Environmentalism and Organizations

Conceptual Overview

Beginning in the early 1990s, organization researchers such as Rogene Buchholz, Alfred Marcus, and James Post described numerous cases that highlighted that natural environment inputs, processes, and outputs associated with human organization vary significantly by organizational type, size, location, values, strategy, and behavior. Larger organizations and those in resource-intensive industries (such as mining, manufacturing, forestry, fishing, transportation, and agriculture) are often perceived as affecting and being affected by their natural environments more than others. In addition, those organizations associated with locations that are especially eco-sensitive, such as those conducting business in or near tropical rainforests, coastlines, and shallow underground water tables, are seen to potentially impact and be impacted by their natural environments more than other organizations. Finally, organizations vary significantly in their values, strategies, and behaviors regarding their use of or reaction to natural environment phenomena. While some well-known organizations have been identified as either very bad or very good actors due to their environmental policies, plans, practices, or performance, most organizations likely fall between these extremes and are slowly advancing from the former to the latter.

Organizations have approached their relationships with their natural environments using widely varying orientations. Based on a number of factors mentioned earlier, as well as on the environmental values, strategies, and behaviors adopted by these organizations, they typically have been perceived as occupying one or more positions on a proactiveness continuum. Paul Shrivastava, Carolyn Egri, and Susan Herman identified that leaders in organization and environment issues often are led by very visible top executives who help develop attitudes of serious environmental appreciation within their organizations and among their external stakeholders. These CEOs, executive directors, and board members have been known to set environmentally friendly examples by using nonautomobile transportation, by donating to pro-wildlife causes, and by encouraging recycling practices, among other environmental culture–instilling behaviors. They and other environmentally inclined organization members have also formed environmental committees and task forces; set overall and departmental environmental objectives; and established general and specific strategies for reducing pollution, using nontoxic materials and processes, and otherwise more positively interacting with their multiple natural environments. Starik and Alfred Marcus have indicated that leading organizations in environmental issues have designed and implemented systems (including human resources, research and development, production, distribution, and information systems) to follow through on their environmental objectives and strategies. These have included Design for the Environment life cycle analysis (a program of [Page 455]the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), environmental management information, pollution and depletion reduction, energy management, and environmental management systems (EMS).

...