IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL

SUSTAINABILITY USING A QUALITY

PERSPECTIVE

Manda Broekhuis and Janita F.J. Vos

SOM-theme A: Primary processes within firms

Abstract
This article derives lessons from the quality approach for further developing the
organizational sustainability approach. Taking a responsibility perspective on
organizational sustainability, four issues emerge that need to be resolved, i.e. ‘what is
the responsibility?’, ‘what is the responsibility area?’, ‘who is involved in
determining responsibilities and area?’, and, ‘in what way is the organization able to
take care of these responsibilities?’. The article explores in what way the quality
approach has been dealing with these issues, which is the basis for some lessons for
the sustainability approach. An important lesson is that the ‘who is involved’ question
should be leading. The stakeholder who is willing to pay for sustainability dominates
answering the other three issues. With respect to the accounting practices,
sustainability programmes could be inspired by the same need for protective and
accountable behaviour as quality programmes, if the well-known negative aspects are
minimized.
1 Introduction

This article focuses on sustainability in an organizational context, which we label

organizational sustainability. In literature the sustainability concept has not yet been
defined unambiguously and this can be considered an understatement. The ambiguity
might be caused by the fact that the sustainability debate is still in its infancy. Kane
(1999) however, points at the varying roots for the conceptualization problems. Also
the sustainability practice does not stand out for its clarity and distinctness. The
enormous variety of projects and/or activities within organizations that is gathered
under the label of sustainability is striking. The development of a new curriculum,
stating a mission with respect to sustainability, instituting a sustainability manager, all
are examples that are united under the umbrella of sustainability.
In this article, we aim to contribute to the reduction of conceptual ambiguity in
this field of application, and to the debate what practices might be useful in order to
improve organizational sustainability. For that purpose we explore another field, the
quality approach, in order to deduce lessons for the benefit of the sustainability
approach.
Why looking for assistance in the quality approach for further developing the
sustainability approach? There are several reasons for this exploration. The first
reason is rather simple and related to the time aspect. Although it could be suspected
otherwise, sustainability is certainly not a new phenomenon. From a historical
perspective Van Zon (2002) clearly shows that, for instance, mining or the
exploitation of soil in terms of forestry were already important matters of concern in
ancient times. Nevertheless, since the eighties of last century sustainability has
become a more important item on the organizational and academic agendas. The
quality-approach, on the other hand, can look back on a rather long developmental
period (see e.g. Evans and Lindsay, 1999; Juran, 1989) in which the concept has been
defined and redefined several times and, in which many practices have been
developed and used since then. It seems plausible that there is something to be

1
learned for the sustainability approach from this developmental period. Yet, this time
aspect would of course not be relevant if there were no reasons with regard to content.
Second, both quality and sustainability have inherent positive meanings. Quality
and sustainability can be considered goals that appeal to everybody. Indeed, who
could not be in favor of organizations that, for instance, aim to deliver high quality
products or try to balance between economic prosperity, social issues, and a healthy
ecological environment? However, because of this inherent positive meaning of the
concepts, there seems to be a tendency to assemble a variety of phenomena under the
concepts. This, in turn, complicates defining the concepts, quality and sustainability.
Third, when the term organizational sustainability is used, the first question that
needs to be dealt with is ‘sustainability of what?’. In the quality approach there is
some experience dealing with this so-called application question. Indeed, a quality
statement, or a sustainability statement for that matter, always refers to ‘something’.
This may seem obvious, yet further delineating this ‘something’ is not a
straightforward task, but will probably be helpful to decrease the ambiguity of the
sustainability concept.
Regarding the before mentioned application question it is important to make a
distinction between sustainability (or quality), as an attribute of something, and,
because of the presence of such an attribute, the resulting responsibility the
organization takes or gets, which must be understood as ‘having a duty, an obligation’
(Takala and Pallab, 2000). Both aspects must be considered two sides of the same
medal. However, we will focus on the resulting responsibilities as this position fits
within our focus on sustainability in an organizational context. Taking the perspective
that organizations should behave and act in a sustainable way, it is their task dealing
with this responsibility. As we will discuss later on in this article, the responsibility
issue includes the question of what sustainability is attributed or applied to.
The main question for this paper is: What can be learned from the quality-
approach for further developing the organizational sustainability approach? For
answering this question, we have structured our argument along the following lines.
First, we will discuss the sustainability approach. In particular, the question of
application is explored. This exploration yields four issues, of which it is argued that

2
they need to be resolved in the context of organizational sustainability. Second, it is
analysed in what way the quality approach deals with these issues. Third, on the basis
of this, some conclusions are drawn for sustainability, regarding the concept and
organizational practices, in order to give the sustainability approach a swing.
In conclusion of this introduction, it is worth mentioning that there are some
recent initiatives in sustainability literature to integrate sustainability and quality in an
all-embracing framework (Waddock and Bodwell, 2002; Madu, 2003). Waddock and
Bodwell aim to develop a total responsibility management framework, which they
label TRM, as an analogy of TQM (i.e. total quality management). At this point, we
leave this matter of integration open to question and come back to this issue further
down.

