Anda di halaman 1dari 21

(1)

Sustainable development is everything including elements of ethics, politics, naturaland social sciences etc.
Brundlandt report (1987) our common future (I wish I had enough time to
summarize it here but most importantly is to go through chapter 2 from P36 to 51)
Sustainable development is:
1. Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
2. development which meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of the future generations to meet their own needs
3. The process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of
investments, the orientation of technological development and institutional
change are made consistent with the future as well as the present needs
The reason we need a sustainable development is because we need a process of
change where we manage to develop the economy and the society without putting
stress on ecosystems. This gives the future generations a decent possibility to a good
quality of life.
The Club of Rome became known to the world in 1972 when the report Limits to
growth was published. This a study of the earths future development during the 21st
century, within the dimensions of economy, society and ecology. The report was based
on systems analysis modeling and produced by a group of MIT researchers.
The message was if the world continues its economic growth as the main guarantor
for human wealth, meaning higher income, enough employment and old age security
systems, the ecological footprint will increase to such levels that there is a risk of
societal collapse during the first half of the 21st century
The 4
1.
2.
3.
4.

principle of sustainable development are:


The unique position of humans.
The value of nature.
Responsibility and equity towards now living generations.
Responsibility and equity towards future generations.

In the four principals of sustainable development the value of humans and nature is
discussed but it states that Humans has a unique special status. This means that this is
about people and peoples ability to survive but with a responsibility towards nature.
Nature has limited resource and resilience.
1. This points at the human responsibility towards nature and its value. Nature
should be preserved for its own sake and its own use and humans should be
extremely cautious on how to exploit it. This manifests itself through national
parks that future generations will have the possibility to appreciate.
2. The other perspective is that humanity has the responsibility to economize with
natures resources in such a way that future generations have the possibility to
make responsible use of them.
3. Equity towards now living generations, means that we should take responsibility
for people that we dont know and never have met but either depend on or
should have equal opportunities to have a good quality of life. Such people are

4.

5.
6.
7.

for example the people making our food or people having disabilities. Our
responsibility is to share resources and show solidarity in an equitable way
Equity of future generations concern how resources are used in a responsible way
so future generations have the possibility to have decent ways to satisfy their
own needs and a good quality of life. In order to do this there are some other
ethical concepts that are important. Responsibility and equity is already
mentioned and others are virtue and autonomy.
In a virtue you need decide on common rules on how to do things and then you
stick to the rules. In cases where you need to change the rules you need to
renegotiate them. An example is international agreements.
Autonomy means that you as a person are the one that is responsible for your
own actions. It also means that you have the right to your own thoughts and say
what you want.
With every right there is also an obligation which means that you can act as you
want as long as you dont abuse or harass other people.

In sustainable development there are many actions and decisions that have moral
implications. You feel that you need to do the right things, but feel bad and guilty. Some
people fight their responsibility. There are reasons to why it is difficult to take
responsibility in every situation. Sustainable development is complex and often you
dont see how your actions can make a difference. Ways to manage this is learn more
about things, to be able to take informed decisions and actions.
We can go about doing small changes in behavior and decision making and hope for the
best. This position is often referred to as weak sustainability. Strong sustainability
implies that stronger actions are needed and taken to achieve a radical change. These
actions are required in all parts of society.
In sustainable development there are a number of implicit values that concerns humans
and the view on nature. Traditional ethics is a logical way to structure the norms,
attitudes and values of human perceptions of things. The most used ethical theories are
the utilitarian and the deontological. The theories are anthropocentric which means
that humans are the most important living being and has an eigenvalue. This means
that human value is indisputable and absolute.
The difference is their perception of actions and decisions and how these are evaluated
and assessed.
1. The utilitarian considers an action or a decision as good based on the amount of
satisfaction it gives to as many people as possible. Welfare is created through
satisfying peoples desires and through maximizing the use.
2. In deontological theory, the action is measured to be good or bad in relation to
the individuals rights.
Sustainable development takes a wider ethical perspective and discusses the value of
nature by merging human and environmental ethics. Environmental ethics concerns the
value of nature and weather it has an eigenvalue or and instrumental value. An
instrumental value means a value that is given an object and relates its use.

