range of assumptions from the Gladwin, et al., (1995) scheme to be coded and thus any findings regarding paradigm adherence could be answered with even greater confidence than that allowed with this research. Lastly, given the Gladwin, et al., (1995) scheme is fifteen years old and widely cited it may be appropriate to conduct a current state review of the scheme and if appropriate bring its
assumptions up to date as well as perhaps enhancing the specificity of the assumptions.
Summary
This chapter has presented and discussed the analysis of the interview transcripts against the paradigm scheme of Gladwin, et al., (1995). It has highlighted how the primary research question (are there business organisations which are sustaincentric or ecocentric?) is more satisfactorily answered, to the researcher’s mind, than the indications from the analysis and discussion in previous chapters. However, in adding a layer of complexity it has demonstrated that the organisations interviewed are predominantly sustaincentric in their ‘ontological & ethical’ assumptions while being a mix of sustaincentric and technocentric in their ‘economic & psychological’ assumptions.
The chapter covered three areas. The first concerning how the interview transcripts were coded to the paradigm scheme of Gladwin, et al., (1995), the second, the presentation of the results of the analysis and the third a discussion of these results.
In the first area, it was highlighted that the analysis method, coding transcripts to the Gladwin, et al., (1995) paradigm scheme, appeared to be relatively unique and transparent relative to some other studies. This section also highlighted how
Gladwin, et al., (1995) describe their paradigm scheme in general terms and view it as a schematic that is not photo realistic and a tool that relies on coherent
persuasiveness as opposed to absolute truth.
The second area outlined how the interview
transcripts had been coded to the Gladwin, et al., (1995) paradigm scheme. These results are shown in the form of a schematic in Figure 7.3. The results highlight how the research sample is predominantly
sustaincentric overall and mixed or balanced
between sustaincentrism and technocentrism in its ‘economic & psychological’ views. This section also
discussed how the crossover between paradigms in ‘economic and psychological’ assumptions occurred because of the interviewees’ views regarding their
organisations’ growth, environmental outcomes and ensuring commercial viability and hierarchal yet flat organisational structures.
The third area discussed the analysis within a wider frame highlighting how within ‘economic & psychological’ assumptions it was perhaps not unexpected that the interviewees have crossover between technocentrism and sustaincentrism. As Kuhn (1996) highlights assumptions continue to be subscribed to for as long as they have some validity. Hence an assumption regarding, for example, growth is not
Figure 7.3: Schematic Condensing the Results of Coding the Interviews to the Paradigm Framework to
demonstrate the predominance of Sustaincentrism
Technocentrism Sustaincentrism Ecocentrism
Ontological & Ethical Assumptions
unreasonable given the current dynamics of the economy. This discussion also highlighted that the extent of the crossover between technocentrism and sustaincentrism was less apparent in the interviewees’ ‘ontological & ethical’ assumptions, indicating that it is perhaps easier for an individual to be
compartmentalised in these types of assumptions relative to economic assumptions, as an organisation necessarily interacts with a wider economy whereas an
individual’s views can remain compartmentalised to the self. This discussion also highlighted that the findings are consistent with those of Brych, et al., (2007) and Egri and Herman (2000) as well as claims made by Shirvastava (1995a). However, given the exploratory nature of this research and the ambiguity of the paradigm scheme, in any future research it might be appropriate to interview individuals from environmentally orientated organisations and cross match their paradigm coding against interviews conducted with individuals in non environmentally orientated organisations, as this would potentially enhance the validity of any results regarding the peculiarities of environmentally orientated organisations. Lastly it was
highlighted that given Gladwin, et al.,’s (1995) paradigm scheme is fifteen years old and widely cited it may be appropriate for the scheme to undergo a current state review.