3
2 Organizational sustainability: dealing with responsibilities and boundaries

As said before, the sustainability approach has varying roots, and therefore various
meanings. We will only give a very limited discussion of sustainability literature
considering the many roots and meanings that exist, and focus on the evolution of the
concept in an organizational context.
Two perspectives on the sustainability notion have played an important role in
the sustainability literature, viz. the ‘Brundlandt’ perspective and the ‘triple-P’
perspective. The first perspective is based on the so-called ‘Brundlandt definition’ of
sustainable development (WCED, 1987, p. 43), i.e. ‘meeting the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs’. Of course, the range of the ‘Brundlandt’ definition is beyond organizational
sustainability. Indeed, it is humanity that should strive for sustainability.
Nevertheless, as noted in the introduction, the definition has been important for
getting sustainability on organizational agendas (e.g. WBCSD, 2002). Also in
literature, the definition can be considered a milestone. For instance, Dyllick and
Hockerts (2002, p.131) transpose the definition, by means of the stakeholder concept,
to the organizational level. They define corporate sustainability as ‘meeting the needs
of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees, clients,
pressure groups, communities etc), without compromising its ability to meet the needs
for future stakeholders as well’.
Elkington (1997), who uses the triple-P perspective, considers an organization
sustainable if a certain minimum performance is attained in the three so-called ‘p-
area’s’. The three P’s stand for people, planet, and profit. The main point is that the
‘bottom line’ of an organization is not only an economic-financial one; an
organization is responsible to its social and ecological environment as well. From this
perspective, an organization needs to find a balance between economic goals (profit)
and goals with regard to the social (people) and ecological (planet) environment.
Despite of the vagueness of the sustainability notion, organizations are nonetheless
becoming more and more familiar with thinking in the three P’s. Two phenomena

4
positively influence this. (i) There is a growing amount of auditing and reporting
initiatives in which the three P’s are used (e.g. GRI 2002; WBCSD, 2002).
Particularly, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) tries to bring some harmonization,
i.e. by means of the three P’s, into the variety of reporting formats. (ii) Next to these
non-governmental initiatives, there is a role for banks in this respect as well. For
various reasons, i.e. risk avoidance or societal awareness (Jeucken, 2001), banks more
often set constraints on loans, frequently in terms of the three P’s. Leaving aside the
question of whether the dominance of the ‘triple-P’ perspective is justified, this
perspective has contributed to developing sustainability indicators and reporting
guidelines. Because of the enormous variety in guidelines, organizations have no
option but to use a mixture of incomplete and incompatible guidelines if they want to
account for their behaviour in terms of sustainability (Cramer, 2002).
These perspectives reflect, although implicitly, a shift from a more ecological
and absolute meaning of sustainability towards a broader, relative, and more dynamic
one (Banerjee, 2003). The meaning of sustainability has been broadened since
multiple stakeholders can relate sustainability to different objects or artefacts, and
apply different interpretations towards a similar object or artefact. Sustainability has
been developed also towards a more relative concept as the level of sustainability is
related to the needs of stakeholders and the extent to which these needs are fulfilled.
Furthermore, the relative importance of the different stakeholders can change as well
as the needs of the stakeholders, which implies that the meaning of sustainability also
has become a dynamic one1. What makes the question of application so difficult is,
that the evolution of the attribute as well as of the object or artefact to which it is
applied has been broadened. The sustainability notion can be related to the materials
used (attribute) for a building (artefact), but also to the durability of knowledge
(attribute) acquired through education (artefact).
This question of application is particularly relevant at the organizational level.
An organization can be considered, in terms of sustainability, an assembly point of

1
Regarding the evolution of the sustainability concept, we also have made use of the work of
Faber, Jorna and Van Engelen (2003. The Sustainability of “Sustainability”, Working Paper,
University of Groningen).
5
various application questions. For instance, does sustainability refer to the
organization’s products regarding their impact on the environment, or regarding the
way goods and services are produced. In the latter example it is a question of whether
this is restricted to the organization or to the overall supply chain? Continuing, does
sustainability refer to the core activities, to the supporting activities, or to both?
Likely, it would be no problem to continue this list still further. This listing also raises
the question of responsibilities. For which part of the organization, or even across its
boundaries, is the organization responsible in respect to sustainability? We will
further elaborate on this question of application and responsibilities by means of two
examples.

