Sustainable management

Managers' strategies reflect the mindset of the times. This being the case, it has been a problem for the evolution of sustainable management practices for two reasons. The first reason is that sustainable norms are continually changing. For example, things considered unthinkable a few years ago are now standard practices. And the second reason is that in order to practice sustainable management, one has to be forward thinking, not only in the short term, but also in the long term. Management behavior is a reflection of how accepted conceptions of behavior are defined. This means that forces and beliefs outside of the given program push along the management. The manager can take some credit for the cultural changes in his or her program, but overall the organization’s culture reflects dominant conceptions of the public at that time. This is exemplified through the managerial actions taken during the time periods that lead up to the present day. These examples are given below:


This was a time period in which, even though there were outside concerns about the environment, the industries were able to resist pressures and make their own definitions and regulations.^[1] Environmentalists were not viewed as credible sources of information during this time and usually discredited.


The norms of this period radically shifted with the creating of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. The EPA became the mediator between the environmentalists and the industry, although the two sides never met.^[1] During this period, the environment for the majority of industry and business management teams was only important in terms of compliance with law.^[1] In 1974 a conference board survey found that the majority of companies still treated environmental management as a threat.^[1] The survey noted a widespread tendency in most of industry to treat pollution control expenditures as non-recoverable investments.^[1] According to the consensus environmental protection was considered at best a necessary evil, and at worst a temporary nuisance.^[1]


By 1982, the EPA had lost its credibility, but at the same time activism became more influential, and there was an increase in the funding and memberships of major non-governmental organizations (NGOs).^[1] Industry gradually became more cooperative with government and new managerial structures were implemented to achieve compliances with regulations.^[1]


During this period, industry progressed into a proactive stance on environmental protection.^[1] With this attitude, the issue became one in which they felt qualified to manage on their own. Although there was advancement in organizational power, the concern for the environment still kept being pushed down the hierarchy of important things to do.^[1]


In 1995 Harvard professor Michael Porter wrote in the Harvard Business Review that environmental protection was not a threat to the corporate enterprise but rather an opportunity, one that could increase competitive advantage in the marketplace.^[1] Before 2000, The companies generally regarded green buildings as interesting experiments but unfeasible projects in the real business world.^[2] Since then several factors, including the ones listed below, have caused major shifts in thinking.^[2] The creation of reliable building rating and performance measurement systems for new construction and renovation has helped change corporate perceptions about green. In 2000, the Washington D.C.-based United States Green Building Council launched its rigorous Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program.^[2] Hundreds of US and international studies have proven the financial advantages of going green: lower utility costs, higher employee productivity.^[2] Green building materials, mechanical systems, and furnishings have become more widely available, and prices have dropped considerably.^[2] As changes are made to the norms of what is acceptable from a management perspective, more and more it becomes apparent that sustainable management is the new norm of the future. Currently, there are many programs, organizations, communities, and businesses that follow sustainable management plans. These new entities are pressing forward with the help of changing social norms and management initiatives.

Communities[edit]

For communities to be able to improve, sustainable management needs to be in practice. If a community relies on the resources that are in the surrounding area, then they need to be used in a sustainable manner to insure the indefinite supply of the resources. A community needs to work together to be able to be productive, and when there is a need to get things done, management needs to take the lead. If sustainable management is in practice in a community, then people will want to stay in that community, and other people will realize the success, and they will also want to live in a similar environment, as their own unsustainable towns fail. Part of a sustainable management system in a community is the education, the cooperation, and the responsiveness of the people that live in the community.^[7]


There are new ideals to how a community can be sustainable. This can include urban planning, which allow people to move about a city that are more sustainable for the environment. If management plans a community that allows for people to move without cars, it helps make a community sustainable by increasing mass transit or other modes of transportation. People would spend less time in traffic while improving the environment, and on an occasions exercise.^[8]


Sustainable management provides plans that can improve multiple parts of people lives, environment, and future generations. If a community sets goals, then people are more likely to reduce energy, water, and waste, but a community cannot set goals unless they have the management in place to set goals.^[9]


A part of sustainable management for a community is communicating the ideals and plans for an area to the people that will be carrying out the plan. It is important to note that sustainable management is not sustainable if the person that is managing a situation is not communicating what needs to be improved, how it should be improved, why it is important to them, and how they are involved it in the process.