Bede Music Box

Abbett, Anna Coldham, Whisnant submitted partial fulfillment degree Master Science Resources Environment) the University Michigan Professor Cameron Professor Hoffman | threats climate emerging environmental business companies | Executive Summary Introduction Literature Review Literature Environmental Sustainability Sustainability Environmental Sustainability Organizational Culture Effectiveness Existing Questions Differences | Collaboration Statistical Interpretation Findings Guidance Approach Planning Implementation Company Initiative Counter Initiatives Research Appendices Appendix Appendix Sample Appendix Engagement Materials | Schematic | threats climate change, water and emerging concerns, sustainability has emerged Moving beyond regulatory compliance, companies learned environmental | decade, peripheral concern population demand companies use the | Business 1970 the formation Environmental (EPA) subsequent Act Water U.S. companies been prescript, certain evolved environmental example, eliminated its parts manufacturing conditioners. While requirements, the end resulted reduced manufacturing companies sustainability represents distinct competitive opportunity. Significant drivers sustainability include efficiency initiatives, revenue opportunities, reputation, talent attraction retention, addressing climate (Enkvist, Baumgartner, Environmental Fund, intern program identify eco efficiency initiatives, | the external | behind | cultural compelling given that quarters change (Cameron, importance organizational demonstrated congruence individuals their personal | Questions Hypothesis Differences | are quadrants practitioners. academic cultural quadrants | organization produces. left quadrant Collaborate enhancing human | (2006), example, culture critical library conclude resulted complex, multidimensional understanding organizational effectiveness. Further Cameron, Quinn, Thakor been organizations understand Specific and environmental and (2001) frameworks have been developed attempt environmental robust empirical organizational culture sustainability. Likewise, the direct relationship | define sustainability initiative past present program project environmental less needed, waste produced, preferable). Specifically, (versus time investment); specific, defined, goals deliverables; constituencies organization company participants, terminated; reduces consumption the company tactical energy efficiency buildings) than integrates planning); operational commitments public consumer partnerships. narrow definition actual implementation company’s regardless (such sustainability desire public recognition, (of initiative) Success define company the extent employees experience each culture types: participant companies social human the social for ethical, business practices, intertwined environmental issues. However, order manageable scope study, environmental initiatives. strongly encourage similar socio environmental | experienced implementing initiative impact contains survey respondents given company. team: define the | many that contribute company’s culture. create above, respondents about four dimensions culture: company’s dominant the nature bonds (or that Sample Company Culture | the four descriptive allocation statements, were understand relative dominance company. Appendix Survey. Assessing Sustainability Initiatives describe its there many create the company respondents dimensions how initiative began, employees engaged initiative, leadership criteria initiative. dimensions, divide between the four depending the initiative initiative). question. Sample Sustainability Question the four descriptive quadrant iterative develop The were reviewed the the they appropriately intent each quadrant. limit time | Assessing Success Initiatives considered three potential Objective quantifiable change turnover. However, case initiatives, environmental accounting (or even between best. While measurements this initiatives e.g., patrons, healthcare recipients). However, define identify benefit from company’s benefits reaching benefit multiple stakeholders. Measure measure based opinion company does pounds provides characterization initiative. measures selected, they reliable industries. dimensions success used gain understanding the initiative’s impact multiple company. seven indicate the degree initiative’s level initiative initiative significantly the company's environmental impact energy, initiative significantly the company's line." initiative significantly employee awareness scale also indicate respondent initiative people initiative’s impact complete people tend left Likert while time acquiescence), scale constructed “Strongly left “Strongly the (Brace, | the developing company participants, ideally engagement, the criteria: tried implement sustainability initiatives the years. least employees participate the knowledgeable the sustainability initiatives departments implementation initiatives possible. engage companies, utilized several Administer survey Supplement survey data with secondary research Analyze Data Develop engagement materials for participation Develop list of Contact companies and set up survey Supplement with interviews Report back to companies with results | Respondents captured company designing implementing Our contact each company | the prepare, record company. Includes, company person describing given initiatives initiative person Includes, initiatives and dependent (measures noted predict measures initiative differences variables person company level. The enabled the Linear (HLM) and effects companies, Appendix | Variables dependent analysis measures perceived initiative respondents: the impact, financial and employees company. dependent highly remainder consider initiative the dependent This had individual Correlations | 3.5 (November 2010). that time, | Findings Description the companies the percent) (where dominant culture defined quadrant allocated points are quadrants). Figure Dominant Quadrant Number Companies with Dominant Quadrant Standard Deviation above the Mean) Collaborate3 Compete9 Control4 Create1 Total17 Top Two Strongest Company Culture Quadrants# Companies Bottom (Control  ‐  Dominant Quadrant Number Initiatives with Dominant Quadrant Standard Deviation above the Mean) Collaborate11 Compete7 Control12 Create8 Total38 | dominant quadrants initiative that the across initiative. companies initiatives dominant quadrant company culture while Dominant Quadrants Initiative Profile and Company Culture Profile# Initiatives Dominant Quadrant for Initiative same Dominant Quadrant for Company Dominant Quadrant for Initiative different than Dominant Quadrant for Company NoneCollaborateCompeteControlCreateTotal Less Successful4727323 More Successful4455523 Type Dominant Quadrant Type Initiative Initiative Profile and Company Culture Profile More Successful Initiatives Less Successful Initiatives Dominant Quadrant for Initiative same Dominant Quadrant for Company Dominant Quadrant for Initiative different than Dominant Quadrant for Company 1215 | Hypothesis Cultural Differences | Approach correlation total difference between culture profile (diff_total) perceived initiative illustrated Figure significant relationship | illustrated Figure measure congruence (diff_tot) significant with ordinal model, unit increase the increase dependent Therefore, positive i.e., coefficient) congruence (diff_tot) increase the implies increase the perceived the initiative). Estimated Fixed Effects Standard for magnitude increase specified depicted Figure unit increase difference between company initiative corresponds percent increase (perceived initiative). Odds Confidence Interval for Hypothesis | Hypothesis Sustainability between the company’s emphasis collaboration the initiative’s emphasis greater initiative. Observational Approach the percent identified initiative smaller between the culture initiative quadrant than the initiative the larger difference between company initiative the quadrant. That the the initiative company culture initiative likely Company Profile (Initiative Successful) Initiative dashed line) congruent culture line) dashed quadrant. company also thought overall worthwhile than Approach: correlation Flexible CREATE External COMPETE Structured CONTROL Internal COLLABORATE Culture Initiative Initiative | Correlation | Estimated Fixed Effects Standard for depicted Figure unit increase difference between company initiative lower (perceived initiative). Odds Confidence Interval for Hypothesis between the culture initiative quadrant significant, given level remaining surmise other level explain company). the the person initiative recognize quadrant important factor | Discussion findings and practitioners implement initiatives. identified numerous | Company (Initiative Successful) Lessons those that support Hypothesis percent cases consistent smaller | Company for Professional exceptional case motivation culture Flexible CREATE External COMPETE Structured CONTROL Internal COLLABORATE Culture Initiative Initiative | three cases difference between the company culture initiative profiles the initiative, majority difference initiative’s quadrant (Figure This conclusion numerous companies intensive delivering become sustainable (Schaltegger, 1997; Ytterhus, This intuitively sustainability which thinking quadrant. Profile Company Successful Initiative Quadrant that greater similarity between company’s collaboration initiative’s collaboration greater initiative. The indicate following: strong relationship quadrant between and sustainability initiatives. degree important, driven quadrant. measures level teamwork, mentoring, communication, empowerment, company initiative. indicates, collaboration particularly critical implementation initiatives due cross complex, nature. | the strongly associated sustainability initiatives difference | Couillard implementing successful requires considerations any change issues that hinder practitioners think about context change practices change the organization for change. Identify key | practitioners interested aligning initiatives culture, Figure provides examples planning implementation according Expectations group facilitate teamwork employee suggestions input planning metrics development your culture the multiple dimensions organizations criteria initiative with ideas initiatives generated and developed? employees participate initiative? initiative measured recognized?     Implement with type project program? initiative? project articulated Incorporating Culture Initiative Planning | Initiative Utilize web generate training Expectations Encourage focus managing planning organizational iterative learning program evaluation incremental impact initiative amount topics metrics generated Expectations activities individuals feedback business units achievement metrics industry Control Initiative audit existing impacts e.g., cycle existing policies for procedural inefficiencies Understand regulations associated Expectations optimization, running efficiency business units adjust initiatives metrics reduction company's environmental adherence environmental regulations | Culture additional challenges culture initiatives, some practitioners experiment counter culture initiatives longer cultural national insurance planning process | Summary culture important organizational | | Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. (2), 204-223. Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness . Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (2000). Phases in the development of corporate sustainability. 16th EGOS Colloquium. Helsinki: European Group for Organizational Studies. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2010). Managing for sustainability . London: Economist Intelligence Unit. Enkvist, P., Naucler, T., & Rosander, J. (2007). A cost curve for greenhouse gas reduction. (1), 35-45. Environmental Defense Fund. | Hoffman, A. (2000). | Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment, 21 (3), 245. | Tilt, C. A. (2006). Linking environmental action an d environmental disclosure in an organisational Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 2 (1), 4-24. doi:10.1108/18325910610654108 Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). . Engelwood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. Turnley, W., & Feldman, D. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: | Appendix Lead | | | | | Appendix Survey  notice of consent from Survey] | | | | | | | | Appendix Engagement Materials Project | Solicitation your consideration | Email    Thanks again for your time this morning. the link Instructions | Team Email   Thank you for completing Lead Survey. customized [Company] instructions people company sustainability projects/initiatives [Company] green team they helped plan, implement, initiatives). The initiatives [Initiative Goal(s) Initiative: Leverage the ideation teams build sustainability principles concept development [Initiative Goal(s) Initiative: Improve pack components materials packaging components. have  qualifies participate Thanks ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  behalf team Michigan, groundbreaking study sustainability organizational culture. respondents from [Company] companies country impact end results sending diagnostic | Appendix represented | Appendix Database Legend Black Text-Survey data Red Text-Calculated field Blue Text-Secondary research Company (Level 2) company_id •name •ROI •emp_size •public comp_coop cp_ave_y cp_ave_g cp_ave_b cp_ave_y cp_max_y cp_max_g cp_max_b cp_max_y Initiative-Person (Level 1) company_id person_id int_order •p_worth2 diff_y_a diff_g_a diff_b_a diff_r_a diff_tot | Appendix Dictionary for Used Field NameLevelDescription company_id2 &1 Unique identifier for participating companies comp_coop25 point Likert scale. Level of cooperationacross departments, as assessed by employees and averaged across all respondents at a given company. emp_size2Number of employees at the company.