Two examples
The first example concerns a bank. The essence of the role of a bank is that of an
intermediary in the economic circulation of money. In short, a bank brings together
two types of customers, i.e. those with a surplus of money (the investors and/or other
money suppliers) and those with a shortage of money (the money lenders). A bank
lends money to private and corporate households, and for these investments the
incoming money is used. Basically, for a bank that aims to incorporate sustainability
in its core process of transforming money, which is in fact a decision the bank takes
itself, there are two main possibilities. It can either set constraints, in terms of
sustainability, on the money that comes in, or on the money that goes out. Usually, a
bank sets constraints only on the outgoing money stream (Jeucken, 2001). In this
way, for example, they only agree with a loan when the money is to be invested in
sustainable businesses or investment funds. The money that is deposited in the bank,
by the suppliers, can be used, only or partly, for investments that fulfil certain
sustainability criteria.
The second example concerns an occupational health and safety service whose
role is to supervise and control the working conditions in different organizations (i.e.
their customers) with respect to occupational health, safety, and well-being. In the
Netherlands it is obligatory for every employer to contract those activities to an
organization, which needs to be accredited in that respect. A specific (public) task of

6
these organizations is to accompany sick employees during their absence in order to
support their reintegration in the working process. In the light of a more sustainable,
in the sense of durable, employment of workers in their customer organizations, the
organization aims to move from curative/medical care towards more preventive care.
In other words, the organization wants to focus on preventing employees becoming
ill, rather than integrating sick people back into their jobs. For that reason, a change in
their service package might be needed, which raises several questions. Should their
services be restricted to those who are directly connected with the working situation,
such as advice and information about the best working conditions, or should their
package also include services influencing the indirect health factors, such as eating,
drinking and smoking behaviour? One step further might be that the organization
sponsors social activities and sporting facilities in the local environment of their
customer organizations.
These examples indicate two things regarding the application issue. First, they
show that an organization has to be clear about the attribute and about the object or
artefact to which it relates sustainability. It is a question of what the two organizations
feel responsible for regarding sustainability. In this paper we entitle this the nature of
the responsibility. Deliberately we have chosen to discuss two examples in which the
organization aims for incorporating sustainability in their core process. Of course, the
need to specify the responsibility is also relevant when an organization confines
applying sustainability to its supporting activities. In literature, the nature of the
responsibility is e.g. established by means of the stakeholder concept (Dyllick and
Hockerts, 2002; Kaptein and Wempe, 2001). Yet, since there is more than one
stakeholder, the ambiguity with respect to the sustainability approach has not really
been decreased.
Second, an organization must specify the boundaries of the chosen responsibility
system. In other words, how far reaches the responsibility or what is the system or
area in which the responsibility is effective? For a bank there are various boundary
questions in that respect. For instance, the area can be limited to all the outgoing
money and therefore to all moneylenders, or to a part of the outgoing money and,
accordingly, to a part of the moneylenders. In case of the occupational health and

7
safety service this question of setting the boundaries is also present. Indeed, how far
beyond the boundaries of the client organization should they influence the condition
of their workers?
What complicates dealing with the issues of responsibilities and boundaries is
that society, as a field of application, is closely intertwined with the organizational
level. The examples in this section show that setting the boundaries between
organization and environment, or between organization and society, is not a
straightforward task. Moreover, organizational sustainability seems to be not only
about doing business in a certain desirable way, but also about improving societal
sustainability by means of organizational activities and influence (Roome, 2001). In
the latter view the organization is considered an instrument for improving sustainable
development, i.e. on a societal level (say the ‘Brundland-perspective’). So, the area is
likely to be bounded more widely if an organization is considered an instrument for
improving sustainable development on a societal level. This makes the question all
the more important: how far reaches this responsibility of the organization? As a
consequence, this raises a fundamental question for the sustainability practice. In
what way is an organization able to take care of the responsibilities?
In conclusion, the application issue can be further split up in four types of
questions. The first question refers to the nature of the responsibility. Subsequently,
the responsibility question yields a boundary question, namely how far reaches this
responsibility? What is the area in which this responsibility is effective? Are the
responsibilities restricted to (parts of) the organization itself or does the area include
e.g. suppliers, customers or the local environment? Third, it is a question of who is
involved in determining the responsibilities and the responsibility area? What is the
influence of various stakeholders in this decision making process? Fourth and finally,
in what way is the organization able to take care of the responsibilities? In the next
section we will discuss in what way the quality approach deals with these issues.

8
3 THE QUALITY APPROACH

Conceptual ambiguity along with practical uncertainties, as discussed in the previous

section in relation to sustainability, can be perceived in the quality approach as well.
Reeves and Bednar (1994, p. 419) already pointed out: ‘Regardless of the time period
or context in which quality is examined, the concept has had multiple and often
muddled definitions and has been used to describe a wide variety of phenomena’.
Nearly ten years later this is still true, although there is some progress in dealing with
this ambiguity and uncertainty. This section focuses on the quality approach from the
perspective of the issues discussed before. For that, some historical developments in
the quality approach are discussed in order to analyse in what way these issues are
being dealt with.

