Constructing the Green Manager
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00037 |
| Published date | 01 March 1997 |
| Date | 01 March 1997 |
| Author | Stephen Fineman |
Introduction
Since the 1970s there has been a surge in public
concern about the responsibility and moral
culpability of corporations for the environmental
damage inflicted by their processes and products.
Disasters, legislation, green education, green con-
sumerism, environmental pressure groups and the
media have kept ‘business and the environment’
alive as an issue. Although some of the most visible
sources of industrial pollution have now faded,
overall pollution from industrial enterprise contin-
ues to rise (Smith, 1993; Schot and Fischer, 1993).
Of particular concern has been the greenhouse
effect, depletion of stratospheric ozone, the ex-
haustion of fossil fuels, the effects of high uses of
agrochemicals, deforestation, and the extermina-
tion of plant and animal species.
The organizational sciences have been slow to
address environmental worries. What Gladwin
(1993, p. 39) terms ‘a great paradox’: the dearth of
theory and empiricism in the face of ‘one of the
most important transformations of all time’. He,
and others, seek a more systematic link to strategic
analysis, organizational theory and change, mor-
ality and leadership (Mylonadis, 1993; Roberts,
1992; Beauchamp and Bowie, 1983; Pauchant and
Fortier, 1990; Everett et al., 1993). One key strand
in this plea is a prescriptive one: that a substantial
shift is required in the belief system and values of
key organizational actors – away from the crisis
prone and defensive towards one where ‘ethical
values and environmental sensibilities dominate’
(Shrivastava, 1993, p. 30). Bolting on the ‘false
consciousness’ of a ‘green tinge’ is regarded as
inadequate (Smith, 1993, p. 9).
Surveys of UK executives and managers sug-
gest that some things are indeed happening envir-
onmentally, but probably not because of their
passion for protecting the planet. Large corpora-
tions have institutionalized and bureaucratized
the environment. Typical symbols are public state-
ments of environmental intent or mission and an
official, or department, to ‘handle’ environmental
affairs (Burke and Hill, 1990; Touche Ross, 1990).
Yet environmental work takes up a very small
proportion of boardroom time, where compliance
with legislative standards is of most concern
(IOD, 1992, 1993). ‘Deeper’ structures devoted to
‘total quality environmental management’ are
hard to find (Bennett et al., 1993), and it is very
rare to encounter companies raising environ-
mental considerations at a product’s inception
(Schot and Fischer, 1993). Some firms will at-
tempt to optimize production processes to reduce
pollution, while others engage in greening in
British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, 31–38 (1997)
Constructing the Green Manager
Stephen Fineman
School of Management, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
This article applies a social constructionist approach to senior managers’ ‘green’ selves
and roles. In a qualitative, empirical study of the UK automotive industry, the social/
political contexts of managers’ organizational lives are explored as they interact with,
and define, the green corporate agenda. Ethical dimensions of environmentalism are
stressed – particularly the distinctions and tensions between private moral positions,
enacted morality, and the conventional morality as disseminated by the corporation.
The study reveals the way different stakeholders are construed, and how ‘green’
territories are contested. The implications for organizational change and strategic
formulation are discussed, especially the strengths and limitations of approaching cor-
porate greening from enacted/normative moralities, or from a vision of a substantive
transformation of values.
© 1997 British Academy of Management
To continue reading
Request your trial