Three-Dimensional Models of Sustainable Development

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(2)
Sustainability Tools
Outcome based tools
1. Ecological footprinting
It shows the impacts that human beings have on the environment. And this profile is
defined in terms of as the sum of all crop land, grazing land, forest, and fishing grounds
that are required to produce the food for these people. To produce the materials that
they use and the energy that they need. And it also captures all the space that is
needed for storing the waste that they produce. So in that sense, it's really a footprint in
the sense of, given what you are doing, this is sort of the imprint that you make on the
Earth, on the Earth's ecosystems.
So this is really showing the outcome of all the activities of people, and you can simply
look up your country, and you can sort of say, okay, we're not doing too bad or maybe
you are doing really bad and based on that information, you can start to make decisions
about where you could possibly find improvements for the current situation. So that's
the basic idea of outcome oriented tools. You have some way of calculating your impact
on the environment and it gives you quite detailed information on where you could find
improvements. The ecological footprint is an index describing our environmental impact
by indicating the amount of land and oceans needed to sustain our consumption of
products and food, use of energy and the amount of waste we produce.
The worlds average ecological footprint is 1.9 hectares/person and year, but there are
big differences between developed and developing countries. The range is 0.6-12,2
hectares/person and year. The report concludes that the increased ecological foot print
will be unavoidable, unless politicians and decision makers take on a forward looking
policy.
For example, ensuring equal distribution of wealth, legislation to prevent cutting down
forests, control the emissions of greenhouse gases. It also suggests the control of
population growth by implementing social systems for education and health care.

http://en.solecopedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

2. ecosystem services (ESS)


Another way of doing it is to look at ecosystem services. This starts more from the natural
ecosystem itself

Look at an ecosystem and you think about what are the services that this ecosystem provides to
society.

Regulating

Gas Regulation

Relates to the influence of natural and managed systems in

Functions
Climate Regulation
Disturbance Regulation
Water Regulation
Soil Retention
Nutrient Regulation
Waste Treatment and Assimilation
Pollination
Biological Control
Barrier Effect of Vegetation
Supporting
Functions

Supporting Habitats
Soil Formation

Provisioning
Functions

Food
Raw Materials
Water Supply
Genetic Resources

Cultural
Functions

Provision of Shade and Shelter


Pharmacological Resources
Landscape Opportunity

organic compounds (VOCs).


Influence of land cover and biological mediated processes th
different plants and animals (including humans) live and fun
The capacity of the soil, regolith and vegetation to buffer the
The influence of land cover, topography, soils, hydrological c
and wetlands.
Minimising soil loss through having adequate vegetation cov
The role of ecosystems in the transport, storage and recyclin
The extent to which ecosystems are able to transport, store
and chemical recomposition.
Pollination is the interaction between plants and (1) biotic ve
male gametes for plant production. Pollination and seed disp
The interactions within biotic communities that act as restrai
and biological control mechanisms.
Vegetation impedes the movement of airborne substances s
enhances air mixing and mitigates noise.
Preservation of natural and semi natural ecosystems as suit
provision of suitable breeding, reproduction, nursery, refugia
Soil formation is the facilitation of soil formation processes. S
of inorganic and organic matter.
Biomass that sustains living organisms. Material that can be

Biomass that is used by species for any purpose other than


The role of ecosystems in providing water through sediment
Self maintaining diversity of organisms developed over evol
levels.
Relates to vegetation that ameliorates extremes in weather
Natural materials that are or can be used by organisms to m
The extent and variety of natural features and landscapes.

Basically you can look at the ecosystem and you can say, the ecosystem provides
materials, resources, but it also provides an opportunity for leisure. There is beauty, which is valued
by people, they enjoy that, so we also need to take that into account. And the ecosystem services
approach, tries to also put monetary value on those services. Which basically gives you one way of
comparing those services. And maybe saying, okay, we know that these natural areas has a high
touristic value. But, it also provides resources and the resources are more important currently for our
society than another function. So you can make trade-offs between those functions using this kind of
a tool. Another outcome-oriented tool is Life Cycle Assessment. This is probably a bit closer to many
people who are working in companies.

3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)


What you do with life cycle assessment is you make an assessment of the environmental
impact of a product.
the basics of life cycle assessment is that a product goes through a life cycle, from the extraction of
raw materials to production of intermediate products, final product, consumption, and then after
consumption phase where the waste needs to be collected. It may be recycled or the product itself is
reused and then finally there is the disposal of the waste that results.

And each of those steps has an environmental impact, and this type of tool is very interesting
because you can basically see where the majority of your impact of the product is
occurring. Because in some cases, that's the extraction of raw materials. But in other cases, it's in
the consumption phase. So it's not so much in producing the product that you generate
environmental impacts, but when people are using it, for instance electrical devices. You are using
electricity all the time, so that is a big environmental impact. In other cases it's the transport between
the different steps in the product life cycle. So depending on the product, you have a different profile
and you can also see where are the areas of improvement.

process based tools


1. environmental management system (ISO)
Environmental management system is basically, a way of applying the thinking about quality
improvement specifically to environmental issues. So it's a cycle where you set goals, you
plan your activities, you execute those activities and then you evaluate results.
And the environmental management system doesn't give you goals. You have to define them
yourself. It just gives you a procedure for achieving those goals and evaluating them.

2. whole systems analysis


Another process based tool is whole systems analysis. And this is a tool that is much closer
to what we were talking about previously, thinking about the world around you in terms of the
system.
And this approach, it focuses on assessing socio-technical system, of which you are a part,
and it makes you aware of the system boundaries that you are drawing and that other people
are drawing. And a very important dimension of this type of work is that the system of which
you are a part, is in fact, made up of other people. So, you need to think about how you can
involve those other people. So, if you are a firm, making a product you are connected to your
suppliers and they have suppliers themselves and they function in a context where they have
governmental regulations, they have maybe NGOs that they are in contact with. So there is a
very large context in which you function, as a firm or as a manager.
And changing the system means that you somehow connect to all these different persons
and the organizations that they stand for. And whole systems analysis is one approach for
actually doing it. And as this picture shows, the flowchart, you could say sort of an iterative
process where You think about the system, so that's reflection. And then based on that
reflection you make decisions about, okay, if this is my system, if these are the goals that I
think are important, this is the system boundary that I think is relevant, then these are things
that I can do.
And then based on that you can define projects that you can execute. And then you can sort
of use the results and the information about the results as the input for another for a next
step of reflection.

(3) Stakeholder dialogue

(3)
The Big Question is: What is the role of business in Society?
And that can be understood as:
1. What does it mean for the collectives (Everyone) in a society (Broad understanding) to
manage responsibly?
2. How can business productively and constructively participate in these collectiveness
perspectives, problem and practical projects?
Where:
Productively means: what change can be brought about to address societal challenges?
Constructively: how can these different organizations be brought together in a constructive
dialogue to see how to manage responsibly?
Meaning of Normative:
1. The idea of good citizenship on behalf of the corporation. Normative in the sense that
particular variety and heterogeneity of societal cares and concerns. For example, fair
trade thinks about the production conditions under which food or other products are
produced.
2. Standardization and a shared perspective, so that others actually wish to participate and
therefore, enlarge the scope of organizations involved.
3. The above two points of normative take our hand to the meaning of Legitimacy
construction: the legitimacy of multinational can't be decided by that multinational but it
has to be given to that multinational by Non-government organization or civil society.
Organizational Ambidexterity (I like to call it learning organization) simultaneously comprises both:
1. Divergence: and variety generation opening up and it employs Experimentation.
2. Converging: once reached to a conclusion closing down it standard it and it employs
Exploitation.
Stakeholder Theory
A Tool: Establishing Stakeholder Maps
1. Identify the focal entity. A focal entity defines the perspective from which the stakeholder
analysis is conducted. Remember to put the societal challenge at the heart of your construct
and then relate to the stakeholders, map them out if you like.
2. List stakeholders: prepare a complete list disregarding type or strength of relationship to the
focal entity.

3. Group stakeholders: organize the map in groups of stakeholders with mutual characteristics.
Example:

Principles of Responsibility: Managing for Stakeholder Value:


The process of stakeholder management consists of the two tasks:
1. Stakeholder assessment (understanding stakeholders) which consists of the two steps
Stakeholder identification, through which stakeholders are mapped,
And stakeholder prioritization, through which stakeholders characteristics are
understood and categorized by their priority for engagement.
2. Stakeholder engagement (interacting with stakeholders). which consists of the two steps
Stakeholder communication, through which direct contact with stakeholders is
established.
And the co-creation of activities, through which stakeholders and the company start to
collaborate for a joint objective.
The Normative Business Model (NBM) Randles & Laasch (2015)
Based on a case of Arizona State University and it answers: How transformation came about in
organizations:
Four cornerstones of the normative business model:
1. Normative orientations.
2. The role of institutional entrepreneurs.
3. Deinstitutionalize.
4. Governance instruments and tools.

Tools for evaluation: the first is the inside in and outside out matrix and
the second one is Responsibility Navigator.
Inside In: to develop insight in perspectives. That is, about communication and translation
inside the organization. What we understand as responsibility translates as it moves around
within the organization
Inside out: which is how, as we've said, a large organization communicates and works with
its external stakeholders.
Outside in: in that sense it is the same as Inside out.
Outside out: intermediary player. To bring different organizations together. Bringing all
Different actors together.

Responsibility
Navigator
Inclusion
Ensuring quality
of interaction

Moderation
Ensuring quality
of interaction

Deliberation
Ensuring quality
of interaction

Modularity and
flexibility
Positioning and
Orchestration

Insid
e In
Navigation towards responsibilisation is
more likely to be transformative if it
takes into account the diversity
of actors relevant to the problem or
project in a way that engages them
directly and effectively in debate or joint
activities,
where both their material interests and
core values are considered and if they
perceive the processes of sense
and decision making as legitimate,
transparent and trustworthy
Organizational modes appropriate to
build up trust, collect data and organize
dialogue are needed in the
form of fora', that is, institutionalized
places or procedures for interaction and
for bridging different perspectives
between contesting actors, after which
some alignment of goals and
procedures is expected.
Sense-making and decision-making
among actors with different knowledge
claims and positions, not only between
organizational actors but also
individuals, require confronting,
synthesizing and eventually
compromising across different
perspectives which might arise from
various knowledges.
Legitimate and effective governance
rest on carefully combining hard and
soft regulatory
mechanisms, allowing for self-regulation
and organization, as well as external
control and accountability structures
(e.g. supervision), where flexibility of
governance arrangements should not
lead to arbitrariness.

Insid
e
Out

Outsi
de In

Outsid
e out

Subsidiarity
Positioning and
Orchestration

Adaptability
Positioning and
Orchestration

Capabilities
Developing
Supportive
Environments

Capacities

Complementary to the self-governance


and the self-control expected from the
alignment of mutual understanding of
responsibility-related values and
commitment, some level of hierarchical
command-and-control process
may be necessary in certain
circumstances. This should be
performed mainly by independent
actors, capable to oversee
and enforce, perhaps applying a
variation of soft and hard pressures
such as requiring transparency about
R&I governance practices, naming and
shaming, sanctions, and accountability,
where both bottom-up and top-down
responsible research and innovation
governance approaches should be
balanced with and attuned to the
specific situation. In this context,
external authority should have a
subsidiary (that is, a supporting, rather
than a subordinate) function,
performing only those tasks which
cannot be performed effectively at a
more immediate level.
Governance towards responsibilisation
should be able to reflect different
historical developments of R&I systems
and changing conditions. Therefore,
such calibration requires assessing
whether governance arrangements still
effectively and legitimately serve
responsibility goals, where both goals
and costs and consequences of
governance instruments and
arrangements may also change over
time.
Fostering responsibilisation crucially
depends on reflexive individuals capable
of recognizing, anticipating,
deliberating, communicating, and
collectively pursuing societally desired
processes and outcomes of R&I
activities and their evaluation. This
process requires a certain level of
governance literacy, particularly
important for next generation of public
and private researchers, programme
and research managers, policymakers
and members of civil society
organizations, where learning and unlearning new concepts via formal
training or practice for assessing
excellence involving responsibilityrelated values are determinant.
For individual capabilities to unfold and