3.1 Four developmental phases

In the quality approach four phases can be distinguished, in which different aspects of
quality are dominant, i.e. quality inspection, quality control, quality assurance, and
total quality management (TQM). In the first phase, starting in the early 1900s,
quality was primarily related to products (i.e. goods and services), and was achieved
by inspection. The essential point of inspection is, in this phase, to screen out defects
before customers detected them.
The next developmental phase, the quality control phase starting in the late
1940s, demonstrates an enlargement of this focus and the upstream processes also
become objects of quality control. It is argued that defects could be avoided by
controlling the transformation process, and by solving quality problems earlier. Later
on, in this quality assurance phase, the responsibility for quality is widened through
the inclusion of functions other than direct operations. Two quality gurus, Juran and
Deming, introduce quality systems throughout organizations and stress the
importance of continuous quality improvement, which can be considered the marking
of the third phase.

9
 The central idea in the quality assurance phase, which started in the early
1970s, is that quality of output only can be achieved by organizations that are in
control of their processes and functions, and that try to continually improve
themselves. It is in this phase that the ISO system becomes popular. ISO provides an
international solution for assuring potential customers that the organization should be
able to deliver a certain quality. In this context it is relevant to point also at the CE
mark, which is the testing mark of the European Union. This testing mark is only
assigned to rather tangible products, and focuses mainly on safety, health,
environment and customer protection, which can be considered diverse
responsibilities regarding quality.
Just before the hitherto-final developmental phase in quality management the
specific nature of the service organizations as an important variable for quality
management is emphasized (Grönroos, 2000). Particularly in services organizations,
in which there is contact between the customer and the organization, processes
become, in addition to products, objects of quality evaluations. The contact moments
between client and organization are considered the so-called ‘the moments of truth’
(Carlzon, 1989). Grönroos (2000) stresses the importance of two dimensions of
quality in this sector, i.e. technical quality (i.e. ‘what receives the customer’) and
functional quality (i.e. ‘how does the customer receive it’). Company and/or local
image however, can affect the perception of these quality dimensions, and work as a
filter. If a provider is good in the eyes of the customer, minor mistakes will be
forgiven. If the image is negative, the impact of any mistake will often be
considerably greater than it otherwise would have been (Grönroos, 2000).
The last developmental phase, which is marked by total quality management
(TQM) of the 1980s up to now, includes much of the former characteristics, but also
develops its own distinctive themes. In some respect, TQM represents a clear shift
from the traditional approaches to quality (Slack et al, 2001), as it is more a
philosophy. It can be viewed a way of thinking and working, that particularly focuses
on realizing a complete customer orientation and continuous improvement through a
total system approach. However, it must be noted that not only the customer is an
important stakeholder for ‘TQM-organizations’. Considering the EFQM Excellence

10
Model as a representative of the TQM movement, ‘TQM-organizations’ also measure
and achieve outstanding results with respect to their employees, their value-adding
partners (such as suppliers) and other stakeholders in society.

3.2 Quality: customer dominance

Similar to sustainability, quality is a broad, multi-interpretable, relative and dynamic

concept. The developments in the quality approach show several points that are
relevant in the light of the issues raised. First, it can be concluded that the question of
‘who is involved?’ is leading compared to the other issues. The most important focus
point in the quality management approach is the customer. Above all, quality is
delivering an output meeting or exceeding customer’s expectations. The client who
pays is, particularly in profit organizations, the frame of reference for answering the
question ‘What is quality?’, including the nature of quality as well as the needed or
appropriate level. Hence quality is measured by, for instance, satisfaction rates or
complaints. Economic reasoning explains the strength of this perspective. It must be
pointed out however, that in the non-profit sector, such as hospitals, government and
welfare institutions, it is not that easy to choose a client perspective, despite the fact
that there is much societal pressure to do so. Nevertheless, this does not hinder the
fact that the ‘who is involved–issue’ is, also in these settings, still leading. In these
sectors organizations struggle with the question how to deal with several internal and
external stakeholders, who have in some respects different views on quality.
The second point of discussion concerns the nature of the responsibility and
responsibility area. Quality is primarily related to the output of an organization in
terms of products, tangible or non-tangible. Although the historical analysis showed
that processes also have become objects of quality control, to some extent this can be
considered instrumental with regard to the products. Nevertheless we can discern
signals of a shift towards a broader responsibility and responsibility area. Two
developments are relevant for this shift. (i) As said, particularly in services
organizations also the processes have become objects of quality evaluations for
customers. Company and/or local image however, might affect the perception of the

11
functional and technical quality dimensions. For that reason, the company or local
image have become evaluation objects for customers as well, and thereby a
responsibility for the organization. (ii) The introduction of the CE mark has resulted
in organizations also being responsible for the consequences of using their products.
This means that organizations are held responsible for the right use of their products
in terms of not harming customers and not endangering their health.
One can argue that in the quality assurance phase the organization has
become responsible for his internal quality system as well, and not only for the output
of the organization. After all, potential customers want to get confidence in the ability
of an organization to deliver the agreed products and processes. This confidence can
be created and communicated through e.g. accreditation of an organization by ISO
9000 norms. For that reason, in the pre-transaction phase, clients judge the
organization along with its quality management system. However, ISO accreditation
is only a consequence of the responsibilities in terms of what the customer actually
has been or will be delivered. It is a way of dealing with the need of customers to
have evidence that an organization takes its responsibilities towards the quality of the
output.
Only since the last two decades, through the TQM philosophy, other
stakeholders have become points of reference for quality performance as well. An
organization turns to be responsible for a broader system, for instance the
development of fundamental knowledge used for societal issues, the environmental
ecological system, and the employment and schooling facilities in the local
community. Up until then, the responsibilities of an organization regarding quality
were restricted to a customer perspective, and from this point of view the
responsibility area is set. By introducing other stakeholders’ perspectives, the nature
of the responsibilities regarding quality has become more diverse, and, as a
consequence, the responsibility area enlarges. To put it in other words, setting the
boundaries of the responsibility area has become an issue just now.

12
3.3 Some practices of quality management

What is left open for our line of reasoning is the question of ‘in what way is an
organization able to take care of the responsibilities’. In order to deal with this issue
the remainder of this section focuses in particular on quality management practices.
The phenomena as discussed before, have contributed to the development of certain
quality management practices. Being held responsible for quality in a certain sense
and within a certain area has resulted in various organizational behaviours.
The foremost conclusion is that organizations feel forced, usually for
commercial reasons, to produce evidence that there is a justified confidence in the
ability of an organization to deliver quality. The consequences of this mechanism –
stimulated by ISO regulations- is, that organizations deal with quality management by
producing handbooks, upgrading the level of formalization, standardizing most
working processes, and by measuring quality satisfaction. Just since the last decade
there has been paid more attention to the human and learning aspects of quality
management, along with the less predictable and easily controllable aspect of quality
management (Dean and Bowen, 1994; Hackman and Wageman, 1995).
In line with this need to be accountable, organizations feel a strong pressure
regarding the quality issue to measure quality and to create improvements in
performance. The Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle of Deming (1986) is one of the most
powerful quality instruments, which nearly has grown towards a natural way of
thinking. So, ‘to measure is to know’, as one of the famous principles of quality
management, can be viewed a specification of the ‘check-step’. This pressure has
resulted in a strong emphasis on measurable, preferably quantitative, quality
indicators, despite the fact that sometimes other elements are more valid indicators of
quality. ‘What gets measured gets done’ (Bertsch and Williams, 1994) is another
famous adage, but implies also that measuring can lead to undesirable behaviour. It
must be noted that the research on the development of quality indicators has shown
that this is a process in which occurs a variety of conceptual and methodological
pitfalls (see e.g. Eddy, 1998). Furthermore, indicators partly need to be developed
sector-specific (Mant, 2001; Snyman, 1996). The measuring cult in ‘quality land’ has
also taught us that, in some sectors, it is important to measure several times the
13
quality of the output and outcome. For instance, in education it proved to be
worthwhile to measure during the training, right afterwards, and a few years later to
find out how well the students were equipped for the labour market (Sirvanci, 1996).
Having said this however, these problems do not hinder that the development and the
use of indicators, and in a broader sense performance measurement, have expanded
enormously, and can be regarded as the most influential quality management
instruments (Evans and Lindsay, 1999).
Another consequence of the need to show accountable behaviour is that the
quality management approach distinguishes itself by a strong blue print thinking, that
is to say there seems to be one best way to organize for quality in every organization
(Spencer, 1994; Dean and Bowen, 1994). This is reflected in the use and popularity of
the Malcolm Baldrige Award and the EFQM model as frames of reference for
developing a quality management policy and quality systems, and, of course, in the
popularity of the ISO norms. These models have been important incentives for this
‘one best way thinking’; in fact, one meaning of ISO is ‘making equal’. The blue print
thinking is the result of the fact that the quality management approach initially has
been developed outside the mainstream of academic management institutions, and can
also be subscribed to the clarity of the ISO norm as a useful managerial instrument. It
helps managers to deal with the complex nature of quality management. Even so, this
blue print thinking is rather surprising considering the years of contingency thinking
in management and organization studies (e.g. Sitkin et al, 1994). Currently, quality
management has gradually grown towards an approach that pays somewhat more
attention to specific organizational characteristics of organizations. As discussed,
particularly the distinction between profit and non-profit organizations, and between
production versus service organizations is considered important (Evans and Lindsay,
1999; Zeithaml et al, 1990). Furthermore, there are possibilities for improving quality
management systems in practice, by taking other characteristics, such as size or the
nature of the technical system into account (Hansson and Klefsjö, 2003).
Acknowledging that quality management implies showing accountable
behaviour towards different stakeholders, this has stressed the need for human
competencies. Quality management has to be realized in a dynamic environment with

14
many uncertainties, varying interests, wishes and ideas from different internal and
external stakeholders. From this perspective there is a need for support through
communication, leadership or motivation. This insight has resulted in the use and
development of another type of management tools in quality management, such as
Policy Deployment (Evans & Lindsay, 1999), Management by objectives (MBO),
training and education, feedback sessions, working and learning in teams, self-
management and supervision. During the nineties of last century, the idea gained
importance that quality management is not only a management approach in which a
variety of techniques and methods are used, but is a ‘people case’ as well. Indeed, the
practice of quality management is taken care of by individuals -who may be
supported by control methods and techniques- but which surely cannot be contracted
out to these methods and techniques (Evans and Lindsay, 1999). Corresponding to
this development, the practice of quality management moved from the operational
level towards the more strategic levels and focuses on teamwork, leadership or even
organizational culture. The prevailing idea is that this means that quality is to be
considered the responsibility of top management.
In conclusion, with this overall picture of the quality approach in mind, we
move on the question to what extent the lessons learned in the quality approach are
relevant for further developing the sustainability approach.

15
4 Conclusion: the sustainability approach given a swing

The previous section described some lessons learned from the development of the
quality approach. Based on these findings, this section aims to answer the question of
what are relevant considerations for further developing the sustainability approach. Of
course, drawing conclusions is not simply a matter of generalizing the insights from
the quality approach into the field of sustainability. Both management approaches
have their own roots, historical development lines, and their own gurus. However, as
we have shown in the previous sections, they have a lot in common too: their inherent
positive meaning, their evolution towards a broad, relative and dynamic meaning, the
problem of designating the adjectives quality and sustainability to a certain system,
the ambiguity to deal with defining the concept, and the variety in practices all under
the umbrella of quality or sustainability. We summarize briefly how is being dealt
with the distinguished main issues in the quality approach (see table 1).

16
 Table 1: The Quality Approach and the Key Issues

Key issues in sustainability How is being dealt with these issues in the quality
approach approach?
What is the responsibility? - Answering this question is preceded by the question:
who is involved in this organization in this decision
making process
- Above all, the products and the contact moments with
the customers are points of reference
- In TQM-phase: responsibilities are broader, more
undefined
What is responsibility area? - A clear responsibility area is established by choosing for
the dominant perspective of the customer
- The area enlarges by moving towards sustainability
Who is involved determining - The stakeholder(s) with the most powerful
the setting of responsibilities relationship(s) with the organization dominate(s) the
and boundaries? decision making process
- In profit-organizations: the paying customer is the most
important stakeholder
Resulting organizational - Focus on external accountability by choosing for
behaviour and practices formalization and standardization of work processes
(ISO system)
- ‘One best way approach’ is now developing towards a
more contingent approach
- Quality management must be integrated in general
management, which means that a multi-level perspective
is important
- P-D-C-A cycle is dominant, including attention for
indicator development, measuring, and improvement
- Development of general and sector specific indicators is
necessary
- Both techniques and people management are important

17
 The previous section discussed what the returns are of almost 80 years
dealing with the quality approach. This discussion reflects that the development of the
quality movement particularly has been influenced by the economic relationship
organizations have with their customers. The emancipation of the customer, the
importance to be competitive, and the more stringent demands of authorities, all have
urged organizations to invest in their product- and process quality. Organizations
consider it their responsibility to be capable of delivering a sound quality/value
proportion, a good customer service, including dealing with complaints or defects,
and delivering after sales services. As a consequence, organizations show protective
and accountable behaviour: they try to minimize mistakes, improving themselves has
become a daily practice, and they have developed various tools to show to the outside
world that they are capable of delivering quality. In the late eighties of last century,
the idea came up, that quality is not solely a business of the quality- and production
manager, but that it is everybody’s business. This notion was the seedbed for the total
quality movement that brought more clarity as well as more confusion. It brought
more clarity, as it became an overall management concept, supported by, as managers
judged them, practical and useful management models. However, it also brought
more confusion, because the responsibility system along with its boundaries has
become more diffuse, and it has become an umbrella concept for a variety of
practices. What does this all mean for the sustainability approach?

4.1 Implications for the sustainability approach

In the previous sections we already have contributed to the sustainability

approach by arguing that an organization needs to answer the four mentioned issues
before setting up a sustainability program (see Table 2). The first three questions are
closely related, and it could be argued that also in case of sustainability, the
stakeholder-question should be picked up first, which is reflected in e.g. Dyllick and
Hockerts’ (2002) definition of corporate sustainability. However, to some extent the
introduction of the stakeholder notion means opening ‘Pandora’s Box’. How to deal
with the often-conflicting interests of stakeholders? Based on the quality approach, it

18
can be argued that somehow sustainability needs to yield value for one or more
stakeholders, and thus should become a relevant attribute for a specific stakeholder.
Practice shows that dominancy is often determined by economic reasons. Choosing
for the customer, as the important stakeholder, seems obvious, which might result in a
notion like ‘customer-based sustainability’. Actually, it could be stated that there will
be no sustainable production, without sustainable consumption (see also Welford et
al, 1998).
Second, and continuing with the before mentioned point of view, this means that
sustainability should be incorporated in the core process of the organization. It is this
part that connects the organization with its most crucial stakeholder, the customer.
There is another argument for this position, namely that the impact is often more far-
reaching. On the other hand, as we have seen within the quality approach, the
company or local image of an organization influences the perceptions of customers.
So a ‘sustainable image’ might be sufficient to please customers and to act
competitive on the market. However, if this image is not supported by a clear
responsibility and responsibility area, and is not consistent with its activities to
increase sustainability, this image could act as a boomerang. When a positive image
of the organization would break down, customers would not even forgive minor
mistakes in the sustainability approach.
Third, in case the ‘who-determines’-question is answered, preferably including
the customer, it makes the choice for a certain responsibility less complex. It must not
be forgotten that a choice for a certain responsibility always includes setting the
boundaries of the area in which the responsibility is effective. This is not an easy task,
which implies not only a well-considered choice for including certain processes or
parts of the organization, but might imply a choice for excluding certain aspects as
well. Of course, an organization is always accountable for these choices, and should
be able to explain the choices made.
Fourth, with respect to the accounting and reporting practices, it is a question of
whether sustainability programmes should be inspired by the same need for protective
and accountable behaviour as quality programmes are. Our answer would be a frank
yes, if the negative aspects that go along with these quality programmes could be

19
minimized. In the quality management field good results are established by using the
P-D-C-A cycle, by introducing accreditation, and by putting management attention to
the necessity of well-developed quality systems. However, learning from the quality
approach, we would recommend the following points of attention. (i) An organization
has to find a right mix between external accountability and internal improvement and
innovation. If an organization feels too much pressure and spends too much time
producing sustainability systems and regulations, only to convince the outside world
of the sustainability level, it might negatively affect the innovative capability of the
organization. (ii) Develop both general and specific indicators; general indicators
make it possible to compare companies in different sectors, and more specific
indicators can be helpful in benchmark projects. Another possibility is to distinguish
between an overall sustainability concept, such as the triple-P perspective, and sector
specific operationalizations. We consider it a waste of time and knowledge to develop
a one-best-way of organizing sustainability. The quality management movement is
slowly leaving this point of view, and this turns out for the best. (iii) Develop
indicators that generate useful information for important stakeholders, but at the same
time, that do not result in undesirable behaviour by employees and management. (iv)
Embedding of a sustainability approach within an organization is only reached when
a large part of the organization is, at least, conscious of the necessity to show
sustainable behaviour, and that it is clear for everyone how to contribute to a more
sustainable organization.Table 2 summarizes the implications for the sustainability
approach.

20
 Table 2: The Sustainability Approach and the Key Issues

Key issues in How to deal with these issues in the sustainability

sustainability approach approach?
What is the responsibility? - Answering this question is preceded by the question:
who is involved in an organization in this decision
making process?
- Above all, the core process, along with the most
relevant stakeholder, should be the main point of
reference
What is the responsibility area? - Strive for a clear responsibility area, which is feasible
by choosing for the dominant perspective(s) of one
stakeholder(s), preferably the paying one
- When a certain chosen responsibility area generates a
competitive advantage, it supports the sustainability
approach
- Answering this question is partly a sector-specific
concern
Who is involved determining - There have to be stakeholders for which sustainability
the setting of responsibilities yields value
and boundaries? - These stakeholders should be highly involved in the
decision making processes
- In profit-organizations, the customer should be (one of)
the paying stakeholder(s)
Recommended organizational - Practices should be a right mix between protective and
behaviour and practices accountable behaviour at the one side, and innovative
behaviour at the other side
- Develop sector specific indicators besides more
generic ones
- Avoid one-best-way thinking
- Think and work in P-D-C-A circles
- Involve organizational members in specifying
sustainable practices (including developing indicators).

4.2 Discussion

In conclusion of this paper, we want to put forward one point of discussion. As

announced in the introduction, we would come back on the matter of integrating
quality and sustainability in an all-embracing framework as, for instance, Waddock
and Bodwell (2002) and Madu (2003) aim for. It can be observed that the two
21
concepts approach each other, all the more when comparing sustainability with
quality, that is to say in terms of total quality. How to evaluate this phenomenon
depends on ones standpoint. Indeed it can be argued that, on a societal level, it is of
no significance whether an organization acts in a certain (i.e. desirable) way in terms
of quality or in terms of sustainability. On the organizational level however, it is a
significant matter. In the light of feasibility, practices of quality management show
that the broader goals, the more difficult they can be realized. This cautionary is
certainly relevant for the sustainability practice, but is applicable for TQM as well.

22
REFERENCES

Banerjee SB. 2003. Who Sustains Whose Development? Sustainable Development

and the Reinvention of Nature. Organization Studies 24(1): 143-180.
Bertsch HB, Williams ART. 1994. How multinational CEOs make change
programmes stick. Long Range Planning 27(october): 12-4.
Carlzon J. 1989. Moments of Truth. Perennial Library, Harper & Row: New York.
Cramer JM. 2002. From Financial to Sustainable Profit. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management 9: 99-106.
Dean, JW jr., Bowen DE. 1994. Management theory and total quality: improving
research and practice through theory development. Academy of Management
Review 19(3): 392-418.
Deming E. 1986. Out of the Crisis. MIT: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dyllick T, Hockerts K. 2002. Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment 11: 130-141.
Eddy DM. 1998. Performance measurement: Problems and solutions. Health Affairs
17(4): 7-25.
Elkington J. 1997. Cannibals with Forks; The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Capstone: Oxford.
Evans JR, Lindsay WM. 1999. The Management and Control of Quality. West
Publishing Company: St. Paul.
GRI 2002. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.
http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/2002/gri_2002_guidelines.pdf [9 June
2003].
Grönroos C. 2000. Service Management and Marketing. A customer relationship
management approach. Wiley & sons: New York.
Hackman JR, Wageman R. 1995. Total Quality Management: empirical, conceptual,
and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2): 309-342.
Hansson J, Klefsjö B. 2003. A core value model for implementing total quality
management in small organizations, TQM Magazine 15(2): 71-82.
Jeucken MHA. 2001. Sustainable Finance and Banking. The Financial Sector and the
Future of the Planet. Earthscan Publications: London.
Juran JM. 1989. Juran on Leadership for Quality. An Executive Handbook. The Free
Press: New York.
Kane M. 1999. Sustainability Concepts: From Theory to Practice. Sustainability in
Question. The Search for a Conceptual Framework, Köhn, J et al. (eds.). Edward
Elgar: Cheltenham: 15-31.

23
Kaptein M, Wempe J. 2001. Sustainability Management: Balancing and Integrating
Economic Social and Environmental Responsibilities. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship 1(2): 91-106.
Madu CN. 2003. Competing on Quality and Environment. Chi-Publishers: Fairfield
Connecticut.
Mant J. 2001. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of
health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 13(6): 475-480.
Reeves CA, Bednar DA. 1994. Defining quality: alternatives and implications.
Academy of Management Review 19(3): 419-445.
Roome, NJ. 2001. Metatextual Organizations – Innovation and Adaptation for Global
Change. Centre for Sustainable Development and Management. Erasmus
University Rotterdam: Rotterdam.
Sirvanci M. 1996. Are students the true customers of higher education? Quality
Progress 29(10): 99.
Sitkin SB, Sutcliffe KM, Schroeder RG. 1994. Distinguishing control from learning
in Total Quality management: a contingency perspective. Academy of
Management Review 19(3): 537-564.
Slack N, Chambers S, Johnston R. 2001. Operations Management. Financial Times
Prentice Hall: Harlow.
Spencer BA. 1994. Models of organization and Total Quality management: a
comparison and critical evaluation. Academy of management review 19(3): 446-
471.
Snyman GJJ. 1996. The development of leading indicators for the South African
building industry. Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics 20(1): 85-
98.
Takala T, Pallab P. 2000. Individual, collective and social responsibility of the firm.
Business Ethics: a European Review 9(2): 109-118.
Van Zon H. 2002. Duurzame ontwikkeling in historisch perspectief. Enkele
Verkenningen. (Dutch, translation: Sustainable Development from a historical
perspective. Some explorations). UCM / KU Nijmegen: Nijmegen.
Waddock S, Bodwell C. 2002. From TQM to TRM. Total Responsibility
Management Approaches. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 7(Autumn 2002):
113-126.
Welford R, Young W, Ytterhus B. 1998. Towards Sustainable Production and
Consumption: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework for the Service
Sector. Eco-Management and Auditing 5: 38-56.
WCED. 1987. Towards Sustainable Development. Our Common Future. World
Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press:
Oxford: 43-66.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). 2002. Sustainable
Development Reporting. Striking the Balance. Earthprint: Hertfordshire.
24
Zeithaml V, Parasuraman A, Berry LL. (1990). Delivering quality service. Balancing
customer perceptions and expectations. The Free Press: New York.

25