The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0955-534X.

htm

EBR 23,4

Transformative business sustainability

Multi-layer model and network of e-footprint sources
ran Svensson Go
Oslo School of Management, Oslo, Norway, and

334
Received September 2010 Revised November 2010 Accepted March 2011

Beverly Wagner
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the concept of transformative business sustainability. Business sustainability refers the total effort of a company including its demand and supply chain network to reduce the impact on the Earths life- and eco-systems , i.e. the total e-footprint. Transformative highlights the need for an open minded, dynamic and exible approach to business sustainability not governed by blinkers. Design/methodology/approach This paper discusses a conceptual development of transformative business sustainability, derived from a frame of reference. The essence is the introduction of a multi-layer model of units (i.e. different businesses or other stakeholders), a network of e-footprint sources and a recovery pool and redistribution buffer at the interface. Findings Transformative business sustainability is both a theoretical and managerial concept. It could also be seen as a roadmap to plan, implement and evaluate business sustainability. Research limitations/implications Transformative business sustainability provides opportunities for development. Suggestions for further research are presented. Practical implications E-footprint sources in business, applying an Earth-to-Earth approach, are described. The concept of transformative business sustainability contributes by achieving genuine and continuous business sustainability and awareness at strategic, tactical and operative levels of business, avoiding use of buzzwords and window dressing. Originality/value Well-being of the planet Earth has to be at the core of business sustainability. The authors contend that the recovery pool and redistribution buffer is crucial in the planning, implementation and evaluation of transformative business sustainability. Keywords Transformative, Business, Sustainability, Earth-to-Earth approach, E-footprint, Recovery pool, Redistribution buffer, Environmental management, Ecosystems Paper type Conceptual paper

European Business Review Vol. 23 No. 4, 2011 pp. 334-352 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0955-534X DOI 10.1108/09555341111145735

Introduction We contend that the quest for zero-sum cycles in business should start and end at the m, 2009) write that the core planet Earth. Docherty et al. (2002, p. 11, cited in Backstro concept of sustainable systems is that resources deployed are regenerated by the system. Thus, with the increasing demands on businesses to be environmentally responsible, for example with regards to procurement, production, distribution and the market, means that companies allocate sufcient resources that enable them to undertake appropriate efforts to reduce, not only their own carbon footprints (i.e. carbon dioxide equivalent) of business (Fearne, 2009), but also the total Earth-footprint that we label

as business sustainability, which we subsequently refer to the total effort of a company including its demand and supply chain network to reduce the impact on the Earths life- and eco-systems , i.e. the total e-footprint. The e-footprint is not only about or limited to the carbon footprint, but the use of, for example, toxic substances, non-renewable sources or other sources having an impact on Earths life- and eco-systems. We also contend later on in this paper that business sustainability should be transformative, which stresses the need and importance for an open minded, dynamic and exible approach to business sustainability not governed by presumptions from previous theory or existing models in literature, because too much is at stake regarding our planet Earth. It would be meaningless and potentially a fatal mistake to adapt empirical observations and data to existing theories and models, instead of the opposite. The business impact on Earth is nothing new, but it is only in the last part of the twentieth century that the collective impact of societys activities has reached a global scale (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1987). There is now recognition that economic activity cannot be sustained independent of the functions and systems provided by the biophysical world (OHara, 1998). There have been few genuine attempts focusing on Earth-to-Earth (EE) approaches in business research (Wagner and Svensson, 2010, 2011) and business practices tez, 2011; Hgevold, 2011; Santos, 2011; Svensson and (Cambra-Fierro and Ruiz-Ben Wagner, 2011a, b). The business impact on Earths life- and eco-systems (i.e. the e-footprint) is examined to a greater extent, though it still often addressed in narrow terms (e.g. as done in recent special issues on sustainability). We intend to try to ll these gaps by describing business sustainability based upon teleology in complexity sciences (Stacey et al., 2000), which is explained and justied in the next section. Teleology in business sustainability Stacey et al. (2000, p. 14) introduced a framework based upon the teleological cause, where teleology means: . movement into the future believed to be either towards a known or an unknown condition (i.e. predictable or unpredictable); and . the reason for the movement of a phenomenon into the future is in order to achieve some optimal arrangement, i.e. a chosen goal. The following approaches of teleology in their framework are potentially relevant for use in business sustainability, namely: . formative; . rationalist; and . transformative. Formative teleology Formative teleology refers to stable movement produced by the self-organizing interaction of parts where the nal state is pre-determined (i.e. known and predictable) and efforts to create business sustainability move towards this state as shown in Figure 1. Movement of time and of meaning is from a given past to the present.

Transformative business sustainability 335

EBR 23,4

336

The future of business sustainability recognized from the past, will subsequently be a repetition of the past. In other words, in the context of formative teleology, although one has a notion of future efforts of business sustainability based upon the present, the assumptions made are based upon the past. Using formative teleology, business sustainability becomes pre-determined and directed towards a known and predictable future condition. We conclude that business sustainability is hardly formative as there is no evident future. The current state is more like trial and error and should not be based upon the past, as it would limit open minded, dynamic and exible planning, implementation and evaluation of business sustainability efforts. Rationalist teleology Rationalist teleology considers the notion of self-organization as absent, and regards both stability and change as directed choices towards an autonomously chosen goal. What happens in this case is that the efforts to achieve of business sustainability fulll the selected goal for a known and predictable future as shown in Figure 2. Business sustainability thus becomes about lling the gap between the future goal and what exists in the present. The movement of time can be said to be from the future to the present. In other words, the meaning is located in the future, and the relevance of the present is primarily that it points to the future. Future efforts of business sustainability are determined and outlined in the present. Business sustainability becomes goal directed towards a known and predictable future condition. As in the formative teleology, we contend that the rationalist teleology is inappropriate as it restricts the open mindedness, dynamics and exibility of planning, implementation and evaluation of efforts towards business sustainability. It may indeed push in the wrong direction as we cannot know the future of business sustainability and may be missing yet unrealized future solutions and actions. Transformative teleology Transformative teleology presumes a self-organization and a transformative causation of micro interactions, continuously inuenced by previous efforts towards business sustainability. Each such moment is a repetition of the past, but with the potential for future transformation and continuity at the same time (i.e. towards an unknown and unpredictable future) as shown in Figure 3. In other words, one effort of business sustainability leads to another, but with the potential of continuous adaptation. When transformative teleology is employed

Figure 1. Formative teleology in business sustainability (BS) Figure 2. Rationalist teleology in business sustainability (BS) Figure 3. Transformative teleology in business sustainability (BS)

Past (BS)

Present (BS)

Future (BS)

Past (BS)

Present (BS)

Future (BS)

Past (BS)

Present (BS)

Future (BS)

one is bound to nd co-creative interaction between efforts of business sustainability which become variable and continuous aimed towards an unknown and unpredictable future condition. However, notions of how the future condition might be derived from the interactions continually taking place in the marketplace and society itself. We contend that applying transformative teleology makes a valuable and important contribution in achieving open minded, dynamic and exible planning, implementing and evaluating efforts of business sustainability. Furthermore, it contributes to an increased understanding of business sustainability. Thus, we coined the phrase transformative business sustainability. Research objective We believe transformative business sustainability may be both a theoretical concept and managerial roadmap to plan, implement and evaluate business sustainability. The objective is to describe this concept of transformative business sustainability. Principally, it consists of a multi-layer model of units (i.e. different businesses or other stakeholders) and a network of e-footprint sources. The frame of reference is derived from a combination of literature review, conceptual frameworks (Wagner and Svensson, 2010, 2011) and case studies of corporate efforts to achieve business tez, 2011; Hgevold, 2011; Santos, 2011; sustainability (Cambra-Fierro and Ruiz-Ben Svensson and Wagner, 2011a, b). The rest of the article is structured as follows: . a frame of reference supporting the concept of transformative business sustainability is described; . the concept of transformative business sustainability is outlined and discussed including a brief empirical illustration; . implications and lessons learned are provided; and nally . conclusions are drawn and suggestions for further research are offered. Frame of reference and conceptual development The frame of reference that follows in this section and the underlying paragraphs are synthesised, and its structure shown, in Figures 4 and 5. Further details and discussion regarding the logic and interpretation of these gures are provided in the next section. Earth The rst e-footprint source in Figure 5 is Earth. Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1987, p. 15) write that from a galactic perspective, Earth is hardly impressive. On the contrary, Earth is an inconceivably insignicant planet in the universe, but as they conclude, it is all we have. As far back as 1988, Campbell (1988, p. 76 cited in Stead and Stead, 1994) notes that desire for economic wealth continues to reign in the world of mankind despite Earths has limited resources and interdependence of life systems as well as the delicate balance of ecosystems. Mankind is not only exploiting the non-renewable natural resources on Earth at a pace that is non-sustainable, but he is also having a negative impact on the climate (IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report, 2007) and the natural environment, consisting of life- and eco-systems. In an era when business sustainability has become an issue in some corporate agendas, it is becoming overused and is a buzzword

Transformative business sustainability 337

EBR 23,4

338

Figure 4. A multi-layer model of e-footprint sources

(i) Earth

(ii) Procurement

(vi) Consumer

Recovery Pool and redistribution buffer

(iii) Production

(surplus/residual)

Figure 5. A network of e-footprint sources

(v) Market

(iv) Distribution

(often misused and to not say abused) by others. It is crucial in any corporate effort to create sustainable business models and cycles where the impact on our planet Earth is seriously addressed and minimized. If not, it cannot be seen as a genuine corporate effort towards business sustainability. Stead and Stead (1994) argue that organisations in the twenty-rst century will have to change fundamental assumptions and values which underlie their relationships with the global ecosystem. By this, they mean integrating ecological performance into strategic planning, as well as at the operational level and undertaking regular market research to capture changing consumer attitudes towards environmental issues, modifying performance and adopting new operating principles. They suggest that an ecological sensitive economic and management paradigm is only achievable when

the Earth is regarded the ultimate stakeholder and duly accounted for in the organisational values, visions, strategies, structures and processes. Companies must go through corporate self-greenewal a term coined by Shrivastava (1992, p. 18) involving transformational processes and adjustment to new market forces, realignment of products, systems and resources based upon a close relationship with the natural environment. Stead and Stead (1994) emphasised this as the ability to perceive the Earths limits, the physical interconnectedness between the organisation and the ecosystem as well as the true long-term ecological implications of their strategic choices. Stead and Stead (1994, p. 27) proposed a corporate strategy that saw the Earth as a stakeholder in the economic system and management paradigms incorporating the Earth into the decisions of the corporate leadership, had to provide a framework which included the Earths green representatives. Procurement The e-footprint source of procurement in Figure 5 may be derived from internal and or external surpluses or residuals, all of which may have direct or indirect interconnections to the planet Earth (i.e. the origin and ultimate e-footprint source). In other words, it may be based upon natural resources or value-added ones brought into the demand and supply chain network. They may be required for companies value-adding primary and or supportive activities (Porter, 1985). This is critical where corporate efforts to run sustainable business operations are, to a large extent, determined in terms of the units zero-sum e-footprint cycles (i.e. a business having no impact on the natural environment on Earth and using strictly recycled and/or renewable natural resources). Procurement has direct and/or indirect connections on the planet Earth because it is based upon natural, or value-added, resources that are brought into the business cycle required for value-adding primary and or support activities (Porter, 1985). This is a crucial phase where corporate efforts to run sustainable business operations can have an impact in terms of zero-sum cycle. The purchasing functions role in facilitating internally driven environmental activities such as re-use, re-cycling and source reduction is essential and the importance of supply chain risk management is evident here (Business in the Environment, 1992, cited in Lamming and Hampson, 1996):
Good purchasing will minimise the risk of breaks in the supply chain [. . .] Since purchased goods and services represent the major proportion of total operating costs for many companies, and as quality, performance and design improvements become more important in maximising value in products, there is an increasingly strong link between environmental improvements and quality, and therefore long-term protability.

Transformative business sustainability 339

In order to achieve sustainable demand and supply chain networks, organisations need to take a much broader perspective and to demonstrate network custody where environmental and social aspects extend beyond organisational boundaries (Carter and Rogers, 2008). For procurement, this means reinforcing many activities that come under the umbrella of supply management, such as supplier selection, supplier certication, supplier involvement, and supplier development. All of the foregoing require buyers to work harder at nurturing longer term relationships with key suppliers by implementing cross-function project teams and nurturing trust and commitment between business ller, 2008). B&Q is a UK company addressing some of the partners (Seuring and Mu social, environment and economic impacts through procurement and by implementing a code of conduct across its global supply base using Environmental Management

EBR 23,4

340

ISO 14000 series standards. Clearly, the ongoing challenge is that such collaborative relationships take time, resources and commitment to implement and develop. The quest for sustainable procurement of demand and supply chain networks plays a vanguard role and many organisations have implemented codes of conduct that have been incorporated into supplier contracts (Ciliberti et al., 2009). However, to ensure compliance, buyers need to regularly monitor business partners. With the rise of outsourcing and the complexity of global demand and supply chain networks, monitoring has to involve visits to, and regular auditing of, business partners to ensure they are operating in accordance with company requirements (see Mattel as an example of what can happen if an organisation loses sight of its demand and supply chain network). The client company recognises the importance of closely collaborating with suppliers and it is essential that suppliers have the mind set, capabilities and resources to implement these codes of conduct (Wagner and Svensson, 2010). Internally, within an organisation this impacts on the strategic positioning of procurement and emphasises the vital role of the buyer. Adding business sustainability to the agenda requires a substantial procurement team and in times of global economic crisis, sustainable procurement must have a strategic role on the board of management. Buying decisions must be made from an empowered position supported by the board and CEO. This has implications on the way business partners are rewarded and if sustainable development is important, then rewarding business partners on the basis of cost savings in not the way forward. Business partners should collaborate when developing sustainable solutions, reducing carbon footprints and packaging and transportation costs. Implementation of sustainable policies and practices can be expensive; emphasis is needed to support the business partner in order to ensure that business viability is not unreasonably threatened. Production The e-footprint source of production in Figure 5 consists of both primary and supportive activities. This is where sustainable or non-sustainable business operations become evident and are made explicit. For example, what resources are used, are they renewable or not, are they recyclable or not? What is the short- and long-term impact on the planet? Furthermore, how are the inbound and outbound processes managed (e.g. storage of materials and inventory)? Sustainable production necessitates changes in all production practices which include design, engineering and operations that focus on environmental preservation (Hong et al., 2009). This poses challenges and opportunities for manufacturing rms and manufacturing organisations can initiate change that advances innovation while simultaneously improving efciency and business performance (Florida and Davison, 2001, cited in Hong et al., 2009). However, organisations cannot undertake this task alone and must look to other rms in the demand and supply chain network to support changes which clearly require early business partner involvement (Humphreys et al., ller, 2008, cited in Hong et al., 2009). 2005; Seuring and Mu Introducing environmental quality systems into a rms processes is closely associated with total quality management (TQM), where process changes often require organisational cultural change. TQM deals with quality at every stage of the production process, however, to reduce overall costs and waste within the demand and supply chain networks. TQM implementation requires ownership of responsibility by everyone

in the company (Lamming and Hampson, 1996). Implementation of environmental practices may also present an opportunity to become leaner and more exible, producing goods using less material, reduced labour time, etc. (Vachon and Klassen, 2006). Accordingly, implementation of environmental policy requires a company to (Hindle et al., 1993, p. 36, cited in Lamming and Hampson, 1996):
[. . .] re-examine [. . .] the needs and expectations it has to meet. It then has to develop new ways of meeting those in a way which delivers the better value and performance which customers want, while using less material and creating less waste.

Transformative business sustainability 341

Distribution The e-footprint source of distribution in Figure 5 includes transports (e.g. deliveries and returns, such as reversed logistics) and intermediaries (e.g. wholesalers) either in-house operated or outsourced. Considerable attention is demanded to determine what approach is most sustainable (Goldsby and Stank, 2000, cited in Markely and Davis, 2007). Logistics have been dened by Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport as ensuring that the right products reach the right place, in the right quantity at the right time to satisfy customer demand. Distribution involves transportation, storage and delivery of raw materials, to delivering the nal product to the market. An integral part of supply chain management is that these activities may be by company-owned resources, or by outsourcing to a third-party logistics organisation. Enormous social and environmental issues and opportunities need to be considered throughout the demand and supply chain network, such as reducing raw material waste, energy use, water pollution, rainwater harvesting and safety in manufacturing. Sustainable aspects include warehouse design and management, reducing packaging, enhancing safety, bearing in mind the social impact of working hours (e.g. Albert Bartlett, one of the Britains leading growers and packers, is an example of state-of-the-art warehouse design and water recycling). Improved transportation in particular can reduce freight vehicle numbers, fuel usage and emissions and alleviate congestion. Good planning and scheduling can help serve less-populated country areas and strategically positioned regional distribution centres will facilitate distribution to such remote areas. More and better cooperative practices are needed to develop sustainable logistics systems, addressing many of the obstacles and creating value for all stakeholders. With regard to logistical integration, risk associated with investment in environment-related activities is reduced when organisations work collaboratively. Requirements for close environmental monitoring are also reduced (Vachon and Klassen, 2006). The market The e-footprint source of the market in Figure 5 includes retailers who have a responsibility, not only to run their operations as sustainable as possible, but also contribute to the transparency of communicating and managing the sustainability of previous sources. The market has the direct relationship with consumers who ultimately decide what to be bought or not. At the end of the day, their willingness to buy products derived from demand and supply chain networks is crucial. Therefore, the industries consisting of different retailers, wholesalers, producers and suppliers all need to join forces to address the total e-footprint of the demand and supply

EBR 23,4

342

chain network. They cannot do it individually on a large-scale or achieve worldwide coverage and common industry agreements and practices have to be implemented and applied in conjunction. Most likely, global political involvement is required to create the necessary incentives and obligations to make it happen sooner rather than later. Ecological trends concerning the environment, depletion of natural resources, and an unprecedented recognition of the causes and consequences of global warming is now a major government and industry focus worldwide. The 2007 Bali Treaty, and more recently Copenhagen, COP15 in 2009, highlighted the fact that reaching consensus on breakthrough climate change initiatives is extremely difcult. However, there are a number of industry solutions that should be in place by 2020. These include means of preserving energy, raw material sourcing, reducing packaging and other wasteful resources are crucial aspects of future demand and supply chain network design, probably in difcult economic circumstances where costs are volatile. In so doing, social, environmental and economic impact may be facilitated by improving process efciency and accurate supply and demand forecasting. These can be further be improved through the concept of product stewardship where companies take a Cradle-to-Cradle approach to product development and new product design by incorporating the voice of the environment (Markely and Davis, 2007). Design for the environment begins within and ends outside rms boundaries. This requires product assessments as to how they are used and how disposed (Hart, 1997). The emphasis is on the need to collaborate and implement demand and supply chain network partnerships. This can only be achieved through shared responsibility so as to reduce environmental footprint. However, real change cannot be achieved by companies acting alone and demand and supply chain network members need to work together to nd the most efcient and cost-effect solutions (Davies, 2008). This is an opportunity to reduce use of toxic substances and promote design for re-use and recycling to improve the environmental stewardship of products. As closest to the consumer, retailers, have an important impact on product stewardship. Their buying power enables them to inuence and develop business partners to produce products with the best environmental impact. Retailers also have an important role in terms of educating the consumer, providing information on provenance and facilitating the return of products for recycling (Guardian, Wednesday, 3 September 2008, e.g. Marks & Spencer). Product stewardship highlights the importance of demand and supply chain network links and the inuence beyond company boundaries (Lamming and Hampson, 1996). Environmental stewardship is an important part of corporate social responsibility and companies adopting environmental practices beyond basic legislative requirements are gaining competitive advantage (see for example Tesco in the UK) (Olson, 2009). Other trends include the introduction of new markets and a new global economic balance. Countries such as Brazil, India, China and some countries in Africa are rapidly growing new markets which may lead to a change in the balance between local and global sourcing. Current global inuencing factors changing demographic trends, such as the increase in numbers of older people in Western countries and increasing urbanisation putting strains and stresses on societies for land, housing, employment services, food, water, etc. This has resulted in increased government intervention and implementation by regulatory bodies at local, national and international levels. Technological advances

and information explosion means that innovation and the scale effects of technologies may support radical changes in product development that can support supply chain practices from concept design to nal disposal. Successful management of sustainable business practices therefore must involve coordination of product design, manufacturing, delivery, distribution and disposal throughout the product life cycle (Hong et al., 2009). Retailers have been forced to take notice of the environmental, economic and social impact of their activities (Jones et al., 2005), and increasingly addressing sustainable development is high on their agenda. Demand and supply chain network leaders hold the key to implementing sustainable business models across demand and supply chain networks. Not only are they responsible for running their operations as sustainably as possible, but they can also contribute to the transparency of communicating sustainable practices. The environmental performance of many retailers varies considerably, however, UK grocery multiples are some of the most well-developed demand and supply chain networks in the world having infrastructure and buying power to promote greener practices dissemination. Their environmental programmes now address issues such as energy efciency, water consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, vehicle emissions, reduction in packaging waste and management of recycling improved traceability and reducing trafc congestion. A growing number of large retailers are starting to benchmark their performance by addressing their own sustainable agendas ( Jones et al., 2005). The Future Supply Chain 2016 (p. 9) report states that the future supply chain is expected to provide clear benets, for industry, for individual companies, and ultimately for our society. Retailers are the main link with manufacturers and suppliers and can inuence changes in production processes, as well as consumption patterns, that favour more sustainable consumer choice (see, for example, Tesco, B&Q, M&S):
B&Q customers trust that all our products are not only good value and great quality but also developed under principles of continuous improvement in environmental and social impact throughout the entire supply chain, to higher standards than its global completion (see web page).

Transformative business sustainability 343

Marks & Spencer CSR report:

[. . .] the ways in which Marks and Spencer products and services connect with people, the environment and animal welfare, will always be one of most demanding CSR challenges (see M&S web page).

M&S focus on ve main issues: sustainable raw material, responsible use of technology, animal welfare, ethical trading and community programmes. Their buying power enables them to inuence and develop suppliers to produce products with the best environmental impact. Retailers also have an important role in terms of educating the consumer, providing information on provenance and facilitating the return of products for recycling (Guardian, Wednesday, 3 September 2008, e.g. Marks & Spencer). Such customer-facing organisational vision extends beyond the buyer/supplier dyad to encompass the entire demand and supply chain network from Cradle to Cradle in response to consumers desire for sustainable products and practices (Defee et al., 2009). Consumers The last e-footprint source in Figure 5 includes the consumer. Consumerism can be dened as a society in which many people formulate their goals in life partly through

EBR 23,4

acquiring goods that they clearly do not need for subsistence or traditional display (Stearns, 1997). One can argue that increasing consumption of goods is economically benecial, but on the other hand, consumerism is viewed as chronic purchasing with little attention being paid to the true need, origins or environmental consequences (www.verdant.net/society.htm). The United Nations Division on Sustainable Development (2003, cited in Jones et al., 2005) states that:
A major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrial counties.

344

There has been an increase in ethical consumption since the 1990s and more generally consumers are becoming interested in environmental issues that directly affect them (Peattie, 1995, cited in Strong, 1997). Reasons behind this trend may include increases in pressure group support for fairer trading practices in developing countries, media interest, corporate social responsibility and in supplier power in the market place (Strong, 1997). As such consumerism inuences global interest in sustainability and the role of consumerism in achieving long-term sustainability it is fundamentally based on the decision-making power of the consumer (Strong, 1997). Consumers are becoming more demanding and also empowered. As markets become more transparent and information about companies, their suppliers and their products easier to access and retrieve, it may be argued that consumers are gaining power (Fuchs et al., 2010). Such conditions empower consumers who ultimately decide which products or services will be bought and those which will not. Fuchs et al. (2010, p. 66) dene empowerment as a strategy rms use to give customers a sense of control over product selection, allowing them to collectively choose the products the company will later sell to a broader market. Therefore, it is no longer the company but rather the consumer who decides democratically, which products should be produced (Fuchs et al., 2010). Jaap (2003, p. 103) suggests that user involvement helps to congure the user such that he reads the system in the intended way. To exert inuence over designs processes, products and services that foster sustainable lifestyles requires, what Jaap (2003, p. 103) describes as silent actors to be represented in product development decisions. Thus, Jaap (2003, p. 104) concludes that the re-moralization of our socio-technical landscape, by changing its material basis, is a precondition for the sustainable behaviour of its citizens. When considering stages in the consumption cycle, purchase, usage and disposal, can determine degrees of environmentally friendly consumer purchasing behaviour, such as showing a preference for purchasing products using recyclable packaging. Ulrich (1989, p. 24) emphasises this point with regards to consumer or user involvement in new product development processes, suggesting that the ability to participate had the psychological impact of consumers immediate commitment to the nished product, indeed they then feel owners of the decisions. By embedding involvement that encourages sustainable product and service development could re-align values and attitudes that stimulate sustainable practices and encourage sustainable materiality in lifestyle choices ( Jaap, 2003, p. 104). Recently, facilitated by the internet, there is a shift with consumers striving for active participation in the market place and, at the same time, companies are searching for ways to build strong global consumer communities. Such empowered consumers may feel stronger bonds and develop closer relationships with such products

and be more likely to buy them (Fuchs et al., 2010). Retailers and other companies could develop better products at lower cost and lower risk. Consumer empowerment can be used as a strategy to give consumers and customers a sense of control over a companys product portfolio (Fuchs et al., 2010). Heightened awareness and changing preferences of consumers is a driving force making business change practices to become better environmental stewards (Olson, 2009). Consumer awareness and demand for new products and services is accelerating the adoption of sustainable practices across industries. Product portfolios and marketing focus is changing to promote environmental issues, for example, carbon labelling was introduced into the UK on 2007 (Olson, 2009). However, Roozen and De Pelsmacker (2000) found that although consumers are aware of environmental claims on labels, for example, many did not believe that the brand was any more environmentally friendly than brands that did not make ecological claims. There is, therefore, a tension between consumer choices and the idea of citizenship, however, increasing consumer concern and awareness of sustainability issues may be reected in their purchasing and lifestyle choices. Transformative business sustainability The concept of transformative business sustainability consists of: . a multi-layer model of units (i.e. different businesses or other stakeholders); and . a network of e-footprint sources in business applying an EE approach. It becomes a transformative network due the continuous and simultaneous interconnectedness between sources (procurement, production, distribution, the market and consumers) and layers (units). It should be noted that each e-footprint source of transformative business sustainability applies and extends beyond corporate and judicial boundaries. A multi-layer model Wagner and Svensson (2011) propose that business sustainability should be conceptualised in a demand and supply chain network applying an EE approach. They describe a generic model of business sustainability considering the life- and eco-systems on Earth. Our current model includes a transformative e-footprint (TEF) interface that interconnects a network of e-footprint sources, where each unit (of different businesses and other stakeholders) is held accountable for its e-footprint in relation to the demand and supply chain network. When each units e-footprint is made visible and accounted for in the demand and supply chain network, we propose that business sustainability converts into a multi-layer model as shown in Figure 4. Each layer represents a unit in the network of e-footprint sources. All sources of each unit are interconnected to all other sources of the other units through the TEF interface (i.e. the axis going through all layers in Figure 4). Figure 4 emphasises not only the importance of the EE approach, but also the TEF interface that in the multi-layer model of units becomes a recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface of surpluses and residuals in the network of e-footprint sources. Each unit should strive for a zero-sum e-footprint cycle in order to minimise and, in extension, optimise the total e-footprint of the demand and supply chain network. It is a zero-sum cycle in focus in each layer as units always have an e-footprint on Earth,

Transformative business sustainability 345

EBR 23,4

and subsequently need to reduce and optimise it for the benet and outcome of the demand and supply chain network. It also means that what is a surplus or residual in one layer causing an e-footprint in the demand and supply chain network, may be recovered and redistributed through the recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface leading to an optimised total zero-sum e-footprint cycle of the same demand and supply chain network. A network of e-footprint sources Figure 5 should be seen as an additional development of the generic model by Wagner and Svensson (2011). Each unit must be in a position to minimise and optimise its e-footprint on Earths life- and eco-systems. However, in order to achieve transformative business sustainability it is crucial to create routines and processes within each unit. This may create a ripple: . in the network of e-footprint sources; . on business sustainability policies; and . practices in procurement, production, distribution, the market and among consumers. The essence is that Earth is the ultimate unit or stakeholder of origin and destination of the network of e-footprint sources (e.g. the bottom or top layer in Figure 4). This stresses the importance of interconnectedness between the e-footprint sources in Figure 5 to foster an interdependent and collaborative demand and supply chain network through the recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface to other units beyond judicial and corporate boundaries. Accordingly, Figures 4 and 5 strive in conjunction to illustrate the concept of transformative business sustainability. The interface of recovery pool and redistribution buffer The recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface becomes highly relevant and meaningful for a number of reasons in transformative business sustainability. As shown in Figures 4 and 5, transformative business sustainability starts and ends with our planet Earth. The multi-layer model consists of a network of interconnected e-footprint sources having Earth as the origin and ultimate unit or stakeholder. Subsequently, the quest for an optimised total zero-sum cycle of the demand and supply chain network is made explicit beyond just immediate business and environmental considerations of units towards the need for a genuine emphasis on and concern for our planet, as it is not replaceable. All sources in the e-footprint network part of the multi-layer model are intertwined by the recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface. The idea of this interface is to recover and redistribute surpluses and residuals from different e-footprint sources in the demand and supply chain network. It serves the purpose of pinpointing and facilitating the interconnectedness not only between any of the e-footprint sources, but also between the units in the demand and supply chain network. Any surplus or residuals of resources caused by one unit may be recovered in the pool and redistributed through the buffer to another unit in the demand and supply chain network. It should be noted that there does not only have to be recovering and redistribution activities taking place between two closely related sources in the e-footprint network (procurement and production) and between closely related units (raw material

346

producers and manufacturers), but it may be between indirect sources (production and market) and units (e.g. raw material producers and retailers). The theoretical and managerial values of introducing the recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface intertwined with all e-footprint sources of the demand and supply chain network is that it draws attention to the total zero-sum cycle of the demand and supply chain network as well as the zero-sum cycle in each unit. Subsequently, what may not be used (surplus or residual) by one unit in the demand and supply chain network, may be recovered and redistributed to another unit in the demand and supply chain network, for the benet of optimising the total e-footprint. In the following paragraph, we present a brief illustration based upon the European food industry to offer a realistic avour to the relevance of transformative business sustainability. European food industry an illustration Placing and applying the introduced multi-layer model and network of e-footprint sources in the European food industry, then the recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface makes a contribution to both theory and practice of business sustainability. A short illustration follows to describe some benets of the introduced model and network. Throughout the food chain of agricultural products in the European Union from the arable land to the ultimate consumer food waste is common and extensive (Salhofer et al., 2008; Amies, 2009). Many reasons cause this apparently unnecessary and meaningless waste of food in times of global food shortages. Some waste may be explained by European laws and regulations regarding food safety and hygiene, but the principal problem lies in business standards and practices governing the food and retail industries. For example, already in harvesting agricultural food products, it emerges that there are surpluses that convert into residuals (i.e. waste), which is not recovered or redistributed to any user. As a matter of fact, many agricultural products (vegetables and fruits) may become food waste because of being too small or large in size, having a undesired shape or colour, or other imperfections viewed as inappropriate, though there is nothing bad or wrong with them from a food quality standpoint. In other words, this initial food waste is generated while the vegetables and fruits are perfectly edible, but farmers are obliged to dispose them as these products are unwanted and do not comply with the requirements of major purchasing customers (manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers). These buyers do not want to spend time in checking the other boxes, and subsequently the whole lot is returned or disposed unopened. Vegetables and fruits accepted for industrial production processes may be sorted out because of aws and damages that occurred during packaging, storage and transportation. Products may also have become too ripe or suffered inappropriate temperature shifts due to delays or wrong handling in storage and transport to further in the value-adding food chain. After being processed in a production value-adding activity, some vegetables and fruits may still become waste. As a matter of fact, retailers dispose large amounts of fruit and vegetables though they are still edible (Salhofer et al., 2008). There is little or no indications of recovery and redistribution efforts in the retail industry, shown in Figures 4 and 5. Finally, consumers also contribute to the mountain of food waste

Transformative business sustainability 347

EBR 23,4

348

to a large extent. A large amount of product packages, at retailer and consumer levels, are not even opened, though there is nothing wrong with them and still edible, when they are disposed and turn into food waste. In sum, food waste is generated everywhere in the food chain, from the arable land to the nal consumer. Shocking estimates indicate that almost two-thirds of agricultural products turn into food waste (Salhofer et al., 2008; Amies, 2009). Having a recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface in place and available between units (different layers in Figure 4) of demand and supply chain networks and collaborative attitude towards e-footprint sources (Figure 5) could assist in minimising and optimising these surpluses of unwanted products to become residuals in the food chain. The current reality is that there is a shortage of food on a global scale and it is hardly sustainable business practice when nothing is done about the enormous food waste in the European food industry. Implications and lessons learned A number of implications and lessons learned may be drawn from the introduced concept of transformative business sustainability supported by a multi-layer model and a network of e-footprint sources. Accepting that business sustainability is an important global challenge, economic growth must be developed and decoupled from negative environmental impacts on Earth and achieved within the carrying capacity of the life- and eco-systems (Karsten and Reisch, 2008). There is a need to establish favourable conditions for the production of e-footprint friendly goods and services solutions. At the same time, there is a need to improve energy and resource efciency and to promote continuous performance improvement and labelling. There is also a need to encourage management systems, consumption patterns and business behaviours considering the e-footprint of both units as well as demand and supply chain networks. In this context consumption patterns and behaviour are essential aspects where both supply and demand sides need to change and evolve towards the goal of business sustainability. In addition, the consumers contribution to achieving a better overall sustainability is important. Business sustainability engagements so far have largely appealed to rational consumers mind and their ability to adopt and change behaviour as well as consumption pattern. From this perspective, we argue that the introduction of the recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface as part of business sustainability models gain the attention of the network of e-footprint sources and total e-footprint of demand and supply chain networks. Companies produce bundles of goods and services solutions that create and contribute to consumer value. In so doing, business sustainability must take into account business that includes metrics for carbon emissions, reduced energy consumption, better traceability and reduced trafc (Barnes, 2008). Performance measurement and benchmarking before and after the introduction of business sustainability initiatives are imperative in calculating the e-footprint by units. This requires decision-making processes to support the planning, implementation and evaluation of business sustainability. Utilising the multi-layer model and the network of e-footprint sources outlined in this article may be a starting point, or point of reference, to establish sound business sustainability in the marketplace and across societies. Considering interconnections

and calculating trade-offs within and between units and sources of the multi-layer model, in conjunction with assessment of available resources and technologies with the mix of human capabilities, skills in managing the recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface, will enable ongoing environmental monitoring of units and demand and supply chain networks e-footprints. Corporate learning and sharing of experiences play a key role by inculcating and adopting shared organisational values and views to underpin and manage business sustainability appropriately. Retailers, wholesalers, intermediaries, manufacturers, suppliers and producers of raw materials suppliers need to join forces to reduce the total e-footprint in demand and supply chain networks. This cannot be achieved on a large-scale individually or worldwide. Common industry agreements and partnership practices should be implemented and applied in combination with individual company capabilities. It is unlikely that business sustainability-related goals will take precedent over performance criteria (such as cost, quality and delivery) on their own. Most likely, global political involvement is required long term to create the necessary incentives and obligations to make signicant worldwide change. Conclusions and suggestions for further research A multi-layer model of units (i.e. different businesses or other stakeholders) and a network of e-footprint sources representing transformative business sustainability are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The model and the network in focus are applicable on different units and demand and supply chain networks, though potentially not all. Furthermore, they do not just shed light on the importance of the immediate business sustainability concerns of units, but also demand and supply chain networks as well as the planet Earth with its life- and eco-systems. The latter appears to be under non-sustainable pressure and destiny at the moment (IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report, 2007). The multi-layer model offers research opportunities in terms of examining additional e-footprint sources in different demand and supply chain networks. Those outlined offer some insight and their universal applicability across demand and supply chain networks need to be veried. We believe the e-footprint sources introduced provide a seed and foundation to be built upon. The crucial contribution at this stage is the recovery pool and redistribution buffer introduced in the multi-layer model and founded in empirical evidence from the European food industry (Salhofer et al., 2008; Amies, 2009). This interface also offers further research opportunities in examining its relevance and value across demand and supply chain networks using its underlying logic within the multi-layer model. We believe that the likely validity and generality of the tool is high, but needs further examination for it to be sustained or not. In sum, whatever the e-footprint source in the multi-layer model of transformative business sustainability, the well-being of the planet Earth has to be at the core of business sustainability. We contend that this is where our coined recovery pool and redistribution buffer interface plays a crucial role and makes both a theoretical and managerial contribution by achieving genuine and continuous business sustainability through the awareness at strategic, tactical and operative levels of business, beyond use of empty buzzwords and shallow window dressing. We believe that the logic of the interface is easy to understand and communicate within demand and supply chain networks to achieve and enhance a common goal of planned, implemented and evaluated efforts toward business sustainability.

Transformative business sustainability 349

EBR 23,4

350

References Amies, N. (2009), Food waste turns stomachs in environmental circles, DW-World.de Deutsche Weele, available at: www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,5002347,00.html (accessed October 27). m, T. (2009), How to organize for local resource generation, The Learning Backstro Organization, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 223-36. Barnes, E.P. (2008), Sustainable watch, Business & Economic Review, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 26-9. tez, R. (2011), Sustainable business practices in Spain: a two-case Cambra-Fierro, J. and Ruiz-Ben study, European Business Review, Vol. 23 No. 4. Carter, R.C. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-87. Ciliberti, F., de Goot, G., de Haan, J. and Pontrandolfo, P. (2009), Codes to coordinate supply chains: SMEs experiences with SA800, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 117-27. Davies, J. (2008), Collaborations role in the eco-effective supply chain, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 4. Defee, C.C., Esper, T. and Mollenkopf, D. (2009), Leveraging closed-loop orientation and leadership for environmental sustainability, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 87-98. Ehrlich, A.H. and Ehrlich, P.R. (1987), Earth, Franklin Watts, New York, NY. Fearne, A. (2009), Sustainable food and wine value chains, Report, September. Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E. and Schreier, M. (2010), The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers product demand, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, pp. 65-79. Hart, S.L. (1997), Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 66-76. Hgevold, N.M. (2011), A corporate effort towards a sustainable business model a case study from the Norwegian furniture industry, European Business Review, Vol. 23 No. 4. Hong, P., Kwon, H.B. and Roh, J.J. (2009), Implementation of strategic green orientation in supply chain: an empirical study of manufacturing rms, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 512-32. IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report (2007), Climate change 2007: the physical science basis summary for policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 1-21. Jaap, J. (2003), Innovating for sustainability: involving users, politics and technology, Innovation, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 103-7. Jones, P., Hillier, D., Comfort, D. and Estwood, I. (2005), Sustainable retailing and consumerism, Management Research News, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 34-44. Karsten, J. and Reisch, L.A. (2008), Sustainability policy and the law, German Policy Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 45-66. Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996), The environment as a supply chain issue, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7, pp. 45-62. Markely, M.J. and Davis, L. (2007), Exploring future competitive advantage through sustainable supply chains, International Journal of Physical and Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 763-74. OHara, S.U. (1998), Economics, ethics and sustainability: redening connections, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 43-62.

Olson, E.G. (2009), Business as environmental steward: the growth of greening, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 4-12. Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York, NY. Roozen, I.T.M. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2000), Polish and Belgian consumers perception of environmentally friendly behaviour, Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 9-21. Salhofer, S., Obersteiner, G. and Schneider, F. (2008), Potentials for the prevention of municipal solid waste, Waste Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 245-59. Santos, M.A.O. (2011), Minimizing the business impact on the natural environment: a case study of Woolworths South Africa, European Business Review, Vol. 23 No. 4. Shrivastava, P. (1992), Corporate self-greenewal: strategic responses to environmentalism, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 9-21. Stacey, R.D., Grifn, D. and Shaw, P. (2000), Complexity and Management Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking, Routledge, London. Stead, W.E. and Stead, J.G. (1994), Can humankind change the economic myth? Paradigm shifts necessary for ecologically sustainable business, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 15-31. Stearns, P.N. (2001), Consumerism in World History: The Global Transformation of Desire, Routedge, Abington, MA. Strong, C. (1997), The problems of translating fair trade principles into consumer purchase behaviour, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-7. Svensson, G. and Wagner, B. (2011a), A process directed towards sustainable business operations and a model for improving the GWP-footprint (CO2e) on earth, Management of Environmental Quality (in press). Svensson, G. and Wagner, B. (2011b), Implementation of a sustainable business cycle: the case of a Swedish dairy producer, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (in press). Ulrich, D. (1989), Tie the corporate knot: gaining complete customer commitment, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 19-27. Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), Extending green practices across the supply chain: the impact of upstream and downstream integration, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 795-821. Wagner, B. and Svensson, G. (2010), Sustainable supply chain practices: research propositions for the future, International Journal of Logistics Economics and Globalisation, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 176-85. Wagner, B. and Svensson, G. (2011), Conceptual development of a sustainable business a, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2, pp. 19-34. approach, Cuadernos Aragoneses de Econom

Transformative business sustainability 351

Further reading Alonso, A.D. (2010), How green are small wineries? Western Australias case, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 155-70. Braunsberger, K. and Buckler, B. (2009), Consumer on a mission to force a change in public policy: a qualitative study of the ongoing Canadian seafood boycott, Business and Society Review, Vol. 114 No. 4, pp. 457-89. ENDS Report 417 (2009), Recession puts a dent in greener consumerism, October.

EBR 23,4

352

Faber, N., Jorna, R. and Van Engelen, J. (2005), The sustainability of sustainability a study into the conceptual foundations of the notion of sustainability, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 1033. Fraj, E. and Martinez, E. (2006), Ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical analysis, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 26-33. Frame, B. and Newton, B. (2007), Promoting sustainability through social marketing: examples from New Zealand, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31, pp. 571-81. Kozinets, R.V. and Handelman, J.M. (2004), Adversaries of consumption: consumer movements, activism, and ideology, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 691-704. Kriik, L.S. and Yeatman, H. (2005), Food scares and sustainability: a consumer perspective, Health, Risk and Society, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 11-24. Corresponding author ran Svensson can be contacted at: goran.svensson@hh.se Go

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints