Sustainable Organization Design Principles · Dirk Sampselle Sustainable Organization Design Principles OTMT 608.13 1 Introduction According to a 2010 Organizational Dynamics survey,

This paper lays a framework for

designing an organization that will take

advantage of strategic sustainability or

corporate social responsibility

opportunities, and implement

sustainable and socially responsible

practices throughout its own

infrastructure and supply chain.

Sustainable

Organization

Design

Principles

Dirk Sampselle, OTMT 608.13

Dirk Sampselle Sustainable Organization Design Principles OTMT 608.13

1

Introduction

According to a 2010 Organizational Dynamics survey, over 75% of executives

worldwide say they believe that sustainability is important to the financial success of their

companies, but only 30-40% of those executives are taking steps to embed sustainability into

their core business practices.1

Given consumer, workforce, and investor trends, this gap between rhetoric and action

may prove more a strategic failure than an ethical one. A recent National Marketing Institute

survey found that approximately 68 million U.S. consumers state a preference for making

purchasing decisions based upon their sense of social and environmental responsibility: where

price and quality are equal, 86% of consumers would switch from their current brand to one that

is socially responsible. Meanwhile, more than two-thirds of employees (69%) consider the

social and environmental track record of a company in deciding where to work, and socially

responsible investing has grown to represent nearly 10% of U.S. assets under management, or

roughly $2.3 trillion.

At the root of the surveyed executives failure to implement practices that capture these

trends may be a commensurate failure in their understanding of sustainable organization design

principles2 that allow firms to match the growing demand for triple bottom line businesses.

3

This paper lays a framework for designing such an organization that will take advantage of

strategic sustainability or corporate social responsibility opportunities, while implementing

sustainable and socially responsible practices throughout its own infrastructure and supply chain.

I begin with a discussion of the need for integrating vision, mission, and values into a

firms organizational DNA; I discuss the intersection of values and greenwashing, and analyze

the difference between one-off initiatives and strategic integration of values and mission into the

business model. I next discuss the essential relationship between environmental influences and

organization strategy and recommend scanning practices. I then review Griffiths and Petricks

early work on corporate architectures for sustainability and update aspects of their framework.

Finally, I summarize the intersection of evolving corporate governance legal issues with the

organization design principles most aligned with a sustainability-focused business strategy. I

conclude by synthesizing brief recommendations from each section.


2

Mission, Vision, and Values: The Danger of Rhetoric, The Power of Integration

A recent Accenture study found that a majority of CEOs who embraced the United

Nations Global Compact principles had adopted policies on and programs for sustainability, but

of that same majority, comparatively few had made the necessary operational changes in their

supply chains and distribution systems or established sustainability goals and controls for their

lines-of-business.4 This illustrates the organization design axiom that, while it is necessary for

companies to develop their vision, mission, and values statements, simply having them isnt

sufficient.

Companies do best by incorporating the full range of stakeholders into the development

and implementation of the companys core values and mission in pursuit of the vision.5

Vanguard companies go beyond the lists of values posted on walls and Web sites by using their

codified set of values and principles as a strategic guidance system.6 While this may be true

for all companies, for firms embracing a sustainability focus, the need for values implementation

is far more acute, especially when it comes to branding.

Values for Branding: Greenwashing and Consumer Pressure

Recent years have seen popular uproar at companies not abiding by common notions of

business responsibility, and the uproar is even more clamorous when corporations engage in

greenwashing, or openly stating values that they then fail to embody and embrace to the extent

the public sees fit. Nike in the late 90s provides a well-known example:

At the 1997 meeting of Business for Social Responsibility, a Nike representative

showed a video of happy workers in a Vietnamese factory. Unfortunately for

Nike, two days later - while the conference was still going on - a story appeared

on the front page of The New York Times about conditions in Vietnamese Nike

plants where workers were being exposed to carcinogens at 177 times safe levels,

and were being paid just $10 for a 65-hour work week, far longer than the local

law allowed.7


3

This sort of hypocrisy can be extremely damaging to a companys brand image, and

consequently, to company value. A survey by Interbrand and Citibank found that 70% of the

value of the top 100 companies was attributed to goodwill in 1998, compared with 40% in 1988.8

Activist journalist Naomi Klein has noted that, in many ways, branding is the Achilles heel of

many major corporations: the more that companies place their value to brand meaning and

brand image, the more vulnerable they are to attacks on that image.9

The infamous Nike mistake was repeated in recent years by British Petroleum (BP). In

an attempt to capitalize on growing clean-tech consumer sympathies, beginning in 2000 BP ran a

public-facing Beyond Petroluem campaign, wherein, through its website, public print media,

and commercial airwaves, BP promoted itself with emotive advertisements about green energy.

But as of 2008, several years into the campaign, BP was still investing 93% of its resources in oil

and gas10

despite over $1 billion expended on the branding campaign.11

In 2006, a chief

architect of the Beyond Petroleum ads pronounced his disillusionment: "I guess, looking at it

now, 'Beyond Petroleum' is just advertising. It's become mere marketing -- perhaps it always was

-- instead of a genuine attempt to engage the public in the debate or a corporate rallying cry to

change the paradigm.12

By the time the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident decimated the Gulf

coastline and killed nearly a dozen workers, it appeared to most that BP was simply repackaging

dirty practices with green dressing.

Values for Practices: The Need for Strategic Integration

While the BP and Nike incidents serve as examples of the danger of using values

commitments without the practices to back them up, the 2010 Super Bowls Coke-Pepsi rivalry

and the post-Hurricane Katrina efforts of Wal-Mart serve as a comparative study on the benefits

of strategic values integration.


4

As part of its 2010 Super Bowl ad campaign, Coke pledged $1 to Boys and Girls Clubs

for each person who previewed its 2010 Super Bowl ads on its Facebook page. In response,

Pepsi launched its Refresh campaign, through which, instead of spending $20 million in Super

Bowl ads, it would benevolently donate those funds to people who had refreshing ideas to

change the world. 13

Although both campaigns clearly pursued worthy causes, neither possessed

the key element of effective sustainability practices: strategic integration.

One-off campaigns are fleeting and unsustainable, and of little brand and competitive

value, because they do not contribute to long-term strategy. While it is difficult to call them a

waste, they may be analogized to starting a backcountry hike with a foray into the surrounding

woods without first checking a map or compass. One-off initiatives preclude the firm from

creating scalable practices aligned with core competencies and competitive advantage.

Compare the Coke and Pepsi efforts with those of Wal-Mart after Hurricane Katrina. In

response to Hurricane Katrina, Wal-Mart utilized its extensive human resources and expertise in

logistics to make a massive contribution to Katrinas victims. By leveraging a core competency

and key resource, it was able to deliver goods to those in urgent need, and make a huge impact.

Then, it used the success experience to springboard its launch into a far more expansive and

significant green campaign that engages customers, suppliers, and staff in a war on waste,

obesity, and global warming.14

It has taken steps to clean up its supply chain and started

carrying healthier, greener products. Thereby, Wal-Mart carried out the key element of

functionally integrating its mission, values, and vision: it strategically aligned its activities, and

integrated its sustainable practices into its core competencies.

By baking vision, mission, and values into their corporate DNA, companies can not

only contribute to the social and environmental bottom lines of the business, but develop

strategic advantages that enhance their financial bottom lines as well.


5

IBM: A Paradigm for Strategic Values Integration

The story of the IBM turnaround is well-known. In the late 80s and early 90s, IBMs

financial fortunes went south and its values along with it. Louis Gerstner led the turnaround

effort by transforming the company from hardware manufacturer to a services business, closing

down the PC software lines and acquiring the consulting arm of PwC.

In 2002, Sam Palmisano began focusing on rebuilding IBMs culture and values. He

began by engaging stakeholders in an online conversation: tens of thousands of IBM-ers

participated in brainstorming, debate, and planning on the direction of the company. The online

conversation was so successful that two years later, the company held a values jam involving a

full 72 hours of dialogue. The result was the establishment of three stakeholder-defined core

values: dedication to every clients success; innovation that matters, for the company and the

world; and trust and personal responsibility in all relationships.15

Based on these values, IBM set out to combine its commercial, social, and environmental

capabilities. When a team of IBM-ers doing community service in Bosnia after the Balkan

conflict found that relief workers from the International Rescue Committee, CARE, Doctors

Without Borders, and other NGOs couldnt communicate across one anothers computing

systems without open sourcing tools, it capitalized on the opportunity to develop business

solutions for inter-connectivity in the commercial realm. IBM focused on integrating its

community and commercial efforts into a socio-commercial strategy. IBM learned from its

stakeholders and embraced responsibility as a source of innovation.

IBM began to meld its innovative technologies like grid computing, social networking,

and virtual worlds, and apply them toward creating a smarter planet. IBMs clients for a

smarter planet evolved from single businesses and government agencies to entire ecosystems of

organizations and interests that could be connected to work smarter. Martin Jetter, Chairman


6

of IBM Germany, described that the new business value proposition was based on IBMs three

core value commitments; it was uniquely IBM.16

Its strategy had developed through its first internal values jam, and since then, IBM has

hosted online jams with customers, suppliers, myriad stakeholders, and the public at large, and it

has focused them on diverse social and environmental problems calling for innovation. As such,

IBM used stakeholder values development to guide its strategic evolution from a Defender

hardware producer with mechanistic task design and bureaucratic organization design, to a

Prospector services provider with extensive scanning, elements of virtual and network

organization architectures, and an emphasis on flexibility and willingness to learn from the

environment and invent around it.17

Environmental Scanning and Stakeholder Engagement

Key to IBMs turnaround strategy was its ability to scan stakeholder environments for not

only values development, but forward-thinking technologies and market opportunities. Rosabeth

Kanter, Author of SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth,

and Social Good, remarks that model enterprises utilize their values statements as a basis for

internal and external scanning: they create and reinforce principles through active recitation

and search for interpretation. The statements are not hung passively on the wall; they are

internalized through inquiry.18

These companies engage all levels of employees in identifying

values, and then use engagement of stakeholders to orient and align corporate strategy in

accordance with environmental pressures related to their core competencies.

Unilever is perhaps the best historical example of a large company engaging in market

scanning to implement strategic values-focused business practices that enhance the financial

bottom line. As a company with historical commitments to society tracing to its founder in the

1800s,19

Unilever has consistently reinvented its heritage to align company initiatives with


7

present societal needs and enterprise competencies. When a leader reported that there were too

many unaligned programs and messages, the company decided to create a new brand identity

that integrated the modern home-and-personal-care and food-and-beverage businesses

underneath a single corporate umbrella. It developed a strategically oriented mission to add

vitality to life by meeting everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene, and personal care brands that

help people feel good, look good, and get more out of life, and appointed Tex Gunning, CEO of

the Asian foods business, to organize stakeholders worldwide in a collective fact-finding and

action-plan-formulation effort. Unilever scanned its world and reconsidered its role in

society.20

Unilevers environmental scanning identified sustainability themes material to Unilever

core competencies. For example, because of Unilevers food and beverage business, the theme

of excessive environmentally-induced consumption was found to be essential. An analysis of

New York Times articles found that in 1990, 84% of stories stressed that obesity was caused by

individual eating-and-exercise habits, whereas by 2003, 46% cited environmental causes such as

pressure from advertising toward unhealthy products, and poor availability of healthy options.

The threefold increase was attributed to processed-food purveyors, fast-food franchises, and soft-

drink makers. Rather than repackaging the same foods with a healthy branding campaign,

Unilever targeted the environmental relationship between consumption and obesity as a values-

oriented area of social responsibility that Unilever could convert into a strategic advantage.

Unilever then targeted its lions share of future growth in developing and emerging

markets as the ideal launching pad for its Vitality approach to enhance nutritional health and

hygiene. Its tactics included the sale of iodized salt in India and parts of Africa, addressing a

key dietary deficiency common among the poor; and a campaign for hand washing in India,

where its Lifebuoy soap aimed to reduce diarrheal disease. It submitted 25,000 recipes to


8

nutritional analysis, and reformulated them to make them healthier, and entered into a

partnership with UNICEF, through which it launched a kids nutrition campaign that included

research into the impact of saturated fats on childrens physical and mental performance,

conferences on improving youth eating patterns and preferences, and development of healthy

breakfast foods aimed at fortifying the diet of poor children. In first world markets, the company

introduced new tea products with antioxidant benefits and dramatically reduced sugar content,

and a new smoothie beverage made from concentrated vegetables and fruit juices.

Unilever also increased its focus on environmental sustainability. Over two-thirds of its

raw materials came from agriculture, meaning that, at a four percent growth rate, the company

would use 20% more pesticides on farms, 20% more packaging and associated waste and litter,

20% more water needed to grow crops, and 20% more water used by consumers to cook, wash,

or clean with company products, over a period of five years. So it devised new local supply

chains to make products more affordable, and developed distribution channels that turned

underprivileged women into village-level entrepreneurs. This, in turn, allowed them to take

advantage of the evolving trend toward healthy and sustainable consumption, with organic foods

and clothing growing at 20% annually, fair trade at over 70% annually, and ethical consumerism

growth through interest in cause-related products and in brands social responsibility.21

Organizational Architectures for Sustainability

All of these opportunities to capture values-oriented market trends are internalized

through organization design, and capturing evolving trends in a values-oriented context can

prove especially difficult for established firms. For example, an IBM executive remarked, we

had the technology, but not the right skill mix and capacity to relate to so many different

groups.22

Capturing core values in an organization design proposition required a willingness

to invent as things went along; there were no models of a multilateral organization to apply to


9

this case, nor a clear roadmap of how the relationships work or should evolve.23

This is to say

that bureaucratic organization structure and mechanistic task design, while perhaps fruitful for

certain aspects of leader firms activities, may inhibit firms abilities to discover and then capture

values-aligned opportunities.

Andrew Griffiths and Joseph A. Petricks early work on organizational design for

sustainable enterprises identifies three ways in which traditional large corporation hierarchical

architectures impede sustainability competitiveness.24

First, established task routines promote

the status quo and result in dynamic conservatism. New practices and theories of the firms

value to society are perceived as threats when firms rely heavily on routines and command-and-

control style management systems. Second, the authors find that command-and-control,

hierarchical architectures deny access to stakeholder input. The traditional organizational design

focuses only on a very limited set of stakeholders: the board of directors and stockholders.

Perceivably based on our discussion above, the lack of stakeholder integration inhibits effective

values formulation, reduces scanning, and precludes opportunities for innovation. Finally,

Griffiths and Petrick say that no department in the traditional corporate architecture has

specialized environmentally relevant knowledge to recognize, act on, and transfer to other parts

of the organization. However, our earlier discussion of values integration and scanning

techniques teaches us that it is not one department that must possess specialized knowledge, but

rather a collaborative group from across the organization that must assimilate and develop action

plans based on the knowledge to capitalize on opportunities.

In tune with that observation, the Griffiths and Petrick study shows that power should be

devolved to individuals and local communities to create citizen-inspired agenda for local

sustainability; and that firms should play an active role in creating communities where

production and use align with community needs. Unilevers local supply chain and distribution


10

efforts discussed above are ready examples of a leading firms implementation of these practices.

The Griffiths and Petrick study also shows that smaller structures were more responsive to

concerns. The above examples of multinational corporations successes in sustainability

initiatives indicate that while overall small structures may not be necessary, responsiveness

indeed is.

The study identifies three alternative organizational architectures which may be able to

mitigate size effects, and provide alternative routes to responsiveness. The first alternative

architecture is network organizational design. The second is virtual organizational design.

The third is communities of practice.

Network organizations are defined by dispersed service nodes, and small, flexible,

responsive, and innovative units even when overall organization size grows. Network

organizations are able to respond to changing market conditions with the speedy development of

products and services. However, they are reliant upon free-flowing information, adequate

communication fora, and employees that are appropriately skilled and motivated.

Virtual organizations leave a minimal environmental footprint, can give the impressions

and benefits of size, and can operate globally with a small number of employees. Lands End

mail-order catalogue and Amazon.com are ready examples. The information technology of

virtual organizations allows extensive outsourcing, but this creates an imperative for the virtual

organizations to remain responsible for the impacts of their suppliers and distributors.

The authors define communities of practice as amorphous, nonhierarchal structures that

form around areas of interest and expertise. Status in the communities is based on expertise and

contribution to the development of leading ideas, rather than position or authority. The

communities are effective because they are able to take on new members, acquire new

information, and remain focused on common interest and the desire for learning.


11

Virtual organization design principles are best exemplified by the jams led by HP.

Network organization design is exemplified by the localized supply chain and distribution

initiatives implemented by Unilever: despite enormous size, Unilever was able to develop

feedback from stakeholder communities, internalize that feedback into its emerging markets

strategy, and then implement pocketed local suppliers and distribution channels that served local

needs. IBMs organic outreach efforts at CARE and other ngos are also stellar examples of

using networks to discover market opportunities. Finally, Herman Millers implementation of

cradle-to-cradle design principles through their DfE process is emblematic of the Communities

of Practice organization design: Herman Miller leveraged organic committees of engineers and

chemical analysts to determine the ideal chemical makeup of product components, and then

leveraged the findings of those communities to develop its overall environmental strategy.

Alternative Legal Architectures for Values-Oriented Businesses

The Fiduciary Problem

Despite growing interest in alternative organization design and integration of stakeholder

interest with organization interest, the traditional law of corporate governance poses barriers to

doing so. The notion that the exclusive purpose of a business corporation is to create financial

gain for its shareholders was forcefully articulated by the Michigan Supreme Court almost 100

years ago in the landmark case of Dodge v. Ford. In that case, Henry Ford (Ford), founder of

Ford Motors, was majority shareholder and Chairman of the corporations board of directors.

Ford Motors had been earning substantial profits, but Ford decided not to issue a dividend to

shareholders; instead, he proposed to use the money to hire additional employees to fight

unemployment, and increase benefits for employees. His testimony in the case stated that he saw

no point in increasing profits if he could not use them to care for his employees. The Michigan


12

Supreme Court found that the decision breached his fiduciary duty of good faith to the

corporation, stating:

A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the

stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The

discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end,

and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits, or to

the non-distribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to

other purposes.

Dodge v. Ford illustrates the legal difficulty sustainability-focused firms may face if they

do too much to incorporate stakeholder interests in their business model. According to most

interpretations of the opinion, business models must focus on sustainability only insofar as doing

so enhances firm profits and shareholder value. For example, creating benefits for Unilevers

stakeholders in developing and emerging markets may be seen as an illegitimate purpose for

Unilevers resources if creation of those benefits detracts from Unilever shareholder value.

Recent Legislative Responses

To respond to this concern, state legislatures have been passing legislation that allow

firms to adopt an alternative legal form called the Benefit Corporation. Unlike traditional

corporations, Benefit Corporations must by law create a material positive impact on society;

consider how decisions affect employees, community and the environment; and publicly report

their social and environmental performance using established third-party standards.25

A Benefit

Corporation must create a general public benefit (included in the corporations statement of

purpose), which benefit must be measured by an independent third-party standard. A general

public benefit means a material, positive impact on society and the environment, as measured

by a third-party standard, through activities that promote a combination of specific public

benefits. 26

Specific public benefits as set forth in the statute are:

Providing individuals or communities with beneficial products or services


13

Promoting economic opportunity for individuals or communities beyond the creation of jobs in the normal course of business

Preserving the environment

Improving human health

Promoting the arts, sciences, or advancement of knowledge

Increasing the flow of capital to entities with a public benefit purpose27

A Benefit Corporation director does not have a separate duty to the beneficiaries of the

public benefit purposes of the Benefit Corporation. However, the director must consider the

effects of any action or decision not to act on:

The stockholders of the benefit corporation

The employees and workforce of the benefit corporation and the subsidiaries and suppliers of the benefit corporation

The interests of customers as beneficiaries of the general or specific public benefit purposes of the benefit corporation (as opposed to general beneficiaries of the public

benefit purposes, who the director is not obliged to consider)

Community and societal considerations, including those of any community in which offices or facilities of the benefit corporation or the subsidiaries or suppliers of the benefit

corporation are located, and

The local and global environment.

It is foreseeable that adoption of the Benefit Corporation legal form would promote or

at least allow adoption of alternative organizational architectures that enhance stakeholder

value, and allow more complete integration of stakeholder interests in firm DNA.

Conclusion

Leader firms in sustainability must be competent at engaging stakeholders to develop

core values; scanning the surrounding environment for values-oriented opportunities; and

integrating values-oriented opportunities into strategic decision-making processes. Firms

seeking to adopt best practices of design should consider network and virtual design principles

for stakeholder engagement, and communities of practice design principles to integrate

knowledge into core practices. Firms should also consider alternative legal entities to facilitate

stakeholder engagement and blended value creation for both stakeholders and shareholders.


14

Endnotes

1 Mirvis, Googins, Kinnicutt; Vision, Mission, Values: Guideposts to Sustainability. Organizational Dynamics

(2010) 39, 316. 2 Sustainable organization design is used in certain contexts to refer simply to organization designs which preserve

financial sustainability. In this paper, the term is used to refer to organization design principles for what are

commonly called triple bottom line businesses. 3Triple Bottom Line, The Economist, Ideas, http://www.economist.com/node/14301663, accessed November 19,

2011. The phrase the triple bottom line was first coined in 1994 by John Elkington, the founder of a British

consultancy called SustainAbility. His argument was that companies should be pursuing three different (and quite

separate) bottom lines. One is the traditional measure of corporate profitthe bottom line of the profit and loss

account. The second is the bottom line of a companys people accounta measure in some shape or form of how

socially responsible an organisation has been throughout its operations. The third is the bottom line of the

companys planet accounta measure of how environmentally responsible it has been. The triple bottom line

(TBL) thus consists of three Ps: profit, people and planet. 4 Mirvis, Googins, Kinnicutt; Vision, Mission, Values: Guideposts to Sustainability. Organizational Dynamics

(2010) 39, 316-324. 5 A vision, in our definition here, is simply a picture of what success for the business will be at a particular time in

the future. It is Collins and Porras BHAG the big, hairy, audacious goal that an enterprise sets out to achieve. It

is the what. A mission, by contrast, defines the purpose for the company the why. And the values statement

serves as its strategic guidance system the how. Together, they can capture opportunity for innovation and

bolster a companys strategic advantage. But to do so, they must be integrated into the companys DNA. 6 Rosabeth Moss Kanter; SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth, and Social

Good (2009). 7 Sharon Beder, Nikes Greenwashing Sweatshop Labor, April 2002, http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes

/nikesweatshop.cfm, Accessed November 19, 2001. 8 Sharon Beder, Environmentalists Help Manage Corporate Reputation: Changing Perceptions not Behaviour,

Ecopolitics: Thought and Action, 1(4), Spring 2002, 60-72. 9 Naomi Klein in CBC Entertainment, Hot Type: Activist Naomi Klein on her new book No Logo', (CBC,

http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/consumer_goods/clips/14722/), 2000 10

BP: Beyond Petroleum or Broken Promise? The Brand Positioning Workshop,

http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2010/06/bp-beyond-petroleum-or-broken-promise.html 11

Sharon Beder, 'BP: Beyond Petroleum?' in Battling Big Business: Countering greenwash, infiltration and other

forms of corporate bullying, edited by Eveline Lubbers, Green Books, Devon, UK, 2002, pp. 26-32. (Rsearch and

preparation cost $7 million; bp planned to spend $200 million between 2000 and 2002 rebranding its facilities and

changing signs and stationery and another $400 million on advertising its gasoline and pushing the new logo.) 12

John Kenney, Beyond Propoganda, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/opinion/14kenney.html 13

Pepsi Refresh Campaign, http://www.refresheverything.com/, Accessed Nov 19, 2011. 14

Mirvis, Googins, Kinnicutt; Vision, Mission, Values: Guideposts to Sustainability. Organizational Dynamics

(2010) 39, 316-324. 15

Id. 16

Id. 17

See, e.g., Raymond E. Miles and Charles C. Snow, Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1978) 18

Rosabeth Moss Kanter; SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth, and Social

Good (2009). 19

In the late 1800s, William Hesketh Lever created a company village offering housing to workers at reasonable

rents and introduced the then-unheard-of eight hour workday, sickness benefits, holiday pay, and pensions for both

male and female employees. 20

By Tojo Thatchenkery, Advances in Positive Design 3, Positive Design and Appreciative Construction: From

Sustainable Development to Sustainable Value P48 21

Paul Shrivastava and Stuart Hart, Creating Sustainable Corporations, Business Strategy and the environment, Vol.

4 154-165 (1995). 22

Id. 23

Id.


15

24

Andrew Griffiths and Joseph A. Petrick, Corporate architectures for sustainability, International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 12 (2001) 1573-1585. 25

B Lab/B Corporation, Maryland First State in Union to Pass Benefit Corporation Legislation,

http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/29332-Maryland-First-State-in-Union-to-Pass-Benefit-Corporation-

Legislation, Accessed Nov. 19, 2011. 26

Jackson & Campbell, P.C. The Maryland Benefit Corporation Act, accessed at

http://www.jackscamp.com/publications/Summary_of_Benefit_Corp_Legislation.pdf, Accessed Nov 19, 2011. 27

Maryland was the first state to pass the Benefit Corporation legislation. It was passed into law in 2010. MD.

CODE ANN., CORPS. & ASSNS 5-6C-01 (West 2011). The legislation is now also passed in Vermont,

Virginia, New Jersey, and California. It will likely also be passed in New York before the end of the year. Notably

absent from the movement thus far is Delaware, which is home to over 90% of publicly traded corporations.

Documents

Sustainable Organization Design Principles · Dirk Sampselle Sustainable Organization Design Principles OTMT 608.13 1 Introduction According to a 2010 Organizational Dynamics survey,