Developing
Supportive
Environments

Institutional
entrepreneurship
Developing
Supportive
Environments

Culture of
transparency,
tolerance and rule
of law
Developing
Supportive
Environments

express themselves, they need a


supportive organizational and network
infrastructure, such as access to
information and resources for
participation. This requires the
availability of spaces for reflection,
interaction and negotiation, appropriate
incentive structures and an open
knowledge base.
Both capability and capacity building
are most often not self-organizing
activities; instead, they require
leadership, top-level and continuous
support, vision and strategy, lobby work
and the rewarding of institutional
improvement in order to facilitate
change towards responsibilisation.
Only basic democratic principles such as
rule of law and freedom of speech will
make responsibility-related governance
effective and sustained overtime. For
this reason, the ability to
make claims and to invoke legal or
political means is a necessary condition
for fostering responsibilisation at
different
Organizational settings and
arrangements. Enacting the
aforementioned governance principles
implies supporting the
free ability to think and act in a
proactive way and under the rule of law,
where actors feel empowered by the
appropriate
Organizational culture.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(4)
Wrapping up
ITV Responsible management and sustainability approach falls into four different sections:
1. The first is inclusive programming. So that is really looking at how we reflect modern
Britain onscreen and in our editorial content. The social partnership, which was launched
back in 2014, was a big step forward for us in terms of partnering with our commissions
and our studio side of the business to really achieve and drive that change.
2. The second is inclusive workforce. So that is looking how we make sure the workforce
reflects modern Britain as well. So making sure that everything we do is relevant and
appropriate.
3. The third is all about inclusive culture. So my role in that is really making sure that we
embed diversity inclusion fully within the business. So it's not reliant on our department or

one single person to drive that change. It's owned within the business, and managed every
single day in what we're doing.
4. Our fourth commitment is inclusive access to programs and services. So, we do a lot of
work around our supply chain, making sure that have increased the standards, and making
sure that our content is accessible to everyone. We continue to exceed our quotas set by our
regulatory body regarding signing, audio description, and subtitling. And we also partner with
a various number of different external organizations to drive this agenda forward, whether it's
the RNIB or Action on Hearing Loss as well.
N.B: The MOOC looked to three levels.
1. In level of the individual in networks of individuals.
2. The level of the organization and groups of organizations.
3. And the level of systemic or transformational change.
The interviews 6 themes:
1. Our first is individuals and organizations. So, we will look at what people say about their
individual work links to their organization prospective.
2. The second links organizations and systems, so what happens in individual organizations
links to what happens at the systemic level?
3. And then we found that a few of our interviewees talked about different temporalities and
different scales, so local, global organizations on how they kind of interact at different levels.
How organization affect the global system.
4. Another thing that we can draw out from all the interviews is about diversity. And we have a
number of interviews from different parts of the world. And that naturally takes us into
thinking about the global level differences in culture, differences in business practices,
and how things are done differently around the world.
5. We have a theme that is about power structures and tension, so even though we might
like things to be smooth and easy to achieve. We all know that the world is very complicated
and full of tensions and power relationships. So, we can draw some of that out of the
interviews. Short termism and long termism way of thinking.
6. And the final one is about people's individual careers, the pathways that they've been on
so far in their careers. And how that helps people watching the MOOC to connect what we
hear in our interviewees story line to their own lives and where they're going in their career.
Worth Mentioning:
The Inside-Out approach is guided by the belief that the inner strengths and capabilities of
the organization will make the organization prevail.
The Outside-In approach is instead guided by the belief that customer value creation,
customer orientation and customer experiences are the keys to success.
From an Outside-In approach, long-term shareholder value is a consequence of listening and
providing value to customers and helping them get their jobs done better than the
competition while providing a seamless customer experience. The ideal organizational
culture is market- and customer-oriented and the targeted customer segments buyers as
well as users are the source of inspiration and development. There is also a strong belief
that if the customers arent satisfied with the solutions offered, the business will suffer and
the shareholder value will diminish.
With an Inside-Out approach to business, you would likely see effective use of company
resources and core competencies as the main driver of shareholder value. Inside-Out

strategists believe that a company achieves greater efficiencies and adapts more quickly to
changing circumstances with this approach.
1.

Do you know which your targeted customer segments are, what needs and behaviors
they have, how to best solve their relevant problems and what kind of value you provide
them?

2.

Is there a strong fit between your target segments needs, your value proposition,
your overall business model, internal processes and a customer-oriented organizational
culture, with focus on creating value for your customers? And do you feel that it is a
fundamental necessity of running a successful business?
If the answer is yes to the questions above, there is a high probability that you and/or your
organization lean towards an Outside-In approach. If the answer is no, its more probable
that you and/or your organization lean towards an Inside-Out approach.

References:
Most of the above mentioned materials is either adopted from this course, other
courses, Internet or my readings. Sometimes I put it as it is and sometimes I will
comment based on my understanding.

Framework of Value chains triple bottom line Sustainability


In the suggested Frame work for the Value System Sustainability. We have 3
vertices as shown below and all will lead the to the Normative Business model
as an overall transformation algorithm.

3 Sustainability Area:
Economic, Social and
Environment

The Normative Business


Model
1. Normative
orientations.
2. The role of
institutional
entrepreneurs.
3. Deinstitutionalize.
4. Governance
Sustainability Level (Evaluation):
1. Nature: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
2. Social: InsideIn/OutsideOut and
Responsibility Navigator combined

Sustaina
bility
Stakehol
ders
1. Sta

1st vertex: Sustainability Area

Economi
c

Economi
c

Social

Economic
Sustainability
( Not part of this report)

Social Sustainability

Environmental
sustainability

Elements of Defining Characteristics


Economic cost and benefit analysis Economic efficiency
Output larger than input
Current profit with reserved resources for future
economic activities
Self-financing as a going concern
Social stability and development
Improving human conditions such as education, job
skills, quality of life
Self-actualization
Justice, fairness, moral, ethics, and trust
Preservation and improvement of culture
Earth carrying capacity
Environment-friendliness
Reduction of CO2 emission
Carbon footprint Greenhouse gas effect, ozone

2nd vertex: Characteristics of Sustainability Stakeholder:


Stakeholders
Internal (to the focal firm)
Indirect upstream
Direct upstream
Direct
downstream
Value chain

Indirect
downstream

Customers

National
Boundary

General Public
Communities
(NGO, others)

Characteristics
Firms top management
Firms employees including managers
and workers
Example: 2nd or lower tier suppliers,
vendors, cooperating companies in the
upstream
Example: 1st tier suppliers, vendors,
cooperating companies in the upstream
Example: 1st tier distributors, sales and
logistical channels, cooperating
companies in the downstream
Example: 2nd or remoter tier distributors,
sales and logistical channels, cooperating
companies in the downstream
Buyers or consumers of the products and
services provided by the focal firm
Possible to include final or ultimate
buyers/consumers of the
products/services that are made of the
products and services provided by the
focal firm
People in the country, where the focal
company is operating Communities
Communities either directly or indirectly
connected with the company
Non-governmental organizations (NGO),

social groups, interest groups

Competing Value
Chains

Non-competing
Value Chains

Governmental
General Public
Communities
(NGO, others)

Global Market
Stakeholders

Competing Value
Chains

Non-competing
Value Chains

Governmental

Other value chains that are competing


with the companys own value chain
(for example, Samsung Electronics value
chain is competing with LG Electronics in
Korea)
Other value chains that are not directly
competing with the companys own value
chain
(for example, Samsung Electronics value
chain is not directly competing with
Hyundai Motors in Korea, at least
currently)
Governments at both local and national
level
People in foreign countries, where the
focal company is not directly operating
Communities in the foreign countries
Nongovernmental organizations (NGO),
social groups,
interest groups in the foreign countries
Chains Other value chains in the foreign
countries that are directly competing with
the companys own value chain (for
example, Samsung Electronics value
chain in Korea is competing with Apples
in the US)
Other value chains that are not directly
competing with the companys own value
chain (for example, Samsung Electronics
value chain in Korea is not directly
competing with GMs in the US, at least
currently)
Governments at both local and national
level in the foreign countries

3rd vertex: Evaluation


Responsibility
Navigator
Inclusion
Ensuring quality
of interaction

Navigation towards responsibilization is


more likely to be transformative if it
takes into account the diversity
of actors relevant to the problem or
project in a way that engages them
directly and effectively in debate or
joint activities,
where both their material interests and

Insi
de
In
X

Insi
de
Out
X

Outsi
de In

Outsi
de
out

Moderation
Ensuring quality
of interaction

Deliberation
Ensuring quality
of interaction

Modularity
and flexibility
Positioning and
Orchestration

Subsidiarity
Positioning and
Orchestration

Adaptability

core values are considered and if they


perceive the processes of sense
and decision making as legitimate,
transparent and trustworthy
Organizational modes appropriate to
build up trust, collect data and organize
dialogue are needed in the
form of fora', that is, institutionalized
places or procedures for interaction
and for bridging different perspectives
between contesting actors, after which
some alignment of goals and
procedures is expected.
Sense-making and decision-making
among actors with different knowledge
claims and positions, not only between
organizational actors but also
individuals, require confronting,
synthesizing and eventually
compromising across different
perspectives which might arise from
various knowledges.
Legitimate and effective governance
rest on carefully combining hard and
soft regulatory mechanisms, allowing
for self-regulation and organization, as
well as external control and
accountability structures (e.g.
supervision), where flexibility of
governance arrangements should not
lead to arbitrariness.
Complementary to the self-governance
and the self-control expected from the
alignment of mutual understanding of
responsibility-related values and
commitment, some level of hierarchical
command-and-control process may be
necessary in certain circumstances.
This should be performed mainly by
independent actors, capable to oversee
and enforce, perhaps applying a
variation of soft and hard pressures
such as requiring transparency about
R&I governance practices, naming and
shaming, sanctions, and accountability,
where both bottom-up and top-down
responsible research and innovation
governance approaches should be
balanced with and attuned to the
specific situation. In this context,
external authority should have a
subsidiary (that is, a supporting, rather
than a subordinate) function,
performing only those tasks which
cannot be performed effectively at a
more immediate level.
Governance towards responsibilisation

Positioning and
Orchestration

Capabilities
Developing
Supportive
Environments

Capacities
Developing
Supportive
Environments

Institutional
entrepreneurs
hip
Developing
Supportive
Environments

Culture of
transparency,
tolerance and
rule of law
Developing
Supportive
Environments

should be able to reflect different


historical developments of R&I systems
and changing conditions. Therefore,
such calibration requires assessing
whether governance arrangements still
effectively and legitimately serve
responsibility goals, where both goals
and costs and consequences of
governance instruments and
arrangements may also change over
time.
Fostering responsibilisation crucially
depends on reflexive individuals
capable of recognizing, anticipating,
deliberating, communicating, and
collectively pursuing societally desired
processes and outcomes of R&I
activities and their evaluation. This
process requires a certain level of
governance literacy, particularly
important for next generation of public
and private researchers, programme
and research managers, policymakers
and members of civil society
organizations, where learning and unlearning new concepts via formal
training or practice for assessing
excellence involving responsibilityrelated values are determinant.
For individual capabilities to unfold and
express themselves, they need a
supportive organizational and network
infrastructure, such as access to
information and resources for
participation. This requires the
availability of spaces for reflection,
interaction and negotiation,
appropriate incentive structures and an
open knowledge base.
Both capability and capacity building
are most often not self-organizing
activities; instead, they require
leadership, top-level and continuous
support, vision and strategy, lobby
work and the rewarding of institutional
improvement in order to facilitate
change towards responsibilisation.
Only basic democratic principles such
as rule of law and freedom of speech
will make responsibility-related
governance effective and sustained
overtime. For this reason, the ability to
make claims and to invoke legal or
political means is a necessary condition
for fostering responsibilisation at
different
Organizational settings and

arrangements. Enacting the


aforementioned governance principles
implies supporting the
free ability to think and act in a
proactive way and under the rule of
law, where actors feel empowered by
the appropriate
Organizational culture.

Normative Business Model (NBM)


Cornerstone

Normativity (N)

Details
N is linked to
both dI and IE. It
should work on
the
standardization
and creating the
culture of RRI,
yet the IE
support to create
the N as values.
Where dI provide
the stability to
inside the
firm/organization
/country
Learning
organization

De-Institutionalization and deep


institutionalization (dI)

Institutional entrepreneurialism
(IE)

On the strategic
scale and it sees
the leadership as
a fundamental
role for driving
the firm/country
toward the RRI

My Case
Referring to the dI and
IE status the country
and most organization
inside the country still
in the ignorant stage

The firms and the


country as a whole
are not ambidextrous
enough. A major
transformation is
needed
The Top
management/people
in power are either
neutral or see the RRI
as hindrance of the
economic bottom line

Economic and financial


governance (EFM)

It discusses the
importance of
the financial
incentivisation as
a mechanism of
both governance
and control

Not part of the


governance policy

I would love here to adopt some important graph that should tell where the position
of the organizations/country on the operation and Strategic scale. And it shows that
the organization/country of my residence is still rambling in the ignorant stage.
Where the strategic liability and corrective activities intersects.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai